3 ms·

Do you have a better reason why he should buy new software other than, "because it's old"? Sounds like his current setup does everything he needs it to do right

Do you have a better reason why he should buy new software other than, "because it's old"? Sounds like his current setup does everything he needs it to do right now. I haven't seen any compelling reason why Windows 7 is better than XP for day-to-day use. A lot of people are getting Windows 7 now only because the computers they're running XP on are slowly dying out, and you generally can't buy a new computer with XP. Come to think of it, I have an entire shop full of all kinds of tools, many of which are more than 12 years old. Should I replace my workhorse power drill? My cylinder hone? My bench grinder? Heck, I've got a 1940's DeWalt radial arm saw with a neat feature -- I can unbolt the motor and flip it over and turn it into a router. Should I replace that with a new thing too?

barista 15y ago
There are many reason why you would want to upgrade: here I googled a chart for you: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/compare?T1=tab20 http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/compare... btw, I'd love to use siri on an iPhone 3G which I'm perfectly happy with...
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  I know there are some things that Windows 7 does better, and many things it does different, but the chart doesn't include anything I'd consider a compelling reason to switch, based on the usages we see. From the chart: Find files and programs instantly. People don't use Windows search to find their files and programs. They go to their desktop. Or to "My Documents" (or "Documents"). They go to that one folder where they always dump everything. And then they scroll through it and pretty quickly find what they're looking for because it's still in the same place it's been every other time they've gone looking for it. Open programs and files you use most in a click or two. The programs and files that people use most are always on their desktop, regardless of whether it's Windows XP or Windows 7. Connect to any available wireless network in just three clicks. Of all the complaints we hear about using a computer, this isn't one of them, except when the wireless network was incorrectly set up and the WEP key was entered into the hash boxes, which confuses the hell out of XP depending on the contents of the hash. (XP will sometimes think the wireless network is expecting a security certificate and will complain that it doesn't have one.) Navigate lots of open windows more quickly. This is a power user problem. Most of the people we work with have just a few windows open: email (Outlook, typically), a web browser (Chrome, if they're one of our clients), and then either Word or Quickbooks. Typically. Easily share files, photos, and music on your home network. Ha ha. People share photos on Facebook now. Very few of our home clients have anything that any reasonable computer nerd would consider a "home network". Print to a single printer from any PC in the house. I literally don't understand what Microsoft is trying to claim here. Windows XP works fine with sharing printers, and besides, I think most printers sold now have network capabilities built-in. Manage printers, cameras, and other devices better. Better how? Again, not a problem that people actually seem to have, and certainly not something that 7 does so much better that it's got a reputation for being "compelling" here. Organize lots of files, documents, and photos effortlessly. Again, how? Organization comes down to the user's habits, not the operating system. Last I saw, Windows 7 still used the same files-and-folders paradigm that XP did. Am I missing something huge here? Are files "taggable" now? Built-in defense against spyware and other malware. Funny, that still hasn't stopped Windows 7 from being infected. Oh, and Windows Defender was pushed to XP as an update ages ago. Help keep your data private and secure. Again, HOW? What does 7 do here that is fundamentally different from XP? Manage and monitor your children’s PC use. OK, this has actually come up, and Windows 7 does have some nice features for this. However, there have also been plenty of third-party tools for doing the same with Windows XP. Designed for faster sleep and resume. Who cares? Improved power management for longer battery life. More dependent upon hardware than software, and I see almost as many power cords as laptops every time my Go club meets at Starbucks. Create and share movies and slide shows in minutes. Amongst our clients, the people who actually do this are exclusively Mac users. Get the most realistic game graphics and vivid multimedia. ...If there are no XP-compatible drivers for your video card, that is. Stream music, photos, and videos around your house. We have maybe two or three clients out of several hundred that do this kind of stuff. One uses Apple TV, I don't know what the others use. Again, not exactly a must-have for a lot of people. Connect to your home PC media library while you're away. People have been doing this since long before 7. Touch and tap instead of point and click. Oh yay?
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Organization comes down to the user's habits, not the operating system. Last I saw, Windows 7 still used the same files-and-folders paradigm that XP did. Am I missing something huge here? Are files "taggable" now? Well, there are the Libraries[1], but in my limited experience, I've never see anyone creating new ones or adding folders to the existing ones; in fact, I think the whole concept is unclear and confusing to someone who hasn't read a guide or article about them. ...If there are no XP-compatible drivers for your video card, that is. Well, there's DirectX 10/11, since XP is stuck on 9. To me the differences are somewhat irrelevant, but I know many a gamer who dropped $400 to get a new graphics card and a copy of Vista just because of it.
- Piskvorrr 15y ago
  Well, that's a nice resource. IMHO, 70% of that list is "improved this and that", which is understandable; another 20% are actual reasons which would make me consider an upgrade, and the remaining 10% is just mumbo-jumbo ("print from any computer in the house" - I mean, was this point left in the feature list since Win98?). I agree that 64-bit support is practically nil for XP, and its security record is horrifying; this was much improved in later OSes. I guess it's a "something for everyone" kind of comparison :)
angersock 15y ago
Don't be obtuse--there is a vast difference between machine tools and operating systems. Here's a better reason: because it's old and will no longer be receiving updates, one of which is support for new versions of IE. Good on you if you see no compelling reason to switch to Windows 7 from XP. I see no reason to uninstall 3.11 from my old Compaq 386, but then again I also don't bitch that it doesn't support WebSockets. We need to stop defending people that refuse to upgrade their operating systems while at the same time complaining about not being able to run new applications.
- thaumaturgy 15y ago
  I'm not being obtuse, I'm trying to drive home a point that seems to be impossible for those of us who live behind a computer to understand: that for many people, the computer is a tool, just like their TV, just like their microwave, just like their car, just like their wrench set. They want to use the same tool for as long as they possibly can, to get the maximum value out of it. They do not understand why computers are the only tools which seem to need constant attention and maintenance, even more than cars. And I don't really think they're wrong, either. If anything, I think that the mobile phone and tablet markets are proof that computers are becoming more like tools, not less. So why can't we -- the programmers and developers and designers and engineers behind these tools -- accept that? We need to stop demanding that people treat computers completely differently from all of their other tools.
- Piskvorrr 15y ago
  Well, then how come every other new browser runs on XP, with all the nifty new features like WebSockets, if it's impossible? Hint hint, nudge nudge.
  - angersock 15y ago
    Just like git and GNU/Linux software, amirite? The amazing thing isn't that Firefox/Chrome/Safari run so well on XP--it's that they run at all. That they do so is more due to their status as hobby projects (effectively) than as paid products. EDIT: Note that I respect those other projects immensely... and that the truth is that their goal/motivation is different from IE. Consider, for example, that at the end of the day Chrome is a Google product, and in some way must tie into the advertising thrust of the company. So, it makes sense to try and make it available for as many things as possible.

barista 15y ago

There are many reason why you would want to upgrade: here I googled a chart for you: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/compare?T1=tab20 http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/compare... btw, I'd love to use siri on an iPhone 3G which I'm perfectly happy with...

thaumaturgy 15y ago
I know there are some things that Windows 7 does better, and many things it does different, but the chart doesn't include anything I'd consider a compelling reason to switch, based on the usages we see. From the chart: Find files and programs instantly. People don't use Windows search to find their files and programs. They go to their desktop. Or to "My Documents" (or "Documents"). They go to that one folder where they always dump everything. And then they scroll through it and pretty quickly find what they're looking for because it's still in the same place it's been every other time they've gone looking for it. Open programs and files you use most in a click or two. The programs and files that people use most are always on their desktop, regardless of whether it's Windows XP or Windows 7. Connect to any available wireless network in just three clicks. Of all the complaints we hear about using a computer, this isn't one of them, except when the wireless network was incorrectly set up and the WEP key was entered into the hash boxes, which confuses the hell out of XP depending on the contents of the hash. (XP will sometimes think the wireless network is expecting a security certificate and will complain that it doesn't have one.) Navigate lots of open windows more quickly. This is a power user problem. Most of the people we work with have just a few windows open: email (Outlook, typically), a web browser (Chrome, if they're one of our clients), and then either Word or Quickbooks. Typically. Easily share files, photos, and music on your home network. Ha ha. People share photos on Facebook now. Very few of our home clients have anything that any reasonable computer nerd would consider a "home network". Print to a single printer from any PC in the house. I literally don't understand what Microsoft is trying to claim here. Windows XP works fine with sharing printers, and besides, I think most printers sold now have network capabilities built-in. Manage printers, cameras, and other devices better. Better how? Again, not a problem that people actually seem to have, and certainly not something that 7 does so much better that it's got a reputation for being "compelling" here. Organize lots of files, documents, and photos effortlessly. Again, how? Organization comes down to the user's habits, not the operating system. Last I saw, Windows 7 still used the same files-and-folders paradigm that XP did. Am I missing something huge here? Are files "taggable" now? Built-in defense against spyware and other malware. Funny, that still hasn't stopped Windows 7 from being infected. Oh, and Windows Defender was pushed to XP as an update ages ago. Help keep your data private and secure. Again, HOW? What does 7 do here that is fundamentally different from XP? Manage and monitor your children’s PC use. OK, this has actually come up, and Windows 7 does have some nice features for this. However, there have also been plenty of third-party tools for doing the same with Windows XP. Designed for faster sleep and resume. Who cares? Improved power management for longer battery life. More dependent upon hardware than software, and I see almost as many power cords as laptops every time my Go club meets at Starbucks. Create and share movies and slide shows in minutes. Amongst our clients, the people who actually do this are exclusively Mac users. Get the most realistic game graphics and vivid multimedia. ...If there are no XP-compatible drivers for your video card, that is. Stream music, photos, and videos around your house. We have maybe two or three clients out of several hundred that do this kind of stuff. One uses Apple TV, I don't know what the others use. Again, not exactly a must-have for a lot of people. Connect to your home PC media library while you're away. People have been doing this since long before 7. Touch and tap instead of point and click. Oh yay?
- icebraining 15y ago
  Organization comes down to the user's habits, not the operating system. Last I saw, Windows 7 still used the same files-and-folders paradigm that XP did. Am I missing something huge here? Are files "taggable" now? Well, there are the Libraries[1], but in my limited experience, I've never see anyone creating new ones or adding folders to the existing ones; in fact, I think the whole concept is unclear and confusing to someone who hasn't read a guide or article about them. ...If there are no XP-compatible drivers for your video card, that is. Well, there's DirectX 10/11, since XP is stuck on 9. To me the differences are somewhat irrelevant, but I know many a gamer who dropped $400 to get a new graphics card and a copy of Vista just because of it.
Piskvorrr 15y ago
Well, that's a nice resource. IMHO, 70% of that list is "improved this and that", which is understandable; another 20% are actual reasons which would make me consider an upgrade, and the remaining 10% is just mumbo-jumbo ("print from any computer in the house" - I mean, was this point left in the feature list since Win98?). I agree that 64-bit support is practically nil for XP, and its security record is horrifying; this was much improved in later OSes. I guess it's a "something for everyone" kind of comparison :)

angersock 15y ago

Don't be obtuse--there is a vast difference between machine tools and operating systems. Here's a better reason: because it's old and will no longer be receiving updates, one of which is support for new versions of IE. Good on you if you see no compelling reason to switch to Windows 7 from XP. I see no reason to uninstall 3.11 from my old Compaq 386, but then again I also don't bitch that it doesn't support WebSockets. We need to stop defending people that refuse to upgrade their operating systems while at the same time complaining about not being able to run new applications.

thaumaturgy 15y ago
I'm not being obtuse, I'm trying to drive home a point that seems to be impossible for those of us who live behind a computer to understand: that for many people, the computer is a tool, just like their TV, just like their microwave, just like their car, just like their wrench set. They want to use the same tool for as long as they possibly can, to get the maximum value out of it. They do not understand why computers are the only tools which seem to need constant attention and maintenance, even more than cars. And I don't really think they're wrong, either. If anything, I think that the mobile phone and tablet markets are proof that computers are becoming more like tools, not less. So why can't we -- the programmers and developers and designers and engineers behind these tools -- accept that? We need to stop demanding that people treat computers completely differently from all of their other tools.
Piskvorrr 15y ago
Well, then how come every other new browser runs on XP, with all the nifty new features like WebSockets, if it's impossible? Hint hint, nudge nudge.
- angersock 15y ago
  Just like git and GNU/Linux software, amirite? The amazing thing isn't that Firefox/Chrome/Safari run so well on XP--it's that they run at all. That they do so is more due to their status as hobby projects (effectively) than as paid products. EDIT: Note that I respect those other projects immensely... and that the truth is that their goal/motivation is different from IE. Consider, for example, that at the end of the day Chrome is a Google product, and in some way must tie into the advertising thrust of the company. So, it makes sense to try and make it available for as many things as possible.