Vista- Is it really that good?

T

term2121

New Member
my brother has vista and it does not seem to be up to speed with windows xp, why not just wait till microsoft comes out with sp1 or sp2 as it looks right now:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
If you have a computer with 1GB of RAM (minimum) or so and an average to pretty good processor, it's worth getting. I have it and the performance is about equal to what Windows XP was, although some games and applications are not compatible with the operating system.

Since it came with my Toshiba laptop, that's the only reason I have it. I wouldn't go off and purchase it, but if you are going to I would go with a minimum of Home Premium.
 
One thing's for certain: Vista takes much more system resources than XP. This is most likely the reason that Vista seems much slower and also why the guy above suggested getting more RAM.
 
The reason Vista seems slower then XP is not for the default installation but the items you setup in the Programs menu. Media Center and other additional features sit idle and inactive until you click on those and use the setup wizard to get those running. This creates more startup entires that load along with the version of Windows.

The Ultimate version offers 4 more items then the Home Premium version. What are those seen at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx

1)protection against hardware failures
2)Windows Fax and Scan
3)improved data protection
4)easier remote access for business
 
It only takes up more system resources if you let it or want the additional features. It is better, third party drivers are the responsibility of the manufacturers of the specific product, it is not Microsoft's responsibility to make everything in the damn world compatible with its OS.

I have had very few of the problems many people are complaining about, I have only had a few problems with some freeware I used with xp, other that, it has done its job.
 
I'm running vista right now on a virtual system. Though I can't get Areo running like this, it's pretty decent. Being new to virtual systems, I don't know how fast/slow it is compared to say XP, but I'm pleased with it's speed.
 
When not needing to use the softwares that still need XP in order to run I have the Vista installation set as the default OS. The expected wait for drivers and patches if any for older programs is typical. Or you simply buy the Vista ready or compatible versions. It does boot to the desktop slightly faster then XP while taking a wee bit longer when shutting down due to the extras.
 
daisymtc said:
Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown

IMO, if you are currently running XP, there is no hurry to upgrade.
But when you building a new PC without a OS, there is no point to buying a XP.
Click to expand...

The last part of that will readily be disagreed with by a good number of people. First it depends on the amount of current softwares/hardwares you have already invested in. A december purchase of a tv tuner would be useless now if not multibooting XP along with Vista. Other softwares you have most likely would need to be replaced with a "Vista ready" version.

For a "newbie" getting a first time system the initial driver support and lack of available softwares that are Vista compatible is somewhat low at this time. There's still time left for XP while 9X-ME and 2000 are just about all DOA at this late date. But people are still running the older versions. Plus many are even dual booting Linux with either XP or Vista now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top