Guys, maybe this is a bit dumb..But,,definetily which OS is much better..Windows XP or Windows Vista. I use Windows Vista now...But I see a tendence that many people prefered XP..
which one(47 posts)
well my opinion on this is i like xp but a lot of people like vista i switched back when vista was still in the early stages so it wasn't really that great then
and it really depends on what you plan on doing that is my input
If Microsoft release a SP1,,security to Vista this early,, I think cause is not more secure like they said.. when they release for XP, the SP1, took more time..Is my opinnion..And XP amny companies prefered it, than Vista.
Both operating systems are perfectly fine choices for the majority of people. If Vista works for you, then you shouldn't feel bad about using it, even though there are many haters out there.
The only time I really recommend XP instead of Vista is for gamers... at this point, games run much better on XP.
I am a 100% Vista fan but I realize that XP uses less resources. For an older PC with less than 2GB RAM, XP is probably the better choice. But for a recent PC with 2 or 3 GB RAM and a duo core or quad processor, I would recommend Vista. It is much more elegant and more secure, has more function and is very stable (after some bumps in the early days). But as they say: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. So if XP works for you, why change. But if you buy a new PC, Vista is the better choice (with the above qualifications).
On the service packs here are the dates:
Windows XP RTM - December 25, 2001
Windows XP SP1 - August 30, 2002 (8 Months Later)
Windows Vista RTM - January 30, 2007
Windows Vista SP1 - March 26, 2008 (15 Months Later)
So actually Windows XP had it's first Service Pack earlier then Windows Vista did.
Not that it's a good measure of quality though. All products regularly release security updates.
Windows Vista does have improvements that make it more secure then Windows XP but it's not perfect.
No software is perfect due to the fact the humans program them and humans aren't perfect.
As for why many people install Windows XP, there are a few reasons:
1. People don't like change. Windows Vista has changed the User Interface quite a bit and people don't like it. I myself can learn the new ways to do things just fine. I think some of the changes are good things though it takes some getting used to if you are used to the old way.
I think if Windows Vista is used by someone who hasn't used Windows before they wouldn't have any problem with it's User Interface.
2. Software and Hardware Compatibility
People have software or hardware that won't work in Windows Vista.
Or at least they think so. So far I've been able to get most of my software and hardware to work with Windows Vista.
I think a lot of people just don't try some compatibly settings to get stuff to work and just install XP.
There are only two minor things that I couldn't get to work:
Who Wants To Be A Millionaire Game - Not a big loss as it's a game I didn't play that much.
8 Year old HP Scanner - Kind of sucks but I can't really expect HP to write Vista drivers for an 8 year old scanner.
to add to what whs said, if you have XP and it's working for you, it's not really that big a deal to want to switch to vista, after all, around the time when XP was first introduced, a lot of people were also skeptical with switching to XP.
but if you're buying a new PC with vista pre-installed (most new PCs now come with vista), why not try it out yourself so that you can judge which one you want.
personally, i'm enjoying vista.
One more thing to add I just remembered about:
It may seem like a lot of people on this forum want to go back to Windows XP but that doesn't tell you much.
Only people with problems will post here.
All the people using Windows Vista without problems won't post on this forum as they have no reason to.
I think there are many people with Windows Vista who are just fine with it but aren't going to post about it.
This is one thing much of news stories about Windows Vista being a failure miss.
Not many people are going to write about how it works fine for them.
Most of the people posting will be the ones with problems.
And to add to that, there seem to be just as many people having problems with XP as with Vista - on this Forum and on others. The number of posts does not necessarily show the story. The Vista guys need more "guidance".
@jack: I think you missed my point. I wasn't comparing Vista to XP posts. My point was that many people have posted about problems with Vista and other people say that means Vista is a failure when it probably just means the people who had success with Vista didn't go online posting about.
That is shown in part by the fact that many of the regular posters here say Windows Vista is a good OS but many of the posters with problems on Vista say it sucks.
I have had both Windows XP and Windows Vista crash on me but usually it's hardware, a third party application or I was doing something with Windows components you aren't normally suppose to do.
That is crashes like Blue Screen Errors and I really didn't get them that often.
I did see Windows Explorer crash many times for simple things like not being able to connect to a network share or displaying too many files in a folder.
Post Note: Edited 2 times.
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
"well usually you don't try to crash a pc"
i beg to differ, back in college, we had a "PC Setup Show," where everyone brought the computers that they "set-up", some of the owners challenged everyone to crash their PCs
i was just drooling at the back while watching their PCs
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.
One other thing to note: Windows Vista has builtin support for more new hardware then Windows XP.
Like for Windows XP you need to burn a Windows XP CD with SATA drivers on it or use a floppy disc with the drivers on it for Windows XP to install on a SATA drive.
Windows Vista has builtin support for many SATA chipsets and if it doesn't support your chipset you can use a USB thumb drive to transfer the drivers to it.
Thanks for the replies everyone. Flowers all around. :-)
1. I said that I have Vista and XP and I like them both. That's what I meant to say.
2. Don't run Vista with less than 2GB, check. No one here disagrees, including me.
3. So, Windows7 will be designed to take advantage of multi-core CPUs for running the OS itself, not just apps. Vista has no advantages over XP in this regard?
4. Still investigating, but I feel like DDR3 is still very expensive and high latency. DDR2 should be fast enough. I'll probably start a new thread to discuss this.
BTW, on 3 again, I got a quad-core CPU but no solid-state drives. Guess I shouldn't have bothered. :P
I'm not sure about the multi-core CPUs but it seems Windows Vista at least has improvements in memory handling according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....OS_changes
On Windows 7, I think talk about it right now is mostly speculation. No one really nows for sure what all the changes it will have at the moment.
Edit: Changed to mostly instead of all. I think some of the talk is true but mostly it seems like speculation.
Well since i read some of the first post wanting to know about user preference I'll participate:
For me vista and XP are the same thing, it wasnt hard for me getting used to vista (got my new computer about 5 months ago, when vista was "ready" wich means, not in beta stage anymore and had no trouble getting used to it, as for the interface I dont really mind that.. although the eye candy is kinda flattering the first time you see it; it gets you bored after a while (some 4 months or so but hey! thats my opinion.. anyways.. i have changed my theme) after that.. learning to control it has not been much of a problem, a nip here a tuck there and everything runs fine except for some trouble I had last week wich were caused by some HP's apps (wich I disabled right after), besides that.. I like vista! have had nothing but one incompatibility problem that has been unfixable, as for the others I have solved them all without much drama..
If I had to choose beetween Vista or XP I'd do it only based on computer specifications and hardware but I guess I'd keep vista whenever possible.
This is an interesting article and as far as I have read, with Windows 7, MS is moving into the direction that is being proposed. But a big company will always produce big stuff. Everybody wants to secure their jobs. It has to do much more with corporate culture than the ability of individuals to do this or that.
This topic has been closed to new replies.