Vista vs XP: Stability

I actually do know how computers work, likely better than you. Currently studding software engineering. The reason I didn't see that is because of NBR nonesense.... If they didn't highlight every time people said "vista" or "XP" and made them links, I would have seen your hyperlink.
I'll read that and get back to you.

 

First of all XP is on sp3, and vista is on sp1.
I agree, XP has had more time to mature, which is why its the better operating system at the moment. I may have a different opinion once sp2 rolls out.

 

Thank you for your *consideration,* however, as tv beckons I am now leaving.
Any replies can wait till tomorow

 

Yikes, you're studying computer engineering? Please tell me you're a freshman, or you have a lot of explaining to do. As an engineer myself, please do yourself a favor and change to business

 

Alright guys, chill with the personal insults. I don't want to have to lock this thread. Discussion is fine, insults aren't.

When debating, you should argue the idea, not the person.

 

Yeah, Just finished freshman year. Straight A's in all the computer related classes.
What have I said that would make you think I dont belong in comp engineering, because I don't like vista?

 

Without some measurable and repeatable criteria, terms such as stability and maturity are meaningless. It is pretty clear that software in general is a long way from achieving six-sigma, and hardware not much better. In fact, a compelling argument could be made that there is no cost-benefit to attempt such a goal.

Freshman. Ah, how much they know they know that they will come to doubt in the subsequent decades.

 

Frankly, because you cannot, without repeating what has been said by numerous people and outdated links, explain why Vista is more unstable than XP. Also, because you are studying to be a particular field (and you get straight A's) does not mean that you know all there is to know. All you know is theory and any practical you have had any experience in has been engineered (sorry, for the pun) by your professor. Until you can put your knowledge to real situations, you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of pages 1-6 in this thread as good indicators...

 

Oh, I get it now, thanks for being so specific... Much appreciated.

 

Again, this is the list for Vista RTM (Release to Manufacture), which was the compatibility list when Vista came out. Now compatibility has improve. And please, all applications don't work with Vista and never will be as some of them aren't developped anymore.

 

The only thing that changes in XP for me is synthetic benchmarks are slightly higher. Other then that performance and stability are exactly the same. Up until SP1 I was a vista hater, ever since beta 1 in 2005 I disliked vista as a whole. But after the service pack everything has changed.

You can quote site all you want, I have been using vista business at work and home for a long time and before sp1 I usually went back to XP but after its been just as fast and stable as XP. So Ill take realworld use over some review from a vista hater.

They did a blind survey where they showed vista haters a "new OS" and they loved it. Then they were told it was actually vista and I think they crapped their pants. Ill have to find that sometime and link it in my sig.

 

as for now that is hearsay, but offering someone something new is a crap test.

i'll compare to a test coke and pepsi did a decade or so back. Pepsi had sip tests. each person took a sip of either coke or pepsi and decided which was better. Pepsi won EVERY time because it was sweeter. when coke realized this they did tests where they provided coke and pepsi to TAKE HOME. and the COKE always was gone first. (or something to that effect)

that kind of test proves nothing because you have to USE an operating system for a while before you can understand it and make a relative choice.

And i must admit that most of the vista lovers proof has been experience rather than statistics and DATA. That is like me saying all models of the samsung i760 are terrible because mine is (it isn't and it kicks @$$).

if you want to argue vista vs xp then factual data is needed rather than opinions or personal experience. that is why scientists don't count anecdotal evidence as proof, it needs to be replicated multiple times.

Now for my opinion, i don't see one or the other as being a necessity. For games xp is a bit better, but for an artificial frame rate increase and a higher benchmark score it's useless to switch on those accounts alone. If one thing works for you it doesn't matter if the world believes it is worse.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

If it's really broken, you can't fix it. But, we can rebuild him ... we have the technology.

 

You continued the topic 'till nearly 6am!?

*shakes head*

 

Well, after this thread being up for a little more than 12 hours hell has broken loose. I think its safe to say that this is a difficult issue to judge as everyone has a different setup with different software and different drivers, so its impossible to compare. If you ask me the discussion should be left at that, as this is starting to become just flaming for the sake of it.

 

Agreed, while one OS may or may not be more stable than the other, it all boils down to preference and utility.

if you are happy with your setup, then leave it alone.

 

Ill agree that surveys and tests done by a company comparing its product to another can be greatly skewed. But I still feel alot of the hatred for vista is primarily people following an idea that was common a year ago. Personally I used vista from beta 1 in 2005 and hated it until sp1, and now I see zero difference other then synthetic tests. Gaming is the same for XP pro sp3 as it is for vista business sp1. We will obviously find people stuck on their opinions and that is 100% cool, but I still think a lot of hatred is because ignorance.

 

Gaming tests aren't synthetic tests... They actually move you through a part of a game, and record framerates, just as if you were actually playing that game... Do enough of these and you get a large enough sample to conclude statistically significant results, and Vista is still statistically significantly slower, even if only be a little.
Maybe you won't notice it in day to day use, but a difference of a frame a second or two is big in my book.

 

you are finicky like that, i don't think most people would reformat just to get an extra 1 fps. if that is the improvement only xp offers then i don't think i'd reformat. (however i know thats not the case)

BTW, you said windows 2008 when you meant windows 7. windows 2008 is already out but it is like 2003, for servers.

 

Yeah, sry, typo about 2008.

We're not talking about reformatting here.
On a vanilla computer, with no operating system, One may as well install XP. If you already have vista, so be it, but when choosing between the two, XP is a clear victor (by a few fps, and a few % in encoding)

 

What would you recommend for a pistacio computer?

 

Again, in your opinion.

If I had a vanilla box, I would definitely buy Vista x64 Ultimate and install that, since as we know it's the most stable and compatible with 99% of 32-bit Apps. I would also get to utilize all my RAM that way.

In my opinion, it goes like this:

No OS: Vista x64 Ultimate
Previous OS (XP, etc) : Stick with XP
Vista pre-installed on new notebook : Keep Vista

 

So your saying a difference of 1-2FPS, which by the way is unnoticeable by the naked eye, is a big deal? 1-2 FPS is not significant in fact you see that if you compare two identically setup XP boxes.

 

I'd stick with x64 home premium but that's just me.
I can't justify the extra for Ultimate - what might I use?
Shadow copies is about it, and I can get freeware to do that in HP (HP actually makes the shadow copies, but doesn't let you access them)

 

Other then your 1-2FPS difference how is XP "the clear victor"? Vista has better security, looks better and does the same tasks just a s fast. The only thing XP offers over vista is familiarity and MAYBE 1-2FPS, which is 100% unnoticeable.

 

I was thinking along the lines of having the ability to do a complete system restore in Ultimate, but even then, I've got Acronis for that. Dreamscene would be kind of nice as well. Anyway, I suppose there are freewares to fill these roles, if not now, eventually.

 

Even if your averaging upwards of 120fps? Or how about 3 fps vs 5 fps? Still unplayable right ( at either frame rate )? Or maybe 19 fps vs 21 fps? 29 vs 31? Not too much of a difference right? Or can you count frames like a computer program?

Itomix, like I said before, I dont think youre a troll, but I think your a bit too aggressive with your opinion. Generally a bit of passivity works, and then if doesn't blatant arrogance and aggression are welcome ( Im guilty of that ) but to come out saying " Vista sucks, Vista is garbage, XP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Vista, ( you get my point right? ) will cause more arguements and **** near useless banter like this thread. Maybe something more appropriate is "Vista's ok but XP is better". Just some food for thought.

 

if you count "better" security is asking you if every little task should or should not be completed then yes, vista has "better" security. but if you aren't stupid then both of them have equal security, that just makes vista more annoying.

as for looks, xp has skins that cane make it look great. And looks are a personal issue, that doesn't count in the argument.

XP does plenty of things faster than vista but for the sake of argument, lets agree on that point.

then XP has familiarity and more people are used to it. even though microsoft doesn't support it anymore it is far easier to deal with and get assistance on.

We use server 2008 on our servers at work and we have had NUMEROUS issues due to the so called "better" security. (server 2008 is vista for servers if you don't know)

So 2 of your three arguments are incorrect or useless, and 1 is personal experience. That makes XP the winner.

 

Funny, I run Server 2008 without any issues. I have another being delivered tomorrow that 2008 will be going on as well. I prefer it over Server 2003. The only similarities they have is that Server 2008 is based on the Vista SP1 core. After that, one is a consumer OS and the other is a server class OS. Also, if you think that UAC is the only improvement security wise over XP you are highly mistaken.

 

All i know is that there have been very many issues with the software is use and server 08. We would be switching back except that i am not the only VM that runs on this server.

 

I've had good experiences with Vista once drivers for the hardware I use were brought up to speed back in 2007. In 2007, I stuck with Vista (32-bit) for the most part until some critical software got updates for the 64-bit arena, which occurred in late 2007, early 2008. Now that SP1 arrived, I installed Vista 64-bit with SP1 and haven't looked back. Things are running very smoothly, less the fact that I can't run SLI for some reason due to resource issues. Fortunately I'm upgrading to a Radeon 4850, so no worries anymore on that front.

My MBP has had Vista 32-bit for about 6 months now and it's been running smoothly since. SP1 made it even better.

Bottom-line, there's going to be some pains but if you stick through it the results will be awesome.

 

Im sorry but are you calling me stupid???

UAC alone makes vista secruity much better then XPs. Im sorry but other then malware protection if a script is embedded in a word doc or excel spreadsheet and you dont have a definition your screwed in XP. If you do you still have to worry about the infection, because even if quarantined it can still replicate. Just because you dont see the real uses of UAC doesn't mean you can go calling people incorrect or stupid.

Granted Ill give you the benefit of the doubt that sp3 did help XP, but still is not as secure as vista.

 

This is what I used to answer someone about Windows Vista. I got to copy it because I am lazy to retype it again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodknee
First off it doesn't matter what your so-called qualifications are or the fact that i've used every Microsoft OS since MS-DOS 4.

A persons qualifications doesn't need to be brought in to the fact that this OS is a TURD. As I said it's slow, bloated and annoying.

Let's start off with Mr. Bloat. We went from a 4GB OS with XP with no page file to over 8GB with Vista and no page file and no upadtes. That's a fresh right out of the gate to the desktop after an install, ***? I lose another 4-5GB when all is said and done with all of my updates. So with SP1 finished I have an OS with a 13GB footprint compared to a 5GB OS with XP. Now I can hear the Vista apologist already. Yeah but it's because of the restore points and all of the shadow copies created on the drive. Again total BS. System restore and shadow copies have been disabled along with indexing and i'm still stuck with a 13GB bloated OS.

Now why do I say it's bloated? I certainly didn't design this OS and if I did I would not put my name on it that's for sure. Shall I continue?

Because of the marvels of all things Windows Vista we had such new and exciting techs as Turbo Cache, Superfetch, Readyboot, and Readyboost all for the purpose of equaling the speed of Windows XP. Maybe you enjoy the fact that you can watch your hard drive thrash for minutes on end while data is preloaded into memory but I sure as hell don't. I also don't like the fact that you have to neuter Vista to get it's performance up to the speed of XP. Yes I do know about the annoying marvelous wonders of UAC and I also know that rootkits can be stopped if the user isn't stupid enough to press ok because he or she is tired of seeing that annoying pop up that constantly appears. I guess Microsoft couldn't add an exception list to UAC, nah it's so annoying that it appears if you attempt to rename an icon of the desktop.

I have no problems using Vista if it was a solid, lean mean OS but it's not. The fact of the matter it's just the opposite. I expect better better from Microsoft because I know they are capable of doing it. As I said earlier they put together a very small OS on the original Xbox and Xbox 360. But instead we have an out of control OS that requires certain graphics cards to make it look purty and at least 2GB or more as well as a current CPU.

Now if you want to apologize for Vista go ahead be my guest. I'm sure the hundreds of thousands or millions who petitioned MS and other computer makers to keep selling Windows XP can't be all wrong. I'm just glad that MS in their wisdom has decided to support WIndows XP till at least Windows 7's successor is on the market.

I just pray Windows 7 isn't a bigger turkey than Wndows Vista currently is.



Thank you

Whoa!! This is so excited to argue about. First, did everyone complain when Windows XP came out and required 256 MB of RAM? Everyone was crying for Windows 2000 and now what? Nobody wants Windows XP. Am I right? This is called technology my friend. When hardware becomes more powerful, so does the OS.

I don’t know about you, but my Vista isn’t slow at all. It is very snappy as it learns what to cache on the memory. You lost 4-5 GB of hard drive because Vista back up your registry, so the system restore can return your OS back to its original state when you crash your OS. Just for you information, Vista System Restore is much better than XP. You rarely have unsuccessful restore when compares to XP. To justify the hard drive usage, I think it is a small price to pay since the storage technology is getting bigger and cheaper everyday. 4-5 GB on 250 GB hard drive is a small price to pay if you really need to fix your OS in no time. What wrong with indexing the file since the OS has it built-in search function. It is more like a convenient feature to me. My clients Vista don’t have hard drive trashing all the time like you have. 13 GB OS on 250 or 300 GB hard drive is small price in exchange for more stable and secure OS.

Sure you can continue to bash on UAC as long as you want. If you have to manage 4000 people environment, I think it is a small price to pay. As network security stand point, if you want security, you have to scarify some freedom. Yes, MS did add some exception list, and the feature has been rework on SP1. You can see that UAC will ask for your approval less on SP1 than non SP1 OS. You can even disable it if you want, but it isn’t a good idea because spyware and malware are evolving. You need the OS to tell you if something is going to change your system file. Even expert makes mistake, so does common user. It may irritate some people, but it can save your time and money if you computer is going to be infected with malware and spyware.

Hey, Vista comes with a lot of new feature, but people don’t like them all. It is an innovation, and it has the price to pay. You always have to have new idea, so you are moving forward. Let me tell you a simple example, How about firewall? If you think about heavy duty firewall, you are thinking about port-based firewall like Cisco PIX. You just block this port or that port. I tell you what Cisco even dump PIX for something like application layer firewall that filter the traffic based on the application layer, which is the top of OSI model. If you want the users not to use MSN or P2P file sharing on your network, I tell you what that port-base firewall doesn’t work on those applications because those software will tunnel themselves on port 80. You can’t block port 80 because it is an internet port. You see that you need smarter type firewall that can block the application signature. This is the reson why Cisco discontinued PIX and create a smarter type of firewall. It is evolution my friend. Well, just like MS security analyst sees the bi-directional firewall is a security gimmick. It is a long story, but I do agree with them.

I am not going to apologize for Vista because I think it is a good solid OS if you run on modern hardware. Deploying Vista alone is easier than using Norton Ghost. I am not talking about dozen machines. I talk about enterprise level. Have you every use GPO on Vista? I guess you never do. GPO on Vista is smart enough to distinguish administrator and user on workgroup level. For example, you don’t want your user to change the wallpaper, but you can. Vista can make it happens but not XP.
Finally, Vista is more secure than XP by having something like virtual registry. It tricks the application to write itself on the system registry, but it is not really the system registry. This way the system registry always protected, and common users are less like to screw up their PCs with the bad applications thus increasing OS reliability. Well, XP doesn’t have it. You aren’t even notice that Vista is doing this because it is so seem less. Do you know that Windows Server 2003 Datacenter Edition has the most reliable over any other enterprise server OS including Linux SUSE. MS even guarantee that the downtime for 24 hours/365 days per year is less than 5 minutes. How do I know? We have one, and I have never seen it down as long as I remember.

 

Ive said this 2303210231 times now. VIsta is now a cleaner, crisper more user friendly os then xp ever was and will ever be. go windows. go vista.

from yours truly

the jelly of the beans ~~

 

Thats all great and dandy, but we're talking about normal users, not Corporate. Maybe vista is great for huge busisnesses with thousands of computers, but for the end user, none of those features are worthwhile, they just bloat up your OS with useuless processes that you'll NEVER use.

 

School is officially in session . Back to the drawing board, young one.

 

When i'm making more money than you in 6 years, i'll come back and laugh.
U love being so specific and on topic in your replies.... don't you.

 

I will congratulate you if that's the case! Two years out of college and making more than someone in the same field with 8+ years of experience? High hopes you have there. Although you might be crushed to see that starting out you will only make about $60k a year depending on location...

Anyway, I see that I have struck a nerve I suppose that's what happens when everyone proves you wrong in the thread. You do realize engineering requires thinking outside the box, doing more than copy/pasting old links to back yourself up.

 

Nerve? no, i'm quite calm.... $60 is the average for an engineer straight out of college, and since i'm quite above average, it should be higher.

And, nobody has proven me wrong; not one person has provided me with anything other than "vista is just as fast as xp" Not a single link to back it up, not a single benchmark. All i hear is... "Well XP is faster in synthetic benchmarks, but that of course dosen't mean anything, because I think vista is faster... I can tell by my naked eye."
If XP renders more frames a second than vista, its faster, synthetic or not.

Go ahead... prove me wrong... I dare you

Also, I know engineering is "thinking out of the box". I've been programming since I got my ti-89 in fifth grade, and have always been great at it. You don't know me, so you really can't judge my "engineering" ability. Trying to do so only proves my point.

 

Vista 64 bit FTW!!! Extremely stable, even on 1.5GB!!!

Vista 32 bit would freeze up on me every once in a while. And seemed more prone to apps crashing on it.

XP 32 bit is also very stable but not as stable as Vista 64 bit.

I have tried all three mentioned on 1.5, 2, and 4GB.

Have too many driver problems with XP 64 bit to judge it fairly.

 

This is not a place to discuss your social life. Also, please do not quote blogs or tech article dated from few years ago. Base yourself on facts and elaborate your opinion.

Have you ever run on Vista x64?

btw, I love your avatar LIVEFRMNYC

 

This is clearly showing in pages 1-9...

Read the title of the thread again please. Even if you wanted to discuss SPEED, posting links that are over a year old don't do much to prove your point. So we have yet to see anything from your side that actually proves anything either, including your 1 week extravaganza with Vista.

Congratulations. I would put that on your resume, it sounds really good.

 

No, I haven't, but if the compatability improved and I could use ALL of my programs, i'd highly consider it, especially because I can get it for free, legally.

 

You keep refering back to pages 1-9, but you can't refer to a single post of mine that agrees with you... You sound really intelligent, want to teach me your, oh so smart, super, amazing skills?
Oh, and only two of the links I posted was old, and thats because I didn't care enough to look at the dates on the articles. the x64 compatibility list, for one, was updated quite recently.

Also, as a freshman in college, i'm obviously not going to have a lot of job experience programming... I bow down to your 35 year old awesomeness, praise the lord, known as d4nz0r, who blesses the world with his incredible knowledge of programming, may all bow before him, and bask in his 8 grueling years of programming experience

 

Wait, have you tried all your programs on Vista 64-bit?

 

I actually haven't... Is there any way to dual boot once I already have my XP partitioned across the whole drive? IE take a bit off that partition and make a new one... Or do I have to reformat and make two partitions in the beginning?

 

Um, if you have free space you can run Gparted to create a separate partition. I personally use Acronis/Computer Management ( program in vista that allows to "shrink" partitions to create new ones ) to create partitions so I cant really help with Gparted otehr than the fact that its free. It might be in the free stickies thread or you can google it.

 

Yeah, but does this software make sure the partition is a contiguous block of free space? I woulden't want random files from XP to be slowing down vista and vice versa.

 

I dont know whether or not Gparted does, but I do know Acronis does ( i had to use acronis over computer management in order to move my MFT ).