When do you upgrade?

[Doug Nelson]

Some cosmic oddness has made this the week for me to be discussing software updates and upgrades in many areas with many people.

My own personal philosophy is that if it's free and easy, I install it. Period.

If it's not free and/or easy, I do some mushy mental calculations to figure out if it's worth it (usually it works out in favor of the upgrade).

So, my question for you guys is: how do you decide whether to upgrade or update software?

Do you fall into the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" camp, or are you like me and figure "they know more than I do, there's a reason they decided to make changes"? Or do you have less simplistic reasons?

I also realize 'updates' and 'upgrades' are two distinct areas, so feel free to differentiate if it makes a difference.

[angue]

In terms of upgrades I try to skip a version. So if the version I have now is 5.0 I will upgrade only when it's 7.0.

In terms of updates, I do it as soon as it's available (assuming it's free, which it always is). So if I have version 5.0, I will update to 5.0.1 or 5.0.2 and so on and so forth.

Tony

[Jakaleena]

I hardly ever upgrade/update anything....

Maybe it's laziness. Could be apathy. Or possibly just an unwillingness to do away with something I'm comfortable with.

Hey, I'm still on PS 5.5, so you know that says something about my thinking on the subject.

I've thought of upgrading but abandoned the idea fairly quickly. I guess my thinking has been that when I finally have this deep burning desire to do some things I see others doing, with tools only available in upgraded versions, then it will be time to upgrade. Until then, if I can achieve the same basic results with the version I have and am comfortable with, I see no reason to rock the boat. The little extra "bells & whistles" aren't a draw for me, and so far I'm not so impressed with the results other people have gotten using the healing tool as opposed to the clone tool, that I just have to have it - so I am choosing to wait.

Right now, upgrading my OS is a bigger weight on my mind. I'm running WinNT, which doesn't support USB, and it's getting to be a real drag since every new thing I look at getting seems to require USB support. But, I don't want to go to Win2000, so I'm looking at a re-format and clean install (which was a horrible 3-day nightmare the one and only other time I attempted it). I'm even considering just going back to Win98, but fear of a blank hard drive has me frozen in my tracks. I have a new scanner sitting here that won't work unless I get USB support, so I suppose it's inevitable that I do it at some point soon...

I've also decided that getting a graphics tablet will take priority over upgrades too.

[thomasgeorge]

The critical factor for me is " Will the upgrade increase the usefulness of the program by increasing functionality and features, increasing security or enhancing productivity"....A yes to any one of these and I upgrade, if not I dont. Tom

[G. Couch]

Whenever I can afford to! (which is unfortunately not very often...)

[DannyRaphael]

I probably see the world a little differently than most... Until not long ago I'd spent about 25 years working very closely with OS upgrades and updates - about 18 yrs. of that on large 'mainframe' computers; the rest in the Microsoft datacenter with desktops, laptops and servers (oh my). Did a fair amount of tangling with application software there, too.

Now that I'm "out of the business," I'm no longer obliged to be on the leading/bleeding edge of technology -- and I like it a lot better this way.

Application updates:
Don't generally jump on them when first available unless they address a specific problem I'm having. Usually give them six months or so mature (aka: being debugged by customers in the field) before installing.

Windows 2000:
Pretty religious (these days) about keeping Windows security fixes up-to-date. Very diligent (as in daily) about updating virus signatures, another subject, but I thought I'd throw that in.

Usually wait six months or so on applying OS service packs (SP).

Application upgrades:
If it ain't broke and I don't have a significant need for new and/or supposedly improved features, I don't bother.

I expect to have Office 2000 for a long time. I'll take a long look at Photoshop 8 when it comes out, but it will have to offer a lot more than 6 or 7 in order for me to make the leap.

OS upgrades:
I expect I'll be with Win2000 for at least another 3-5 years - longer if I can get away with it.

Works great; very stable; mature (sounds like qualities I'll be looking for when my daughter decides to get married!); compatible with any hardware I have a need for at the moment.

JAK: What concerns you about migrating from NT to Win2K?

[gland]

I'm presently running Photoshop 6 on Win 98. I'd really like to upgrade to Win 2000 but am very reluctant to do so. Everything is working fine like it is.

I did upgrade from Photoshop 5 to 6 when it was available. I've got a long way to go before I'll feel totally comfortable with version 6. I think I'll wait till version 8 comes out and take another look at upgrading.

[DannyRaphael]

Gary:

You said everything is working fine under Win98, but indicated you'd like to upgrade to W2K. I feel like I'm missing something.

What does Win98 lack (or not do well) that's giving you the W2K bug? What is it about a W2K upgrade that's holding you back?

(Personally I'm from the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it camp." Just curious in your case.)

~Danny~

i for one am always excited for the newer versions of all my programs. i remember when i heard PS7 was coming out.. i couldn't wait.. then when flash mx was coming, that was like a double plus.. 2 programs i use regularly.

sure. some people get stuck in the older versions for some time.. maybe its because of money. maybe you think your version of photoshop 5 is just fine for what you do. but i think its important for people who are really into the programs to upgrade, and learn the new versions. the tools and all.

at first. i didn't think PS7 was really that much different then 6. but about.. hmm. i think it's been about 3 or 4 months or so using 7. and im using much more then just the new healing brush.

and by the way, that tool has cut down so much time for me.. i use it just as much as the rubberstamp tool.. and im retouching 7 hours a day. 5 days a week.. its a great tool. keeps alittle of the stress down.

[gland]

Danny I feel that Win 2000 is a stabler platform.

I would have to get all new drivers for the scanner, printer, Wacom,-etc.

I've got my color profile set up almost perfectly. I can print what I see on the monitor. I'm reluctant to upset the applecart.

[Sanda]

I don't usuall upgrade anything unless it offers me features I need or want as the case may be. I think I'll stick with photoshop 6 for quite some time yet.
Yet, I too am thinking about upgrading my win98 to win 2000 or XP but I'm not sure if I should just stick with what I have. So I'd be very interested to read what others think about upgrading systems. My reson for thinking of upgrading I'm hoping to get better performance from my system with an upgrade.

on my pc. i upgraded from win98 to XP a few months ago.. or maybe 6 or 7 months ago. i cant exactly remember.

but i do remember that the o.s. was pretty stable for a few weeks. then just crashed all the time.. maybe it was due to other programs i had installed or something. i dont know.. but.. after i cleaned out my computer, and reinstalled XP, it's been fine..

i cant remember the old o.s. so i dont know how much i really like the upgrade.

[LQQKER]

Interesting . . . When the healing brush came out, that was enough.

[Scott Rudy]

I have been reading about everybodys thoughs on OS updates or possible upgrades, when it comes to Windows I would recomend XP or waiting for Microsofts next OS suppose to be released around christmas or the beginning of next year.

MS-XP is the most stable OS they have ever released but all of the other Windows OS's (except Millenium) can maintain fairly good stability if you do what you can to avoid or block malicious active-X and Java scripts and controls that you pickup by surfing the web and opening junk email, this is what breaks down the Windows OS.

Although XP is more closely campareable to Mac-OS which is baased on the Unix system, XP is shipped with PC-cillin 2000 which blocks active-X and Java scripts and controls that damage Windows OS.

The next OS to come from Microsoft will be even more closely related to the Mac-OS and the Unix system. What does this mean? It means that Microsofts new OS will be even more stable than XP and the opreation speeds will increase.

Why does a Mac perform applications tasks faster than a PC even though they both are using the same CPU speeds, the same RAM speeds? It's the Mac-OS that does the job more proficiently than MS-Windows does but that is now starting to change and PC using a better OS based on the Unix system will be able to start to truly compete with the speed and stability of the Mac.

[Trimoon]

I go by my instinct, if it’s Bright and shiny I buy it


Steve

[chris h]

I think OS installations on personal computers have a finite life. The newly installed OS gradually picks up detritus suuch as old files and bits of programmes which are kept at bay by defrag and registry pruning.
However eventually these barnacles build up and its time for a re-install or an upgrade. I used 98 for a long time but now have XP and 2K dual boot which seem happy with one another.

[Scott Rudy]

Originally posted by chris h
I think OS installations on personal computers have a finite life. The newly installed OS gradually picks up detritus suuch as old files and bits of programmes which are kept at bay by defrag and registry pruning.
However eventually these barnacles build up and its time for a re-install or an upgrade. I used 98 for a long time but now have XP and 2K dual boot which seem happy with one another.

You are half way right but it works both ways. It's not just a build up of old files and bits of programs but it's also the loss of bits of the OS program files that causes the real damage to Windows OS.

Active-X, Java, and shared .dll's cause the most damage to Windows OS, even if you use a utility like Norton and let Norton choose what it considers the best fix solutions, Norton will in fact slowly chip away at the OS system and registry files.

Shared .dll files should never be removed even though the program that they came with is no longer on the computer. Some .dll's are custom made for a particular program and are only used for that particular program but they attach themselves to OS .dll's. If you remove the shared .dll you could damage the OS .dll in the process causing operation and application problems with other programs and the OS.

Active-X, Java, and .dll's works kind of like macros in a sense. A macro is a recording of an operational control, a step by step process that can save time by performing a list of tasks commonly used to obtain a certian result or function, like the actions function in PhotoShop, actions are macros.

Plug-ins are more like active-X and Java, they are small programs that perform certain actions and tasks that are not common to the origianal program and they save programing space.

These macros are attached to the original programs coded instructions and can cause the original program to get confused due to changes in subroutines or program loops. You've heard of macro virus, if you use Word or Excel and set up a macro you will get a warrning that macros can contain viruses. In fact you yourself can write a macro virus when you write a macro into your Word or Excel pages and not even know about it until funny things start to happen.

One common macro virus is, you sit down to write an email or make a post on your favorite news group or fourm and when you start typing, the letters that you press are not the letters that appear on the screen, that is a macro virus.

Well I've blabbered long enough, can you tell I have no life other than in front of a computer?

[Bob Walden]

Hi all! Just switched to Win2000 2 wks ago. So far no prolems. Still chasing drivers though. Win 98 gave me good service but last 3 months or so lots of lock ups and crashes. It seem time to upgrade.

Bob

[chris h]

Scott,

Ok on the .dll options and I've always thought retaining them during uninstall procedures the safer course. I'm very sparing with what I install these days the bulk of my files living on cdr's or tape.