Why is Vista better than XP?

L

LittleHoov

New Member
Im sure you guys are sick of topics like this, but I would just like some opinions, preferably from people who have actually used both, or at least know what theyre talking about.


Ive been using Vista since about February on the machine in my signature, and as soon as I get it back from warranty service (modem got hit by lightning.....again) Im strongly considering going back to XP.

I just dont like Vista, and I dont see anything that makes it so special. It seems slower in almost every respect than XP, and I dont consider my specs to be bad.

Ive also had a few compatibility problems and it just seems finicky sometimes. For example, Im on an external modem with it right now, if I were to disconnect, and unplug the modem from the USB slot, it wouldnt shut down properly, id have to do a hard shut down. Granted, that may be a problem with the manufacturers driver, but it still doesnt seem right to me.

Anyway, Id just like to hear some reasons. I know its got the DirectX10 support, but I find it highly unlikely that gaming companies will only produce games in DX10, unless they want to completely cut off a large portion of their market.
 
I prefer Vista because it has more native driver support (ie. NIC's), so you don't have to install drivers for the NIC before being able to get online for updates and other drivers.

It has DirectX 10(.1) support (XP only has DX9.0c).

More available/compatible drivers for Vista x64 vs XP Pro x64.

I prefer the GUI as well. Sure it uses more resources, however so does any new piece of software. If you went to Windows 2000 from XP you would be amazed at how much more memory and CPU usage is free.
 
Yes I agree with -Omega-, OS's are getting bigger and Hardware is getting faster/bigger so you really have to (some extent) move with the times.

You wouldn't expect a shop to stock GTA london and lose profit instead of stocking GTA4 and get more customers.(little analogy for ya)
 
I think the biggest question is why do you want to downgrade?
You mentioned it being slower than xp, well I have to say that Vista is just as fast if not faster than XP. The only exception is if you have a computer with 1gb of ram or less, in which case XP would be faster. But this goes to same for previous OS's as well (like XP and 98 with 64 or 128mb of ram). So I have a feeling yours wasn't set up very well, and probably had buggy/bloated software installed to slow it down. If you had any software installed by the manufacturer, I highly recommend you uninstall all of it (except drivers of course).

My reasons for going with Vista over XP:
GUI is nicer on the eyes
Improved wireless networking
improved integrated software; much less 3rd party software needed
Improved audio options

Any many others that I'm too lazy to list right now
 
i also love the run/search bar on the start menu. such a great feature and the indexing is very good. i also agree with everythign above
 
I also happen to agree with Omega. I am tired of people saying "it needs more to run", last time I checked the Apple OS X requires just the same (850MHz - 512MB). The problem with most people I have seen have got it into their heads thinking XP is quicker, and it may well be on some tasks, but for the most part, it isnt. I have even put Vista basic on an AMD Sempron PC with 2GB RAM. And it is much faster than XP ever was on it. Whats the point of having 2 - 3 GB of RAM, and only use 500mb of that. Seems like a big waste of money to me :D
 
All of the reasons are great, I would have said most of them. But another is, when people upgrade from XP to Vista (on the same computer, not a new one) They probably have pretty bad specs. On this computer I'm on, I don't think Vista would run smoothly at all. (MX 440, 512MB RAM, 40GB HDD (I think), and P4 2.66 Ghz.) So, it's probably good to have pretty decent hardware to run Vista.
 
One of the major cause for problems are people who use the "upgrade" option with Vista, and upgrade from XP to Vista so they can use their same programs, which causes several problems.
 
[-0MEGA-];1007549 said:
One of the major cause for problems are people who use the "upgrade" option with Vista, and upgrade from XP to Vista so they can use their same programs, which causes several problems.
Click to expand...

i did not think you could upgrade... for me it was disabled and i could only fo full install
 
[-0MEGA-];1007556 said:
You have to insert the DVD when you are in XP, you can't choose to upgrade if you boot from the Vista DVD.
Click to expand...

wow i never knew that... anyway upgrading anything i would imagin being really unstable.
 
i also love the run/search bar on the start menu
Click to expand...

I seem to recall XP having a run button on the start menu, and a search option, true you couldnt type it in a fancy little box right off the bat, but it would be about one more click.

I also havent been particularly impressed with the indexing, for example, I just typed "Oblivion" into that search bar, and all it found was the title music for the game? What about the sub-folder under Bethesda Softworks, or the saved games folder in my Documents? Those seem pretty important, but wait...title music.

It seems like XP and Vista might be somewhat comparable in Explorer speeds, but just seems like XP is faster in everything else, copy/pasting, opening applications, etc.

I think my biggest gripe is the boot times, I dont have a million apps running at startup, Ive got ZA, AVG, Spybot S&D, and my audio and bluetooth software....my boot time? I timed from the time I press the power button to the first time I see desktop background at 1 minute 54 seconds. Make it over two minutes before any click I actually made would respond. Thats handy if I want to turn on my computer, brush my teeth to ADA standards, then come back, but not if I want to use the thing fairly fast.

I guess I just dont see the big deal, maybe Im not a heavy enough user. The only major difference Ive noticed is that it looks different, and while I like the pretty stuff, if its going to make my computer slower, give me windows 95 layouts.

Ive also got media center, and although I havent used it much, a quick take on it is that it takes quite a while to load up, and doesnt do anything different than WMP can do. But I dont have a remote for it or anything like that.
 
Vista is not really "better". Advantages are security or whatever and of course, DX 10. But big whoop. Why should we spend hundreds of dollars for DX 10? And theres not THAT many games yet. I personally will wait with vista until thers a bigger selection of games. Or enough games that will only use DX 10 and not 9.
 
Yeah, I think it will be several years before games are exclusively DX 10, by that time Ill probably need a new computer anyway.


I cant think of any game maker/publishe/whatever that would make games for only DX 10 at this point. There is a large number of gamers that still run something other than Vista. Seems like they would be shooting their sales in the foot to do so.

The added security is nice Im sure, but Im not connected to a network, and I access the internet through dial-up, if someone wants to hack me over dial-up, Im sure theyll pissed by the time theyre done.
 
LittleHoov said:
, and I access the internet through dial-up, if someone wants to hack me over dial-up, Im sure theyll pissed by the time theyre done.
Click to expand...
Watch out for auto diallers BUD !!!!;)- rerouting your connections through premium rate phonelines!!:eek:
 
sg1 said:
If I recall, the MX440 was a 64/128MB card- wouldn't the AERO effect/feature suffer??
Click to expand...

Yeah, but on Vista basic, it would be fine, since it would use the Vista Basic standard video. I run Vista on an Integrated GeForce MX400 and its fine :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top