Vista vs. XP

[lee0539]

I find it interesting how there are threads on how much they love vista and threads on how vista has just been crap to them so they went back to XP. Well Here is a thread to express your opinions with comment or just with a simple vote.

In MY PERSONAL OPINION(sorry i cant stress that enough) is that windows vista is the worse windows OS upgrade ever made by microsoft which is really shocking because XP has been out for ages and time is just not an excuse for microsoft being as big as they are. Hell i remember how fast XP came right after 2000 and XP was so much more better designed even when it first came out. Seems like microsoft is getting lazy and adding too much fluff without substance. I've been using vista pretty much since it came out and tried my best to keep with it, but maybe i'll give it another try with SP1 comes out

 

[Negative Decibel]

I like them both. For now I will use XP on my main computer. Why?
It does everything I want it to do
It's a clean, mature, and stable OS.

I like Vista too, but they need to iron out a few things before I dump a couple hundred dollars on it. The thing that pisses me off the most is that people are buying the latest and greatest video cards (8800 GTX) and they are getting so angry because they can't run SLi in Vista.

As soon as there is more driver support and such on Vista x64, AND I have a desperate need to run an application that requires Vista, then I will purchase it.

 

[Slozz]

been using vista for a while, two problems:

Drivers(especially Nvidia) - to name a few, WoW has sound malfunction, C&C General degrades after playing for 10 minutes, Sam Fisher turns into bugbear in Splinter Cell 4.

IE7 crashes routinely - no pattern, can't predict, just crashes like riot gang breaking street shops, thank god there are alternatives.

other than these, I give vista 5/5, of course thats when you've turned off UAC.

 

[StaticSurge]

Why compare apples to oranges? Everyone's going to have to upgrade to it sooner or later. I like a lot of the things about the new OS but driver issues are still numerous. So until then I dual boot. You can't compare a 5 year old OS to something released a month ago, give it time.

 

[Slozz]

Also, vista isn't very convincing now but it's fine, review how xp grew initially. I trust that it won't take longer than 1/2 year to see vista serving the majority.

 

[kurt454]

People dislike Vista, now because third party drivers are crap. I guarantee in about 8 months Vista will be the majority OS on this board.

When I first switched to Windows 2000 from 98SE, a lot of games either had slow framerate or would not run at all. Over time it got much better, and I would never return to 98SE. I predict the same for Vista. Just dual boot for now.

 

[crewzen]

Well I dislike Vista because it is a money trap. It was made up not to use older than 3 years old devices. I have a fist full of them. Like MY IPaq with win 2002 well I will keep the pocket pc and ditch Vista. TV cards dont work correctly and the entertainment center you loose the mouse cursor. The graphics are nice but I run black screens so by by graphics except when needed in programs. I have had to buy a new Creator 9 because the 3month old creator 8 crashes Vista real bad. I could keep going on but will not. This is an opinion not a rant so I will cut it short now.


Yes I still do have 2 computers on Win 2k because they work great at what they do.
Xp works great at what I have it doing on 4 other computers so they will not change.
Vista so far shows me not much so far except a more confusing interface and a messed up network.

Way too many prompts, they are anoying. I know what I want it to do so let it do it and quit asking me 20 times if I am shure or is this what you want to do!!!!

Even a simple thing like sharing a XP printer with Vista 64 even with drivers I have yet to figure this one out.

 

[ChingChang]

XP's not bad, but I like Vista a lot more than XP. There are a lot of little improvements that all add up.

 

[digital_exhaust]

I like Vista a lot more than XP

Me too

I personally think too many people get hung up over the new gui and the warnings, asking if your sure you want to do something..... which is actually a good thing, and takes all of one second to allow.. soooo... just my opinion.

 

[ChingChang]

and if you don't like UAC you can completely disable it

 

[Lord_Malone]

Vista is the future. Accept it. If you don't want to get with the program and move forward with the rest of the world, go back to Windows 95.

 

[maxiderm]

how long do you guys estimate Vista will need to be bug free to the point to where everyone will be upgrading? im thinking about getting it when all issues are sorted out (esp nVidia driver issues)

 

[Gorankar]

I prefer Xp for now... Give the drivers and Vista a year to mature, and I that will prolly change..

 

[djBon2112]

I like them both. For now I will use XP on my main computer. Why?
It does everything I want it to do
It's a clean, mature, and stable OS.

QFT. I see absolutely NO reason to move to vista and face all kinds of driver and compatability problems. I'm using XP Pro x64 edition, it runs like a dream, does everything I want and is lightweight. Vista (even the x64 edition) is slow, cumbersome, (in my opinion) poorly laid-out (I think they're catering a little TOO much to the user who knows jack about computers; for instance, I find the new control panel and display properties counter-productive and a waste of time), very bloated, and frankly I find the new UI (and even the "Classic" skin in it) extremely ugly.

Until I start seeing DX10-only games that REQUIRE me to upgrade to Vista (and that's assuming DX10 isn't sometime in the future released for XP/hacked/whatever), I will NOT be moving to it. It's pointless.

 

[ChingChang]

QFT. I see absolutely NO reason to move to vista and face all kinds of driver and compatability problems. I'm using XP Pro x64 edition, it runs like a dream, does everything I want and is lightweight. Vista (even the x64 edition) is slow, cumbersome, (in my opinion) poorly laid-out (I think they're catering a little TOO much to the user who knows jack about computers; for instance, I find the new control panel and display properties counter-productive and a waste of time), very bloated, and frankly I find the new UI (and even the "Classic" skin in it) extremely ugly.

I haven't had any problems at all with drivers or any programs.
If you think the interface is poorly laid out you can always switch back to classic view...

 

[djBon2112]

I haven't had any problems at all with drivers or any programs.
If you think the interface is poorly laid out you can always switch back to classic view...

Even then there's things that won't change. Which is another thing I dislike.

 

[l3ender]

I'd have to say XP for now, just because I have everything COMPLETELY customized on it for now. Plus, Vista isn't as smooth in some facets, but I expect it to change over time. Give it time to settle in.

 

[GreNME]

Gee, this rings a bell... like when people did "98 vs 2000" or "2000 vs XP" or even "98 vs XP" threads.

 

[YARDofSTUF]

I like the new vista features but not the look, I like the XP look.

 

[Catweazle]

Gee, this rings a bell... like when people did "98 vs 2000" or "2000 vs XP" or even "98 vs XP" threads.

Did you come across many of those where the topic starter couldn't break out of his bias far enough to type "I think XP is much better" rather than "I think 98 is much worse"?




I'm one of the very few to consider Vista a considerable improvement, by the way

 

[Lord_Malone]

Vista is a nice improvement. And when Microsoft introduces a new OS down the road, people will be starting threads about how they prefer Vista over the new OS. Most people don't like change. Nature of the beast. I'm embracing the future. Let's move forward I say. For those wanting to stick with XP, by all means do whatever makes you happy. I'm living for tomorrow and thoroughly enjoying Vista.

 

[djnes]

I'm all for people not going right into a new OS for some valid reasons. What's sad though, is how many people bash Vista or will avoid it, for either totally BS reason, or flat out incorrect assumptions. This Vista release has really separated the people who know how to research, and those who are the sheeple, believeing everything they're told.

Vista is a HUGE improvement over what XP, 2000, etc were at this stage in the game. Aside from the SLI issues, there isn't really any other deal killers. VirtualPC 2007 gives you a free solution to the rare apps that don't work.

I'm not ignorant enough to offer my opinion as proof, but I'm offering it for conversation. I think Vista runs every bit as smooth and stable as XP. Just moving around in Vista, through Windows Explorer, opening and closing the Start menu, etc is faster than XP, if anything. I'm loving it, and I'm converting all of my computers over to it, except my server.

 

[jerb]

I've been using Vista for a few months but I'm going back to XP this weekend.

I do really like vista but there are a few things that need to be worked out before I make it my main OS.

Firstly, though its pretty stable, it has its moments when it suddenly eats up all the processing power when idling. this bothers me. however overall I feel its a great system for someone who uses a computer for basic tasks, if your doing anything with networking (which is a PITA on vista) then XP is still a better choice.

I'm switching back because of program compatibility, though Vista is great at being backwards compatible things such a NERO, Quicken, and some of my network tools wont work.

overall I give Vista a 7/10, it gets its job done pretty well defiantly passing but it doesn't excel (Yet)

 

[JC634]

I like Vista more than XP so far. Nicer looking, faster (really!), at least to me.

Don't care for the overly obtrusive UAC, but "feel" better with it on.

Drivers need to mature some, I only have a few minor issues at the moment. The driver signing "requirement" kind of sucks for 64-bit, but it does give MS a better opportunity to verify compatibility, etc. And generate more revenue...

Mostly, I think it was to the point that XP has been patched too many times. Needed a whole new rewrite of the OS to really make noticable improvements.

And, of course, generate more revenue for M$!

JC

 

[mjz_5]

in a year. i think vista will be faster than xp..

2 identical machines with 4 GB of ram, vista will be faster because of prefetch and other caching technologies with vista.. unlike xp, it uses ram that you spend your hard earned cash on. i just wish the network speeds would be better, cause my lan transfer speeds decreased big time

 

[Lord_Malone]

I primarily run image processing apps (Lightroom, Photoshop, etc.), and I haven't had any serious conflicts. I have another PC and a notebook that's still running XP SP2, which I use for other stuff. So far Vista has proven stable and reliable when running my applications on the Vista machine. For folks who rely on Vista to run their networks, yeah I'd probably stay away from it until most of the kinks have been ironed out. What gets me is when folks proclaim that MS rushed the product to the market when it wasn't ready. WTF? If MS had to test compatibility with every piece of hardware or software known to man we'd never have a new OS that was "ready". We the people must put it through its paces. Good or bad, right or wrong. Windows XP would've never reached the level of stability it has sustained if people "avoided" it. Everybody wants a smooth running OS, but wants to kick back and let everyone else figure out what's wrong with it, while the rest of us offer solutions and actually contribute something to society rather than being a parasite. If everyone had that mentality where would we be?

 

[GreNME]

Did you come across many of those where the topic starter couldn't break out of his bias far enough to type "I think XP is much better" rather than "I think 98 is much worse"?




I'm one of the very few to consider Vista a considerable improvement, by the way

I am another who finds it quite the improvement. I will caveat, however, that I would only run Vista on a system that you can buy brand new today, and would prefer XP on older hardware.

I love Vista. It answers a lot of my gripes about XP, while still giving me a lot of the flexibility and useability I got used to with XP. The new "wow" features are pretty and all that, and I do use a few of them, but for the most part I am a utilitarian and don't think too much on extras. One exception, though: gadgets-- I thought they were interesting way back when Konfabulator first released their widgets, and then when Apple integrated them into their main OS. I thought it was about time Windows added them, even though technically they work very much like the HTAs of old and the MS development team had them on the drawing board very early on. I'll be practicing my scripting skills to learn how to create useful "toolboxes" for work to use on the sidebar, so it's a feature of Vista that isn't just new but is going to be useful to me at work.

But don't get me wrong: I love XP. XP is highly underrated for its ability to be skinned and customized out the wazoo with very little need for the user to be programming-savvy. Being someone who isn't big on programming (I'm a scripter, there's a difference... ask any real programmer), that was something in XP that was fun and easy. Hardening was nowhere near as difficult as some FUD would have you believe, and in the end XP usually "just works" for me.

Nowadays, though, Vista runs just as well on my computer (Dell D521, Core2 duo and 2GB memory) as XP did, with the only real exception being the memory usage. However, that's nothing new to me as I've experienced memory-hog-ness with XP and OS X as well (OS X especially, unless you run next to nothing on it). With 2GB of RAM I've not yet seen it get too greedy. Everything just works, and configuring is prettty damned easy (and slick). So, the utilitarian is learning that sometimes pretty extras can be nice, while still not relying on them for my experience with the OS, which remains primarily a tool and a platform for my work.

Yeah, I'm digging Vista. That XP is pretty cool, too. No need to choose one or the other, since both are a win with me.

 

[Catweazle]

I am another who finds it quite the improvement. I will caveat, however, that I would only run Vista on a system that you can buy brand new today, and would prefer XP on older hardware.

I suspect you're being overly cautious with that summation. Vista should be fine on any hardware sold new within the past year to 18 months. Absolutely not a problem on my socket 939 dual-core SLI rig, that's for sure.

 

[CptFalcon]

I find it interesting how there are threads on how much they love vista and threads on how vista has just been crap to them so they went back to XP. Well Here is a thread to express your opinions with comment or just with a simple vote.

In MY PERSONAL OPINION(sorry i cant stress that enough) is that windows vista is the worse windows OS upgrade ever made by microsoft which is really shocking because XP has been out for ages and time is just not an excuse for microsoft being as big as they are. Hell i remember how fast XP came right after 2000 and XP was so much more better designed even when it first came out. Seems like microsoft is getting lazy and adding too much fluff without substance. I've been using vista pretty much since it came out and tried my best to keep with it, but maybe i'll give it another try with SP1 comes out

That's what people said when XP came out. I really don't want to another person complain about Vista being bad. It's your fault that you bought the thing and now your complaining on top of it! Here's an idea; RETURN THE DAMN THING!

/END RANT

 

[brucedeluxe169]

i'm one of those who doesnt see much of an improvement in Vista (at least not 5 years worth!) seriously, I *know* MS can do better.....

ah well...... Vista aint much of an improvement over the (fucking excellent!) Windows XP.... but I have installed it on my girlfriend's computer, and when I get my own desktop it will go on in addition to XP and Linux. Its not impressive, but it is still the future for 90% of all computers, and it is worth it to learn how to use it and program for it (if you are a programmer of course, which is one of the things I do).

 

[Bop]

The only thing I don't like about Vista is the lack of drivers, which will change in time. So I like both but I prefer Vista. I run a dual boot and run all my games on XP except for DX10 titles such as Supreme Commander while I do everything else on Vista.

 

[djBon2112]

unlike xp, it uses ram that you spend your hard earned cash on.

32-bit Vista has the exact same limitation RAM-wise as 32-bit XP, and 64-bit Vista has the same enormous possible volume of RAM (i.e. using all of it) that 64-bit XP does.

 

[calebb]

Originally Posted by mjz_5 View Post
unlike xp, it uses ram that you spend your hard earned cash on.

32-bit Vista has the exact same limitation RAM-wise as 32-bit XP, and 64-bit Vista has the same enormous possible volume of RAM (i.e. using all of it) that 64-bit XP does.

Yes, but XP uses as little RAM (that you spent your hard earned cash on) as possible.

Vista tries to make the most of your hard earned cash! It actually utilizes your RAM (via superfetch, readyboost, etc) to greatly increase the speed of your desktop apps by actively utilizing available memory.

 

[Catweazle]

heh heh.....

Precisely. Vista makes effective use of the hardware people have paid good money for, and all of a sudden they are complaining because it's being used!

 

[ChingChang]

The only thing I don't like about Vista is the lack of drivers, which will change in time. So I like both but I prefer Vista. I run a dual boot and run all my games on XP except for DX10 titles such as Supreme Commander while I do everything else on Vista.

I haven't really had any problems with drivers so far. If there isn't a "vista driver", the XP drivers have worked.
The only "problem" I've had is that Logitech's G15 Windows XP driver doesn't show the volume on the display (it does change though). Not much of a problem...

32-bit Vista has the exact same limitation RAM-wise as 32-bit XP, and 64-bit Vista has the same enormous possible volume of RAM (i.e. using all of it) that 64-bit XP does.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about Vista being able to utilize the extra memory (and other hardware) instead of it just "being there" doing nothing.

 

[sixscrews]

I have been messing with Vista (I'm a TechNet Plus subscriber and get all the betas) since before it was Vista and I have a serious love/hate relationship with the damn thing.

Thinking back through all the variations of WIndows I have run, from 2.0 (yes, I ran 2.0, although I hate to admit it - it was required to run some software I was using at the time [the usual excuse]), to 3.1 to 3.1 WFW to NT 3.5, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, Win2k, WinXP, WinXPSP1, WinXPSP2, WinXP64, and all the iterations of Vista. Of these, my favorite, stable, known quirks, etc is WinXPSP2 - it's the evil I know. WinXP was a horror show at first - it promised a lot but had plenty of driver problems, so I stuck to Win2k until SP1 came out. Still, it wasn't until SP2 was around that XP was 'mature'.

So I'm taking the same path now - waiting for the SP1 version. If I want an OS to mess with, there's always another Linux distro. When there's work to be done I use XP SP2. I have messed with XP64 and the driver situation is just too dicey. When Vista gets to SP1 my guess is that there will be the right drivers out there, too, and I can truly go to a 64 bit OS. Of course, Adobe might release a Linux version first (or Hell will freeze over), in which case I will gladly burn all my Windows disks and use a real OS.

The bloat and feature creep in Vista is appalling. It hasn't delivered any of the real features promised, especially WInFS (now some kind of joke beta you can download free).
I can't even remember all the vaporware Mr. Bill has announced over the past five years. Now all we have is eye candy that sort-of looks like a Mac without being anywhere near as predictable as a Mac and a desktop that lacks some of the basic features of XP.

I have tried to run Vista as my 'production' OS each time a new build came out, giving it from one day (pre RC1), to a few days (RC1) to a couple of weeks (RTM) but always go back to XP SP2. It's just too rigid for me. Pretty, yes and some of the new features are nice but it's not worth the trouble.

Anyway, enough ranting - I have a book to write.

ss

 

[calebb]

I have been messing with Vista (I'm a TechNet Plus subscriber and get all the betas) since before it was Vista and I have a serious love/hate relationship with the damn thing.

Thinking back through all the variations of WIndows I have run, from 2.0 (yes, I ran 2.0, although I hate to admit it - it was required to run some software I was using at the time [the usual excuse]), to 3.1 to 3.1 WFW to NT 3.5, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, Win2k, WinXP, WinXPSP1, WinXPSP2, WinXP64, and all the iterations of Vista. Of these, my favorite, stable, known quirks, etc is WinXPSP2 - it's the evil I know. WinXP was a horror show at first - it promised a lot but had plenty of driver problems, so I stuck to Win2k until SP1 came out. Still, it wasn't until SP2 was around that XP was 'mature'.

So I'm taking the same path now - waiting for the SP1 version. If I want an OS to mess with, there's always another Linux distro. When there's work to be done I use XP SP2. I have messed with XP64 and the driver situation is just too dicey. When Vista gets to SP1 my guess is that there will be the right drivers out there, too, and I can truly go to a 64 bit OS. Of course, Adobe might release a Linux version first (or Hell will freeze over), in which case I will gladly burn all my Windows disks and use a real OS.

The bloat and feature creep in Vista is appalling. It hasn't delivered any of the real features promised, especially WInFS (now some kind of joke beta you can download free).
I can't even remember all the vaporware Mr. Bill has announced over the past five years. Now all we have is eye candy that sort-of looks like a Mac without being anywhere near as predictable as a Mac and a desktop that lacks some of the basic features of XP.

I have tried to run Vista as my 'production' OS each time a new build came out, giving it from one day (pre RC1), to a few days (RC1) to a couple of weeks (RTM) but always go back to XP SP2. It's just too rigid for me. Pretty, yes and some of the new features are nice but it's not worth the trouble.

Anyway, enough ranting - I have a book to write.

ss

Typical n00bie FUD with superfluous "bragging" throughout to increase it's palatability.

Every single 'objection' in this post has been thoroughly addressed multiple times in this forum and elsewhere on the net.

 

[sixscrews]

Thanks for the analysis.

You have it exactly right.

ss

 

[piako]

Vista is actually really really nice to use. Once the price of memory comes down it'll be a perfect OS.

 

[CptFalcon]

Thanks for the analysis.

You have it exactly right.

ss

Tell me, what OS will you be using for the next 5 years?







(The answer is Vista and BTW calebb is correct)