Is it worth it to upgrade to Windows 7 from Vista with new hardware?

[rasmasyean]

I found this article that does some benchmarks.
It looks like they are pretty much the same but with Vista perfroming at the CPU minisculely better, and the Win7 performing at the VGA minisculely better.

It doesn't look like there's a reason for the 5.9 vs 7.9 difference. I did some research and those are the upper limits of the Windows Experience Index rating. It's prolly just some Microsoft marketing thing where they add in 2 points or whatever for "subjective user experience" with the new product. I bet Windows 8 cap will be like 9.9 or something...then 11.9...or they will come out with a completely difference useless rating.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/2..._cpu_memory_performance_comparison/index.html

Not really. See, when Vista came out, the fastest were dual-cores. They scored 5.9. It's unfair to rate today's Quad or 6-core with 5.9 still, hence the addition of 2 points. They planned to just scale it back, but that would just cause too much confusion.

I think that odd number rating scale has some future thought in mind in the lines of...

Hey, welcome to Best Buy. Check out this newer model where the WEI is 6.5! All the older models have a WEI of 5.9 max so buy this new one with the new OS! lol

I mean, if it was a "real" rating, it would have some sort of absolute number...or if 1-10, it would exponetial limit never reaching 10 and a 9.95 or something would be a "decent system" today.

 

[arkhi]

Yup, true that lol! Take a look at this old article for example:
Build a computer for a Vista 5.9 Performance Rating | TechRepublic

Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad, Number Q9450 ($300)
· Motherboard: Gigabyte S-Series GA-EP35C-DS3R ($160)
· Memory: 8GB - Two Corsair XMS2-6400 4GB Kits ($220)
· Hard Drives: Two 500GB SATA configured Raid 0 ($180)
· Graphics: Nvidia GeForce 9600 GT PCIe ($160)
· Case: Antec Sonata III ($130)
· DVD: OEM brand ($40)
Total cost: $1,190

Yeah, that's how much my laptop costs and just look at the specs on my profile

 

[karlsnooks]

Hi,
I bought these:

ASUS P8P67 mobo
Newegg.com - ASUS P8P67 (REV 3.0) LGA 1155 Intel P67 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard with UEFI BIOS

Intel Core i7-2600 3.4GHz
Newegg.com - Intel Core i7-2600 Sandy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo Boost) 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor BX80623I72600

8GB of DDR3 1600 RAM
Newegg.com - G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9D-8GBRL

500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive
Newegg.com - Western Digital Caviar Black WD5002AALX 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive

nVidia GTX 460 SE 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Video Card
Newegg.com - EVGA 01G-P3-1366-TR GeForce GTX 460 SE (Fermi) 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

The mobo manual "recommends" that you should use the latest supported OS to "maximize" your features. So this made me wonder a bit because my Vista "Windows Experience Index" is 5.9, which I don't think it was too much lower before with 3.5 year old hardware. Does Vista bottleneck performance with new hardware? Should I upgrade to Windows 7 or else I would suffer some sort of performance hit? I'm not using any SDD's or multitouch screens or anything like that.

Upgrade to Win 7. Vista was a still-born child.

 

[Beta]

At this point it might be beter to wait for the Windows 8 beta to come out mostlikey this fall and use that then going out and buying a new copy of windows 7. I know it's a bit early to think this way but its just a suggestion.

 

[karlsnooks]

Don't go from a still-born to a test-tube baby.

Get and install win 7.

 

[KazeNoKoe23]

Hi,
I bought these:

ASUS P8P67 mobo
Newegg.com - ASUS P8P67 (REV 3.0) LGA 1155 Intel P67 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard with UEFI BIOS

Intel Core i7-2600 3.4GHz
Newegg.com - Intel Core i7-2600 Sandy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Turbo Boost) 4 x 256KB L2 Cache 8MB L3 Cache LGA 1155 95W Quad-Core Desktop Processor BX80623I72600

8GB of DDR3 1600 RAM
Newegg.com - G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) Desktop Memory Model F3-12800CL9D-8GBRL

500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive
Newegg.com - Western Digital Caviar Black WD5002AALX 500GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive -Bare Drive

nVidia GTX 460 SE 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 Video Card
Newegg.com - EVGA 01G-P3-1366-TR GeForce GTX 460 SE (Fermi) 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

The mobo manual "recommends" that you should use the latest supported OS to "maximize" your features. So this made me wonder a bit because my Vista "Windows Experience Index" is 5.9, which I don't think it was too much lower before with 3.5 year old hardware. Does Vista bottleneck performance with new hardware? Should I upgrade to Windows 7 or else I would suffer some sort of performance hit? I'm not using any SDD's or multitouch screens or anything like that.

Upgrade to Win 7. Vista was a still-born child.

A still-born child would imply it's dead. Vista is anything but dead. It's actually a pretty solid OS, believe it or not.

 

[karlsnooks]

How Do 400 Million Windows 7 Licenses Compare Against Windows XP and Vista History?

I do agree that my analogy was a little harsh, but never the less indicative. I have survived thru every os Microsoft has produced. Let us see what the future brings.

 

[rasmasyean]

Personally, I didn't experience any problems with Vista other than some install bug with my motherboard if I remeber correctly. But other than that, it worked great for 3.5 years since I got it. I got a system that was able to run it and didn't try to install it on an old computer or "Budget Vista Capable" computer.

I think that's a major part of the reason Vista got a bad rap. Timing sugests that ppl were cheaper during the "Great Recession" and there was a big market for going budget and manufacturers as well as Bill Gates fooled every other user to thinking they should have the latest OS with a cheap computer. Then the rest is just hearsay from ppl who never used Vista. Heck, the US Army used it so it can't be that "unstable".

The way I see it, Windows 7 is just multi-touch Vista with some tweaks in UI and is feature scalable to netbooks. Unless you're like really hardcore/rich and want to spend a lot of money on SSD's for your desktop, it doesn't look to me that Windows 7 is a real "upgrade" from Vista. And personally I'm not an OS mogul and don't use Windows XP emulator programs either so.

 

[arkhi]

A still-born child would imply it's dead. Vista is anything but dead. It's actually a pretty solid OS, believe it or not.

Very true. I've been a Vista owner since it's 2nd Beta and until Windows 7 came out. 7 is a reshape of Vista to get rid of Vista's bad and perpetuated image.

 

[seavixen32]

I honestly believe Vista got such a bad press because of UAC, which in essence was not Microsoft's fault, but that of software developers who either couldn't or didn't update their applications to take UAC into account.

There was also an awful lot of software about written for earlier operating systems that users, rightly in my opinion, didn't want to dispense with or upgrade.