Windows Vista vs. Windows XP

[Tsugaru]

XP>Vista. I love Vista's theme, however, performance wise I still prefer XP. XP loads quicker and the overall thought of more compatibility. XP for the win.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

There is seriously nothing Windows XP does, that Vista doesn't do better. I mean it.
The *only* machine I run XP on, is a Pentium III server and that's because it's too slow to run Vista. All my machines run Vista as a preference, and those that are servers run Server 2008; which might as well be Vista :D

 

[DragonFir3]

64-bit Vista can be very usefull, if you're not a n00b. See, Windows XP and 32-bit Vista can only accept 3Gb of RAM, but 64-bit Vista accepts infinitive RAM, so if you think well and have a double-core processor, then 64-bit Vista can be very usefull (especialy if you're a passionate gamer).

 

[Bianca Paragon]

Actually, 32 bit Windows 'accepts' 4GB of RAM just fine - infact, 32bit Windows Server 2003 accepts up to 128GB of RAM, thanks to PAE. But consumer models of Windows, such as XP and Vista aren't able too utilise more than the 4GB barrier; which unfortunately includes video card memory, BIOS shadowing, and any other cache memory that you may have onboard. So, just say you were running 32bit Vista/XP, on a schmick new Core2Q system, with a pair of last years monster, the 8800GTX 768MB, in SLI? You'd only see about 2.5GB of memory XD

 

[Zanacross]

wouldn't recommend buying Vista by itself, but rather to wait for when you need a new computer.

I agree with that part.

There is seriously nothing Windows XP does, that Vista doesn't do better. I mean it.
The *only* machine I run XP on, is a Pentium III server and that's because it's too slow to run Vista. All my machines run Vista as a preference, and those that are servers run Server 2008; which might as well be Vista :D

Vista 4 life :)
Amiright?

64-bit Vista can be very usefull, if you're not a n00b. See, Windows XP and 32-bit Vista can only accept 3Gb of RAM, but 64-bit Vista accepts infinitive RAM, so if you think well and have a double-core processor, then 64-bit Vista can be very usefull (especialy if you're a passionate gamer).

I thought 64 bit was crap for playing games on?
I might be wrong

 

[Gerri Shin]

Of the two, I'd choose XP over Vista right now. I have worked with Vista and it's still just too much of a resource hog on my systems. I'm fine with sticking to XP until I see some of the new features going into Windows 7. I really don't see a need to upgrade to Vista when there are plenty of computers running perfectly fine without any bugs orincompatibility issues on XP.

so my vote XP > Vista (right now)

now, that being said, come on people. this is not a thread about which is better. this is a thread to state your Opinion on what you think is better. so state your preference and leave it at that. you shouldn't have to defend your opinion, because it's you're opinion not anyone else's.

 

[skeddles]

I've been anti-vista ever since it came out, but recently i changed my mind.

I had XP at home and school, so that's just what I was used to.
But my shop class(IT) recently got all new computers, and they all came loaded with vista. I have to admit, it's a lot of fun, and it looks very pretty. There are a lot of improvements over XP. There are a couple things I wish they would change, but overall, I think its better. The only reason I'd use XP, is if your computer couldn't handle vista.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

I thought 64 bit was crap for playing games on?
I might be wrong

Correct, you are wrong XD

64bit plays all games just fine ~<3

 

[j_]

Correct, you are wrong XD

64bit plays all games just fine ~<3

Yup, XP x64 was crappy for pretty much everything, but Vista x64 is just lovely (Provided all the drivers you need are available)

 

[Eureka1]

Yup, XP x64 was crappy for pretty much everything, but Vista x64 is just lovely (Provided all the drivers you need are available)

WRONG. You'll find XP x64 to be just as good as Vista x64. XP x64 was just way ahead of it's time, even now some hardware doesn't have 64 bit drivers.

I've used XP x64 before and it just felt like XP to me, gaming way perhaps even a little faster.

Hint: x64 is pretty pointless at the moment.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

WRONG. You'll find XP x64 to be just as good as Vista x64. XP x64 was just way ahead of it's time, even now some hardware doesn't have 64 bit drivers.

I've used XP x64 before and it just felt like XP to me, gaming way perhaps even a little faster.

Hint: x64 is pretty pointless at the moment.

How is it pointless? I've got 8GB of RAM. Guess that makes x64 pretty useful :3

 

[Eureka1]

How is it pointless? I've got 8GB of RAM. Guess that makes x64 pretty useful :3

What, so you can brag that you have 8GB of RAM? Typically unless you're doing 3d rendering, video/audio editing etc (or playing CRYsis) you'll never need more than 2GB. Other than that there's not a lot else to offer.

 

[j_]

WRONG. You'll find XP x64 to be just as good as Vista x64. XP x64 was just way ahead of it's time, even now some hardware doesn't have 64 bit drivers.

I've used XP x64 before and it just felt like XP to me, gaming way perhaps even a little faster.

Hint: x64 is pretty pointless at the moment.

I had no end of troubles with Xp x64. None such exist for Vista x64, so no XP x64 is not just as good as Vista x64.

And x64 is not pointless at all. Its more stable, and I get to actually use my 4gigs of ram instead of 3.3~gb

 

[Eureka1]

I had no end of troubles with Xp x64. None such exist for Vista x64, so no XP x64 is not just as good as Vista x64.

And x64 is not pointless at all. Its more stable, and I get to actually use my 4gigs of ram instead of 3.3~gb

Remove your graphics card and you'll see more.

And how do you use this 4gigs of RAM? 1000 tabs in Firefox perhaps.

 

[Bianca Paragon]

What, so you can brag that you have 8GB of RAM? Typically unless you're doing 3d rendering, video/audio editing etc (or playing CRYsis) you'll never need more than 2GB. Other than that there's not a lot else to offer.

It's silly to assume that just because you don't do anything that utilizes more RAM than what you have, that there must be nothing out there that does.
Wrong.
Supreme Commander and Oblivion on the game side; Hardware-based Virtualization on the app side. I run four monitors. I can run three slave OS's each with 2GB of RAM allocated to each, and a CPU core, and it's silky.

 

[j_]

Remove your graphics card and you'll see more.

And how do you use this 4gigs of RAM? 1000 tabs in Firefox perhaps.

Remove my graphics card, from my machine without onboard graphics.. That's definately a plan! :laugh:

It's silly to assume that just because you don't do anything that utilizes more RAM than what you have, that there must be nothing out there that does.
Wrong.
Supreme Commander and Oblivion on the game side; Hardware-based Virtualization on the app side. I run four monitors. I can run three slave OS's each with 2GB of RAM allocated to each, and a CPU core, and it's silky.

Amen, I use Vmware lots for testing and playing about with craploads of different Operating Systems regularly. I wouldn't even want to try without at least 4gigs of ram.

 

[Eureka1]

Software development eh, nice.

Oblivion doesn't use that much surely, unless you've got some high-res texture mods?

And I only said remove your GFX if you wanna see more RAM, obviously you wouldn't do that...

 

[Bianca Paragon]

Software development eh, nice.

Oblivion doesn't use that much surely, unless you've got some high-res texture mods?

And I only said remove your GFX if you wanna see more RAM, obviously you wouldn't do that...

I play Oblivion with QTP3, which is the top-shelf texture replacement mod. Added to that the fact that I run with draw distance hacked far above maximum, and my pre-load threshold, it's easy to see how my Oblivion can use 4GB+ *ON IT'S OWN*. Yup. But I my Oblivion runs like silky butter :3

 

[Apple Inc.]

I must say I am impressed with Windows Vista. I just got a new laptop and it came bundled with Vista Home premium, it is a tad slow but I know why. It only has a gig of ram and I will soon upgrade to 2 gigs.

~Vote changed

Windows Vista is my choice now

 

[score_under]

To the guy who said that XP was slow and had no search bar - XP runs much faster on my PC, and the search feature is the most annoying in my opinion, because I don't lose much anyway, and when I do, I use a faster method than winXP's search - cygwin's "find /cygdrive/c/ | grep LostFile > somefile && notepad somefile"

I think that XP is the best, especially as it has no built-in DRM, it doesn't treat you as a baby (like vista does, "are you sure that you want to run this program that you clicked on like 6,000,000,000 times? because I don't care, I'm just here to pop up an annoying box telling you you're an admin and asking you if you want to do what you said you wanted to do.")
XP (like linux) is more for the no-questions-asked approach.
Compare:
Clicking installers in XP
sudo ./install in linux
Clicking installers, waiting for the box to appear, blocking out every other program, clicking continue, and then it runs - in vista.

I think, though, that each is targeted at a different market. Any serious computer user should get XP, while most computer-illiterate or basic-level computer guys should dabble in the shallow paddling-pool that is vista.

Damn, I miss linux. I'mma get an ethernet card off ebay - because it gives me hell with all ralink drivers.