Windows Vista vs. Windows XP

Started by Apple Inc. May 3rd, 2008 8:28 AM
  • 2297 views
  • 77 replies

Apple Inc.

This Changes Everything. Again

Age 29
Seen March 29th, 2023
Posted August 1st, 2015
732 posts
15.9 Years
It is as the title states. Tell me what you think about the two Operating systems and which one you personally think is better.
ill Start

Windows XP: I think Windows XP is great because of all of it's compatibility with software such as older versions of Office, antiviruses, etc., It is also customizable to look like Vista with free software called Vista transformation pack and it transformed my comp to look like Vista, bootup and all.

Windows Vista: Okay, Vista i have to admit does look pretty nice with all of the nice graphics and styles, but lets face it, it has a lot of glitches and compatibility problems. I tried to install Norton Anitvirus on a Vista laptop that belonged to my teacher and it ended up not working, so they needed a newer antivirus.

But which one is better to me?

I Personally believe that Windows XP is in 2nd place as that is what most offices, schools, and households still use due to it's simplicity, but now Vista wins for me as it hasn't caused any problems yet for me and runs extremely well. The only thing that bugs me is that confirmation when you try to install something. But it's just there for your safety.

Seen September 18th, 2020
Posted February 18th, 2018
7,741 posts
16.6 Years
Windows Vista: Okay, Vista i have to admit does look pretty nice with all of the nice graphics and styles, but lets face it, it has a lot of glitches and compatibility problems.
I can remove the aesthetic from my equation because I hate the Vista look. This effectively nulls Vista's only main asset. :0

I see Vista as some kind of attempt to stop customers using their faithful older programs, forcing them to buy new ones catered for Vista. A lack of decent backwards compatability is apparently also present in seventh generation gaming consoles (namely the Wii, Xbox 360 and PS3). Most everyone I know of who involves themselves in the details of computers goes for XP.

For me, it's obviously XP. Vista is superfluous.
Age 32
Seen January 21st, 2023
Posted November 9th, 2022
773 posts
16.7 Years
They are remarkably similar to the point that you couldn't appoint one as superior.

The only factor that should really be considered is system spec. If you only have a single core CPU and 1GB of less of RAM, XP is going to run a lot better for you than Vista. For those who have the PC to run Vista properly, go with it.

I'd have to say XP is still the better operating system, but I'm trying Vista and have yet to install XP again, so M$ may have fixed it.
Age 33
Seen October 19th, 2008
Posted October 19th, 2008
226 posts
15.1 Years
Last year, I tried Vista for a month or so and hated it. Maybe it's coz the machine I was running it on wasn't powerful enough (Single Core AMD Athlon 64 3200+, as I seem to recall), but...

I've been using Vista for the last month, and I love it. Can't imagine going back to XP for day to day stuff! Seriously I haven't found anything critical that doesn't work (My Action Replay, thats about it). FWIW, I'm running the 64bit version on an Intel Core 2 Duo 3ghz, with 4gigs of ram (Soon to hopefully be 8!) :P

Garfieldlover94, why would you even want to install anything Symantec? I haven't touched their products for years, good riddance to them. NAV got bigger and more annoying each year, until I switched to AVG. Symantec software should be left alone, quietly in the corner, never to be installed.

So yeah, Vista SP1 is nice if you have a decent computer to run it on. And by decent, that means at least a dual core 2ghz processor, and a minimum of 2gigs of ram. Otherwise, its slower than molasses on a cold day.

Oh, and UAC is teh win. Specially when combined with TeaTimer.

Apple Inc.

This Changes Everything. Again

Age 29
Seen March 29th, 2023
Posted August 1st, 2015
732 posts
15.9 Years
Last year, I tried Vista for a month or so and hated it. Maybe it's coz the machine I was running it on wasn't powerful enough (Single Core AMD Athlon 64 3200+, as I seem to recall), but...

I've been using Vista for the last month, and I love it. Can't imagine going back to XP for day to day stuff! Seriously I haven't found anything critical that doesn't work (My Action Replay, thats about it). FWIW, I'm running the 64bit version on an Intel Core 2 Duo 3ghz, with 4gigs of ram (Soon to hopefully be 8!) :P

Garfieldlover94, why would you even want to install anything Symantec? I haven't touched their products for years, good riddance to them. NAV got bigger and more annoying each year, until I switched to AVG. Symantec software should be left alone, quietly in the corner, never to be installed.

So yeah, Vista SP1 is nice if you have a decent computer to run it on. And by decent, that means at least a dual core 2ghz processor, and a minimum of 2gigs of ram. Otherwise, its slower than molasses on a cold day.

Oh, and UAC is teh win. Specially when combined with TeaTimer.
It was all I had at the time. Besides, I can install it as much as I'd like. I normally use Trend-Micro as it works great for me. But this has nothing to with the two OS's now does it

Zanacross

Male
Seen January 25th, 2022
Posted September 11th, 2011
1,118 posts
16.5 Years
Misconceptions about vista

Very educational. Latios makes some very good points in that thread and I think you should read and then take some of that in.

I agree with Latios. Most people don't know how to use Vista. Why downgrade an OS because of the way it looks? Don't you realize you can change it?

Now XP. Thats one I hate. Its look is yuk. Its slow. Theres no freaking search bar

I could say more but I have a server to setup.

Zanacross

Male
Seen January 25th, 2022
Posted September 11th, 2011
1,118 posts
16.5 Years
But it is a fact that XP is compatible with many more programs than Vista, and that's why it has my vote.
I use all the programs I need to just fine. Please find me a list of incompatible programs and a list of compatible programs and I will believe you.

Most of you are on crap machines that date back 70 odd years.

Also I am a vista fan boy. Its got so many features. Nice graphics, cool search feature, gazillions of tools. Do i need to go on?

Zet

Age 33
Male
Brisbane, Australia
Seen September 29th, 2021
Posted May 16th, 2020
7,687 posts
15.7 Years
my friends vista laptop's harddrive melted in 10mins, stories? are the plan truth about the powering fail lvl of vista? sure you can change vista's settings but its like "ZOMG DID YOU JUST DO THAT? NOW WHY THE **** DID YOU TURN OFF THE ENHANCED SECURITY?" etc

and as for the search bar for XP download one or make lol but my answer is XP is overall faster than vista and is currently better

edit: XP has better looking graphics than vista if you know what you are doing

Zanacross

Male
Seen January 25th, 2022
Posted September 11th, 2011
1,118 posts
16.5 Years
my friends vista laptop's harddrive melted in 10mins, stories? are the plan truth about the powering fail lvl of vista? sure you can change vista's settings but its like "ZOMG DID YOU JUST DO THAT? NOW WHY THE **** DID YOU TURN OFF THE ENHANCED SECURITY?"LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES and you know it.

and as for the search bar for XP download one or make lol but my answer is XP is overall faster than vista and is currently better

Its not really faster then vista. and you know it.
Why should I have to go found a search bar for it. i want one built in.

Zanacross

Male
Seen January 25th, 2022
Posted September 11th, 2011
1,118 posts
16.5 Years
So much for your point of view...

Anyway, I'd pick XP over Vista, since that's just what I'm used to.
I was sort of joking

It does take about 40 seconds to load though. But think about all the features it has to load.

:<
Age 32
Seen January 21st, 2023
Posted November 9th, 2022
773 posts
16.7 Years
my computer starts up in less than a 30seconds, and you know vista takes longer than 40seconds to load
Jesus Christ. Why don't you compile a gentoo install, it'll load faster than XP, therefore superior?

Don't think so, and that's an awfully weak argument.

Also, anyone with Vista on their laptop deserves their laptop to melt.

XP has better looking graphics than vista if you know what you are doing
Installing bloat to remove the teletubbies theme? Luna looks crap, and so do all user made themes.
Age 30
Down south. In a global sense.
Seen November 21st, 2008
Posted November 5th, 2008
302 posts
15.1 Years
Personally, I prefer Vista. I haven't run into any compatibility issues, my computer is capable of running it so I don't experience all this slowness that everyone talks about, and it just looks better. I'm still happy to use XP, though, and for most people wouldn't recommend buying Vista by itself, but rather to wait for when you need a new computer.

Zet

Age 33
Male
Brisbane, Australia
Seen September 29th, 2021
Posted May 16th, 2020
7,687 posts
15.7 Years
Jesus Christ. Why don't you compile a gentoo install, it'll load faster than XP, therefore superior?

Don't think so, and that's an awfully weak argument.

Also, anyone with Vista on their laptop deserves their laptop to melt.



Installing bloat to remove the teletubbies theme? Luna looks crap, and so do all user made themes.
as you said i did a weak statement this is also weak
Seen April 10th, 2010
Posted April 9th, 2010
940 posts
15.1 Years
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

Safety and Peace be upon you

SLO
Seen August 10th, 2011
Posted August 27th, 2008
76 posts
15.1 Years
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).



Seen April 10th, 2010
Posted April 9th, 2010
940 posts
15.1 Years
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

Male
Seen January 25th, 2022
Posted September 11th, 2011
1,118 posts
16.5 Years
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