petroid Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Technically they did improve Windows XP... It's called Windows Vista! Also Windows XP was improved several times over it's five year life with products like Media Center and Tablet PC. So they've really done well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freak_power Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Why do we need XP? What's wrong with Windows 95? Windows 3.11?Windows XP is 5 years old. That's an eternity in the computing word, and a lot of the stuff in Vista couldn't be added to it without the major changes that justify a whole new release. Completely new driver models, DirectX 10, desktop composition, a totally new network stack, redesigning so much of the shell around indexing, better performance than XP with newer hardware, etc, etc. None of that could go into XP, because in essence, you'd have Vista. I recommend you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista Better performance then XP....read this? http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/ This won't change for the next 2 years... What's wrong with a 1989 Honda Civic? Nothing, runs better then any Ford, Chevrolet car... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malisk Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 (edited) Windows XP is 5 years old. That's an eternity in the computing word, and a lot of the stuff in Vista couldn't be added to it without the major changes that justify a whole new release. Completely new driver models, DirectX 10, desktop composition, a totally new network stack, redesigning so much of the shell around indexing, better performance than XP with newer hardware, etc, etc. None of that could go into XP, because in essence, you'd have Vista. This is all true and the feature lists are there in Wikipedia, but I think the question is valid and it would be more interesting to hear of actual advantages, not advantages on paper. For example, by how much will the improved network stack help a user versus the cost of relearning and hunting down new drivers? Performance is improved, but by how much and in what situations? How does the new desktop composition engine help me as a user browsing the web, writing word documents, arranging photos and playing games? Do you get less malware in Vista if you already used the free Firefox and e.g. Spybot? Is UAC still very important to most users? Will a user be willing to spend time provide file tag metadata to truly make use of indexed searches, or is he/she happy with the free indexed searching tools in XP? WMP 11 and IE 7 and so on comes for XP as well. There are a lot of questions like these with Vista that I can imagine people looking at it ask themselves, and to be honest I don't think it's easy to give too convincing answers to them. I think it's at least important to remember that users aren't sitting with XP without software installed, but could be using Office 2007 and Picasa, both excellent software tools with thorough indexed searching to quickly navigate one's image library and mails, and even providing far beyond of what e.g. the image managers and mail tools included with Vista do, and many of those tools are even free, and a user may be more willing to spend money on Office 2007 than Vista. Suddenly it's not as much of a black & white picture anymore. Edited January 30, 2007 by Jugalator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonwolf Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Really? so ...hmm if vista is mainly windows xp then I am keeping my money in my pocket. NO way I am going to the store and buy a full buggy windows for 400 dollars that does not support completely all drivers. Even Microsoft admitted that there is still a lot to be done on Vista but to say 5 years project to change the interface and also need a stronger system to support it. This operating system will be costing to much money. Windows XP is solid. I am a heavy gamer also, I have a strong system I just bough myself for Christmas which support the recommendation of Vista....but to say, I am sticking with XP till Vista come out SP1. And that is not something that is not coming around corner anytime soon. Windows XP is one of the best windows that have build...running without any problems..of course...bugs will always be around in windows. Vista is like those cabbage patch doll or Tickle Elmo dolls....EVERYONE MUST HAVE IT. and don't question them or even tell them they are crazy.....or they bash you. Have fun with Vista! Technically they did improve Windows XP... It's called Windows Vista!Also Windows XP was improved several times over it's five year life with products like Media Center and Tablet PC. So they've really done well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonwolf Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Agreed. Those guys did there testing..and I find it very fair in there opinions about Vista. http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-...r_windows_vista Better performance then XP....read this?http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/ This won't change for the next 2 years... Nothing, runs better then any Ford, Chevrolet car... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 You know you're right, I should keep my 5yr old OS. In fact I should keep my 5yr old car, upgrades rule. Oh and forget those new shoes, my 5yr old shoes rock, even with the torn heal, nothing a little super glue cant fix. Good thing those twinkies last way longer then 5yrs so Im safe there when it comes to food. To bad it sucks that I had to spend as much to get my 5yr old pc up to date then to buy a new one. :rolleyes: You know for all the amount of money that people spend on daily living like food, clothes, car and gas, ect, people bitch about stupid things like Vista. Vista will cost the avg person less then their daily cost of food, over its lifetime. You spend more money on much lesser needs. Yes it will cost more for those that upgrade their systems offten but those amounts are very small. As for the whole "M$ copies apple" crap talk, Im so sick of hearing that. First off So fuking what, every major industry copies their competitors, thats part of business. Hello can you say Burger King and McDonalds, just look at every type of business there is and you'll have almost a carbon copy as a competitor. No one bitches about that till M$'s name comes into it then the fire storm starts. Its just a bunch of retarded nonsense. oh yeah another personal opinion, please school us on why its over rated? :rolleyes: 1. Your argument comparing shoes, cars, food, etc. to a piece of software is flawed. Software does not degrade over time/with use like clothing or food or machines. 2. Food, Clothing, Gas, and Shelter are not "lesser needs". An OS is way, WAY down the list of priorities. And if you're a middle class or lower (read: normal) consumer, $200-$600 just for an OS IS a lot of money. 3. I agree that this whole "MS copies Apple" thing has to stop. If one "copies" the other's good features so that both products now have them, doesn't every consumer win? This is all true and the features lists are there in Wikipedia, but I think the question is valid and it would be more interesting to hear of actual advantages, not advantages on paper.For example, by how much will the improved network stack help a user versus the cost of relearning and hunting down new drivers? Performance is improved, but by how much and in what situations? How does the new desktop composition engine help me as a user browsing the web, writing word documents, arranging photos and playing games? Do you get less malware in Vista if you already used the free Firefox and e.g. Spybot? Is UAC still very important to most users? Will a user be willing to provide file tag metadata to truly make use of indexed searches, or is he/she happy with the indexed searching tools in XP? There are a lot of questions like these with Vista that I can imagine people looking at it ask themselves, and to be honest I don't think it's easy to give too convincing answers to them. These questsions are why I am waiting for new hardware and SP1 to consider getting Vista. By the time Vista reaches the level of compatability and stability that XP has now, hardware that is good enough to take full advantage of Vista and the first generation of dx10 games will be cheap and affordable. For now, I'll stick with XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordkanin Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Better performance then XP....read this?http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/ This won't change for the next 2 years... Nothing, runs better then any Ford, Chevrolet car... I find it to be snappier than XP after months of being installed, something you can't get XP to do unless you reformat every month or so. XP just seems to eventually slow down to a crawl. Vista has remained at a constant speed since November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freak_power Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I find it to be snappier than XP after months of being installed, something you can't get XP to do unless you reformat every month or so. XP just seems to eventually slow down to a crawl. Vista has remained at a constant speed since November. XP never slows down to a crawl....eventually you were the problem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel_rh Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 XP is a great OS but I'm tired of it! and Vista is working really good in my system, in some cases Vista works better than XP specially in loading, is more responsive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordkanin Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 XP never slows down to a crawl....eventually you were the problem... I honestly don't see how. It's strange, I find the same thing with Server 2003. If I install Server 2003 and use it as a desktop OS, after a month, it feels like the day I installed it, whereas XP, after a month of use, does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notuptome2004 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Really?so ...hmm if vista is mainly windows xp then I am keeping my money in my pocket. NO way I am going to the store and buy a full buggy windows for 400 dollars that does not support completely all drivers. Even Microsoft admitted that there is still a lot to be done on Vista but to say 5 years project to change the interface and also need a stronger system to support it. This operating system will be costing to much money. Windows XP is solid. I am a heavy gamer also, I have a strong system I just bough myself for Christmas which support the recommendation of Vista....but to say, I am sticking with XP till Vista come out SP1. And that is not something that is not coming around corner anytime soon. Windows XP is one of the best windows that have build...running without any problems..of course...bugs will always be around in windows. Vista is like those cabbage patch doll or Tickle Elmo dolls....EVERYONE MUST HAVE IT. and don't question them or even tell them they are crazy.....or they bash you. Have fun with Vista! Can you for the life of me Tell me the differance btween Windowws XP and the orginal windows 95..... i am gonna take a stab and assume you can but cant at the same time, Why? the same under the hood technolagies from windows 95 are presented in windows XP with little differances the featureset of windows XP is all that has changed and some visual differances are ther but beyond those and the features in witch XP adds on top of an Outdated under the hood codeing or technolagies (graphics/video/sound/networking/indexing/) ther is nothing but Oldness feel to windows XP. With Windows vista None of the same under the hood technolagies remain none of the same code is ther none of the same code is ther just to be enahcned , What is ther is all new technolgies that are far more supior then what Winows 95 to XP presented for Developers and consumer level of feel and style and richness. Windows Vista is the First Operating system from microsoft in 12 years to be built upon entirly new subsystems from Scratch Rather then try and retool or enhance Older technolagies to make another operating system they went out and designd all new technolagies to replace every peiace of code from the old tech. evan the GDI system while preseant in vista is done through the new Framework i should say prolly i am assumeing simulated for no Dirext 9 supported aero cards. So while you look at Vista and geta good WOW of the interface Remeber all of the above i listed before (graphics/video/sound/networking/indexing/) and more are brand new and not old enhanced versions of what was in windows 95. that siad Vista also has a big huge list of on Top Featuresets things windows XP never had and some XP has had but Rebuilt and far more supiour . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calum Veteran Posted January 30, 2007 Veteran Share Posted January 30, 2007 That is the most naive statement I have heard in a while: "why do we need vista?, whats wrong with XP?" XP was full of bugs to start with and is hardly as a secure as Vista. XP is also now boring. Yes I may be used to it but I want change, I like change and I would get bored of the same GUI for ever!!! Also, XP was written 5 years ago. Technology has improved since and thus, more improved operating systems can be relaeased which take advantage of the new technology. The new tecthnology improves our computing experience, so why not create better operating systems as time progresses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martym Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 thanks for all your responses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Reid Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Where do you people get some of this informationg? I had a good laugh at some of the prices people throw out there. Do you guys just pull this stuff out of your ass? I saw someone even go as high to claim that it cost $600 for vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANova Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 There are a number of benchmarks on the web which show Vista is slower than XP. That is fact. Vista has loads more integrated DRM and activation than XP, if you want to watch an HD video it will disable all your audio and video outputs except for HDMI. If you attempt to disable the DRM service (which takes extra resources whether used or not) the os will pureposefully go into a reduced functionality mode in which explorer runs like molasses and some programs won't work at all. There are many other as yet unknown implications that this DRM allows for Microsoft or anyone willing to use to limit your rights however they see fit without warning. It is a joke of an implementation marketed as a must have "feature" to the public that does nothing but use up resources unnecessarily and add an unneeded layer of complexity. It is the realized TPM and Palladium project renamed to try and hide its existence because of the bad rep it recieved (for good reason) and Vista is the stepping stone to corporate dreams of complete control for maximized profit. Most features are useless upgrades to ones found in XP and some are actually worse than what can already be found in XP. DX10 is a redesigned DX9 but with efficiency improvements, which was needed to counteract the performance issues in Vista. Anything DX10 can do visually DX9 can as well, just slower. Undoubtedly Microsoft and other paid off developers with eventually force games to only run on Vista (Halo 2 and Alan Wake) without any rhyme or reason other than as an "incentive" to go out and buy the "new and improved" os. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvllsvm Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I have no use for Vista as for I am a Linux user and only use XP for gaming purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A10 Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Why is this thread under Vista support if you want to bash Vista choose another outlet to spout off whatever you want be it Linux is better, Microsoft copied Apple, XP is all you need whatever. Don't get your panties in a twist over an os don't use it nobody is forcing you to use it...yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted January 31, 2007 Veteran Share Posted January 31, 2007 How would they earn money if they didn't market a new OS? I agree that Vista is nothing more than Windows 5.2, but they make a living from selling new stuff to people. Uhh... We already have a Windows 5.2. It's called Windows Server 2003 (and XP-64). Vista is most definitely 6.0. It's just as big a jump as NT 3.5 to 4.0, or 4.0 to 5.0 (2000). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Live Veteran Posted January 31, 2007 Veteran Share Posted January 31, 2007 There are a number of benchmarks on the web which show Vista is slower than XP. That is fact. There are also a number of benchmarks on the web which show Vista is faster. That is a fact. It's also a fact that Vista is much faster for certain tasks (network access, file copies, starting programs and loading of libraries, etc) and it makes better use of system resources like larger amounts of memory. Some benchmarks are obviously slower with very early video drivers, as the entire display driver model changed and new drivers have been written from scratch (and currently aren't tuned for performance like their XP counterparts). That willl change pretty quickly, though. Vista has loads more integrated DRM and activation than XP, if you want to watch an HD video it will disable all your audio and video outputs except for HDMI. If you attempt to disable the DRM service (which takes extra resources whether used or not) the os will pureposefully go into a reduced functionality mode in which explorer runs like molasses and some programs won't work at all. You just make up all of that. None of that is true. Vista has largely the same DRM support as Windows XP. There are definitely no additional resources being used when you aren't viewing protected content. As for disabling non-HDMI outputs, that's absurd. Vista, just like XP or the Mac, will not output full-quality on non-protected interfaces if the ICT flag is set - but no HD-DVD or BluRay discs currently have it set, so it's kind of a moot point. And definitely not Microsoft's doing. That's the way all BluRay and HD-DVD players work.DX10 is a redesigned DX9 but with efficiency improvements, which was needed to counteract the performance issues in Vista. Anything DX10 can do visually DX9 can as well, just slower. Undoubtedly Microsoft and other paid off developers with eventually force games to only run on Vista (Halo 2 and Alan Wake) without any rhyme or reason other than as an "incentive" to go out and buy the "new and improved" os. Umm, no. DirectX 9 is just as fast or usually faster on Vista (driver permitting)... just look at Battlefield 2 on ATI cards, 15% faster according to those benchmarks yesterday. And that's still on a very early driver. Halo 2 is a Microsoft game. Sure, there are obviously business reasons to focus it on Vista and DX10. But there are good reasons why that makes sense, including the fact that it's harder to write a game that targets both DX10 and DX9 since they're not compatible, AND the fact that Halo 2 is a showcase game for Xbox Live Anywhere. DX10 simply can't exist on XP, not without porting back half of Vista - including the Vista driver model and tons more infrastructure that it relies upon. It relies on things like GPU threading and memory virtualization, which are new to the Vista driver model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Why do we need vista, whats wrong with XP ? Congratulations ! You've hit the nail on the head.The vast majority of computer users do not need Vista. It's mainly hype. "Buy our new pretty graphics." My XP graphics look just fine. :yes: "Get faster file searches." I don't know when this became a problem.. My file searches happen in a few seconds; sometimes only a split second. Who has that many files ??? "Vista has great 'security'." I have rarely had any virus, spyware problems. XP patches and/or NAV took care of most. And System Restore has come in handy, a time or two. Windows Vista is mostly an illusion .... 'new is somehow better'. Complete rubbish. Microsoft will waiting a looooonnng time till I buy/use Vista. :sleep: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCobra Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 But there are good reasons why that makes sense, including the fact that it's harder to write a game that targets both DX10 and DX9 since they're not compatible, Depends on how it was coded as to how hard it is to impliment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitalx Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 as a quote on youtube sayd windows vista is just 3.11 with an interlaced gif ontop :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acies Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 I certainly won't be getting vista, the next computer I get will be a Mac, I have barely used them, but I know I am tired of windows annoyances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtk Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Enjoy the mac annoyances, at least they'll be fresh for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenesisNZ Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 You just make up all of that. None of that is true. Vista has largely the same DRM support as Windows XP. There are definitely no additional resources being used when you aren't viewing protected content. As for disabling non-HDMI outputs, that's absurd. Vista, just like XP or the Mac, will not output full-quality on non-protected interfaces if the ICT flag is set - but no HD-DVD or BluRay discs currently have it set, so it's kind of a moot point. And definitely not Microsoft's doing. That's the way all BluRay and HD-DVD players work.Umm, no. DirectX 9 is just as fast or usually faster on Vista (driver permitting)... just look at Battlefield 2 on ATI cards, 15% faster according to those benchmarks yesterday. And that's still on a very early driver. I'm sorry, what? Do a search for Peter Guttman. Never heard of SPDIF I take it? HDCP? Vista is the most DRM fulled OS ever made, ever. Take a look over the vendor specifications; you can kiss good-bye to any 3rd party drivers as they now require a specific certificate to work on Vista. I?ve said it before and I?ll say it again. I can do much more on Windows XP that you will ever be able to do on Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts