Vista or XP? 158 replies

Please wait...

Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#101 12 years ago
the person who is using the pc... they should know better than use explorer anyways...Should be using FF. So blame the person who blames Microsoft.

Not IE...Explorer, the file manager. Believe it or not, that's crashed more times than everything in Ubuntu put together.




Chocu1a

Feel my heat, Heavens on fire.

45,365 XP

2nd August 2005

0 Uploads

4,209 Posts

0 Threads

#102 12 years ago

~Merrick;4558731yes... and after reading all that, benchmarks STILL do not compare to xp. Whether SP1 is installed or not.

So while vista is stable, it is no better than xp in most cases. So again, why spend 300 dollars on an os that has resource demands that out weigh the common users needs when xp is available?

As I said before, most of the issues and problem come pre-sp1 for vista. The service pack cleared alot of it's issues. But still has problems where it comes to being used by the " common" man.

So, the only valid point you made was it costs too much. The point in my post was in response to Bleh's statement that Vista was a bloated piece of crap. If XP works fine on your old machines, fine. But don't make unfounded, biased statements that Vista is a piece of crap. So what if its a few fps slower in open gl games. Not one post in this thread proves anything about the claims Vista is a bloated piece of crap. If someone was actually honest & said "well, I have an older pc with only 512- 1gig ram & a old p4 processor, so Vista didn't perform too good...", but they don't. They blame the problems on the new shinier os, not their old dusty hardware.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#103 12 years ago

l hate vista, nothing but problems with games, everything else if , ok diddly o ok, but vista, LOL l never popo in on the tech section, but vista, you suckzors, and bill gates should have all the vista cases shoved up his, oi dont be like that ! Nah vista crashes with devices still, driver issues, has f f f f fits off spazaiodness in games, is utterly shite with a physx card, well mine is, takes longer to boot up, more crapazoid in it, uses more RAM to run, sheesh, reminds me of windows 3.11 ! LOOOOOOOL ! dirt bags ! More ram, more HDD, bigger video, , faster RAM, faster video card, new mobo, sata cables, aaarrrgggggg KILL EM ALL ! GIVE ME MY HAMMER ! stuff this lm outa here the tech section is not for me !




The-Bleh-Bleh

Hasselhoff is my hero

50 XP

11th December 2006

0 Uploads

6,189 Posts

0 Threads

#104 12 years ago
Count_Chocu1a;4558599 You are GROSSLY exaggerating this. Unless you did something wrong. It NEVER comes up when launching a game. NEVER. The only time it comes up is when you make a change to a program. The only programs that sets it off is FRAPS(on my rig, mind you). UAC is a brilliant program. Turning it off & running real-time malware scanning uses more resources than UAC. You have mo idea what UAC actually does.

My post was arrogant sounding, so apologies. But remember it's a post about which I prefer: Don't tell me I'm making unfounded claims, they're called opinions, which happens to be what this thread's about. The features I'm bashing are useless to me. I know UAC adds malware protection, but I would rather not have it due to the messages. I would guess settings can be changed, but that's my point. I would rather not spend the time when an XP install disk is sitting there already fit for my needs.

I also like the way XP is organized far more than Vista, even though neither are great. It looks like Vista aimed for convenience, but was just made more cluttered and difficult.




*Daedalus

A Phoenix from the ashes

50 XP

18th April 2006

0 Uploads

3,091 Posts

0 Threads

#105 12 years ago

Coming from someone who uses both frequently, to me, Vista seems far more stable and speedy than XP. Mind you, it's a resource whore. End-vote: Vista.




Dark Saint

How many dogs are Pb'd?Maybe 2

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

8,040 Posts

0 Threads

#106 12 years ago
Count_Chocu1a;4559221So, the only valid point you made was it costs too much. The point in my post was in response to Bleh's statement that Vista was a bloated piece of crap. If XP works fine on your old machines, fine. But don't make unfounded, biased statements that Vista is a piece of crap. So what if its a few fps slower in open gl games. Not one post in this thread proves anything about the claims Vista is a bloated piece of crap. If someone was actually honest & said "well, I have an older pc with only 512- 1gig ram & a old p4 processor, so Vista didn't perform too good...", but they don't. They blame the problems on the new shinier os, not their old dusty hardware.

i'm sorry did you miss the post about what maximumpc had to offer on benchmarks... it isn't unfounded. Vista comes close but doesn't over take xp in any useful areas. Your opinion then is just as unfounded as anyone elses if that is the case.

New pc or old pc, the bottom line is xp over takes vista on all levels in that testing except one. So why spend 300 on something othr than to get the cool new look?

I have also tested Vista against xp, on the same rig and have come to the same conclusions. Out of the box, for the average user ( can't believe i have to say this again) xp beats vista.

You are looking at it from a " i have streamlined my vista " standpoint. The average user needs an OS out of the box and working. When xp is updated it works. When vista is updated, it works. When they are put side by side, xp works better. Opinion? Fact when I am looking at it on the same machine, and it isn't just Maximumpc that shares this view nor myself.

So as it is my opinion, it is also supported by facts.




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#107 12 years ago

Has anybody here considered networking side of things? Nobody can say XP is better at that, especially if they've ever googled it, Vista wins with ease each time. Its faster and more stable with networking, rather then the entire explorer process crashing, it may crash a single window of explorer.

Server 08, The Vista version of Server, has been proven various times Supreme to Server 03, mainly because of its security and networking capabilitys, and it is easier to use then Server 03. And guess what, its built on Vista technology, just like server 03 was built on XP technology.

Only gay thing about Server 08 is not its MORE then Vista ram usage for the OS (512MB compared to 400MB) is the fact Server 08 has Aero lol, thats stupid in a server, but meh.




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#108 12 years ago
Its been a while since you've used the Vista Control Panel I see... Or you mistyped your post,...

Very True, My PC is in still getting the motherboard repaired after the Cap fell off. But I could have SWORN that Vistas CP is classic view from default




Chocu1a

Feel my heat, Heavens on fire.

45,365 XP

2nd August 2005

0 Uploads

4,209 Posts

0 Threads

#109 12 years ago

~Merrick;4559542

You are looking at it from a " i have streamlined my vista " standpoint. The average user needs an OS out of the box and working. When xp is updated it works. When vista is updated, it works. When they are put side by side, xp works better. Opinion? Fact when I am looking at it on the same machine, and it isn't just Maximumpc that shares this view nor myself.

So as it is my opinion, it is also supported by facts.

Well, I have Vista "Straight out of the box". No modifications or adjustments, with all stock eyecandy & features. It runs smoother & faster with less problems than XP. I can convert a 1.36 gig avi file to a 3.26gig dvd file with full menus in 30 minutes opposed to 60 minutes in xp. Every, yes, every single program opens up quicker in Vista. So...side by side on my pc...Vista runs better. Fact. It seems we are both proving our opionions. Granted...a new os does cost money. Can Vista do everything XP can do...straight out of the box? Yes. Can XP do everything Vista can do... straight out of the box? No. Better file management, better memory optimization, better file transfer, better integrated security, better networking, integrated damage control(shadow copies, file replacement, system crash) all right out of the box. Is it worth the money if you already have Windows XP? Maybe. Maybe not. But "straight out of teh box" as you say...Vista trumps XP. One last thing...I was one of the people that hated on Vista...I used to say I didn't need all those glitzy features. Well....aside from Aero(which is so damn sexy...it is...admit it). I can't beleive how much I use & appreciate all the new features. So much so, that what ever small percentage of performance I may have lost over XP, I would never go back to XP. You are all entitled to your opinions..& MOST of you make decent points & arguements. But my fevered defence of Vista is based on replies to misinformed blanket statements, gross exagerations of the truth, & "juming on the bandwagon".

And were do you get this $300 dollars for Vista you keep saying?

Vista Home Premium is $99 usd Newegg.com - Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 32-bit English 1pk for System Builders DSP OEI DVD - Operating Systems

Vista Ultimate is $179 usd Newegg.com - Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 32-bit English 1pk for System Builders DSP OEI DVD - Operating Systems

& Vista Business is $139 usd Newegg.com - Microsoft Windows Vista Business SP1 32-bit English 1pk for System Builders DSP OEI DVD - Operating Systems




Dark Saint

How many dogs are Pb'd?Maybe 2

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

8,040 Posts

0 Threads

#110 12 years ago

Count_Chocu1a;4560282Well, I have Vista "Straight out of the box". No modifications or adjustments, with all stock eyecandy & features. It runs smoother & faster with less problems than XP. I can convert a 1.36 gig avi file to a 3.26gig dvd file with full menus in 30 minutes opposed to 60 minutes in xp. Every, yes, every single program opens up quicker in Vista. So...side by side on my pc...Vista runs better. Fact. It seems we are both proving our opionions. Granted...a new os does cost money. Can Vista do everything XP can do...straight out of the box? Yes. Can XP do everything Vista can do... straight out of the box? No. Better file management, better memory optimization, better file transfer, better integrated security, better networking, integrated damage control(shadow copies, file replacement, system crash) all right out of the box. Is it worth the money if you already have Windows XP? Maybe. Maybe not. But "straight out of teh box" as you say...Vista trumps XP. One last thing...I was one of the people that hated on Vista...I used to say I didn't need all those glitzy features. Well....aside from Aero(which is so damn sexy...it is...admit it). I can't beleive how much I use & appreciate all the new features. So much so, that what ever small percentage of performance I may have lost over XP, I would never go back to XP. You are all entitled to your opinions..& MOST of you make decent points & arguements. But my fevered defence of Vista is based on replies to misinformed blanket statements, gross exagerations of the truth, & "juming on the bandwagon".

And were do you get this $300 dollars for Vista you keep saying?

Vista Home Premium is $99 usd Newegg.com - Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium SP1 32-bit English 1pk for System Builders DSP OEI DVD - Operating Systems

Vista Ultimate is $179 usd Newegg.com - Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 32-bit English 1pk for System Builders DSP OEI DVD - Operating Systems

& Vista Business is $139 usd Newegg.com - Microsoft Windows Vista Business SP1 32-bit English 1pk for System Builders DSP OEI DVD - Operating Systems

See now you give something to go on ...

What is your system, have you run xp on that same system ? I have run vista side by side on the same system with Xp.. And i do find the opposite, that vista just doesn't cut it performance wise. Right now goody doing the same thing, running vista this week, then going to run xp next week. It isn't like I am the only one who says it isn't cutting it. While magz just want to sell their magz, you can't argue with the article in MAXPC. Especially seeing as they Spoke with several reps from Microsoft. Even Bill Gates has come out of hiding to make statements. Even the commercials ( of which they are spending millions to pull the name of vista from the muck) have began and are confusing people. They had to make a statement about that also.

Vista: an ok os, just not what it should have been ... And with the encroaching of win7? I just don't think it is worth picking up. Not for the sacrifice.