Vista. Using it or hating it.

[nonchalant]

Notice I said useful features. I have seen no features that Vista offers that makes up for its lack of stability, and over all slowness.

I think the extra features I mentioned are quite useful.

It looks nice, I'll give you that. Its also nothing that can't be done on XP with third party software if you just have to have glass.

Reminds me of the days of running Windows Blinds (yuk) & why go to the bother of sourcing & installing third party apps when its already built in to the OS?

The simple fact is I can install XP on a system running 512 RAM and it will fly. Vista will boot up and thats about it. You know what that means? It means the system requirements are higher for Vista than XP.

They most definitely are. A system running XP with 512mb of RAM is noticebly faster than the same system running Vista. But then when a 2GB stick of RAM is like $20 these days who cares? And whos still only running 512mb of RAM these days anyway?

Other than DX10,

Ah yes..the goodness..

My Battlefield 2 looks mighty sweet under DX10. I also recall playing COH under XP - 12 months later I loaded it up again under Vista DX10 and the difference in graphics was amazing.

XP will do anything Vista can do, and do it faster. The only reason some people still defend it is because of DX10 and glass, or because they paid for it and feel they have to to.

Again I'll have to disagree. I could run XP or Vista or both if I wanted to but my preference is Vista. I'll never go back to XP - no reason to & why would I give up the goodies?

Honestly, if Vista looked like XP and did not have DX10 would you still buy it?

If I had to make a choice between XP & Vista & they were the same price I'd still go with Vista for the extra features Ive mentioned. I will qualify this however by saying it would HAVE to be 64-bit & I'd only install on a fast system.

I guess if you are willing to give up speed and reliability for new and shiny, Vista is what you want. Or, you could have speed reliability and pretty, with OS X.

No speed drop here. In fact I kinda like how Vista recognizes & uses all 4GB of RAM.

In summary, theres no doubt XP is a good OS. But times have changed, RAM's cheap, PC's are a lot faster than they were 2 years ago on Vistas release, and with SP1 its a sweet OS..

 

[yamaharacer]

dang gunslinger, sounds like you should try a newer computer.
I have vista home premium and find it's a lot better than my XP pro.
there is a lot of features that are better than XP. the security of it for one.
it has a ton more security features.

as for performance, well, I can't fairly compare a Pentium 4 with 1 gig of ram running XP Pro. VS a AMD athlon 64 X2 dual core with 2 gigs of ram running Vista.

 

[nonchalant]

there is a lot of features that are better than XP. the security of it for one.
it has a ton more security features.

Yea, I dont know about others here but Ive had a LOT less PC's in with virus/malware issues with Vista than I have with XP over the last 2 years (even though vista has sold more copies than XP). Im sure this is largely a result of the extra security.

 

[gunslinger]

I think the extra features I mentioned are quite useful.

Maybe to you, not to me.

Reminds me of the days of running Windows Blinds (yuk) & why go to the bother of sourcing & installing third party apps when its already built in to the OS?

Why give up stability , compatibility , and speed for looks?

My Battlefield 2 looks mighty sweet under DX10. I also recall playing COH under XP - 12 months later I loaded it up again under Vista DX10 and the difference in graphics was amazing.

Ah, a gamer, that explains a lot. Not all but most people who defend Vista are gamers, at lest part time.

In summary, theres no doubt XP is a good OS. But times have changed, RAM's cheap, PC's are a lot faster than they were 2 years ago on Vistas release, and with SP1 its a sweet OS..

XP is a great OS. The cold hard fact is any machine able to even boot Vista will fly with XP. XP will do anything Vista can do , other than DX10 ( only hardcore gamers could care).

dang gunslinger, sounds like you should try a newer computer.

Tried Vista on everything from a 1.86 ghz up to a 3.2 ghz quad core, and 512 RAM to 4 gigs. From $600 wal-mart PCs to $4,000 custom gaming rigs. Tried Ultimate 32 and 64 bit, home pre, and basic. Across the board slower than XP, more buggy, and less compatible with software and hardware.

 

[Fred_G]

Thanks for you thoughts Gunslinger. Interesting.

Of course back in the day, we had a new Windows every 3 years or so, and it was always a rough transition.

I have had very few problems with my laptop and the Vista. Am I going to bust off and upgrade my gaming rig? Heck no!

But my day to day Vista experience has be very nice, fast, and acceptable.

Vista seems to have a much better file search system. FAH-MON is a program I use, usually have to track down the path for it, Vista had it listed. Nice for me.

I am loving the Vista for this computer. Not buying stock in the Vista!

 

[PcTestCard.com]

Vista is alright, the only thing I hate vista is that it got too many prompts and questions to asked for some built in applications.

XP is more straight forward.
Of course, besides this, Vista is recommended!

 

[Fred_G]

I forgot about Vista's stupid UAC nag screens! That is a major PITA! I had to disable the UAC. If it was trainable, like a firewall, I could live with it. But it nagged EVERY time I wanted to run certain programs...

 

[gunslinger]

I forgot about Vista's stupid UAC nag screens! That is a major PITA! I had to disable the UAC. If it was trainable, like a firewall, I could live with it. But it nagged EVERY time I wanted to run certain programs...

With UAC Windows tried to copy the Mac. This is not a bad thing, if they had got it right. They did not. My Mac asks me for my password on apps twice, once when I install it and again when I uninstall it.

With UAC if left on, it asks me to confirm every time I start up a program. If I installed the program in the first place, and have run it before, leave me the hell alone already.

This causes many people like myself to disable UAC and there goes all of this new "security" right out the window.

 

[JRDtechnet]

try this for UAC http://www.nortonlabs.com/inthelab/uac.php

 

[nonchalant]

Well I disagree with all the points you made gunslinger but (yet again lol) I guess we will have to leave it there, otherwise this thread will go on forever.

Bottom line is I use Vista (64-bit) by choice & I love it. XP is like an old girlfriend. It was fun while it lasted, but Ive found something better & theres no going back for me..

 

[gunslinger]

Well I disagree with all the points you made gunslinger but (yet again lol) I guess we will have to leave it there, otherwise this thread will go on forever.

Bottom line is I use Vista (64-bit) by choice & I love it. XP is like an old girlfriend. It was fun while it lasted, but Ive found something better & theres no going back for me..

I agree with you here. We will have to agree to disagree ( seems this is becoming common with us when it comes to Vista ).

The bottom line for me is that I have used and still use Vista to a certain extent and I don't like it at all. Vista is like the new bitchy spoiled girlfriend that always wants her way and demands too much. While XP is the old girlfriend that I had the best sex of my life with.

 

[yamaharacer]

maybe you are doing something wrong gunslinger I don't have any of the issues you or the others speak of.

 

[iptech]

Well I disagree with all the points you made gunslinger but (yet again lol) I guess we will have to leave it there, otherwise this thread will go on forever.

Bottom line is I use Vista (64-bit) by choice & I love it. XP is like an old girlfriend. It was fun while it lasted, but Ive found something better & theres no going back for me..

Microsoft is a cruel mistress, no doubt Windows 7 will soon be seducing you into her pools of mystery, even if later transcribes that she is actually is your old girlfriend wearing the same frock as your current floosie!

Cue a comeback by Mr Gates (amidst a falling stock price) to save-the-day and to free you from your wanton ways and be the precursor to all our dreams!

Meanwhile, Windows 2012 (codename "beenhereb4" (aka Win XP 64 with a touchy-feely interface)) really will be the breakthough...


Honest!


Meanwhile the- -UAC will be further simplified so as to become the UC (User-Conformity)
Please press "Enter" to accept, or "Esc" to allow us to make the right decision on your behalf.



*remember where you read it first*

 

[gunslinger]

@iptech

Great post.

 

[ithinkyou5.0]

id go with no advantages and no dissadvantages when it comes to vista, yes it looks nice and perrty it dosnt realy add any new features to the windows OS i know enough about it to know its not xp with a face lift but its definetly similare in alot of ways. while it is newer it dosnt add anything that people realy badly need however its not as horrible as people seem to think i had no problems with it after service pack 1 was installed but it realy all comes down to the machine its run on. if the machine can handle it you wont have any problems but if its got 2 gig or less of ram it might not be such a good idea to us vista, and you can forget about auro.

 

[yamaharacer]

id go with no advantages and no dissadvantages when it comes to vista, yes it looks nice and perrty it dosnt realy add any new features to the windows OS i know enough about it to know its not xp with a face lift but its definetly similare in alot of ways. while it is newer it dosnt add anything that people realy badly need however its not as horrible as people seem to think i had no problems with it after service pack 1 was installed but it realy all comes down to the machine its run on. if the machine can handle it you wont have any problems but if its got 2 gig or less of ram it might not be such a good idea to us vista, and you can forget about auro.

that's not true. Mine used to only have 1 gig of ram. and I used aero. my system was by no means slow nor did it freeze up etc.
and the windows experience index was 3.0. 3.9 for the memory.


but now it's 4 since I put in a set of g skill memory and a better graphics card.
graphics cards are usually the biggest drag on a system. that's what was keeping mine low. it was rated at only a 3.0 until I upgraded it and it went to a 4.0. but now the memory score went to 4.5(not a whole lot more with 2 gigs over just 1 gig).

 

[gunslinger]

The Vista experience index is not a real indication of how fast your system is. Case in point, my computer when it was running Vista indexed at 5.2, the graphics card being the only weak link and even then , not bad. The system was still much slower than it is now running XP. Slower to boot, slower to shut down, and much slower to start programs.


Just noticed, this is my 1000th post.

 

[JRDtechnet]

The Vista experience index is not a real indication of how fast your system is. Case in point, my computer when it was running Vista indexed at 5.2, the graphics card being the only weak link and even then , not bad. The system was still much slower than it is now running XP. Slower to boot, slower to shut down, and much slower to start programs.


Just noticed, this is my 1000th post.

I'd love to get a hold of your computer just to see what about it makes Vista runs so poorly on it.

For me Vista has to be the best OS I've run, its very stable and even after a year its still got that crisp freshness like I just installed it, where XP would be noticeably stale and ready for a format/reinstall by now.

 

[gunslinger]

I'd love to get a hold of your computer just to see what about it makes Vista runs so poorly on it.

For me Vista has to be the best OS I've run, its very stable and even after a year its still got that crisp freshness like I just installed it, where XP would be noticeably stale and ready for a format/reinstall by now.

Its not just one computer that Vista has run slowly on. Almost every computer I have worked on or used that has had Vista installed on it is slower than XP. Even on the same system. Like I have said many times before "any computer that will run Vista will run much faster with XP"

I have "downgraded" customers machines from Vista to XP and took informal benchmarks just to make sure. Unless there is some driver conflicts XP is always faster in every way.

If Vista is the best OS you have ever run I really feel sorry for you. Never been on a fast XP machine? Ever used Ubuntu? Ever used a Mac? All of these run circles around Vista.

 

[yamaharacer]

The Vista experience index is not a real indication of how fast your system is. Case in point, my computer when it was running Vista indexed at 5.2, the graphics card being the only weak link and even then , not bad. The system was still much slower than it is now running XP. Slower to boot, slower to shut down, and much slower to start programs.


Just noticed, this is my 1000th post.

then I guarantee all of your hardware was designed for xp.
Vista does require more system resources that I agree, so I can see how it makes that particular computer "slower" than XP does.

I personally don't have a problem with vista. It isn't a "Pretty" version of XP by any means.
the more I explore in it, the more differences I notice. especially running 2 computers simultaneously one with xp and one with vista just to see what is different.
and I can honestly tell you there is major differences. they might be mostly cosmetic at first to most, but when you really get into setting up some of it's features, you will notice how much of a difference there really is.

with all of the better security for one, it's like going from windows 98 straight to XP.