Vista. Using it or hating it.

I will agree with you when you say its not just XP with a face lift. Most of the features I liked in XP are gone or move around and buried under layers of useless crap. The ability to tweal the OS to my liking is for the most part , gone.

Its more like going from 98 to ME. It looks better but thats about it. Again, the only reason its more secure is because XP has been out longer. Give Vista another year or two and it will have many more viruses and malware for it as well.
 
"When it comes down to features, I could live with XP just as easily, but while XP was the best desktop OS I had used at the time it was not as stable as Vista. And yes OS Stability is the utmost importance to me. Vista is more stable than XP, works overall better with some tweaking in my experience, and stays "fresher longer." I am about a year in on my original Vista 64-bit install and see no indication of needed to reinstall like I have on every other Windows systems I have ever used. Stability and OS Freshness. Those two things are of the utmost importance to me on an OS. Obviously this is beyond having to have the needed feature sets for my personal computing experiences."
--Kyle Bennet from Hardocp.

The guy that runs one of the largest hardware review sites for computers agrees with me.
 
"Jerry Shen who is the CEO of Asus says they will not be putting Vista on the eeePC , they will wait for windows 7." I could also tell you about the 10,000 or so college students of which 70% said they would be getting a Mac for school. Or the fact that sense Vista came out Mac sells have shot up by around 37%. Or when 800 system admins were asked if they would be going to Vista 75% said no and said stability was the main reason.

I have personally found the more programs I installed on a Vista machine the more unstable it gets. "fresher longer"? come on, you and I both know that depends almost 100% on how many programs you add/remove and how they are removed.

I have been using the same install of XP Pro for over a year now with no slow down at all. Know why? Because if there is a program I want to test, I do so inside a virtual machine so that I'm not putting thousands a useless files all over my system.

Microsoft beta tested Vista on the public and now for the people that got burned so badly by it and went back to XP there is no looking back. Is Vista better with SP1, yes. Is it anywhere close to as fast or as stable as XP , no. There are thousands that will agree with me. Provide all the stats you like and it wont matter one bit if the end user sees his control panel take 15-30 seconds to load or it takes 5 mins to open a small zip file.

In the real world vista is absolutely not better than Windows XP. As I said before, benchmarks can be made to say pretty much whatever you want them to say. And I think it's odd that so many people in so many companies like PC mag are coming up with benchmarks That say XP is better than vista. If Windows vista was indeed faster than XP wouldn't the benchmarks be more consistent across the board?


The Vista Death Watch
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2209837,00.asp
Three Reasons Why Windows Vista is Sinking Like a Rock
http://www.dailytechnobabble.com/2007/02/26/three-reasons-why-windows-vi...
Why Microsoft must abandon Vista to save itself
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9785337-7.html?tag=nefd.only
Vista Nightmare: The “Oww!” Starts Now
http://www.pseudomarketing.com/vista-nightmare-oww/
FAQ: Giving up on Vista? Here's how to downgrade to XP
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&...
Time for a Vista Do-Over
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2254104,00.asp


"Vista is one of the 10 worst tech products of 2007!" CNET


"Vista is the most disappointing tech product of 2007!" PC World


"This took five years?" ITwire


"Why, after five years waiting for the most important product from one of the biggest companies on the planet, was I left feeling with such an overwhelming feeling of "Is that it? Chris Pirillo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbKNCmrheuk


"What happened to all the promised features in Vista?" Computer World


"Vista isn't ready for release!" BBC


"Vista? Why?" PC Advisor


"Windows Vista Capable is a lie!" Eweek


I can give you about 6-700 more, need I go on?
 
Last edited:
Listen, I'm going to trust myself and someone like Kyle Bennet who has over 10yrs experience testing hardware on various operating systems over a few tech writers. Oh and if your control panel takes 15-20secs to open then there is something wrong with your computer. It takes my computer 1 second to open the control panel and I'm running a lowly AMD X2 BE2350.
 
JRDtechnet said:
Listen, I'm going to trust myself and someone like Kyle Bennet who has over 10yrs experience testing hardware on various operating systems over a few tech writers. Oh and if your control panel takes 15-20secs to open then there is something wrong with your computer. It takes my computer 1 second to open the control panel and I'm running a lowly AMD X2 BE2350.
Click to expand...

Trust Kyle Bennet if you like. I too have over 10 years experience testing hardware and software. What you are saying is that you take one guys word over hundreds of others with at least as much experience if not more.(Chris Pirillo alone has over 15 years in tech). If you can't see how wrong that is, I'm wasting my time.

You can turn a blind eye to me or a few tech writers if you like, but thousands like us are out there.


By the way, I'm running an Intel core 2 @ 2.4 ghz and I'll put it up against your machine or any Vista machine any day when it comes to speed and launching programs.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you JRDtechnet. Vista is more stable than XP (probably more 'robust' is a better description).

I guess its a case of 'each to their own'. Some people love XP & hate Vista - for others Vista has everything XP has to offer & more.

I use Vista at home & XP at a company I work for. Going from one to the other I find XP rather bland.
 
I use Vista on my Media PC and it works quite well for that purpose. I tried Vista Business on my desktop PC and it was so slow and the UAC was a positive annoyance.

I bought a new laptop this year with Vista premium installed - I removed it and installed XP Professional after less than two weeks.

Vista will go down in Microsoft history as a bad product, it's a bigger disaster than Windows ME as it's been used as the sole platform for all Microsoft's desktop OS variants. At least in 1999 we have alternatives such as NT4 and the new, but flawed Windows 2000 on which to run business applications. Vista retains too much on the "nanny knows best" components throughout its product line for it to be useful in any business that's been using desktop IT for more than 5 years.

Hopefully Microsoft will have realised their mistake in supplying a "one size fits all" approach with Vista and will release a solid & robust base platform (WinMin anyone?) with Windows 7 with the gimmicky tools and controls kept for the consumer variants.
 
Hopefully Microsoft will have realised their mistake in supplying a "one size fits all" approach with Vista and will release a solid & robust base platform (WinMin anyone?) with Windows 7 with the gimmicky tools and controls kept for the consumer variants.
Click to expand...


Yep, this is what I'm saying. Stacking broken flawed code over more broken flawed code is not the way. They need to start over from scratch with a Unix core and a very slimmed down foot print. Take out all the useless features that 90% of people never use. Concentrate on speed and stability over looks and "new features" we don't need.


Vista is more stable than XP (probably more 'robust' is a better description).
Click to expand...

You have to be kidding. Vista is the most fragile OS I have ever worked on by far.
 
Last edited:
Hey Gunslinger...

Gunslinger. How about we agree on some benchmarks and do some runs? I am not in any way disputing your experience or saying Vista is better than XP. I like the Vista for day to day use. I also like the XP for gaming and such.

I have a Q6600 and an E6600 running XP, and an Intel t3200 2GHz dual core laptop on the Vista. Unfortunantly, I don't have a Vista disk, but perhaps the folks posting in this thread can run some benchmarks on their rigs and we can get a better idea of which OS is better for certain things. I am thinking SuperPI mod, and perhaps 3DMark03 (my laptop does not have a good GPU!)

If we can settle on the benchmark programs, we can get various XP and Vista system's results. I am always up for some benchmarking! I would think there are some simular rigs running XP and Vista, let's look at the numbers.
 
Works for me. But, how will we know people are not fugging the results? I have 5 machines I can test here. Two of them I can use either XP or Vista on. My main desktop system is an Intel core 2 duo e6600 2.4 GHz, 4 GB PC-6400 Ram , 320 gig SATA drive @ 7200 RPM. Windows XP Pro SP3. My weak point is graphics card, its a 7600GT 256 mb.

I would also like to see start up and shut down times, as well as how long it takes to open certain programs like Microsoft Office. Videos would be nice.
 
Last edited:
Well, I would assume everyone is honest. No prize or anything for the 'winner', since there is none. Screen shots would be good. Can be faked, but I would think we are pretty safe here.

I propose SuperPi Mod: http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/

3DMark03: http://www.majorgeeks.com/download1712.html (laptop has crappy video, but should run that one)

Any other suggestions for benchmarks? My dang quad takes forever to boot, and not sure how to post video, but I do have the capability. I do overclock, so I would think we would list stock items /overclocked speed, and post up some benchmarks!

We could do a simple format:

OS:
CPU: Overclocked specs:
RAM: can be overclocked, not sure how to rate that
Video card Specs: Overclocked Specs:

SuperPi Mod score:
3DMark03 score:

Need some ideas on a couple more benchmarks. Sounds like fun to me!
 
Guys you can't compare benchmarks against computers with different CPUs/chipsets etc.

A quick tip on boot time for Vista, if you open msconfig, click on the boot tab and then click advanced options put the number of processors to 2 (or 4 in your case). Evidently Vista only used one core by default to boot itself.
 
JRDtechnet said:
Guys you can't compare benchmarks against computers with different CPUs/chipsets etc.

A quick tip on boot time for Vista, if you open msconfig, click on the boot tab and then click advanced options put the number of processors to 2 (or 4 in your case). Evidently Vista only used one core by default to boot itself.
Click to expand...


No, but what I can do is install XP, run my benchmarks then clean install Vista and run them again. Thats 100% fair.

By the way, the tip you gave is a good one, I have been doing this for a while. Not sure why Vista does not just see how many cores you have and use them by default. Multi core being the norm now.
 
JRDtechnet said:
Guys you can't compare benchmarks against computers with different CPUs/chipsets etc.

A quick tip on boot time for Vista, if you open msconfig, click on the boot tab and then click advanced options put the number of processors to 2 (or 4 in your case). Evidently Vista only used one core by default to boot itself.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip JRD! I would have thought that would be one of the main advantages of Vista. XP was written when single cores were all that was out there except for some server type mobos that had 2 CPU slots on them. Vista was released when dual/quad core CPU's are pretty much the norm...

And you can compare different computers, if you use a bit of sense. My thoughts were that with the variety of people on the forums, we will have a few matches hardware wise, and hopefully some matches with XP and Vista used on the same hardware.
 
This is getting interesting...i would like to see some benchmark results.

I use Vista Ultimate 64 bit on a daily basis and it's ok. I had a problem where at times the laptop would be idling and give me a BSOD, but removed Vista Enterprise and put Ultimate; now it seems ok. I'm not a big fan but just want to become familar with it so when I have to fix clients Vista machines it'd be easier.
 
I found an online timer, www.online-stopwatch.com/ From clicking restart on my laptop, and to where I had a desktop and my Gadgets loaded was 52 Secs. I used my laptop next to another compute, my mouse clicks may be a few milliseconds off, but I think they were practically simultaneous.

OS: Vista 32bit Home Premium
CPU: Intell T3200 Dual core 2GHz (stock)
RAM: 2x1GB DDR2
Video card Specs: Stock Intel.

SuperPi Mod 1M score: 31.03 Secs (That impressed me!) Screenshot attached.
3DMark03 score: 2086
geekbench: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/83433
 

Attachments

  • superPi mod ss.jpg
    superPi mod ss.jpg
    36.1 KB · Views: 30
  • 3DMark03.jpg
    3DMark03.jpg
    25 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:
so what benchmarks are we going to be using for this comparison? I will be doing the comparison my laptop since I don't feel like screwing around with my main system.

Oh and rules:
Both Vista and XP fully updated
All default services enabled
You can disable any 3rd party party services / startup programs

anything else?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HCHTech
Cell Phone Automation
Replies
2
Views
815
britechguy
britechguy
HCHTech
Update your hardware, you know, once every 10 years or so whether it needs it or not
Replies
0
Views
117
HCHTech
HCHTech
frase
Lenovo Thinkpad t480 no power or charging light
Replies
10
Views
2K
brandonkick
B
LordX
ONE Windows 11 computer will NOT connect to shared folders (other win11 systems in same office will!)
Replies
4
Views
424
YeOldeStonecat
YeOldeStonecat
ralphtapley
Lessons learned after earning CompTIA Security+ certification as a technician
Replies
4
Views
165
frase
frase
Back
Top