I don't understand the pp who put XP on their Vista Laptops...

See? That's just it. It *doesn't* feel like a beta. However, when enough malcontents (present company excluded) throw their tantrums and scream that we're all just beta-testing it, sheeple repeat it over and over, and eventually people start assuming it's true by mere biased word of mouth.

That is just a bit off, I would agree. However, considering the development cycle of OS versions, I can see where at some point they have to lock in the feature set for the current version and start thinking about what got left out going into the next.

It's just oh so trendy and fashionable to bash Microsoft though.

 

Agreed bashing MS is very easy, but they di slip a bit on this subject. Personally I really hope they do better next time around, although vista does have nice potential its long off IMHO. But then again thats my opinion.

 

Umm, Windows 7 was officially announced July 2007.

Vista was released January 2007

Windows 7 is just going to be feature Microsoft had wanted to put in Vista, but didn't have time. Sorta like an expansion for a game. They were features already worked on, but couldn't be tagged on before the deadline.

[rant]
Seriously. This has probably been the most copied statement on the web. Vista is the new ME. It seems like the newest coolest thing to say.

Do you even remember what came with ME? Automatic updates, system restore, system file protection. ME got a bad rap cause of IE 5.5 (which is when IE REALLY started getting hit by mass amounts of exploits). Lets make a REAL analogy. Vista RTM is to XP RTM as ____ is to XP sp2. Any guesses?

Was Vista a marketing disaster? Hardly considering that it is still selling with EVERY new computer out there. Computer sales sure aren't slowing down. Did Microsoft make mistakes? Always. They are human. The reception XP got isn't all that different from Vista. Driver incompatabilities, bugs galore, exploits (XP home got bashed cause all its security features are OFF by default). Don't even get me start with all the problems when people started converting their drives from FAT32 to NTFS. XP SP2 is a LONG LONG journey from where XP was at RTM. You can say the same thing about Vista SP1 compared to Vista RTM.

But please, please quit saying Vista is the new ME. Don't overstretch.

Sure. Say XP is smaller. It was designed back when 20 GB harddrives were still around.

Say XP runs off less resources. It was designed when the average computer was running off 256MB of RAM.

But please, do some research before you say Vista is the new ME. If anything, ME was remembered for its HORRIBLE security record. Vista is constantly bashed on for being too secure (UAC, network discovery is off by default, file sharing is off by default).

[/rant]

 

Don't know if this was mentioned before, (no thread search function i can find), but the new service sp3 is supposed to have speed gains of 10-15% for xp, while vista hasn't really shown any.

I'm hoping the market stays with XP, but now that Dell and other computer providers are not making XP available with a new computers I have my fears that Vista will be inevitable. How that doesn't violate some kind of law is beyond me.

Of course Microsoft wants us to upgrade our OS/computers every couple years and always be forced in to their new format instead of a choice.

Wanted to add that there really is no such thing as a gaming laptop. All laptops suck in gaming, look at their 3dmark scores. Look how massive true gaming cards are getting in desktops, it's impossible to shrink it down that much in laptop form. Batteries can't hold that much power and small packages can't disperse that much heat. You'll have to turn off that pretty dx10 stuff anyway if you want your games to be playable.

 

Well, say you owned a '95 Honda Accord sedan, and installed a turbo. You drive it and love it for 8 years, but then Honda comes out with a totally new '03 model/engine Accord, and your old turbo doesn't fit the new one. Does that mean Honda still has to make the old '95 and the '03 at the same time? No, because they've moved on to the new one and it would be a total waste of their corporate resources to support both the old and the new one at the same time.

 

For the consumer market, I can see reasons to stay with XP. But for a OEM manufacture, this is a disaster. You think there were a lot of incompatability issues moving from XP to Vista? Think about if you choose to upgrade from XP to Windows 7. And Microsoft has said there will be MORE different from XP, not less. If you are moving to Windows 7, I highly suggest you move your platform to Vista now and work out the growing pains. It was like those folks who for some acursed reason decided to skip Server 2000 and upgrade from NT 4 (shudder) to Server 2003. I have no sympathy for people who choose this path.

The market isn't going to stay with XP. But users are free to choose what they want.

I would agree here. In the past year, Laptops have really closed the gap on Desktops in price and performance. It use to be mainstream laptops struggled with mainstream games at medium settings. Now you have mainstream laptops that handle mainstream games at the highest settings.

 

All I know is hearing that MS was talking about a replacement for vista before it was release. No matter what they still announced it "officially" within the first few months of vista release. Personally I don't care whether or not what I said is a common quote. Its been my opinion for quite some time. As for the ME issue, yeah there may be some "innovations" in the OS, but still security as well as bug issues galore and that still spells bad OS IMHO. Think of having the first car with heat, a/c power door locks and windows but the darn thing is the most unsafe in an accident as well as it hardly runs right if at all. Yeah it has some nice new features but they are by far out weighed by the negative.

Thank you for stating the obvious of why XP runs better, but please explain to me why I should take vista over XP at this very moment? Other then 64 bit OS operation (xp pro 64 bit was pretty rough around the edges), what does vista offer me other then that? Your sales argument is moot as well. Of course vista will outsell XP currently, every OEM has it as the only OS save for a few setups from very few manufactures (dell is stopping XP sales shortly). Of course MS is going to do everything to push the sale of its new software, and in turn kill the sale of the retired version. As for people buying new PCs, there will always bee a need for faster hardware or a new PC when your dies. How does being forced onto vista when you absolutely need a new PC attest how good an OS is? It doesn't because the consumer NEEDS a new PC and has no other choice.

 

The point is saying "Vista is the new ME" is a cheap shot and is an unwarranted, unsupported, circumstancial and arbitrary. You say you came to this opinion on your own? I question that.

In your opinion, when was ME released? Do you know why Me was released?
In your opinion, do you know why ME was bad? Or why it was good? Or what the heck Microsoft did to release ME? I basically question what caused you to come to the conclusion that Vista is the "new ME."

I question this absurd statement said by many because they are two entirely different OSes release during two entirely different circumstances.

Vista had a full development cycle? Any idea how long ME's development cycle was? You can google it.

Vista was built on a vastly changed kernel compared to XP? Was ME's kernel different from 98 or 98SE?

The Windows 7 is going to be built on Vista's Kernel. Was XP's kernel built on ME's?

Vista had a full hardware compatibility program developed for it. ME's hardware capability program was........ I don't think it even existed.

Vista has had and will have "service pack" updates. Wanna take a stab at how many "service pack" updates ME has had?

Vista has its own support department and update center? Wanna know where you get ME updates?

I question whether you came up with this opinion on your own or just parroting the blogs. ME was a "bad" OS? Again, what was so "bad" about it? In your humble opinion, what was "bad" about ME?

Security? ME featured the Automatic Update. it was far less likely to be exploited and plagued by viruses that 98SE. It also featured System restore. Wanna know what kind of backup 98SE had?

Bug issues? It was a new OS(or you can argue it was a SP). Saying a new piece of software has bug issue is like saying the sky is blue and it is a cheap shot.

Like I said. I'm up for a great debate. I'm always looking for a new discussion. I like hearing people's new ideas and why THEY bring to the table. But please don't overstretch and call it "your" opinion.

 

That's why I did it. My next laptop is going to come with vista and I'm going to leave Vista on it.

 

Hoping won't do any good, as the market has already begun moving away from it. You won't be able to get it on a Dell after the middle of this month.

 

Last night, I tried copying over about 300 megs of jpg file from my NAS to my Vista laptop. Completion time: ~1 hour, with maximum 50k/sec throughput accross my gigabit router. I try the same thing with XP on my older M1710... the process takes a few minutes. This is after I did all the recommended fixes (disabled remote differential compression, variable TCP receive window, diabled previews/thumbnails, etc). Any other recommendations?

Bottom line: What is Vista doing that makes it move files at dial-up speeds over a LAN?

 

I get that sometimes also. Well it isn't as bad as 50K/sec. But occassionally, I go from 1.3Mbps to 400Kbps. All I can see from my end is signal strength.

You should start a new thread so we can help ya out.

 

ON PAPER... vista is faster

ON REAL EXPERIENCE... XP is faster

so Keep reading...about it's features

 

More like on paper, XP is faster

Vista's selling point was never speed.

Case in point. The display drivers were moved from kernel mode to user mode. Adds another layer and thus makes the display drivers slower in Vista than in XP.

Vista has a bigger kernel and bigger memory management module. Takes more cycles to run these things than in XP.

Real experience, Vista was designed to cut down on "downtime."

Downtime with drivers crashing the system. Since the display drivers got moved to user mode, you can crash em and not crash the kernel (BSOD).

Downtime from Malware. It is far more difficult to exploit Vista's kernel. Thus harder for malware to mess with the OS. Less downtime from malware.

Vista is far easier to remote manage (New management snapins!!!) and deploy due to the new WAIK. Less downtime testing new deployment images.

Real experience for a user? XP is faster.

Real experience for someone installing Vista on 5000 computers? Vista is faster

 

Its not a cheap shot, MS came out with vista with too many issues. They have way too much bank roll and beta testers to bring a product out that is this rough around the edges (this goes for OS's not just vista). As for my Opinion, welcome to America I have my opinion you have yours. As soon as I heard news of a new OS release around the time Vista came out first thing that came to mind was ME. Why? see below.

Personally I dont know why ME was released (other then a crappy home version to replace 98), 2000 was a stable great OS. ME was buggy and I only had it on my machine for a few weeks before I reinstalled 98SE. Im sorry but consistant crashes, instability and bugs galore make me not want to use ME longer then I had to. The reason I call vista the new ME as with alot of other people is that it has not only the typical issues, but also a knowingly short lifespan. ME had a shade over a year before XP came out, vista will see its replacement soon as well. When an OS comes out and gets all the hype from its company and around release they announce the replacement how is that a good thing? I see you like to play 20 questions, as well as ask the same ones over and over again. ME was released late 2000ish and was replaced by XP in late 2001. That a good enough answer for you or do I need to actually google the exact date so your repetitive questions stop?

I question your absurd attitude towards my opinion towards an OS. The OP asked why? and I sated my opinion and you play 20 questions and give me the third degree about it. Yeah two entirely different OS's released under the same basic circumstances.

1999 they announced it, whereas vista was in open beta in 2005 2 years before release.

ME had alot of 2000 in it.

No, XP was off the NT kernal.

Yet vista still has very bad hardware support.

Yet there are still multiple issues with vista after patches and a SP. ME wasnt around long enough for a SP. Vista got lucky in that MS learned from their mistake and aren't going to rush vistas replacement.

The rest of these repetitive questions I wont bother to answer. I stated my opinion and you can take them as "parroted" or not as that is your choice. What it comes down to is I stated mine as well as explain to the fullest why I stated them. On top of all that I played 20 questions with you and answered your questions (although they are all the same). So keep posting your question here, I don't care because I have stated my opinion and answered your questions, however insulting they are. Now take your nerd rage and test someone else who you think doesn't know anything cause Im tired of reaching back 8 years of knowledge to defend an opinion stated on a damn forum and Im way to tired to actually google this information up and give you a wall of text that will make your head spin. Good day.

 

Thats quite a large counterattack related to ME. Well, anyways sidestepping from the ruckus...

I'd say Vista is like XP when it first came out. Lots of hatred, but like I've said before, after a while, people will like it.

I'm guessing Microsoft sort of wanted Vista to be an initiative to get hardware manufacturers to make better hardware. If you think about it, if Vista were to come out when say Calpella and Nehalem were released with DDR3 RAM, and high click speeds, would people really complain that Vista uses too much power and has is too high in requirements? Probably not.

Sure admittedly there are compatibility problems with XP software to Vista, though most of that has been rectified and all the new software updates are becoming Vista compatible.

I'd say Vista is a great OS, and despite the hardware requirements being high for its time period, people wont think as much of it anymore once we get Nehalem processors running and such and perhaps once SP2 comes out, it will get more credit that it deserves.

I highly doubt Windows 7 is going to be lower in requirements. Im sure it'll try its best to address compatibility problems, maybe allow for a wider scale of options to be suitable for a larger range of computers even those without 2GB of ram, but really, if Microsoft wanted to max out performance on hardware, they could have just expanded on Windows 2000 and not even come out with XP. XP too was widely criticized about how resource hungry it was when it first came out and how 70% of the processing power goes towards the GUI. Vista is no different from XP at that point in time. Tech and hardware will always catch up and some features that can do great things require the larger requirements.

 

No, no it doesn't. I think *that's* the sort of regurgitated nonsense with which surfasb was taking issue. That kind of rhetoric might win political elections, but it just doesn't stand up in a discussion on technical issues.

 

Tell that to my nvidia graphics next time I install vista.

 

The whole point of my post was that this ISN'T your opinion. You are just restating what others have said.

Vista will see its replacement soon? as in over a year? Considering there has been no official announcement of the launch of Windows 7 and the earliest estimates peg it during the Winter of 2009, I would hardly call that "soon."

This is again a cheap shot. Yes, you are right there are still multiple "issues" with vista after patches and a SP. Whether these issues are related to just Vista is why it is a cheap shot. Hardware incompatabilities? What OS release DOESN'T have hardware incompatabilities? People complaining their computer runs SLOWER with a newer OS? Tell me the last OS release where people's computers ran FASTER than the previous OS. Tell me an OS release where the OS was SMALLER than the previous OS. Seriously, to peg Vista specifically for application compatabilities that are no different from any other OS is what I call a cheap shot.

Lucky? That's the best you could come up with?
You could just say Microsoft is going to practice better project management and release their next OS on time. That would of sounded like a well informed and constructive opinion.

You think that is the fault of Vista? or the hardware developers dragging their feet? Who writes these drivers? Vista sure doesn't. Who designs these drivers? Vista sure doesn't. And don't say the XP driver model is better than Vista's. You'll truely be stretching yourself.

Wall of text that will make my head spin? Go ahead and knock yourself out. You don't want to defend your opinion? Nobody is holding a gun to your head. If it was "your opinion," it surely wouldn't be so hard to defend it. And no, you don't need 8 years worth of knowledge to defend this stuff. You just need to remember what happened 8 years ago. Took about 2 seconds to remember that I was still in school, I was using Dial Up, I had an old Nokia, and yeah, ME wasn't anything like Vista.

 

My eVGA 8800 GTS 640MB card has *zero* problems with Vista. You might wanna check your drivers.

 

Vista FTW, no point putting a 7 year old OS on a brand new laptop which wasnt designed to run it, and which cripples the hardware feutures. I wholly agree with the OP.

 

I concur with the OP and J400uk. Huzzah!

 

Vista and SP1 actually runs smoother than XP for me, I can't believe how much of a difference SP1 made...
If only gaming wise it'd be the same...

 

As far as I know, they only used OfficeBench to get those results. Other benchmark tests might not show any improvement.

 

XP SP1 didnt do anything for speed either. Its main purpose was to iron out all the security vulnerabilities.

 

I must admit myself, XP runs the games I play faster. From a device driver developer standpoint, it is faster for games.

granted, I agree it is easier to run, maintain, and install Vista on the newer generation of hardware, I hardly agree it "cripples" hardware features. While Vista is far more reliable as an OS than XP, XP drivers are more mature. It does swing toward Vista in that you can crash these drivers without destabilizing the OS, like it was in XP.

 

I agree with surfasb. Not out to convince anyone, but the reason I switched is because my games run faster (marginally maybe - but "...inch or a mile, winning's winning."), and this is reflected by an increased 3dmark06 score.

But games aside, the OS is just cleaner, the interface runs faster, the machine boots faster, it just lets me feel like my new computer is actually a new computer... rather than it feeling just like my old computer running XP because of the newer OS holding it back.

 

Its quite simple to have a very fast OS that is cleaner and interface run faster. Just disable Aero. Its as simple as that. You'd be surprised by the smoothness of the speed. Tis naught for the 8600GT.

 

If you want to do something else besides killing Arabs and Nazis, Vista is the way to go. I can't imagine living without the Vista start search. I'm so lazy when I switch back to XP. I'm thinking. ZOMG, I have to dig through MENUS!!!??? /slashwrist.

 

I bought an m1710 w/ Vista Business in April off eBay, and immediately formatted the HDD and installed XP MCE...

I don't know which is technically better or faster...I just know that I play several games from the mid-90's (Freespace, Jane's F-18, Grim Fandango, Wing Commander Prophecy, System Shock 2, Alpha Centauri, X-Wing) and they were an absolute bear to get running on XP...it took me months scouring the internet for user made fixes and advanced compatibility settings...and after all that time, those games run flawlessly on my somewhat modern XP laptop...I can play System Shock 2 and Bioshock on the same laptop...I have no desire to spend months tweaking again with Vista for only, in my opinion, minimal gains with DX10 gaming...that's why I went with an m1710 and 7950 GTX and not an m1730 w/ dual 8800's...

If I was only interested in productivity software, I probably would have left Vista on the laptop...it was pretty...

But if I really had my choice, we would have stuck with something closer to the DOS environment...in my opinion, we have lost control of the OS (that's why I despised and still despise Macs)...I boot up and have 20 to 30 processes running in the background...I'm sure they all make my life easier and more secure (at least that's what Answers That Work tasklist and Black Viper tell me), but I preferred the days when nothing ran in the background unless I told it to in my autoexec.bat file...yes, I had to spend days with QEMM every time a new game came out to push everything around in high memory, allocate extended and expanded memory...but I had complete control over my hardware and OS...I understand that Windows opened computing to the masses and made the internet easily accessible and drove (or allowed) lots of peripheral specs, but having something massively popular tends to dilute everything...

And even with XP, the first thing I do is switch everything to Classic View so it looks like 98...I'm such a luddite...

One day, I'll be forced to Vista and DX10, but hopefully, by then, all the people out there who are much smarter than I am will have figured out how to get Freespace running under Vista...and thanks to Windows, I'll be able to easily communicate with them vs trying to find a bulletin board and then waiting hours to download a 200K file at 300 baud...

 

i agree with previous poster IWantMyMTV

just the fact that a lot of programs/games, may not work with vista leaves it out of choice.


i really care about the programas that run on the OS , not the OS itself. So the choice of my OS is based on that, not the other way around.

 

Have you tried DOSBox in either Vista or XP? It takes away all those configuration problems:

http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/Dosbox_and_Vista

 

Yeah...Dosbox is what allows me to run Terra Nova, Ultima Underworld, the original System Shock, Panzer General, Master of Magic, the original Warcraft, Master of Orion, Syndicate, Heretic, Magic Carpet, Full Throttle, etc...unfortunately, those games I listed in the previous post were Win 95/98 games...and part of the problem had to do with Glide not the OS to be fair...Alpha Centauri and X-Wing Collectors' Edition are the biggest OS culprits...

That's reassuring that you're saying Dosbox gets along well with Vista though...

 

Oh, I haven't tried it with Vista myself but I think it should work fine judging from that wiki article.

Too bad it doesn't run all your games. Those are real jewels that is too sad to throw away.

 

All the points I made were when compared WITH aero switched off (along with as many other ridiculously useless services as possible). The problem with Vista is there're so many services dependent on other services, so you can't really turn that many off without losing functionality (things like wireless).

 

The reason I'm not "defending my opinion" anymore is because no matter how many times I say I came to this conclusion without "parroting someones blog" you still say its not mine. When I respond to your questions you say the same thing making this conversation equivalent to talking to a wall. Sometimes when someone posts an opinion it may actually be theirs...true story.

Anyways we could have had an intelligent conversation about how our opinions differ, but instead you insulted me by telling me that my opinion wasn't mine as well as not having a calm tone in your posts. Its an OS for crying out loud, don't take things so personal when someone's opinion differs from yours and don't be so quick to call them fake for once.

I have used dell drivers and modded drivers. The vista nvidia update and SP1 helped a little but I still see snappier performance in XP. I just did a reinstall of vista to re-tweak things and see how I can squeeze more performance out of it. Ill be taking some programming classes in the fall to start my masters and the way you say dev tools are heading I might as well bite the bullet.

 

Have you tried drivers from the nVidia web site? Often they won't work for notebooks, but sometimes they do. It's worth a shot.

 

Yeah I have and they dont work. But like I said Im using the updated dell ones and with the patch and SP1 things are no where near as bad as they were. As for the modded drivers about 70% of the time they were so awsome I didnt believe that I was on an 8600gt, but the other 30% I got less then 10 FPS in WoW. So far so good still in the process of tweaking, but I just cant get away from the aero theme to fully max performance .

 

Ugh I have switched to vista on 2 of my computers now and let me tell you I like it a lot more than XP. I haven't run into a single driver issue yet and everything has been working perfectly except for installing SLi drivers on my notebook but that isn't Vistas fault b/c the company who manufactured my notebook didn't provide any good drivers.

 

I finally got my notebook with Vista. I really like it. It's got a couple of issuess and I've seen the BSOD twice but I think thats's all fixable. Not really worse than XP and much better in many regards.

Vista is alright, you whiny detractors. I know you'll grow to love it.

 

i've come back to this, two small things. (though the actual debate is irellevant as i'm now running Both OS's, Vista 64 and XP 32)

as for 1) not everyone uses DX 10, i myself have only one game currently that uses it (Crysis, and that i don't really play anyway). as far as all my other games in a rather vast library? they all run faster under XP.

as for 2)... http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/5615/dscn0043ka7.jpg

a picture of my laptop in its cradle (the picture is large.. something like 2000x2000 resolution because of my ineptitude with a camera, taking the photo thinking i'd get a nice small 800x800 to show why i'd stopped playing WoW recently) , if you zoom in really closely below the keypad theres two stickers there, one is an Intel processor sticker.. the other? "Designed for Windows XP" =P