Why should I upgrade to Windows Vista?

What are the immediate advantages over XP feature-wise, besides the fact that Vista will be the primary platform within the next two years? Would you advise a 64bit processor over 32bit one in a new notebook? In other words, if I deem it in my best interests to be Vista-ready when I purchase a new laptop in the Januaray sales, should I go Core 2 Duo as opposed to vanilla Cure Duo?

 

I should think most new laptops are Vista ready. The ram requirement is pretty steep. Looks like you would want 2GB of ram if at all possible.

I should also think most manufacturers are offering free or shipping cost upgrades to vista.

I'd get the ram over a better processor. The low end Core Duo and Core 2 Duo chips are pretty close in price, so, I'd go Core 2 Duo and get the 64 bit capability.

I used Vista RC2. I sort of liked it, I guess. There would be no harm in waiting a year or so for apps to get standardized, and drivers to mature and all that.

Ever since I installed Google desktop, that pretty much solved the biggest problem I had with XP, the crappy search feature. Google desktop is FAST.

Depends what kind of user you are. I use a lot of pretty heavy duty graphics apps for 2d, 3d and video, so, I'm going to wait a little while.

I should surely hope that Vista handles ram and multitasks a little better than XP. Right now I give the edge to that to OS X.

 

personally, i believe that vista (rtm) already beats XP straight out,
& yes, i m running rtm at the moment, along with xp.home.sp2 on the 2nd partition

cheers ...

 

Thanks for the responses guys, but neither have you have really said why. Why I should get Vista. I use the following apps regularly. Football Manager 2007, Firefox, iTunes, Windows Media Centre, Word. PowerPoint, Windows Mdia Player, MSN Live Messenger, and tend to multitask quite a bit. To that end I need you to explain if there is any quantifiable reason why I should want and/or need Vista. Thanks.

 

Well, if you buy now, it's gonna free, or $10.

It's the future of Windows.

The Windows Media Center features are supposed to be a little bit better. Dunno, I don't use and MC features.

It might be less prone to viruses.

I'm not against the larger ram requirements on its face. OS X and Linux both gobble up a lot of ram, but they seem to use it in a dynamic way which aids multitasking. Vista felt pretty snappy. I was kinda surprised. I have only used Vista for a few days, but, I can see how it might multitask with more vigor than XP does.

I've read that Vista is supposed to be a step away from folders and more towards using searches to create groups of folders on the fly based on searches. But that's going to be sort of half baked since they canned WinFS and the whole new search paradigm.

There is not compelling reason to change really. Windows XP (and Windows 2000 Pro for that matter) went a long way towards solving the nightmares that were Win95, Win98 and WinMe.

I'd say you'd want it more than you need it. Visually, it felt a lot fresher.

I use XP with Royale Noir theme and Google Desktop and I'm happy enough with it.

If you buy in January, you will get an upgrade coupon. You might as well get a Core 2 Duo 1.6, 1.83 or 2.0. New laptops are Vista ready.

Dunno, it's not like moving from Win98 to WinXP (based on NT kernel), so, there is not that super compelling reason. Win XP (and Windows 2000 Pro) were vastly superior to Win98/WinMe. It's not quite the same case this time, since XP sucks far far far less than 98/Me did.

Read up on it. Go to some Vista sites, see if anything interests you. XP will certainly work fine for the next year or two or three, but, more than likely, you will just want to switch more than you will need to switch.

 

Get Core 2 Duo.

Oh, and Vista is dual core optimized, loads faster, runs faster (if you have two cores, games run from 10%-20% faster, and will only get better as they get off beta drivers), looks sharper and better, sounds better... I'm about to buy another one for another pc... Either xp pro or media center edition so I can get upgrade for home premium or business, depending on which one optimizes dual cores....

Only problem is horrid ram use.... 512 megs ram used...

 

Yeah, boot times are sweet.

 

Oh yeah, it has optimized sata drives, and optimized network connections, so you'll surf faster too...

 

True. Network stack is supposed to be improved. It felt pretty snappy on the internet as well...

lol, ok, I'm prolly switching as soon as I get my upgrade from this new E1505...

 

First of all, I don't game on PC, except for Football Manager, which to my non-European friends, is a very data- and stat-based football management sim, more in common with Excel than high-powered 3D games. Trust me, you don't need an uber GPU to run it!!

What I've gathered from this thread is that there is no genuine compelling reason. Vista is better, but XP is still good, is what you seem to be saying to me.

Normally, this would be fine. I would just go Vista. After all, I'm buying a new laptop soon, on a budget of 700 to 1000 euro. I could easily afford a 1.6 Core 2 Duo, with 1GB of RAM.

However, what worries me is this. Will those specs run Vista SMOOTH? I like to multitask. I like to play Football Manager, whilst listen to and downloading music in the background, whilst chatting to friends on MSN, whilst occassionaly surfing the web. And I know that with those specs, I can destroy XP, since it requires a lot less power. But will I be able to get a smooth multitasking computing experience using those programs on Vista, without slowdown, freezing, crashes, etc? That's my worry. I can afford a Vista Ready machine, but are the machines I can afford powerful enough to run Vista fast and lean? Or am I better off just going with XP for now on those specs, until I can afford an uber Vista machine in the future?

 

You really, really want 2GB of RAM to run Vista smoothly. If you don't need a new laptop immediately, maybe you could hold off until you can add another ~150 euros or so (not sure the cost of ram in euros.. sorry) so that you could get the 2gb or upgrade it later. Vista is very much a memory hog, so if you're a big multitasker, you're going to want as much as you can afford.

 

And that's the catch isn't it? I'm a student. 1GB of RAM and a 2GHz processor is all I can afford. In truth, it's way more than I need, if you look at the programs I run. Football Manager, Firefox, iTunes, MSN. And that's about it! Hardly intensive!! But I'm after a smooth experience. I'm willing to pay for an over-spec machine, if it means I can multitask with little or no freezing, crashing, slowdown, hiccups, etc, and the recommended specs for Football Manager are 2Ghz processor and 1GB of RAM, so that's my absolute minimum. It is because of this that I am more of less set on dual core technology, as I hear it's great for multitasking. But given as you say a smooth Vista experience is a little out of my budget right now, since I can only really afford 1GB RAM machines, would you advise running XP on 32 bit Core Duo technology for now, until such time as I can upgrade again to a better 64 bit Core 2 Duo laptop in a year or two's time?

 

XP is perfectly fine for your immediate needs. I see no reason to upgrade to Vista anytime soon.

 

Okay, I'll go with XP then. Does that mean Core Duo is fine? Do you see any reason why I should pay extra for Core 2 Duo?

 

If you go Core Duo make sure you're getting a good deal.

It's a good chip, but you should be able to score a good deal on one.

Also, make sure you at least send in for your Vista upgrade even if you don't plan to use it right away.

 

You're making some big assumptions there... For example that there *are* such advantages to Vista...

I can't think of any. It, uh, looks prettier?
It, ummm, integrates even more features that don't belong in an OS but in separate applications?
It.... supports DX10 which won't be used much for the next two years at least, and in any case requires graphics cards that hardly exist at the moment?

Of course your mileage might vary (and yes, some people think the prettier interface alone is enough reason to buy it). To me, DX10 is the only part that is at all interesting. And that won't really take off for the next several years. (And OpenGL offers the same functionality anyway)

So for me, I'll consider upgrading when DX10 is starting to become standard. By then it will have a feature I find useful.

Network stack has been rewritten, yes. The main effect of that is nothing more or less than security bugs. The one used by XP is tried and tested, and borrows a lot from other systems, simply because it's known to work, and it's known to work well and reliably. Rewriting stuff like this isn't straightforward, and it takes years to iron out the bugs and security holes.
In any case, "it felt snappy on the internet" is nonsense. I'd like to see a network stack that was slow enough to make a difference there. We're talking about a medium where data frequently has a latency of 100 milliseconds. The network stack can never ever make a difference on that. If you can spot a difference between 100 and 100.0001 milliseconds latency, then yes, Vista might be faster. Personally I wouldn't be able to spot such tiny differences... so I'd say no, what you are seeing is the effect of a clean newly installed OS (and the good old placebo effect. If you're told something has been optimized, it's going to seem faster, regardless of whether it actually is)

You haven't considered the possibility that those people simply say "Vista doesn't really offer anything I need and which XP doesn't have. There is nothing that makes me want to spend money on Vista"
I don't know about you, but I only buy software when I actually need it (or want it). I don't need Vista simply because it gives me nothing I don't already have.
I think that answers the question pretty well.

Vista may be the future of Windows, and so what? The future is in the future, pretty much by definition. Which could mean that the best time to upgrade to Vista is... in the future.

Anyway, you didn't do much to answer the question either. All you said is that "Uh, it's the future. If you're curious about whether it's worth upgrading, you should upgrade"

That's not the most persuasive argumentation I've seen.
If people *ask* whether Vista is worth the upgrade it is not because they have an urge to fork out $500 just to *find out* the answer, which is what you seem to suggest. Buy now, so you can find out whether it was worth it.

Um, again, BS. He is asking if there are any important new features. And even you can't seem to mention one. What does that say about the OS?

If even the fanboys can't think of a feature that makes it worth upgrading? Is it really worth the (pretty steep) cost?

There are a bunch of changes under the hood, no doubt about that. There's been a lot of changes to the driver model, which should, if all goes according to Microsoft's plan, mean
- Better stability (personally I haven't encountered any instability in XP, which makes this point moot for me at least)
- Fewer reboots neccesary (Fair point. But if I upgrade drivers once per month, that's one reboot per month. Don't know if it's worth paying for a new OS just for that)
- Better sharing of the GPU between different apps. (Very good idea, and absolutely essential since Vista uses DirectX and the GPU even for the regular interface. But the main effect of this is to make life easier for developers. End users won't really notice a difference there)
- Oh, and 10-20% lower performance in DX9 games. And since you can't get a notebook with a DX10 GPU yet, that means 10-20% lower performance in *all* games...

But anyway, the point is that these improvements are under the hood. Some are convenient for developers, some are convenient for stability. But none of them offer any specific benefit for the end user.

Still, at least I've mentioned a few points where Vista differs from XP. Some of the changes are good, some are bad. I personally don't think these differences justify the price of upgrading, but as I said, your mileage may vary.

 

can we expect the same nightmarish compatability issues with older games and apps that microsoft OSs are known for?

 

ask yourself why not upgrade to vista? find out it is just the matter of time.

 

For me, I just wait for one or two years before I upgrade to Vista. My XP SP2 is perfect now so Y bother to change?

 

@ bbz and jalf

All I can say is, you're both right, and you both make excellent points. My knowledge of computers is very much layman, and it has taken me many hours of research in order to learn the difference between laptop specifications. Just to reiterate the programs I will largely be running, before I begin disseminating each persons points:

Football Manager 2007, Firefox, MSN Live Messenger, iTunes, Windows Media Centre, Windows Media Player, Word and PowerPoint (maybe Norton, if dual core tech works like it's supposed to).

To start with bbz, I see things like this. I'm getting a new laptop in mid to late January, around the time Vista comes out. I could probably find a 1.6Ghz Core 2 Duo machine with at least 1GB of RAM (*maybe* 2GB, if I shop around) and a 128MB graphics card for a decent price, bearing in mind I'm a student, with a budget of 'only' 1,000 euro ($1,300 and £675). Therefore, why not just go Vista right away? After all, it is the future right, so I may as well future proof myself now, right? But then there's the drawbacks. Do I even need all this power, or am I horribly over-reaching myself, given the apps I wish to run? After all, I'll be earning this time next year. Am I not better off going cheap and XP now, and upgrading to a newer and better laptop a year or two from now when it genuinely becomes 'necessary'? Also, XP requires less power than Vista. With these specs, or maybe even slightly worse ones, I could multitasl XP with absolute blazing speeds. Will I be able to say the same for Vista though, even with 1.6Ghz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 677Mhz FSB, 2MB L2 cache and 128MB graphics card? If I can, then my decision has been made easier. Vista is surely the way to go, especially if those specs will hold for the next year or two as being more than adequate. Remember, my wish is to multitask those programs with little or no freezing, crashing, slwodown, stuttering, etc as possible. I don't mind paying a little over the odds in order to achieve performance.

But then, jalf makes a good point. XP had its detractors, especially when compared to MAC OSX, but the mere fact that Vista represents the longest release time between a new Microsoft OS tells me something. That XP is a feature-rich and top notch OS. It has to be asked, what exactly is it that Vista does so much better, besides being cleaner in its styling? I've seen XP run on my Dad's 2Ghz single core, 1GB RAM desktop, and it runs really fast. XP certainly doesn't look broken to me. And I could certainly achieve my modest computing aims with it, at a cheaper price and maybe with faster processing too (depending on bb's response to my last question). But then there is the question of future proofing. Is there any point going cheap(er) and XP now, when a little budget stretch can see me firmly in Vista territory? After all, it may seem like a fiscally sound solution now, but what about this time next year, if and when I suddenly have an urge to go Vista (assuming 2GB RAM and 1.6Ghz core 2 duo processor hold as being really fast)? Because, as has been said, Vista is the future, and betting against it is as silly as betting against broadband or HDTV, or Xbox 360. You can't bet against the future, even if it costs you a little more initially, you will save in the long run.

So that's literally where I am fellas. Hopelessly confused. Leaning towards a Vista-capable machine, yes, but then asking myself why, if its worth spending the money on, and what it has to offer over XP that is worth the money.

 

Looks like my decision is a rather obvious one. Just had a cursory flick around the net. It would seem a 'proper' Vista machine is way out of my budget. Getting a Core 2 Duo processor *and* 2GB of RAM is almost impossible for under 1,000 euro, and that's before one even adds a 256MB graphics card into the proceedings. And anyway, truth is, while I said my budget is 1,000 euro, I'd be loathe to go much over 800. Therefore, my plan of action is this. XP all the way. I am commited to dual core technology, so whether that means Core Duo, Core 2 Duo or Turion x2, I don't know and don't care. I'll worry about that at the end of January when I'm shopping around, and will buy whichever machine I feel offers the best combination of price and power. One thing is for sure though, dual core 1.6Ghz processors, 1GB of RAM, 2MB L2 cache and an FSB of at least 533 Mhz should ensure blazing XP speeds, right? Enough to fit my requirements of multitasking without freezing, slowdown or crashing anyway. Obviously the machine will come with a one year's warranty, so I intend to use it for a year. I have a job lined up when I finish college, so *if* I deem it necessary, this time next year I will upgrade again to a 'proper' Windows Vista laptop. For now, I think XP should be more than enough for my usage needs, and for what my wallet can afford!

 

Vista is not worth going to the poor house over.

Like I said earlier, this isn't like the jump from Windows 98/Me to Windows Professional 2000 or Windows XP. That was an essential upgrade since Windows 98/Me was absolute trash.

Vista is more than likely better than XP, but, XP with some third party add-ons (like Google desktop to handle search) is capable of getting the job done for a while longer.

Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are just fine for XP. They are both the real deal.

PS, you sure do love you some Football Manager... lol

 

Yes, I see that now. You see, I was interviewed for a graduate placement next year, and was given 2000 euro as a bursor. Therefore, I can *afford* a high spec machine technically, but I'd really rather not spend more than 800 euro. I have student loans to pay off as well you know! But yeah, my Dad, brother and sister all run XP on their machines, and it looks a very capable OS to me. Again, MS wouldn't have waited so long to update it if it was in any way major league broken. XP is fine for me for now, especially as I am but a mere student. This time next year, when I am a career-minded individual, I can start to contemplate the finer things in life.

 

I hear what you're saying. The question of "why wait?" is simply a question of what I can and can't afford. If I can find a Core 2 Duo machine with 2GB RAM at a reasonable price (ie. certainly not more than 1000 euro) then I'll be in like a light. I use Firefox so I'm not overly worried about security. I reckon if I stay away from IE, I'll be quite safe. But that's the question. *If*. Likelihood is Vista machines are out of my range, so its not a question of choosing to wait. It's a question of *having* to wait. But of course, if I can find a good Vista machine for a good deal at January's end (and I'm hoping they'll have some good deals then to promote Vista and encourage people to hop aboard), then the choice will be obvious. Windows Vista all the way.

PS. How well will your standard integrated Intel 128MB graphics card handle the Aero interface, and at what cost to performance?

 

I gather you are a bit of a Vista fanboy bbz! No harm in that. It is the future, no matter what anyone says. MS have a near monopoly in the OS market, and if they say it's time to shift, it's time to shift. When I say "a Vista machine" I mean one that is genuinely equipped to handle Vista, running multiple programs, without slowdown, stuttering, freezing, crashing, etc. That means a 64bit dual core processor, 2GB RAM, an appropriate graphics card for Aero (I'm not too well educated on this bit as of yet), at least 2MB L2 cache, 4 if I can get it, 533-677Mhz FBS speed minimum, etc. Again, if I can get all this sub-1000 euro (unlikely) I will, and bet on the future, even though it is FAR more than a mere Football Manager playing, music downloading, internet surfing student like myself requires. Far, far more in fact. But again, I'll be future-proofing myself. Or will I, what with the advent of quadcore tech? And that's the kicker. Can you ever really future proof yourself in this fast moving day and age?

 

Dualcore is going to be plenty for most users for quite some time.

Quad core and greater is only going to be for engineering, video and 3d rendering at first, and eventually, immersive gaming, but, that's still a while off.

====

Safety concerns aside, As a developer that uses CSS, IE can go suck it.

====

Microsoft has earned most of the enmity that they have garnered over the years. I'll be glad when they are gone altogether in 10 years or so.

 

Don't know if it will fun football manager but if you want a smooth, streamlined machine that doesn't freeze, get hung up, or restart at random, go with a Mac, not a PC.

 

Please. I've used Macs since they run at 20MHz and I like them just fine, and I'm no fan of Microsoft, but, the above is just not true.

 

I know people who own small shares of stock in Microsoft, I know a few people who work there (weren't exactly friends, just aquintainces), but I don't care how close I get to someone, I don't kiss arse and say you should use IE so you can get 1000 trojans and hafta get a new pc...

Or is that the idea?

 

Got one word for ya. Rome.

 

heh, well, ya, IE7 is much improved, but you really should use FF. With certain addons, you can avoid lots of stuff.

And I've seen and heard that kind of stuff before. I've heard of people with 4000 viruses on their pc >_<

And nice job on that guy blaming his kid. Real class.

Of course you know, downloading that kind of stuff doesn't give you viruses and such as long as you join places dedicated to it, and you are safe with what you download, and not just surf around for it, which of course, surfing around to any random site is just asking for trouble.

But then, I'm talking about something taboo here, so I'll stop .

But yeah, no empire is infallable, we learned that from Rome. I love Vista too, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna use everything Microsoft churns out

 

bbz, you seem a knowledgable guy and I value your opinion. But I have to say (having not tried IE7 yet, it must be said) that I simply prefer FF. This time last year, I suffered the worst attack of damned viruses, worms, trojan horses, etc I've ever had. I had spyware, messages saying my IP address was known and my credit card details were vulnerable, all sorts of nonsense. I was under siege for about a week, taking it to some 'experts' who would ghost my machine and re-install Windows 2000 Professional, only for it all to happen again. Eventually, I just said "Enough!" and went with Firefox. And everything's been fine since. When I run adaware now, I'm lucky if I pick up even one bug, next to IE's tens. In fact, such is my confidence in FF's security, I removed Norton from my laptop. Why waste RAM and processor speed that my antiquated hunk of junk just doesn't have? Today, I operate zero AV programs on my computer, except for adaware. Absolutely no problems. I'll probably run Norton on my new laptop, since it'll be dual core and Norton shouldn't ruin it speed-wise, but I wouldn't hesitate to remove it and gain speed, just so long as I stay the Hell away from IE! That's why having Vista at launch wouldn't bother me, so long as I can find a good deal on a premium machine. Firefox will protect me well enough I reckon, meaning I won't have to worry too much about malicious attacks, if at all.

 

I thought this article summed up the Vista upgrade question pretty well:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/16213093.htm

Since a majority of users are probably "surf the web, check the email, oh look porn!" types, I think the improved security will be better for everyone. The number of PCs I've helped cleanup from kids using Limewire, etc. might just come down a few points. But it doesn't sound like there's a compelling reason to upgrade from XP to Vista. I don't count "Aero" as any kind of reason to upgrade.

 

None... and in a word, you shouldn't. Save your money and wait for the service pack. It won't be long.