Add to 
del.icio.us
Digg this
February 27, 2009
The news have been around for almost a year now that Microsoft is planning to drop support for Windows XP.
However, and as this can be expected, XP users like the 'stable' operating system and certainly don't want to let
it go to waste.
As some can imagine, most hardware vendors and system integrators have been rubbing their hands and can't
wait to 'hear the cash register ring' for the past two years awaiting user's decision to move to the CPU-intensive
and RAM-hungry Vista.
So now many are asking themselves, should I face the situation and spend the money to upgrade now, or replace my
computer entirely to Vista or should I better wait for the less RAM-intensive Windows 7 expected sometime in July?
We are tempted to think that the last option is the best one.
For the most part, Vista has been a very unpopular OS, right out of the gate when it came out in February
2007. And most that have tried it will tell you that Vista lives up to most of the insults thrown its way, and
for many reasons.
On the other hand, Windows 7 has a lot more promise for those who want to wait for it, if they can that is...
It's what most users had wished that Vista would have been when the software giant released it. Do you
remember Longhorn? Microsoft later renamed Longhorn to Vista. The OS' smaller footprint and more efficient
use of CPU and RAM resources make it a much more palatable choice than Vista for those of you anticipating its
arrival.
At OS Today, most of the reviews of Windows 7 we've read are positive for the most part. Its performance
gets some accolades and compares very favorably to Windows XP in that area. It took a few years for Microsoft
to bring XP to the 'stable' release it is today. Remember SP-1? The Redmond giant soon released Service Pack
2 in the ensuing months to correct some critical security problems enherent in the SP-1 version.
Windows 7 actually has the same advertised hardware requirements as Vista, but Microsoft also states that "it
might also be possible to run the Windows 7 Beta on a less powerful computer than the one we recommend,
although we can't guarantee the results."
The great majority of Windows 7 Beta testers we interviewed said that Windows 7 dosen't take much more
memory and CPU cycles than XP does, which is good.
Microsoft still says that a definite Windows 7 (production version) release date isn't known as of yet,
but its beta-release versions will all stop working on August 1, 2009, so expect it in stores before that,
and installed on PCs and laptops even weeks before Aug. 1.
Overall, here's basic list of some of the OS' requirements:
1 Ghz or more CPU
1 Gb of RAM
16 Gb or more disk space
Direct-X 9 capable graphics video card
DVD drive as opposed to CD drive
Whether or not you believe Windows 7 is "Vista with a small twist and nothing more," one thing is for
sure:-- Microsoft certainly has learned its lesson between producing the stable release of Windows XP and
the pittyful Vista.
Overall, Windows 7 is a better choice simply because your venerable and well-performing Windows XP-based
desktop or notebook will be just as happy with Windows 7.
Although Microsoft still says that the hardware requirements for Windows 7 are just about equivalent
as that of Vista, you would have a hard time finding someone who's happy with their Vista-based computer
running a mere 1 Gig of RAM.
We have to believe that the new requirements for Windows 7 are accurate since some new Netbooks will
soon arrive preinstalled with Windows 7. Netbooks are a new class of laptop computers that feature light
weight (2 lbs or less), a small footprint (9" screen size or less), inexpensive ($400 or less) and a rather
long battery life (9 hours or more).
Some Netbooks also sport limited resources such as 1 Gb or less memory and very small internal disks (4 Gb
up to 120 Gb) of storage capacity.
Source: Tech Blog.
Add to
del.icio.us
Digg this
