XP or Vista

[tlarkin]

Haha...You crack me up... No kidding, it's new software meant to go along with new hardware, why don't we have a FarCry vs. Crysis thread, oh wait, no one would complain about Crysis' higher requirements..

And that's the case where you run XP.. Besides, anyone WITH simple logical abilities would definitely know that they didn't need to upgrade their PC, so that would probably put them back at 98SE or 2000/ME.

You aren't listening to what I have been saying this whole time. I compare it to every OS, even the previous MS OSes. Take into account that every other OS which has better built in Open GL flashy UI stuff that has and boasts lower system requirements and better performance. Aqua, Beryl, Compiz, etc all out perform vista and on lower specs. Vista is a marketing scheme, and like i said it doesn't run faster, it creates the illusion of running faster. Microsoft is not the only OS that is guilty of this either, but that will be saved for another thread.

You have to update your OS at some point, its not like MS has fixed all those zero day exploits for 98 and 2000, and developers stop supporting it eventually, and applications do require more system requirements, however none of them come close to requiring what Vista does. Also, I am not talking about video games, gaming is something that is taxing on your system as is by its very nature. Gaming is also a niche market, only a small percentage of computer users are considered hard core gamers. I am talking about basic usage on my e6300 with 2gigs of RAM. Firefox, opera, with the exception of IE all run faster in XP, take up less memory and allow faster basic usage. If you want to get into high end stuff, I would like to see vista edit video or render 3D objects compared to any other OS.

So stop taking it out of context what I post and see it for yourself. Take two identical systems (or the same one) load XP and Vista on them, run all your basic applications, do all your basic things and see what performs better. My XP install never crashes, but when I boot into vista tons of applications are still buggy. For the cost of the upgrade, the lacking of features and the no real world performance increase Vista is not worth the money at all. I am waiting on Vienna, it should have all the features to make windows a decent OS, at least I hope.

When your answer is upgrade your hardware every time something doesn't work smoothly is not a good answer. The developers wrote sloppy code, and used the band aid approach to accomplish Vista. Why do you think they had to keep pushing back the release date? Why has everyone rolled back and why has so many companies offered XP? When XP came out, and you bought a new computer you did not get the choice of going back to 2000. It was a forced upgrade. Now, with the release of windows vista you are seeing for the first time companies going against their contracts and allowing their customers to go back to windows Xp on new computers. What does that tell you?

 

[Jabes]

heh, i like that line in your sig jabes. mind if i copy it and use it on other forums?

nope u can even use it on here idc

 

[zaroba]

You aren't listening to what I have been saying this whole time. I compare it to every OS, even the previous MS OSes. Take into account that every other OS which has better built in Open GL flashy UI stuff that has and boasts lower system requirements and better performance. Aqua, Beryl, Compiz, etc all out perform vista and on lower specs. Vista is a marketing scheme, and like i said it doesn't run faster, it creates the illusion of running faster. Microsoft is not the only OS that is guilty of this either, but that will be saved for another thread.

You have to update your OS at some point, its not like MS has fixed all those zero day exploits for 98 and 2000, and developers stop supporting it eventually, and applications do require more system requirements, however none of them come close to requiring what Vista does. Also, I am not talking about video games, gaming is something that is taxing on your system as is by its very nature. Gaming is also a niche market, only a small percentage of computer users are considered hard core gamers. I am talking about basic usage on my e6300 with 2gigs of RAM. Firefox, opera, with the exception of IE all run faster in XP, take up less memory and allow faster basic usage. If you want to get into high end stuff, I would like to see vista edit video or render 3D objects compared to any other OS.

So stop taking it out of context what I post and see it for yourself. Take two identical systems (or the same one) load XP and Vista on them, run all your basic applications, do all your basic things and see what performs better. My XP install never crashes, but when I boot into vista tons of applications are still buggy. For the cost of the upgrade, the lacking of features and the no real world performance increase Vista is not worth the money at all. I am waiting on Vienna, it should have all the features to make windows a decent OS, at least I hope.

When your answer is upgrade your hardware every time something doesn't work smoothly is not a good answer. The developers wrote sloppy code, and used the band aid approach to accomplish Vista. Why do you think they had to keep pushing back the release date? Why has everyone rolled back and why has so many companies offered XP? When XP came out, and you bought a new computer you did not get the choice of going back to 2000. It was a forced upgrade. Now, with the release of windows vista you are seeing for the first time companies going against their contracts and allowing their customers to go back to windows Xp on new computers. What does that tell you?

to me, all your saying simply states that you expect stuff to run on vista the same as it would on xp despite the fact that you'll have less ram available. especially that first line in the last paragraph about upgrading, LOL. if something comes out that uses more resources, like vista, then of course you'll have less available for gaming, video editing, etc. and of course it'll run slower. its not exactly brain surgery.

companies? lol. your basing it on that? companies are in things for the money. if they see people crying there pc with 1gb of ram is slow with vista, of course they will offer xp as an alternative. it makes happy customers and happy customers are return customers.

and geese, sloppy code?
hats the typical excuse i hear from anybody that is anti-microsoft and/or refuses to upgrade there pc. instead of just accepting that it'll run faster with more ram, you just make up excuses.

maybe 'everyone has rolled back' because most people out there seem to think theres never a need for more then 2gb of ram, and/or have PCs with only 1gb of ram. then they find vista running slow on it, cry that vista slows down there pc, and downgrades to the less resource using xp. i don't see anybody with 3+ gb of ram crying that vista slows down there pc and downgrading. hmm...why could that be?

its pure common sense that anybody knowledgeable about PCs should know of. its a little thing called System Requirements. if your gonna install vista (which needs 512mb of ram MINIMUM) on a pc with only 1 or 2gb of ram, then of course it's gonna run slower then when you had XP (which only used 64mb ram). you've just lost a good amount of available ram. hence the need to upgrade to compensate.

 

[INTELCRAZY]

You aren't listening to what I have been saying this whole time. I compare it to every OS, even the previous MS OSes. Take into account that every other OS which has better built in Open GL flashy UI stuff that has and boasts lower system requirements and better performance. Aqua, Beryl, Compiz, etc all out perform vista and on lower specs. Vista is a marketing scheme, and like i said it doesn't run faster, it creates the illusion of running faster. Microsoft is not the only OS that is guilty of this either, but that will be saved for another thread.

You have to update your OS at some point, its not like MS has fixed all those zero day exploits for 98 and 2000, and developers stop supporting it eventually, and applications do require more system requirements, however none of them come close to requiring what Vista does. Also, I am not talking about video games, gaming is something that is taxing on your system as is by its very nature. Gaming is also a niche market, only a small percentage of computer users are considered hard core gamers. I am talking about basic usage on my e6300 with 2gigs of RAM. Firefox, opera, with the exception of IE all run faster in XP, take up less memory and allow faster basic usage. If you want to get into high end stuff, I would like to see vista edit video or render 3D objects compared to any other OS.

So stop taking it out of context what I post and see it for yourself. Take two identical systems (or the same one) load XP and Vista on them, run all your basic applications, do all your basic things and see what performs better. My XP install never crashes, but when I boot into vista tons of applications are still buggy. For the cost of the upgrade, the lacking of features and the no real world performance increase Vista is not worth the money at all. I am waiting on Vienna, it should have all the features to make windows a decent OS, at least I hope.

When your answer is upgrade your hardware every time something doesn't work smoothly is not a good answer. The developers wrote sloppy code, and used the band aid approach to accomplish Vista. Why do you think they had to keep pushing back the release date? Why has everyone rolled back and why has so many companies offered XP? When XP came out, and you bought a new computer you did not get the choice of going back to 2000. It was a forced upgrade. Now, with the release of windows Vista you are seeing for the first time companies going against their contracts and allowing their customers to go back to windows Xp on new computers. What does that tell you?

I don't care about the other OS's in this thread, I really dont... (Why?) The thread title is "Xp or Vista", there is one "or" in that statement and just so happens it's suspended between the words "XP" and "Vista".. We could debate about the age-old "Mac vs. PC" but, I would simply say that both have their specialties, and you know this to be true...

If it can humor that "illusion" of speed, it must be doing something right... It meets my eye, therefore I think I should give it a chance of belief, don't you?

You'll get p'd with Vienna, too. Maybe it will have your God-forsaken EFI support... Vista actually came to me.. (Why?) Because, I KNEW darn well I had the hardware to support it, I could fully utilize my gfx card, and I figured I would try something new.

You don't have to tell me about MS's patchwork... They did the same with XP, up until SP2.

 

[Jabes]

I thought u said u were leaving this thread tlarkin?

 

[zaroba]

lol. waiting for Vienna. its not expected to release until between 2010 and 2012. have fun using xp for possibly another 4 years. you'd be as good off as using windows 98 now. hmm...what kind of hardware will we have by then? i can bet that Vienna will use more resources then vista. simply because the available hardware will far exceed what we have now.

oh, and yes, you DID always have a choice to use an older operating system. even back in the 2000/98/me era.
nothing in the world was stopping you from going down to a local computer store, BUYING the OS you wanted, and installing it.


btw, i do 3d modelling and video editing on vista. works great for me.
of course, i also know how to make my pc run faster by upgrading it.

 

[Jabes]

lol. waiting for Vienna. its not expected to release until between 2010 and 2012. have fun using xp for possibly another 4 years. you'd be as good off as using windows 98 now.

hmm...what kind of hardware will we have by then?
i can bet that Vienna will use more resources then vista. simply because the available hardware will far exceed what we have now.

yea it will probably have more features then vista and thus it would use more resources

 

[amosf]

nope u can even use it on here idc

Have you thought about using English?

Anyway, Jabes. If a 3000+ machine can't run Vista, then it's vista that is the problem, not the machine. It's just an OS, no a high end game or application. It's just getting very silly. Many people just buy a Dell or some other cheap PC, not a high end gaming system, and they come with Vista. And yet they are a POS? If so then it is only because of Vista as they would run other OS's fine thanks.

And I don't much like Vista for numerous reasons, but I am a ways from being a noob. Maybe MS will fix it in a couple of SP's, and top end machines may handle the load, but at the moment it's a work in progress.

It's always nice to have a teen around as they know everything, of course. Enjoy it while it lasts

BTW, where did you say you got the money for your vista capable PC? Was it those computer illiterate parents?

 

[tlarkin]

zaroba,

That only applies to gamers. 1 gig of ram should be sufficient to run Vista on a basic level for internet browsing and office documents. Not to mention most systems come standard with 2 gigs of RAM these days, and if not it is a simple and easy upgrade you can add when you purchase your computer (nominal fee, like $60 for an extra Gigabyte). So, if that was truly the issue anyone buying a new computer could simply add more RAM. On top of that companies even recommend more RAM and some models come standard with 2gigs that have vista pre loaded. Vista sales are amongst some of the lowest sales of any MS release and they are losing market share as we speak. Apple has out sold almost every PC company in every month of 2007 in laptop sales. I haven't followed it too closely but I know back in like June they had still out sold everyone and I can only imagine that the ipod touch and iphone have only boosted their sales even further.

What new bad ass features does Vista offer end users? I can't even think of any, besides the UI.

NAP - not for end users

SMB 2 - not really for end users

IIS 7 - not an end user feature

IE 7 - not exclusive to Vista

Photo gallery, movie maker, dvd maker - hmm sounds like ilife to me, and I have used these and they pretty much suck, you are better off going with third party on this, perhaps an end user feature, but very limited compared to lots of third party.

Direct X - definitely an end user feature but no where near being the new standard yet and not even fully supported by games yet, so there is yet no advantage to DX in Vista. There will be in the future though

The new improved Admin tools - not for end users

Media center - only found in Home premium or Ultimate, and not really that great VLC can do all of that with a lot less resources and its free open source software that runs on all OSes. Sure, I suppose this could be features for those who are used to windows, but I don't see any advantage of paying $200 for an upgrade to get these features when things like VLC can do most of that, plus will play all formats with out codecs (native support), and it costs zero dollars. I will give this to the end users though, it is a feature.

Encrypted file system - not an end user feature, nor would I want end users encrypting their hard drive, especially since no one backs up their data.

IPV6 - not really an end user feature, and not needed just yet, and it could be patched into XP rather easily if need be. It will be needed sometime in the near future but its not a deal breaker by any means.

QoS policies - not an end user feature

ReadyBoost - hmm, put virtual memory on an external flash drive that is slower than RAM or the hard drive itself....not a feature and not a good idea. Also, do you think end users grasp how memory management works? Not an end user feature, maybe a power user.

New security features - sure I guess, but they are ultra annoying and IE 7 is still the least secure browser, and Vista still has had some zero day exploits happen to it. Make sure you patch up all the time!

under the hood - nothing has changed under the hood, and this is both a good and a bad thing. good because those who are familiar with the command line and registry and other under the hood workings do not have to familiarize ourselves with the new and improved under the hood features, the down side is, they are still using the same old and busted methods.

As for sloppy programming just talk to any decent software developer, there are tons of ways to make sloppy coding work. A lot of times certain environments even ignore errors, and bad syntax. I know because I get lazy when I write scripts, which is my only basis to programming and it doesn't even scratch the surface. When I am in a hurry or don't have a lot of time, I don't write the full command paths. However, typically I go back when I finalize something and add in all the proper pathings, to make it both secure and less sloppy. Sloppy code is a good way to get your application exploited.

 

[Jabes]

Have you thought about using English?

Anyway, Jabes. If a 3000+ machine can't run Vista, then it's vista that is the problem, not the machine. It's just an OS, no a high end game or application. It's just getting very silly. Many people just buy a Dell or some other cheap PC, not a high end gaming system, and they come with Vista. And yet they are a POS? If so then it is only because of Vista as they would run other OS's fine thanks.

And I don't much like Vista for numerous reasons, but I am a ways from being a noob. Maybe MS will fix it in a couple of SP's, and top end machines may handle the load, but at the moment it's a work in progress.

It's always nice to have a teen around as they know everything, of course. Enjoy it while it lasts

BTW, where did you say you got the money for your vista capable PC? Was it those computer illiterate parents?

so if a old celeron won't run xp its xp's problem lmao and u say that I should use english is btw english and no I bought my pc myself wen I worked during the summer

 

[INTELCRAZY]

Have you thought about using English?

Anyway, Jabes. If a 3000+ machine can't run Vista, then it's vista that is the problem, not the machine. It's just an OS, no a high end game or application. It's just getting very silly. Many people just buy a Dell or some other cheap PC, not a high end gaming system, and they come with Vista. And yet they are a POS? If so then it is only because of Vista as they would run other OS's fine thanks.

And I don't much like Vista for numerous reasons, but I am a ways from being a noob. Maybe MS will fix it in a couple of SP's, and top end machines may handle the load, but at the moment it's a work in progress.

It's always nice to have a teen around as they know everything, of course. Enjoy it while it lasts

BTW, where did you say you got the money for your vista capable PC? Was it those computer illiterate parents?

Alright, seriously, what is with the parental support matter? Who cares if his parents bought it? Who gives a flippin' care? Why are you arguing this in a thread in which I see this to be your best comeback?

Have you thought about learning to read TXT?

If his parents bought it for him, it's still his, he has learned Vista and at least used it... IMO, you have no room to talk, if you can't debate better than that, step aside!

 

[tlarkin]

waiting for Vienna. its not expected to release until between 2010 and 2012

try 2009 to 2011 is the projected release date, and though you may be right it could get pushed back to 2014 the way Microsoft releases OSes. However, due to the lack of sales, and all the dropped features Vista was suppose to have, I bet it will come out earlier than that. It is almost 2008, its not that long of a wait.

 

[zaroba]

try 2009 to 2011 is the projected release date, and though you may be right it could get pushed back to 2014 the way Microsoft releases OSes. However, due to the lack of sales, and all the dropped features Vista was suppose to have, I bet it will come out earlier than that. It is almost 2008, its not that long of a wait.

and guess what? 2-3 years after that another new OS will be released. its nothing special. MS usually releases an OS every 2-3 years. 3.1, 95, 98, me/2k, xp, 2k3, vista. most only 2-3 years apart. and you know what? half of them had the same exact anti-upgraders that vista has. crying over performance loss when they refuse to upgrade there pc. and yet, eventually they accepted that they would be better off after upgrading and did upgrade.

That only applies to gamers. 1 gig of ram should be sufficient to run Vista on a basic level for internet browsing and office documents.

well, obviously it isn't if your complaining about it being slower when those with more ram see no performance loss. you can say 'it should be fine' all you want, but guess what, it obviously ISN'T fine with that 1gb if its slow and laggy. 1 gb of ram and vista would give you a pc as slow as 256mb of ram and XP.

Not to mention most systems come standard with 2 gigs of RAM these days, and if not it is a simple and easy upgrade you can add when you purchase your computer (nominal fee, like $60 for an extra Gigabyte). So, if that was truly the issue anyone buying a new computer could simply add more RAM.

yet you still see many people with PCs with 2gb or less ram. and yet, its these very people and usually ONLY these people who cry about it being slower with vista.

On top of that companies even recommend more RAM and some models come standard with 2gigs that have vista pre loaded.

your point? you can also goto Circuit City, Walmart, or Best Buy and buy a pc for $1000 when you can build it for less then $500

Vista sales are amongst some of the lowest sales of any MS release and they are losing market share as we speak.

once again, i bring back my earlier post, and your earlier statements, and even stuff i said above. people are getting vista, putting it on there PCs with 1 or 2 gb of ram, and expecting it to run as good as it did with XP. they are disappointed due to the system requirements issue i mentioned in my first quote of your post. then know what they do? they post about in forums, crying that it slows down PCs (like you are) and saying other falsifications about it when its really their own fault. other people read and believe this misinformation and thus don't buy it. its typical and common word of mouth negative publicity.



when i see people complaining about a game, os, or other software i'm familiar with the first thing i always do is look at there PC specs. something that i have noticed is that despite how many different setups people have tried or use vista on, there is always one similarity between the PCs owned by people who dislike vista, and between the PCs owned by people who have no trouble with Vista.
know what that similarity is? ram

nearly ALL the people who have had problems running vista have 2gb of ram or less.
nearly ALL the people who have no trouble with vista have 3gb of ram if they have 32bit or 4gb+ if they have 64bit vista.

seeing how ram is the one similarity between all the PCs that have trouble and all the PCs that have no trouble, it is quite obvious to me that ram is the key piece of hardware that bases whether or not your PC will run vista fine.


so, you can say all the junk you want. you can list all you think is bad about it. you can continue to cry and mope acting like your pc is perfect when it obviously isn't. or you can just accept that it obviously isn't good enough to run vista and upgrade it. its not exactly hard or expensive.

 

[oscaryu1]

Ah well. A poll is everything. XP wins

(I bet there's more people downgrading than upgrading)

 

[Motoxrdude]

Ah well. A poll is everything. XP wins

(I bet there's more people downgrading than upgrading)

More ungrading

 

[INTELCRAZY]

Another thing that really gets on my nerves is ppl that complain about hardware compatibility ...

Microsoft is the 'top-dog' OS, the $55 Billion net worth of Gates, says that pretty well... Why should Microsoft, being as powerful as it is, conform to the smaller companies? That new Mac ad got me thinking about this... The operating system of a computer is the basis for the system's operation, why on Earth would the OS company build an OS around Photoshop, a printer driver, or another company's style of programming? If it wasn't for the OS, the other programs would be screwed anyway. I mean, this just seems to be the point that you guys are trying to make and, IMO, it's fighting a losing battle and out of nothing less than absolute stupidity.. Sorry, to offended anyone, not really, I don't care..

Ah well. A poll is everything. XP wins

(I bet there's more people downgrading than upgrading)

Easily said with a 2600+...

 

[tlarkin]

zaroba,

It does run fine with 1 gig of RAM on a basic level. It doesn't run as fast as XP, Linux, OS X, Unix, Live Distros - like Knoppix, windows 2000, etc. Upgrading to 2 gigs of RAM doesn't really make a difference. I was never out of memory, because I had a minimal install and minimal processes running. More RAM is only useful when using more memory. You can have 20 tera bytes of RAM and it won't make your system faster until you start to need 20.1 tera bytes of RAM, then adding in that extra RAM will boost performance. More RAM does not equal more performance until you actually use that RAM. At boot I was maybe using 500mb of RAM in Vista and with office and firefox maybe 700mb of RAM total, in my system that had 2 gigs. RAM is not the issue here dude (to quote the big lebowski).

I have listed tons of new features of Vista that do not benefit the end user. In fact almost all of Vista's new features cater towards the IT/Enterprise environment. Stability monitor, better logs and crash reporters, NAP, IPv6, SMB 2 (which is actually bloated), Encrypted file systems, better remote desktop, IIS, QoS, so on and so forth. Really, there are not a lot of benefits to the end users at all for Vista. It is not worth the money at all.

What features benefit the end user? Not really any.

 

[Jabes]

Ah well. A poll is everything. XP wins

(I bet there's more people downgrading than upgrading)

yea ur rig is a pos thats why u don't run vista

Sorry, to offended anyone, not really, I don't care...

lol y r u even saying srry then?

oops that was txt

 

[tlarkin]

Another thing that really gets on my nerves is ppl that complain about hardware compatibility ...

Microsoft is the 'top-dog' OS, the $55 Billion net worth of Gates, says that pretty well... Why should Microsoft, being as powerful as it is, conform to the smaller companies? That new Mac ad got me thinking about this... The operating system of a computer is the basis for the system's operation, why on Earth would the OS company build an OS around Photoshop, a printer driver, or another company's style of programming? If it wasn't for the OS, the other programs would be screwed anyway. I mean, this just seems to be the point that you guys are trying to make and, IMO, it's fighting a losing battle and out of nothing less than absolute stupidity.. Sorry, to offended anyone, not really, I don't care..

I know why. Because with out third party, the OS is just an OS. Its not like Microsoft has all those nifty features natively built into the OS. In fact the only thing close to that is maybe the Ubuntu studio or OS X, which has built in features that are powerful enough to get jobs done. Editing photos, video, authoring DVDs, office productivity, multiple desktops, virtualization, c compilers, remote management, etc.

Microsoft needs third party support, or they need to develop their own version of photoshop. You stop supporting a market and it stops supporting you. Enterprise drives business standards. Why do you think every major server side technology generally supports the same open source standards across all platforms? Third party compatibility.

 

[massahwahl]

yea ur rig is a pos thats why u don't run vista

Whoa Whoa Whoa! Thats not cool. Your directly attacking someone now and thats not cool. If he has XP and he likes who cares if his computer can or cannot run Vista? I run Vista because my rig can run it and I like it, but I dont think it makes me any better than someone running XP because they like XP.