Deciphering Windows 7 Upgrades: The Official Chart

Mossblog ^ | Walt Mossberg

[Gomez]

Link to chart

[Gomez]

.

[PAR35]

What about upgrading from Vista to XP or 98? Now THAT would be an improvement.

[Yossarian]

Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard to 10.6 Snow Leopard Upgrade Chart:

Processor type:	PowerPC	Intel
Upgrade Path:	Buy a new Intel-based Mac	$29.00

[ottbmare]

Aw, Dad, do I hafta upgrade?

[RepublitarianRoger2]

What I’d like to know is if my current Windows 7 RC version (which expires on March 1, 2010) will upgrade smoothly to the RTM. I hope so.

[max americana]

Oh joy! A chart for more DRM.

[Arguendo]

I have 32-bit Vista Home Basic, and will be upgrading to 7 Home Premium. Any reason to switch to 64-bit? My computer is 64-bit capable (Intel Core Duo 2.0GHz and 3GB RAM), but for some reason came pre-installed with 32-bit Vista (it only came with 1GB RAM).

I’m not sure a clean install would be a bad thing, since it seems like there’s a lot of crap on there that’s accumulated over the years that probably slows it down, and I really only use it for web browsing and Microsoft Office.

[smokingfrog]

Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) said Tuesday that it has issued an official Release Candidate for software that allows users of the forthcoming Windows 7 operating system to run a virtual edition of Windows XP from inside Win7.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219000227

[irishjuggler]

What's the deal with the "Windows 7" name anyway? I remember in the early '90s, Windows 3.1 was the big deal. Since then there have been more than three (supposedly) major upgrades to Windows, right? By my count, there were at least five: Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP and Vista.

Do only three of those five now count? Or is Windows 7 the operating system equivalent of Leonard Part 6?

[VeniVidiVici]

You should buy the 64-bit if for nothing else you’ll have it should you upgrade your hardware. Running just Office and web browsing on it for now certainly won’t stress either version.

[VeniVidiVici]

What's the deal with the "Windows 7" name anyway?

Started with Windows NT 3.1 then Windows NT 4.0, next Windows 2000 was Windows 5. I think Windows XP/2003 was Windows 5.1, Vista and Windows Server 2008 is Windows 6 and Windows 7 is, well, Windows 7.

The "16-bit" codeline was Windows 2, Windows 286/386, Windows 3/3.1/3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows ME.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

What's the deal with the "Windows 7" name anyway? I remember in the early '90s, Windows 3.1 was the big deal. Since then there have been more than three (supposedly) major upgrades to Windows, right? By my count, there were at least five: Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP and Vista.

Ever since MS wrote a real 32-bit OS in Windows NT, Windows operating system version numbers have been based on Windows NT and it's descendants.

Windows NT 3.1, 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Windows Vista (6.0)
Windows 7

[FreepShop1]

I have used Vista x64 Ultimate on my Quad-core Dell for 18 months without a single crash, driver problem or major issue. It is super stable. And on a second drive I have Windows 7 x64 RC1, which is fantastic and FAST.

What do these Windows-bashers have, a x386 running Vista?

[FreepShop1]

I have 32-bit Vista Home Basic, and will be upgrading to 7 Home Premium. Any reason to switch to 64-bit? My computer is 64-bit capable (Intel Core Duo 2.0GHz and 3GB RAM), but for some reason came pre-installed with 32-bit Vista (it only came with 1GB RAM).

Not much reason to with those specs. But if you up it to 4GB RAM and do x64, then it would release an extra 2GB RAM for your use and speed things up considerably.

[ShadowAce]

[ShadowAce]

[Mr. Blonde]

If you wait until Snow Leopard is out you wouldn’t have to pay the $29.

[dayglored]

> What I’d like to know is if my current Windows 7 RC version (which expires on March 1, 2010) will upgrade smoothly to the RTM. I hope so.

No, unfortunately it won't. I don't have the reference from Microsoft in front of me, but I recall reading about a week ago, that if you've been running anything prior to the official RTM, it's a complete re-install.

I've got half a dozen machines in that state, ugh. Oh well. It's not a surprise -- beta testers should always be prepared for such inconvenience.

[Wyatt's Torch]

What a giant clusterf#@k.... Yet another reason why I have a Mac. My mac Pro will cost $29 to upgrade to Snow Leopard. One version. Works on all Intel based Macs. Simple.