XP vs. Vista?

XP will be supported for a few years to come but Vista is what's installed on computers {since about a year} so you might as well get familiar with it.

 

Although reluctantly, I have been running Vista for about 8 months. It was only after the upgrade to Ultimate with all the service packs that things got good. Literally, the machine has stayed up for weeks on end with no reboot needed. I will confess, the Vista learning curve is steeper than most want to admit.

While I would have preferred to stay on XP, it would be hard to go back now.

 

Honestly, I got Vista after my XP laptop crashed. I really had no problem getting used to it. Only problem I had was low memory, so I threw in a spare 1GB stick, and it works perfectly. If there really was a learning curve, I probably would've gone back to XP.

 

A learing curve for regular users or? I found the swap effortless and I'm no super user.

 

Yup, same here. Thought it was simple.

 

well the way the file system works it emulates a mac more. you need to tweak it to get address bars like c:\users\admin\local\desktop and just about everything related to the system pops up a window. getting to remove a program yeilds no less than 4 pop up windows.

Disable aero, it is not worth the performance penalty. Aside from that it is ok, though it "forgets" my drivers time to time and I have reinstalled my gfx card about 4 times this year.

 

XP! Or, you can wait a few years for Windows 7.

 

+1

"The *NEXT* version, we'll get it right - Trust us!....."

[You've seen the Mac ad's where PC is holding a buzzer to "bleep out" any references to "Vista" - "We just call it Windows now because of all the problems people had with b-u-z-z......" Friggin' awesome (and true!)]

Seriously, from what you've said you need it for (a "legacy" PC application) I see absolutely no reason to go with Vista - It's bloated, slow, and unless you get the "Ultimate" (sic) version for big bucks, it's missing stuff you may need.

You certainly need a "legitimate" XP (or Vista) disk/license key for the install - "Upgrade from previous version" disks do not work. Why waste money on Vista - Even those who (somewhat begrudgingly in general) admit to using is say it doesn't really bring anything new to the party (Apart from needing more memory/disk space/graphics power and CPU speed of course.)

And don't even get me started on it's much vaunted "security features" - You've got to turn 'em all off if you actually want to do anything with the thing.

If you were buying a new PC, obviously the manufacturer has "tweaked" Vista to work with that H/W, and I guess I'll concede that, as long as you turn off all the security "features" it'll run OK.... But, you're not - stick with XP.

My 02c,
Cheers,
Ian

 

Why?

I'm serious here - What does Vista do for you that XP doesn't? [Even better of course, that OSX doesn't? ]

Re-reading all the above posts, I honestly didn't see one that "highlights" any real benefits....

IMHO, that's just wrong - Give Linux a try if you don't like Apple prices....

The "switch" from XP to Vista appears to be "relatively" painless - As it damn well should be! [The switch to OSX is even less painful of course ]

Where is the "compelling" reason(s) to go to Vista? I'd love to know....

Cheers,
Ian

 

Hardware and driver issues are the same for Vista as they are for XP. If purchasing a new computer there is no reason to go with XP. Period.

Ian, when was the last time you used a Vista PC on a daily basis? From what I can tell you're a mac fanboy spouting off an opinion. If I am wrong please do tell me why. But you're spouting off crap that is not at all true or relevant to today. And the manufacturer's tweaking? Are you kidding? Manufacturers are half the reason Vista developed the reputation that it did. Something about using XP drivers for Vista machines and all other sorts of idiocy.

 

Add in inadequate amounts of RAM at launch...512MB on some machines, 1GB on others. Pile on woefully incomplete/poorly written drivers, finish it off with some early integrated chipsets not being able to run Aero well. So yep, 3rd parties have a lot of blame to share, and it's not like they didn't have enough time to write good drivers; Vista was in beta and in RC status for a long time.

 

I've got respectfully disagree there - XP drivers have been around a long time. Many users are still waiting for Vista drivers for their H/W [And/or Vista "64bit support" of course - Another, albeit related, can of worms IMHO.] Hardly "the same issues".

That I will concede (I pretty much already did in the post above) - Further, I haven't looked, but understand it's tough to even get a new box with XP. Plus, the H/W has now had a chance to "catch up" somewhat to the exorbitant H/W needs.

I consider myself fortunate to not have used a Vista PC for many months. No doubt release 2 of SP1 improved things. I am a fan of Mac's, for many reasons, including 30+ years of experience. I never expected to become a zealot but I do believe I'm entitled to "forcefully state my opinion" - Particularly in this particular case, which was about a VM environment under OSX.

OK.

I still haven't heard *anything* that makes a migration from XP to Vista worthwhile. I'm trying to keep an open mind.......

Cheers,
Ian

 

For what hardware and what vista users? That statement was true around a year or two years ago depending on the hardware. Today its not true. I run 64 bit Vista for christs sake using what is old hardware and have no trouble. Old hardware meaning a 2.3 ghz dual core, 2 gigs of ram and a 3870. Vista runs like a champ.

Catch up? 2 gigs of Ram and a 2 ghz CPU is not exorbitant h/w needs. It costs about $400 to build an entire system that can run Vista, well, excluding the cost of the OS.

Where in this thread does it talk about running Windows under a VM environment in OSX? It sounded to me like he was going to buy a windows PC for the program and then use his mac for most of the time.

Hell want an advantage for Vista over OSX? It can do exactly that. It can be run on a Apple system. Vista is an extremely open and reliable OS that can run relatively flawlessly on hardware it was not designed to be used on in the least. OS X on the other looks at 90% of PCs and fails, even with hacked drivers and installs. Macs are great for what they are and what they do. They're great because Mac tells you to go away if you want to use anything other than their branded and specific hardware. Windows will never be quite the same as Mac because I can open up my case and mix and match hard-drives, cpus, motherboards, sound cards, video cards, ram and a plethora of additional hard-ware virtually at will. A Macintosh would curl up into a little tiny ball and die.

64 bit Vista is by far a more stable and supported system than 64 bit XP. If you're going for 4 gigs + of ram then Vista 64 is the operating system of choice.

 

When I bought my computer it ha dvista but I took it back to xp. I still have to vista restore disk if I want to go back. For now there are some programs that I use that are not vista compatible.

 

To start with, this one I guess:

I personally only have two apps that are "Windows only", and one of 'em (the datalogger) has just announced support for 64bit. [Not shipped, announced] I'm sure there are many more......

Ahh - As long as I upgrade my H/W every 18 months I can run Vista....

No doubt - You obviously consider a 2.3 dual core, 2GB and a pretty serious GPU as "old H/W" - I beg to differ (at least when running XP.....)

"Exorbitant" was maybe a slight exaggeration - But I still think most people expect their computers to last more than 2 years - Even a year back 2gig was pretty serious - The "entire system" to which you refer can also run XP and (God forbid!) Linux just as well.

My apologies - The OP also asked for opinions on Bootcamp versus a virtual machine environment, I thought in this thread, but I was mistaken.

Yes please. You gave me the following:

There is, again, *nothing* there that I can't do with XP! Please don't confuse "it runs on lots of different H/W" with "open" - Linux is "open", XP (not Vista!) runs on lots of H/W - I'll concede that. In fact, I was looking at an "old" (2 years) PC earlier today and thinking maybe I should bring it up to date just to run my datalogger application - "Up to date" meaning install the latest drivers etc - I'm sure I can get get 'em for XP...... But, I suspect, because it's "old" H/W that I would be SOL with Vista.

+1 I used to do it all the time - With XP!... Still no need for vista....

IMHO, if you're throwing that much compute power at the problem, Linux is the better choice - It's been 64bit forever.

I'll ask again - Why would I choose Vista over XP?

Cheers,
Ian

 

1.) Nope. I've got an old P4 single core 1.5 GB ram running Vista with all the goodies on sans indexing. Runs Vista like a charm, but then all it does is DVD playing, web surfing and some Word stuff.

2.) A 2.3 dual core, I am going to assume is an Athlon 64, is pretty old hardware on any OS. As is the 3870, even though it's only a year old. Both may play games or do work at an acceptable rate, but pale in comparison to the new C2D's and 4850/70.

But we all get it. You hate Vista because you used it for 15 minutes while on lunch break from your Mac Genius job or whatever.

 

And a 386 isn't old hardware (at least when running DOS...) New OSes mean higher hardware requirements. Thats the same across the board. Macintosh just generally forces you to buy the new OS along with the new Hardware. Windows lets you shoot yourself by trying to run a new OS on any hardware that you want.

For the record I've also got a Laptop running Vista on a 1.9 ghz dual core with 1 gig of ram and it does fine.

For a new computer its a solid stable OS receiving the latest support, has the best 64 bit support and is what all future drivers and software is being designed for first and foremost. For an old computer that doesn't already have Vista on it? Who cares, stay with XP if you're happy with it because if you would have trouble with Vista you'll also have trouble with anything you'd want to run that would need Vista. Otherwise though, this is as much as I can force myself to do when it comes to arguing with a Mac faithful about Vista. Most of the tech savvy PC crowd has figured out that Vista is a good OS.

Yep

 

That's not nice!..... I don't "hate" Vista, I simply fail to see why anyone *needs* Vista. Particularly in this specific case (Trying to run a legacy application on Apple H/W).

Other than it runs OK on new (high end) H/W, what does it bring to the party beyond needing more resources? As I said previously, I'm trying to keep an open mind, but honestly all you Micro$oft fanboys haven't been able to give me a solitary reason why it's "better" than XP (Beyond possible 64bit support, which again is nothing new in the scheme of things and which I don't need for my legacy apps - Darn, it'll probably break 'em!)

As always, just my 02c,
Cheers,
Ian

 

PC's are the number 1 computer sold and Microsoft sells the most OS for computers and Vista has been put on all new computers for about a year or more now, so how is that wrong?

I didn't say it was the best just the most common OS that we will run across in the next 5 years as regular users.

 

Where is the Windows 2000 option?

 

Agreed - Bills empire has, once again, forced Joe Public to go to an OS that nobody has been able tell me is any "better" than the old one. What I was saying is wrong was your implication that there aren't any alternatives - "Get used to it" - I respectfully disagree on that - There are alternatives that don't require the latest and greatest H/W and which are, IMHO, considerably "better" than Vista.

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not convinced - "Corporate" users have pretty much said "we don't need it or want it", so it's not being deployed in the huge numbers that, eg, migrated to XP - There were some compelling reasons for that upgrade. Linux and the open source movement is definitely gaining ground in corporations which have eventually learnt that what Bill says is not necessarily gospel. I hope it's only a matter of time before us "end users" learn the same lesson...... They'll still dominate for many years, but I honestly believe their "market share" numbers will continue to decline.

Cheers,
Ian

 

You're calling a single core P4 new highend. You're calling a 1.8 ghz Athlon X2 laptop with 1 gig of ram (the 2.0 ghz X2 with 3 gigs of ram now costs $450 with Vista installed on New Egg) "new highend". At this point your calling stuff that costs less than half the price of the cheapest apple Mac Book "high end." Since you can't figure out old cheap hardware is in fact old cheap hardware I doubt you'll ever figure out that Vista runs well on old cheap hardware.

 

man that was brutal... funny, and brutal. I like it

 

OK I didn't read into it that you were looking for the "best" OS. I don't think Vista is any worse and in the years to come Vista will be the way most of the world sees computers, that's what I was getting at. I would perfer an alternative to Vista that is more secure, stable and safer but this is what the computer market pushes {for a vast portion of it} so I follow the current no matter how far from common sense it drags me.