Windows 7 upgrade Yay or Nay? A best of 7 battle
Among the thousands of articles about Windows 7 during its lengthy development process, it’s perhaps inevitable two writers would take the same approach. With pro- and anti- articles this week, it’s time to see whose “seven good reasons” to switch from XP to Windows 7 stands up best.
On the same day Wired’s Brian Chen posted “7 Good Reasons to Switch to Windows 7”, ComputerWorld’s Steven Vaughan-Nichols published “Upgrading to Windows 7 — Why Bother?”, also using the seven reasons format. (Presumably nobody tried the same approach in the build-up to Windows 95.)
So in an entirely unscientific and subjective approach, let’s compare the two lists, decide which arguments are more compelling, and see who wins the best-of-seven series:
1) For (Chen’s list): The hostility to Vista means Microsoft knew exactly what people wanted fixed in Windows 7 and has delivered. Against (Vaughan-Nichols list): Windows 7 is still Windows and thus inherently insecure and no safer than XP.
Verdict: Judging by most feedback, Windows 7 is indeed the system Vista should have been. User Account Control may prove to continue being a pain in the ass with the new system, but it’s still a security improvement over Vista. Score it For 1, Against 0.
2) For: Microsoft has done a good job of making sure XP software will work on Windows 7, either right away or via XP mode. Against: Windows 7 is too expensive.
Verdict: The counters to these arguments are that any straight XP-Windows 7 upgrade is going to be a hassle for most casual users, and that there are some serious discounts available. Still, for people who aren’t buying new hardware, it’s a hard sell to spend any cash upgrading an operating system during a recession. For 1, Against 1.
3) For: Windows 7 automatically searches for and installs drivers for new hardware. Against: The previously mentioned problem of needing a clean install for XP to Windows 7 upgrades.
Verdict: You’re pretty much choosing between saving a bit of hassle on multiple occasions in the future or a major hassle from the off. That’s like chocolate vs vanilla, but for me it’s now For 1, Against 2.
4) For: Windows 7’s media player and HomeGroup features make it much easier than in Vista to share music files or watch downloaded videos on the big screen. Against: Users may struggle to transfer programs and drivers across during the upgrade.
Verdict: While the media files reason doesn’t apply to everyone (Chen outright calls Windows 7 “an OS practically made for pirates”), it’s at least a fresh point, whereas program and driver transfers is simply another aspect of the clean install issue. For 2, Against 2.
5) For: The new Aero features, specifically Peek, make it much easier to use Windows. Against: XP works. If you are already happy with it, there’s no need to get a new version of Windows.
Verdict: The Aero point may be true, but the XP point certainly is. It’s a case of paying for something which may improve your computing experience against having something your happy and keeping your wallet in your pocket. For 2, Against 3.
6) For: Windows 7 takes better advantage of modern hardware such as touchscreens, larger memory and netbooks. Against: Learning a new user interface is a pain.
Verdict: The point about the user interface has some truth, but is somewhat overstated (particularly given Vaughan-Nichols later suggests switching to Linux). However, the hardware issue is largely irrelevant to anyone planning to upgrade on their existing machines. For 2, Against 4.
7) For: Windows 7 “looks sexier” thanks to its user interface. Against: Windows 7 isn’t really practical on older hardware despite the hype.
Verdict: The hardware requirements issue is difficult to state conclusively: there’s a big difference between a user who bought a new machine the day XP came out, and somebody who bought a new PC last week and downgraded from Vista. Still, however true the point may be about Windows 7’s looks, it’s hardly a compelling reason to shell out on an upgrade. Final score: For 2, Against 5.
Now, even assuming that you agree with my conclusions, does this reflect badly on Windows 7? Absolutely not. For one thing, it may simply mean Vaughan-Nichols is better at making a case than Chen.
For another, it simply suggests there’s no immediate need to pay to upgrade from XP to Windows 7 on your existing machine, particularly if you are happy with its performance. But that’s true of most new editions of an operating system; when you come to buy a new computer, it’s an entirely different story.
Related Posts:
August 20th, 2009
I think you messed up with Vaughan-Nichols’s entries against Brian Chen’s
August 20th, 2009
Vaughan-Nichols doesn’t seem to have that much of a clue. MS totally revamped and improved the security model in Vista. Even with watering down UAC for Win7, there are many under-the-covers improvements to Windows security. It’s actually the security checking that is responsible for some of the difference in performance between XP & Vista/7.
Beyond that, unless you’re running XP on modern hardware (multi-core, 1GB+ RAM, etc.) I would not recommend upgrading to either Vista or Win7. The OS upgrade should come with getting new hardware. Which for many will make the upgrade less compelling from a cost standpoint.
And since at least Windows 95 it’s been recommended by anyone with decent Windows support experience to always do a clean install and never to upgrade over an existing OS.
Re: Transferring files & settings, Windows comes with a transfer wizard. It works. It doesn’t do applications, but then apps should be reinstalled as they may need to change their libraries depending on the new OS (32 v. 64 bit, for example). And again, Vaughan-Nichols doesn’t have a clue if they think that installed drivers work across OS releases.
As to the “new” UI, it is fundamentally the same from the user’s perspective. There’s a Start button and menus/folders within it to get to their apps. Explorer’s left-right panels haven’t changed. Gee, Win95 did all of that. Functions like search have been added and menus moved around but basic functionality for running apps is not particularly different. It is different for admins/support people, but if they took advantage of the features it wouldn’t really matter. I rarely go into Control Panel; I just do Start and type what I’m looking for. Search displays it within a fe keystrokes.
I’ve gone to an “every other release” upgrade cycle. My XP machines will get Win7. My Vista machines will get the follow-on. Hardware upgrades in the mean time will cost more that the OS.
August 21st, 2009
@JohnJ,
“Vaughan-Nichols doesn’t seem to have that much of a clue.”
Do you think that the collection of geniuses at Redmond who inflicted Vista on the world have more of a clue than Mr Vaughan-Nichols?
“MS totally revamped and improved the security model in Vista.”
And it doesn’t make any difference, because the security model is not the problem. The problem is Microsoft’s desire to maintain backwards compatibility and their fixation on bundling everything and the kitchen sink with their OSes, with the result that Windows code is very difficult to maintain and well-nigh impossible to secure. Conscious design decisions have led to code that is fundamentally flawed, and no amount of fiddling around the edges with bolt-on on software (such as UAC, for example) will address the underlying problems. To really fix windows would require a re-write, but even this would have to be preceded by a massive cultural shift at Redmond.
“It’s actually the security checking that is responsible for some of the difference in performance between XP & Vista/7.”
You really give the game away with this observation – MS have sacrificed speed for security, which is a clear indication of how poorly coded Windows is. It seems that one can have performance or security with Windows, but not both (in truth, with MS you can’t really have either – see Linux for a counterpoint in this regard).