Vista or XP?

[zeusfaber]

Looks like I'm going to get to buy a new laptop to add to our existing home network (two elderly 98SE boxes, plus one running XP Home SP2). New machine likely to be used for browsing, occasional office work (including the odd bit of engineering spreadsheeting) and lightweight gaming (at the sort of Sims 2 level, or just a little busier). I'll almost certainly put Office Pro 2003 on it.

Although the laptops I'm looking at come loaded by default with Vista Home Premium, it looks like there are one or two where by paying a bit extra I can get XP Pro instead.

I know a few months ago (when I wasn't looking at buying new hardware) people advised me to avoid Vista at all costs. Has the general view softened at all since then?

If I buy Vista, will I see any problems running my mixed network? If I buy XP Pro, will I be pursuing a dead end? Is having to learn a third OS likely to confuse the wife and kids?

What do people think?

A.

 

[dglienna]

So nobody want's Vista for the kids to learn on? How many people hung on to DOS? I don't remember hearing about people who 'went black' as it were

-David
2006, 2007 & 2008 Microsoft Most Valuable Professional (VB)
2006 Dell Certified System Professional (CSP)

 

[gbaughma]

I hardly consider that a valid comparison. And, actually, there are many systems that still run on DOS (mainly voicemail systems and stuff like drive duplicators).

The reality of it is that we are being forced into a situation where we must either choose Vista, or choose not to use a Microsoft operating system.

I haven't heard one compelling reason to upgrade to Vista. However, that compelling reason will come in the form of video games requiring DirectX 10; which is ONLY supported on Vista. However, most of the video game writers have said "Why would we write for DX10, and lost the entire XP market share, when we can just continue writing for DX9?"

Is Vista faster? no... in fact, it takes more horsepower and RAM to run at the same speed as XP.

Is Vista more secure? Perhaps... I was reading in Maximum PC that a user setting up Vista with the "normal" amount of applications will be asked **OVER 1000 TIMES** if they are "sure they want to install this".

Does Vista support more hardware? In a word, no. In fact, if your hardware isn't Vista compliant, especially in the realm of sound cards and video cards, Vista may refuse to use it, or will degrade pictures or refuse to play sound when viewing any copywritten material (read: DVD's, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD)

Is Vista easier to use? I don't think it's necessarily easier, it is different. They moved a bunch of stuff around, especially in the control panel and the wireless stuff. I have pages and pages of screen shots so I can help people get online with their Vista machines, because I can't remember where the settings are. Get ready to re-learn!
(Oh, and a side note... sometimes Vista just plain refuses to get on wireless. Don't know why. It just doesn't do it.)

Is it "greener"? No... in fact, complaints have been rising about how much faster a machine running Vista chews on laptop batteries compared to XP.

Is it cheaper? No.... Premium edition is $239... very pricy compared to previous versions of Windows.

Is it more compact? Hardly... Vista comes on a DVD, and it's estimated that the source code is 10 Million lines more than XP.

Fine... I'll get off of my soap box....
Just a final note though....
Vista has been coined "Windows ME 2007"

'Nuff said.



Just my 2¢
-Cole's Law: Shredded cabbage

--Greg

http://parallel.tzo.com

 

[kmcferrin]

Is Vista faster? no... in fact, it takes more horsepower and RAM to run at the same speed as XP.

Is Vista more secure? Perhaps... I was reading in Maximum PC that a user setting up Vista with the "normal" amount of applications will be asked **OVER 1000 TIMES** if they are "sure they want to install this".

Does Vista support more hardware? In a word, no. In fact, if your hardware isn't Vista compliant, especially in the realm of sound cards and video cards, Vista may refuse to use it, or will degrade pictures or refuse to play sound when viewing any copywritten material (read: DVD's, Blu-Ray, HD-DVD)

Is Vista easier to use? I don't think it's necessarily easier, it is different. They moved a bunch of stuff around, especially in the control panel and the wireless stuff. I have pages and pages of screen shots so I can help people get online with their Vista machines, because I can't remember where the settings are. Get ready to re-learn!
(Oh, and a side note... sometimes Vista just plain refuses to get on wireless. Don't know why. It just doesn't do it.)

Is it "greener"? No... in fact, complaints have been rising about how much faster a machine running Vista chews on laptop batteries compared to XP.

Is it cheaper? No.... Premium edition is $239... very pricy compared to previous versions of Windows.

Is it more compact? Hardly... Vista comes on a DVD, and it's estimated that the source code is 10 Million lines more than XP.

Not that these aren't valid concerns, but when XP was released the same arguments were made against it. It was slower, it was more bloated, etc etc. We'll be saying the same thing about the next version.

 

[IRudebwoy]

We'll be saying the same thing about the next version.

Which is why I will abandon M$ and go with GNU/Linux. Right now I'm able to run the latest and greatest kernel and supporting software on PC's I've built with hardware I obtained back in 2000 and later. The only hardware I've acquired since then was larger capacity drives. And the learning curve is almost non-existent.

To be fair I do run XP. All I use it for is to play off-the-self games. Any games that require DirectX 10 will not be welcome in my house. At that point I'll look for a PS3 version (forget about Xbox).

On the business side GNU/Linux makes more sense for me because every year my budget decreases and demands for services increases. I'm the network admin for a small (used to be medium sized) manufacturing company and I can't afford to go the M$ route. We are a Novell / Linux shop with M$ in specialized areas like Terminal Services, engineering design software (Solidworks) and an ERP client that only runs on M$. This year I hope to move all the ERP clients to TS and replace all shop floor PC's with opensuse (currently Windows 2000 and XP). As for the administrative offices they all want M$ products. Right now they have Office 2002 (XP) but they'll have OpenOffice too.

I could go on and on but I think everyone gets the picture.

BTW, ever if the company could afford it I would still move to GNU/Linux. Less babysitting and reboots. I'm still open to all OSes but right now GNU/Linux just fits.

 

[Santei]

you should buy Xp and after instal Vista (not visa versa).

however, i can hardly find anything new in Vista.
so my vote goes to Xp (leave with it).

 

[felixc]

To run Vista, the PC has to be high-end per today's standards. Upgrades are tougher if not impossible in laptops. A laptop that comfortably runs XP may become very slow with Vista. But a high-end laptop is quite expensive, so a Vista-compatible laptop may not be an economical solution, given the prices going down considerably year after year. Unless you're a hardcore-gamer-on-a-laptop, (yes they exist) a middle-of-the road laptop with XP will provide good performance for the next five years or until a new and desired application will require a more recent OS, if the laptop does not break before that. In five years you'll afford another laptop for half the price, and running the successor of Vista.

 

[PRPhx]

felixc.
Most of your statements are utter nonsense. Vista does NOT take a high end laptop to run well. I have a Gateway laptop that I bought at best Buy for less than $700 (Intel Dual-core cpu, 1.5 GB Ram (I upgraded the RAM from 1 GB), a 5400 RPM SATA drive, and 15.4" screen). it's hardly a high end laptop. Vista runs very well on it, other than some games. Crysis comes to mind, as it doesn't support the on-board video.

My laptop runs very well. I have had no problems with the OS at all, and very few problems overall, certainly nothing I couldn't fix. And i do development on this machine (Visual Studio Net 2003, SQL 2005 Express), use Office 2003, etc. All with acceptable or better performance.

 

[kmcferrin]

I agree with PRPhx. I also bought a Gateway laptop at Best Buy, it seems to me it cost about $650 at the time and it runs Vista just fine, even with Aero glass. The laptop has a dual-core 1.6GHz CPU, 2GB of RAM, and integrated Intel GMA950 graphics. The hard drive is a standard 2.5" 5400RPM Hitachi Travelstar. I use this laptop all the time for work and personal use, including Office 2007, a number of programming/scripting tools, remote access to the office, and even running multiple VMs in Microsoft Virtual PC for testing and development.

Granted, it's not as fast as my desktop, but then my desktop is 3 GHz dual core with 4GB of RAM, an ATI x1950 Pro video card, and a pair of 7200RPM 16MB cache SATA 3Gbps drives in a RAID. Note that even the desktop isn't very high-end. You could build it for well under $700 too.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCP, MCSA 2003

 

[9163]

I've used Vista, and I've used Windows XP SP2. Vista was extremely slow compared to XP. Thus, I am content to stay with XP. XP is the OS of choice for my four computers.

however if you want to go Vista make sure you got enough RAM pal

carol
hippo valley estates

 

[BadBigBen]

I gotta agree with PRPhx and kmcferrin, as I too have had bought a middle of the road (over a year ago - now considered low end) laptop and VISTA is running faster on it than XP is, after I had upped the RAM from 1gb to 2gb... the laptop was designed and built for Windows XP...

specs:

Fujitsu-Siemens Amilo 1556
Core2Duo @ 1.66 ghz
2 gig MEM
5400 rpm SATA Drive
nVidia 7600GO GFX card (256 mb onboard)


now here is the funny thing, the card was rated at 3.8 with the 1gig, after I upgrated the RAM to 2gig it is rated at 4.5 ... reason, even though the card has onboard mem it still needs system RAM to function at peak performance... and CRYSIS plays nicely on it, although the darn temperature throttle kicks in after which the game becomes unplayable slow...



Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

 

[wahnula]

Is it just me, or does everyone have the same problem with he way Vista handles text? I can tell when someone sends me an email through Vista, because the text is "faded" and appears to be missing areas of letters.

Whenever I view, say, this Web page in Vista, whether IE7 or Firefox, double L's (like "valley") have rainbow artifacts between the letters. Not so w/ XP, although I did have the same problem with Safari for Windows in both XP and Vista.

I have a decent graphics card (ATI X1950) and monitor (Samsung) so they're not responsible, my guess is the rendering engine needs a tune-up. I am really having a hard time with this quirk.

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[kmcferrin]

I won't say that it's just you, but it's definitely not everyone. I'm not having any issues on my laptop or desktop with the text. Are you using the native resolution for your LCD, along with ClearType for your fonts?

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCP, MCSA 2003

 

[wahnula]

Yes and no. ClearType makes it worse! I always use the default screen resolution, even if it is difficult to see, I simply adapt or make Windows elements larger. Being in the design trade I am very sensitive to fonts and graphics in general. I knew what "fonts" were in 1977, when we would buy "Zip-a-tone" press-on letters for our architectural projects.

I will bet that out of two emails, I could tell you which one was created using Vista and/or Windows Mail. It just looks "weak". Lower-case "a" and "e" seem especially weak.

I did not notice this behavior in RC1 or RC2.

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[macten88]

>>I have to vote for Vista. I have it on a new Gateway laptop and have had very good results. I really Vista. Tho, I would recommend at least 1.5-2GB of Ram.

I also bought a Gateway laptop with Vista Ultimate and everything worked right out of the box. I'm having very few problems. But...you've got to spend more money on a Vista machine to get it to perform half way decently. If I didn't have to learn how to support Vista, I'd stick with XP.

 

[Outland]

I've used Vista on my home network... which required a patch to communicate with my XP box. I tried the same patch for my brothers network for his new Vista unit connectiing to his old XP, and it failed to work. I personally would stay away from Vista if possible. XP will keep your "mixed" network running smoothly, without hassle. There's no good reason to go with Vista unless you're running a single unit and have the money to buy a loaded machine. I eneded up taking Vista off my secondary machine.. I have a network with an eMac, a Ubuntu Linux box and an XP machine, and they play together nicely. Vista only complicated things.

 

[paparazi]

I know this thread is old now but I had to add my comment.

I clean installed my machine with Vista Ultimate 32bit at christmas and straight away had a slower computer than what I was used to. Also had an issue with my 7900GT which would randomly display a completely scrambled screen. I love the look but generally I hate the way it tells YOU what you are allowed to do, questioning every move.
Despite this I was determined to 'give Vista a chance' so battled on with it for four months.
Finally I gave up on Vista last week and re-installed XP Pro, ohhhhh! bliss!
Martin


On wings like angels whispers sweet
my heart it feels a broken beat
Touched soul and hurt lay wounded deep
Brown eyes are lost afar and sleep

 

[bummper]

I have an 8 station network/server system (2003 Standard) at home with just about everything running to support my clients. By far, my Win 2K machines are my favorite MS units. I have come to really like XP thanks to the million or so patches and improvements in the last couple of years. When I have to goto my Vista Ultimate machine, I get depressed.

Out of this entire network, and without any prompting from me what-so-ever, my entire family RUNS to my Macintosh tower on a regular basis. This tells me all I need to know.

 

[PRPhx]

i LOVE vista. I have home premium on my laptop and ultimate on my desktop. They both just work and work well. I have no problem connecting to my land lords XP Pro pc.

Both are fast (both are dual core procs, the desktop has 2 GB of RAM, the laptop 1.5).

Most every componnet works. Only problem I had (and not sure if it's a hardware issue or not) was an old 3com 3c905C NIC. It worked for about 3 weeks, then started locking up and getting errors saying it couldn't find the drivers. I replaced it and have no problems since.

File transfers seem fast, even before SP1 (I recorded the super bowl on my laptop. Transfered it to my desktop - all 18GB in about 25 minutes or so. Not slow by any means).

Any and all software works. SQL 2005 Express and Visual Studio 2005 both gave warnings and needed a patch, but work.

Sorry, I can't find anything bad to say about vista. XP was good. But it's getting "long in the tooth" as they say. You can have your mac, not impressed with it at all, and linux, just doesn't work, and has little if any value for me.

 

[wahnula]

I love the look but generally I hate the way it tells YOU what you are allowed to do, questioning every move.
Despite this I was determined to 'give Vista a chance' so battled on with it for four months.
Finally I gave up on Vista last week and re-installed XP Pro, ohhhhh! bliss!

Nice to see you gave it a fair shot Martin. Mv Vista trial is ongoing. I've had a copy since Jan. '06, on a separate HDD, a much-faster Raptor. I use the Asus PCProbe software on both installs, I watch the CPU temp rise from 30C to 35C and the M/B rise from 37C to 42C when I shut down XP and boot into Vista, so I KNOW it is more resource-intensive.

I had hoped SP1 would alleviate my basic problem with Vista, which is rainbow-colored artifacts between letters of text. I thought getting a better video card would help, nope (X1950). I bought an 8-bit monitor to replace my 6-bit, nope. Still there. I guess it has to do with the rendering engine. I see the same artifacts when I use Safari in Windows.

Bummper, I agree that Win2K is MS' most efficient OS. If it wasn't for the 2010 end-of-support-life deadline I would probably keep my office clients on Win2K, but XP has native wireless support which will come in handy, and by then all of the office PCs will be upgraded enough for XP. We still have some VIA 500's!!!

I also know this is an old post, but sometimes it's nice to update the topic, and how time has borne the situation out.

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[paparazi]

Indeed,
I know eventually I will have my mind made up for me when MS withdraws support, I may well give it another try on my next personal install when things hopefully have improved further but for now all I can say is the benefits are mostly visual and minimal and 'mature' XP seems to allow me more freedoms. I know the ballance will tip in favour of Vista but not for now.
Martin

On wings like angels whispers sweet
my heart it feels a broken beat
Touched soul and hurt lay wounded deep
Brown eyes are lost afar and sleep