Vista or XP?

papu

maclad wrote: »

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

wow propaganda ... nice way to show your facts...
running an apple on anything but an apple machine , is actually illegal , it violates Apples T(p)OS

maclad

I know but it was simply for experimenting and i formatted the drive soon afterwards. A proof-of-concept if you will. Besides half the people running vista are doing so illegally using bios emulation or similar methods. Also its not as if i illegally downloaded it i actually used a family pack leopard dvd which i purchased

watty

I'm running SAME copy of XP for last 6 years on my laptop*. It's never been re-installed. I migrated and resized partitions from the 30Gbyte drive to a 120GByte drive without re-install.

Still out performs most new Vista Laptops. I've used vista and studied it carefully. I've been installing & specifying systems with NT since 1994.

I can see no good reason to use Vista. It offers nothing extra. My previous Laptop (2000 to 2002 ran NT4.0). I skipped 2000, but have it on some other PCs inc my Server.

I can see no good value to Win7 either. MS has shot their feet off at the knees and passed the Event Horizon. If I got a new high end laptop I'd use XP. For low end / MID/UMPCs just for Web, Email & Open Office, already Linux is better. (e.g. EeePC 900). I've too many Windows only applications to switch from XP to Linux for main Laptop. I have VM ware to run Linux on it at the same time when needed.




(*"Desktop version" P4 1.8GHz CPU, 512M RAM, recently upgraded to 768M, because I had some, didn't need more RAM, 1600x1200 ultrasharp TFT-LCD with GeForce 440 Go 32M graphics. Inspiron 8200 laptop).

irishgirl08xx

papu wrote: »

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

what ie7? am, nope.. a computer....

I'm going to contest a few of these claims:

* 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.

Vista certainly does not boot faster than XP. My laptop (Dell Inspiron 6000) boots XP in 30 seconds, the same laptop takes over a minute to boot Vista - it has 2GB of RAM. Anyone who claims a new version of Windows is faster than its predecessor is only fooling themselves. Time after time the new version is slower than the old one until the hardware catches up. 98 is slower than 95 on the same hardware, XP is slower than 2000 on the same hardware. I remember I once installed Windows 95 on a Pentium III 733MHz PC with 256MB of RAM, it was an absolute rocket compared to 98/ME.

* 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

This may be true but it severely increases disk activity to the point that many users turn it off. The search indexer has the same issue.

* 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."

I'd agree with this provided that UAC is enabled. With UAC off my guess is that it's the roughly same as XP.

* 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

There's certainly some good features in there. But is there enough to warrant spending extra money on an upgrade? I like the per application volume control for example but that alone wouldn't be enough for me to take the plunge.

Plus many users are resistant to change after having no new Windows release for so long so I'm pretty sure that's influencing some - especially since the revamped shell in Vista is a bit of a pain at first if you're an experienced user. On the other hand, I'm in the unusual situation where I have a 7 year old game that doesn't work properly in XP on a GeForce 8 card while Vista runs it fine.

Overheal

I cant vouch for those claimed boot times on Vista: I've clocked myself on reboots before and the average is 5 minuts. An average sleep operation takes at least 20 seconds to perform depending on what youre up to at the time, but yes the wake-up does average about 6 seconds. This goes back over to the 87' mac versus the 07' PC article in the Comp Tech forum right now: the mac taking up far less memory loads a helluvalot quicker. Frankly I can't fault Vista for taking longer to load but I wouldn't ever say its gotten any faster. Running on a latpop with 2ghz dual 2gb ram with a hard drive which I would hope does at least 5400 rpms if not 7200.

Superfetcher disk activity is a minor concern. When I tried to disable it though that turned into a headache so I just leave it on. Im not too worried about it anymore, it does what it says.

Its sad to see UAC was a swing and a miss with so many people. I do leave it yes it can help you spot trouble: when you download a file from the internet for example that you know doesnt need Administrator access to do what its supposed to? Its helped me out at least a couple times.

I can understand the resistance to change here of course but I've already succumb to the new features and cant see myself rolling back to XP anytime soon.

Also if you're thinking about buying a family computer, Vista is the only way to fly; stop your kids from installing everything under the sun with UAC. I just spent the last week fixing machines where kids have been allowed to do that under XP-Home machines: the results weren't pretty.

Overheal

maclad wrote: »

I know but it was simply for experimenting and i formatted the drive soon afterwards. A proof-of-concept if you will. Besides half the people running vista are doing so illegally using bios emulation or similar methods. Also its not as if i illegally downloaded it i actually used a family pack leopard dvd which i purchased

where did that come from

Tar.Aldarion

It's true about vista, the more you use it the more you like it. Didn't care for it at the start. Tuned the settings. Also, boot times don't matter, it is never off, just hibernate or sleep. Takes a few seconds to be on.

Mr. Presentable

maclad wrote: »

Then why is there practically no spyware? why is it much master and less vulnerable?

Because there is no kudos to be had for hacking a niche OS?

Mr. Presentable

charlesD wrote: »

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.

Extended last week to 2014. OP, it really is down to what you want to use it for.

ethernet

papu wrote: »

wow propaganda ... nice way to show your facts...
running an apple on anything but an apple machine , is actually illegal , it violates Apples T(p)OS

Running Mac OS on anything without the Apple logo is in violation of the EULA.

Mac OS X Leopard Software License Agreement wrote:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time ...

I find your post here gives a constrasting view to that expressed in this thread.

papu

ethernet wrote: »

Running Mac OS on anything without the Apple logo is in violation of the EULA.



I find your post here gives a constrasting view to that expressed in this thread.

yeah well a dell machine hasnt an apple logo

, and that comment to anti was a joke , i was having a go at teh 48 days uptime , becuase the attitude of many people here is that it constantly bsods.... because he knows i run vista , and know he runs vista ,i guess if pacmen dont show sarcasim nothing will ;/

Cabaal

As much as I've loved windows over the years I have to say I don't like Vista one bit, best of the bunch were Win98SE, Windows 2000 and Windows XP

Its an awful shame Microsoft didn't drop WinME years ago and instead make Win2k more suitable for home use as well as it was a pretty solid OS except it lacked decent drivers for the high end graphics cards as it was mainly aimed at business use.

At this stage it would appear Windows Vista is the new WinME in my view, awful shame.

I'm sticking to WindowsXP on any of my desktops and MacOSX and Parallels running WinXP on my MacBook

Overheal

I guess to conclude my own view it depends on what you use it for. If youre a serious gamer and youre made into your fullscreen apps (and you dont mind missing out on DX10) then you may as well hang on to XP. But I spend too much time in the desktop environment; ive come to rely on some of the new vista features already.

Capt'n Midnight

on tiny gripe about vista
if you have vista premium ( not home or starter ,, but the more expensive one with more bits and pieces ) how do you backup system settings ?
if you have an image dvd you can't do a repair - it's wipe and back to square one

actually it's move all stuff to a little resizing to make sure the image partition starts in a different position insert the DVD and then use testdisk to recover the partition later, and install everything again :mad:

even XP home had ntbackup that could be used to restore system files and programs.

papu

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

on tiny gripe about vista
if you have vista premium ( not home or starter ,, but the more expensive one with more bits and pieces ) how do you backup system settings ?
if you have an image dvd you can't do a repair - it's wipe and back to square one

actually it's move all stuff to a little resizing to make sure the image partition starts in a different position insert the DVD and then use testdisk to recover the partition later, and install everything again :mad:

even XP home had ntbackup that could be used to restore system files and programs.

there is a restore utility in the controll panel ,best to use it after a fresh install because it backs up the ENTIRE pc , ive a 50gig image on my external here

when booting hitting f8 i think will bring up all the safe mode , repair , install options?