Back to XP, and loving it. [props to Vista haters]

I agree!

I don't care how much I get flamed but I'm still going to say it: XP is the best operating system ever made! it's almost perfect,

If only MS just added couple of vista features like full row select in explorer, the new address bar and integrated DX10 into the XP, it would've been the perfect OS, I'd gladly pay $200 for it.

And when XP came out, it was loved straight away, it's very stable and only crashes rarely, and it was a huge improvement over win98/2000, can't say the same about Vista.

 

revisionism at its finest. when XP came out it experienced the same sort of backlash that Vista currently sees - a noticeable drop in frame rates, flaky driver support, activation woes (first OS to require it) and increased hardware requirements. some even called it nothing but a slightly prettier, but bloated version of Win 2000 when it was released. i dual booted between 98 SE and XP during that time and didn't make a complete conversion to XP till i purchased a new desktop.

people will adopt to Vista at their own pace, the same way end users were eventually converted to XP. myself, i'm loving the OS and have had very few issues with it.

 

What windows installer? I've never had a problem with it, as far as I can tell. And with regards to general service/compatibility stuff, no issues there either. My OS is not a tether to the mother ship (Microsoft). I install my own programs on it and use it my own way. And my computer doesn't fill itself with needless updates to exploits that affect people who use Internet Explorer, who can't tell a firewall from an anti-virus program, or who really believe bankers from India want to send them $10,000 dollars in an .exe file.

 

I guess that is a good thing, because you would definitely know if you did. MSI (and other types of) executables won't run if it is not working correctly and/or corrupted. Sometimes it can be a pain to reinstall too........

 

It could definitely use a tad better (actually a whole lot better) security. I guess that's the reason why it's "almost perfect". Vista must be pretty bad because many people used to rightfully complain about XP due to a terrible lack of security and Microsoft has washed their hands of it. Now suddenly it's almost perfect although the lack of security hasn't changed?

 

Personally, never complained about security, you just need a little common sense that is all.

And Vista isn't Linux either, I've seen many people just "allow" on a UAC to get it out of the way instead of looking at what they are allowing.

But XP had an obvious advantage over windows 98, XP was very stable.

What obvious advantage does Vista have over XP? other than DX10 which they deliberately excluded out of XP(I know they said they couldn't implement or something but some hackers hacked XP to allow DX, how could MS not do it?)

You can't even remove that "command bar" from Vista's explorer, the one that says "Organize,...."

The only way people will move to Vista is if companies force it down their throats.

 

Exactly. If you have to point out the advantages of moving from XP to Vista, they aren't really advantages - they're just desperate sales pitches for an overpriced and underpowered operating system.

In the same way, if you need an ad to convince you to buy a new car, you don't really need a new car. If you did, you'd already have sought one out without having to be marketed to.

 

Such a strong reaction to theInquirer vibes

But let's not take it too far (and theInquirer and it's intense stupidity + hypocrisy is not the subject of the discussion here)

IMO, much of the changes in Vista are just an attempt by Microsoft to show that they have done something, I don't think XP needs any major changes to have the Vista features added to it (In fact, this is what many people are suspecting Vista to be).

 

so to make your sweeping argument as to how Vista is totally different than previous releases you point to an innocuous ribbon in the explorer window? my god the horror!

and while XP had an 'obvious' improvement in stability over 98, it did not have any over 2000, simple as that. if you don't want to switch no one is going to force you to - that's been a constant for every OS release. what irks me the most is how little perspective most of you have when it comes to previous Windows releases. EVERY release that i have been around for (from 95 to 98 to Me to XP to 2000) has been plagued by bugs/driver issues and vilified by naysayers as nothing worth changing for.

and by 'people', refer to yourself and whatever holdouts there are. i'm more than happy with Vista.

 

But what XP had over Windows 2000 is that MS marketed and made it easier for the average joe to use. XP has to be the easiest and least annoying operating system MS has created to date. Vista brings back the old problem of information overload with UAC, it bombards the user with yes or no answers and vague information on the .exe so the use just go ok ok ok without reading it.

 

Believe it or not, there are some"holdouts" who like a minimalistic view with maximum productivity, and explorer is one of the most important parts of Windows, and if you can't customize that, it already speaks volumes of the OS.

And let me mention it again, UAC is useless, people just click "allow" without even reading it.

Other than DX10, Vista has not advantages to a more polished, faster and lighter XP.

Maybe stability of 2000 matched that of XP but XP still offered some important features 2000 didn't have, namely:

-Remote desktop
-Remote assistance
-Built-in firewall
-Built-in CD burning
-Built-in Zip file support
-Driver Rollback
-Skinnable GUI
-Fast user switching
-Cleartype
-WebDAV

Like it or not, XP is the sweetspot right now, and Vista is just a bloaty temp fill-in for the next release, if you're happy MS jammed that down your throat, great!

And just for the interested, can you please tell me what EXACTLY is there that is better in Vista? what does it do better than XP other than give you a useless UI, even more useless sidebar and IE7........ lol.

 

agreed 100%

I used vista for 3 weeks before switching back to xp. And in that 3 weeks I spent a ton of time trying to optimize vista for performance and couldn't get it as fast as xp.

 

Exactly my experience. Firefox though started up faster than in XP. About the only feature I did like was the search bar and start menu.. but eventually I just went back to XP due to the problems you mentioned.

 

I was a very happy W2K user when XP was released. It took me a year before I decided to make the switch. The main reasons I waited were: lack of drivers, software compatibility issues, and issues with existing hardware. (I still have a machine that runs W2K, and my server runs Server 2K. Even though I use XP on my laptops I still consider W2K my favorite Microsoft OS.)

It seems to me that the XP-Vista change is nearly identical to the W2K-XP change. There are XP users that hate Vista for the reasons I listed above, and there are Vista users who love the new OS and promote it every chance they get. I think that after Microsoft releases some Vista patches (and perhaps the first service pack) there will be more Vista lovers and less Vista haters.

 

save for RDP, driver rollback and WebDAV, none of those features were necessarily 'important', and what from what i remember on forums like Ars, Anandtech and the old SharkExtreme, not many were too thrilled with the remaining 'enhancements'. i still have friends who think cleartype makes fonts look blurry; i personally abhor the candy GUI and have no use for the firewall and native cd-burning/zip support.

thanks!

since you made a generic list of differences between 2000 and XP, i'll do the same for XP to Vista. straight for the overlord's mouth - http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/default.mspx

features i particularly love?

- Windows Calendar
- Shadow Copy (HUGE if you frequently edit documents of any sort)
- Aero Glass and 256px PNG icon support
- Explorer and shell enhancements (breadcrumbs, stacks, saved searches, new start menu, live thumbnails in taskbar)
- New cache scheme
- forcing most processes to run with a limited account, with easy access to 'privileged' mode as needed.

don't get me wrong - there's NO WAY i think that Vista is perfect, but i think it's far from being unusable (as several posters on this board make a point to emphasize) and, in my own way, counter that spin. that said, i was more than happy to stick with XP had i not purchase a new laptop for work which came with it pre-installed. i still have two computers at home with XP (too cheap to upgrade), alongside with my 'main' desktop and laptop with Vista. i'm still undecided as to when i'll upgrade the rest, and will likely wait a bit longer since i have no need for the other machines to switch.

 

I can certainly understand why people are refusing to switch over to Vista at this point.

Honestly, I only switched over to XP from Windows 2000 a few months ago, and that was only because 2000 didn't support some of my newer hardware. Beyond that, there was no reason for me to bother with XP as, for me, it had no important benefits over 2000, which I still think was, and is, a great OS. XP was basically just a bigger version of 2000 for my purposes. In the end though, I switched over to it anyway.

The same thing will, and is, happening with Vista. Right now Vista is a very young operating system, and like all programs that are that complex it needs time to be fully supported by the hardware and software manufacturers. Furthermore, Microsoft is continuously responding to flaws that are discovered as people use the OS. This is a very normal process, and that's why Microsoft has service packs and patches.

I personally wouldn't use ANY operating system before at least service pack 1. Not because I think its a bad operating system, but because I think it needs more time to grow up. With a program as complex as XP or Vista, it is asinine to think that they will be fully tested and debugged when they are released. Operating systems like this need time to be tested and debugged. This has been and always will be the case. Vista is no different.

So while I don't use Vista, and won't even consider using it until service pack 1, its not because its a bad OS necessarily, its just growing at this point, and I prefer more mature operating systems. But over time, I'm betting that Vista will mature into a great OS. One I'll be proud to have on my computer. Just like XP did...

Edit - I do think, however, that we owe the early adopters such as elscorcho a debt of gratitude, because without early adopters like them the operating system would take a significantly longer time to mature, and insulting them certainly doesn't seem appropriate. Indeed, it merely seems childish. Keep in mind. Without early adopters XP would still probably be a lot rougher around the edges too.

 

I'm glad you said that.. I switch off cleartype every time as it makes fonts much bulkier onscreen than the print version which is useful as a chocolate fireguard when you are typsetting magazines or working closely with any sort of type layout and design situation. I guess it has it's uses somewhere and for some people though.

Also .. very well put Firov, good post!

 

He hit it right on the head orz

As said earlier in the thread by mD-

 

Anybody wanna bet that VIsta will still suck after SP-1????

Microsoft has to do something like what they did hen XBOX was new and was nowhere near PS-2. They took out Halo and that had bought the XBOX on the map.

 

I do. one of the primary problems with Vista is that there's already too much unnecessary stuff in it. Adding *more* is not the solution. Unless the service pack contains a way to strip the garbage out of Vista, it's not going to change much in its usability.

 

The only thing I want them to do for SP1 is to fix/polish the classic theme, and make explorer more customizable(that stupid commandbar removable).

 

With SP1, I want them to make it somewhat less resource hungry, and sort of more in the direction of open source.....not completely, but atleast some customization.
Also, increased startup and shut down speeds would be great

 

Its been funny reading this thread. I personally dont think XP is all that great and I am anxiously awaiting my new laptop to switch to ubuntu. I ordered my new laptop with vista because I knew I would only use it for gaming while using ubuntu for my everyday OS (at least that is my plan), also like it or not vista will become the norm in the next year or two, so why wait to make the switch then(in my case as I ordered a new laptop).

 

In my experience Vista boots and shuts down much faster than XP, and this is months after the initial install. I'm at a point right now where all my apps are installed in Vista and everything has settled in. I can say without hesitation that Vista boots and shuts down much faster than my comparable XP install a year back.

Just my two cents, but whenever I see this type of thread I just kinda shrug my shoulders...

 

Vista does have some better aspects about it ......

Faster boot and shutdown times
Security
File system
More/Better options
ETC:

But overall it's has too many bugs/problems IMO.

 

Frankly, Vista offers so many productivity enchantments over XP that if Vista wasn't faster than XP in anything you are either flat out lying, never actually used Vista or didn't use it long enough.

And for those with selective amnesia (to support their other arguments), here some some posts about XP from 2001.. basically every Vista complaint is covered (slower, activation issues, nothing new compared to win2k, etc.)

http://www.techwarelabs.com/community/archive/index.php/t-1695.html
http://forums.2cpu.com/archive/index.php/t-9556.html
http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-377.html
http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-November/005970.html

 

I wasn't using PC's in 2001 (they all ran OS9), but I have certainly been here for the XP to Vista transition, and I'm glad I'm back on solid ground with XP.

Whilst Vista may have it's new start menu (that search was a much needed feature), I don't believe it is worth the decreased application performance. My games ran slower, WMP lagged when loading large playlists, and I could not overclock my graphics card.

I believe three months is long enough to judge the true worth of a product, and I truly wanted to give Vista a chance. I still play games, so I can't completely switch to Linux just yet, and I was hoping for more customisation over XP, but all I got was more restrictions.

 

One think I though it was worthy of Vista was the searching option, but the file desktop search of Yahoo or Copernic is way more efficient and I have been using it quite a while in XP. And the start menu search... I just found an excellent software that does it (Launchy), very efficiently and free. So now I'm glad, I have no reason to install Vista. May be in 2 years, but not less.

 

However, a very important difference back then, is that we knew that WinXP was a home adaptation of Win2K, which was working as a charm from the beginning. Then we knew that all windows XP needed was more adapting software from business to home.
On the other hand, Vista was made for home (mostly), so we would expect that by now, most issues were solved.
Vista's case is more comparable to when Win98 came out: a not so revolutionary system, but definitely improved respect to the previous version. And back then that was the case: Win 98 worked fairly well from the beginning. Win 98 SE was mostly a security adaptation, to new times when everybody was getting internet.
Vista is not working well so far, and rumors are of a new operative system coming in a couple of years.