More than 10 years ago, I sat in front of my TV in rapt excitement as I watched a promotion for Windows 95 and heard the Rolling Stones sing "Start Me Up!" As the magical on-screen mouse clicked a "Start" button, I believed the promise that my computer world was about to change forever.
In the ensuing decade, the promises made in that TV promotion sometimes lived up to the hype — and at other times fell flat.
Why upgrade?
With the release of Windows Vista, the question on everyone's mind seems to be, "Should I upgrade now or wait?" To find an answer to this pressing upgrade question, I took a walk down memory lane for a brief lesson in recent history.
Windows 95, the operating system (OS) that made it possible to easily use a new generation of PCs, also put the phrase "latest security patch" into users' everyday vocabulary. After Windows 95, we got Windows 98 — which purported to fix the problems with Windows 95. By the way, from my point of view, Windows 98 was probably Microsoft's best OS ever.
Then came Windows ME, an operating system so bad I felt criminal charges (or at least a good scolding) were in order. The only system failure I ever had — and the four days of pure hell that resulted — was directly traceable to Windows ME.
Windows XP was the next OS installment, followed by the Service Pack 2 edition of XP, which allegedly made computing once again safe for humanity. The best thing I can say about XP Service Pack 2 is that while it doesn't thrill me with significant new features, my computer doesn't crash and it does what I want. All is right in the universe — this week, anyway.
With a track record like that, is it any wonder Microsoft didn't see lines form at midnight in front of retail outlets on Vista release day? Is it any wonder people want to know if it's worth the risk to upgrade, or whather they'd be better off to postpone the ultimate moment of truth for months or even years? This case shows that sometimes people really do learn from history.
Now that history class is complete, we return to the question: should you upgrade to Windows Vista or wait? The answer may be simpler than you think.
First, determine if your existing system can even support Vista. According to Microsoft's website (and ignoring the minimum system requirements), a computer will need at least a 40 GB hard drive with 15 GB of available space, 1 GB of RAM, and, at minimum, a 128 MB graphics card (I'd say 256 MB on the graphics card to be safe). Meeting those requirements would enable you to run Vista. If you're not sure about the details, you can log on to Microsoft.com, do a search for "Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor" and download a software program that helps determine if and how you can get Vista up and running.
Even if your computer can, technically, handle Vista, is there a compelling reason to do so? My advice is to wait as long as possible before you upgrade. If your computer and software work fine right now, let sleeping dogs lie and enjoy your peaceful computing life as long as you can.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007 · 04:10 PM
A couple refelctions:
I remember having few problems with Windows 95 (keeping up with updates of course) and remember not wanting and somewhat regretting to move to 98. Windows 98 was the first operating system that I remember made it possible to slow down the system clock simply by running the OS. Making 3rd party time sync programs and the more rececnt windows time sync necessary .
Windows XP -- I believe was one of the biggest leaps since Win 3.1. Especially how Microsoft made buying or downloading 3rd party versions of several types of software optional, not necessary (ie. file compression/extraction, CD Burning, video editing, decent music playing, etc).
In conclusion, (ignoring Windows ME) I'm all for waiting until you need to buy a new OS (and while your at it a new computer - currently running a system I built in 2003 which is still running great [on XP], even for more advanced stuff). However, I don't think the wait should be as long, keeping in mind that it has been about 6 years since there was a need for Microsoft to upgrade it as opposed to in the 90s. We've seen about 4 OS in one decade compared to 2 so far in this one.
Also, I currently have Vista on a NEW notebook (probably the best way to get a new OS, you also don't bring old problems with the new OS). I like it, I thought it was gonna be all super slick stuff that is only meant to visually stun you. However, there are some decent improvements making using your computer easier even if/when errors do come up.
PS In response to Lewis' comment about the rating system, it might be important to understand why there's that rating system. Not scoring 5 doesn't meen your computer is inferior as most software won't need a 5 to operate properly. 3 and up puts in your computer in advanced computing arena. Before upgrading your hardware to the hilt you might want to check the required rating for the software you will be using.
To Shane.. I'm still part and partial to my PC... Macs are a little too mouse dependant for my taste but I find it interesting that every year both Mac and Microsoft have been making strides to become more like one another and not apart. Remember the MacOS X vs ver 9.x? And more recently Apple has totally abandoned their much bragged about G-line of processors. Hat tip to Intel for, if perhaps only briefly, being on top of their game. Pretty soon it probably won't make a difference Mac or PC even for those who have been faithful to one or the other for so long.
-- Atypical
Tuesday, February 27, 2007 · 09:41 PM
"Many of the problems that plague PCs are related to the fact that so many people use them" -- I'd like to point out that this is not a statement of better OS. This unfortunately is a side effect of the (perhas undue) popluarity of PCs.
Not trying to start a war, though... In fact I was only saying that on BOTH sides.. Apple and Microsoft are approaching each other. Yeah they are both advancing... and as CS major I can definitely appreciate the UNIX backend on MacOS edging out Microsoft by inheriting its security and stability. Microsft has coming along ways from the days of Win 3.1 (Graphical addition to Dos) and Mac OS has come aways from Classic Mac OS (Graphical with no console based functionality).
At any rate.. it's obvious why Microsoft is doing what they are... as for Apple I think they are becoming more Window'esqe to capture the traditonal Microsoft Windows user. Not mad at either company... I think that after while it won't matter much to the average user, while as always Apple will capture that certain group that likes the particulars that arguably make it better. Here's a question, if they tables were flipped, do you think that people would bother hacking Windows if Macs were extremely popular?
I'm sure both company's have plenty more tricks up there sleeves as Apple has shocked many faithful users in the past and Microsoft is already on the verge of changing the OS game, again, post-Vista.
Anyways, this is not even Apple article, so.. didn't mean to start anything, but for now.. truce
-- Atypical IC
Connect with us