Thinking about getting Windows 7

[mkillio]

So I'm thinking about switching to Windows 7 from XP and I can get Ultimate from school for only $20, The thing is I have a relatively slow computer, I have a IBM ThinkPad T43 @ 1.6Ghz with 1GB and Intel graphics.

I have read different articles saying that 7 is faster then XP in somethings and slower in others. Can I dumb down some of the features in 7 Ultimate enough so that it can be faster or as fast as XP?

Bottom line, is it worth it for this old of a computer? I really only email and web browse with my computer, sometimes I play some HL 1 though.

 

[the maddman]

I run Win7 on a Thinkpad X31 that's a Pentium M at 1.3 ghz and 512 meg of ram. It's only slightly worse than XP was on that hardware.

I'd say for $20, give it a try. If you can upgrade the memory first, do that too. I feel that Win 7 is more RAM sensitive than CPU speed sensitive.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

You should be fine with that. I have a tablet PC runing a Core Duo (not even core 2 duo) at 1.6 ghz that did fine with Vista on 1 GB. I've since upgraded it to 2 GB (not much speed difference). Win7 should operate similarly if not slightly better on a laptop.

Also I believe, there's some kind of compatability tool available for Win7. If you can get that it's worth it to run it before getting Win7. It'll let you know if there's going to be potential problems with your laptop (non-existant drivers for instance). Chances are if it's an all Intel Centrino notebook, it'll be fine however.

Regards,
SB

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Is that a single core cpu? In that case it will be the same at best, probably worse. If XP works for you i'd stick with that. I installed Win7 on my netbook yesterday (I know the atom is even crappier) and while it runs decent enough for most stuff it defenitly isnt faster than XP. For example watching youtube has pretty much become impossible. Laggy as hell while it works fine under XP. I'm thinking about upgrading to 2gb to see if that helps.

Win7 defenitly works better when you have modern hardware but I think anything below a half decent dualcore cpu and 2gb of ram is probably off better with XP as far as speed is concerned.

edit: Gotta change my opinion. For some reason Win7 power management thinks that its a smart thing to decide that when on battery power not more than 50% of the cpu should be used. So my cpu was actually running at only 800Mhz which doesnt make it very suprising that things dont run smooth. Changed it and things run a lot better. Overall still a little bit slower than XP I think and overall battery life seems to be a fair bit worse though I havnt done any real testing.

 

[mkillio]

I run Win7 on a Thinkpad X31 that's a Pentium M at 1.3 ghz and 512 meg of ram. It's only slightly worse than XP was on that hardware.

I'd say for $20, give it a try. If you can upgrade the memory first, do that too. I feel that Win 7 is more RAM sensitive than CPU speed sensitive.

Did you notice if your battery life increased? Is 7 better for virus and spyware protection?

 

[Vadi]

Unlike XP, it allows you to use all software (I tried) as restricted user, so you don't need to be administrator all the time. Even if you are admin, UAC (at highest setting) restricts access rights and asks you if you want a program to change some system files or settings. Though a separate admin account is nice when the window manager crashes for instance.

 

[Blazkowicz]

Ubuntu 10.04 LTS will be coming soon (okay, soonish if we expect late april) and would be a fine OS as well, especially with your use of that computer.

 

[Vadi]

Unless you want certain Sofware, Linux is nice. Pulseaudio surpasses Win7's functions in some respects and maintenance is very easy (in Debian at least). Also many innovative approaches like Pulseaudio and tiling window managers for example are available.

When I tried Ubuntu, 6 I think, its various wizards didn't work well and the recently included Pulseaudio is said to be implemented very poorly (broken according to its developer) in the last version. I had better experience with Debian - and if sound and up to date sofware are a concern - Mandriva and Fedora (the developer of Pulse works for Redhat) seem nice. One if their Live CDs even automatically installed the proprietary Nvidia driver.

 

[Blazkowicz]

Ubuntu LTS releases are of good quality. current one is like a slightly fresher debian stable, more user oriented. 10.04 is only the third LTS, gets a good looking theme and I really look forward to it - a new release to install on machines that need stability and what I'll install to people.

An easy and safe choice is to upgrade from LTS to LTS versions, and use other ubuntu releases for fresh software without dicking with repositories (I don't install them for Joes and Mums now)
Other distros are probably good and I test some in VMs, but ubuntu, or debian stable on servers, are good lazy choices (with huge userbase and a huge swarm of software)

to get back on topic, I would get the windows 7 if the license can be transfered to another machine (great deal then), and make room for a later dual boot (about 8 gigs are enough)

 

[the maddman]

Did you notice if your battery life increased? Is 7 better for virus and spyware protection?

The battery in that poor laptop only holds about a 30 min charge anymore. I loaded 7 after I got nailed by a Google Images search that rooted the machine, so I hope it will stay up to date and more secure.

We only use this laptop to browse the web upstairs, so it's not used a whole lot.