View Poll Results: Which one?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • Windows XP

    33 86.84%
  • Windows Vista

    5 13.16%
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: Windows XP Vs. Vista

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    SE PA USA
    Posts
    30,495
    Thanks
    82
    Thanked 3,449 Times in 3,410 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    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.
    - John
    ________________________

    Show Additional Thanks: International Rescue Committee - Donate or: The Ocean Conservancy - Donate or: PayPal - Donate

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bristol - UK
    Posts
    842
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 132 Times in 131 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nile View Post
    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 =/

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    英国
    Posts
    11,876
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 180 Times in 172 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    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*
    Twey | I understand English | 日本語が分かります | mi jimpe fi le jbobau | mi esperanton komprenas | je comprends franšais | entiendo espa˝ol | t˘i Ýt hiểu tiếng Việt | ich verstehe ein bisschen Deutsch | beware XHTML | common coding mistakes | tutorials | various stuff | argh PHP!

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    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 .

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    英国
    Posts
    11,876
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 180 Times in 172 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    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.
    Twey | I understand English | 日本語が分かります | mi jimpe fi le jbobau | mi esperanton komprenas | je comprends franšais | entiendo espa˝ol | t˘i Ýt hiểu tiếng Việt | ich verstehe ein bisschen Deutsch | beware XHTML | common coding mistakes | tutorials | various stuff | argh PHP!

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    159
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    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.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    英国
    Posts
    11,876
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 180 Times in 172 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    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.
    Twey | I understand English | 日本語が分かります | mi jimpe fi le jbobau | mi esperanton komprenas | je comprends franšais | entiendo espa˝ol | t˘i Ýt hiểu tiếng Việt | ich verstehe ein bisschen Deutsch | beware XHTML | common coding mistakes | tutorials | various stuff | argh PHP!

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    🌎
    Posts
    528
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    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.
    ....(o_ Penguins
    .---/(o_- techno_racing
    +(---//\-' in
    .+(_)--(_)' The McMurdo 500

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    🌎
    Posts
    528
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Oh, and yes, I downgraded. Since it tried to kill me, I withdraw my vote for Vista. XP all the way!
    ....(o_ Penguins
    .---/(o_- techno_racing
    +(---//\-' in
    .+(_)--(_)' The McMurdo 500

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    303
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 36 Times in 36 Posts

    Default

    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, or Ubuntu (Linux).

    Cheers,
    //X96 WD

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •