38 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
It depends on the OS
If it's Windows, I always wait until at least SP1. (Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!) If it's Ubuntu or another popular, well-supported Linux distro, I usually give it a month before installing it. That's typically long enough for any teething problems to be worked out.
I should add...
...if it's Windows, I won't even install SP1 until/unless it becomes _absolutely_ necessary. I'm currently running WinXP MCE on my primary Windows machine and never plan on "upgrading" to either Vista or Win7. I've recently retired and am currently migrating to Linux (Ubuntu Studio).
I started with Mick Jagger and Win 95. Minutes and hours on the phone with HP and Windows Tech Support were countless. Since tthen i have purchased Win 98, Win XP 2004, IMAC 2008 all new machines. I am convinced Bill Gates model is not benefical to me.
wait until I absolutely hafta
I dislike change, and changing the OS, even as a gentle upgrade, is a major event in my life. I am proficient enough to make things run, to figure stuff out once it's installed, but my main concern is always, what if something goes horribly wrong and I can't fix it?
And if I like what works for me, why change? Yes, yes, I know, faster, better, brighter and it dissolves those ugly rust stains on the tub--but this is MINE. I shaped it. I love it. Even if I can only run older software, it's still okay. Maybe next week.
Well said mittens
Could not have said it any better! You voiced my feelings and it takes me back to an old saying, "If it ain't broke - don't fix it."
well, thank you, triadguy
I have a dual boot machine; since I hated to part with ME (yes, ME), we rigged up the XP to keep it company. My husband has a triple boot computer with 95, 98, and XP, and he has a DOS box embedded somehow so he can view his older files that are just so much hash on XP.
As you can see, this is not a family that changes willingly or rapidly, and we do listen, as well, to what other people say about the next adventure in software. Which is why we are waiting out the Vista disaster. Luddites, by golly, we're just Luddites.
I was amazed at how many people do NOT rush out to buy the latest and fanciest--then again, maybe they do and just don't talk about it...?
If it's working, why break it . . .
I have necessary productivity software that isn't Vista capable. XP Pro works fine for me and it runs my programs. Why spend hundreds, and I means many multiple hundreds of dollars to replace good software just because a new OS is available.
If it ain't broke....
I agree. If the system I have is adequate for my needs, why go through the hassle of switching over to something new? I didn't grow up with computers, and every time I successfully manage to install something new it is a big deal, but that doesn't mean I want to do it for kicks. I have XP and it works fine for me. Eventually I will have to replace my computer. Time enough to switch to the latest version then, and deal with all the stress of learning a new system.
same here ... I need a reason to switch ...
Unless the new system has some great features or fixes some problem of my current system, I'll stick with what I have ...
Some people just like to explore
I update after others have found most of the problems
I've spent time on the leading edge of several technologies, which often then becomes the "bleeding edge." Since I'm tired of bleeding I wait and let others find most of the problems, along with their solutions. With Microsoft this usually is after SP1 is released. Stability, and persistent operation are important to me. Several products seem to add bells-and-whistles, most of which I don't need. Consistent dependability is now more important to me. It just seems less painful.
New Operating Systems.
I bought a new computer, and decided to go with Vista. Initially it did have some problems, but it never completely shut me down. A little frustration from time to time, but never ended up hating it. Just be sure to turn of UAC. Maybe the UAC function will be improved in Windows 7, but the one in Vista is really a pain. I will probably wait until Windows 7 is out for about a year before I update to it, and that might mean buying a new computer. My current computer will be about 3 years old at that time, and there likely will be new improved hardware available. I want one with at least an 8 core processor. I have a 4 core now, and that is good, but the Q6600 is one of the first Intel quads released, and will likely work with Windows 7, but new can sometime be quite a bit better. I am not currently having any appreciable problems with Vista, and am well satisfied, but will look at Windows 7 when it is released, and watch it's progress to Stability. I hope that is within 6 months of release.
I typically wait until software starts to become a problem
I stuck with Windows 2000 Pro until well after XP was in Sp2 status. My only reason for upgrading then was not because XP was so much better (It, in fact, was far from better and still is not as smooth and user friendly as 2000), but because software programs that I wanted were beginning to require XP or higher to install and run. I will probably stay with XP now until frograms start requiring Vista or higher OS. I will then upgrade to Windows 7 or a later OS. I will NEVER, under ANY circumstances purchase another copy of Vista or another Vista equipped computer.
When a new OS is released, I tend to:
I would wait until I need a new computer; XP is working fine.
Depends which OS
If it's a Linux distribution I get it as fast as I can and I VM it.
If it's Windows I wait a year or two until the service packs start rolling in.
When a new O/S is offered, I usually.........
I am still heavily involved in Windows XP Home SP2. I am currently receiving an average of 3 updates per day
X 356 from Microsoft. This is an O/S? I think that it is just a target for the Microsoft Programmers to throw darts at. I have the feeling that MS policy is something like "if you discover that an update has been made in error, do not attempt to correct it, just update it with a patch". I haven't ever had a software program that required over 1000 updates a year. To some this all up, I hope I don't catch Win 7.
Don't jump the gun
I have a large number of clients who feel they need the latest and greatest and will go out and get it, sight unseen and without even considering if their hardware will support it. I spend many hours sorting out new drivers and patches to get their hardware to work with the new OS. Half the time I wind up having to go back to the original OS and reloading their backup if they have one. This became a real headache with Vista and many users still don't understand why their hardware isn't good enough to run it. I will build a system for my own uses and begin with the lowest version of OS I own and work my way up what I determine to be the best suited for the hardware. Instead of upgrading a system to support new software its much easier to build a new system that exceeds what the new OS requires and work from there. Many new OS platforms lag in support for older hardware as with the case of Vista, drivers for some hardware doesn't exist and drivers from XP don't get moved up to Vista, rendering good hardware unusable. Stick with what works well and forget the new platforms until all the bugs are worked out.
New operating systems
This is a Microsoft way of screwing the customer by forcing him to buy more hardware & making you pay for something thats dosn't work properly & then offering you an upgrade to fix their own problems ( AND you pay again )
I usually wait
Not for it to become "stable" or for a service pack, but I wait until I can afford a new machine if my current one can't run it. I don't get why people say they need to wait for Windows to be proven stable, but will rush out and use a new distro of Linux immediately. I can kind of see an arguement that you have to pay for Windows, but Linux is mostly free. That, however, is a poor excuse. Time is money. Okay, if you have to spend time to get Windows to work you're "spending" even more money. Still, how can you call yourself a geek if you can't get your old hardware to work on a 64-bit system before it has any 64-bit drivers? Some pieces of my computer still don't have the correct drivers, but I've still gotten everything to work. I did resently replace the USB wireless adapter with a wireless bridge, but it was because it was a pain to get working, not because I couldn't get it to work at all. Cisco is being a buttmunch, and only releasing the 64-bit drivers through Windows Update. Might as well not have released them at all if you're using a desktop that can't be easily moved to a wired connection.
New Operating Systems Are Continuously Released
I have no felt need to even know what the latest operating system out there might be, let alone to plot-out installing whatever it is upon a computer. I maintain a multi-boot machine, upon which is installed the latest releases of Red Hat Enterprise Linux for my CPU, and the latest sub-version of Windows XP. I will probably someday migrate to a different version of Linux, or to a different *nix such as FreeBSD, but that's unlikely to happen soon. If, unexpectedly, Microsoft issues further Service Packs for XP, then I'll probably install each of those, but I hope that XP is that last major version of Windows that I install.
Five Year Plan
My policy is to replace my entire system (hardware and software) every five years. In 1997, I had hardware of that vintage plus W95. In 2002 I replaced that with new hardware and XP. In 2007 I replaced that with new hardware and Vista. By this plan I will change hardware and OS again in 2012 (unless something unexpected requires me to change earlier). I also usually upgrade my productivity software at the same time; am currently running Office 2007 for example. When replacing hardware, I also usually replace my monitor & printer/scanner at the same time. This way I have a 'matched set' of hardware,software, and peripherals. And on average over time, I spend about the same amount of money as I would doing things piecemeal.
Poll: When a new operating system is released, I tend to:
I go to my local comp shop . Intelligent Computers and ask for the owner Nathan. He gives me the scoop. He is testing w7 and when it is released I will check in with him to see what to do. The man has never steered me wrong. Very rare now adays.
I perfer to wait, and conduct research
When a new OP is releashed there may be bugs, holes, etc in the system that could cause problems. I wait to see what will be releashed concerning the OP, then research through sites such as CNET to gain the experts opinion of the OP. I weigh the pros and cons then make the decision.
I get it usually earlier on.
When Windows Vista came out, I didn't upgrade immediately, as my system was aging - but I happily jumped onto it when I bought a new laptop, 6 months after the Vista release.
This time around, I might actually go and buy a retail license without buying a new computer first, as both my custom-built desktop and HP laptop are more than up to the task of Windows 7. Have been running Beta since 6801 and its smoother than what Vista could be.
I wait until my computers die
--Other. (What is it?)
I wait until my computers die. When I replace my computers I use whatever OS comes with them.
I don't like the idea of "renting" software from MS. Happily I only have to keep our little three computer network running so I don't have to stay up to date on the latest greatest OS like many of the techs have to. Trying out a new OS just for fun rates about the same is root canal work with me.
At present my boxes are running well. I probably won't have to worry about a new OS until Windows 2012 arrives. At that point I may very well switch to one of the free Linux operating systems.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
My current OS (Win XP) serves my needs. Why should I spend the time and money to switch when it gives me nothing I need? Besides, there are always glitches in new OSs, and compatibility issues with software and machines that are working fine now.
Eventually, I know I will have to move on, but for now, what's the rush?
PS - I'll probably have to upgrade my home LAN system first, because my kids will want to run toys that are new and shiny. The office LAN I run is more interested in productivity and stability.
Poll: When a new operating system is released, I tend to:
With XP I waited until I had hardware that could run it comfortably, which was 3 years after XP was launched; before that I used a combination of Windows 98 and Windows 2000.
Experiencing Vista on other people's machines it is so bad I refuse to have any computer with Vista and recently bought 2 Acer Aspire One netbooks with XP, which satisfied our mobile requirements.
The netbooks have been so productive we will have more netbooks with a 10 inch screens because the smaller Acer screen is just a little bit too small for some applications.
All our computers dual boot to Ubuntu and I upgrade Ubuntu immediately the final release is available.
I dread the thought of having to go to Windows 7; for me an OS is something the computer has to run applications and not a way of life as Microsoft seems to think.
Ubuntu is getting close to a total Windows replacement so I may never got to any Microsoft OS after XP.
I tend to wait.
Since most of the time installing a new operating system requires re-installing software I wait until the updates for the software I run requires the new operating system. I then read what the hardware requirments are and make the required changes and install the new operating system.
From 3.11 to Win 95 I jumped fairly quick. I was slower to adopt Win 98 until I bought a new computer, kicking myself for having lost my 95 disk. Upon reading user comments I did not adopt Win ME so I sprung for Win 2K when it was released. Once XP was released I would say I was the first among friends and family to get it, actually waited in line to buy it early in the morning. Did quite a lot of research yet pre-ordered Vista to give it a shot, it lasted 3 days before I formatted that drive and tossed it into the filing cabinet. In going from XP Pro to Win 7, my jury is still out, I do know that I am going to wait a few months at least to make certain everything with drivers, etc is ironed out before buying it.
Usually wait for SP1 ... but want to replace Vista ASAP, so?
For Microsoft products I typically wait for service pack one to be release. figuring I might as well wait for the product to be 'stablized' and/or 'finished' with some security patches, etc.
However, it seems that Windows-7 is already very stable & a 'finished' product based upon the beta testing reports I've seen and since I just got a PC with Vista Premimum, and found hate Vista, I may upgrade to Windows-7 as soon as available & I can afford it.
Back to The CNET Lounge forum
(Page 1 of 2)