XP or Vista

Tim Robbins

Hi,
Trying to put together a cheap Dell PC for My Mother. I was thinking of getting XP, as I don't think Vista has had enough time to be stable yet (has it?). Would I better getting XP or Vista?
Thanks

VinLieger

Vista isnt too bad anymore plus since MS stopped making XP its become pretty hard to find. Your probably better off going with Vista since its gonna be the main OS pretty soon.

Seth Brundle

I've been using vista for the last year and have had no issues with it that I wouldn't expect from any other version of windys!

PurpleBerry

March 2007 I thought "Sure, might as well get into this Vista thing" for the same reason of it becoming the main OS for Windows. I hate Vista. I do. For so many reasons. At the start of the year I had headache after headache with hardware, nothing was compatible with Vista. This may have changed by now, I don't know.

If you want a hassle-free computing experience go with XP. I'm not saying it's perfect but I reckon it's the closest Gates has ever got. I have a laptop that runs XP and a PC with Vista. I cannot believe the amount of hassle the PC is and I probably couldn't give the topic justice with a Boards rant. Despite the PC being three years younger than the Laptop.

Vista crashes. A lot. It freezes to the point where your only option is to crash it manually by turning off the modem. Programms crash whilst opening. This is something I have never, ever experienced before. You open Word and while it's in the process of opening it will say "not responding".

There are other annoyances with the set-up that I find inferior to XP but how anoying these would be to your mother depend on what she's going to be using the computer for. If she just wants the computer for leisure, browsing the internet and that then my advice would be go for XP and be the envy of people who bought Vista just because it's newer. While their "newer" computers are crashing non-stop your mom will be getting on with whatever it is she wants to do.

Just my 2c.

ewj1978

Since your putting together a "cheap" pc then go with Xp... It requires less of everything to run (especially GPU and RAM)and if its only for using word or the interweb then its the way to go.

Basically Xp will run on a can of beans..

Dinner

Neesa wrote: »

I do. For so many reasons. At the start of the year I had headache after headache with hardware, nothing was compatible with Vista. This may have changed by now, I don't know.

It has. I've been running Vista for over a year now with none of the problems that you've experienced.

uberpixie

Arabel wrote: »

It has. I've been running Vista for over a year now with none of the problems that you've experienced.

Good for you, how ever many people have experienced issues with Vista that Arabel is mentioning.

I supported vista for a year, from the month it was released for an oem.
Some models of pcs and laptops were fine others were pure muck running vista.

A lot of it prob comes down to what chipsets are used for the motherboard and the dirvers I would say it a lot of cases IMHO.

However I have mates of mates who are gaming under vista all have had littel niggles and issues. Then again my house mate has a vista laptop which she gets on fine with.

Tbh Vista is very slow in comparison to XP unless you are willing to really tweak it.

personally I stuck with XP pro for my gaming rig. Screw Vista, I will wait for windows & and hope its Vista with al the rubbish ripped out...

TBH if you are a business user you are sticking with xp.

PogMoThoin

Biggest problem is that people buy the cheapest Celeron laptop PC World and the likes sell, with the minimum of ram and than wonder why it struggles with Vista. Most people skimp while buying a pc, i see it regularly. They don't look for reliability or power when buying a pc, (like people do while choosing a car) they choose the very least they can get away with. I get far more use out of my pc than my car therefore I don't mind spending for a decent setup I can trust.

I'd blame Microsoft for making the minimum requirements for Vista too low, its not Vista. I've been using Vista 64bit for ages and have no issues with it, it just needs good hardware.

@ OP: go with Xp, if its a budget pc then it'll struggle with Vista

papu

budget pc nowadays is still a cheap dual core ( 50 euro) , or pentium , 2 gigs of ram (50 euro), and a gfx (30 euro)

vista is more stable and secure , you'll have to worry less about virus's and lock ups , Making fonts and icons larger is also easier in vista.

Shryke

I'd also recommend Vista. It's pretty cheap to put together a PC these days. I had a look in the budget gaming PC thread there last week and my jaw hit the floor.

I have a quick question that i thought i'd throw in here (rather than make a thread).


I bought this PC im using right now, a few months ago (probably february or so) and it has vista. Now, my internet hasn't been messed with, i haven't changed provider, its always fast enough to keep me happy, i haven't been downloading much more or less than when i was using my old XP PC... However, every now and then, my internet will just stop working, And seemingly the only way i can fix it, is to restart the computer. Does anyone else have this problem or know a way that i can fix it? It drove me insane when it cut out in the last minute of an eBay auction.

Also, I sometimes ge the 'not responding' thing, but not too often, and its rarely ever hassle.

papu

Deleted User wrote: »

I have a quick question that i thought i'd throw in here (rather than make a thread).


I bought this PC im using right now, a few months ago (probably february or so) and it has vista. Now, my internet hasn't been messed with, i haven't changed provider, its always fast enough to keep me happy, i haven't been downloading much more or less than when i was using my old XP PC... However, every now and then, my internet will just stop working, And seemingly the only way i can fix it, is to restart the computer. Does anyone else have this problem or know a way that i can fix it? It drove me insane when it cut out in the last minute of an eBay auction.

Also, I sometimes ge the 'not responding' thing, but not too often, and its rarely ever hassle.

sounds like a virus , maybe bad ram , check the ram with memtest , try using mozilla firefox if your using internet explorer , check you have your proper lan drivers installed , also , try restarting the router when your internet goes , i was affected by the same problem , turned out to be a dodgy router:o

papu

papu wrote: »

sounds like a virus , maybe bad ram , check the ram with memtest , try using mozilla firefox if your using internet explorer , check you have your proper lan drivers installed , also , try restarting the router when your internet goes , i was affected by the same problem , turned out to be a dodgy router:o

Well like i say, everything was perfectamundo on ye olde XP computer, but its just when i switched over that i had this problem.

AVG Tells me I'm Virus-Free...

papu

Deleted User wrote: »

Well like i say, everything was perfectamundo on ye olde XP computer, but its just when i switched over that i had this problem.

AVG Tells me I'm Virus-Free...

might want to get a second or third opinion on that , try finding a kaspersky Trial , 60 days , very good Av.

PogMoThoin

Do a malware scan with Malwarebytes-Anti-Malware, there are many things which Avg doesn't catch

PogMoThoin

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Do a malware scan with Malwarebytes-Anti-Malware, there are many things which Avg doesn't catch

I trust AVG


The scan you linked me to has been scanning for 42 mins so far, and nothing bad just yet, so hopefully it'll be OK.


So no one else with Vista has the internet-turning-off problem?:(


*EDIT*


Just did a full scan, no problems found.

Tim Robbins

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Biggest problem is that people buy the cheapest Celeron laptop PC World and the likes sell, with the minimum of ram and than wonder why it struggles with Vista. Most people skimp while buying a pc, i see it regularly. They don't look for reliability or power when buying a pc, (like people do while choosing a car) they choose the very least they can get away with. I get far more use out of my pc than my car therefore I don't mind spending for a decent setup I can trust.

I'd blame Microsoft for making the minimum requirements for Vista too low, its not Vista. I've been using Vista 64bit for ages and have no issues with it, it just needs good hardware.

@ OP: go with Xp, if its a budget pc then it'll struggle with Vista

What's the minimum spec for Vista? Not what Microsoft suggest as the minimum spec, the actual minimum spec?

Seth Brundle

no less than 2 gigs of RAM for a start.
a decent processor will always help

PogMoThoin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What's the minimum spec for Vista? Not what Microsoft suggest as the minimum spec, the actual minimum spec?

I'd say 2Gb ram (it struggles with just 1Gb) and dual core cpu (pentium d or better, although core2duo is what i'd recommend)

Nothingbetter2d

vista with sp1 is actually not that bad....however without sp1 its awful....

papu

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

vista with sp1 is actually not that bad....however without sp1 its awful....

and Xp with out sp1 , scratch that , Sp2 is also horrible..

min specs?

2 gigs of ram , decent gfx that can do aero( you can also go classic view)
anything over a 2.4ghz P4 , or any Core 2

maki

Vista certainly doesn't need 2GB of ram. I've been running it for over a year on a CoreDuo 1.66GHz with 1GB of ram with no problems or sluggishness.

PogMoThoin

maki wrote: »

Vista certainly doesn't need 2GB of ram. I've been running it for over a year on a CoreDuo 1.66GHz with 1GB of ram with no problems or sluggishness.

:rolleyes: Basic? Doubt you'd be saying that if running premium with the aero features

maki

PogMoThoin wrote: »

:rolleyes: Basic? Doubt you'd be saying that if running premium with the aero features

Running Ultimate with full aero actually. I even have an integrated graphics chip eating away at what ram I have. That being said the system is tweaked slightly with a fair few non-essential services disabled.

Myxomatosis

XP with SP3. A refined, mature, perfectly stable, glorious operating system. What more could you want? Apply the official "Royale" theme to give it a little face lift.

I gave Vista SP1 a really good go, I tried to like it but it is just not what it should be. In terms of usability it is just terrible.

Windows file Explorer in Vista is a joke, a back and forward button, stupid "breadcrumb" (whatever the **** that means) navigation bar, and that fat purple bar with the most pointless options on it. I mean when are you ever going to burn all the contents, and only all the contents of the current folder you are in. Once every blue moon I'd say. Yet they omit a button you would use every five seconds, the "Up" button.

I had to install a Windows Explorer alternative, Directory Opus, to try and improve the usability in terms of file manipulation.

Another annoyance that springs to mind is the "Save As" dialog box. I ALWAYS want to browse folders, I don't want to have to click the tiny arrow button to open up the browse folders section every time I'm saving something.

It's just the little things like that the make Vista so annoying to me, everything seems to be an extra click or 5 away.

Also there's far to much reading involved, every explanation or text on a dialog box is written in such a way for dumbasses to understand. A simple Yes or No question in XP is turned into a long winded question on the meaning of life in Vista.

Dinner

Myxomatosis wrote: »

Windows file Explorer in Vista is a joke, a back and forward button, stupid "breadcrumb" (whatever the **** that means) navigation bar

Isn't the point of the "breadcrumb" bar to replace the "up" button because it is actually better.

If I was in C: -> Users -> MyName -> Music and I wanted to go back to C, I just clicked C rather than hitting Up a few times, if I want to go back to my name, I just hit MyName.
If I want to go to a different directory within MyName, I just click the arrow beside it and choose which ever one I want.

Why do you need an Up button when you can already do the same thing (and more) just as easy?



And my "Save As" dialog always keeps open the list of folders. I had to expand it once when I first used it but since then it's always open.

Myxomatosis wrote: »

It's just the little things like that the make Vista so annoying to me, everything seems to be an extra click or 5 away.

Or in the case of the breadcrumb bar, it's always just one click away, rather than XP's many.

Shiny

Have been using vista 32bit for more than a year and installed
vista 64bit last week and no problems so far.

Only complaints I hear are from people with incompatible older
hardware or people who have not used it for any relevant
length of time.

Rsaeire

I agree that with Vista 32bit 2GB ram, minimum, is required if you plan on doing anything remotely more than browsing the internet, playing music, editing Microsoft office documents etc. If all you want to do is the bare minimum on Vista then 1GB ram should be fine.

h8red

Myxomatosis hit the nail on the head right there. For an OS that's supposed to better and easier to use it couldn't be worse or harder to use. XP SP3 does what it says on the tin. Vista doesn't. Go with XP.

Seth Brundle

I'm surprised at some of the comments tbh.
However, I tend to use a lot of keyboard shortcuts, etc so the up button was never really used - Alt + Up Arrow works for me!

Shiny

Go with Vista, its fine.

XP is on the way out.
All these arguments took place back in 2001 when people were
upgrading from windows 98SE to Windows XP.

All those people are now using XP, the same way in a few years time
we will all be using vista/windows 7.

So to conclude, you might as well get Vista now.