TubeNet

I need a new desktop as my old (2003) XP machine has gone kaput. I've read this thread. Do the comments regarding Windows 7 remain the same (i.e., better than Vista and similar to XP)?

I'm not technically savvy enough to run any of the open source OS (e.g., Ubuntu) nor do I have any desire to buy a Macintosh. As a result, I'm limited to a Windows 7 machine or installing XP on an empty machine. Unfortunately, Dell and other manufactures are charging customers to downgrade to XP when buying a new machine.

My primary uses are 1) word processing (MS word)/presentations (PowerPoint), 2) statistical programming/data analysis (R and Excel), 3) photo manipulation (Adobe Lightroom 2). I know that all of my programs work on an XP machine (Lightroom, R/TinnR, MS Office 2003); will they transfer to a Windows 7 machine as well?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Steven

As someone who didn't have a huge number of gripes with Vista (as it seems most people did), I found Windows 7 to be a good, though not revolutionary upgrade. Most of the changes seem pretty subtle, though I'm sure there's some upgrades under the hood that I have yet to appreciate.

As far as program compatibility with Windows 7, I'd do some googling of the specific programs you want to use with Windows 7 and see what other users experience. I did a search on "office 2003 windows 7" and it seems as though Office 2003 is compatible with Windows 7.

If you are comfortably sure that your important programs will work with Windows 7, I'd recommended moving up, as Windows XP will only become more outdated as time progresses and you may find yourself deeper in the hole when finally forced to upgrade.

I would suggest getting Windows 7 Professional. It has a cool program in it called "Virtual Machine" where it allows you to run XP in a virtual window at the same time for free. It will give you the compatibility of Windows 7 as well as allowing you to use programs that are only compatible with older machines (my printer only has drivers up to XP, and wouldn't work on Vista or 7, but now with the virtual machine I can use it).

Rochester2013 wrote:I would suggest getting Windows 7 Professional. It has a cool program in it called "Virtual Machine" where it allows you to run XP in a virtual window at the same time for free. It will give you the compatibility of Windows 7 as well as allowing you to use programs that are only compatible with older machines (my printer only has drivers up to XP, and wouldn't work on Vista or 7, but now with the virtual machine I can use it).

True, I've never used it, but 7 Professional and above have the ability to run this feature.

As a sidenote, any students planning to upgrade to Windows 7 can get Home Premium OR Professional for $29.99 for the next 5 days as a special promotion from Microsoft: http://windows7.digitalriver.com/store/ ... 2228667200" target="_blank

For anyone who didn't get a free version of Windows 7 as a part of a promotion $30 is a pretty sweet deal for Professional.

jenkinsmd wrote:

Rochester2013 wrote:I would suggest getting Windows 7 Professional. It has a cool program in it called "Virtual Machine" where it allows you to run XP in a virtual window at the same time for free. It will give you the compatibility of Windows 7 as well as allowing you to use programs that are only compatible with older machines (my printer only has drivers up to XP, and wouldn't work on Vista or 7, but now with the virtual machine I can use it).

True, I've never used it, but 7 Professional and above have the ability to run this feature.

As a sidenote, any students planning to upgrade to Windows 7 can get Home Premium OR Professional for $29.99 for the next 5 days as a special promotion from Microsoft: http://windows7.digitalriver.com/store/ ... 2228667200" target="_blank" target="_blank

For anyone who didn't get a free version of Windows 7 as a part of a promotion $30 is a pretty sweet deal for Professional.

I would definitely suggest this. I (personally) wouldn't pay the full upgrade price from Vista to 7, but if you can get it for $30 I would (and did).

+1 for Win7

WinXP, while being a very good OS, is not going to be around forever. More importantly, SUPPORT for WinXP will not be around forever. Win7 seems to be pretty solid and a good investment.

If I could finally get Halo PC to run on Xubuntu Linux, I would make the switch from Win XP because I have a 64 bit processor and my Win XP is only 32 bit. The machine is noticeably faster running 64 bit Xubuntu 9.10

LANShark wrote: Mike (who wishes he was a tuba guy who also happened to be an IT pro)

Ditto that...

To my knowledge, Windows 7 is the only completely original OS Microsoft has turned out in a long time. Vista still had bits of code in it from as far back as Windows 3.1, as did all the OS releases that preceded it. In a way you could apply the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" axiom, but the fact that parts of their previous OS's were still operating under the technological limitations of 1992 is pathetic.

In short, I'd go with Windows 7 simply because it's almost all new code. The jumble of outdated code they were using up through Vista caused a lot of bugs that Windows 7 doesn't have. XP was a nice OS compared to their other releases, but 7 blows it out of the water.

Once you go Mac, you'll never go back.

timdicarlo wrote:To my knowledge, Windows 7 is the only completely original OS Microsoft has turned out in a long time. Vista still had bits of code in it from as far back as Windows 3.1, as did all the OS releases that preceded it. In a way you could apply the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" axiom, but the fact that parts of their previous OS's were still operating under the technological limitations of 1992 is pathetic.

In short, I'd go with Windows 7 simply because it's almost all new code. The jumble of outdated code they were using up through Vista caused a lot of bugs that Windows 7 doesn't have. XP was a nice OS compared to their other releases, but 7 blows it out of the water.

I'm not sure how true your statement is. Steve Ballmer said early on that there was nothing wrong with the Vista kernel (not sure how true THAT was either) and that Windows 7 would be built on a modified version of that kernel.

Then again...can you really take him seriously?

"OOGIE BOOGIE!!!"

LANShark wrote:... Mike (who wishes he was a tuba guy who also happened to be an IT pro)

Hey, Mike! You're a tuba guy!

shovelingtom wrote:Once you go Mac, you'll never go back.

I used Macs exclusively in the early to mid-90s when I was still a music major in school. I'm sure they've changed quite a bit since then, but I've not been overly impressed with what I've seen. From what I've experienced (and heard from my Mac-nut friends), Macs crash as often (if not more so) than my Windows machines have (which luckily has been pretty rare), don't operate MS Office or SigmaPlot as effectively as Windows machines do, and are just as user friendly as I have found Windows machines to be. Besides, Macs are used by wimpy ecologists, not real fisheries scientists...

Another problem I have is that buying a computer from Dell, HP, or any of the other major retailers means that it's going to come with the OS and all of the other useless crap that I'll never use or originally wanted. Does anyone know of a retailer out there that sells "plain Jane" computers with just the bare-bones software installed?

How hard is it to buy the components needed and put it together myself? Is that even something a computer user (not computer guy) can do on his own? Frankly, if I were to do something like that, I wouldn't even know all of the components I'd need to order.

Steven

it's cheaper to buy the pre-made system, then uninstall any software you don't want. I usually buy Compaq computers and do just that.

SRanney wrote:
How hard is it to buy the components needed and put it together myself? Is that even something a computer user (not computer guy) can do on his own? Frankly, if I were to do something like that, I wouldn't even know all of the components I'd need to order.

Steven

It's not difficult to build your own system, and you can get exactly what you want that way, but don't expect to save any money. If you do it that way, you can get an OEM copy of Windows for far less than you would pay retail. A good place to start researching this option is the Ars System builder's guide. I used to always build my own systems, prior to having an employer hand me a Mac.

I have to admit having to have a windows partition as well. I run Windows XP Pro through Parallels, so that I can use ArcGIS, the Leica total station suite, ERDAS IMAGINE and a few other sciency things that aren't available to me on the Mac.

I personally find the build quality of the actual hardware to be a little better, and really haven't had any issues with crashing. I also enjoy the UNIX underpinning that allows me to run a lot of the command line stuff that I got used to when I was running Linux.

LANShark wrote:

I'm not technically savvy enough to run any of the open source OS (e.g., Ubuntu...

My assumption was that if Steven is not comfortable running something like Ubuntu, he wouldn't be comfortable assembling the hardware, installing a new OS, and then troubleshooting any problems that arise.

The comfort-level issue is likely more a result of having never even opened Ubuntu, let alone installed it on a computer. I've never used that OS; thus, I'd have no frame of reference if anything were to go wrong. I have installed Windows XP on machines before and have successfully used those computers for computing.

I've thought about building my own machine for some time. Honestly, I think it might be fun, but I wonder if the headaches would outweigh the fun part. I have some friends who are computer geeks and have built their own for years but now live in a different city. (No one who is not a tech-support person likes to do tech support over the phone.) I'm handy enough to change the oil in my car, replace plugs/wires, and tune up the old jeep; I could probably build a computer with instructions but I've never done it before so it sounds like a daunting task. However, some of the links already provided in this thread have made me realize that building my own PC may be easier than I think. The most frustrating part may end up being making sure that everything is compatible; when I buy parts for my Jeep, I know the parts will fit.

Anyway, thanks for the good information. I'll keep everyone updated as to what I decide to buy or build.

Steven

There are some nice benefits when you build your own system. You have the freedom of selecting all of your components from the case to the video card to the cooling system. The downside is that if you are going with a Windows 7 OS (which I imagine you would), you must budget $$$ for the OS. The cheapest I've seen Win7 is here...

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... -_-Product
HOME

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... -_-Product
PRO

One other consideration whether you build it yourself or get something assembled is the processor. The vast majority of systems for sale are using Intel Core 2 Duo (2 cores) CPU's. No matter what, I would invest in the new Intel i7 (4 cores) CPU. It's only a matter of time before the i7 is the standard.

IMHO, I would consider building a Dell machine. They are pretty economical. Additionally, Dell has deals and coupon codes that are readily available. Check out http://www.techbargains.com

Thanks for the tips everyone. I've put together a list of the components that I'd like to include in a new computer and posted it to the PCMech forums:

http://www.pcmech.com/forum/showthread. ... ost1449933

I decided to go against the Intel i7 processor as it's twice as expensive as the Core 2 Duo processor. Additionally, the motherboard required would be much more expensive than a Core 2 Duo motherboard.

Steven

bloke wrote:Anything billed as "good enough for gamers" is automatically "too good for me"...

Likewise. However, it seems like a lot of components are marketed as "gaming" components instead of just "computing" components. I need a computer, not a "gaming system." The mathematical modeling, statistical simulations, and high-quality (in size, not aesthetics) photo editing I do uses similar resources that gaming systems uses. As a result, lots of stuff that I've selected is also good for computer games.

Steven

SRanney wrote:I decided to go against the Intel i7 processor as it's twice as expensive as the Core 2 Duo processor. Additionally, the motherboard required would be much more expensive than a Core 2 Duo motherboard.

....hence, why I suggested Dell.

http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/desktops ... 9&ref=dthp

For $899 you get Intel i7, Win7 64-bit and "gaming quality" everything else. A coworker of mine purchased a studio 15 laptop for $1099 and it included an i7 CPU and a bunch of stuff that other manufacturers couldn't touch at that price point. Out of curiosity, how much did your custom config come to?