Vista or XP? [Archive] - Revision3 Forums

tokenuser

04-19-2007, 11:20 PM

I won;t ask this question usually, but in order to upgrade I have to buy a new video card and some more RAM and a new power supply. i just want to know if the upgrade's worth the money right now.Can your current computer run Windows XP?

If YES - then you can run Vista, and wont need to upgrade anything. The need to upgrade everything is a fallacy largely spread by Linux and Mac fanboys.

Now, to get the most out of it performance wise, you might want to upgrade the RAM. How much you got now? Take it to 1GB and you'll be happy ... push it to 2GB and you will be laughing.

So what about the eye-candy? Meh ... whatever. You want eye candy with Aero then you will need to upgrade the video card. Depending on the card you get you might need to upgrade the PSU. But this becomes a moot point if your current computer can't take the latest and greatest video card technology. Either way, there are a lot of benefits to Vista just in terms of performance over XP, and the Aero GUI just slows your machine down.

darknessgp

04-20-2007, 07:11 PM

I just got a copy ow Windows Vista Ultimate as a gift. I want to know though, is it the right time to upgrade to Vista? I'm hearing an aweful lot about compatibility issues.

I won;t ask this question usually, but in order to upgrade I have to buy a new video card and some more RAM and a new power supply. i just want to know if the upgrade's worth the money right now.

Why would you have to buy the new hardware? If your machine can't handle all the nice GUI stuff, then don't run it with the nice GUI stuff...

On a side note, if you decide not to keep Vista Ultimate, I'll gladly take it off your hands for you.

crzy8sal

04-22-2007, 12:55 AM

I say dual-boot, and if you're having problems, just switch back to XP.

Personally I've tried Vista during Beta 2, RC1 and RC2, and I have purchased an OEM copy of Home Premium. I like a lot of things about Vista, particularly the new search, it's very good. I have however switched back to Windows XP recently because of a bunch of general stability problems and one very very annoying bug. I reinstalled a bunch of times, on different hard drives, but I always had problems with programs or services randomly stopping. Also, I, and some other people, according to Google, suffer from a bug where when you have ICS turned on, after a while nothing on the net will be accessible anymore until you reboot. I even emailed with people from the Microsoft people who work on the networking stack for a few weeks, but they haven't been able to fix it yet, and I haven't had a new mail back for week. And no it's not my PC, It works fine on XP, and I've switched out network cards several times, it just refuses to work.

Anyway, there's not really anything I miss about Vista now that I'm running XP again, there's some polish I miss and particularly the search, but on the plus side XP is more stable and faster for me. And the old Media Center is far faster as well.

To make a long story short, dual-boot and see if you have any problems with it. I have no doubt that if you're running it stable it's better than XP, for me however XP is still better.

Also, if you're a gamer, it should be noted that I had problems getting several games to work on Vista at all, running a GeForce 6800, and some games ran but with significant slowdowns. Some games worked fine, however.

Let us know what you decide and what you're experiences are!

vahnx

04-24-2007, 02:47 AM

I recommend XP totally over Vista. At least until Vista gets a service pack and many driver fixes.

kshep92

04-24-2007, 05:25 AM

On a side note, if you decide not to keep Vista Ultimate, I'll gladly take it off your hands for you.

lol Ok, when i'm done i'll share the wealth :). I was actually thinking about Dual-Booting, I never really intended to switch completely to Vista. On a positive note, it turns out I only have to upgrade my memory, another 512 (to bring it up to 1GB) is all I can afford right now. I think my X300 (even though it's the creme of the crap) should be able to run the Aero just fine, thus negating my need to buy the power supply.

Thanks for all the replies guys. Now I just need to complicate things and get a Linux distro in the mix :p

rileyper

05-05-2007, 03:54 AM

Vista is great but your laptop wont work with vista well unless the manufacturer supports vista for your video.

I play wow on my acer aspire 1.6ghz 100gbhd 1gb ddr and sis video(yes SiS is a pain in the ass when it comes to vista which is why manufacturers are dropping them) and vista zapps the memory so a laptop you will want to go over 1g memory or gaming will suffer.:D

I'm all for vista but its hard to go from XP to Vista...Well it was hard going from 98 to xp (i feel sorry if you upgraded to me from 98)

For laptops im all XP
For desktops im all Vista

bman

05-06-2007, 07:14 PM

It's fun and great, but there are problems. Mainly with games, but there are some things.

darknessgp

05-06-2007, 11:02 PM

It's fun and great, but there are problems. Mainly with games, but there are some things.

True, SOME games have problems. Most do not though. I've only had 1 game that I had to do something different on and that is Silverfall (had to run setup and game as Admin and run with WinXP SP2 compatibility) Most game problems can be chalked up as Video Driver problems because NVidia and ATi are taking there sweet sweet time.

Yea, there are some do-funnies. But everything should get sorted out soon.

kshep92

05-11-2007, 04:05 AM

Hey guys, i finally took the jump and installed vista. I gotta say - not bad at all: i'm loving the look and style, it's just great.

I partitioned my hard drive using Acronis Disk Director Suite (85.4GB for XP, 60 for Vista) and I use vista's boot loader to boot into either one.

I'l put up a tutorial on my site very soon on how to do the WHOLE process. I'd recommend u guys take a look at it because I messed up and had to re-install XP about twice and Vista 3 times :p

Thanks for the help.

evo311

05-14-2007, 06:38 AM

I just switched back to XP after running Vista (purchased Home Premium) for a while. My biggest gripe is the lack of hardware sound, so essentially the sound is pretty bad compared to XP using a SB Audigy 2. No mixer/bass/treble controls, etc.

darknessgp

05-14-2007, 02:48 PM

evo311

05-15-2007, 04:26 AM

true, but is that really a Vista issue or a Creative is being slow with drivers?

It's a Vista issue. Microsoft has REMOVED the Audio Hardware Layer in Vista. It's terrible.

shamess

05-20-2007, 11:11 AM

So, what I'm hearing you all saying is that Vista isn't too good at the moment, with various drivers, games and ... stuff not working at all. I think I'm on the "I'll wait for next service pack" boat, and even then I might not get it.

I'm currently running XP with 1.25GB RAM, and I can barely have media player, Office 2007 and a virus scan going on at once. I give all of the blame to Office 2007 for that, and I'm thinking that all of Vista's workings is like Office 2007 so it'll probably stupidly slow.

I'll stick with XP, it's going to be supported for another 8 years anyway.

kungfujesus

05-21-2007, 02:47 AM

The fact that Vista is being destroyed in benchmarks at the moment right now should be reason enough to stick with XP.

shawnt

05-21-2007, 05:50 AM

Hey everyone I installed vista about a month ago I have the same issue about the sound quality from my audigy 4, other then sound I'ts been error free, I've been running it through its paces daily tho, the ipv6 technology seems to be the only difference besides the nice gui, If your pc is older skip the upgrade. I first learned about it running ipconfig from C prompt.Make sure you google IPV6. If your here you must be a geek so reformatting your pc is not a big deal so I say try it out. Other then the obvious I like it has a very mac feel about its interface :D

darknessgp

05-21-2007, 02:33 PM

The fact that Vista is being destroyed in benchmarks at the moment right now should be reason enough to stick with XP.

got a link to a specific one that can't just be written off as Nvidia is only 5 versions in on Vista drivers and 30+ on XP?

Honestly, Vista has some problems, but I think people tend to blow it out of proportions. Not to mention I hear (in person) a lot of people complain about Vista that will also admit to never trying it out or looking too deep into it.

ArmpitOfDeath

05-22-2007, 12:21 PM

Yeah. I'm 50-50 right now but I do prefer using 'vista-everything', i.e. Office 2007 + Vista + latest Vista-supporting apps.

Some stuff still doesn't work and I'm wondering WTF about that but you can hardly blame that on Vista. NVidia has been crap and so has Creative, but I finally feel that the last three weeks or so they have at least released drivers that don't suck with Vista. Things hopefully can only get better from here.

2Gb is the minimum with Vista IMO. And that audio thing is kind of BS. The mixer / etc is actually a whole lot better under Vista.

A lot of the bad press for Vista has been generated by people who probably are better off with a Mac as they ultimately have little idea what they're talking about - the problem is that many of these self-absorbed relative n00bs presume (and others assume) themselves to be technical authorities, and not the jumped-up lazy journalists they frequently are.

It's a solid OS - more solid than Tiger - and definitely a major improvement over XP in many ways. I like it.

kungfujesus

05-22-2007, 01:06 PM

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page4.html

That one is all with an x1900.

Oh yeah, and have a look at all the 3D rendering benchmarks, too. Vista gets anihilalted in those. I don't know how anybody can call it a "solid OS".

http://chris.pirillo.com/2006/05/28/65-more-windows-vista-mistakes/
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/04/1717237.shtml
http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/04/04/2220207.shtml
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/04/0047200
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/31/2317222
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/pc-makers-to-microsoft-vista-is-not-a-seller-you-suck-248336.php
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/31/0629259
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/30/1311247
http://secunia.com/advisories/24659/
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/27/038227
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/25/2034238&tid=164
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/26/vista_copying_bug/
http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1358057&SiteID=17
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=402
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMxOCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

I can give you more reasons why vista sucks if you'd like.

ArmpitOfDeath

05-22-2007, 04:17 PM

Ah yes, the usual suspects.

Have you run benchmarks / comparisons more recently if you're going to get so hung up on them? I wouldn't have said it was something I wanted to use back in January. But now? No problems in everyday to be honest, and as I said an enhanced experience from XP.

darknessgp

05-22-2007, 04:38 PM

Got anything more recent? Like something that would use the latest vid card patches?

On the video game page, with the exception of 1 game (ut2k4) all games ran within +-10% of XP. Fairly good considering how long Vista has been out (7 months) compared to XP (5 years)

I would ignore the SPECviewperf benchmarks as those are notorious at being geared towards a single OS, Processors, etc. I've taken computer systems, and written supposed benchmarking software that would excel on one specific build (hw and sw), but do horrible on a slightly different built. I was also sad to see that it's only comparing XP to Vista, why not throw in Windows 2000 as well. It'd say a lot more if they included it.

As far as your other links. I clicked a few, some where about the animated cursor thing that effected ALL version of Windows. One lists the Inquirer as a source (srly). Others like the supposed copying bug can be fixed in a patch (I've never experienced it)...

look, I didn't think XP was that great until it had it's first service pack, and when it did come out I could have generated a list of why it sucks like you have just done for Vista.

I think there is a lot of room for improvement in Vista. Yea, it's not as solid as XP SP2, but it's a hell of a lot more solid than when XP first came out. but my real problem is that we have people (you may or may not be one of them) that seem to just have this blind hate for Vista. It just doesn't make sense to me how some people just think it's the worst thing ever and the few I've talked to, like I said before, admit to never even trying it out.

dark_shroud

05-29-2007, 01:47 PM

Ok I have a few comments here. First off, ATI did have video drivers out for Vista. Kevin and Alex just talked about this in Diggnation #99. ATI's lesser but very stable cards started to kick Nvidia's butts because Nvidia didn't bother to put proper drivers out there. My old ATI x300 SE had great drivers 3 months after Vista's launch. I upgraded to a x1950 Pro (512meg version) and it's running perfectly.

As for sound, this really doesn't affect much at all, in fact it actually helps performance. Except for Creative sound cards because Creative has Audio Processor Units on their cards. Read more here: http://www.soundblaster.com/Applications/article.asp?articleID=68455&categoryID=13 I'm just glade that I have an X-FI card.

Memory, 1gig is fine. Mine and my sister's computers both run Vista Ultimate fine with only a gig of memory.

adrian17

05-31-2007, 07:32 AM

I believe Vista carries a lot of memory. Your computer should have at least 512 MB of memory to be able to upgrade to it.

_______________________
James
McIntosh Laboratory (http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/mcintosh-laboratory-inc-1500/) - Download The New McIntosh Laboratory Catalogs

spiri

05-31-2007, 10:21 AM

brew7

06-13-2007, 05:54 PM

darknessgp

06-13-2007, 06:54 PM

I have read alot of stuff about vista and demoed it briefly but I really do not see any real reason to upgrade besides eventually directx10. Those of you that are using Vista what are you finding you really like about it what are the best features that you appreciate. I am thinking about upgrading but I really do not see the major benefits of upgrading now—want to know if i am missing anything.

A lot of the benchmarks, reviews, etc. were written right when Vista came out, so unless you read something more recent I would take anything with a grain of salt.

As far as features... truely nothing major stands out. and probably that's the reason many don't see a point in moving over. However, there are a bunch of little things I like. the instant search is a great thing. It bothers me now when I'm running XP at work and hit the windows key, start typing, and hit enter... and nothing happens. I've gotten so used to it in Vista. As far as other things, there are a bunch of little ones. Like being able to use the scroll wheel with a folder open and change how it is being viewed, Windows Updates actually being completely contained within the OS. So no more hitting their webpage or even waiting for automatic update to finally pick up that there is an update, etc.

If you are really considering upgrading, I would suggest installing the trial version of it and trying it.

crumbles

06-14-2007, 09:54 PM

I'm way too lazy to go back and read a thread that has already grown to 3 pages... but I'll say this:

I got Vista Ultimate from a friend as well for free, and I love it. After forcing myself to use it for a while, It's definitely a better OS than XP.

I catch myself once a week saying: "Ah, finally!" or something to that effect when I discover something new.

infraggable-krunk

06-18-2007, 08:36 AM

Ive been using Windows Vista Ultimate for the last few months ( hmm about 3). and to be honest I miss my tweaked xp experience.

Windows vista just isnt as tweakable as windows xp was. There are few annoyances here and there, like an unresponsive program message, fonts, and a few other things. One giant annoyance is taht the wireless program will connect to networks that do not connect to the internet, really stupid if you ask me.

Graphically vista destroys windows xp. If you are running aero, every screen is a 3d plane so there is no shearing when you move windows around.

The only thing stopping me from reinstalling windows xp is the amount of tweaking ill need to get it juuust right.

darknessgp

06-18-2007, 01:17 PM

...
Windows vista just isnt as tweakable as windows xp was. There are few annoyances here and there, like an unresponsive program message, fonts, and a few other things. One giant annoyance is taht the wireless program will connect to networks that do not connect to the internet, really stupid if you ask me.
...

You do know you can set defaults and priority on connecting to networks, right?

acerayl

06-23-2007, 12:27 AM

I have been running Vista Ultimate with a Vista score of 4.2. I do not have the most "High end" PC, but it seems to do well. Same boot time as XP. There are a lot of differences and new locations and names for common stuff used since 98. So my suggestion is to dual boot or read/watch a training video on how to uset some of the basic functions since they have chsnged so much. It has taken me a while to filmarize my self to all the new locations of typical settings that I ususally mess with. There is honestly no big rush just yet, but all of my hardware is compatible and I also got a copy as a gift. I am enjoying it so far.

darknessgp

06-23-2007, 12:52 AM

gillsterhill

06-23-2007, 05:14 AM

maybe i just got a good copy of Vista or wat, but i dont have any problems with it at all....I had it for about 2 months now, all the games i own work on it(and i own alot!) I have had no errors or anything. Maybe i was just lucky =P

now that I think of it, I have a Vista Score of 1 lol, but I can run Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Shadowrun at the highest possible settings without problems

darkknight512

07-20-2007, 01:22 AM

Its not worth it, AT ALL, wait a year.

gamer135

08-03-2007, 07:50 PM

I tried vista before and i cannot stand it for more than one hour, but in my mind i would wait till december 07 to see how far Microsoft has gone to fix certain things with vista performances.

darknessgp

08-03-2007, 09:28 PM

I tried vista before and i cannot stand it for more than one hour, but in my mind i would wait till december 07 to see how far Microsoft has gone to fix certain things with vista performances.

Why December? What if SP1 isn't out by then?

And I'm not sure what you mean by "fix certain things with vista performances." Any in particular you want to share? If anything, I've notice it do things faster than when I had XP installed.

killerofkiller

08-03-2007, 09:29 PM

I switched to vista on my thinkpad T60, with a low end ati x1300. i was running it with a gig of memory, and it was running fine. i just recently upgraded to 2.5 gigs and it blazes. office 07 opens up instantly, it's great. my "vista score" is only a 3.5 because of the gfx card. but Aero runs very smoothly. I have had no compatibility problems, i guess because Lenovo upgraded all their Thinkvantage programs

gamer135

08-03-2007, 09:47 PM

Why December? What if SP1 isn't out by then?

And I'm not sure what you mean by "fix certain things with vista performances." Any in particular you want to share? If anything, I've notice it do things faster than when I had XP installed.

Reason why i said that is because that maybe the SP1 will be release by then, but im not sure so, but its always good to wait and see what happens the OS.

The performance issue is not a major problem but the driver issues are, when ever i install nvidia graphics drivers microsoft will go ahead and replace them with its own, which annoys the hell out of me

darknessgp

08-03-2007, 10:09 PM

Reason why i said that is because that maybe the SP1 will be release by then, but im not sure so, but its always good to wait and see what happens the OS.

The performance issue is not a major problem but the driver issues are, when ever i install nvidia graphics drivers microsoft will go ahead and replace them with its own, which annoys the hell out of me

I've never had an issue with microsoft drivers replacing ones I've installed from nvidia...

And in case anyone out there thinks it... yes, Vista has some driver performance issues that are caused by companies being slow to support Vista, mainly because people are slow to upgrade as driver support is lacking... NVidia is a good example, they are starting to get close to the same feature set and performance as their XP drivers, but it's also kind of sad that EVERY driver update there are noticeable performance increases. While yes it'll stop people from upgrading, it isn't a Microsoft issue.

ArmpitOfDeath

08-04-2007, 02:26 AM

What darknessgp said.

SP1, SP1, SP1, it's all I hear... often from people who haven't even used Vista. SP1 isn't going to change Vista in any significant way. But you know what? The vast majority of sheep will switch to Vista after SP1, realise it's a decent OS, and say "SP1 made it all right".

I'm running just three XP machines (Dell XPS 710 and two H2C's) now. Right now I have at home three DIY's (Ultimate, 32/64), 2 Dell laptops (Business 32), 3 Sony laptops (Business 32), a couple of Dell workstations (Ultimate 64) all humming along quite nicely in Vista... and more in my workplaces.

I will admit that although I do have the 8800 in a couple of the DIY's, I've not moved onto Vista for gaming, which I do on my Dell H2C's. What I will do is to replace the PC's when I'm ready for Vista gaming later this year - when NVidia have hopefully finally got all their act together. 7-series drivers seem to be pretty stable in Vista now, but I think there are still some issues with the 8-series.

I wouldn't say Vista's without it's own faults and there are certain things I don't like, but it is definitely up there with a rock-solid XP install in terms of stability (I've had one BSOD on all of my machines since install, and that was due to a crap driver install) and the driver issues are finally on their way to getting there. As a working environment, it's an upgrade over XP and that's one of the important things.

As for gaming... well, there are legitimate issues there. Everyone's complaining, or all the geeks are moaning about lack of access to ring 0. But if manufacturers wrote stable drivers worth a damn in the first place perhaps all this wouldn't have been "forced" on you, eh? Ultimately I don't really care if I need slightly more horsepower to get the same result as long as I know everything works stably... but of course, NVidia has still to grasp Vista driver writing.

fallfarewell

08-04-2007, 11:46 PM

XP > Vista. Had both, got rid of Vista.
Maybe in a few years I'll consider Vista.

dark_shroud

08-05-2007, 08:14 AM

I'm loving Vista more and more. I really don't care for Office 2007, and I have the Enterprise edition. My only real problem is that my gateway's built in NIC is some crappy brand with weak drivers. nVida has lost me as a customer. My ATI x300 SE ran Aero just fine.

Vista sneaks up on you. It's interface is really polished. You really don't notice it until you go back and use an XP computer. It still needs some improvement but it's great over all. I used a tweaking program to remove the little white Aero from the desktop icons and now I'm fully content with Vista. And I run with UAC turned on and don't have a problem. I just had to learn how to tweak the new OS. And I hated XP, I didn't upgrade from 98se until SP-2.

fallfarewell

08-05-2007, 05:46 PM

i suppose maybe my problem could have been nvidia drivers and a lack of ram (only had 1GB in the laptop). there are enough things that irk me while i am using vista to still stay away. maybe i will give it another chance in a couple of years after some SPs and updates have come out to help polish it up. i am sure my systems will be upgraded by then too.

mcdaddy

08-07-2007, 11:06 PM

I love Vista, and I prefer Home Basic. I have Ultimate, and Aero is cool, but I just don't need it. Also, Basic has what I need, I already have 3rd party applets that do what Ultimate does.

All this being said, I do have two issues with Vista that are not Vista's fault, but they impact my use. I love Gametap and Rhapsody. I'm not a big gamer, but like some of the older games, and they work with my integrated graphics card, on XP. While Vista supports my graphics card it chokes on Gametap. So I keep jumping back to XP for the games. Lame I know, but one could argue that given the overall minor updates of Vista the graphics engine should be more compatible with the older drivers.

The other application that has issues is Rhapsody. Again, the apps fault. In this case I can live without it as I can go other places for my music. Just hate it because I had a pretty good library going. It appears Rhapsody has issues with the temp files and Vista. Haven't nailed it down totally, but I've gotten that far. I decided at that point unless they are goint to pay me Rhapsody can find their own bugs.

mistergrimm

08-19-2007, 02:45 AM

darknessgp

08-19-2007, 03:47 AM

I've said this before in many other forums with this thread and I will say it again, Vista is nothing but eye candy. Think of it, the OS acts as if its a 95/98/ME hybrid that looks pretty. XP is hands down a good OS, you can basically transform it into Vista, get a good theme, get some good compatible software, and find a hacked Direct X 10 for XP.

That's the only advantage Vista has over XP, Direct X 10 otherwise it's a waste of money to buy new hardware, Vista itself, and other gadgets to make work for Vista. Wait til SP3 for XP comes out, it's going to blow Vista out of the water.

Wow, you seriously know nothing about Vista do you? I won't go off listing every little thing, but things like Super fetch (i.e. caching programs in unused memory for quick access), instant search, auto-adjusting booting to be faster, IPv6, .NET framework 3.0, etc. and that's not even mentioning all the back end changes as it was almost a complete rewrite of code.

Saying that Vista is nothing but eye candy is the stupidest thing ever, I mean seriously, if it was eye candy, why are companies having to fix their code to work with it? Why are people complaining of issues that are normal for a recently launched OS? Clearly it must be XP with a better interface. Yea, it's been 7 years since the previous Windows version came out and previous ones had 2-3 year gaps... Most people felt like waiting till SP1 or even SP2 before jumping to XP, so how does that make Vista so bad? How is any other OS different? Is the new OSX going to be more than a small face lift? Yes, but only if you look at it for more than 2 seconds and pay more attention to things other than how the GUI changed.

mistergrimm

08-19-2007, 09:18 AM

Wow, you seriously know nothing about Vista do you? I won't go off listing every little thing, but things like Super fetch (i.e. caching programs in unused memory for quick access), instant search, auto-adjusting booting to be faster, IPv6, .NET framework 3.0, etc. and that's not even mentioning all the back end changes as it was almost a complete rewrite of code.

Saying that Vista is nothing but eye candy is the stupidest thing ever, I mean seriously, if it was eye candy, why are companies having to fix their code to work with it? Why are people complaining of issues that are normal for a recently launched OS? Clearly it must be XP with a better interface. Yea, it's been 7 years since the previous Windows version came out and previous ones had 2-3 year gaps... Most people felt like waiting till SP1 or even SP2 before jumping to XP, so how does that make Vista so bad? How is any other OS different? Is the new OSX going to be more than a small face lift? Yes, but only if you look at it for more than 2 seconds and pay more attention to things other than how the GUI changed.

Network Framework 3.0? thats already been done, IPv6 um ok?, and blah about the rest. Vista should've have features by now that let you rename a bunch of files when you want them all in a specific format say they are all .bmps and you want them in .jpgs and you highlight them all, click rename and type in "picture.jpg" a little window shows up asking you if you want to convert these to .JPG you hit "yes" and boom everything is .JPG, wheres that, huh?

Or what about the ability to shut down a problem hardware or device, so you could troubleshoot it, without shutting the PC off? Vista don't have that don't it? thats what I thought.

And Lastly, when the hell are we going to name the files the way we want them to be named, we are still not allowed to put characters in such as "?" or "/" for example.

All the features you listed are little itty bitty features compared to the features I've came up with, ones that are actually useful, instant search? oh please we have enough of those, auto-adjusting huh? wow like thats never been done before.

It seems Microsoft's importance in Vista is to make these little itty bitty features, not only that make games like make a cake, or another millionth enhanced chess game. If they rewrote it, they would've have a better kernel, and they would've changed the names around about the Explorer shell, from explorer.exe to winshell.exe or something more sensible.

Let me end this on another problem with vista, it's a memory hog, perhaps too much graphical stuff to load up and whatnot, completely ridiculous. I say microsoft had plenty of time to do alot of improvements, but it seems to me they only just tweaked windows. Oh and that 3D windows environment is just as worthless in itself.

darknessgp

08-19-2007, 02:52 PM

Network Framework 3.0? thats already been done, IPv6 um ok?, and blah about the rest. Vista should've have features by now that let you rename a bunch of files when you want them all in a specific format say they are all .bmps and you want them in .jpgs and you highlight them all, click rename and type in "picture.jpg" a little window shows up asking you if you want to convert these to .JPG you hit "yes" and boom everything is .JPG, wheres that, huh?

Or what about the ability to shut down a problem hardware or device, so you could troubleshoot it, without shutting the PC off? Vista don't have that don't it? thats what I thought.

And Lastly, when the hell are we going to name the files the way we want them to be named, we are still not allowed to put characters in such as "?" or "/" for example.

And which OS has those features? Oh, none? Imagine that.

Oh and on the side of file renaming, at least Vista unlike XP only selects the filename instead of the filename and extension.

All the features you listed are little itty bitty features compared to the features I've came up with, ones that are actually useful, instant search? oh please we have enough of those, auto-adjusting huh? wow like thats never been done before.

Like I said, I wasn't going to list off a bunch of things. I listed some things that taking 5 minutes you will find and things that now after about 6 months of using I find very useful over XP.

It seems Microsoft's importance in Vista is to make these little itty bitty features, not only that make games like make a cake, or another millionth enhanced chess game. If they rewrote it, they would've have a better kernel, and they would've changed the names around about the Explorer shell, from explorer.exe to winshell.exe or something more sensible.

Are you a developer? I'm guessing not as you are assuming that they would do all this extra crap. Oh, rename it from explorer.exe to winshell.exe? why? Are included games really that important? How do you know it isn't a better kernel? Have you even tried looking?

Let me end this on another problem with vista, it's a memory hog, perhaps too much graphical stuff to load up and whatnot, completely ridiculous. I say microsoft had plenty of time to do alot of improvements, but it seems to me they only just tweaked windows. Oh and that 3D windows environment is just as worthless in itself.

memory hog? How's that? right now Vista and programs are actively using 1/4 of my RAM. The other 3/4 is being used to cache programs I use the most. That's not being a memory hog, that is using memory effectively. There's no point in having empty RAM, might as well cache programs so they don't have to be pulled from the HDD when you start them.

So, I'm not going to respond to you again, as it's clear you've got your mind set on hating Vista and for reasons that people spewed that is clearly propaganda.

As far as this thread goes, Vista vs. XP. This thread is not about having an argument, it is about getting past propaganda people are spewing and looking at the actual facts. So, I'm sure everyone has used XP, and if you are actually considering Vista. Go get the 30-day trial (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=c2c27337-d4d1-4b9b-926d-86493c7da1aa&displaylang=en) and actually try it for a full 30 days and then decide. Going and looking at it for 5 minutes and then deciding is a good way to not like anything.

mistergrimm

08-19-2007, 05:57 PM

And which OS has those features? Oh, none? Imagine that.

Oh and on the side of file renaming, at least Vista unlike XP only selects the filename instead of the filename and extension.

Like I said, I wasn't going to list off a bunch of things. I listed some things that taking 5 minutes you will find and things that now after about 6 months of using I find very useful over XP.

Are you a developer? I'm guessing not as you are assuming that they would do all this extra crap. Oh, rename it from explorer.exe to winshell.exe? why? Are included games really that important? How do you know it isn't a better kernel? Have you even tried looking?

memory hog? How's that? right now Vista and programs are actively using 1/4 of my RAM. The other 3/4 is being used to cache programs I use the most. That's not being a memory hog, that is using memory effectively. There's no point in having empty RAM, might as well cache programs so they don't have to be pulled from the HDD when you start them.

So, I'm not going to respond to you again, as it's clear you've got your mind set on hating Vista and for reasons that people spewed that is clearly propaganda.

As far as this thread goes, Vista vs. XP. This thread is not about having an argument, it is about getting past propaganda people are spewing and looking at the actual facts. So, I'm sure everyone has used XP, and if you are actually considering Vista. Go get the 30-day trial (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=c2c27337-d4d1-4b9b-926d-86493c7da1aa&displaylang=en) and actually try it for a full 30 days and then decide. Going and looking at it for 5 minutes and then deciding is a good way to not like anything.

I'm not even gonna waste my time further on you, your blinded by the shiny buttons and GUI. Actually I've tried this on a friend's PC for a good hour and on a laptop and it sucks, not 5 minutes as you always assume. Your just a Vista fan that will defend it's flaws no matter what, well guess what? it's the ME of today, and thats a cold hard fact.

It seems Microsoft's aim for having a "good" OS is a pretty GUI, instant search (their live searches suck), and whatsoever, too lazy to think of any good features that will push them forward to even more success and crush their rivals out of the competition. Have you seen Linux Edge? thats just as good as a desktop can get, and thats how pretty its gonna get, all these shiny and transparency stuff has been done and seen before in many programs that are released today. It doesn't matter how good you look, it matters of how functional, compatible, stable, flawless it is, and Vista can only make half of it which is a disappointment for being long-in-development.

The only and only thing Vista has over XP is DX10, but of course XP has a hacked version of DX10 so they are basically even.

rileyper

09-07-2007, 06:28 PM

Depends

New computer, I recommend Veesta (make sure you have 2gigs mem or above)
Computer bought between 2004-2006 XP
Before 2004 Windows 2000

vahnx

09-11-2007, 02:00 AM

If you have the hard drive space, dual-boot and try each for yourself. There are many tutorials on how to dual boot XP and Vista on Google. And no matter which way you dual-boot, it's possible to undo the dual-boot if you wanna stick with just Vista or just XP. I only have 80GB so I have to constantly back up my media because having both Vista and XP takes up HDD space. Some apps must be installed on each partition though, but most can be accessed from the same partition.

therage800

09-11-2007, 06:03 AM

I'm not even gonna waste my time further on you, your blinded by the shiny buttons and GUI. Actually I've tried this on a friend's PC for a good hour and on a laptop and it sucks, not 5 minutes as you always assume. Your just a Vista fan that will defend it's flaws no matter what, well guess what? it's the ME of today, and thats a cold hard fact.

You're pretty much a hypocrite, you are obviously blinded yourself (Linux, maybe?) No matter what your going to argue against it, your opinion will not and can not change. Granted the same probably goes for darknessgp.

BTW, I do like Vista but have no intention of arguing the never ending debate with you, but I will point out that 1 hour is just as good as 5 minutes. 5 minutes is a metaphor, it takes days, even weeks, to learn to like an OS. I'll admit that I like Vista but I didn't for the first couple weeks. I will also admit though that Vista was not ready to be released... However once it's set up and the glitches are worked out it works great.

As for it being a memory hog, yes it is, technically, but technically it's not. Unless you have the memory leak glitch. But what you have to realize is that Vista takes advantage of the current state of technology although to many older systems aren't built with enough RAM (AT LEAST 2 GIGS) also it is true that new distros of Linux still don't require that much, but they are evolving differently than Vista. Is it a bad thing, yes I'll agree that it is but it wont be a problem if you realize it when you build/buy/upgrade your PC for Vista. My laptop came with 1 gig which I used for about 6 months, it was functional but it did have frustratingly slow issues, however I just upgraded to 2 gigs, Vista now runs flawlessly and smoothly.

I even had the memory leak problem, a problem that it seems many people are having but most people haven't seem to have worked out yet. If anyone here has it let me know because I may have a fix, it worked on my install anyway.

3pc-n

09-27-2007, 03:53 PM

idk i love vista its the shat i think but there is some bugs in it but i allso run vista ultimate so idk about the other versions of vista but i would run vista over xp anyday but if your worried about it just dual boot and play with vista and if you like it then just switch over... but everyone has there opinion of vista sooo....:D

caesariv

10-06-2007, 02:59 PM

If dual-booting is an option then i would definitely say do that, otherwise Vista Ultimate 64-bit just because you can.

scienceking

10-07-2007, 01:56 AM

XP is for me, mainly because I am a Linux/Mac user mostly who only uses windows when I need to. I can make a lightweight XP image and boot it on any of my machines if I need to in VMWare. Vista does not work nearly as well for this.
If I were running widows primarily, I'd probably do vista, as its features like the powershell would be really nice to have in a primary OS. I would still recommend that windows developers stick to XP as their dev environment and only use vista for testing, though, as when I did run an MSDN copy of vista business on my laptop, I would have some pretty nasty buggy behavior with some development tools like Cadence and LabView. I've heard some bad things about other professional software packages like Solid Edge too, but have not tried them myself.
So perhaps, if you depend on your computer for a living, its best to be conservative and leave it to time tested software. Otherwise, go all out. I would still recommend making a good backup image of your Vista install as I had some pretty nasty issues come up with my copy that caused some serious registry/OS corruption. I'm certain they have fixed most of this stuff a long time ago, but you can never be too careful.

ryudo

10-07-2007, 06:01 AM

I have XP with the shiny look and some features of vista so I am good.

kuyaglen

10-09-2007, 08:57 AM

I have XP with the shiny look and some features of vista so I am good.

The only feature in vista I'm interested in is DX10. Though after seeing the images from hardocp's comparison of DX10 vs DX9 in WiC, I may hold off on upgrading to vista.

scienceking

10-10-2007, 12:35 AM

Hopefully MS does whats right for the consumer and extends DX10 support to XP. There is no technical reason why it should be Vista only, and I think its Vista only status at this point is only going to make developers think its not worth jumping into as their primary platform any time in their future planning...

Although I might secretly enjoy this situation, being an OpenGL guy. <_<

beta7

10-21-2007, 11:45 PM

darknessgp

10-22-2007, 03:03 AM

Just use both man, I've got vista when i bought a new pc and guess what, I love it! but at the same time i hate it because software just isn't there man. The hardware reached new advancements years ago the os just got there last year and the software well give it another 2 years lol.

What software in particular? I hear a lot of people use this complaint but I'm running Vista, and I have yet to run into any software that will not work with it.

scienceking

10-22-2007, 12:08 PM

What software in particular? I hear a lot of people use this complaint but I'm running Vista, and I have yet to run into any software that will not work with it.

Mind you, not everyone uses a bunch of consumer+entertainment+basic multimedia software and then CS3 tacked on like most geeks around these parts seem to. Almost any major engineering software package has weird issues in Vista that do not exist in XP. NI Labview, Cadence packages, just a ton. I hear that mechanical engineers have it worse. Some unix extension packages for windows essential for people who do technical work don't work well or at all under vista too.

And those are just examples from my work area. I am certain many other technical packages in other professional areas suffer similar problems. And yes, usually these problems are vendor side. But it doesn't matter! I need my engineering software to work, so even if its my software that has a bug, in my view, its the OSes problem if it can't run it as well as the last one.

Also, while I was using Vista Business on an old laptop, my Outlook 2007 database got totally messed up after an update...something that has never happened to me in XP, OSX, any of the Linuxes I've used, or even Windows ME. Vista had/has the potential to be a good product, but you really have to take a step back and ask "Why exactly do I put up with ANYTHING when its just a piece of utility software?". The only people who should really use Vista right now IMO are those starved for DX10 content, and I'm not sure that market is mature enough yet to warrant the dollars involved.

mic

10-22-2007, 03:59 PM

Hopefully MS does whats right for the consumer and extends DX10 support to XP.

Supposedly DX10 was made available for WinXP.

To the topic; I really don't see the point of upgrading to Vista, other than to say I upgraded to Vista.

The main "feature" seems to be the Vista GUI, which means absolutely nothing to me, like WinXP, I'd turn all those wasting cycles off. If I did want those features, I could have simply installed them on WinXP since they're available.

For me, WinXP is incredibly stable, fast, etc. and I don't want to be an unpaid beta tester for Microsoft, and if I did install Vista, it wouldn't be until there is at least one or maybe two service packs released.

IMO, at this point in time if you have WinXP installed, you're probably better off staying with it.

darknessgp

10-22-2007, 07:17 PM

Supposedly DX10 was made available for WinXP.

To the topic; I really don't see the point of upgrading to Vista, other than to say I upgraded to Vista.

The main "feature" seems to be the Vista GUI, which means absolutely nothing to me, like WinXP, I'd turn all those wasting cycles off. If I did want those features, I could have simply installed them on WinXP since they're available.

For me, WinXP is incredibly stable, fast, etc. and I don't want to be an unpaid beta tester for Microsoft, and if I did install Vista, it wouldn't be until there is at least one or maybe two service packs released.

IMO, at this point in time if you have WinXP installed, you're probably better off staying with it.

1. There is a lot more to Vista than just a GUI. I see your point, but it isn't a main feature. It's just the first thing everyone notices. There are a bunch of little and even unnoticed things it does better than XP, like memory management.

2. Yes, WinXP probably is very stable and fast for you... but is it that stable? Does it reflect what a 7 year old product should? Remember, when XP was released everyone thought it was awful. Hell, I waited until SP2 came out before installing it. XP never was this golden OS that XP fanboys are claiming it to be, it has come a long way since launch.

3. Beta? Have you even tried Vista? Also, they've made many improvements since the actual beta of Vista.

Oh and in response to scienceking's "Hopefully MS does whats right for the consumer and extends DX10 support to XP."

How is that "whats right for the consumer"? I agree it would be great if they had DX10 support in XP, or if they even extended it out to other OSes. But the fact of the matter is there is a reason DX10 is Vista only, and I'd venture a guess it's a lot more than just "making consumers upgrade to Vista." Do you know how many gaming companies are pissed at Microsoft because they cut out part of the PC market from DX10?

All in all, scienceking's response to my previous post is correct. The issue with Vista right now is lack of support from software developers. Is this Microsoft's problem? No, it isn't. Software developers have had the time to adjust there programs, and some of them would only take minor tweaking. The core issue of it is, some software developers don't see enough of their consumers moving to Vista, so they ignore it. In which this causes people to not use Vista as program X isn't supported.

vahnx

10-27-2007, 04:57 PM

tokeafatj

10-27-2007, 08:48 PM

Make bill gates stand in a free cheese line!

rudy_627

10-28-2007, 04:05 AM

meh vista imo sucks... too much of a RAM hog... for now i have no problems running xp pro

darknessgp

10-29-2007, 04:18 AM

The thing is, what does Vista do that XP can't already do? Vista seems like a bogged down version of XP with many driver issues, and a few extras which you can get XP to do if you Google around. You can easily make XP look like Vista and add in the instant search. As of now I find XP more reliable to do what I do on an every day basis.

You can also say the same for the new OSX version. What does it really do that the previous one doesn't? Hell, same thing for the win98 to win2000 gap. There is very little difference on the surface.

Rudy_627, if you are speaking of "superfetch" you sir are mistaken. caching frequently used programs does not mean it's a memory hog. It means it is using memory efficiently. If it's not being used for something you are just wasting the power to keep it in that state, might as well preload a program that you use a lot. If you are claiming that the OS itself is a memory hog, that's a point of view. Vista actually has a processes that manages the desktop, this allows things like doing windows+tab and seeing the active windows and their current state. In XP, the windows are only drawn when they are active. There are some 3rd party software to be the desktop management process, but they tend to heavily bog down XP, as the system wasn't designed do that functionality. But you are correct, it uses more memory than XP, does that make it a hog? Hardly, it seems to give up memory when programs ask for it. Hog implies that it is locking processes out of using memory that is not functionally needed at the moment, something Vista does not do.

rudy_627

10-29-2007, 02:51 PM

Well I used it on a laptop *gasp*(i know vista + laptops = disaster) the laptop i use is kind of out dated its an HP Pavilion zv5000 laptop... not bad but it just cant run vista and thats why i dont like vista all too much... when i meant it was a hog well it was moreso a hog for me but for desktop PC's (like the one i am using) when they run vista and if they have the right amount of RAM i have no troubles with it... maybe it was just the laptop experience i had that kinda gave me mixed feelings on vista...

vahnx

10-29-2007, 03:33 PM

OMG, they are copying M$'s strategy for world domination!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gtSDlSVDibA

http://youtube.com/watch?v=gtSDlSVDibA

blacklabelsk8erx

11-30-2007, 12:58 AM

I would say stick to XP for as long as possible. Ride it out til 2012 if necessary. DX10 is just a schtick from MS to pull people to the next version. And already they're promising Windows 7 will be the pinacle of tight code and efficiency.

I have to say, any OS that needs 1 gig of ram for basic functionality and 2 gigs for "heavy" use, is severely bloated. I'm not even trying to touch the Aero, because thats just eye-candy really. There were all these statements that the unified graphics system was gonna really improve performance and then there were the promises of a new file system. One that would actually increase efficiency in storage and decrease search times and it never arrived.

Honestly, I think the proprietary software model is nearing the end of its effective lifetime and its time for it to take the backseat to OSS for the next 20 years. Let it become the *nix of today and power our servers, but for desktop experience, seamless integration between programs, the OS, and the web...the future is OSS.

I use XP reluctantly when I have no other options, but when available I drop it for Linux, simply because I enjoy the freedom of choice in my entire user experience. The best solution is clever use of Virtualization. Perhaps Windows will be able to say its accomplished something with 7, but I wouldn't hold my breath. If 7 doesn't fly, MS is gonna die.

In other news, Linux is pretty and functional.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OztyX6po4F8

darknessgp

11-30-2007, 03:30 AM

...
I have to say, any OS that needs 1 gig of ram for basic functionality and 2 gigs for "heavy" use, is severely bloated.
...

Umm, I wonder if people during the 95 to 98 switch made a similar statement. As 95 recommended 8 MB of RAM and 98 recommended a staggering 24 MB of RAM.

buttgnome

11-30-2007, 12:12 PM

Ok u guys want to know? Vista is way worse that XP!! Vista can't run older games and programs! Plus on the other hand half of the computers they make can't even run it and all the warnings and shit!! Vista is god awfull!!

ultrapiggy

11-30-2007, 12:22 PM

Vista is horrible for me. My computer is the slowest ever because it can't handle the OS, and it was supposed to have been made to be able to run Vista. Security updates are constanly popping up, FORCING me to shut down, or else there's a timer that counts down until the computer restarts itself. Every update slows down my computer even more. I used to have Office XP, but that won't run because it wasn't built for Vista. I had to buy a new printer (I needed a new one anyway) because of Vista. None of my older games will run on it, either.

Basically, Vista just sucks.

xibalba

11-30-2007, 06:28 PM

Talk about old games not running on vista I don't get it all mine do same with programs. The few that didn't one little adjustment in setting and they did start working.

blacklabelsk8erx

11-30-2007, 10:26 PM

Umm, I wonder if people during the 95 to 98 switch made a similar statement. As 95 recommended 8 MB of RAM and 98 recommended a staggering 24 MB of RAM.

Sure, what you're saying is true, just so long as you also note that was before we were dealing with high data streams of video and audio, and complex 3D geometry.

I'd say that once CPU's hit 1GHz and we started dealing with these types of processes, the actual tasks have pretty much leveled out, just gotten more complex through high densities (i.e. HD quality signal, higher bitrate audio, multichannel audio, shader programs, etc.)

That's why so much of Vista is just unneeded fluff. We don't need transparent windows when the much more important aspect would be to have Windows actually handle alerts and background/foreground transitions in an intelligent way. Or an actual integrated way to take advantage of virtual desktops without having to add on a clumsy PowerToy. No, no, now we can see the windows through the titlebar! And yet they still don't interact in any efficient or more productive manner than they ever have really. It's not just performance, it's usablility issues that I grapple with when it comes to the Vista vs. XP debate. Until Microsoft actually steps back and looks at the "big picture" and thinks about functionality over form they're just gonna keep adding unneeded paint to an already over saturated canvas.

darknessgp

12-01-2007, 04:05 AM

...
That's why so much of Vista is just unneeded fluff. We don't need transparent windows when the much more important aspect would be to have Windows actually handle alerts and background/foreground transitions in an intelligent way. Or an actual integrated way to take advantage of virtual desktops without having to add on a clumsy PowerToy. No, no, now we can see the windows through the titlebar! And yet they still don't interact in any efficient or more productive manner than they ever have really. It's not just performance, it's usablility issues that I grapple with when it comes to the Vista vs. XP debate. Until Microsoft actually steps back and looks at the "big picture" and thinks about functionality over form they're just gonna keep adding unneeded paint to an already over saturated canvas.

Have you actually used Vista or researched into what is in the back-end stuff? I'll agree with you that they didn't do anything great to improve functionability over XP, but there were a lot of back-end stuff that was fixed/optimized that the user will never see.

I agree it would be nice to have some features built-in, like virtual desktops even though I hate them (I just can't get used to them.) I just don't understand how you can say it's "Vista vs. XP" and complain about it's usability (throwing out lazy software developers software) when they function very similarly.