Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 22nd Oct 2009 21:53 UTC
Permalink for comment 390732
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-06-18
My upgrade from Vista to W7 was very smooth. Almost everything worked, and the few things I had to fix were minor. It saved a great amount of time vs. reinstalling from scratch.
This seems improbably high for a home user, as the upgrade cost would be much higher than the cost of replacing their entire computer, printer, and peripherals. If they _did_ replace all their gear to get W7, the benefits are unlikely to be limited to the improvements in W7 itself. That is, because of progress in the industry they will be getting a much faster machine, more capable accessories, etc.
That isn't always necessary though. As an example of low upgrade costs, my own machine is a couple of years old and started life running XP (though admittedly at the very tail end of XP). My printers are about 5y and 7y old and both work fine. My mice are 3-6y old, monitors are 1-4y old, external sound card is 2y old, USB video camera is 3y old, and my joystick is about 5y old. All of that gear, as well as all the internal hardware, work just fine, so there was no additional hardware cost to the upgrade.