What does Vista do better than XP?

V

Valnar

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 3, 2001
Messages
4,307
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
 
same reason why everyone was saying XP sucked compared to Win98SE... then everyone started using XP...
 
Depends what you do maybe. For me... nothing. In fact, there are something I do that I couldn't do in vista.

I play games, I do 3D animation/photoshop, I surf the net, I check my email.

All games I had ran fine in Vista, stalker didn't like XP... 3Dmax did not like vista. Photoshop didn't care. Web browsing was the same as in XP.

In the end, I would have no reason to switch knowing these things. Superfetch made no noticeable difference to anything I did (after 3 months).

If you already have XP, just wait on it unless you find a need for DX10.
 
same reason why everyone was saying XP sucked compared to Win98SE... then everyone started using XP...
Click to expand...

Win2K/XP was totally different than 98. It did a lot more, and sucked in other ways (DOS games, SB16 compatibility, etc.). I'm seeing Vista as an incremental upgrade from 2K/XP, like ME was from '98. I don't want to beat the ME vs Vista analogy to death, but there was never a reason to upgrade from a perfectly working 98 box to ME. I'm trying to discover if there is an equally valid (or non-valid) reason to upgrade from XP to Vista.

Robert
 
vista uses more ram than xp? it does a better job of that ;)

seriously though, i have no idea
 
Here's the marketed spin to your question; Windows Vista: The Facts

Here's a list of features: A-N , N-W , W-X

Now, here's my question to you: Why is it you felt that asking this question was some how new? That, some how, your personal needs are any different than the 100's or 1000's of others who have posted this, nearly, identical topic?
 
For me it was DX10 and the 4GB memory limitations of XP 32 bit. I would never go with XP 64 due to lack of drivers for my machine so going with Vista 64 was the only other option I would do.

After using Vista for a little bit I do like its little features such as the integrated search and the Network Connection Center.

The only thing that I couldn't get to work with Vista 64 was Cisco's WebVPN client. Also, if you want a more secure machine, Vista with UAC enabled can provide you with more security.
 
Canadian in Berlin said:
3Dmax did not like vista.[Snip..]
Click to expand...

So, did you only work with Max when Vista was first released?

Canadian in Berlin said:
Web browsing was the same as in XP.
Click to expand...

Say the same thing when IPv6 is ramping up to become the standard.


matrix563 said:
vista uses more ram than xp? it does a better job of that ;)
[Snip..]
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate whether you're being sarcastic or not? I'm having a hard time deciding whether you think extra unused RAM is some how note-worthy?

Or are you saying Vista is the only OS, of all OSes(including *Nix and Apple) that uses more system memory than it's predecessors?

Enlighten me.
 
Canadian in Berlin said:
No, over the last 4 months of using vista.
Click to expand...

As do I, so you must not be using the version of 3DMax that is supported? Hint: It comes before 10, but after 8.

Canadian in Berlin said:
I doubt that will truly happen anytime soon, they'd have to hold so many people's hands to get them through it. IPv4 will work fine for a loooong time.
Click to expand...

LOL.

I'm dying laughing over here. Really, stick to things you know. Maple Syrup, perhaps?
 
dot_Zen said:
As do I, so you must not be using the version of 3DMax that is supported? Hint: It comes before 10, but after 8.
LOL.

I'm dying laughing over here. Really, stick to things you know. Maple Syrup, perhaps?
Click to expand...

Fair enough with 3dMax, I never bothered to look. Still annoys me though.

As with the IP Addresses, I'm aware of the coming change, yet I'm also aware of how business models work. I have the feeling that many ISPs will be continuing IP4 support for some time, why? Because if they tell the average home user they need to buy a new computer and install windows Vista or another IP6 compatible OS in order to continue using the internet, they won't have very many customers (especially considering that SOME enterprising ISP SOMEWHERE will be smart and run IP4 to their customers with old computers and then translate that to IP6 at their end.

Or they will all do that.


And please, quit being a jackass ok? As far as what I know... well... gee.. that would be network administration.
 
Canadian in Berlin said:
As with the IP Addresses, I'm aware of the coming change, yet I'm also aware of how business models work. I have the feeling that many ISPs will be continuing IP4 support for some time, why? Because if they tell the average home user they need to buy a new computer and install windows Vista or another IP6 compatible OS in order to continue using the internet, they won't have very many customers (especially considering that SOME enterprising ISP SOMEWHERE will be smart and run IP4 to their customers with old computers and then translate that to IP6 at their end.

Or they will all do that.
Click to expand...

This is a separate topic in and of itself, so I won't get into detail here.

Suffice to say, that is the fuzziest logic I have every seen: What do ISP's tell customers when they do run out of addresses? "Sorry, we didn't think it would happen this soon?"

Canadian in Berlin said:
And please, quit being a jackass ok? As far as what I know... well... gee.. that would be network administration.
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for your company.
 
dot_Zen said:
This is a separate topic in and of itself, so I won't get into detail here. Suffice to say, that is the fuzziest logic I have every seen: What do ISP's tell customers when they do run out of addresses? "Sorry, we didn't think it would happen this soon?" I feel sorry for your company.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know what they are supposed to do, but it certainly won't be saying "anyone not running vista will be disconnected on Date: X".

Thats not my job to figure out.
 
Canadian in Berlin said:
I honestly don't know what they are supposed to do, but it certainly won't be saying "anyone not running vista will be disconnected on Date: X".

Thats not my job to figure out.
Click to expand...

That's not a likely scenario either, but we're getting way off-topic.

My point was, when making that statement, XP does not have a sure-fire working model for add-in IPv6 support--Vista comes prebuilt to deal with any transition to IPv6 and so will future iterations of Windows OSes. Many other OSes also support IPv6. So it's a feature in Vista that separates it from XP.
 
True enough, and I'm merely pointing out that in the foreseable future (3-4 years) thats not a significant enough reason to upgrade, seeing as how they won't just cut off anyone with XP or even worse, windows 98/2000.
 
there are many reasons why to move to Vista, but for now there are better reasons why not to
1. requirements
2. bugs
there are probably more reasons why not to , but these two are main reasons
and there isn't one BIG reason why should we move to vista
DX10? hasn't proven itself
IPv6? who's using it?
a little more effects and comfortable things : such as search , ? not enough

system requirements ? sucks your hardware x2 times? oh yeah
 
arik100 said:
there are many reasons why to move to Vista, but for now there are better reasons why not to
1. requirements
2. bugs
there are probably more reasons why not to , but these two are main reasons
and there isn't one BIG reason why should we move to vista
DX10? hasn't proven itself
IPv6? who's using it?
a little more effects and comfortable things : such as search , ? not enough

system requirements ? sucks your hardware x2 times? oh yeah
Click to expand...

What bugs, specifically?

How is it that the hardware requirements of a new OS are completely unacceptable to members of [H] forums? Did you fellas come here from Anand, again?

Show me a Dx10 exclusive (means coded only for) game.

Who uses IPv6? Here's one that'll scramble your noodle: Try the same host these forums are hosted on--The Planet. And there's plenty more, as the months go by, many many more will begin the transition.

Listen, I'm not against anyone who doesn't think Vista is for them: Check my post history, I routeinly say, "Use what works for you". Just don't make false accusations, or unsupported claims of things which you are only vaguely familiar--or read(regurgitate) off some site.

There's plenty of reasons to switch, and I'm sure some reasons can be made as to why anyone shouldn't. The fact is: it works. And it works for many. Just search for all the polls, even in this sub-forum alone, related to Vista. You'll see many are not having issues, and just as many enjoy the change.

Remember, 9 times out of 10, when someone posts to any forum it's because they have problems, so you generally don't hear from the ones who aren't having issues.
 
I post for something to do, the fact that I have problems just gives me a chance to post them to share problems (easier than google, gets the info out for everyone).

Anyway, the poster HAS XP and was asking if Vista was worthwhile to upgrade to. At this moment: No, in 2-3 years, quite likely. (especially since MS is killing off XP).

If you have no OS, I'd say grab Vista, if you already have XP, theres no compelling reason to fork out more cash.
 
I have to agree, Vista isn't that huge a difference for me......I'm not a power user, just the basics and some I find very annoying; you can find those on most lists.

I bought into Vista for "better" x64 and DX10. Well most programs are still 32 bit and I have a boatload of just released games that still work with DX 9c packaged with the disc.

It (vista) just isn't that grand. It'll make me a bit timid to jump on the next greatest OS from MS.
 
For me, nothing really, the only reason to move would be DX10 games and 4GB ram, other than that nothing, almost everything I liked in Vista can be replicated in XP... i.e. addressbar (QT Addressbar in XP)
 
Canadian in Berlin said:
If you have no OS, I'd say grab Vista, if you already have XP, theres no compelling reason to fork out more cash.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of reasons to upgrade. What aggravates me are two things shown here: People asking questions or posting topics that they KNOW will only cause an argument, when it all boils down to personal opinion anyway. The second is, people trying to make blanket statements like the one above. Just because something applies to an individual, doesn't mean it applies to everyone. Vista has plenty of reasons to upgrade. Whether you personally feel it is worth it, is your decision, but should only be your decision, and not something posted as a PSA to all. To many others, Vista is definitely worth the cost, so to each his/her own. If everyone learned to do their own research, and make up their own minds, we wouldn't have this mess. Use what fits your needs best, and stop all these threads asking others to to give you your own opinion.

As for reasons to use Vista, how about better support for an x64 operating system? The certification process requires drivers be available for x86 and x64.
 
Canadian in Berlin said:
Anyway, the poster HAS XP and was asking if Vista was worthwhile to upgrade to. At this moment: No, in 2-3 years, quite likely. (especially since MS is killing off XP).

If you have no OS, I'd say grab Vista, if you already have XP, theres no compelling reason to fork out more cash.
Click to expand...


I couldn't disagree more. I had XP when I started beta testing Vista nearly 2 years ago. I was extremely close to dropping Windows products all together because of XP--don't let ppl fool you, it had more problems than Vista at launch, and still has many problems today.

At this moment: I see no reason to delay upgrading to Vista, today.

I say there's plenty of compelling reasons to ditch XP and move to Vista whenever you get a chance. If you get the full version, then you can keep the XP license for other uses, but no reason not to utilize the extras that are built-in to Vista; instead of having to track down and troubleshoot programs/add-ons that tranform XP into something it's not.

To each his/her own.
 
I originally got Vista so that I could make use of more RAM (that was stiffled by my mobo not supporting my current sticks -- don't use 6-6-6-18 G.Skill on a MSI P7n Platinum).

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".
 
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. My business VPN client for starters. Upgrading to Vista would require a few upgrades, new antivirus maybe, etc. I'm aware of the reasons not to upgrade, and on those alone, I probably shouldn't. Where I work we don't allow Vista because it doesn't work with a couple of critical business apps, let alone the hardware requirements and cost to upgrade. But since this is for a personal PC, I have more flexibility.

So far it sounds like there is no compelling reason to upgrade at this time, apart from some nice new desktop features and DX10. I had not thought about the IPv6 issue, but I don't think that's as big of a deal for most of us as it is for ISP's. IPv4/v6 firewalls will take us through the transition I suspect, but I could be wrong.

I was fishing for that "killer" feature that would make me want to spend the $100's to upgrade to Vista and leave XP behind. Sounds like there isn't one yet, but it's coming, as you say.

Sorry to those I offended by starting a new thread on the subject. As you say, there are probably 100's of similar threads, but then the opposite problem occurs. Instead of finding a needle in a haystack, there is information overload. There is no reason why I couldn't have started a thread on the same subject. It happens every day on this and every other forum.

Cheers. :D

Robert
 
To each his/her own.
Click to expand...

I believe it does fall down to a YMMV thing, but in my case, I use XP as it is out of the box (excluding updates) without any major troubles or bothers. Vista, being newer, gives me nothing, and took away a few things (my Zen without upgrading to the latest in Creative's downward spiral of crap software/drivers).

XP when it came out was CRAP, Vista when it came out, was as a whole, much better than early XP. It still has lots of wrinkles to iron out, and for the benefit, I simply couldn't justify reccomending upgrading to Vista to ANYONE I know. (excluding my porn browsing uncle)

I was fishing for that "killer" feature that would make me want to spend the $100's to upgrade to Vista and leave XP behind. Sounds like there isn't one yet, but it's coming, as you say.
Click to expand...

If money isn't an issue for you, there is one: Unless it breaks something for you, then you can be ahead of the ball when you perhaps HAVE(games, whatever) to use Vista.
 
Valnar said:
It happens every day on this and every other forum.
Click to expand...
it does, and that's the problem. This is an issue that doesn't need a thread, asking other people's opinions. it is a decision, you and you alone should make. It is very simple to research and read about the features of Vista. You already know the features of XP. Then you simply run the Vista Upgrade Advisor Tool. If it finds incompatibilities, research them. For example, if your AV software doesn't work, you can either check on an updated version, or check into the good, free applications that are available. Once you know if your system can run Vista, then you research the cost, and decide if it is worth it to you. This all wouldn't take any more than 30 mins to an hour, and it involves info that only you would know. It is really that simple.
 
There are times for opinions, and there are times when solid facts are required. Unfortunately on here, those are treated as one in the same. This is one of those times where it is an opinion. Yours. No one else should tell you what clothes to wear today, what to make for dinner, what kind of car to drive, who to date/marry, etc. Same thing with using an OS.
 
DeaconFrost said:
There are times for opinions, and there are times when solid facts are required. Unfortunately on here, those are treated as one in the same. This is one of those times where it is an opinion. Yours. No one else should tell you what clothes to wear today, what to make for dinner, what kind of car to drive, who to date/marry, etc. Same thing with using an OS.
Click to expand...

Simply not true. There are facts about what works and what doesn't on any given OS, and I'd rather post a question then go through the trouble of spending money to find out for myself. What else are these forums for if they are not to ask questions?

Robert
 
I think you are missing the point. If you had a specific question about something specific working or not, by all means ask it. Others may be dealing with the very same issue. The last thing we need is another person asking for which OS to use. It gets repetitive, and the results are always the same...bickering ensues, and nothing useful is given. After all of that, the OP still has to find out for themselves (and this doesn't require spending money). It requires a little time and a little effort, and that's all. It's kind of like the "who should I date" threads in GenMay. How would anyone reading that online be able to offer up an actual answer? It all comes down to the individual.

As for this situation, simply asking which OS, or which one is better isn't going to yeild anything useful, as has been proven over and over and over again. Run the tool I mentioned, and then you'll develop a list of questions to ask. You wouldn't walk into a supermarket and declare, "hey, I need food...which is best?". You'd have to go in there knowing what to ask, or what you were looking for.
 
Well, we'll agree to disagree. I did get something useful out of this thread. It sounds like there is no compelling reason to upgrade to Vista for me, at least for the next year or until SP2 comes out (which may add more features in addition to bug fixes).

Robert
 
It isn't a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. I'm not trying to convince to you go with Vista. I'm trying to show how these types of questions can get right to the point, with good solid answers, without all the extraneous arguments and debates about which is better. If you truly feel Vista has nothing to offer you, than stick with XP. SP1 fixed quite a bit, and Vista is every bit as stable as XP, or moreso. I wouldn't base your upgrade decision on SP2 or not, but I guess that's just me. I would still run the Upgrade Advisor now, to at least know what you are dealing with. You may have some uncommon hardware, or a little know application that doesn't work with Vista, so you'd know that going forward. Or, let's say you have an older printer, like my Photosmart 1315. I know ahead of time, it wouldn't properly work in Vista, so I knew when I was ready to upgrade my wife's computer to Vista x64, we would need a new printer.
 
Canadian in Berlin said:
XP when it came out was CRAP
Click to expand...
That's a matter of opinion. My Win2K/ME -> XP transition was much easier than my transition from XP64 to Vista x64. When I changed to XP, my computing experience didn't really change, as stuff was still where I was used to it, things worked more or less the same, and the OS didn't become some overwhelming part of my daily activities. Once I turned off the Fisher Price theme I just kept rolling along as if nothing happened.

Vista changed a lot, maybe too much. It didn't help that hardware makers dropped the ball en masse (or MS screwed them up at the last minute). Instead of installing Vista and going happily along, I'm sitting here in hour three of my re-do of my laptop trying to figure out why I can get 60hz refresh for every mode except the native 1920x1200x32. This is despite the fact that if I remove the hard drive and put another one in that ALSO has Vista on it, with the same drivers and configuration, 1920x1200x32 60hz is the default. *shrugs*
 
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.
 
For the transition to XP, there are really two possibilities: if you came from 2K to XP, it was a point upgrade (NT 5.0 to NT 5.1) and not much that was fundamental changed greatly, so that wasn't too much trouble. If you came from 98/Me, the change was huge, but very beneficial - I think a lot of people don't appreciate that XP is an entirely different codebase to 9x/Me, but itself a fairly minor upgrade in the long-established Windows NT family; they seem to have the impression that XP is a greatly improved version of 98/Me.

XP -> Vista isn't as big as the 98/Me -> XP change, but XP was vastly better than 98/Me, and Vista doesn't have that kind of advantage over XP. However, it's also a reasonably large update, larger than 2K -> XP, so it's not as simple as that transition was. I suppose that puts it between a rock and a hard place, being a large enough update to cause incompatibilities and for people to get upset about the changes, but not enough of an improvement for it to be obviously worth the effort to migrate.

What I like in Vista:
Start-menu search (I almost never drill down the folders any more)
Aero, including its better handling of programs that stop responding
SuperFetch
Per-application volume mixer
Wide x64 compatibility
Hybrid Sleep
UAC (amazingly enough)
System generally feels more robust and stable

I can't really say anything I dislike about Vista compared to XP. It does require more resources than XP, and a few programs aren't compatible with it yet, but those are only arguments if you have a low-end computer or have mission-critical applications that don't work with it. However, my stance has usually been that it's definitely worth getting Vista on new machines, but I'd hesitate to upgrade XP machines to Vista.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top