Should I Upgrade to Vista? [Archive] - Page 2

chilledoutuk

8th January 2008, 20:47

It does make me annoyed when people try to make out that vista is more stable than windows xp which just means they have never used a properly setup windows xp system.

On a well constructed rig with decent hardware that has decent reliable drivers windows xp can be so stable it can go though years of usage without a single crash.

I mean if you want 64bit get windows xp 64 bit edition i use on my burning rig and it rocks.

If you want to Learn an entirely new interface and way of doing things then why use windows at all you may as well use Linux.

I use backtrack on my laptop:devil:

reallygreatidea

9th January 2008, 23:19

No, no upgrade to Vista required....XP is best :)

Awax

10th January 2008, 17:44

chilledoutuk wrote: "It does make me annoyed when people try to make out that vista is more stable than windows xp which just means they have never used a properly setup windows xp system.

On a well constructed rig with decent hardware that has decent reliable drivers windows xp can be so stable it can go though years of usage without a single crash."

In response to this, I must say, there is not ONE single person using a computer with XP that has not tweaked the OS (whether it is services, registry, or some other utility) in order to make it more stable and faster. There are many tweaks that need to be made to Vista in order to make it an OS worth using, just as was needed, and is still needed, if you had a new install of XP.

I have yet to have a crash, information lost, or any problem with programs on my Vista Home Premium machine, since I upgraded. I made sure I had the right components, put together a list of registry and service tweaks needed, and off I went.

JohnnyMalaria

10th January 2008, 18:25

In response to this, I must say, there is not ONE single person using a computer with XP that has not tweaked the OS (whether it is services, registry, or some other utility) in order to make it more stable and faster.

On all the XP systems I have used, I have *never* made any tweak of any sort and I haven't had any stability problems.

On all the Vista systems I have used, I have *never* made any tweak of any sort and I haven't had any stability problems.

My experience is that XP and Vista are of similar stability. I use both extensively for many hours a day on multiple computers.

The problems most people have is using cheap or ancient hardware, tweaking things they don't understand and blindly installing buggy and unnecessary software.

Shinigami-Sama

10th January 2008, 21:45

On all the XP systems I have used, I have *never* made any tweak of any sort and I haven't had any stability problems.

On all the Vista systems I have used, I have *never* made any tweak of any sort and I haven't had any stability problems.

My experience is that XP and Vista are of similar stability. I use both extensively for many hours a day on multiple computers.

The problems most people have is using cheap or ancient hardware, tweaking things they don't understand and blindly installing buggy and unnecessary software.

not even turning off the slider bars, or the menu delay
how about turning off that shitty 'security center'

but I do agree
you *don't* need to do anything to an XP install but get the right drivers for it, for it to be stable

almost all the tweaks are preformance/security related(useless services/desktop effects)

JohnnyMalaria

10th January 2008, 22:17

not even turning off the slider bars, or the menu delay
how about turning off that shitty 'security center'

I should have clarified that I meant things other than the standard OS settings. i.e., no registry hacks or third-party "tools". For Vista, I don't consider things like turning of UAC a tweak...

As far as Security Center goes, I didn't turn it off but I did install Norton which overrides it (for better or for worse) though on some installations, I leave it as Bill intended.

Shinigami-Sama

10th January 2008, 22:44

I should have clarified that I meant things other than the standard OS settings. i.e., no registry hacks or third-party "tools". For Vista, I don't consider things like turning of UAC a tweak...

As far as Security Center goes, I didn't turn it off but I did install Norton which overrides it (for better or for worse) though on some installations, I leave it as Bill intended.

heh, yeah I'll agree there
I've got nod32 rather than nortan, I don't trust that shitty program that more like a virus than it reasonably should

only registry tweaks I do are the menu delay, but nlite takes care of that now, and sometimes a prefetch tweak if I feel like it
oh and the media thumbnail one if I end up with an unstable media folder

regfman

13th January 2008, 02:20

My first post here:

I just built up a computer with a Q6600 and a 8800GT and 4G of RAM. I bought and installed Vista Home Premium 64 with this logic: Because of the frustrations I've read about with Vista I wanted to be able to run XP also. Dual booting is of course an option but I like the idea of running XP within Vista in a virtual machine. That means it would be nice to have lots of RAM and since 32 bit addressing is limited I picked a 64 bit version of Vista, figuring I can have 2.5G for Vista and 1.5G for XP.

Well it turns out that Vista Home Premium 64 is not supported by Microsoft's Virtual PC 2007. Virtual PC 2007 runs in Vista Business 64 and Vista Ultimate but not on the version I have. [I do need to test to see if I can work even when MS says that it is not supported. I will do so when I've got other things out of the way. I am still in the loading basic apps stage of setting up this computer.]

So that kind of brings up something that I notice is very common on all the forums and newsgroup, etc. Everybody uses the term Vista 64 but it seems to be turning out that not all Vista 64 versions are equal.

Anyway if somebody is successfully using Vista Home Premium 64 and running a free virtual machine within it I'd like to know. My understanding of VMWare might work but I'm not sure if the version that does is free.

and one thing relevant if you use iTunes: The disk burning drivers in iTunes don't work in Vista Home Premium 64 (and probably the other 64 bit versions too).

Shinigami-Sama

13th January 2008, 02:26

GSX server is free, I believe its supports vista 64bit
check their faq to be sure

Compton

13th January 2008, 17:23

Let me throw in my 2 cents because quite frankly I'm tired of everyone poo-pooing Vista. When XP came out people were like "why do we need this?" or wow "XP is such a resource hog!". Then hardware gradually got cheaper and the operating system matured to the point where now people are loyal to it. The same thing is happening with vista. Service packs are free for you once you buy vista. I've been running vista 64bit since October and it's had it's ups and downs but once you turn off the extra features and do some performance tweaking you will see what a improvement it is over XP in so many regards. The only reason I could think of not to switch is if you have older less powerful hardware. I know there are folks who have had troubles with hardware compatibility with vista. They're like "what?! vista won't work with my commodore 64?" or " I can't believe vista won't work with my diesel powered, pull start circa 1977 printer!" If you're to cheap to upgrade your hardware then guess what mon ami you are quickly out of the game. So there XP flameboys!

prOnorama

13th January 2008, 18:49

I've been running vista 64bit since October and it's had it's ups and downs but once you turn off the extra features and do some performance tweaking you will see what a improvement it is over XP in so many regards.

Do you have some examples of things which are improved under Vista?

JohnnyMalaria

13th January 2008, 21:37

Do you have some examples of things which are improved under Vista?

Setting up your home network

Backup - can be done to CD and DVD. Backup volumes can be mounted in Virtual PC.

Search (arguably)

Hi-def Windows Movie Maker
Windows DVD Maker

(the latter two mean that Vista comes with its own MPEG2 encoder)

ReadyBoost etc

Protected mode IE7

A lot of things for network management in the corporate environment

Also see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

And the ability to get past the horrible, garish XP GUI.

Of course, if none of the above apply, well....you know.

regfman

14th January 2008, 06:18

Backup volumes can be mounted in Virtual PC.

Unless you are running Vista Home Premium 64, which is not supported by Virtual PC 2007.

kis2005

14th January 2008, 14:21

I have to say that there are a lot of people on either side. I saw it with XP and until SP2 came out, it wasn't that great, but now even with XP64 bit is getting more support with software being written for the 64bit platform that, that to is quite viable, where it wasn't not that long ago. I probably won't try Vista unless I get it for free since I don't buy my PCs. Vista has it's pros and cons, but to me I don't really want an OS that requires a lot of resources, so XP64 and Linux are great alternatives to Vista as long as both your hardware (newer hardware is better) and your programs work on your OS of choice. So either way one goes, I think it must be the 64bit platforms for performance and 32bit for hardware and program compatibility.

Shakey_Jake33

14th January 2008, 19:27

As with XP on release, the amount of system resources Vista needs will become less of an issue over time as PC's get better. This is also when people who bought Vista 32-bit will end up having to buy Vista 64-bit, as 4GB RAM becomes the norm (and it will do - remember when the reports of Vista needing 1GB RAM seemed insane?). Don't let the driver issues related to XP64 put you off Vista 64, those driver issues simply don't exist with Vista 64. I feel sorry for people who bought Vista 32, you will have to rebuy Vista eventually, or settle with 2GB RAM for this entire OS cycle.
There's no point at all in upgrading from XP now, but one day maybe.

But nothing will change the fact that the OS revolves so much around the DRM. We may not feel the effect now, but people like us will be the main people to feel it eventually. This is why I've went the Ubuntu route.

deets

14th January 2008, 20:20

thats the main reason i went with 64 over 32, it just gives you a little more upgrade choices where ram is concerned.

anyone doing a new build should consider vista 64, the more time passes, the more (stability and bush squashing + higher spec stuff coming down in price) vista (64) becomes a smarter choice.

Sharktooth

15th January 2008, 15:07

Setting up your home network

Useless. WinXP had similar stuff, and the Vista network wizards are more confusing than ever.
Backup - can be done to CD and DVD. Backup volumes can be mounted in Virtual PC.
Could be implemented in XP as well just upgrading the backup program... this is NOT an OS feature...
Search (arguably)
Are you kidding? Google search is much faster and lighter. The Vista search indexing service just eats a lot of ram and reduces the system performance.

Hi-def Windows Movie Maker
Windows DVD Maker
The usual add-on software that's not always required and makes vista uber-bloated. The OS is the OS... the rest should be the rest...
About that software integration in the OS, the M$ is again under investigation by the european commission: http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=17644&catid=6

ReadyBoost etc
Useless on new PCs, useless on old PCs (since Vista and old PCs is not good anyway)...
Protected mode IE7
... that means no ActiveX and other stuff. Practically it's better to have Opera or Firefox.

A lot of things for network management in the corporate environment
Still, not required for home use AND "corporate environment" is supposed to have some trained tech guys that can do better than the M$ crappy tools for newbies...

And the ability to get past the horrible, garish XP GUI.
Vista without aero is not much better... also aero is the big hogger...

Of course, if none of the above apply, well....you know.
yes, none of the above applies :)

JohnnyMalaria

15th January 2008, 17:34

Whatever.

sillKotscha

19th January 2008, 14:43

Windows 7 debut in 2009? Another reason to skip Vista (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1168)...

burfadel

19th January 2008, 15:54

Windows 7 debut in 2009? Another reason to skip Vista (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1168)...

Windows 7 is a complete rework, in a sense, over Vista, and supposedly more so than XP --> Vista.

Windows 7 is being made in 32 bit and 64 bit versions, although I think making a 32 bit version is silly considering people need to change to 64 bit eventually! - 32 bit programmes run exactly the same on 64 bit as on 32 bit due to clever processor technology, its not the same as the 'thunking' between 16 and 32 bit as was required on Windows 95/98 when running 16 bit processes/programmes.

As Windows 7 is being built from the ground up, there are two scenarios that could occur. The first is much of the code will be carried over from Vista, just optimised more and use a new Windows kernel. The second is that a 2010 timeframe is more likely to ensure a prime operating system.

Microsoft does want to have a 2 year product cycle, which is a bit much considering that XP is 7 years old and people would still rather use that than migrate...

mitsubishi

19th January 2008, 16:23

Well some time ago, I saw a microsoft team talking about how the gap from XP was wrong and they were going for this 2-year release cycle with windows 7 coming out 2008 (this was before all the delays to vista). There was no mention of a re-write though. AFAIK they had people working on it even back then, plus some features were dropped from Vista due to running out of time. On the one hand it seems much better, on the other it may just mean having to pay for major service packs, after all we got a lot of stuff "free" for XP.

Sharktooth

19th January 2008, 16:49

windows 7 is what actually Vista should have been...
M$ was running out of time and decided to cut stuff on Vista to release something...
WinFS is the first that comes to mind...

Shinigami-Sama

19th January 2008, 21:48

yeah I was looking forward to winfs as well
even though it's just an sql database on top of ntfs from what I learned about it

it was supposed to be in SP1 but I still don't hear mention of it

archaeo

19th January 2008, 22:51

They're like "what?! vista won't work with my commodore 64?" or " I can't believe vista won't work with my diesel powered, pull start circa 1977 printer!" If you're to cheap to upgrade your hardware then guess what mon ami you are quickly out of the game. So there XP flameboys!

You exaggerate and make an invalid argument. The fact is that you don't have to go all the way back to a Commodore 64 to see that Vista is a memory and system hog. If you take an average system just 5 years ago - Vista will overload it. It's another example of software driving hardware, and Micro$oft selling us features most users never need.

Shinigami-Sama

19th January 2008, 22:56

You exaggerate and make an invalid argument. The fact is that you don't have to go all the way back to a Commodore 64 to see that Vista is a memory and system hog. If you take an average system just 5 years ago - Vista will overload it. It's another example of software driving hardware, and Micro$oft selling us features most users never need.

how about this laptop I bought just a year before vista was released
not compatable
no reason it shouldn't be compatable
oh wait 1gb of ram...

oh yeah and I've seen XP run on a 486 with 16megs of ram
so goes to show you the change of hardware reqs

Compton

20th January 2008, 03:03

Goes to show how fast hardware is becoming rendered obsolete. Like every 2-3 years theres another core2 or 8800gt advancement. Like my point was before you have to be able to keep up with the jones'. 4gb ram is the new 2gb. Vista is good in many subtle ways. If you like XP ... Vista will grow on you. the performance hit is negligable for me going from 32bit XP to 64bit Vista. I got 13000 2006 3dmarks with XP and about 12700 with vista.