What does Vista do better than XP?

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...
This is certainly a complex question.

My from-the-gut answer would be 256MB. What drives this, is the fact that I have a computer with 256MB that I use productively with Win2K. It pains me to think I'm going to be losing support for this machine at some point. Obviously this is quite subjective, but my opinion nonetheless.

Whether or not this is feasible is entirely another question. Thinking wishfully, it would be possible to have the OS scale from requiring very little memory, to quite a lot, as a function of what services/features one is using. I suppose to some extent this is already true though...
 
I ran vista for a few months, had to go to XP because I had to run a bunch of legacy applications that simply wouldn't run on Vista. I can't blame Microsoft, they advised that old programs would break, I anticipated that somebody would updated the program's I had to use since 1997 but I guess they never did. That being said I do miss Vista

- Hibernate worked really well on my laptop
- Aero was a nice change from the now dull XP look (which was nice compared to 98's look)
- Integrated Search, windows key, type the program name and press enter, it's that easy
- Never used a driver disc for anything, plug it in, wait a little bit and things just worked
- Battery uptime was better under Vista, 30 minutes or so better, not amazing but not bad.
- Wireless Networking - XP goes stupid at times, Vista never had issues
- Superfetch - I don't reboot much but it is snappier
 
The big thing for me was the driver support. Every single piece of hardware that I have in my computer was auto-detected by Windows and the appropriate driver downloaded and installed. That was nice.

Other than that... bleh. Aero isn't all that great. I've never used the integrated search. Also, for whatever reason, my CPU usage hovers at 60%-70% because of svchost.exe (whatever the hell that is). I have an E6550 and 4GB of RAM if people want to pull the crappy hardware argument. Also, Explorer is generally pretty slow compared with XP.

Ehh... I'll stop. I personally haven't used XP in a long time, but from what I can remember, I certainly can't think of any reason to switch to Vista right now unless you absolutely needed to (like Microsoft completely dropping support for it).
 
Everyone has pretty much mentioned all the pros and cons, but for me I find the pros outweigh the cons, so if you are looking to buy a new OS then grab one of the Vista 64 bit OS options.

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 remember going into Comp USSR one year and seeing 1 gb HDD's on the shelf and thinking my god, no one will ever fill one of those up and it was crazy the price they were charging for it. Well here we are some 10 years later and I have 2 1 TB drives filled with photo's, music, movies, and games. I just downloaded Conan age of hyboria beta the other night and it was 32+ Gb's. Its fairly crazy to think how big some systems have become over the years and an OS requiring 1gb isn't a big deal, considering XP needed 512.

Sorry for the history lapse, but the complaint over a modern OS requiring more resources then one from a decade or 5 years ago seems a little asinine to me.
 
Mandane said:
Other than that... bleh. Aero isn't all that great. I've never used the integrated search. Also, for whatever reason, my CPU usage hovers at 60%-70% because of svchost.exe (whatever the hell that is). I have an E6550 and 4GB of RAM if people want to pull the crappy hardware argument.
Click to expand...

I'm going to pull the "You have a buggy process running" argument. It sounds like you have a bug that has affected NT machines for a while. One of your processes is running amok. Use this link and follow the instructions to single out which service is giving problems. From there you can either disable that particular service or check to see if there is a hotfix for it.

http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/...resources-in-vista-identify-causing-services/
 
griffinhart said:
I'm going to pull the "You have a buggy process running" argument. It sounds like you have a bug that has affected NT machines for a while. One of your processes is running amok. Use this link and follow the instructions to single out which service is giving problems. From there you can either disable that particular service or check to see if there is a hotfix for it.

http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/...resources-in-vista-identify-causing-services/
Click to expand...

In addition you can find out what task it was assigned to to eliminate the buggy process or fix it by opening command prompt and type "tasklist /svc" (without the quotes).
 
trnguyen85 said:
i hate vista!!!!! XP is so much faster
Click to expand...
You just gotta love these posts. No information given as to why, and what was posted, arguable isn't even correct. Love it! Seems like fun...I'll give it a go:

I hate air! Water is so much better!
 
DeaconFrost said:
You just gotta love these posts. No information given as to why, and what was posted, arguable isn't even correct. Love it! Seems like fun...I'll give it a go:
Click to expand...
I'm sure the OP appreciates your contribution.
 
I hate to add but I do notice that Vista is a little slower.
I had an AMD 3700 San Diego with 1 Gig of memory on XP Pro. That thing was fast.

I purchased a new system which is a Q6600 with 8Gigs of Ram and a 8800GTS (G92) video card. I do notice that my new system is a tad slower than my old XP system. I'm still keeping Vista and enjoy using it.
 
After you are done using Movie Maker in Vista you have an option now to "Burn to DVD" and it gives you all sorts of wizard driven configurable items to customize and then burn to DVD.... XP didn't have that offering.
 
I have vista ultimate 32-bit on my 1.86x2 laptop with 4gb of ram and a 160gb 7200rpm hard drive and it runs more smoothly than xp pro did, and I loved xp. I actually waited a long long time to go to vista because folks said it was slow, buggy, old software wouldn't work, etc...so my wife got a laptop (1.73Ghz single core with 2gb ram) laptop running vista with onboard graphics and it works well. In fact after using it a few times, I decided to go with Vista on my laptop to try it out. I loved it. so I put it on my AMD 4400+ x2 system with 2GB ram with radeon x850xt 256mb video card system and it worked really well. I have since upgraded that hardware, but in all the systems I've had, Vista has worked very very well. I also upgraded to using Vista Ultimate 64-bit on my desktop now and it is extremely solid for me. I haven't had driver issues either. The only software that I use that didn't work so far for me is the Battlefield series (which I really like). I'm even keeping Vista in spite of that. One of my buddies is using Vista 64bit and he has a graphics card that is going bad on him...the thing crashes in the middle of WoW but guess what...Vista doesn't and in fact, when Vista re-boots (correct term?) the driver, the game actually continues on...That's pretty cool! Wow, that was a long post. Sorry :(
 
Valnar said:
Since I'm the OP, I'll chime in.

I know for a fact I have some programs and possibly even some hardware that will not work on Vista.
Click to expand...

i dont get your orig question then. if indeed you have hardware and software that you know is not compatible with vista then of course do not upgrade and stay with what works for you. why is an upgrade to vista even a question in your case?
 
Does porn look better on vista or is that hotfix cuming with service pack 2.


sorry It's 4oclock and I am bored at work but seriously does porn look better on vista DX 10.1 boobs and shit.
 
stevedave said:
Does porn look better on vista or is that hotfix cuming with service pack 2.


sorry It's 4oclock and I am bored at work but seriously does porn look better on vista DX 10.1 boobs and shit.
Click to expand...

Yes, EVR (Enhanced Video Renderer) comes with Vista, but it's not so easy to get working in XP.
 
I have a HTPC hooked up inside my entertainment center and it uses wireless. Every now and then the porn will skip or pause for a quick little while would this EVR help, or is that just my wireless being too slow to keep up, I will upgrade vista instantly for non interrupted porn.
 
Grimmda said:
After you are done using Movie Maker in Vista you have an option now to "Burn to DVD" and it gives you all sorts of wizard driven configurable items to customize and then burn to DVD.... XP didn't have that offering.
Click to expand...

Actually, that DVD Maker app you are talking about is pretty cool. I like the menu options a lot.
 
dot_Zen said:
LOL.

I'm dying laughing over here. Really, stick to things you know. Maple Syrup, perhaps?
Click to expand...
To anyone following this stuff, they've been predicting 2010 for quite some time now.

The FACT of the matter is in 3-4 years when this change takes place, Vista will be the most widely used OS out there.

YES, IPv4 can still be used on private/internal networks just fine. Therefore, I fail to see the bother here. Vista is just more future-ready.

dot_Zen said:
Like I said, check the polls.

http://www.hardforum.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=4283

It's a multiple choice poll wrapped inside multiple questions, so it can be a little confusing if looking directly at the % (in favor of Vista); but, the number of polled users speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
When allowed to vote without putting their neck on the line for flaming from trolls or having a need to talk about it- you find people actually like Vista.

The majority that try Vista like it.

I also think:

Vista has far less problems than the media lets on

Aside from the select few (And also keeping in mind the "golden rule" that people more readily complain than praise)... I don't know a SINGLE PERSON who has had any issues with Vista whatsoever.

Valnar said:
let alone the hardware requirements and cost to upgrade. But since this is for a personal PC, I have more flexibility.
Click to expand...
It's funny to me though...
Vista loves 2GB of RAM. Puts Superfetch to work.
However, at work, I am seeing more and more that even on XP, 2GB of RAM is needed. Even as little as a year ago 1GB of RAM was doing fine. It's just with new application demands the hardware demands go up, no matter what OS you're on.





But my list:
UAC- The ONLY way to protect yourself against zero day attacks is something like this.
Aero- Manages your GPU a hell of alot better than XP.
Multitasking- Most can attest to this fact, but Vista does it a hell of alot better. XP lags (no matter what the hardware), tears, redraw issues, whatever you have... Vista is seamless.
More "Stuff" Included- I don't have to download near as many third-party addons to get Vista to do basic stuff.

Tons of little things as well. Using XP at day and Vista at night, I always love getting to use my Vista machine... Runs so much smoother.
 
Vista Ultimate does seem faster on my X2-3600 and 4gb ram. I've 20 more days to decide whether I gonna buy a copy. (it's a 30day trial installation)

btw, i think it's hard to find real answers in vista vs xp performance threads. there was this TF2 game performance thread recently. Most replies were like "YUO so stupid. crysis/bioshock/many games run fine on moi VSITa!!!!". Yah, other games are working fine for other people. How about that particular game then :rolleyes:
 
Techno Pride said:
btw, i think it's hard to find real answers in vista vs xp performance threads. there was this TF2 game performance thread recently.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem is all these benchmark and performance reviews all work off a clean install. Which, anyone that has used Vista knows, The first few weeks aren't the best. The hard drive is working pretty hard, and Superfetch isn't up to snuff.

You really can't review anything, because how do you make a baseline of "training" Vista? Everyone uses their machine differently.
That's why the past methods of benchmarking apps are becoming obsolete.
 
-Sn1PeR- said:
The major issue I have run into is that online gaming over wifi is near impossible in Vista due to their wlan polling ~every 60seconds. I tried a ton of fixes for that and eventually gave up. I can't believe they market that as a "feature".
Click to expand...

I play TF2, RoL, R6V all the time on my WLAN, fresh install of Vista... and that's with a 150ft distance from the router. :)

EDIT: Also, to all you people complaning about RAM... how much do you think the Holodeck uses? :p
 
TechieSooner said:
Part of the problem is all these benchmark and performance reviews all work off a clean install. Which, anyone that has used Vista knows, The first few weeks aren't the best. The hard drive is working pretty hard, and Superfetch isn't up to snuff.

You really can't review anything, because how do you make a baseline of "training" Vista? Everyone uses their machine differently.
That's why the past methods of benchmarking apps are becoming obsolete.
Click to expand...

what are you talking about? I was referring to the part where people replied to the TF2 problem by saying their bioshock/crysis/other games runs fine, but actual replies about TF2 performance in vista were few and far between. Most replies were of the "YUO ttoo stupid to use VSITA!" jeff-k kinda answers.

What's the point of saying software A-Y work fine with Vista when the question was about software Z?
 
TechieSooner said:
Part of the problem is all these benchmark and performance reviews all work off a clean install. Which, anyone that has used Vista knows, The first few weeks aren't the best. The hard drive is working pretty hard, and Superfetch isn't up to snuff.

You really can't review anything, because how do you make a baseline of "training" Vista? Everyone uses their machine differently.
That's why the past methods of benchmarking apps are becoming obsolete.
Click to expand...

That's what gets me on all these Vista vs XP reviews out there. Vista is actually slower it's first week than it is after that. XP is the opposite. Frankly, I'd love to see benchmarks showing XP performance vs Vista performance one year after install and see what the differences are. I think Vista will really shine there.
 
I use Vista64 at home on my gaming rig and I use XP64 at work.

Almost every day at work I think man I wish I had Vista at work.

Why: mostly small things like thumbnails show on the desktop, very fast search and the new address bar in Explorer helps me to navigate more quickly. Things are just a little more streamlined in Vista.

I spend about 6 hours on my PC at work (Photoshop, illustrator, Pro-E, Outlook and sometimes [H]) and about 2 hours at home (gaming, internet surfing, Outlook)
 
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 didn't mean to say that the redraw issues were the #1 reason for me to switch. I was just saying that it was a minor annoyance and just happened to be the "straw the broke the donkey's back," so to speak. I'm not going to sit here and blow $3K+ on a rig and then have to look at visual glitches on my desktop.

And yes, the visual appearance and stability of the GUI *IS* a feature. Otherwise we could just run command-line UNIX and be done with it. Clearly the GUI is important.
 
cybereality said:
And yes, the visual appearance and stability of the GUI *IS* a feature. Otherwise we could just run command-line UNIX and be done with it. Clearly the GUI is important.
Click to expand...

We could if they produced games for it ;)

But then again I started in times when Norton Commander was good enough for everyone :)
 
I'm using Vista for about a month and i can say that it is way better in multitasking than XP. In XP when i run multiple virtual machines or anything cpu bound and at the same time i try to play a game, it becomes really sluggish. Well..in Vista everything feels smooth and i can play Crysis like it isn't running anything on the background. So, i think Vista takes fully advantage of multicore systems while XP dont.
 
Kubrick said:
I'm using Vista for about a month and i can say that it is way better in multitasking than XP. In XP when i run multiple virtual machines or anything cpu bound and at the same time i try to play a game, it becomes really sluggish. Well..in Vista everything feels smooth and i can play Crysis like it isn't running anything on the background. So, i think Vista takes fully advantage of multicore systems while XP dont.
Click to expand...

It's more than likely SuperFetch in action - moving things around in RAM and accessing data without needing to hit the hard drive will always result in faster performance of an OS. Even Raptors in RAID setups - including the new VelociRaptors, I'll bet - will never EVER match the performance or sheer raw data transfer speeds of high performance RAM.

As for the multicore stuff, they work basically the same in both, that's not really much different. Both OSes are multicore aware - the real case may be that today's software compared to software from 2-3 years ago is now written in a more properly multithreaded way. Some apps are still going to use only one thread, as shitty as that seems, and some will use multiples. More software is being written with that multiple threading model in mind nowadays, and that's a good thing for all of us.
 
Vista is for me mostly the "little things," like the fact that reading CDs uses a separate thread now so putting a CD in the drive doesn't jam Windows Explorer. Vista also has a more polished feel to it. I like the search box in the Start Menu; I often will push the Windows key on a computer running XP and start typing, forgetting that Windows XP doesn't have that feature.

Vista's RAM management is better than XP's, even though some people think Vista is "hogging" RAM (I have 121MB free and 5630MB cached right now out of 8GB) it is actually making itself faster that way. Yes, Vista does use more memory for itself. That is unfortunate but there really isn't a way around it. Taken to the extreme, the logic that suggests "Vista is bad because it uses more RAM than its predecessors" could mean "We should all use Windows 3.x because it uses less RAM than Windows XP/98/95."

I don't think I've ever seen the OS hit the disk at idle with this much RAM installed; it just runs straight out of the main memory. It is so much faster that way...
 
Sovereign said:
I don't think I've ever seen the OS hit the disk at idle with this much RAM installed; it just runs straight out of the main memory. It is so much faster that way...
Click to expand...

QFT

I remember when you first joined and were asking questions... my how far you've come. :D
 
Sovereign said:
Vista's RAM management is better than XP's, even though some people think Vista is "hogging" RAM (I have 121MB free and 5630MB cached right now out of 8GB) it is actually making itself faster that way. Yes, Vista does use more memory for itself. That is unfortunate but there really isn't a way around it. Taken to the extreme, the logic that suggests "Vista is bad because it uses more RAM than its predecessors" could mean "We should all use Windows 3.x because it uses less RAM than Windows XP/98/95."

I don't think I've ever seen the OS hit the disk at idle with this much RAM installed; it just runs straight out of the main memory. It is so much faster that way...
Click to expand...

Good post,

How Vista uses ram is one of the most misunderstood things about it. As many will know MS made a fundamental change to how Windows now uses ram.

Overall I've had no serious ongoing issues with Vista and have come to like it, the GUI is miles better than XP as is the Start menu with the search box which is a great idea. It is 100% stable on this machine. Heck I've even got used to UAC and now leave it on all the time.
 
One thing Vista doesn't do better than XP is run software faster. Vista has lots of nice features, but the fact remains that Windows XP SP3 runs software the fastest. There may be exceptions, but for the most part the XP kernel runs software faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top