New comp or upgrade my current one?

[Eric the Grey]

And Finally, Vista (like Fable)^3 is not awful, but it is certainly not what they told us it would be. Vista's main problems are hardware and installation related. If your computer comes with Vista it will probably work acceptably. But for people like me who build their own system Vista wouldn't work properly. If you don't believe me, the go look at the debacle people have had with Creative not making drivers for vista. Life sucks without sound.

Wonderful post, up until this point. IF you build your own system, and plan to put Vista on it, you should be buying components that are computable with Vista, or you have nobody to blame but yourself.

I built my current machine a little less than a year ago, and everything worked except my old printer, which was more than 7 years old at the time. Can't blame Vista for that, only the manufacturer.



Eric the Grey

[Geek King]

Just to chime in,

I've been using Vista Home Premium since shortly after launch, and have had no real issues with it. Yes, you will have to learn that it does things differently from XP, and yes, it isn't 100% backwards compatable with old hardware/software. I am not sure how it holds up in an office environment, as my place only has one PC with it for special projects, but at my home it works fine.

I have run WoW, City of Heroes/Villans, and The Witcher at high resolutions for hours without issue. Thief III looked great also. OpenOffice.org now supports it, so no massive outlay for a new copy of MS-Office is needed. I will agree that you should probably go with it on a new PC rather than upgrade. But I would suggest that for almost any OS upgrade.

Most of the other advice so far has been good, so I won't repeat it. Macs are also a nice choice for the average user, but don't expect to play most of the latest and greatest games on release day. Many will have a release date 6 months to two years behind PC. Macs do seem to be pretty good at doing art and layouts, if you're into that kind of thing. Linux is a great database system, but not really for day-to-day use unless you like to tinker, or else seeing the Microsoft logo makes you foam at the mouth.

[Mara-chan]

I actually have a theory on why people 'hate' Vista.

Long ago, when computers were young, users knew they had to upgrade from time to time. They knew when you went from one version to another there would be sacrifices and incompatabilities.

When we switched from DOS 4 to 5 there were problems (1991)
5 to 6 (1993)
Dos to windows 3.0 (1990)
Windows 3.0 to 3.1 (1992)
Windows 3.1 -95 (1995)
95 -98 (1998)
98 - ME (2000)
ME - XP (2001)

If you notice, there's between 1 and 3 years between updates.

XP - Vista (2007)

SIX years. A lot of 'casual users' joined in those 6 years. A lot of people who weren't used to upgrading every year or two. A lot of people who weren't used to upgrading and having issues with compatability.

So it was more an issue that there were a lot more people who weren't used to the minor problems that turned them into major problems rather than an issue with the OS itself.

[MrSmiley]

Heh, I'm a pseudo-professional and I don't like Vista... but I still have to deal with it most days and certainly don't mind my sister using and enjoying it every day.... Just because something's new doesn't mean it's better. I personally think Vista has a lot of things going for it, but it's not enough to offset the things I don't like about it and think have devolved since XP

When we switched from DOS 4 to 5 there were problems (1991)
5 to 6 (1993)
Dos to windows 3.0 (1990)
Windows 3.0 to 3.1 (1992)
Windows 3.1 -95 (1995)
95 -98 (1998)
98 - ME (2000)
ME - XP (2001)

Well of that list, Win 3.0 was pretty embarassing and 3.1 was really made to get it functional. Likewise MS-DOS 4 was pretty buggy without introducting a whole lot and most techs I know just went from MS-DOS 3 to 5 to save on headaches. I don't remember any major incompatibilities with moving to MS-DOS 6... well unless you were back in MS-DOS3 or 2... but more likely that would be individual programs. MS-DOS6's Doublespace (the disk compressor) was flakey at first. 98 wasn't that great but 98SE brought it up to the status of an actual useful upgrade. Windows ME is a perfect example of something "new" that doesn't run better or even the same as previous versions. Most people I know avoided that like the plague, though enough new users bought computers with it preinstalled that it's good to know something about it.

</rant>

I can make the same accusations about various Linux distros or MacOSes though. Sometimes a new version is a real improvement and sometimes they drop the ball with bugs, incompatibilities and strange quirks. So much of it in the end comes down to personal opinion and personal preference... since I already know friends & co-workers whose opinions seem to be defined by details I don't exactly understand (or agree with) and probably many feel the same way towards me.

[sms001]

Hey Toujin.

Sorry you asked yet?

All those details and facts aside, your input is needed. As per Eric the Grey, to make an informed suggestion we'd need your specs. Also, your needs (you mentioned some software that doesn't work with Linux) and perhaps most importantly, your price range.

[DataJager]

Hey Toujin.

Sorry you asked yet?

Yeah, okay, so like any time you ask for help on a forum this sort of thing happens.

Also, as to the question of upgrading from XP to Vista, I can't say that it's just the usual "Upgrading Sucks" Debacle. The real problem is that XP has become GOOD. Three service packs later and we've ironed out most of the problems. Sure there's a bunch of security exploits and stuff, but it's nothing compared to the BSOD machine that was a 95 computer. A combination of people becoming complacent, along with Vista not making any serious upgrades (What happened to the Castle System?? And what about meta tagging your files? Longhorn promised us this!) and also hardware debacles with DirectX10 and others, caused vista to fail. However there are better sources than I on this, just look around the internet.

And Eric The Grey, while you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!!), I still think it sucks to have to use on-board sound just because Microsoft couldn't properly negotiate with creative. For years, Creative has been the standard in sound. We called a PC an IBM Compatible and we called most sound cards "SoundBlaster Compatible". What I'm trying to point out here is that if I want to do things the standard way, I can't do it with Vista*. Which is rather ironic since for years Windows has been the most compatible OS across the board. Creative is not the only company that has issues with drivers, until very recently it was nearly impossible to get drivers for many video cards and even when you did the games ran about 10-30FPS slower. I'd like to say that all this grumbling about Vista and its compatibility issues is bunk, but it really isn't. I don't like having to buy weak hardware just to fit some OS that ignores the market standards.

*Those of you who have been really paying attention may have noticed that my specs do not include a Creative Sound Card. This is my next upgrade, thus why I'm still running Windows XP.

[Toujin]

Thanks for the input everyone. As for my basic system specs:

eMachines T3830
Intel Celeron CPU 2.80 GHz
504MB of RAM

[Mara-chan]

Let's see, According to Emachine's site the other specs are:

80gb hard drive
CD Writer/ DVD Player combo
512mb, expandable to 2gb (PC 2700 DDR)
Card reader
wired networking
onboard video (64mb shared)
2 empty PCI slots


So I'll call it a borderline system. If you want to just use it on the internet, you can tweak it out a little. More ram. Basic upgrade video card. Maybe a bigger HD. It doesn't burn DVDs, just plays them.

BUT... it's not worth upgrading everything. The cost of adding RAM, video card AND hard drive you're more than half way to a new PC.

If you want a game machine, video editing, large photo editing, anything heavy duty, get a new machine.

[Eric the Grey]

BUT... it's not worth upgrading everything. The cost of adding RAM, video card AND hard drive you're more than half way to a new PC.

If you want a game machine, video editing, large photo editing, anything heavy duty, get a new machine.

I have to agree with Mara-chan here. The machine is not bad really, unless you are a game player, in which case, a new one will probably be necessary sometime soon. Even upgrading the memory won't help a lot, since you may be hard pressed to find a decent video card for it (PCI).

HOWEVER, if you Don't play games, then upgrading your memory (35.99 at Crucial.com) is a cheap fix and will speed things up quite a bit.

I'd also recommend, if you haven't done so recently (within the past year or so) a complete reload of windows (assuming you have a restore or installation disk). After time, it tends to build up a lot of little things that hang around and slow the machine down, even IF it is not infected with anything. A clean reload can dramatically speed up your system.

I have a 220 GB external HD that I bought at Radio Shack, so I'm covered there. As for Ubuntu, I friend recommended it, but I'm not sure if it will be compatible with the stuff I buy or download.

Use your external drive to back up everything from your machine before reloading, so you don't loose it. With this much space (assuming it's unused) you can copy your entire hard drive over to it.

All in all, your machine is not THAT bad. Probably just needs some TLC.


Eric the Grey