What does Vista do better than XP?

I looked through this thread, and there was one thing missing from the OP posts...like what He wants from Vista. Otherwise this is nothing but a crap shoot. It's like saying MS Office should/shouldn't have a particular big function/option/whatchamacallit because one thinks it sucks/doesn't suck. It's completely in the eye of the beholder.

But anyways, most of the stuff that stands out for me is under the hood. Better thread scheduling, much improved memory management, accelerated desktop, I/O prioritization, driver signing, user-mode drivers, start-menu, and much more.
 
Not much. Looks better and feels like a run smoother (and I'm not just talking about the fading windows). Aero is nice. UI is better once you get used to it.

One big difference for me though - when you're using your hard drive heavily, you can load up programs without large delays. For example, you can pretty much load up a web browser as soon as you see your desktop while your hard drive loads up everything it needs to.

Same goes when transferring between the OS drive and another hard drive. When loading up other things, your transfer time is barely effected, where as in XP32, the system goes to hell until that thing is loaded. Doesn't happen in Vista.

I think DX10 will really shine once we get a DX10 only game. Enough DX10 on top of DX9 forcing the system to do more work than it really has to. Let's see what DX10 can really do on its own.
 
New to Vista? You could just check these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Of special interest to me:
Protected Mode IE - Even if an exploit is found the system can't be compromised, can't top that with FF.
Mandatory 64-bit support - Unlike XP64, all drivers for Vista must be released as 32-bit AND 64-bit, so now the average user can actually USE 64-bit
Aero - Looks Nice, and windows don't 'tear' when moving them. Luna looks like crap in comparison.
Integrated Search and All Programs Search - very convenient sometimes
DX10 - The future of graphics now, not much support now but I do like crysis and it uses it.

Someone mentioned bugs, XP was always very buggy for me, Vista has very few on the other hand. Also stability, way less reboots and downtime in Vista I find.

Even with all these features, XP may still offer all you need and you may not have the money to spend, in that case just continue with XP, nobody said everyone had to 'OMG UPGRADE TO VISTA NOW' but it makes sense on new computers and for people who want the new features it offers.
 
Vista is not a big feature leap over XP. Since drivers started becoming good last spring, I have found it to be a little more stable overall. I know that people hate UAC, but the security model in Vista is better than XP. Also, as time marches on, you’ll start seeing more and more Vista only technology. XP for as good as it has been is EOL. While XP will be well supported for years to come, there’s not going to be as much effort from companies, especially Microsoft to get all of the latest and greatest working with XP.

Case in point, the next version of Media Center is going to be Vista only, and that’s an app that’s mission critical in my house. At this point, all of my day to day stuff for my personal systems works just fine in Vista. I still have a work laptop and desktop that are company imaged with XP and I’ll be using XP at work and for work for some time to come.

So at this point it’s really a personal decision. If you have critical hardware and software that won’t work in Vista, it makes no sense to upgrade. Of course, if you have critical hardware and software that’s not Vista compliant by now, you might have other issues as well.

I still have an XP laptop and desktop and will keep them around, but Vista is my everyday OS of choice and I really like it overall.
 
Valnar said:
So my question is -- What does Vista do better than Windows XP?
Click to expand...

Vista protects DRM'ed media better than XP through the protected process. The Windows kernel limits access to these processes to essentially suspending and terminating. These processes cannot be independently verified as to what they are actually doing, because debuggers cannot attach to a protected process. The code bloat to support this may be one of the reasons Vista has performance issues. The kernel is making sure you are not 'hacking' the media appliance you have purchased. These protected processes cannot be allowed to run in a secure location nor would I allow them to run in a corporate environment, since they cannot be verified. Installing an OS that has this concept violates basic security principles. You no longer have the ability to know everything that is running on your PC. The only reason for protected processes is DRM. Microsoft is the the only one that grants access to protected processes through signed drivers and certificates. How long before hackers begin to exploit this new architecture or the protected processes?
 
The Russinovich PP and Wikipedia articles helped a lot - more so than any other post. A lot of changes under the hood, as you say, which certainly explains compatibility problems with many programs that affect architecture, like VPN clients, antivirus, defraggers probably. Anything that used to tie into ring 0.

While this certainly speaks more ill of driver and application developers than Microsoft, they are still not forgiven for making an OS, with those aforementioned features, require excess of 1GB RAM to run efficiently. No matter how you slice it, that's ridiculous. Good thing ram is cheap. (I'm not saying that Vista doesn't run well with 2GB+ RAM, but that Microsoft doesn't deserve a pat on the back for this one).

Robert
 
I don't get the complaining about memory usage at all, to be honest. Every OS before has had higher hardware requirements than its predecessors. Games require more and more hardware resources, often to the point where no system on the market meets their recommended requirements when it is first sold. Take a look at other apps, like Photoshop...and read through there requirements from version to version. I realize you are just reading some good articles about Vista, but one thing you'll come to realize in those articles, is that Vista actually uses the resources you give it.

Someone had it in their sig, but I don't remember who. It was a quote along the lines of, "If you don't want your system memory used, take it out and put it on your desk".
 
I think the problem is that XP isn't missing any need to have features. Everything that is better about vista is just a nice to have and not a need to have.

I don't think any new OS is going to wow anyone for a while. I'm not going to buy a new OS until they start utilizing 64bit and multi core shit, also full control over your bios from windows would be a great feature to have, and a save state shutdown that turns off the computer but when you turn it back on it doesn't have to load the OS just instantly flash back to the state(like the psp can), Fully custmizable install would be cool too.

I'm waiting for shit like this, or until they stop supporting XP. I think Windows just copies everyone else so they can't have anything ground breaking until someone else come up with it first.
 
Valnar said:
The Russinovich PP and Wikipedia articles helped a lot - more so than any other post. A lot of changes under the hood, as you say, which certainly explains compatibility problems with many programs that affect architecture, like VPN clients, antivirus, defraggers probably. Anything that used to tie into ring 0.
Click to expand...
Glad they helped. As a dev, it's pretty easy for me to see why Vista is better--particularly given resources like those. OTOH, it's very easy for me to see how most consumers don't realize any identifiable direct benefit from those features. Coupled with the need to fool with drivers, perhaps buy new hardware, and then pay for the OS upgrade itself, it seems like the value proposition just isn't there. I don't think Vista is a failure as an OS, but I do think that Microsoft did a very poor job choosing the feature set and marketing the product.


Valnar said:
While this certainly speaks more ill of driver and application developers than Microsoft, they are still not forgiven for making an OS, with those aforementioned features, require excess of 1GB RAM to run efficiently. No matter how you slice it, that's ridiculous. Good thing ram is cheap. (I'm not saying that Vista doesn't run well with 2GB+ RAM, but that Microsoft doesn't deserve a pat on the back for this one).
Click to expand...
I've been thinking a lot lately about the system requirements issue. People seem to have some sense of how much memory something should take, much like you're expressing here. How much memory should an OS like Vista require? How did you arrive at that number or range? What is it that drives your perception?
 
Cyrilix said:
I'll start you off: the integrated search.
Click to expand...

That's the one biggest improvement I find too. Search in Vista is much better than any other OS I have used. Security is a good reason to use Vista over XP too. I only use XP as a gaming box now and use Vista for internet etc. because it is more secure out of the box.
 
mikeblas said:
How much memory should an OS like Vista require? How did you arrive at that number or range? What is it that drives your perception?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a developer, but I can speak in layman's terms. I would think there is not a reason to have that much loaded in memory at once. Instead of loading the kitchen sink into RAM, why not load more dynamically as needed? The "core" of Vista takes almost 1GB just to get to solitaire. I find that a little excessive, yes. Linux doesn't have this problem and is also very security conscious. Of course previous Windows versions don't either.

I'm not the first person to suggest this, and there is some indication that Microsoft agrees since they've expressed an interest in making the next version of Windows more modular. They can't continue in this fashion. The code base will become too large to manage patches and updates. Considering how soon Microsoft forecasts Windows 7 to come out, it's quite possible to skip Vista (like 'ME) and not miss anything.

Robert

Edit: Of course, even a modular Windows 7 may take more RAM than 1GB too. Being modular doesn't mean it won't be bloated. Time will tell.
 
Valnar said:
Edit: Of course, even a modular Windows 7 may take more RAM than 1GB too. Being modular doesn't mean it won't be bloated. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Odds are, being more modular will hurt performance for both memory consumption and execution time. If a module (or the service the module represents) may or may not be available at runtime, a decision needs to be made. Ideally, the product could be very smart about what it must have, or how it determines presence. But requiring people to be smart about it doesn't scale well. Because mature operating systems are far larger than any one person can imagine, the interdependencies in the components of such an OS are far larger than any one person can plan, enforce, or verify. Repeatedly performing those actions against the code base during its development simply won't result in productive work.

Instead of loading the kitchen sink into RAM, why not load more dynamically as needed?
Click to expand...
If you research it, you'll find that Windows does perform demand paging of required cdoe. The problem is that the interdependencies are too thick and detailed to possibly manage. It's very hard to write a program for Windows that doesn't cause lots of system components to be loaded into memory--whether they're used or not.

I might write a program that reads files, for instance. Instead of writing my own "file open" dialog box, I'd rather write only a couple of lines of code to cal lthe one provided in the system. That makes a dependency between MyProgram.EXE and CommonDlg.DLL. It turns out the common dialogs DLL supports several common dialogs: choosing fonts, picking colors, and so on. Plus, it supports features that every user comes to expect: connecting to the network to surf for files, finding files quickly in well-known locations like "my documents", renaming files, drag-and-drop, creating new folders, and so on. Even special features that most users don't know exist, like extra code to handle browsing very large directories without hanging the application or eating tons of memory, for instance.

Just by using the stock "File open" dialog, then, MyProgram.EXE has bought dependencies on the drag-and-drop code, a funky memory manager, network code, lots of little icons and widgets for the UI, support for themes (because common dialogs are themed), and so on.

If we go another layer into it, such as examining the dependencies required by the network layer, which was required by the Common dialog implementation, which was required by my application, I'm sure we'll find more interesting and fun dependencies. For example, that network layer probably needs to support WEBDAV in addition to plain old SMB file shares.

Users demand features, and features make software big and complicated. Problem is, those features come at a price in cumulative complexity that's extremely difficult to manage. Microsoft is actually extremely good -- better than any other company around -- at managing these dependencies. Nobody else on the planet is running software projects with more than 1500 developers or so; not to mention the 3500 developers who are working on Windows.

Problem is, they're market consists of consumers who don't understand that complexity and simply (and rightfully!) just expect things to work without much more thought. They don't market to this group well, which is why it's such a problem that Windows Vista doesn't have any features which are obviously appealing to consumers (or even business users).
 
gtg465x said:
Why do I prefer Vista?

In no particular order...

1) I prefer the look and visual effects of Aero.
2) Windows don't tear when I drag them around the desktop.
3) I like the fast integrated search features on the start menu and in Explorer.
4) The new address bar in Explorer helps me to navigate more quickly.
5) I like some of the widgets available for Windows Sidebar.
6) Vista seems to become faster the longer I have it installed (via SuperFetch), while XP only gets slower.
7) Vista is more secure than XP.
8) I was bored with XP after so many years and needed some change.
Click to expand...

Thank you for actually responding to the OP unlike most of the other people trolling.

I've been flip-flopping a bunch, but I think your list has got me off the fence.

Specifically, I can't stand that window tearing issue, that alone seems worth it.
 
I don't understand the "Bu...Bu..But Vista uses too much memory!". I'm pretty sure if you're upgrading to Vista or are putting it on a new computer you will have AT LEAST 2 gigs, and you can easily upgrade to 4 at relatively little cost. Unless you have an older computer you shouldn't be getting vista anyway.
 
thread 9000000
Searching works, Doesn't crash every 5 min for no reason.
People who bitch: Crappy or older hardware. Or too cheap to upgrade.
 
Fully supported 64bit, by this I mean that my friends parents just bought a random HP that has Windows Vista Home Premium 64 on it out of the box. The 64bit transition is finally starting to speed up.
 
I plug my printer in, and it works...

I plug my digital camera in, and it works...

I plug my zboard in, and it works...

I havn't went searching for drivers in awhile.. shit just works. No more downloading huge 200MB Everything packs from HP/Epson/whoever just to get my printer to work.

Plus it just looks damn pretty, and I love the navigation and overall layout of everything.
 
stevedave said:
I think Windows just copies everyone else so they can't have anything ground breaking until someone else come up with it first.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of copying in OSes; Apple would like to claim that they're the ones who make all the improvements and Microsoft just copies them, but to name two features, pervasive desktop search was announced by Microsoft long before Apple released an OS with it, and Time Machine is a flashier version of Shadow Copy, which was in Windows Server 2003. Since Microsoft have generally been very open about their plans, that allows their competitors to usurp them. (The concept of a GUI, of course, was from Xerox PARC's Alto.) Of course, many things in Windows are also inspired by OS X too.

It's hard to develop anything "groundbreaking" nowadays in OSes though - within the last few years, all the major OSes have been sufficiently stable for everyday use and have most of the features that anyone finds essential. Doing anything too radical would break backwards compatibility, something that Microsoft especially, with its enterprise customers, can't afford to do.
 
f1y said:
I plug my printer in, and it works...

I plug my digital camera in, and it works...

I plug my zboard in, and it works...

I havn't went searching for drivers in awhile.. shit just works. No more downloading huge 200MB Everything packs from HP/Epson/whoever just to get my printer to work.

Plus it just looks damn pretty, and I love the navigation and overall layout of everything.
Click to expand...
i agree on the drivers issue , but damn ! there are a small group of people which are willing to pay so much system resources just for beauty!
you wont market this OS as : hello Mr beauty! but as compatibility , security and performance , but in our case when vista doesn't always stand for any of them , what will you say???
i will tell you what i say
looking for compatibility? go to xp
............... performance? go to xp/linux
............... security? go to linux
and these will come those of want beauty , you know what i'll tell them?
looking for beauty? leave vista! go to os x !
 
I don't know what it does better but it certainly feels better when using for casual tasks.
It's probably all those little changes to user interface.

And fact that when coping multiple big files my computer is much more responsive then under XP.
Also good support of 64 bit (and having as many problems as win xp 64 had :)
Much better spam filters on windows mail than crappy outlook in XP.

Most of those can be of course made equally good at XP with enough tweeking and third party programs but why bother if you get it out of box.

And complains about it being resours intensive WTF ? We are on H forum where have enthusiast class machines with 2+ GB and 3+ Ghz core duos seriously who cares if Vista runs bad on 512 ram.
 
arik100 said:
i agree on the drivers issue , but damn ! there are a small group of people which are willing to pay so much system resources just for beauty!
you wont market this OS as : hello Mr beauty! but as compatibility , security and performance , but in our case when vista doesn't always stand for any of them , what will you say???
i will tell you what i say
looking for compatibility? go to xp
............... performance? go to xp/linux
............... security? go to linux
and these will come those of want beauty , you know what i'll tell them?
looking for beauty? leave vista! go to os x !
Click to expand...

Oh please. Heres the problem with your theory: XP will soon be at EOL. If you have it before then, keep it. Be my guest. But it is an aging system. It will soon not be available for sale. A limited option. Plain and simple.
Linux? Please tell me thats a joke. Even those who sustain the Linux kernel say they are not aiming towards the desktop anymore. Red Hat recently stated that they arent releasing anymore desktop distros. Linux on a good day is a PITA, unless you have years of experience dealing with it.
If you were a computer dealer, would you honestly support Linux for Joe Six-Pack?

Your answer is little more than drivel.
 
Valnar said:
Not a troll, not a rant. Just a fact finding mission.

I have XP now and it does everything I need. I'm not wanting for anything. I've read many of the posts about how Vista is stable and works well for many people. I've also read many posts about how people hate Vista because it "SuXoRs" compared to XP. Video driver problems, slower on games, some peripherals don't have updated drivers, memory hog, etc. Fine, got that.

So my question is -- What does Vista do better than Windows XP? What's the thing that would make somebody want to upgrade from XP because they gotta have that one single Vista feature?

Just curious.... And don't say 64 bit support. I could always go with WinXP 64-bit if >4GB RAM is a factor.

Robert
Click to expand...

It's not a single feature that makes Vista worth going to. Before I go into that I'd like to state right out front that most Vista fans generally give the same recommendation.

If you are currently using an XP machine you don't need to upgrade to Vista right now. You can if you wish, but I generally recommend not going through the upgrade hassle unless it's needed. On the other hand, if one is building or buying a new PC, I strongly recommend Vista unless that user has specific reasons to need XP.

As for features that make me like Vista better than XP:
-Massively improved security
-The "start search" feature
-Previous Versions (In Business and Ultimate) is a MUST have for me.
-Desktop Windows Manager (Aero)
-Massively improved security (It's worth mentioning twice)
 
Yeah, you nailed it my good man. if you have XP, at the moment, don't bother. But if you're building new... why not. Or if you can get a copy for free through school/work... why not. well... there is a little fuzzier. I have a copy of Vista Ultimate, but my 3rd HD died and I'm too lazy to clear up a partition to re-install it on one of the other two, I need XP for a few things and I don't want to drop the cash to buy a new 3rd HD.

In my case, Vista isn't worth 4-5 hours of file transfers in order to re-install. But it also isn't a bad OS by any stretch of the imagination.
 
x64 support is a valid answer. Yes, there is xp x64 but it was never supported well. It was patched at different times, vendors were not required to create x64 drivers. With Vista they are required to release x64 drivers along with 32bit drivers. 64bit is also patched right along with 32bit.
x64 XP was more of a proof of concept and was never well supported.

Other reasons would be far better memory management and I/O. Better security. New driver models which prevent a sound or video card driver from taking down the whole system. If your video card does crash Vista can reset without ever crashing your game. I also like the sidebar. Yes there is yahoo widgets but those have always used a crazy amount of resources and are unstable. Vastly improved Media Center.

With a clean install and good drivers(nvidia drivers are crap) Vista is both fast and stable.
 
heh for everything so far listed nothing other than dx10 really interests me for vista. So for me, vista doesn't really do much more than xp. DX10 is nice but very few games make use of it enough to fully switch to vista.
 
gtg465x said:
Retarded solution. I hope you were joking.
Click to expand...

Nothing retarded about it unless you really need to see the pretty contents being dragged around the screen. That would make you very superficial and your complaint quite moronic.
#1 reason to upgrade to Vista is because the windows don't tear when you move them around the screen? And you have the gall to call me retarded?
 
I don't get it why XP Pro x64 gets such a bad rep, I used it for over a year and NEVER had a single compatibility or driver issue other than Creative X-FI defaulting to software acceleration if you had 4GB ram or more but that has been fixed for months now. Support might have been bad in 2005 when the OS was first released but since late 2006 when Vista RCs started coming out, driver support for XP Pro X64 has been pretty damn good.

With that said, now that Nvidia fully supports custom resolutions and refresh rates in Vista (I don't even have to override anymore, games just default to the highest refresh rate I created for that resolution!!!), I have gone to Vista full time and I'm never looking back. Start-Search alone is enough to justify upgrading, never mind Aero and all the other new features. Just make sure you have at least 4GB ram if you plan on gaming.
 
Been using XP x64 since a few days after it's original release hot on the heels of Windows Server 2003, and preaching it ever since. If someone has a 32 bit CPU, then I recommend XP, but... if they have a 64 bit capable CPU, I never recommend anything less than XP x64 - unless they really want performance in which case it's Windows Server 2003 x64 style. :)

Years of unjust and false rumors, useless info, word of mouth, it's all kept XP x64 somewhat hidden from view, and that's just fine with me, really. It's still "Windows Workstation 2003" to me...
 
milkweg said:
Nothing retarded about it unless you really need to see the pretty contents being dragged around the screen. That would make you very superficial and your complaint quite moronic.
#1 reason to upgrade to Vista is because the windows don't tear when you move them around the screen? And you have the gall to call me retarded?
Click to expand...

I never said it was my number one reason... learn to read. It's just one of the many small benefits. And yes, it does benefit me to see the contents of the windows I'm moving and resizing. I often have a lot of windows on my screen, but I don't have a huge amount of real estate, so I need to adjust them so that I only see the desired information in each window. Just seeing an outline of the windows makes that hard.

Superficial? What the hell? We're not talking about girls here lol. :p
 
It's not just the tearing either. Under heavy load windows in XP there are times when you will move a window to the foreground and it will just be blank where the window that was in the foreground was covering it. It was ugly and a nuisance a lot of times. DWM stops that behavior. It's not a defining feature to make the upgrade worth while but it is just one more change that makes Vista worthwhile come upgrade time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top