InsideTech

A lot of people I know are having the debate of which is better, Windows Vista or Windows XP. Which do you think is better and why? I know it seems kind of a lame topic but it's just one of topics that's going to pop up sometime.

Between XP & Vista:  

XP

XP doesn't hog resources,

XP doesn't ask you a million times a day if you're sure you want to open word (I swear, I keep hoping for a button that says "final answer" and spits out a check for a million bucks),

With XP I don't have to fuss with settings much at all,

XP runs more programs/equipment (driver issues with vista),

With XP I can change components without the computer thinking something's wrong,

XP networks fine (versus vista which won't with certain network setups unless you trick it),

and XP's not the same kernal masquerading as something "different & new" (vista is the same kernal because they couldn't complete things on time, so you get a system that occasionaly argues with itself).

Seriously, everytime I have to use vista, I get that clip from Armageddon where bruce willis's character & his crew go through tearing apart that space buggy, taking it down to bare bones...     

I'll go with Vista over XP. Sure it may drive you nuts with it's constant asking for permisions but it's only about 1000 times more secure than XP. XP does'nt  just allow a virus in it almost invites them. XP cant even compare to Vista's Aero visual experience. XP doesn't have 3D flip or glass like appearence. Vista has the ability to use Ready Boost  to store the superfetch cache on a USB flash drive freeing up system memory where the cache would normaly be preloaded. Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) was developed and released for the first time with Vista. I'm sure you know WDDM takes a huge load of the main system processor by offloading some of the graphics-intensive applications to the video adapter  which actualy improves the overall performance of the computer. I mean most of GPU's out today have thier own processor almost as powerfull as the main sytem processor. This means Vista is actualy faster than XP. Most of the problems with drivers and applications were on the 64 bit addition not the 32 bit addition, and almost all of the problems have been patched. I hate it when people just choose to go with what they know. XP has had more than it's fair share of problems right? Be honest how many times did you curse XP when you were first getting use to it. Give Vista a chance the bennifits of this OS far outway any of it's drawbacks.

True comment, but I like Vista as well , but XP runs less resourses and overall I get better performance.

I beleive that while XP is a resource god, Vista has gotten better than when it was first introduced. XP uses less power and/or resources to do the same job. But, I feel that XP is becoming obsolete and soon will be unavailable. So, my vote goes to Vista Home Ultimate!!

Sorry I'm new to Inside Tech but I find it interesting to hear people talk about using XP or Vista, and now Windows 7.

I don't prefer either, each one has it's advantages and disadvantages. XP is an old friend, I know what to expect and how to get want I need from it. The biggest drawback of XP is that it only supports a maximum of 2 cores. So if you buy a new machine with a four core Intel chip, you can't run XP.

Vista on the other hand uses as many cores as you can currently purchase. It also will use more RAM than you currently own, yes, it's a resource hog. However, it is meant to be run on a new piece of hardware, don't even think you can run it on a system that barely runs XP. As far as the OS constantly asking if you're sure you want to do something, if you don't like it, turn it off. As far as networking, Vista talks to Vista just fine, talking to XP is another issue. I'm still looking for a simple way to make that work, if I find one I'll post it.

Windows 7, it's still Vista with a new interface. I have and have been playing with build 6801 of Windows 7. It's nice and it currently runs in 512MB of RAM......however, Windows has removed a lot of the little extras it normally puts into an Operating System. This is a new direction, which will make the OS run faster and in less memory. If you want the addins you can always download them and add them yourself. At least that is the direction so far. Since Windows 7 isn't slated for release anytime soon, things can and will change.

Zman

Try http://www.nliteos.com/ for a OS stripper and custon OS configurations.

i thank zman for posting that information about xp. i read before i bough xp since i need it for studies and i had vista i prefer vista over xp but since like others commented xp is still the choice for netowrk and business. i had just put a quad core on my pc. and i tried installing xp and everything went great while finishing the installation the pc turned it selft down. so i wonder myself could it be of what zman said ? so i went to c mos and disabled the extra cores then everything worked after that :p.i prefer vista it looks better and is easier to work with just wish they can fix al lthe problems :)

for some reason my system that i builded works better in xp but looks better on vista. since i put a quad on the pc. i tried using xp and failed like i mentioned before so i updated to sp 3 and put all the updates now i put all the cores back so i can play back my games on vista. then i changed my hdd and put on xp and it works fine no problem with it. it gives me more performance.

Vista in better. Symbolic Links is a step closer toward Linux, they are much better than shortcuts in XP and they can stop the messages from poping up asking to continue. I am still learning the insides of Vista, but what I have seen it is a step forward from XP.

The main focus of Vista was to plug security holes in XP. 

Vista definitely wants more memory to run.  We have five computers in our home, four run Vista, one runs XP.

I installed Vista Business on a 512 MB 1.8 Ghz Athlon at home and have been running it for almost four years now.  I turned off all the flash and glitz features of the desktop as well as the desktop search functionality that we almost never use and the memory usage dropped significantly.

On my teenager's computers, with XP installed, I had to run virus scanners on them bi-weekly and reformat the drive and start over with a fresh installation about twice a year.

With Vista installed I run a virus scanner once a month and rarely find anything more than tracking cookies to cleanup.  And like I said, we've been running the same install for four years.  Something I could never do with XP.

I also love the Parental Controls feature that came with the Vista.  I can turn on internet logging and when the kids encounter garbage sites I can check the log and add sites to the blocked list on our router.  (This also works great for blocking all the annoying ads on websites.)

Running Vista has more than payed for itself in time saved.  (Not to mention the frustration of my wife and kids when the computer is hosed and they have to format the drive and reinstall all their favorite software that was added since the last image was made.)

We like Vista, but YMMV.

Keith

smacdav says ...

Larkenra says ...

elcangritech21 says ...

so i went to c mos and disabled the extra cores then everything worked after that :p.i prefer vista it looks better and is easier to work with just wish they can fix al lthe problems :)

------

Except that now your not using your processor like it should be used......Fix all what problems? I must be the only one in the world that has no problems with Vista. Knock on wood! I think that most issues people have are,1. not researching <i.e. compatability issues and 2. expecting it to do something it is not supposed to, Vista Home basic is not the same as Vista Business.

You're not the only one who has no problems with Vista, Larkenra. I've been using Vista (Home Premium) since March 2007 and I like much better than XP. As with most issues, the people who are unhappy are the ones you hear from the most.

The vast majority of those who have had no problems with Vista rarely speak up. Too many extremely vocal Vista-bashers ready to pounce on them at a moments notice. For the record, I have been running Vista since Feb 01, 2007 and the few problems I have had have been directly traceable either to hardware(bad RAM) or software which was not written for Vista in the first place.

My Dad bought a new Dell XPS that runs Vista, back in November of 2008...and it is much easier to deal with, once you set it up for your particular needs. However, the older computer, which was my Mom's and is now sorta mine, still runs XP, and again, once I got it set to the way I needed/wanted it, I have had no problems, other than one.

It used to freeze, then crash, if I tried to play poker through MySpace....the game is from Zynga, and for some reasom, it would run fine, for an hour or two, then the XP system would freeze, or crash, leaving me stranded in the middle of a hand. My boyfriend has  a great computer tech for a friend, and she managed to fix the XP system, now I no longer have that problem, but I had to get a lot more memory put in, and a clean reinstall, of the XP OS to get there.

As far as a preference, I would go with Vista as long as my hardware was up to it, but for now, I have no problem staying with XP, till I can get a new system that will run on Vista. My Dad has had no problems with his Vista system, that I could not solve by changing a few settings for him, and now, it is set just as he needs it, and it has been two months since I have even had to explain any message prompts, so I will go with Vista if I get a chance. Of course, when the new (Windows 7) OS comes out, I will try it, but will probably wait a little while before I switch to it, to give them time to fix any bugs.

Ahhh..., VISTA...

The overpriced and overglorified service pack for XP...

Thanks but no thanks.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of fancy UIs either.  Usually the first thing I do with XP or Vista is revert to the classic 2000 style desktop.  One click in the advanced system properties tab and select adjust for performance on the Visual Effects tab gives all but antiquated hardware adequate performance.

Like many here I have grown very comfortable with the 2000/xp classic style desktop and perfer it, but it is simple and possible to have both the security of Vista and the UI I am comfortable with.  Two clicks.  Four, if you count opening system properties.

To Deathrow_Nzl: Yeah we started with the Vista Beta.  I write low level software and drivers for a living so installing and getting to know new OSes is a hobby.

To Muslix: Windows is windows, the real security difference with Vista is that even administrators have to confirm when something is installed in the background.  That little, sometimes annoying, popup that asks permission to install something is sometime the only warning you will get that a website is trying to install cruft on your machine.  XP doesn't warn you it just happily installs the cruft in the background... and of course everyone is an administrator by default so that cruft that gets installed has full access to everything on your XP machine.

To wojteck:  Cute.  8o)