XP vs. Vista

By Sil3nt
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Veteran

bob_c_b

Posted
Posted
"See" nothing. I have my opinion, you have yours. Deal with it. I have a few machines, some of the have Vista SP1 installed, some have Windows XP SP3 installed. Vista still *sucks* compared to XP. Calling it more stable than XP is laughable. The drivers for most hardware still stink, even after two years. In XP they've had how many years to perfect hardware drivers? And this garbage about only supporting Direct X 10 on Vista is just plain BS, but that's another story. XP has a proven track record, Vista does not. If Vista is so great, why are most large companies just skipping it? Explain that one.

For the same reason those same large companies waited more than 2 years for XP, and only then when a new version of Windows wasn't announced (big mistake bringing up Windows 7 so soon). And I work for a 40,000 desktop enterprise and guess what goes on new workstations starting this month... Vista, after a long run in imaging and user testing we feel pretty good about it.

Sounds like you don't know what you are doing if you are still having this many issues with Vista. Or you have junk hardware with poor driver support, still not a Vista issue really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

ViperAFK

Posted
Posted
"See" nothing. I have my opinion, you have yours. Deal with it. I have a few machines, some of the have Vista SP1 installed, some have Windows XP SP3 installed. Vista still *sucks* compared to XP. Calling it more stable than XP is laughable. The drivers for most hardware still stink, even after two years. In XP they've had how many years to perfect hardware drivers? And this garbage about only supporting Direct X 10 on Vista is just plain BS, but that's another story. XP has a proven track record, Vista does not. If Vista is so great, why are most large companies just skipping it? Explain that one.

The Vista-ME comparison is a joke, genius. Microsoft themselves are now admitting that they made a lot of mistakes with Vista. If a company's willing to admit that, than you know it's not good.

I've used it on everything from a socket 478 p4 to my gaming desktop and my laptop and have had no problems with drivers and it has been incredibly stable, no crashes ever. And it's been fast as hell. You have a some sort of driver problem on your machines, blame the hardware manufacturers not microsoft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

non.sequitur

Posted
Posted
I've had experience on both sides of the coin, and can say that I prefer XP by far. (No need for the personal attack)

Don't say that too loud in here dude. Everyone's too busy trying to convince themselves that Vista is better, even though major companies won't deploy it, and Microsoft themselves admit it's a disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Experienced

C_Guy

Posted
Posted
They don't call Vista "Windows ME II" for nothing you know. It's garbage.

Of course "they" refers to totally incompetent people who have no grasp of technology.

Sorry to hear you struggled with Vista so much. Try Microsoft Mojave. You will like it much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Eric Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Lol. What exactly is that supposed to mean? Does Microsoft have some secret, stable, *good* version of Vista that they only install on machines "put together with the latest OS in mind". You see how stupid that comment is?

I don't see the part where you explain to us why major companies are avoiding Vista and have no plans to deploy it, at all, since it's so great now.

You're absolutely correct. Vista's a piece of crap. My computer crashes so much I can't use it. Happy? Now go get back under your bridge and leave the rest of the world alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

ViperAFK

Posted
Posted
For the same reason those same large companies waited more than 2 years for XP, and only then when a new version of Windows wasn't announced (big mistake bringing up Windows 7 so soon). And I work for a 40,000 desktop enterprise and guess what goes on new workstations starting this month... Vista, after a long run in imaging and user testing we feel pretty good about it.

Sounds like you don't know what you are doing if you are still having this many issues with Vista. Or you have junk hardware with poor driver support, still not a Vista issue really.

also you obviously don't know what you are talking about because there are *Very* valid reasons why dx10 is vista only. Directx 10 was built for vista completely redesigned driver structure, porting it to xp would involve a complete rewrite of directx 10 or a porting the new driver model to xp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

non.sequitur

Posted
Posted
I've used it on everything from a socket 478 p4 to my gaming desktop and my laptop and have had no problems with drivers and it has been incredibly stable, no crashes ever. And it's been fast as hell. You have a some sort of driver problem on your machines, blame the hardware manufacturers not microsoft.

At this point it's pretty much common knowledge that XP is faster than Vista in most applications.

All you Vista nut-huggers at least admit two things: 1) Any recent Apple OS SPANKS Vista (and I hate Apple), and 2) Vista is bloated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

The_Decryptor Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Don't say that too loud in here dude. Everyone's too busy trying to convince themselves that Vista is better, even though major companies won't deploy it, and Microsoft themselves admit it's a disaster.

I don't know if you remember when XP was released, but the same stuff was said about it back then.

I remember when our school upgraded a room to XP then formatted all the computers back to Win2K, this was only a few years ago, XP had been out for a while.

Edit: And calling people names because they don't agree with you isn't a good way to win minds in an discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

ViperAFK

Posted
Posted
At this point it's pretty much common knowledge that XP is faster than Vista in most applications.

All you Vista nut-huggers at least admit two things: 1) Any recent Apple OS SPANKS Vista (and I hate Apple), and 2) Vista is bloated.

it's common knowledge that you are spewing bs information with no sources, what kind of applications? games?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...ate/default.asp

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302498,00.asp

Find some *RECENT* benchmarks with proof. Vista did have some problems early on but any recent benchmarks with sp1 and updated drivers show vista is as fast as xp.

Vista IS as fast as xp or faster on any modern machine with a dual core and 2 gb of ram, it is even faster than xp with large amounts of ram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

non.sequitur

Posted
Posted
Really?

Yeah, really. See the October issue of Maximum PC. You know, the one with the cover story "Inside Microsoft's $6 billion failure".

Why would Microsoft speak out at all about Vista's faults if it's better than XP? Maybe because.....they know they screwed up bad, and it's damage control time? In case you haven't noticed most companies hate to admit their mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rising Star

LiqHead

Posted
Posted
Yeah, really. See the October issue of Maximum PC. You know, the one with the cover story "Inside Microsoft's $6 billion failure".

Why would Microsoft speak out at all about Vista's faults if it's better than XP? Maybe because.....they know they screwed up bad, and it's damage control time? In case you haven't noticed most companies hate to admit their mistakes.

Oh shut up. Can a mod close this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rising Star

BilliShere

Posted
Posted

vista is really good actually.. there are just many complainers that picked up the windows bashing trend thanks to factors like the mac ads and are now implementing it all over teh netz.

the only thing i would recommend you do is to run the indexer once and then disable it.. its not worth having it trash your drive. although truth be told its quite fast and optimized now..

i personally use linux now over vista because it can now run office 2007 thanks to crossover pro and i can have that blastin eyecandy at the same time.. :D but thats just me.. its not an option for everybody.

so like i said vista is what you should go for.. and plus the fact that its more secure is a bonus. and also it is supported by microsoft in terms of updates whereas winxp is soon to be unsupported or already is (i cant remember)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

non.sequitur

Posted
Posted
it's common knowledge that you are spewing bs information with no sources, what kind of applications? games?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...ate/default.asp

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302498,00.asp

Find some *RECENT* benchmarks with proof. Vista did have some problems early on but any recent benchmarks with sp1 and updated drivers show vista is as fast as xp.

Vista IS as fast as xp or faster on any modern machine with a dual core and 2 gb of ram, it is even faster than xp with large amounts of ram.

I checked the firingsquad link and what's your point? Vista is slower in almost all benchmarks, like I've been saying. I never said it hasn't gotten better since launch (isn't that what's supposed to happen anyway, should it get worse?), but the fact remains it's still not up to XP's level of stability and performance.

And I still don't see anyone telling me why large companies won't switch to it...

You could at least provide some links, at least some referral to the story not tell me to read some random magazine I have never heard of?

So now Maximum PC is "some random magazine I have never heard of"? That's funny dude...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

ViperAFK

Posted
Posted

Microsoft did fail somewhat with vista. They overhyped the **** out of it and they ****ed up the whole "vista capable" thing and OEMS shipped it on PCs that should NOT have been running vista. But vista is a fine, stable, and fast os that is much more secure and as fast as xp on any recent machine. Vista is not a bad operating system, and you need to stop spewing garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

NEVER85

Posted
Posted
I checked the firingsquad link and what's your point? Vista is slower in almost all benchmarks, like I've been saying. I never said it hasn't gotten better since launch (isn't that what's supposed to happen anyway, should it get worse?), but the fact remains it's still not up to XP's level of stability and performance.

And I still don't see anyone telling me why large companies won't switch to it...

So now Maximum PC is "some random magazine I have never heard of"? That's funny dude...

XP's an old pile of crap that can't make use of modern hardware. Learn how to use a computer, troll.

As to why companies haven't switched? Because it's expensive. Did they switch from 2000 to XP within 2 years? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

non.sequitur

Posted
Posted
Microsoft did fail somewhat with vista. They overhyped the **** out of it and they ****ed up the whole "vista capable" thing and OEMS shipped it on PCs that should NOT have been running vista. But vista is a fine, stable, and fast os that is much more secure and as fast as xp on any recent machine. Vista is not a bad operating system, and you need to stop spewing garbage.

I'm running them both now, and Vista just isn't as good in my opinion. For one thing, Steam runs terrible in Vista compared to XP. Some games run like crap too, still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

chconline Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I switched to Vista since March 07, then I got Vista for my desktop (Since I ran out of Windows licences anyways) in December 07. Sure, it wasn't cheap but wasn't too expensive either -- I got Ultimate OEM, but I believe it was a good purchase. I experienced no stability issues on any of my machines, and I think it is reasonable that Vista is more optimized for newer hardware. New OS, new hardware, fair game. Windows 3.1 requires less of a computer than XP, if you must.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.