XP Pro or Vista Premium?

[Scar]

Vista works great for me and everyone I know that have been using it or given it at school. None of us are using core2extremes or 4gb of ram. It feels faster than xp since i've upgraded.

LOL @ "It feels faster."

Did you actually benchmark your system, or is this just a subjective opinion?

Right now, I'm running only 28 processes on Server 2003 after turning off all unnecessary services, and that's including Opera web browser, Sygate Firewall Pro, NOD32 Antivirus, and, of course, Task Manager. ALL of my processes combined are using less memory than a typical installation of Symantec Antivirus would on XP. There's no way my PC would be running better on Vista...

I prefer it over my xp machine now, and I dont even use it for the bells and whistles (since most of them are obtainable on xp). But hey, If you want to upgrade now and get a new XP, and then when things are released in 6months with DX10 and 64bit compatability, buy another new OS then; go for it. I rather just get one and keep it.

That's the whole point. Nothing has been released yet to make it worth upgrading, from either a general or a gaming standpoint.

Let's put it this way. There's nothing that runs on Vista that won't run on XP, but there's plenty of programs that run just fine on XP that aren't compatible with Vista or experience plenty of bugs for no apparent reason.

You even mentioned it yourself on the AIM6 thread-

I havent used MSN in a while because of how laggy aim6 is, but i cant get 5.9 with tabbed windows working anymore on vista... worked at first but then it broke.

What a great OS Vista is, huh?

btw, what the hell are people doing on their vista's to make it "unstable" or "unsafe"... Haven't had a single problem yet, shit I have more problems with my xp system.

I'm not sure, because nowhere in this thread were the terms "unstable" and "unsafe" mentioned until you posted them...

Vista is nothing but bloatware at the moment. Sorry.

Vista Ultimate or nothing. If youre not installing ultimate, stick with XP.

Why would you recommend installing Ultimate? For "Windows Hold’em, a poker game for players of all skill levels" or for "coming soon... Windows DreamScene, an Extra that enables you to use looped, full-motion video as your desktop wallpaper instead of a static image?"

Source- http://www.microsoft.com/windows/produc ... fault.mspx

Just what I need, a worthless Microsoft game I'll never play or my desktop wallpaper sucking up memory and resources that could be used to run my programs...

I'd go with nothing over any Vista release at this stage of the game.

[Devek]

His machine feels faster for the same reason people that put "Splitfire" spark plugs in their car suddenly think their car is faster.

Replacing plugs that have been wore out over 200,000 miles with anything new will make your car perform better.

Vista in a fresh install will run better than XP with kazaa, weatherbug, and 20 other pieces of spyware running.

If you think Vista is fast.. try copying a bunch of files.. at the same time!

To be fair also Vista doesn't need 1 gig of ram to run with all the bells and whistles turned off.. The problem is that Microsoft has been advertising all the features of Aero as thought it WAS Vista and never said those features would only work with certain configurations.

All these people who bought 'Vista ready' computers that can't actually use any of the features that Microsoft advertised as being part of Vista have joined together in a class action lawsuit and they will win. Bait and switch is illegal

[Boyiee]

mmm no it feels faster because it noticably loads up faster and opens programs and windows faster. Yes its an opinion, compared to my xp machine my vista machine runs better. I know there is nothing that makes it really worth upgrading, however I havent had anything not work on vista yet that I was able to do on XP. The AIM problem was my own fault, trying to crack aim and run tabbed windows on an older version backfired because I had to reload the settings each time, which I'm too lazy to do. That doesn't make it a terrible system. I brought up the unstable and unsafe things because thats what i've been hearing from alot of people against vista, I brought it up seperately which is why I had not quoted anyone.

As for the spark plug comment, it's cute but yeah when both computers have been reformatted and there is the same things on them you kinda fail. Copying a bunch of files works fine for me, to each his own.

Just stating my opinion, in a vista bashed thread. The OS runs great for me, and for my other friends who got it through school. I'm not putting down xp or 2003 or saying they are way better or way worse, just saying I like how vista runs for me, and in my next pc I build it'll run on vista too.

[Scar]

mmm no it feels faster because it noticably loads up faster and opens programs and windows faster. Yes its an opinion, compared to my xp machine my vista machine runs better.

Benchmark or it didn't happen.

I know there is nothing that makes it really worth upgrading, however I havent had anything not work on vista yet that I was able to do on XP.

LOL. Try installing Alcohol 120% or DAEMON Tools, 2 programs which work perfectly fine on XP. Have fun when you realize you can't even boot into a WinPE CD to fix the BSOD you get.

The AIM problem was my own fault, trying to crack aim and run tabbed windows on an older version backfired because I had to reload the settings each time, which I'm too lazy to do. That doesn't make it a terrible system. I brought up the unstable and unsafe things because thats what i've been hearing from alot of people against vista, I brought it up seperately which is why I had not quoted anyone.

Fair enough. However, it's kind of funny you wouldn't have this problem with XP.

As for the spark plug comment, it's cute but yeah when both computers have been reformatted and there is the same things on them you kinda fail. Copying a bunch of files works fine for me, to each his own.

Just stating my opinion, in a vista bashed thread. The OS runs great for me, and for my other friends who got it through school. I'm not putting down xp or 2003 or saying they are way better or way worse, just saying I like how vista runs for me, and in my next pc I build it'll run on vista too.

Open up Task Manager and tell me how many processes and how much memory you're using. I guarantee it's way more than 28 and I guarantee you're using a bunch of RAM even at system idle. What exactly is your definition of "runs great for me" anyways?

So tell me, what do you and your friends love so much about Vista?

Is it the Windows Media Player 11 with built in Digital Rights Management?

Or the continual activity on your hard disk even when idle?

Or the fact that it takes up more than 7Gb on your hard disk?

Or the fact that it uses 3 or 4 times more RAM than XP?

Which of these features are you and your friends most happy with?

[SephYuyX]

Vista Ultimate or nothing. If youre not installing ultimate, stick with XP.

Why would you recommend installing Ultimate? For "Windows Hold’em, a poker game for players of all skill levels" or for "coming soon... Windows DreamScene, an Extra that enables you to use looped, full-motion video as your desktop wallpaper instead of a static image?"

If you think those are the only differences, you need to leave this thread.

[Scar]

Vista Ultimate or nothing. If youre not installing ultimate, stick with XP.

Why would you recommend installing Ultimate? For "Windows Hold’em, a poker game for players of all skill levels" or for "coming soon... Windows DreamScene, an Extra that enables you to use looped, full-motion video as your desktop wallpaper instead of a static image?"

If you think those are the only differences, you need to leave this thread.

What's your reasons for going with Ultimate, then?

What does it do that XP/Server 2003 can't?

[SephYuyX]

Since when was Server2003 an option? XP vs Vista. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vi ... nd_pricing and all the links on the top left too. Yes some gimick features arnt available yet, but Ultimate is the only OS that will be getting better upgrades and support. Etctec for future purposes as well.

The OP doesnt seem like a computer guy so Server2003 isnt really an option.

Its spend an extra few $ now for a better product compared to the other vista, but risk being an earlly adopter, or go for a good stable OS for the time being with XP. However if hes going the 64 route, Id suggest vista over xp either way.

2003 of course is badass, but only in experianced hands.

[Mikeal]

mmm no it feels faster because it noticably loads up faster and opens programs and windows faster. Yes its an opinion, compared to my xp machine my vista machine runs better.

Benchmark or it didn't happen.

It does start faster. Any idiot with a wrist watch can tell you that without having a benchmark.

I know there is nothing that makes it really worth upgrading, however I havent had anything not work on vista yet that I was able to do on XP.

LOL. Try installing Alcohol 120% or DAEMON Tools, 2 programs which work perfectly fine on XP. Have fun when you realize you can't even boot into a WinPE CD to fix the BSOD you get.

Both work for me fine.

The AIM problem was my own fault, trying to crack aim and run tabbed windows on an older version backfired because I had to reload the settings each time, which I'm too lazy to do. That doesn't make it a terrible system. I brought up the unstable and unsafe things because thats what i've been hearing from alot of people against vista, I brought it up seperately which is why I had not quoted anyone.

Fair enough. However, it's kind of funny you wouldn't have this problem with XP.

As for the spark plug comment, it's cute but yeah when both computers have been reformatted and there is the same things on them you kinda fail. Copying a bunch of files works fine for me, to each his own.

Just stating my opinion, in a vista bashed thread. The OS runs great for me, and for my other friends who got it through school. I'm not putting down xp or 2003 or saying they are way better or way worse, just saying I like how vista runs for me, and in my next pc I build it'll run on vista too.

Open up Task Manager and tell me how many processes and how much memory you're using. I guarantee it's way more than 28 and I guarantee you're using a bunch of RAM even at system idle. What exactly is your definition of "runs great for me" anyways?

So tell me, what do you and your friends love so much about Vista?

I like my side bar gadgets.
I like not having to use search anymore and typing into the run box.
I like the multi monitor support, i've had less issues then with XP when moving a game from one monitor to another during play.

Is it the Windows Media Player 11 with built in Digital Rights Management?

You use lolWMP?...

Or the continual activity on your hard disk even when idle?

Who cares? My drives don't make any noise I can hear.

Or the fact that it takes up more than 7Gb on your hard disk?

Doesn't matter when you stock 600GB.

Or the fact that it uses 3 or 4 times more RAM than XP?

Doesn't matter when you have 6GB of ram.

Which of these features are you and your friends most happy with?

----

and

Unless your program or game needs something Vista can provide that windows 2000 can't.. You're better off just running windows 2000 since there will be more memory and processor left over for your game to use.

Leave 2000 running for a week and watch how many times explorer crashes, and processes start existing in the process space and not in the applications. Playing video games on an OS that started without DirectX support is not the greatest idea in the world with a 8 year old operating system.

If you have nice hardware, Vista is fine. Don't let these guys BS you into thinking that support for XP will be around forever. Hell this guy still thinks 2000 is supported I guess >.>

[Devek]

Wait.. I haven't used windows for a desktop OS ever much less recently but I always assumed it supported multiple monitors.

What is up with Vista suddenly supporting multiple monitors?

X11 for unix platforms supports as many monitors as you can fit in any orientation that you want.. you could even put a bunch of usb keyboards/mice on a system and treat each monitor/keyboard/mouse like a separate computer with a separate login screen and everything and it has been that way for a long ass time.

[Scar]

mmm no it feels faster because it noticably loads up faster and opens programs and windows faster. Yes its an opinion, compared to my xp machine my vista machine runs better.

Benchmark or it didn't happen.

It does start faster. Any idiot with a wrist watch can tell you that without having a benchmark.

Vista slows down the user interface and has less precise mouse precision than earlier versions of windows, not exactly great for gaming.

http://pfeifferreport.com/trends/Vista_UIF_Rep.pdf

I know there is nothing that makes it really worth upgrading, however I havent had anything not work on vista yet that I was able to do on XP.

LOL. Try installing Alcohol 120% or DAEMON Tools, 2 programs which work perfectly fine on XP. Have fun when you realize you can't even boot into a WinPE CD to fix the BSOD you get.

Both work for me fine.

Many people have had problems with Alcohol 120%-

http://www.google.com/search?q=Alcohol+ ... 8&oe=utf-8 .

As far as DAEMON Tools go, version 3 is not compatible, so I guess you installed version 4 with the phone home spyware.

The AIM problem was my own fault, trying to crack aim and run tabbed windows on an older version backfired because I had to reload the settings each time, which I'm too lazy to do. That doesn't make it a terrible system. I brought up the unstable and unsafe things because thats what i've been hearing from alot of people against vista, I brought it up seperately which is why I had not quoted anyone.

Fair enough. However, it's kind of funny you wouldn't have this problem with XP.

As for the spark plug comment, it's cute but yeah when both computers have been reformatted and there is the same things on them you kinda fail. Copying a bunch of files works fine for me, to each his own.

Just stating my opinion, in a vista bashed thread. The OS runs great for me, and for my other friends who got it through school. I'm not putting down xp or 2003 or saying they are way better or way worse, just saying I like how vista runs for me, and in my next pc I build it'll run on vista too.

Open up Task Manager and tell me how many processes and how much memory you're using. I guarantee it's way more than 28 and I guarantee you're using a bunch of RAM even at system idle. What exactly is your definition of "runs great for me" anyways?

So tell me, what do you and your friends love so much about Vista?

I like my side bar gadgets.
I like not having to use search anymore and typing into the run box.
I like the multi monitor support, i've had less issues then with XP when moving a game from one monitor to another during play.

You like the eyecandy and dummied down interfaces, even when it results in sucking up memory and bandwidth which could be used for other things. Understood.

Is it the Windows Media Player 11 with built in Digital Rights Management?

You use lolWMP?...

No, I don't, and I prefer to keep applications off my PC that interfere with how I use my files in the first place, even when I'm not using those said applications. That's not an option when it's installed by default...

Or the continual activity on your hard disk even when idle?

Who cares? My drives don't make any noise I can hear.

Who cares? Vista constantly throttles my hard disk even at idle, which can result in early drive failure. I'll just buy a new one, so I could care less...

Or the fact that it takes up more than 7Gb on your hard disk?

Doesn't matter when you stock 600GB.

You're right about that. Just remember I can be stocking only 595 GB and still have more storage than you.

Or the fact that it uses 3 or 4 times more RAM than XP?

Doesn't matter when you have 6GB of ram.

Sure, it's nice to have 6 GB of RAM and not even be able to take full advantage of it when running applications.

When I upgrade my hardware, I enjoy that it's actually making a noticeable difference. I guess you don't feel the same way.

Which of these features are you and your friends most happy with?

----

I guess for you it's the side bar gadgets...

and

Unless your program or game needs something Vista can provide that windows 2000 can't.. You're better off just running windows 2000 since there will be more memory and processor left over for your game to use.

Leave 2000 running for a week and watch how many times explorer crashes, and processes start existing in the process space and not in the applications. Playing video games on an OS that started without DirectX support is not the greatest idea in the world with a 8 year old operating system.

This wasn't my post but you're wrong about this. Windows 2000 is very stable, and had DirectX7 and Plug and Play built right in from the start.

The kernel in Vista is still primarily the same one as in Windows 2000 and XP. The only real difference is fewer parts of the OS as a whole run in kernel mode, which is good in theory.

Of course, when you gave Vista permission to run DAEMON Tools v. 4, you "knowingly" installed spyware on your PC...

If you have nice hardware, Vista is fine. Don't let these guys BS you into thinking that support for XP will be around forever. Hell this guy still thinks 2000 is supported I guess >.>

It is, and it will be continued to be supported. Why? Businesses still use Windows 2000. Why haven't many businesses even upgraded to XP yet? There's no benefits from a functionality standpoint 7 years later.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/327850

If you have nice hardware, you can run Vista without significant problems, but you'll get more out of that nice hardware by using XP/Server 2003.

A Vista installation with 2 GB of RAM will run worse than XP on the same machine, unless you disable all the features that are the reason for upgrading to Vista in the first place.

Server 2003 runs practically the same Kernel as Vista, without the annoyance of granting user permission to every new driver and application, and it will take full advantage of even 6 GB of RAM.

[Mikeal]

Wait.. I haven't used windows for a desktop OS ever much less recently but I always assumed it supported multiple monitors.

What is up with Vista suddenly supporting multiple monitors?

X11 for unix platforms supports as many monitors as you can fit in any orientation that you want.. you could even put a bunch of usb keyboards/mice on a system and treat each monitor/keyboard/mouse like a separate computer with a separate login screen and everything and it has been that way for a long ass time.

2000/XP did support multimonitor, but Vista doesnt crash when I move directx apps around like 2000/XP did frequently. X11 support is still better imo, but directx ; ;

You like the eyecandy and dummied down interfaces, even when it results in sucking up memory and bandwidth which could be used for other things. Understood.

If you only use windows to play video games does it really matter that much? If I can play FEAR in best best settings it offers, I can sure as hell multi task and run FFXI 3 times.

If 2000 had directx at launch I am mistaken. But I do remember not being able to use 2000 ws for direct X between SP3 and SP4 for some reason. Either way its in "extended" support. Security hot fixes, or $$$ for support without a contract I believe. No more SPs, not going to stay up to date on Direct X.

Vista might not have the mouse precision but that doesn't exactly matter in FFXI.

The fact of the matter is development focus will shift to Vista. Just like it has for every Microsoft OS upgrade before it. This is a end user home market not us in the workplace. You can buy 2000, then XP, and then buy Vista again later, but either way Microsoft is going to get your money if you want to be able stay up to date with all the new programs and hardware.

Its funny because everyone complained about 95 upgrade, everyone did it. Then everyone made the same arguments about 98, but we did it. Most of us skipped ME(thank god). 2000 never made a real home stead bid for the average user. Everyone said XP was unneeded eye candy, yet they upgraded.

Plug in a camera in XP, it mounts.
Plug it in in 2000 it asks for drivers.
Exec uses 2000 laptop. Watches a friend boot XP, loads faster he wants it.
DST patch 2000, reg key and vb script. DST patch XP, WSUS.

It is going to happen again. The market is going to make it hard to stay supported on the older OSs, thats how they make money.

Server 2003 runs practically the same Kernel as Vista, without the annoyance of granting user permission to every new driver and application, and it will take full advantage of even 6 GB of RAM.

That is an interesting idea. I have never considered running 2003 as a gaming platform.