Vista or XP?

Overheal

Sherifu wrote: »

The only way to fly.

that is the only way to fly, sir.

DenMan

Hey OP

Have you reached a decision regarding your new computer, XP or Vista. Are you leaning towards Vista as others have recommended? It is the way forward though. Just wish they could work on supporting Avid for me.

Capt'n Midnight

Overheal wrote: »

: For some reason in our home network our Vista and XP machines cant see eachother: the Vista machines see themselves and the same with XP thats it. Anyone knowing the answer to that leave a message on my profile).

and then you'll post the fix, maybe ?

Have you checked or asked on the networking forum

A lot of the other "new" features in Vista have been around for ages in other OS's.
Defrag is a hangover from DOS/FAT other OS's just don't bother with it since they don't fragment the file as much as when saving it, the only OS I know of that's worse was the BBC Micro where it could only save a file to a contiguous space on a floppy and so on occasion you couldn't save a file even if the cumulative free space was big enough.

tech

for me its still has to be XP all the way, Vista is just so heavy on memory ..

Overheal

tech wrote: »

for me its still has to be XP all the way, Vista is just so heavy on memory ..

http://members.rushmore.com/~jsky/id37.html

charlesD

I would go for XP Professional, but on a powerful laptop (dual core + 4Gigs of ram) Vista will run fairly well if you turn off Aero and some of the other processes that are not essential.

Most software developers have yet to embrace Vista as well and so you will not loose out if you decide to stick with the reliable and dependable XP.

I switched to Ubuntu Linux a few years ago though and it is much better...

itisyeah

Cianos wrote: »

I'm getting a new laptop soon and I have the option to go with Vista or XP. Which would you recommend?

I have heard that Vista kinda sucks, but is it better than XP?

Cheers

It does not matter what OS you get, you can partition your hard drive and run multiple OS off of it.
For instance, I have installed Vista Home Premium, XP Pro and Ubuntu and choose which one to load up at the bootloader menu.
There are plenty of guides online about how to do this.

Personally, I prefer XP as it is the fastest and most stable.
I find Vista crashes quite a bit.

yoyo

Remember the end of this month XP will be no longer produced and distributed by Microsoft, as I've said before a Core 2 system with 2 gigs of RAM will run Vista grand, I have XP Pro on the laptop but hate it now I'm used to Vista on the desktop, Also my laptop with xp runs much slower with xp than my desktop with vista (Laptop spec is Dual Core CPU & A Gig RAM)... Also I've yet to have a blue screen fault in Vista, and it runs very stable here. Ran nice for me on 2 gig ram aswell

Nick

ScumLord

itisyeah wrote: »

It does not matter what OS you get, you can partition your hard drive and run multiple OS off of it.
For instance, I have installed Vista Home Premium, XP Pro and Ubuntu and choose which one to load up at the bootloader menu.
There are plenty of guides online about how to do this.

But xp is on it's way out so he'll probably be forced to upgrade at some point meaning he'll be paying double. Since it's not costing him anything I reckon he should take the plunge and go with vista.

charlesD

ScumLord wrote: »

But xp is on it's way out so he'll probably be forced to upgrade at some point meaning he'll be paying double. Since it's not costing him anything I reckon he should take the plunge and go with vista.

This is not completely true. Microsoft recently extended their support for XP. I will have to look for the article, but I believe it will be supported until 2012 now.

When you consider that 92% of developers are still coding for XP, it is a safe bet that you will be able to use it for some time without being forced to switch.

papu

vista is the only proper choice if your building a pc , anything you dont like about it can be changed in a couple of click s, it handles Multiple processors better than Xp the only O's that can properly distribute quad+core is Xp Pro , xp home and mediacenter only do Dual core . get Sp1 and all the networking problems will be fixed , the sidebar gadgets have become second nature now and i wonder how people get on without them. Dx10 is a bit of a cop out but new cards seem to be able to run it pretty much ok , Fps in Vista SP1 and Xp Sp3 are almost the exact same barring 1 or 2 fps the performance has been brought back up to scratch , so all the people saying Xp is for gamers are kidding themselves , vista uses aloot of memory just using programs and being on the desktop but once you launch a game or somthing it moves some of the programs in ram to page file and does it more efficently than XP.
sorry for the long post it just sums up everything need to be said.

Simplicity

Vista. It is the current future. Might as well join in

mathias

The date for XP's removal from all OEM channels is still june 30th , it hasnt moved , so support will continue to 2012 , but after june nobody can get a new license , and if I'm reading this correctly , ...

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/06/25/26NF-xp-plea_1.html

...A petition to keep XP alive that has been active since January has only gathered 300 000 or so signatures , so its either a none too popular website , or people really dont want XP to stick around that much !!

From June 30th royalty OEMs (ie the big names) won't be able to sell XP however small system builders will still be able to get copies of it until January 31st next year. Source

brow_601

the fact that it took microsoft so long to get xp right and then they go and release vista a few months later is beyond me. If it takes them that long to get vista working the way it should it'll be probably time for another pc upgrade. and knowing microsoft it won't be long after that untill they have a new os which won't work.its a vicious circle.

Overheal

brow_601 wrote: »

the fact that it took microsoft so long to get xp right and then they go and release vista a few months later is beyond me. If it takes them that long to get vista working the way it should it'll be probably time for another pc upgrade. and knowing microsoft it won't be long after that untill they have a new os which won't work.its a vicious circle.

right, but i guess you have to pick between a done and dusted OS thats reaching the end of the line, or one that will be gradually improving over the next few years and the lifespan of your PC, just as every other OS did before it.

Capt'n Midnight

brow_601 wrote: »

the fact that it took microsoft so long to get xp right and then they go and release vista a few months later is beyond me. If it takes them that long to get vista working the way it should it'll be probably time for another pc upgrade. and knowing microsoft it won't be long after that untill they have a new os which won't work.its a vicious circle.

the same can be said of most OS's. Ubuntu pulled the plug (removed all update files) on 6.10 after 18 months. But the older version 6.06 will be supported for another few years. Of course with free software cost is not part of the decision to upgrade or not

The point here is that the life spans are public knowledge, except microsoft has extended lifes in the past to appease corporate customers / cover for late shipments of replacements
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx - existing OS life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7 - this is what's next
Windows 7 is expected to be released near January 2010.

Red Alert

I've tried Vista but it's dreadful. I even ran it on a decent machine, but it's pretty much because Vista is so awful that I bought a Mac. I've a nice XP image I use to install any older machines I have, it's XP slipstreamed with loads of stuff disabled with nLite.

maclad

Red Alert wrote: »

I've tried Vista but it's dreadful. I even ran it on a decent machine, but it's pretty much because Vista is so awful that I bought a Mac. I've a nice XP image I use to install any older machines I have, it's XP slipstreamed with loads of stuff disabled with nLite.

I was in the same boat, vista caused me to buy an imac and a macbook:D
Had vista on a new laptop with 2gigs of ram and 2.2 core 2 duo and f**k it was slow and it must have crashed twice a week:mad: now i've been using leopard since december with only one crash between my two macs:)

papu

Thanks guys for going completely off topic , this is XP or Vista , not MAC vs PC
you had a bad experience fine , ive had horrible experiences with apple machines which have convinced me never ever to buy one...

back ontopic the facts

When choosing a new operating system, the first thing many people ask is, "What will it help me do?" In answer, much of this site shows you the great experiences Windows Vista helps you have. The second thing many people say is, "Prove that it's better." In particular, many of you have asked about performance and safety improvements. The following information provides specific proof that Windows Vista is faster and safer.

* The majority of Windows Vista-based PCs boot in less than a minute, which can be an improvement over Windows XP boot times. And the new Windows Vista sleep and resume features can bring your PC to life in a snap—in fact, the vast majority of all Windows Vista-based PCs resume from sleep in less than 6 seconds.
* PCs running Windows Vista that are equipped with 512 MB memory experience a performance boost of up to 40 percent with Windows ReadyBoost. Just plug a USB flash drive into your computer, and Windows Vista will automatically start using it to speed up memory access to important data.
* Out of the box, Windows Vista performs as well, or better, than Windows XP on common home and business tasks.
* Windows Vista users generally experience 20 percent fewer application "hangs" than those running Windows XP
* Superfetch helps your computer adjust to your schedule, so your apps are ready to go before you even launch them. Use Microsoft Outlook every morning? Superfetch will serve it up just in time for breakfast. Play the same game every night? Superfetch gets your computer ready for the next big win. Waiting less means you can do more
* Based on their first 180 days of availability, Windows Vista has been shown to have fewer vulnerabilities than Windows XP or MacOS X 10.4. PCs running it are 60 percent less likely to be infected with viruses, worms, and rootkits than PCs running Windows XP SP2. Windows Vista-based PCs are over 90 percent less likely to be infected than systems running Windows XP without a Service Pack. And the experts agree: "Windows Vista is arguably the most secure closed-source OS available on the market."
* The more people use Windows Vista, the more they like it. So dig in and learn even more about the new features in Windows Vista. Once you've tried it, you'll see

http://neowin.net/news/main/08/01/20/windows-vista-the-facts

Tar.Aldarion

I would go with vista. I have used all flavours and it is grand. It takes up more ram but ram is dirt cheap so it's not an issue.

maclad

papu wrote: »

Thanks guys for going completely off topic , this is XP or Vista , not MAC vs PC
you had a bad experience fine , ive had horrible experiences with apple machines which have convinced me never ever to buy one...

I didn't go completely off topic in fact it was a very valid statement that vista is just so bad that it is causing people to switch platform. I'd advise anyone to get xp while they still can http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/future.mspx
Xp dies tomorrow!:rolleyes:

Also i noticed you said you had a problem with the machines(you didn't say the os) apple machines have improved greatly. I know they weren't exactly very reliable in the past but the latest generations are very hard to fault. Infact i'm running xp through bootcamp on my imac and it's my fastest windows pc:D

Black Swan

I've been running Vista Ultimate for about 1.5 years, and when I first got it, it was a real pain. Lots of patches and updates, too. Now it runs pretty good. I would not go back to XP, cause I am uncertain how much longer it will be supported by MS. Further, I would not buy a new laptop with XP, with the idea of installing Vista at a later date. I see that as asking for trouble. Oh, I think you should have a minimum of 2Gig memory, or Vista will hog too much of your capacity for running other apps. That's what I am running without a prob.

Tar.Aldarion

Well because they are basically pcs with a different os.

I don't see why vista is bad, I have used it for a year and a half with not one problem. If you don't like vista I would use xp or linux on a pc, not use a mac. They can't justify their ridiculous prices.

maclad

I have to agree with you on the price front but you are paying for reliability and security along with simplicity. Everything just works! Also resale values remain fairly high ,you are unlikely to lose much when selling one. But anyway back on topic if you buy vista business or ultimate aren't you entitled to downgrade to xp for free under one of microsofts programs anyway?

papu

maclad wrote: »

I didn't go completely off topic in fact it was a very valid statement that vista is just so bad that it is causing people to switch platform. I'd advise anyone to get xp while they still can http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/future.mspx
Xp dies tomorrow!:rolleyes:

Also i noticed you said you had a problem with the machines(you didn't say the os) apple machines have improved greatly. I know they weren't exactly very reliable in the past but the latest generations are very hard to fault. Infact i'm running xp through bootcamp on my imac and it's my fastest windows pc:D

well tbh i didnt think i needed to say which os , every mac user i know has no problem shelling out money the latest and greatest, so on that note it was OsX.

irishgirl08xx

omg, vista is awful. it takes ages to load and scans EVERYTHING first. :mad: so annoyin. and internet with vista is relly slow even if you have broadband.

papu

maclad wrote: »

I have to agree with you on the price front but you are paying for reliability and security along with simplicity. Everything just works! Also resale values remain fairly high ,you are unlikely to lose much when selling one. But anyway back on topic if you buy vista business or ultimate aren't you entitled to downgrade to xp for free under one of microsofts programs anyway?

no your paying for the brand , that shiney white apple logo , its like a symbol to some people , its actually quite sickening ...
OSX has more security flaws than Vista , it has been hacked Quicker , and no , not everything just works , its not perfect ,nothing ever will be. although you would expect it to , becuase it runs only things certified by apple...ie there overpriced hardware..

papu

irishgirl08xx wrote: »

omg, vista is awful. it takes ages to load and scans EVERYTHING first. :mad: so annoyin. and internet with vista is relly slow even if you have broadband.

?
if your using ie7 theres your problem , im also willing to bet youve got a..laptop? <2 gigs of ram? prove me wrong?

maclad

papu wrote: »

no your paying for the brand , that shiney white apple logo , its like a symbol to some people , its actually quite sickening ...
OSX has more security flaws than Vista , it has been hacked Quicker , and no , not everything just works , its not perfect ,nothing ever will be. although you would expect it to , becuase it runs only things certified by apple...ie there overpriced hardware..

Well....the logo on mine is black;)

Then why is there practically no spyware? why is it much master and less vulnerable? Osx can run on practically anything, ran it on a dell before and i upgraded my imac with non-apple certified parts:D

And btw its vista that is picky about hardware...Lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTpEoZYFLkw