PDA

View Full Version : Windows XP Vs. Vista



Ryan Fitton
02-21-2007, 11:22 AM
I was wondering if i should upgrade to vista? But my PC is running XP and there is nothing wrong wiith it! So what is so good about Vista anyway, Well it must good, it took the guys at microsoft 6 years to make! So do you think I should upgrade to vista? :confused:

BLiZZaRD
02-21-2007, 02:11 PM
I have the same battle at work with my boss. She wants to upgrade and I am telling her no.

Besides Vista isn't fully supported yet by all companies that do things for MS (i.e. virus protection, DirectX compatibility, etc etc) you must make sure your machine can even run it.

They are asking for minimum specs to be 1 gig RAM, but you really should have at least 2 gig, 4 gig looking more and more like it should be the minimum, A graphics card equal to the latest VooDoo model, and other expensive hardware.


And yet MS is still fully supporting, upgrading and backing Win XP for at least the next 7 years.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If you really want to upgrade, I would at least wait til the first or second major service pack release.

thetestingsite
02-21-2007, 03:15 PM
At work, we are trying to put out a memo saying that we do not support Vista (at least until SP 2 comes out). So far, we have had problems with setting up Wireless Connections, Dial up connections, etc on Vista. Then, the customer blames us for not having it fixed yet.

*stops rambling*

Anyways, it's more of a matter of opinion whether or not you should upgrade. Just keep in mind what Blizzard said about getting a machine that can run it.
Hope this helps.

Ryan Fitton
02-21-2007, 03:20 PM
I know my machine can run it, my laptop can also run it because they have both got Windows Vsita Capaple On them.

My Desktop is a Compaq Presario (dunno which model) And my lapop is a Toshiba M70. :) :eek:

Merciless
02-21-2007, 06:16 PM
Vista does include one thing that is soon going to be almost necessary, Directx10, Direct x 10 though will not have much to do with anything unless you buy one of nvidias new 8800's or 8800gx (768mb video card) at which point vista would cause graphical destruction (in a good way) to everything you do. With new games coming out saying they are built for directx 10 without it you'll probably get left in the dust, as for the 4gb of ram, maybe, but not quite yet, 2gb will fullfill the needs quite easily. You will want to wait a little while, but you arent going to lose a whole lot by getting it if you have the money to spare, for business purposes i dont think vista is ready yet, but for home entertainment its about to revolutionize the market, take your pick.

PS
So far, we have had problems with setting up Wireless Connections, Dial up connections, etc on Vista. Then, the customer blames us for not having it fixed yet. I dont know many people that should be setting up dial up connections on windows vista, what a bunch of rednecks :)

PS 2 : whats good about vista? more built in features, : improvements to standard windows programs all the way down to microsoft paint, along with windows movie maker also seeing durastic improvements, : cool desktop features like pc monitoring and little memos (i could use some of those) supposedly better security (which im sure they've been getting a truckload of complaints about) : DirectX 10 (see above) : straight up better looking : improved performance of your computer : better rationing of computer hardware properties : faster disk defragmentation ( dont know if this matters to you ) : better multi-screen support (also dont know if this matters to you) : Improved overall computer control (more customizable options)

Reasons not to : your hardware is outdated and will not run it, or vista will not support the kinds of programs you are using or the work you are doing, along with lack of drivers for hardware (windows vista comes with a "rater" that tells you how many stars out of 10 they think your computer is for running windows vista)
General problems that microsoft will not fix until Service pack 2 like they said before. such as security problems or drivers for hardware or software (business or games) : example : call of duty games do not have sound on windows vista due to lack of support : problem (fixed) with turbo tax for miscoded calculations :

If you can tell me what you use your computer for and what its stats are (processor, ram, video card) i can tell you whether or not it would be a good idea. your situation refines the ideals or problems with vista, most likely the people on these forums will not support it because they are conservative :) <3 dynamic drive

PS#3: blizzard what do you mean the latest voodoo model, voodoo is a computer company (now owned by HP) that makes computers, Nvidia and Ati are the only ones making the chipsets . care to elaborate? ::: maybe you meant to say the latest Nvidia model, with their new directx 10 hardware meant to work hand in hand with vista (leaving Ps3 , xbox360, and Wii in the graphical dust)

thetestingsite
02-21-2007, 06:24 PM
I dont know many people that should be setting up dial up connections on windows vista, what a bunch of rednecks :)

It's mostly older, retired customers that use the dialup. (Because the high speed DSL is from the devil) :)

Anyway, a lot of those above mentioned people are the ones that call about "how do I turn this computer on?" and "I can't play my freecell, is your server down?" Stuff like that.

Twey
02-21-2007, 07:30 PM
Hahaha :D

Before making a decision to "buy" Vista based on its fitness as a media centre, one would do well to read Peter Gutmann's now-famous A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html).

BLiZZaRD
02-21-2007, 07:46 PM
VooDoo Graphics Cards (http://www.migman.com/hw/display/3DFX/voodoo3_3000AGP.htm)

Nvida took over 3dFx's intellectual rights, put their inferior sets on the VooDOO name, dropped the price, and all the hard core gamers got pissed. The product was yet another Nvida slack off attempt at trying to reach the serious gaming market.

If you try real hard you can still get a VooDoo Card (a real one) which is far superior to anything ATI or the parent Nvida i putting out.

Back to the issue though...

Having a machine that is "Vista Capable" merely means that it is upgradeable to Vista requirements. What you want to look for is one marked "Vista Ready"

Hope it helps :)

techno_race
03-03-2007, 03:54 AM
I already upgraded.

chen2dynamicdrive
03-06-2007, 07:18 AM
I am afraid that Vista has many problems.:)

eXceed69
03-06-2007, 08:21 AM
For now xp much more reliable unless you had a processor that support vista for application maximize.

pcbrainbuster
03-06-2007, 08:29 AM
Lol- the first time i heard of vista i went over excited and i couldn't stop spreading the news about it and slowly as time passed i starting actually fearing going to vista i am probably get it in summer or sumthing...

mburt
03-06-2007, 12:31 PM
I'm not getting it period... apparently most of the upgrades are only aesthetic (visual). As soon as I get another harddrive I'm getting Linux... probably Kubuntu, but I'm not sure yet.

jscheuer1
03-06-2007, 03:00 PM
I'm surprised I just noticed this thread so, I may be repeating what others have said. I just voted for XP. I would qualify that by saying Vista may be the most appropriate Windows OS in certain individual situations/group settings.

However, due to hardware requirements and software limitations (MS own applications are not all fully Vista friendly yet), in most cases it would be best to wait. I get the impression that Vista, being so new, is a bit like Windows itself was at first - buggier than a swamp. Let MS get over itself on this one and chill a bit on the hype, get the kinks worked out and then, if you have the hardware - go for it if you are so inclined.

I'm thinking this may take MS more than a few months to deal with so, waiting until summer may be a bit optimistic. There are always other decent OS's out there. Windows is not the only game in town.

DanielSmith
03-11-2007, 08:12 AM
I don't it is nessasary to upgrade if current computer and system can meet your needs.

Twey
03-11-2007, 12:48 PM
I don't it is nessasary to upgrade if current computer and system can meet your needs.Unfortunately, in the Microsoft world, that's not always true. For example, I'm fairly sure Office 13 will run only on Windows Vista, and that its default file format will be unreadable by any previous versions of Office (and the layouts of files in their formats will probably be mangled when loaded with Office 13).

TheBigT
03-11-2007, 04:15 PM
I wouldn't switch to Vista until they come out with a service pack which fixes most of the bugs. I would rather use something that works rather than using something that is filled with bugs.


PS:

As soon as I get another harddrive I'm getting Linux... probably Kubuntu, but I'm not sure yet.

Same with me, except I am an ubuntu person.

BLiZZaRD
03-11-2007, 04:22 PM
Service Pack? But Vista is "The most secure OS ever" - Bill Gates

ROTF!

Anyway, long discussion, many times over on this forum. Vista is a no go for those who know anything about computers. (I just ordered an Alienware laptop and had to pay EXTRA to get XP instead of vista!)

Vista and MS have tricked the masses once again, and the confusion starts with the computer hardware. If your computer is marked "Vista Capable" it means it is NOT ready for Vista, but with some upgrades it will hold it. "Vista Ready" means it contains minimum specs to run Vista.

I wouldn't get Vista (ever) until you have a computer that can not only hold Vista, but Run everything about the upgraded system as well.

This means a high end (possibly dual) graphics card(s) - Nvidia minimum. 4 GIG RAM, most applications will take at leas 3 to run good. MS wants 4 gig to run all apps smoothly. the 1 gig mention means Vista will boot and run applications. If you only have 1 gig, prepare for Vista running and opening apps like win95.

You will also need SATA HDs running 7200 rpm, not 5400. dual core processors, and a max of 4 PCI slots full. Any more and you will max your cachedRAM.

Besides MS announced it is going to release upgrades/updates/programs and support for XP for at least the next 7 years.

jnscollier
03-11-2007, 04:25 PM
I'm holding off on Vista...

boxxertrumps
03-11-2007, 05:50 PM
I've sworn off MS entirely. But im torn on the 360...

thetestingsite
03-11-2007, 05:56 PM
MS announced it is going to release upgrades/updates/programs and support for XP for at least the next 7 years.

Well that's good, perhaps by then they will have a Service Pack out for some of the simple bug fixes or something. Then again, probably within that 7 year period they will come out with the next version of Windows. (Windows Vienna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_%22Vienna%22))

Anyways (Blizzard), you are right about Microshaft fooling the masses into getting a new Vista PC (or Laptop). Half of our customers (with the ISP) have already purchased them and could not get their dial-up working on it. Then, when we get it working (able ping out stuff), they can't get online using IE7. (I'm gonna stop rambling now)

magicyte
12-10-2008, 10:36 PM
Heh, I don't really see how Vista is SOOO bad *<cough> SARCASM </cough>* I mean, come on! MS can't be THAT BAD (;)).

Oh, well. I just want a really good operating system:

- powerful
- good appearance
- fast
- clean
- simple

Are there any OSs that exist with the above yet?! I love Vista's graphics. I wish that MS could make XP with the Vista graphics.

-magicyte

Medyman
12-11-2008, 04:30 AM
They are asking for minimum specs to be 1 gig RAM, but you really should have at least 2 gig, 4 gig looking more and more like it should be the minimum, A graphics card equal to the latest VooDoo model, and other expensive hardware.

Tell me about it..
My dad recently bought a brand new laptop with 1G Ram and Vista. It's sooo slow. I'm really not a Vista fan.

There is no way I'm getting a Vista PC. I have a couple machines on XP and they're staying that way as long as they're alive. My current main laptop is starting to get old though. I can feel its in its final months. I'm 100% going for a Mac. No Vista for me.

Twey
12-11-2008, 03:38 PM
Oh, well. I just want a really good operating system:

- powerful
- good appearance
- fast
- clean
- simpleUbuntu? Fedora? Heck, Mac OS X?

hmsnacker123
12-12-2008, 06:23 AM
Windows XP defo.

magicyte
12-12-2008, 10:43 PM
Ubuntu

I've been thinking about that for a while. Also, should I get it on a laptop or a desktop? I'm guessing you'll say desktop, considering it may possibly be faster. Any who, I'm thinking about a laptop because I want portability with my programming and such. Any suggestions?


Windows XP defo.

? Explanation, please

-magicyte

Medyman
12-13-2008, 05:30 PM
? Explanation, please

defo = definitely
Come on magicyte, that was an easy one to decipher.

BLiZZaRD
12-14-2008, 03:07 PM
Well, although I have the quad core Intell QX6800, and the Nvidia 9800GTX video cards and 1 TB HDD and 9 gig ram, Vista isn't so bad really.

Did I just say that?

It does everything I need it to do, and with the hardware it is very fast. I load CS4 PhotoShop in 3 seconds, I downloaded season 1 of House MD the other day, 8.9 gig in 24 minutes. It does my Flash and Internet and downloads/uploads for my websites, so I don't have any complaints.

It runs Oblivion and Morrowind and Evidence without a hitch so to me it's just another GUI based OS.

I still prefer Fedora though, but I have yet to get another TB HDD to try it out on my new system.

Nile
01-20-2009, 11:20 PM
There's nothing wrong with Vista.. It's got more security than any other windows os.

Twey
01-21-2009, 01:20 AM
And more DRM, to boot.

jscheuer1
01-21-2009, 01:22 AM
It's the Apple of MS's eye alright, requires high end equipment, and delivers on that - with some degradation in all those resources being used for the heavy security. But if you want security and superior performance + the ability to test and work in both Windows and Mac, just get a new Mac. For the money, at least as I imagine it, the far better deal.

There is one slight flaw in this logic, which is that Mac's security is security through obscurity.

However, I think that my next box will be a Mac, and I've been a confirmed Windows guy for like forever.

One nice thing is that we do have choices. Another plus for Mac is that it can probably also easily run 'nix.

Schmoopy
01-21-2009, 01:29 AM
There's nothing wrong with Vista.. It's got more security than any other windows os.

More security maybe, but that's half the problem - it gets in the way so much, to do anything you need to say "unblock" and "allow" all the time which gets really annoying, I know you can switch it off, but I think they went a little too far into trying to keep it virus free.

Also, it's a very resource hungry OS, you need 1.5GB of RAM just to keep it ticking along, and at the end of the day who cares about flashy graphics that slide and do animations if it's going to be less efficient? I know some people will, but I really don't care about the graphics, just as long as it works.

It's what's so annoying about new OSs, they keep trying to make them look more modern with new animations and things that are really not necessary, and every time they add another effect it's just more code, further decreasing efficiency.

Although, I have to say that Macs have somewhat disproved that point, as they have cool effects but yet still maintain a good speed that doesn't lag in many ways. But then again they're not so easy to customise =/

Twey
01-21-2009, 01:56 AM
One nice thing is that we do have choices. Another plus for Mac is that it can probably also easily run 'nix.Mac OS X is 'nix — it's Darwin BSD with a proprietary layer on top. It's no easier to install a Linux or other operating system on a Mac than on a PC, though.
More security maybe, but that's half the problem - it gets in the way so much, to do anything you need to say "unblock" and "allow" all the time which gets really annoying, I know you can switch it off, but I think they went a little too far into trying to keep it virus free.Not quite. The security itself is fine: it's reasonable to require confirmation (and, preferably, a password) for risky actions. The problem is that Windows applications are used to running with administrator privileges, and many of them therefore require administrator privileges to do things that they needn't. Really, only the initial installation process should be system-wide: the day-to-day running shouldn't need to do anything that requires greater-than-user privileges. This is the system used by Linux and other UNIX-style operating systems, and it works well.
Also, it's a very resource hungry OS, you need 1.5GB of RAM just to keep it ticking along, and at the end of the day who cares about flashy graphics that slide and do animations if it's going to be less efficient? I know some people will, but I really don't care about the graphics, just as long as it works.There are, traditionally, three types of performance usage:Necessary, where the performance goes towards implementing vital features; Bloat, where the performance goes towards implementing interesting but perhaps not so useful features (this usually being optional); and Crud, where the performance is lost accidentally through poor coding or design practices, and doesn't bring any real features in exchange.My main issue with Vista is that Microsoft have introduced a whole new category:Theft, where the performance goes towards implementing mandatory features for the benefit of the manufacturer and other parties, which actually restrict what the user can do on their own machine.Effectively, it means that Microsoft are using your own computing power against you. That's kind of like stealing some of your money and using it to buy a gun with which to shoot you in the foot. In no way can it be condoned. Microsoft, of course, insist that it's not their fault and that the big corporations who make money out of attempting to prevent copyright infringement are forcing their hand, but I note that this has never been the case before: why should they suddenly change their minds? Whoever's behind it, it leads to a less-than-wonderful system. The interface, too, is particularly restrictive. This has always been an issue with Microsoft products: it's simply good coding practice to build one abstraction layer on top of another, allowing the user to fall back a layer if the upper layer proves insufficient, but Microsoft have failed to do this, removing command-line support almost entirely from their operating system, and have thereby taken it upon themselves to attempt to define in the GUI every operation that a user will ever want to perform with the operating system. Unsurprisingly, the abstraction is incomplete, though this in itself represents no great failure on Microsoft's part: classical GUIs are originally flawed in that they disallow chaining and re-use of components, and will therefore always be incomplete in some way.

*coughs and steps down off the soap-box*

brycen
02-03-2009, 05:30 AM
I think vista works far better than xp less problems than xp also people that bash vista haven't used it or did not give it time also heard bad things about vista .

Twey
02-03-2009, 06:45 AM
Certainly there are some great technical improvements in it (compared to earlier Windows operating systems). If only they hadn't counteracted them with all that cruft.

robin9000
02-04-2009, 02:11 AM
Vista just to start is a true 64bit operating system. What this means is that from my understanding it makes for quicker data access to your harddrive.
When you ask if you should go with Vista or XP this really dose not have a simple anseaw to it because there are 5 different Vista vershions out there. What you need to do is look at the vershion that you are interested in and then make sure that your labtop is compatable with that vershion of Vista.

I would personally think Vista to be a better O.S. but on the other hand Why not just wait for Windows 7. Did you know Vista was Called Longhorn before it was Released? I wonder what they are going to call Windows 7 by the time they release it.

Twey
02-04-2009, 04:56 AM
Did you know Vista was Called Longhorn before it was Released?Yes. I preferred the theme in Longhorn, really.
there are 5 different Vista vershions out there.Six versions, actually: Starter, Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate. This adding of artificial limitations for profit purposes is yet another business principle of Microsoft's with which I disagree.
Vista just to start is a true 64bit operating system.As is XP 64-Bit, and various versions of Linux since 1994.
What this means is that from my understanding it makes for quicker data access to your harddrive.... no, no it doesn't. It allows for more data to be passed per cycle (bigger instructions) which effectively means bigger pointers and less chunking for intensive arithmetic. The exact effects of this on performance are complex, but in most cases it boils down to being marginally slower in normal situations, but handling far better under situations involving a lot of arithmetic. This is the reason PPC Macs became popular for media manipulation. It has absolutely no effect on hard-drive access speed. It does, however, allow for addressing more memory.

techno_race
02-15-2009, 02:37 AM
My advise is to NOT install Windows Vista. Windows 7 is scheduled to be released in June, they seem serious about the release date, and the beta looks promising. You might as well just wait for its release.

techno_race
02-15-2009, 02:48 AM
Oh, and yes, I downgraded. Since it tried to kill me, I withdraw my vote for Vista. XP all the way!

X96 Web Design
02-24-2009, 01:35 AM
Unfortunately, our computer came with Vista.

XP is definitely what you want. Depending what you want Vista to do, it's basically useless. From my experience, it freezes constantly, and they've focused on looks more than usability.

This is why Windows 7 came out - to make up for Vista. It looks like Vista, but has XP in the background, so it works, and looks good.

And if you don't rely on Windows software, Get a MAC (http://www.apple.com/mac), or Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com) (Linux).

Cheers,
//X96 WD

Twey
02-24-2009, 04:25 PM
And if you don't rely on Windows software, Get a MAC, or Ubuntu (Linux).Even if you do, I would recommend using some form of UNIX-like OS, especially if you're a developer. Virtual machines can help a lot here — I've had some success with VirtualBox (http://www.virtualbox.org/). If you need the full power of the underlying machine (i.e. that Windows software on which you rely means 'games' :p [but note too that Wine's support for games is excellent nowadays; some people say it runs faster than Windows]) you can use a *nix VM within Windows; otherwise, you can do it vice versa — I have my mother's computer set up like this, since she's taking a college course that requires MS Office.

brycen
03-05-2009, 04:09 AM
Another vote for XP.It actually works. Vista will just hog all memory and cause compatibility problems in the long run as it is not a very succesfull operating system.And most businesses and universties etc use XP as standard.

Moo Baa
03-18-2009, 11:26 PM
I tried Vista on one of our PC's for 2 months and just couldn't get used to it so took it off again in favour of XP professional.

josephtaylor1995
04-05-2009, 11:47 AM
for now i would stick to xp because not all hardware such as webcams, video capture devices, sound cards and other stuff that you can plug into a computer works with vista yet. :)

edit: and vista is always asking you if you really want to do what you just clicked on.

donjoaoresort
04-08-2009, 10:12 AM
I don't think vista will stay for long time



John

pavan6993
04-19-2009, 02:29 PM
Hi friends,Iím a very satisfied user of Microsoft Vista and Iím using Ultimate edition. I heard this scream before from many people that Vista is a sad OS and its the worst from Microsoft. I just thought of having a try, installed Vista ultimate and Iím using it for almost 10 months now.First of all, Iím very much satisfied with Vista because its very very easy to use and a very friendly operating system.