Vista or XP? 158 replies

Please wait...

Ḷëģöläš-OLD

You'll never walk alone.

99,355 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

9,518 Posts

0 Threads

#41 12 years ago
conorlord;4553599it all depends on what u want it for familys and people that are new to computer might prefer vista casue its user friendly but for gaming xp is better so its what u want vista or xp for

about how many games could vista support though?




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#42 12 years ago
Legolas*;4553589where can you download vista ?:confused:[/QUOTE] Ever heard of the phrase "You go and buy it with money."? [QUOTE=Legolas*;4553619]about how many games could vista support though?

Most of them to be fair, has issues with some games but then what version of Windows doesn't have problems with one game or another?




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#43 12 years ago

Legolas*;4553589where can you download vista ?:confused:[/QUOTE] We don't talk about such things here, they're illegal.

Vista is available from several different websites, such as TigerDirect, Newegg, CircuitCity, BestBuy, Staples, Office Depot, Office Max, CompUSA, etc...

Also for a low price on eBay. eBay buyers beware, make sure you get an OEM, and get it from a legitimate vendor. Lot of crooks on there.

[QUOTE=Legolas*;4553619]about how many games could vista support though?

Uh??? Hard to say, its in the thousands... Not quite up to WinXP standards, but it does support a lot of games. ALL of the NEW games support Vista.




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#44 12 years ago
Bs|Archaon;4553656Ever heard of the phrase "You go and buy it with money."?[

Yeah, we don't talk about "downloading" Microsoft products. That's illegal...

All the new games are made for Windows Vista as well as Windows XP. The older games designed for Windows 98 will probably have more issues than those designed strictly for XP.

Vista just chews up more system resources, which means you need to spend MORE money, on a MORE powerful machine, to get the SAME performance. So XP is often recommended for better performance.




Homer Gonerson

...

50 XP

21st December 2003

0 Uploads

6,234 Posts

0 Threads

#45 12 years ago

Can I vote twice? I think a desktop and laptop running XP should count for 2 votes




Dark Saint

How many dogs are Pb'd?Maybe 2

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

8,040 Posts

0 Threads

#46 12 years ago

The_Computer_Wizard;4552848well apparently you fit in with my point that people are arrogant and naive. just because you don't see a lot of serial printers around doesn't mean people don't still use them, and after that rant of making me sound like an idiot for spending money don't even try and tell me they should go out and buy new ones through my job ive gone out to A LOT of businesses and homes for my job, and have seen A LOT of people still using old printers and things so don't write it off that people don't just because of your lack of experience

also who are you to tell me how to spend my money? seriously where the hell do you get off doing that? my old computer broke around the time vista came out and i needed to upgrade, and i said to myself "hmmm... should i spend the extra money on vista? im building a computer with enough resources, i need those resources anyway because of the high level of 3d work, and multitasking i do" so yea i spent some extra money, and honestly im glad i did because i like vista better

just because your a moderator gives you NO RIGHT to try and rip me a new one, especially when i was just VOICING MY OPINION which is what this thread was about[/quote]

Notice the little piece of statement in my signature ?

Spoiler: Show
[COLOR=blue]Personal opinions are not endorsed by FileFront[/COLOR]
That gives me EVERY right to be able to voice my OPINION. And in case you missed the fact that i STATED it was my opinion, you can look again here:

~Merrick;4552369

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.[/quote]

I guess all you heard rookie, was the fact that was telling you that you were wrong. A professional ( as you soo want people to know you are) would have looked at the ENTIRE statement instead of making himself look like an arse with a comeback statement that indeed was just pathetic. Especially when you are venturing into the " my opinion " territory.

You could just be talkin out your arse about the serial printers still in use. Maybe I just deal with people have the ability to buy a new printer right after they are done purchasing that new pc. 70.00 on a new printer does seem to break people right after they buy a brand new pc with vista doesn't it?

Where did i tell you what to do with your money, I merely asked if you paid for it. Your pc broke. Ok... you ended up with a pc with vista, no big deal. But i didn't tell you what to do with your money. Did you have a choice on the os you could have had? You probably bought a prebuilt with Vista already on it. Wonder why you didn't build your own? Just a question. You got a prebuilt cause you needed it, or you built your own and CHOSE to pay for vista. Who cares. I just wanted to know for my OWN thoughts on whether you " paid " for it.

Vista standard install: 2 gigs of ram (Kingston), on a dual core processor ( AMD 4800x2 ) while attempting to use the os and lcs3 eats up your resources as if you were an emaciated puppy with a beef tenderloin in front of it. And that is a standard install. What everyone in the world would have done short of those who know how to strip it of the " fat".

I do that with xp, I get ALMOST the same results. Not quite as much ram usage. I can watch a movie while working on graphics if I want to ( Advantage of Dual monitors). Don't make me try and open firefox/ie though... It slows down faster than a 4 cylinder car climbing the " Rockies" and blowing out first gear.

Maybe your idea ( not necessarily Computer wizard but anyone viewing the thread) isn't necessarily the same as mine when it comes to multitasking. But then, on that standard vista install, why does it use more resources than panther. And yes, they are two different os's, but fact of the matter is, the similarities between them are astonishing. Good thing bill is on the investors board for mac. He and Steve ( I am sure ) have had some words.

So in the end of this: READ the entire post. Have a glass of wine or three. And be sure next time when you give your opinion, you not try and put people into categories, that isn't giving an opinion. That is Categorizing. I am neither ignorant, nor naive, when I give my " opinion " it is because I have formally tested my opinion which brings it out of hypothetical/theoretical workings into fact. It is still given as " my opinion " because you may have a different setup but close enough to mine as to gain differing results. Examples? Bios updates, drivers used, softwares, ram timing tweaks, overclocking and so on.

Have a nice day!

Spoiler: Show
( The "Have a nice day" is from the moderator in me as the rest of the post is MY friggin opinion.)

[quote=Warborg;4552901]Sorry but this doen't hold much water... I was writing my own programs on the TRS-80 computers back in the earlier 1980's. So that would put me at nearly 30 years of computers.

Writing programs, is a different side of Pc education to be quite honest. you can code your arse off, but who knows what you know about hardware repair or compatibility. I may not be able to code, but I am qualified to do repair down to the Mobo level. BUT, I would take your opinion as plausible if you told me you have experience and could explain what your opinion gravitated around.

Oh and not to mention the fact that he ( Comp wiz) states he has 2 years in the business. begin e pissing contest now. But glad you joined in because I bow to your thirty years. [quote=Warborg;4552896]I waited until Dec 2006 to own my first XP (only because it came with a free upgrade to Vista) Within the first week it locked up...yes locked up. The only thing I was able to track the lock up to was a program that was designed to run on XP...hmmm....

Once I changed it over to Vista it ran fine...Even a year and half later no lock ups. It also ran just fine using Aero and the sidebar with 512mb.

The software written to run on XP, that isn't XP issue then it is the software in 9/10 cases. The operating system can only do what it is intended to do .... Games and programs are written to do what they are intended to do. So if this program locked up on xp, I would ( in opinion ) find fault with the coding aspect of it. The software companies know exactly what they need to make their softwares work with the os in most cases. But then, why do we endlessly download patches ?

I don't try and run softwares written for 95 on xp.

But once again, everyone's experiances are different. I will state this again, a Standard, Untweaked, install that the public would have to deal with, is bloated and ram dependent.

I am not defending one or the other. I am merely stating an opinion from the Casual side of computing.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#47 12 years ago
Homer Gonerson;4553699Can I vote twice? I think a desktop and laptop running XP should count for 2 votes

The question is which is your favorite, not what you have. Otherwise I'd end up putting in two votes for Vista, at least five for XP, three for Mac OS and one for Linux...




Ḷëģöläš-OLD

You'll never walk alone.

99,355 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

9,518 Posts

0 Threads

#48 12 years ago

Bs|Archaon;4553656Ever heard of the phrase "You go and buy it with money."? [/quote]

[quote=Monster_user;4553665]Yeah, we don't talk about "downloading" Microsoft products. That's illegal...

i saw a post that said i downloaded vista so i presumed that it was downloadable off the internet...




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#49 12 years ago
Why is upgrading to improve performance with normal software any less important than upgrading to run games? You can't run modern Linux or Mac software on obsolete machines either. Windows suffers from it particularly badly, but because it's a problem with any software I don't see it as a reason to pan Windows in particular.

Because what I use a computer for doesn't require me to spend 3000 bucks on a machine, or even 2000. And if I don't need to spend the money, I don't. Simple as that.

If your desktop is going to become a server in the near future why the hell does it matter to you that XP isn't going to be fully supported after mid-2009 (or at all after 2014)?

Because I'm still going to be using it, and it still needs an OS.




Salamancer

Crows With Tophats

50 XP

3rd September 2008

0 Uploads

11 Posts

0 Threads

#50 12 years ago

Monster_user;4553665Yeah, we don't talk about "downloading" Microsoft products. That's illegal...

All the new games are made for Windows Vista as well as Windows XP. The older games designed for Windows 98 will probably have more issues than those designed strictly for XP.

Vista just chews up more system resources, which means you need to spend MORE money, on a MORE powerful machine, to get the SAME performance. So XP is often recommended for better performance.

Would just like to add here, that a PC that's capable of running Vista isn't costly at all. You're blowing the situation a bit too far out of proportion. My current configuration (dual core, 2GB (2x1GB) RAM, 8800GT) cost under £400 (much under $800). Newegg has 4GB of RAM (DDR2) for around $40.

I'm voting for Vista, as I've recieved a far better experience on 32bit Vista (w/SP1) than I did with 32bit XP (w/SP2-3).

Opinions are great and all, but adding 'price' as a negative side of Vista is a bit silly, considering that most people on these forums are likely to spend $200+ on a graphics card alone.