XP vs. Vista


Recommended Posts

non.sequitur
from my experiences Microsoft did pretty well with Vista.

Compared to what? Duke Nukem Forever? Ok, I'll give you that. Or by "from my experiences" you mean you've screwed up a lot of software where you work, and compared to that Microsoft looks great? Personally I haven't screwed up anything nearly as bad as Microsoft screwed up Vista <knocks on wood>.

Link to post
Share on other sites
+virtorio
Im getting a new laptop pretty soon im not sure to get it preinstalled with xp or vista since vista just came out and its not really stable

Vista didn't just come out, and it is stable.

End of story really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
Vista didn't just come out, and it is stable.

End of story really.

Not really, because he's asking if people would choose XP or Vista, not if Vista is still unstable. If there were no problems with Vista I guess he would just install it, and wouldn't have to even ask this question huh? Two years after XP was released I didn't see anyone saying "should I install Windows 98 or Windows XP". Because at that point XP was so much better (and faster, FROM DAY ONE) you didn't even need to ask a question like that. When XP launched, right away it was better than Windows 98. And that's what SHOULD have happened with Vista. Two years later and it's still not clear which one is better (to some people).

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoneAvail
Compared to what? Duke Nukem Forever? Ok, I'll give you that. Or by "from my experiences" you mean you've screwed up a lot of software where you work, and compared to that Microsoft looks great? Personally I haven't screwed up anything nearly as bad as Microsoft screwed up Vista <knocks on wood>.

man.... your just a troll. ok good for you, go ahead use xp, osx or linux ****.. but know that it wasn't microsofts fault that drivers and all those other programs didn't work on vista, microsoft sent out vista to them while it was in beta 2 so they can get ready and buy the time RTM of vista came, no one had NOTHING ready.

and it's idioits like you that try to install Vista on computers that are the bare minium for windows xp, and complain why Vista is so slow and why it needs more powerful hardware. well if you didn't realize every operating system that comes out requires newer faster hardware so it can get the work done much quicker than before. thats one of the reasons why there is a new OS every few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric
Not really, because he's asking if people would choose XP or Vista, not if Vista is still unstable. If there were no problems with Vista I guess he would just install it, and wouldn't have to even ask this question huh? Two years after XP was released I didn't see anyone saying "should I install Windows 98 or Windows XP". Because at that point XP was so much better (and faster, FROM DAY ONE) you didn't even need to ask a question like that. When XP launched, right away it was better than Windows 98. And that's what SHOULD have happened with Vista. Two years later and it's still not clear which one is better (to some people).

Invalid argument. XP is an evolution of Windows 2000 which came from Windows NT, and it was VERY questionable whether XP was better than 2000 at the time. Windows 98 was a different kernel which thankfully died with Windows ME. (Which I also never had any problems with.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
and it's idioits like you that try to install Vista on computers that are the bare minium for windows xp, and complain why Vista is so slow

Actually, no, I have a few computers and they're all quite capable of running Vista. So when you say I'm trying to put Vista on a computer that can barely run XP, you're way off.

well if you didn't realize every operating system that comes out requires newer faster hardware so it can get the work done much quicker than before. thats one of the reasons why there is a new OS every few years.

You miss the point, not that I'm surprised. Take a fast, high-end computer. Run a benchmark when windows 98 is installed, then do the same thing on XP. XP is faster, regardless of the hardware; we're talking about high-end hardware that's the best available today. NOW, do the same thing with Vista and XP. XP was much faster at launch, and that's screwed up. So don't even try to say I need to upgrade my computer. All my computers run it fast, but they would all run XP faster. Get it now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
RAID 0

king_rodney.jpg

Can't we all just get along?

Link to post
Share on other sites
wellofsouls
Im getting a new laptop pretty soon im not sure to get it preinstalled with xp or vista since vista just came out and its not really stable

well, it depends on your laptop. Since many laptop manufacturers offer to install Vista to laptops not really good enough for Vista. If your laptop has a dual-core, 2G RAM, and some video chip better than Intel IGP, then Vista. Else I'd say XP.

At where I live, there are laptop manufacturers pre-installing Vista to laptops with Celeron-M and 512M RAM :shiftyninja:

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoneAvail
You miss the point, not that I'm surprised. Take a fast, high-end computer. Run a benchmark when windows 98 is installed, then do the same thing on XP. XP is faster, regardless of the hardware; we're talking about high-end hardware that's the best available today. NOW, do the same thing with Vista and XP. XP was much faster at launch, and that's screwed up. So don't even try to say I need to upgrade my computer. All my computers run it fast, but they would all run XP faster. Get it now?

Yeah I get it, but your not going to see that much of a speed increase when you switch from Vista to XP. Vista will beat XP in some areas and some areas not, but that can't be your only reason. I mean come on, your using a 6 year old OS when a 1 1/2 year OS is just started getting better..... and lets not forget when XP came out, everyone complained just like when Vista came out....

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
Invalid argument. XP is an evolution of Windows 2000 which came from Windows NT, and it was VERY questionable whether XP was better than 2000 at the time. Windows 98 was a different kernel which thankfully died with Windows ME. (Which I also never had any problems with.)

The argument is valid. Most consumers moved from Windows 98/ME ---> Windows XP. It's about how it works for the end user, not what kernel it came from. What you're saying is not valid, you're comparing Windows 2000 to XP when most people weren't running 2000 at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
splicer707
Compared to what? Duke Nukem Forever? Ok, I'll give you that. Or by "from my experiences" you mean you've screwed up a lot of software where you work, and compared to that Microsoft looks great? Personally I haven't screwed up anything nearly as bad as Microsoft screwed up Vista <knocks on wood>.

Compared to Windows XP RTM, I found that Vista RTM was a superior product.

Better driver support out of the box and greater compatibility than Windows XP RTM.

Like it or not, Vista is doing very well and is selling very well.

Seems to me you really are grasping at straws attacking Vista, you don't provide any evidence how Microsoft screwed up Vista.

Link to post
Share on other sites
soldier1st

non.sequitur: go away anti vista troll.anyways i would go with vista if you got hardware that will run it good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
Vista will beat XP in some areas and some areas not, but that can't be your only reason.

It's not the only reason. Did I say that was the only reason? File copying is still screwed up, and takes too long compared to XP. Also, games and other software still crashes more than on XP. I know, I run them both regularly. If Microsoft expects people to upgrade then they need to provide users with a valid reason to do so. The new OS should offer so much more that users think they "need" to upgrade to the new OS to get all these new and great features they "can't live without". Vista provides none of that. And don't say Direct X 10 either.

and lets not forget when XP came out, everyone complained just like when Vista came out....

You have a bad memory then. Nobody complained nearly as much during the XP launch as they did during the Vista one. You can't seriously believe that?

Compared to Windows XP RTM, I found that Vista RTM was a superior product.

Better driver support out of the box and greater compatibility than Windows XP RTM.

Now this had me laughing hard. Thank you for that. It's pretty much common knowledge at this point that this was not the case.

Like it or not, Vista is doing very well and is selling very well.

Seems to me you really are grasping at staws attacking Vista, you don't provide any evidence how Microsoft screwed up Vista.

"Like it or not"? Do I care if it is or isn't doing well? No. I'm using it too, HELLO! I've been saying that this entire time. I'm not "attacking" Vista. It's not better than XP right now, in my opinion, which I've formed by running them both on high-end hardware day-to-day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RAID 0

Never in the time I've been on Neowin did I want to see a thread closed.... this is a first.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CLOSE THIS THREAD!

Link to post
Share on other sites
splicer707
Never in the time I've been on Neowin did I want to see a thread closed.... this is a first.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CLOSE THIS THREAD!

+1

925262-troll.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eric
You have a bad memory then. Nobody complained nearly as much during the XP launch as they did during the Vista one. You can't seriously believe that?

You can search these very forums to invalidate your own statement on that. People hated XP when it came out.

Now this had me laughing hard. Thank you for that. It's pretty much common knowledge at this point that this was not the case.

I think you must've not used XP RTM. It had [CENSORED] hardware support and REALLY [CENSORED] application compatibility issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NEVER85
non.sequitur
Never in the time I've been on Neowin did I want to see a thread closed.... this is a first.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CLOSE THIS THREAD!

So they should close it because you want it closed? I didn't know you were that important, excuse me! Get out then. Problem solved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shekers
You have a bad memory then. Nobody complained nearly as much during the XP launch as they did during the Vista one. You can't seriously believe that?

This thread is close to epic lol.

XP was crap until SP2 came out.

Anything prior to SP2 was so vulnerable to attacks. Hackers on average only takes 4 minutes to hack into an unprotected XP system...remember that?

Vista has yet to be beaten while UAC is on.

I respect your opinion, but you are obviously just looking for a fight with anybody.

Funny...did you read "Guidelines and Pointers for this Forum" before you post? Or do you not respect that? In case you don't know where it's from...Read above while you are replying to flame my post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur

I don't see what this is supposed to prove. A new OS was coming out, and people needed to prepare for it. That's expected. Nowhere do I see problems right after the launch, with masses of people migrating away from XP. Where's the petition for Microsoft to ask them to continue with Windows 98 and dump XP, because XP was in such bad shape (you know, like they just did with Vista?). Oh yeah, that's right, there wasn't one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RAID 0

Exactly. I didn't switch from W2k to XP until AFTER SP2. I'm old enough to remember the Windows 95 launch and all the problems that went with that... as well as 98... as well as ME.. as well as XP and now Vista. It's a "teething" process that happens anytime you make a major change to any OS, maybe not so much with Apple's stuff since it's so much more controlled.. but going from OS 9 to OS X, same complaints.

What ever our OS preferences, give logical advice to the OP. I have read EVERY SINGLE post in this thread, and no one asked him what he's gonna use his computer for. No one asked what specs he's looking at or how much he's gonna spend or even the brands he's interested in. Come one guys. You don't go tell someone to buy a sports car to tow a boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
Vista has yet to be beaten while UAC is on.

Oh yeah?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZZq7Kq2xNk

http://www.pcworld.com/article/132016/twos..._published.html

http://www.walkernews.net/2007/04/10/hack-...count-password/

I have read EVERY SINGLE post in this thread, and no one asked him what he's gonna use his computer for.

No need to. XP is in better shape right now so it's best to go with it, until (if) Microsoft can fix Vista to acceptable levels, i.e., it's better overall than XP. Right now it isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
capr

i am sorry but i really gave vista a chance... but when after installation it didn't even have drivers for my keyboard and i couldn't put in my password to get into windows... i gave up and deleted that ****.

Link to post
Share on other sites
RAID 0

Where's the petition for Microsoft to ask them to continue with Windows 98 and dump XP, because XP was in such bad shape (you know, like they just did with Vista?). Oh yeah, that's right, there wasn't one.

Really?

Could it be because the Internet was not as big or accessible as it is today? Could it be the extra pressure from Apple and other rival companies that was not around back then but it's here now? There's many variables in why there was no petition to ditch XP. Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
non.sequitur
I'm old enough to remember the Windows 95 launch and all the problems that went with that... as well as 98... as well as ME.. as well as XP and now Vista.

And of all those, Vista was the worst. Never before did people migrate in droves AWAY from the new OS. Never before did they start a petition to keep the previous OS alive. When 95 came out it was so different that there were problems, but it was MILES ahead of 3.1. XP was better than 98. Vista was not better than XP. So yes, across the board when a new OS is released there are problems, of course. But they all pale in comparison to the ones Vista had. Read the articles, Microsoft said this themselves so I don't see why most of you on here dispute that fact.

Where's the petition for Microsoft to ask them to continue with Windows 98 and dump XP, because XP was in such bad shape (you know, like they just did with Vista?). Oh yeah, that's right, there wasn't one.

Really?

Could it be because the Internet was not as big or accessible as it is today? Could it be the extra pressure from Apple and other rival companies that was not around back then but it's here now? There's many variables in why there was no petition to ditch XP. Sorry.

Now you're reaching buddy. XP was generally regarded as better than 98, and it was. Vista is not better than XP, simple fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.