Vista or XP? 158 replies

Please wait...

Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#111 12 years ago

Count, you just need to accept that those that hate vista hate it because their computer can't run it like it can run XP, and they are affraid of change.

Fact is, more people like Vista in its early stages, then they did like XP post Sp2. Which obviously means that the millions of people that say Vista is good, say it for a reason. Everyone is missinformed about Vista, its only those that bother to look into whats behind the OS, that can see why Vista is indeed faster/better then XP. Vista has had more positive reviews pre SP1 and Post SP1, then XP has had post SP2. Its cheaper then XP was, 300 for XP compared to 180 for Vista Ultimate x64. Its faster then XP is at file management, networking and file searching. Its more secure then XP is out of the box It comes with DECENT security protection, aka Windows Defender It, as an operating system people use to navigate, is easier to use then XP is (And makes more sense) Documents is still My Documents, Computer is still My Computer. The overall GUI has not changed that much, is no harder to use, in fact, its easier for majority as it has the built in search/run field. Its nicer looking, even XP fan boys admit that Its technology makes for a better server version then XPs technology does Windows 7 is built of Vistas technology, so obviously Vista isn't that bad File Copy speeds are faster post SP1 then they are Post SP3 on XP (18MBPS Sata I 7200RPM on Vista SP1, compared to 10MBPS Sata I 7200RPM XP SP3) Downsides to Vista is yes, it has a slightly harder to use CP *Apparently* and I do agree that changing certain settings is harder. But hey, it was the same going from 3.1 to 95, and 98 to ME, why should XP to Vista be any different. Vistas bad Rep all started because of a few tight ass people who tried running Vista on 100MB ram bitched that their PCs were slow, then everyone who didn't have Vista, and hadn't used it, including myself started saying it was shit... Then suddenly, everyone who started using Vista for themselves, on a system that meet its minimum requirements and used it for more then a day, started to realize that hey, its not that bad. Then most of them turned into Vista fan boys, those that didn't, are the only ones that had a valid right to not like Vista. That means anyone who hasn't used Vista for more then a 2 weeks, and have used it on <512MB ram, have NO right to say its a crappy OS. Try running your precious XP on Less ram then its minimum specs, lets see how well it performs then, lets see how much you love XP then. And I can tell you from experiance, and so will most other techs, that XP on less ram then its minimum specs, will shit itself non stop. While yeah, Vista also shits its self under the same circumstances, its also more stable under those circumstances, because it handles memory and CPU access time much better. Also, who ever gave me Neg Rep for posting...

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

Can go die a lonely death in my Womb




Dark Saint

How many dogs are Pb'd?Maybe 2

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

8,040 Posts

0 Threads

#112 12 years ago

Sgt. D. Pilla;4560370Count, you just need to accept that those that hate vista hate it because their computer can't run it like it can run XP, and they are affraid of change.

Fact is, more people like Vista in its early stages, then they did like XP post Sp2. Which obviously means that the millions of people that say Vista is good, say it for a reason. Everyone is missinformed about Vista, its only those that bother to look into whats behind the OS, that can see why Vista is indeed faster/better then XP. Vista has had more positive reviews pre SP1 and Post SP1, then XP has had post SP2. Its cheaper then XP was, 300 for XP compared to 180 for Vista Ultimate x64. Its faster then XP is at file management, networking and file searching. Its more secure then XP is out of the box It comes with DECENT security protection, aka Windows Defender It, as an operating system people use to navigate, is easier to use then XP is (And makes more sense) Documents is still My Documents, Computer is still My Computer. The overall GUI has not changed that much, is no harder to use, in fact, its easier for majority as it has the built in search/run field. Its nicer looking, even XP fan boys admit that Its technology makes for a better server version then XPs technology does Windows 7 is built of Vistas technology, so obviously Vista isn't that bad File Copy speeds are faster post SP1 then they are Post SP3 on XP (18MBPS Sata I 7200RPM on Vista SP1, compared to 10MBPS Sata I 7200RPM XP SP3) Downsides to Vista is yes, it has a slightly harder to use CP *Apparently* and I do agree that changing certain settings is harder. But hey, it was the same going from 3.1 to 95, and 98 to ME, why should XP to Vista be any different. Vistas bad Rep all started because of a few tight ass people who tried running Vista on 100MB ram bitched that their PCs were slow, then everyone who didn't have Vista, and hadn't used it, including myself started saying it was shit... Then suddenly, everyone who started using Vista for themselves, on a system that meet its minimum requirements and used it for more then a day, started to realize that hey, its not that bad. Then most of them turned into Vista fan boys, those that didn't, are the only ones that had a valid right to not like Vista. That means anyone who hasn't used Vista for more then a 2 weeks, and have used it on <512MB ram, have NO right to say its a crappy OS. Try running your precious XP on Less ram then its minimum specs, lets see how well it performs then, lets see how much you love XP then. And I can tell you from experiance, and so will most other techs, that XP on less ram then its minimum specs, will shit itself non stop. While yeah, Vista also shits its self under the same circumstances, its also more stable under those circumstances, because it handles memory and CPU access time much better. Also, who ever gave me Neg Rep for posting... Can go die a lonely death in my Womb

Quote your current sources. I have. My pc's are up to date. Can run whatever i wish.

Want to look around the forums for my posts ? I have run xp on 256 megs of ram with a p3 processor. NO ISSUES. In fact it is a compaq laptop. Any thing else to say ?

Everything you are telling us in this post is everything MICROSOFT says it has had problems with... Like i said, quote your source.

yes vista is nice looking, but then so is panther and that is where Bill got the idea, from mac os.

I have vista still in stalled on another pc and run it on 2 gigs of ram with a dual core proc. And as I stated, i have found the same as most other have found, it in no way outperforms xp. That is my opinion. I am not a fanboy, I will run just about anything as long as it can get the job done.




Chocu1a

Feel my heat, Heavens on fire.

45,365 XP

2nd August 2005

0 Uploads

4,209 Posts

0 Threads

#113 12 years ago

~Merrick;4560356See 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.. [/quote] From a page or two back. & yes...I am dual booting with XP pro service. pack 3. I just don't have any reason to boot into it. [quote=Count_Chocu1a;4554621]. While running XP pro on dual core processor, 2 gigs ddr400(ummm...LAST generation, thank you) & a 8800gt vs. Vista Ultimate on the SAME machine...




Sgt. D. Pilla

Uber Geek

50 XP

23rd October 2007

0 Uploads

3,473 Posts

0 Threads

#114 12 years ago

MerrickQuote your current sources. I have. My pc's are up to date. Can run whatever i wish.

Want to look around the forums for my posts ? I have run xp on 256 megs of ram with a p3 processor. NO ISSUES. In fact it is a compaq laptop. Any thing else to say ?

Everything you are telling us in this post is everything MICROSOFT says it has had problems with... Like i said, quote your source.

yes vista is nice looking, but then so is panther and that is where Bill got the idea, from mac os.

I have vista still in stalled on another pc and run it on 2 gigs of ram with a dual core proc. And as I stated, i have found the same as most other have found, it in no way outperforms xp. That is my opinion. I am not a fanboy, I will run just about anything as long as it can get the job done.

Try running your precious XP on Less ram then its minimum specs, lets see how well it performs then

XPs minimum is 64MB You have quad the ram XP needs minimum

and that is where Bill got the idea, from mac os.

Quote your sources Just to let you know merrick, I have no sources to quote, they arn't needed, my pricing agrees with Counts pricing, the other 90% of that post is stating ideas, thoughts or other pieces of information, such as XP will epicly die on <64MB ram

That means anyone who hasn't used Vista for more then a 2 weeks, and have used it on <512MB ram, have NO right to say its a crappy OS.

If you replace that 2weeks with 1 week, then that is just general common sense, you can't diss an OS if you havn't given it a decent go, no need to source that.

File Copy speeds are faster post SP1 then they are Post SP3 on XP (18MBPS Sata I 7200RPM on Vista SP1, compared to 10MBPS Sata I 7200RPM XP SP3)

That is more or less common knowledge among techs. No Microsoft OSs have been known for the speed of copying files, ask Linux users that, Linux is a shit load better at it then MS OSs are

Everyone is missinformed about Vista

Again general knowledge, not every home users understands what/how ram works, letalone how it works on a OS basis

Its faster then XP is at file management, networking and file searching.

XP doesn't have superfetch for file searching and management

Its more secure then XP is out of the box

XP doesn't come with Windows Defender, Microsoft Malicous Remover Tool or UAC

It comes with DECENT security protection, aka Windows Defender

If you use XP, you know it has very little built in, or "Out of the box" protection I can name...1 thing...Windows Firewall :/ For Vista, I can name 4. Windows Defender, UAC, WMRT, Windows Firewall Also, Vista comes with IE7, which is more secure and safer then IE6

Internet Explorer 7, which is the default browser in Windows Vista, also helps protect the personal information of end users. We’re seeing almost 1 million phishing attempts blocked per week, representing a large number of potential cases of identity theft or credit card fraud that were stopped

Vista in its first year, has had less vunerabilitys then XP in its first year, aka Safer, More Secure firstyear.png Microsoft say its safer...

From January – June 2007, there were 60% fewer malware infections and 2.8 times less potentially unwanted software on Windows Vista than on Windows XP SP2, according to the Microsoft Security Intelligence Reportfrom 10/07.

So there are my "Vista is more secure and safer" sources, which now mean's I've sourced the only thing i've really needed to




N88TR

Old school pimp

50 XP

10th February 2004

0 Uploads

9,921 Posts

0 Threads

#115 12 years ago

I must admit I thought of using it when I was doing my re-install on my tower, but having extra resources for the OS just pissed me off thinking about it. I was never one for flashy interfaces or even a while color selection, sometimes less is more.

And I've not heard any compelling reason to use Vista so I've never taken it seriously. Just because it's new is a shit poor reason to use something. I have relatives in IT for GeneralElectric and Mitsubishi [they travel to germany and japan and other places every 2 or 3 months, lots of travel, lots of pay but challenging work they say] and they abhore Vista.




Oblivious

I tawt I taw a puddy tat...

50 XP

30th December 2002

0 Uploads

2,806 Posts

0 Threads

#116 12 years ago

lol ...back to this playful banter, are we? I'm just curious, who is everyone on either side of the fence trying to convince here? The other side? Hell, I still know people who use win98 since it does all they need.

Just use what works for you. :)

Me, I've used both OS's on my rig, and both seem to work just fine for the most part. I still primarily use XP since it games a little bit better, just my preference. If I were to buy an entirely new PC though, it'd get Vista on it since buying an EOL OS seems a bit trivial at this point.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#117 12 years ago
If you use XP, you know it has very little built in, or "Out of the box" protection I can name...1 thing...Windows Firewall :/ For Vista, I can name 4. Windows Defender, UAC, WMRT, Windows Firewall Also, Vista comes with IE7, which is more secure and safer then IE6

You do know that I used XP for three years without an active protection suite and just Window's Firewall (which a lot of people say is worthless anyway), and I never actually got an infection of any sort? Which sort of proves the point that if you're smart with what you do, all those things are relatively unneeded.




Dark Saint

How many dogs are Pb'd?Maybe 2

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

8,040 Posts

0 Threads

#118 12 years ago

128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)

yes , you are correct, but wth do you use an os for ? using other programs. So while you are playing tit for tat. Let me rephrase.

I have run Winxp on 256 megs of ram, and photoshop while watching a movie.

You try it and tell me where you get.




Junk angel

Huh, sound?

166,880 XP

28th January 2007

0 Uploads

15,678 Posts

0 Threads

#119 12 years ago
It has nothing to do with how old your printer is (you only have approx 2 years of experiance, you have much more to gain.). It is just as easy to write a driver that works with vista as it is for those that work with xp. Especially when both use usb ( as most machines that are running xp use usb). I don't see too many serials around anymore. The majority that are still using serial, haven't graduated out of win 98.

Hey don't dis my laserjet 4l running on XP!

On a more serious note. Right now, I;'ve gone from windows 3.1 to XP over the years. Though I honestly don't really even remember the 3.1 one or whatever it was called all that much anyore. Was it the one where the desktop was sort of divided?

And I'm fully content with XP for the time being and my hardware as well. Yes I hate the fact that sometimes it forgets that there is a soundcard after the reinstall, but that's sometihng you get used to.

but nevertheless I still voted vista. The reason for this being that once I get a new laptop I plan to have it run vista. Due to the larger compatibility, eyecandy and just as a general upgrade. I personally would probably never run a mac, even if I do like how they look at time. In part because I don't like macs elitist philosophy and the entire iLive bundle.

Vista in my eyes is an OS which was meant to push hardware accelerators and better hardware into office PCs and that's the crux of the issue. It uses more hardware res than what's necesarry. Though in other things it looks like a good new OS. Just a tad more the user is an idiot than XP used to be. Which in turn was more of the same than win2000 or 98




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#120 12 years ago
Sgt. D. Pilla;4559739But I could have SWORN that Vistas CP is classic view from default

No, by default it uses a bloody irritating category view similar to the default in XP. Like XP changing it only requires one mouse click so really, saying that's a reason to dislike Vista is nitpicking at the most petty level imaginable.