Warborg;4549107People seems to forget newer OS suck more resources...try running XP on a 64mb ram that my Windows ME ran on just fine.
Windows 98 could run on 32 ram Windows ME could run on 64 ram Windows 2000 was about 256 ram Windows XP is 512
Actually MY Vista did run on 512 for awhile, but yes when I wanted a brand new game to run on it, I did upgrade it to 2G.
I bet the next one won't be able to run on less then 1024 then maybe 3G to 4G for good game playing[/quote]
I never thought out it that way...same with most people
+1 for pointing that out =p
[quote=Apollo75;4549519]Seriously?! I've never had Vista do anything like that for me.... :uhm:
They do have drivers ( not the most up-to-date ones, sometimes ) for 3rd party ( aka non-Microsoft ) stuff.
They have it so that more of your stuff works out of the box so you don't have to go hunting for every driver...
Windows 2000, and XP were both considered to be RAM hogs.
At the time, they were. RAM was expensive, more than it is now. Consider that bit of inflation as well, so RAM really was expensive.
However, going from Windows 98/Me to Windows 2000, it was worth it. Windows 2000 was server stable. WinMe got a BSOD when you pressed the eject button on a CD drive (Everytime, every frackin' time...).
WinXP was nothing more than a service pack for Win2K when it came out. It did have themes, and System Restore. Whoopdee friggin' doo. Oh and a Firewall Microsoft forgot to turn on, or mention, oops... It was the same OS. 5.0, and 5.1. So it didn't have much of an excuse, which is why I never upgraded.
Vista is at least 6.0.
Vista has security features, Vista has better troubleshooting features (Very Nice IMHO). Vista has Indexed Searching. Vista has a "Spotlight" feature. The Hibernation features are mature. There are more advanced uses for System Restore, as it has also matured.
The 3rd party driver update has also improved since WinXP. (Yes XP does it too).
Vista is almost worth it. Yet they over hyped it, and delayed a lot of features for the next version. WINFS!!!
There is not much wrong with Vista, its just not worth the upgrade from XP. It is definitely worth upgrading from Win2K for, given its time to by a new PC anyway.
WOW!! I didn't expect Vista and XP to be tied, I seriously thought all of the Mac users would've voted by now. Come on Vista users, out win this poll xD
WinMe got a BSOD when you pressed the eject button on a CD drive (Everytime, every frackin' time...).
I swear WinMe would BSOD just because you looked at it.... :p
I have XP installed on my desktop and Vista installed on my Laptop and Media PC. I do like it, and it does all the stuff it is meant to, but I still prefer XP, and XP will be staying on my desktop well into the foreseable future.
Vista IMHO, is fat and bloated, its a shame, and i hope they invest time a bit more wisely in Windows 7. (And give it features people actually want, direct x 10??? Come off it)
Bring on the new Windows huh?
Windows Vienna I've heard, what about you guys?
You are going to find that , with every now os to be released, it is going to take more ram to run them because of the features they implement.
Vista isn't anything more than a mac os (panther). Of which even panther doesn't run that much ram when used.
I also run Xp and Vista. I find Vista also to be bloated and over hyped. When you pull it apart, turn off all the bs... use what is necessary.... it's all fine in the end, but still uses more ram than xp.
The Force is strong with him
10th September 2006
ok, this issue has been debated for a WHILE now, really ever since vista came out now i have actually been using vista ever since it came out, also continue to use xp at school, and have been fixing computers running both for about the last 2 years at work anyway, theres not much of a point in arguing it any more because i define vista into having four classes of people 1. people still running a lot of old hardware like old printers and things that they dont want new ones, and the old ones are not compatable 2. people who are naive about vista, and write it off as being a garbage os without never working on it themselves because they are afraid of change 3. people who dont use a computer a hell of a lot, and xp suits their needs just fine, thus why should they pay for a new one? 4. people that actually want to keep up, and like/love vista (like me) and sees that it had alot of problems, and continues to have a few, but is getting much better, and honestly if you have a good computer that has more than enough resources it will run nicer than xp
either way people are pretty much set in their ways on this topic, and not too many peoples opinions are going to be changed by this thread
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.
And on your fourth point, why would you want to invest in a new pc just to run a new ( bloated, expensive ) os? It doesn't make financial sense.
Most people using xp still see what the issues with vista are. Did you pay for the vista you use ? Did you buy it when it came out ? sorry .. You said you did. so you spent the couple hundred dollars on an os that had major issues that they have finally culled and calmed. The biggest issue is the price. They didn't do much more work on vista than they did coding xp or even Me.
All vista is, is a copy of panther, which by the way runs smoother than vista at half the resources.
conclusion: You're right, for the wrong reasons IMHO. You aren't going to change many people's minds with this thread. Xp is still where you want to be unless you want a challenge of making your vista work for you.
And before you ask me what qualifies me to this. Nothing other than the fact that it is my opinion, and the fact that i have been working on pcs for over 10 years. Not to mention, I have vista ultimate, xp, linux and a mac with panther.
All of that, and it sounds as if you can't see the forest for the trees. - "All vista is, is a copy of panther"
Sure Explorer looks like Finder, and sure Apple released Spotlight first. That doesn't mean that it is nothing but a copy.
Not saying it is worth upgrading from XP. But Vista is a step above XP, given a proper system. I couldn't stand XP. I still can't stand it. I only endure it because games stopped supporting Win2k.
Sure, sometimes Vista can be a pain. However Vista is not something I feel like I'm enduring. I feel it is something to behold, a "vista".