# windows 7 question



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

If I load Windows 7 on my computer (I have Vista Pro on it now) will I lose all my email addresses and contacts? I've been told that 7 doesn't do that, but I want to make sure. I also need to be able to keep my info for Norton 360 intact. I've never had any luck retaining data when upgrading operating systems. Is there a particular version of 7 that I should get to ensure that my data stays intact?

Any info on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanx,

Rich


----------



## ncxcstud (Apr 22, 2007)

if you do a straight upgrade, you will keep everything from Vista to Windows 7 (e-mails and such).

There may be a few programs you'll have to re-install but will be minimal.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I would want all traces of Vista gone, even if it meant a full clean install and later migration of data from a backup.

I would also eliminate Norton.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> I would want all traces of Vista gone, even if it meant a full clean install and later migration of data from a backup.
> 
> I would also eliminate Norton.


Agreed. I used Norton Utilities from the time it was being written soley by Peter Norton, but Norton is now unnecessary bloatware.

And, really, you should NEVER *upgrade* an OS; you should always start fresh from an empty drive with a nice new install. Upgraders have a much higher incidence of OS-related problems than new installers.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

BattleZone said:


> Agreed. I used Norton Utilities from the time it was being written soley by Peter Norton, but Norton is now unnecessary bloatware.
> 
> And, really, you should NEVER *upgrade* an OS; you should always start fresh from an empty drive with a nice new install. Upgraders have a much higher incidence of OS-related problems than new installers.


I've upgraded the OS on many computers over the years and I agree totally with you. All it's ever done for me was cause me problems. But I've got this computer that I like and only use as an Internet portal and I'd like a bit more speed. I can upgrade from 3 to 8 GBs of RAM if I switch. I have been told that 6 would be plenty. I suppose the easiest thing to do is give this computer to my wife and buy a new one.

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

rich584 said:


> I've upgraded the OS on many computers over the years and I agree totally with you. All it's ever done for me was cause me problems. But I've got this computer that I like and only use as an Internet portal and I'd like a bit more speed. I can upgrade from 3 to 8 GBs of RAM if I switch. I have been told that 6 would be plenty. I suppose the easiest thing to do is give this computer to my wife and buy a new one.
> 
> Rich


Hold on there. At this point, you might not be able to do an upgrade. What it sounds like you're going to be doing is going from a 32 bit OS to 64. Only a 64 bit OS can use that much memory, and can only be a clean install or in place upgrade from 64 bit.

32 bit Vista to 32 bit 7 Pro is fine. I also believe you can't upgrade Vista Pro to 7 Home Premium as an in place, even 32 bit. Has to be 7 Pro.


----------



## bleggett29 (Feb 2, 2008)

rich584 said:


> I've upgraded the OS on many computers over the years and I agree totally with you. All it's ever done for me was cause me problems. But I've got this computer that I like and only use as an Internet portal and I'd like a bit more speed. *I can upgrade from 3 to 8 GBs of RAM if I switch.* I have been told that 6 would be plenty. I suppose the easiest thing to do is give this computer to my wife and buy a new one.
> 
> Rich


Are you planing to upgrade from a 32-bit version of Vista to a 64-bit version of Win7? Sorry, but you're going to need to do a full install.

dpeters11 beat me to the reply.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

bleggett29 said:


> Are you planing to upgrade from a 32-bit version of Vista to a 64-bit version of Win7? Sorry, but you're going to need to do a full install.
> 
> dpeters11 beat me to the reply.


OK, thanx for the info. I'll start shopping for a new desktop. Oh goody! A new toy.

A moderator may close this thread now. I've got all the info I need. My thanx to all who responded.

Rich


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> I suppose the easiest thing to do is give this computer to my wife and buy a new one.


With the prices of PCs now, that might be the better way. This one I'm on is a Gateway with a 1Tb HD, 8Gb Ram, Win7HP 64B, AMD Phenom II x4 810 2.60Ghz with a ATSC Tuner card. I threw in a second 1TB HD (as a DVR for OTA recordings) and bought a 20" widescreen monitor all for under $700

PC has an HDMI out port which is connected to a 32" TV.


----------



## ncxcstud (Apr 22, 2007)

rich584 said:


> OK, thanx for the info. I'll start shopping for a new desktop. Oh goody! A new toy.
> 
> A moderator may close this thread now. I've got all the info I need. My thanx to all who responded.
> 
> Rich


You don't need a new desktop if your current one is sufficient... just do a clean install of Windows 7


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

ncxcstud said:


> You don't need a new desktop if your current one is sufficient... just do a clean install of Windows 7


Last year when WIN7 came out I did a clean install on my 3year old Dell Dimension XPS that was running Vista. Started with a new HDD and did a clean install and this machine has never worked better. No need for a new one any time soon.


----------



## la24philly (Mar 9, 2010)

i found that avanquest is terrific they have a utility program called systemsuite that does it all and works great.

as far as what windows 7 version depends what you need. If you need to do work and stuff i would say go pro.

Full version and fresh install best. You can always get online backup with carbonite great way to store files and anything. After you install your windows 7 u can download those files an your set.

i never had vista because i saw all the problems, i stayed with XP till 7 came out, its been great.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

la24philly said:


> i found that avanquest is terrific they have a utility program called systemsuite that does it all and works great.
> 
> as far as what windows 7 version depends what you need. If you need to do work and stuff i would say go pro.
> 
> ...


I've never had a problem with Vista. I guess they had everything fixed by the time I bought the HP. And, now that I think of it, I also have Vista on an HP slimline and a Lenovo laptop and they both are trouble free. As far as the OS goes.

Rich


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Vista certainly lacks some code optimization that Win7 enjoys, so it will not run as fast, especially on older equipment, but aside from that, there is nothing WRONG with Vista. Yes, the original release had many problems, but Service Pack 1 resolved them for the most part, and minor upgrades since then have fixed the remaining issues. People's complaints about Vista are WAY overblown and mostly due to the additional security (which is more necessary every day, as attacks grow ever more sophisitcated!) and resistance to change.

XP was the current Windows OS for a record 6 years, which is a LONG, LONG run for an OS version. In its day, it was great, which is why it stuck around so long. But because it was around so long, and because after a few years it was so well known and understood, it had few problems because the longevity of the OS allowed drivers to be written well and problems to be eliminated. Most folks simply forgot the pain of upgrading OSs and especially major upgrade OSs. When Vista was released, all of the normal upgrade issues came as a shock to many people, and gave Vista an undeserved bad name (yes, the early release DID have problems).

In the end, though, Win7 is kind of like Vista 2.0, with the bugs worked out and the system optimized to run well even on very modest (read: old and slow) hardware. If you have the choice, you would want to run Win7, but Vista is still a fine OS.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

BattleZone said:


> Vista certainly lacks some code optimization that Win7 enjoys, so it will not run as fast, especially on older equipment, but aside from that, there is nothing WRONG with Vista. Yes, the original release had many problems, but Service Pack 1 resolved them for the most part, and minor upgrades since then have fixed the remaining issues. People's complaints about Vista are WAY overblown and mostly due to the additional security (which is more necessary every day, as attacks grow ever more sophisitcated!) and resistance to change.


The additional security in the end user experience was one component, but I believe the main issue was software that assumes the user is admin, and bad drivers. Hardware drivers had to be written for the new model, and a bad driver will cause significant instability and crashes. An end user isn't necessarily going to be able to put them together, not like you go to print and crash necessarily.

Over time, drivers and software greatly improved in their Vista support. Sure, there were bugs Microsoft fixed, but a sizable component was out of their control.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I cant get my PS3 to log onto my Win7 server... Directv boxes do it fine, other computers log on, but not the PS3. I hate all that security. XP was easy.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> I cant get my PS3 to log onto my Win7 server... Directv boxes do it fine, other computers log on, but not the PS3. I hate all that security. XP was easy.


Yes, it was easy. It was also MUCH easier for hackers to break into, and for various types of malware to do major damage. Security is always a pain, but as far too many people learn the hard way, it isn't nearly as painful as, say, losing everything on your drive, or having your identity stolen, or having your PC confiscated in a criminal investigation (where your PC was taken over unbeknownst to you).


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

BattleZone said:


> In the end, though, Win7 is kind of like Vista 2.0, with the bugs worked out and the system optimized to run well even on very modest (read: old and slow) hardware. If you have the choice, you would want to run Win7, but Vista is still a fine OS.


That is very true. Internally, Vista is listed as v6.0, while Windows 7 is actually listed as v6.1.

- Merg


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

BattleZone said:


> Vista certainly lacks some code optimization that Win7 enjoys, so it will not run as fast, especially on older equipment, but aside from that, there is nothing WRONG with Vista. Yes, the original release had many problems, but Service Pack 1 resolved them for the most part, and minor upgrades since then have fixed the remaining issues. People's complaints about Vista are WAY overblown and mostly due to the additional security (which is more necessary every day, as attacks grow ever more sophisitcated!) and resistance to change.
> 
> XP was the current Windows OS for a record 6 years, which is a LONG, LONG run for an OS version. In its day, it was great, which is why it stuck around so long. But because it was around so long, and because after a few years it was so well known and understood, it had few problems because the longevity of the OS allowed drivers to be written well and problems to be eliminated. Most folks simply forgot the pain of upgrading OSs and especially major upgrade OSs. When Vista was released, all of the normal upgrade issues came as a shock to many people, and gave Vista an undeserved bad name (yes, the early release DID have problems).
> 
> In the end, though, Win7 is kind of like Vista 2.0, with the bugs worked out and the system optimized to run well even on very modest (read: old and slow) hardware. If you have the choice, you would want to run Win7, but Vista is still a fine OS.


That was an informative, well written post. I've often wondered about why I haven't had any of the many problems others had. Thanx.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

The Merg said:


> That is very true. Internally, Vista is listed as v6.0, while Windows 7 is actually listed as v6.1.
> 
> - Merg


Pains me mightily to admit this, Merg, but I have absolutely no idea what the above means. No idea at all. You really got me on this one! :lol:

Rich


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Pains me mightily to admit this, Merg, but I have absolutely no idea what the above means. No idea at all. You really got me on this one! :lol:
> 
> Rich


Each version of Windows has a major and minor version (like any application). If you think about it back to Windows 3.0 and 3.1, that was the last time Windows "used" version numbers as part of its name.

After that was Windows 98 (v4) and then Windows 2000 (v5.0) and XP (v5.1). Windows Vista is v6.0 and Windows 7 is actually v6.1.

- Merg


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

The Merg said:


> Each version of Windows has a major and minor version (like any application). If you think about it back to Windows 3.0 and 3.1, that was the last time Windows "used" version numbers as part of its name.
> 
> After that was Windows 98 (v4) and then Windows 2000 (v5.0) and XP (v5.1). Windows Vista is v6.0 and Windows 7 is actually v6.1.
> 
> - Merg


Huh. I taught those early versions at a college and I didn't know that. Went right up to XP and it never came up. Thanx.

Rich


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Actually, a small correction...

Windows 95 - v4.0
Windows 98 - v4.1
Windows Me - v4.9

- Merg


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

The Merg said:


> Actually, a small correction...
> 
> Windows Me - v4.crap
> 
> - Merg


Fixed it for you.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

BattleZone said:


> Fixed it for you.


!rolling

No disagreement there!

- Merg


----------



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

Where's Windows Bob in that list .


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

HDJulie said:


> Where's Windows Bob in that list .


There was one good thing that came out of Microsoft Bob. Melinda Gates.

Can't say the same about Me. It was just a weird bridge between the 95/98 model and the NT/2000 model.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> There was one good thing that came out of Microsoft Bob. Melinda Gates.
> 
> Can't say the same about Me. It was just a weird bridge between the 95/98 model and the NT/2000 model.


I taught so many "Getting started with Windows XXX) that I can't remember which was which. 

I can tell you this, every computer lab I used had at least 30 Dell computers in it and if half of them were working, I felt quite lucky. We used to always buy Dells for our home computer, and after both my wife and I teaching those classes, we haven't even considered a Dell.

(I started the thread, I guess I can go a little off topic. )

Rich


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Well, in the defense of Dell, they're being hammered by students 8 or 12 hours a day...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RasputinAXP said:


> Well, in the defense of Dell, they're being hammered by students 8 or 12 hours a day...


Oh, I know. You wouldn't believe what those people did to the computers and I was teaching adult classes. But I listened to the IT folks at the college and asked some questions about the Dells and they weren't happy. Don't remember what they had before the Dells, but they were all leased and the lease program wasn't near to being up.

We did have much more problems with our personal Dell computers until we switched to Lenovo and HP. I've had my HP for over two years and it has not been a problem. Neither of our two Lenovo laptops have been a problem either. I did buy an HP Slimline. I'll never do that again. Can't get the damn thing apart to do anything with it. Totally packed. Put two memory chips in it a couple months ago and what should have been a simple task took two hours. No more compact, tiny desktops for us.

Rich


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Since we're going in no particular direction, why can't you find a MoBo with more than 2 PCI slots anymore? There are still certain add-on cards that some people need for special applications. I had a desktop one time with four slots filled and in use.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

SayWhat? said:


> Since we're going in no particular direction, why can't you find a MoBo with more than 2 PCI slots anymore? There are still certain add-on cards that some people need for special applications. I had a desktop one time with four slots filled and in use.


The issue is that most of those cards would be replaced with a newer type of card now. For instance, you would have probably had a PCI video card way back when, but now would use a PCI-Express card.

- Merg


----------



## snake98 (Sep 1, 2010)

rich584 said:


> If I load Windows 7 on my computer (I have Vista Pro on it now) will I lose all my email addresses and contacts? I've been told that 7 doesn't do that, but I want to make sure. I also need to be able to keep my info for Norton 360 intact. I've never had any luck retaining data when upgrading operating systems. Is there a particular version of 7 that I should get to ensure that my data stays intact?
> 
> Any info on this would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> ...


Do a reinstall, save you a lot of headaches later.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

:soapbox: [Don't say I didn't warn you]

The major bugaboo I find with Vista is that it always seems to be getting security updates. A friend with a wireless phone Internet connection can never seem to download them all before another update appears. Also frustrating is that most every batch includes at least one update that requires a restart; something that XP was supposed to address. Some would characterize this is being proactive or showing concern. The wise would recognize this as engineering after the fact.

My major beef with Windows 7 is that they moved things around in a big way. What used to be relatively straightforward now may require multiple tweaks in different places or even more grotesque wizards. Who in Sam Hill dreamed up the peer-to-peer LAN configuration nightmare? It used to be relatively straightforward. After all these years, networking seems to be more of a kludge than it was in Windows for Workgroups.

If they wanted to redo the interface, they should have redone it all and knock off the 3-5 ways of doing the same thing differently motif. What was so terribly wrong about having a handy delete icon in Explorer? Explorer is worthy of its own rant.

It is plainly obvious to me that Microsoft sees their customer base as being VARs and consultants. The seem bent on creating new and interesting revenue streams by making the software different/obscure enough that few can readily make the leap without retraining and/or professional reconfiguration.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SayWhat? said:


> Since we're going in no particular direction, why can't you find a MoBo with more than 2 PCI slots anymore?


PCI takes up too much acreage on the motherboard.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> :soapbox: [Don't say I didn't warn you]
> 
> The major bugaboo I find with Vista is that it always seems to be getting security updates. A friend with a wireless phone Internet connection can never seem to download them all before another update appears. Also frustrating is that most every batch includes at least one update that requires a restart; something that XP was supposed to address. Some would characterize this is being proactive or showing concern. The wise would recognize this as engineering after the fact.
> 
> ...


Windows generally only gets updates once a month. What OS (that is currently supported by it's maker) that doesn't get security updates? Apple releases some pretty big ones filesize wise for MacOS. I downloaded a bunch for Ubuntu yesterday.

While I'd love Microsoft to just drop support for XP and under apps (run those in a VM), that's probably not going to happen, or fix all the security bugs. There are a lot of Windows systems, so there are a lot of people banging on doors looking for vulnerabilities. It isn't realistic to say that a complex piece of software like Windows should be fully secure out of the box.

Want a secure Windows install? Put it on a system with no input ports, network connection, floppy or CD drive. That's as close as you're going to get.

Reboots are needed less. Back in the NT4 and Windows 2000 days, it called for a reboot for simple changes. Sometimes you could ignore it and manually restart a service. But it has improved. All depends on what files are changed.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

A little late, but have you sonsidered repartitioning the hard drive and installing Win 7/64 on a seperate partition? That way you could more easily move your data over and still have your old system available from the boot menu if you do find something you need but did not install on the new OS.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Lee L said:


> A little late, but have you sonsidered repartitioning the hard drive and installing Win 7/64 on a seperate partition? That way you could more easily move your data over and still have your old system available from the boot menu if you do find something you need but did not install on the new OS.


Nah, I'll just buy a new high end HP desktop and start over again. That should last me a few years. My wife will be delighted with this one. All I use the computers for is accessing the Net. Thanx for the thought, tho.

Rich


----------

