XP or Vista

I am getting a computer, and i want to know whether to get Vista, or XP. Now this choice would be easy if it was a laptop, but it's my desktop i want it for. Upgrading from this 4year old so i can open more than 1 program at a time. It's a tough choice since the two models are exactly the same in price, and i don't know which one is better for my needs. I heard Vista is safer but there are firewalls for XP, and SP3 is coming out soon among many other things to consider. I want to know what you guys think.

 

You don't really have a choice unless you order from Dell. All computers are now preinstalled with vista.

 

I thought there was an option for XP on dell notebooks?!?

EDIT: Oops, misread that comment. FYI, business notebooks still have XP options...many from all different brands.

 

Woops should have included the link to both comps:
XP
Vista
I am getting it from dell.

 

First things first, Vista is a fat bloated pig of an operating system. In order to get Vista to run decent you'll need at least 2GB of memory and 4GB will make it fly. Memory is crucial if your looking to open more program at a time.

If you want to game on your system get a video card that is capable of DX10. Also you'll need a nice size hard drive as well. Vista is and isn't safer than XP. UAC makes things safer but some including myself turn it off because it gets annoying. I've been running Ultimate on my T60 and there are already security patches for both Vista and Office 2007.

Some don't agree with me but my personal view of Vista is it's basically XP with a shiny coat of paint and DX10. Take those two things away and you basically have XP.

I to this day still prefer XP over Vista. XP runs quicker and is a more mature OS so it runs very stable for the most part.

 

Vista of course, better looking with a lot of eye candy like (Aero,SideBar,3d flip etc..)give it 6 months to 1 yr and it should be stable.

 

Vista has a fair number of other things than just "shiny new paint." Security is different (and looks to be stronger on the 64bit version) and in the long run will be better. UAC is a pain right now, but with some tweaks there is a real potential for that to be useful. The audio and networking stacks are improved, but networking advantages won't be noticed for a few years at least (MS thinking about the future there). The UI is indeed different, but it makes more sense and I was more productive with a large number of files to sort though.

But Vista currently has major drawbacks, which is why I don't recommend it. Drivers are sub-par compared to XP, and downright buggy for some stuff...other hardware won't even work. WiFi and USB connectivity was continually an issue for me, but wasn't for XP. How many times in a day can a printer re-install its own driver because the USB connection was lost and found later? Apparently more than five...

Then there was also the time my copy of Vista got invalidated, and a week or two, a reformat, a re-in-validate, and another reformat later I got it all working again. But by then I had a sour taste in my mouth, and one driver problem later I was back to XP.

 

No games, though i might pick one up if it's an old classic but if i want a game machine i'll max out my rig with alienware. I am getting all the basic options with maybe a 17in LCD. If i get vista i am getting basic so i don't have that overly bloated Aero loading up at start. I really care about stability and XP wins me in that area because SP3 is coming out soon which as people say will be vista safe with no Aero. Also people say Vista is a memory hog but others say it just grabs it to load other programs.

 

Aero isn't a bloated thing...it just uses the GPU so you might run a little warmer. Vista 'preloads' a lot of stuff it thinks you will use, but gives the space away if a user launched application needs the space. Un-used RAM is wasted RAM, and MS figured out how to use it when you don't need it. You can always turn Aero off, but I liked it.

Basic is actually less of an OS than XP Home is. Either get Home Premium or XP Home, because basic is a crap OS that severely limits your hardware and you capabilities.

 

How so Greg? Why would it limit my hardware?

 

Runs very well with 2gb ram.

Has many more things than just aero as night_2004 has already mentioned.

I have vista ultimate and runs just as stable as xp. the only problem i have is that it won't run some old games but other than that i think that vista is far more superior.

seems that you have had a fair number of problems. all my drivers seem to work. did you download the latest ones?

USB seems to work perfect, i have keyboard, mouse, printer and memory stick and haven't had any problems with losing connections.

what where you doing to invalidate your copy of Vista?????

 

The premium versions of Vista allow the user to diasble Aero, so you dont necessarily have to buy Home Basic just not to have Aero. As for as Vista being a memory hog, people generally exaggerate. I have used Vista with 512MB, 1GB and 2GB RAM and ofcourse it ran faster as the memory increased and used more memory than you would expect XP to use, but for general purposes Vista + 1GB RAM is still usable.

As for as XP SP3 turning XP into 'Vista safe' is probably not going to happen, with Vista out MS would be more concerned about Vista rather than improving XP. Although they havent announced anything about what sp3 will include, I wouldnt expect any radical changes to XP.

 

I'm not really looking for all that much stability with XP since i know about many good firewalls and such, but with Vista there are so many incompatibilities.

 

I just got vista last week, Im a very computer apt person so I adjusted very fast.

Atfirst it seemed like just the same old windows with a new "cooler" interface (that I really didnt even like) but after the week with it, I can tell it has alot of new things and options that make it worth it. I love the new interface after I got used to it and the OS runs faster than XP. I run the x64 version btw.

If your a gamer dual boot is a good idea so you can play older games that dont like Vista then boot into Vista for DX10.

If I had to choose only one OS tho it would be Vista for sure, its time to move on and may as well get used to what the future holds rather than try to hold onto the older OS.

 

For starters...

Windows Media Center is missing
It doesn't support CableCards (good for future cable TV viewing)
Does NOT support media center extenders like the X360, so no hooking it up to a TV and watching/listening to all your files from the living room.
(Not a big deal for laptops), but it does not support 2CPUs...it will support a dual-core CPU though.
No backup utilities built in, and no system-based backup/recovery
No hard drive encryption
No tablet PC functionality (of course, if you don't have a Tablet it doesn't matter)
No handwriting recognition
Limits RAM to 4GB or 8GB depending on 32/64, where as other versions allow for much more (if you ever use that copy to get a laptop/desktop with more RAM)
No Aero

Good reads:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_preview/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2094527,00.asp
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2068722,00.asp

Most of my post was a reference to the above articles.

 

They all had drivers, and many had already been updated. Some were default Vista drivers when no company driver was available. Yes, the latest *at the time* did not solve these issues. It might be better now, but I know for a fact my scanner still won't work.

Maybe Vista has issues with a lot of USB stuff at once :confused2:
All I know is that I had issues.

That's the point...nothing. It just happened, and from what I read on the MSDN forums and a few other places...I wasn't alone. I think Zellio had the same issue, and I've heard rumors anywhere from 10-20% of non-OEM licenses were accidentally flagged at one point. I don't know if it is true, but it is a possibility.

 

But that's the whole purpose Greg. =P I don't need all that stuff. Computer will just be used for basic stuff like Typing, Internet, Music, Videos and maybe the occaisional game. Much more flash games though, and they don't require DX10, or an ATI Radeon.

 

Gotcha. I just don't want people getting what they don't need, thus those links. I honestly thought at first the RAM limits were lower, like 2GB for both versions. But I was a little wrong.

 

The thing is that i like Xp because i am used to it, and it does everything i want simply, and effectively fast. Vista is something new i don't know if i want to explore with many features but i don't know if need them. I want to know if XP, or Vista is good for my needs, that's why i made this thread.

 

i dislike vista very much. It's a memory hog and has extremely annoying retarded security popups for every little thing u try to do. That one Mac commercial with the PC body guard is really not exaggerating at all. Yes, i realize u can turn off the popups, but wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the oh-so-special security features which is one of the main "advantages" of vista over XP and OS X?

 

Vista is nice, it uses memory more sufficiently than XP. Drivers for Vista are coming out slowly like molasses but eventually it'll be all good. All my softwares are now compatable with Vista, except iTunes, so I jumped ship and came on board. I like the included 3D games. Wished software/driver makers can come up with x64 drivers.

 

I kind of miss chess myself...I look forward to SP1 or SP2.

 

This is the reason Vista is having a hard time expanding, when sombody rambles on and doesnt even know what they are talking about.

Seriously, Its not a memory hog. I have read and typed I dont know how many post explaning its memory usage habits. Its using unused memory and releases it when an apllication needs it, it makes things run faster not slower!

The security pop-ups are a new security feature, some people have already said it has helped them in one way or another, it would be good as a parent because I can lock any program I dont want my kids to use. So your a single person and dont like them?? Hmm guess what you can turn them off!!!

The security feature go leaps and bounds deeper than UAC, everything from network protocols, to signed kernal drivers.

Im not raving about all the new security features, but I have nothing negative to say about vista at all.

 

You miss chess Night? Doest Vista come with chess? or is that only Vista Ultimate? I have this 3d chess game. I only played it for a few minutes. Its pretty basic im sure there are freeware games out there just as good or better.

I used to play one where if you took a piece it goes into an animated fight between the two pieces

If thats the case tho (as I have Vista Ultimate x64 installed) let me know and im sure I can copy the game files for you or track down a link to a game you can play.

 

I still don't know which one is right for me. Everyone is having good/bad experiences with vista and i don't know...I think i'll stick with XP.

 

If you can upgrade to Vista Home Premium and 2GB of RAM, then I would highly recommend Vista.

Just to address a couple of your concerns:

Compatibility - With a brand new machine pre-loaded with Vista, you shouldn't have any hardware incompatibilities. As long as you don't have any legacy software or hardware, then you should be set.

Stability - I installed Vista on 3.13.07. My one and only Vista crash was on 4.13.07. My last program failure was on 5.18.07. In all of the time that I ran XP, I don't think there was ever a time where I went two months without a system crash or lock up. Vista has been more stable than XP for me.

Security - The annoyance of UAC is overblown. I will admit that it can drive you crazy while you are first setting up your system, but once you get past the first few days, you'll hardly notice it's there. I haven't had to enter my administrator password in weeks. The improvement in security is worth entering my password a couple of times a month.

The additional functionality in Vista is very worthwhile. Instant Search, Aero Interface, Gadget Sidebar, and the Performance Monitor have all made Vista more interesting to use than XP. But, I would have to say that the biggest difference has been Vista's ability to multi-task and manage power states.

The stable implementation of sleep and hybrid sleep coupled with instant access to open applications has fundamentally changed the way that I use my computer. I have not shutdown or restarted my computer in almost a month. This means that I can leave projects open on my desktop all of the time. It's tough to explain how much this has affected my productivity and interaction with my computer.

I know that the Mac and Linux users will jump on saying that they've had this functionality for a long time, but as someone that is tied to windows for work compatibility, this has been a real welcome change. There is no way that I would go back to XP.

 

I'm talking about software, if i want to download random program most likely it's gonna only work for XP

I've been using this comp for 4 years on the very first build of XP, and i have only had a crash when the power was out.

You say a few times a month, but poeple say a few times a day. With XP i have a firewall doing that for me, and i am safe.

Very nice, but still, Won't use Aero, won't use Sidebar, and don't need to look at the performance all the time. Not a big whoop.

For me Hibernate does all well.

Seems like XP is the way to go for me. Thanks for your help guys.

 

well you choice i guess, but vista all the way................

 

This may have been true three months ago, but as of today, I would guess that almost everything available for download for XP is available for Vista. Within a year, there will be more available for Vista than XP.

Are you sure that you're still using the original build of XP? Not SP2? Not even SP1?

UAC offers different protection than a firewall. Your firewall won't protect you from a malicious executable that found it's way onto your harddrive through an infected download, an infected email, or an infected USB drive.

 

Well it is SP1, but i thought that was the original build, UAC will protect me from stuff already on my HD. Which anti-viruses already do.

 

You guys dont need to try to convince him, I think he had his mind made up before he asked really.

Im dual boot I use both

But even with Vista x64 I have almost no problems and everything I have downloaded works.

Battlefield 2142 is the only issue I have, and that game has issues on every OS.

I see no need to go buy Vista if you have XP. But if your buying a new machine and it comes with vista, I see no reason not to use it isntead of XP.

 

I'll give Vista a try when i get another comp but for this one i'll stick with good 'ol XP. Also no i didn't make up my mind, i just had a slight inclination to XP. Vista may be nice when i test it out, and when i go looking in stores for LCD screens to see what size fits me best i'll be sure to ask if i can test out a machine with Vista.

 

Im just wondering what you mean wen u said the choice would be easy for a laptop...would u prefer vista or xp on a laptop? im getting a laptop soon n im not sure whether to get vista or xp...the one im getting can handle vista pretty easy.

 

Get one with Vista, then dual boot or VMWare XP into the notebook. Should be the best of both worlds.

 

Found my old posts on this subject (quite funny reads too the respective threads lol)

Post un, deux, trois

 

Dell now offer XP on all notebooks. XP is better if you want to be really safe but it's getting more outdated every day now.

 

That must take up a few resources!!!

 

GMC,

As you can see there are a lot of opinions and experiences with the upgrade. A number of folks (myself included) are just waiting for the service pack so the upgrade experience will hopefully be less painful.

From a very basic standpoint, Vista takes some getting used to if you've been using XP. The UAC alone is frustrating. It can be turned off.

But from what you've posted and because it also sounds like you may not want to spend a lot of time getting it to work and getting to know the new features, sticking with XP is no problem. It's stable, MS still supports it (at least through the end of 2008) for patches and that kind of thing, and most every piece of hardware will work with XP without it being an issue.

There's no downside to sticking with XP. If you have antivirus and firewall apps (and use common sense when surfing or opening attachments), your security will be fine. Eventually, Vista will be required (even though a couple of friends are still running Win98 with no problems).

It sounds like you'll basically be working in several programs, surfing, email, maybe some older games. All of that will be fine on XP. If you have 1GB or 2GB of RAM, it will fly. I usually have several programs open, 8-10 tabs in Firefox, a chat app, and email going at once. No problems.

 

I hate when people criticize vista for using too much ram. It uses it much more efficiently than xp did, by pre-loading programs so they launch faster. When more memory intensive programs are launched vista will free up used memory for it.

I personally want my OS to use the hardware i have as much as possible. A more efficient os is one that uses the hardware you give it... the more powerful hardware you give vista, the more it uses.. what is wrong with that?

Aznofazn, go research what Microsoft superfetch is and then keep calling it a memory hog.

Im not saying vista is a perfect OS, i reverted back to xp for hardware compatibility issues, but as soon as sp1 hits im going back to vista.

Vista has its problems, but calling it a memory hog is not even a valid criticism. Do some research before you make blind statements like that.

 

There are still many compatibility issues to be addressed within Vista, even for programs that are proclaiming Vista compliance. Another thing is hardware performance, which has varied greatly from machine to machine and does not seem to rely on simply having the "newest" hardware. My 2 year old A64 3800+ laptop runs Vista very fast, while my aunt's 1 month old C2D T5600 unit is very cantankerous under Vista. For a Memron Core 2 Duo that obliterates a single-core Newcastle Athlon64 in synthetic benches, the general Vista performance difference is odd at best.

Also add to that an entirely reworked interface that bares only a modest resemblence to the 6 year old one we've been staring at in XP. The average computer user would be easily baffled by all of this, and the only cure for this would be time. Keep in mind that there were many who said the same things about XP when it came out (and it had it's share of problems as well). Eventually most everything will improve with time. Vista is here to stay, and XP is on it's way out. It's just the nature of technology.




Mike

 

I ordered my T60 with XP, but I then upgraded to Vista using the digital upgrade. Yes, it does retain all your configurations, but I warn you: It is HELL when trying to get all the updates and such for all the drivers. Almost everything starts screaming at you with errors, so then comes almost 1GB worth of updates (2.5 GB if you include all the language packs, and Vista Ultimate Extras).

But once you get all the updates for all your components, including Windows Updates, then you're set for a while. But there are hundreds of updates you have to prepared to make just for Vista alone once you get it on your laptop. XP laptops already have SP2 installed, so that saves you at least 2 hours of waiting and staring.

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925809

Am I the only one who finds that article funny?

 

I guess so. It is M$ style of doing things.

 

I just rebuilt my kids PC with XP. I have an XP CD that has SP2 slipped streamed into it. So I am starting with XP SP2.

I went to windows update.....one real quick update to get windows update to be even usuable and then 198megs of updates if you pick everything (no hardware updates). So XP takes just as long or longer to update.

I upgraded my wifes notebook last week to Vista Premium...clean install. It took half the time to install. It found everything on the Toshiba Notebook except for ENE 5n1 memory card reader. I am talking Intel video, Realtek NIC and Sound card...and the Intel A/B/G wireless card. XP wont do that on this notebook. After my first reboot Vista had network access to the internet and started downloading the few updates it had.

Vista is the way to go.....and go you will now or later.

 

Hi guys,

What's the difference between Vista 32bit and 64bit?

 

LOL. HAhahahahhahah.

 

They're the same feature wise, except that 32bit is for 32bit processor like Intel Core Duo, AMD Athlon, Intel Celeron, Via CPU, etc. The 64bit is for 64bit processor like Intel Core 2 Duo, AMD Turion. My memory is failing me. Forgot the name, I think it's opteron. Yea yea. That is it.

 

x64 is harder to work with. if your a power user like me you would appreciate it for its faster speed and more options open to it for expansion in the future. However if your not computer savvy I recomend x86 (32bit) because there are less issues with drivers and compatablity.

So far the ONLY issue I have with x64 vista is battlefield 2142 crashing after a round ends at random, its supposedly a memory leak or somthing and totally the games fault. Every other program or device I have works with or has a driver for vista x64.

Oh and if you use a x64 internet browser adobe hasnt gotten a working flash player on it yet... grrrr. But vista comes with both a x86 and x64 browser so just use the x86 one if you need that function.

I only have rumor that the next wave of GPU's may very well have native support for x64 OS's and thus get a speed boost I bet I'll see alot more of you join me on the dark side then! Also 4gb of ram is becoming ever so much more popular and you need x64 for that aswell.

oh and for a few minutes of entertianment check out this thread:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=123570

x64 is getting higher scores on cpu benchmarks. I happen to be faster than some of the dual core users with my singe core (and got #2 in hwbot)

 

My Intel Core 2 Duo comes with Vista 32bit, is there any problem?

 

What do you mean problem?? You can run 32bit with any cpu, even tho its a x64 capable cpu does not mean you have to run x64.

I think thats what you mean.