Vista vs. Windows XP

[Myzz617]

Yea these applications will always be around because places like hospitals and other spots need applications for people who barely use computers. So simplex apps will always be around..IDK about the whole 1024 bit thing.

But the whole customization thing is only used for those whole want the old style..its like using XP to look like 2K..same concept. Overall I would just go with XP because large organizations are just upgrading to XP and it will take atleast another 3-4 yrs B4 Vista is implemented into businesses who use hundreds of Apps.

 

[michaelvanes]

I voted Vista (Home Basic does me). There's no real innate technological advantage that I'm using Vista for (other than perhaps their new TCP/IP stack setup - though that's quite trivial for all that I use Vista for).

Now a few reasons why I prefer Vista to XP: better search utilities, sexier interface [default XP just seems so old and unattractive], integrated sidebar and DirectX 10.

The final reason why I feel obliged to use Vista over XP is because I feel it necessary to face technological challenges. I mean, I know that there are issues with Vista (especially around compatibility) - but I'm happy enough to deal with that in order to keep up with the latest technology.

 

[Obi-Wan Jerkobi]

XP is my choice, I just want my PC to work. Until Vista is reqired, I won't upgrade. BTW, where's the Linux choice?

 

[Emin]

I personally prefer Windows XP

 

[Mindstormer]

I voted vista. Everyone tends to hate new OS's when they come out, XP was also hated to begin with. I don't think most the arguments against vista are well founded anymore with SP1 out and many of the driver problems resolved.

 

[captaincranky]

Not So Fast.....

I voted vista. Everyone tends to hate new OS's when they come out, XP was also hated to begin with. I don't think most the arguments against vista are well founded anymore with SP1 out and many of the driver problems resolved.

As recently as their May 2008 issue, PCWorld magazine did some file and gaming tests with XP, Vista, and Vista w/ SP1. In the majority of the tests XP outperformed both Vista incarnations. Pick up a copy of the mag, and see what you think.

XP is my choice, I just want my PC to work. Until Vista is reqired, I won't upgrade. BTW, where's the Linux choice?

C'mon Obi-Wan.....This is a M$ vs M$ mediocrity competition. Why confuse everybody with an OS that works. Well, not without some effort, and not with any games peole seem to want to play.

 

[SNGX1275]

As recently as their May 2008 issue, PCWorld magazine did some file and gaming tests with XP, Vista, and Vista w/ SP1. In the majority of the tests XP outperformed both Vista incarnations. Pick up a copy of the mag, and see what you think.

And 98se outperformed XP in nearly everything when XP came out. Unfortunately for us (techspot) we switched boards in Feb 2002, XP came out in October 2001, so all the threads complaining about XP and using 98 for gaming over XP are no longer available. But they did happen, and happened all over computer forums.

When you release a new OS you put capabilities and features into it that take advantage of hardware speed increases and resources, that on top of the Vista approved hardware fiasco makes users of some new computers from retail manufacturers have pretty poor out of the box performance in Vista. When really their hardware isn't good enough for Vista and should be on something like XP or 2000.

 

[tipstir]

I you sure 98SE was faster then XP in what way? That's almost like saying DOS was faster than Win3.11 as GeoWorks Pro was faster than Win3.11. Or you're talking about gaming with 98SE oh..

 

[tipstir]

windows xp

pros

Stability with drivers and software.
The startup is resource is not consuming on cpu.
The graphics arent taking up big resources.

cons

Can not support direct x 10 (built for vista only)
Does not have the latest security allowing security threats like trojans and viruses and hackers.

Windows Vista

pros

Supports the latest security
Supports Direct X 10 and the latest graphics

Cons

Resource consuming on cpu on startup from services,aero style and the rest of the effects
Compatibility Issues- Drivers Such as Sound and Software like Antivirus (However this may change in time due to availability of service packs and updates)

(personal opinion) The graphics look like a mac operating system if i wanted one im sure i would have got one

All this is going to change when Windows 7 hits the streets in 2009 and say goodby e to Vista. Plus most users are stuck in 32-bit world even though 64-bit OS is out not much support for that. The way the trends are going 128-bit might outshine 64-bit OS. Just taking so long for things to get in.. DirectX10 over DirectX9.0c true graphics look better but you got a beef up system and high video card. Almost comes near a MAC Sprint Video Graphics.

 

[SNGX1275]

I you sure 98SE was faster then XP in what way? That's almost like saying DOS was faster than Win3.11 as GeoWorks Pro was faster than Win3.11. Or you're talking about gaming with 98SE oh..

I'm talking about gaming, but I'm sure within explorer itself 98se was more responsive.

Counterstrike speed problems in XP vs 98, also mentions poor driver support in XP.

Vista vs XP with mentions of 98 In response to someone asking if its just a waiting game until Vista becomes faster than XP... "It wont. The performance gap will close, but XP is way friendlier on slower hardware and this wont change. Just as 98se will always be faster than XP (on launch hardware), so will XP be faster than Vista." Which is basically what I said in post #57.

Incredibly similar thread to ones we have on Vista vs XP, but this is comparing 98se, 2000, and XP back in 2002 one quote is "I have never tried XP only b/c i want some of the bugs taken care of. I will wait for a later release before i try that one. Thats the same stuff I see here all the time, but with Vista.

Here is a guy wanting to remove XP and put 98se on his storebought comp.

So this is almost identical to what happened when XP came out, and there were speed and driver problems in XP. The only difference is that there were essentially 3 OS choices back then and now there are 2.

 

[captaincranky]

The Chicken or the Egg......?

M$ is such a monopolistic force in the computer industry, I can't help but be suspicious of their motives behind the release of a new OS.
Since it does obsolete pretty much all previous hardware and (at least for the time being) doesn't outperform XP, or even match it in most cases.

For now at least, there does seem to be a consensus that there aren't sufficient new "whiz bang" features available to offset the monumental bloat built into this OS.

We Techspotters seem to find ways of getting things done with free software, and tweaking. So, basically we find work a rounds for things the average computer user doesn't. Which means for them, purchasing all new software and hardware. I bet they secretly love Vista in the industry boardrooms, with CEOs leeching ideas out of the staff for new "Vista Compatible" items.

The net result for now is that you need all new stuff to get the same work (in most cases LESS) done.

Most of the hype here is capitalism at work, manufacture and sales create jobs, which then people on Wall Street manage to siphon all the money into their pockets.

This year's car model isn't necessarily an improvement over last year's. Although it's always heavier, more bloated, and generally gets worse gas mileage.

If PCWorlds' survey is correct, only half the percentage of people that switched from Windows 2000 to XP have changed from XP to Vista given the same time period after release. (34% vs. 17%) !!! or ??? as the case may be.

Does that mean they're unsatisfied with what Vista has to offer, or just spent out.
Bill Gates is still one of the richest men in the world, and according to all the economic reports, the rich are still getting richer, and the poor are still getting way poorer, way faster. (There aren't enough "way(s)" in that statement) It should read; "the rich are getting way, way, way richer and the poor are getting way, way way poorer". Exxon made 40 billion dollars recently, I wonder if their corporate computers have adopted Vista? Well if they didn't, no biggie, XP pro can count to 40 billion quite easily.

So many purchasing decisions need to be made during a recession. Let's see, should I buy gas, heating oil, food, or medicine, or just piss a couple of grand away on a new computer capable of running Vista. Better buy Vista, we don't want Uncle Bill to go hungry, now do we?

 

[SNGX1275]

Since it does obsolete pretty much all previous hardware and (at least for the time being) doesn't outperform XP, or even match it in most cases.

For now at least, there does seem to be a consensus that there aren't sufficient new "whiz bang" features available to offset the monumental bloat built into this OS.

2000 Professional can do anything XP can do, certain games are artifically limited to XP/Vista now, but like you said in the paragraph below what I quoted that people find workarounds.

I think much of the adoption of XP was because of gaming, at the release of XP the only gaming OS was 98se, 2000 at that time was terrible for gaming. XP addressed that and eventually as new games came out they were designed with XP in mind even if they still ran on 98. I think that if 2000 SP4 was out in October 2001 the adoption to XP would be much like, perhaps worse, than the adoption to Vista.

 

[captaincranky]

Captaincranky's Crazy Concepts.....

When a manufacturer chooses to release a new OS, and with it makes a choice to limit backwards compatibility with respect to both hardware and software, what you have is a defacto form of DRM.
Since M$ choose to inflict WGA on us "for our own good", nobody could possibly mistake that for M$ not acting in it's own interest. Nobody could argue that WGA is anything but DRM.
XP has been around for 7 years, and virtually every program, game, and even XP itself has been cracked. This doesn't even count the people that take legitimately purchased software and "sneak" it onto another machine...er or two.
Now M$ Filght Simulator 2004 has copy protection built into the disc. Meh...so what right? But, Flight Simulator "X", designed for Vista, MUST be activated! I read some reviews, and people seem to think it eats hardware and still doesn't measure up. So if I can sell you a copy of this, to replace your old FS2004, I've made more money from you, and limited your installation options with one fell swoop, Is that good science, or as I suspect business practices equivocal to maintaining a monopolistic control on software. M$ wants to make a new picture compression regimine standard. Then, we'll have to adopt it, and everybody will have to license it. If you ask M$, if it's better than Jpeg, what do you think they'll say? I say it's more DRM!

So, both sides of the Vista vs. XP have valid reasons for point of view, for better or worse. I'm good with that. What I'm not good with is more DRM. Me thinks that Vista is not much more than than an attempt to regain control of the software industry. To suggest that the issue of copy prevention was not a strong motivating factor in the release of Vista is, IMHO naive. After all, now you can't install a driver without WHQL certification. Which I'm guessing takes time, and isn't free.

 

[SNGX1275]

I agree with your DRM statements, and Vista may have been a milestone on some path to renting your OS and software, but I don't believe it will ever get that way. People will jump ship to OS X (which has its own set of restrictions) or Linux, which gets better every year.

 

[captaincranky]

Oh Boy.....

Adobe is, I think, looking toward online only subscription rentals of their software. Within ten years, I think I read somewhere. That scares me profoumdly
It is unfortunate that the gaming industry hasn't embraced Linux yet. But as you said, it gets better every year. Ubuntu is a dozen click install, auto update OS, workable by someone less than a full fledged IT.
Wide scale adoption of Linux would be the best thing that could happen for computer users of all skill levels. But then what? Would the M$ acquisition of Novelle precipitate a legal onslaught by M$ in an attempt to hijack GPL software altogether. They're talking cross platform compatibility now, but I fear they'll try and deliver "LGA" (Linux Genuine Advantage) later. Think about it, since the Linux kernel is open source, there's nothing to prevent modifying Linux APIs to only accept proprietary software. Tell me if you think I'm being too paranoid.:suspiciou
Don't forget, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely! (Lest we get too involved playing Crysis, and find out the hard way)!

 

[cubankid219]

i have vista, i hate it. so many problems.

the only thing that i have found good in vista is the readyboost feature

 

[eafshar]

i only have vista because my dell laptop came with it.. have been pretty satisfied but am pretty sure it would game better if it had xp. i like some of the new features in vista and since I have a fairly decent laptop it runs well. i would say its not worth the upgrade but its not so bad to have to downgrade from.

 

[Gackleman23]

I would prefer Vista over XP for the simple fact that all the upgrades for xp are older updates then vista and that tells ya right there that one day xp will be outdated before vista will so why get something that will be outdated sooner than the other. I have vista and the only problem I have ever had was with a web cam. and it was an easy fix. so i would for sure say vista but other than that vista is very user freindly

 

[captaincranky]

I would prefer Vista over XP for the simple fact that all the upgrades for xp are older updates then vista and that tells ya right there that one day xp will be outdated before vista will so why get something that will be outdated sooner than the other.

Well, what many are doing is skipping Vista altogether and hoping that with Windows 7, M$ will try at least in some small way try to redeem themselves for Vista. BTW, even Intel refused to adopt Vista, said there was no real advantage. Hows, that for "e tu brute". Actually XP Pro is slated for about 7 years of support, and everything goes extinct. If Windows 7 is big improvement over Vista, XP might actually out survive it. A case in point would be Windows ME. There's probably more copies of Win 2000 still in use than the "Mistake Edition".

 

[Gackleman23]

Well, what many are doing is skipping Vista altogether and hoping that with Windows 7, M$ will try at least in some small way try to redeem themselves for Vista. BTW, even Intel refused to adopt Vista, said there was no real advantage. Hows, that for "e tu brute". Actually XP Pro is slated for about 7 years of support, and everything goes extinct. If Windows 7 is big improvement over Vista, XP might actually out survive it. A case in point would be Windows ME. There's probably more copies of Win 2000 still in use than the "Mistake Edition".

yeah i here ya on that but what is so hard for me to understand it that ive been using windows vista home premium for about 2 years now and i have not had any problems except for a phillips web cam. and the problem i cam up with was the phone dialing program that came with it. so i simply through out the program went online and downloaded the driver from phillips and all is good not a big deal at all. so i dont understand whats wrong with out with the old in with the new.

If microsoft didnt feel the need to make a new os then why would they even try. but now windows 7 in the pic, now thats marketing to me. $$$$$$$$$

Dont mean to be against any thoughts just dont understand i guess. lol thank you for viewing my thread.

 

[captaincranky]

It's ALWAYS About the Money........

Well,if you purchased, or built a computer with sufficient hardware to run Vista in the first place, that was a big part of the battle. In the very beginning, the driver situation for Vista was very shaky. But, you may not have installed programs with problems. Many people were lucky, many more were not..
Two things; For gaming XP is still acknowledged to be faster than Vista.
If you want to run a 64Bit OS then Vista seems to be the best choice.

XP has aged gracefully, and at the time of it's original release, available computers were pitifully underpowered by today's standards. So XP does almost as much as Vista (except faster), with a whole lot less waste. The chief 2 things that recommend Vista are it's ability to handle RAM better, (believe it or not), and it's ability to handle the SATA interface natively.

Now, it's always about the money. XP was cracked, and it was adopted too widely for M$ to keep it as their flagship OS. If you could convince everybody to adopt Vista, then you could sell a copy to every XP user, as well as the copies that come with a new PC. The "upgrade" demand for XP had dwindled to almost nil. With those facts in mind, I have no idea whatsoever, where you derive the idea that Windows 7 is greed and Vista was not. Windows 7 is aimed at further refinement, users that have skipped a generation, and a "do-over" of some of the things that really turned people off to Vista". Like UAC Nazi-ism. But yeah, M$ won't be giving it away either.

 

[Kitaro]

Old thread, but I voted Vista.

Prior so Service pack 1, I could understand the anti-vista sentiment. However, currently there's no reason not to have Vista.

Oh, and benchmarks show it is neck and neck with XP in terms of gaming performance. So, when the poster above me said, "For gaming XP is still acknowledged to be faster than Vista", it is completely false.

 

[wolfsbabe]

xp personally. little things with vista bother me. but vista has the advantage of having the virus program built in and being that I have a virus in my computer it is sounding real handy. but beyond that I like xp better.

 

[PaulWuzHere]

I want to vote server 2008... Oh well, its built on vista and my laptop is amazing with home premium! GO BUILD 6000!

 

[LNCPapa]

Interesting read Kitaro - I need to search around and see if any other sites have come to the same conclusions/results. I typically don't like to accept a single source's results for these types of things, but it is very interesting indeed.