which one(47 posts)
i like vista over xp to me vista looks and works better.in my opinion the ones having vista problems are those who upgraded from xp to vista. pc's pre-installed with vista like mine very few problems,most of my problems were caused by me.in about 3 years we will having the same discussion about windows 7.
@Lighthouse, "The Vista guys need more "guidance" - by that I meant the people asking Vista questions are often new to Vista and you have to go thru several iterations to get the point across. The XP people on the other hand know their way around the OS and a short answer usually suffices.
Now, it's true that for the moment, Windows XP is superior to Vista when it comes to software compatibility. But that won't last long. The best and newest software will be built for Vista, not XP. So if you want to look to the future, not the past, Vista is the way to go.
Windows XP? It's cartoonish and gauche compared with Vista, plus it lacks Vista's security, fit and polish, and extras. It's also looking backward, rather than forward. I have a dual-boot Vista/XP laptop, and every time I boot into XP instead of Vista, I cringe at what faces me.
Linux 29% (2313 votes)
Mac OS X Leopard 29% (2299 votes)
Windows Vista 15% (1214 votes)
Windows XP 24% (1883 votes)
Other: 2% (189 votes)
TOTAL VOTES: 7898
I have Vista on my new system, XP on the older ones. Both OSes are good to me.
I'm curious, though, about a comment whs made back near the beginning of this thread. That for a new system with a Core2 CPU and >= 2GB memory, Vista is recommended. Is there any special advantage to Vista based on the latest hardware? Is Vista better at supporting dual- or quad-core CPUs?
My Dad and I are planning a build soon and we will be using new parts, Yorksfield QC, X38 chipset, DDR2 memory, and so on. Thing is that Dad is an XP holdout and I'm wondering if we will lose any function or performance with XP (Pro)?
@ScottW, You touch on a couple of subjects:
1. XP versus Vista - There is no "good" or "bad" here. It depends on the flavour you like. I suggest you read my last post above, including what the "fans" say on the link - it is interesting. I think Vista is much more elegant and easier. But that's in the eyes of the beholder.
2. Storage requirements for Vista - I had a 1GB, a 2GB and a 3GB machine running side by side. Vista ran on all three machines, but I quickly upgraded the 1GB machine to 2GB because it was so very, very slow. I remember a lady from Portugal on this Forum that was running Ultimate on a 512MB machine - and then she was bitterly complaining about lack of performance - no wonder. For myself I have made 2GB the minimum although I prefer 3GB. On my sidebar CPU meter I can always see the memory usage. It has been up to 58% (on the 3GB machine). If that was on 1GB, it would be paging all the time - very slow. Compare the memory access times with the disk access times and you can guess for yourself (about a factor 100, I think).
3. On the question of duo core versus quad core I have no own experience because all my processors are duo. I would think that for normal vanilla tasks, there is not too much to be gained with a quad core. But for heavy loads, that would certainly be an advantage. And for the future Windows7, that is the thing to have (as far as I understand the Windows7 architecture). My next system will be a quad, but only in combination with an SSD. I guess I still have to wait for a little while.
4. If your dad is building a new PC, why does he not look into DDR3 memory.
This topic has been closed to new replies. Please create a new topic instead.