Windows 7 upgrade

[Addanc]

Everybody says the driver support in Windows 7 is extremely good; you probably just have low expectations because you're used to Linux.

Watch it

[Numpty]

MS seems to get slightly more than every second Windows OS right on average, 3.1 good, 95 crap, 98 good, ME crap, 2000 good, XP good, Vista crap, win7 good. Watch out for Windows 8, chances are it will be awful.

I would insert NT after ME as good and say 2000 was crap.

[gadgetman]

On the control panel thing be aware there is an entry for 32 bit control panel items. This caught me out initially.

[xoggoth]

I found 2000 pretty decent. Don't think there will be any disagreement over ME and Vista anyway.

[Durbs]

I found 2000 pretty decent.

Yeah, 2000 was pretty sluggish but rock solid stable and a good productive platform.

[Addanc]

Apart from £50-£60, what are the implications of using the OEM version over the Retail version of Windows 7?

[Ardesco]

Apart from £50-£60, what are the implications of using the OEM version over the Retail version of Windows 7?

1. Not legal if you didn't buy it with a new machine (may as well Warez it)
2. If you change too many components in your machine it will deactivate itself
3. Not sure if you get the DVD in the OEM pack. I have a bunch of OEM Office 2007 and the OEM keys came in a separate packs with no DVD's. Luckily I can classify myself as a system builder since I build the servers used for plan B so I could also buy the install media.

I personally have given up on OEM now and just subscribed to action pack. £199 to download all you need with 10 licenses on most things. yes it is only for a year, but if you are somebody who upgrades regulary quite worthwhile IMHO

[Sysman]

MS seems to get slightly more than every second Windows OS right on average, 3.1 good, 95 crap, 98 good, ME crap, 2000 good, XP good, Vista crap, win7 good. Watch out for Windows 8, chances are it will be awful.

I found 95 far more stable than 3.11, and NT4 much better than either. 98, SE and ME were a step backwards for me, though I was running those on budget hardware.

The consensus of opinion from the security bods I know seems to be that MS have improved security a great deal, especially if you switch off unnecessary services etc.

[VectraMan]

The OEM versions seem to be either 32-bit or 64-bit, but if you buy the retail version you get both (but not two licences).

[VectraMan]

I found 95 far more stable than 3.11, and NT4 much better than either. 98, SE and ME were a step backwards for me, though I was running those on budget hardware.

It wasn't hard to be better than Windows 3.1. Pre-emptive multi tasking saw to that: in Windows 3.1 if one application hung so did the PC.

I used NT4 for years, then Windows 2000, both were very good. Remember they were the last of the "business" versions of Windows. It was with XP that they merged the two product lines, and told us there was the one OS for home and serious business users. I'm not sure there was really anything substantially better about XP over 2000 (other than having multiple users logged on perhaps); it seemed as much a make over than a new OS.