View Full Version : Windows Vista vs. Windows XP
When Vista drops in the latter half of 2006, do you plan on upgrading? Maybe upgrading to XP64 if you haven't already, since 64-bit apps, drivers, and games will become more numerous in native 64-bit form?
Or, will you ditch Microsoft, and get a cracked version of OSX for x86 or go to Linux?
I might consider upgrading to Vista, but the idea of not having easily accessible administrative rights in Windows would annoy me, I think. Also, Vista's interface might have too much system overhead, and although I hear it will have the option to go to classic Windows view (I.E., Windows 98/2000 appearance), I haven't heard about reverting to the XP look (though I assume that will be put in).
XP64 dual booted with the latest Debian release might be my system of choice in the future, :)
Thoughts? Rants?
OpTiX
12-03-2005, 11:15 AM
i'll upgrade if there isnt major bugs at release...but i know that wont happen
Keeper
12-03-2005, 02:01 PM
I have had Vista installed on one of my hard drives for over a month now, and I must say it is fun to watch. I have the latest Beta version and got everything I use installed without too much trouble.
I had to get drivers for a few items from support from Creative, ethernet and Nvidia, but found all I needed for it to run without a problem. Very stable for a beta. The only thing I could not get to work was SLI, but that is because Nvidia has not written the drivers for it yet.
The 3D interface is really cool, I will buy it when it hits retail.
Dissolved
12-03-2005, 02:06 PM
im sure everyone will try it.
everyone talked how bad XP was, and months after it came out everyone was on it. people still used 2k for benchmarking, but XP was highly used.
trakslacker
12-03-2005, 02:39 PM
I like the idea of Vista, have heard that a lot of the code is rebuilt from the ground up. But I DO NOT like the idea of built-in DRM and HDCP built into it, even if hacks and workarounds to it will be available within 24 hours of lauch.
nhenhophach
12-03-2005, 10:39 PM
Always like XP.:banana:
I don't have much of a reason to leave the XP environment I am familar with. I've even contemplated backtracking to 2K for less overhead than XP, let alone the candy-esque GUI that is supposed to ship with Vista.
Care to enlighten us about overall system speed and responsiveness in Vista, Keeper?
join nbk
12-08-2005, 09:51 PM
i will buy it
once i get a corprade iso or cd of it
i know a guy, that e bays and got a corprate edition, and he shres it
so
you know
Keeper
12-08-2005, 11:08 PM
Care to enlighten us about overall system speed and responsiveness in Vista, Keeper?
It is faster, and it seems to make better use of memory. Some how they made the page file (if it is still called a page file) and the memory work very well together. Graphics flow with ease while programs you used 5 hours earlier feel like they are still stored in memory.
It is not night and day faster, and bootup needs lots of work; it takes two minutes to go from button to fully operational, but I would think that's a beta problem.
In reality, the best thing about it is the interface, the 3D effects are very nice, and it is really much easier on the eyes than XP. My version runs out in September 2006 so I am running a dual boot setup with all my critical stuff still on XP. What I really want to do is run the 64bit Vista, but MSI has not released drivers yet and it won't even install on my MSI K8N NEO4 Platinum SLI :mad:
Windows vista is going to suck. There were like two guys here (not exactly sure which subforum) that had vista beta 2, and after a fresh install with nothing else installed, it ate up over 500mb of RAM. All the features that would have made it worth buying were removed, such as WinFX. If you really need 64-bit support, just upgrade to XP64. Vista is like AOL, a huge compilation of bloatware. It actually surprises me that you guys even care about how it looks. I have visual themes disabled in XP so it is faster. I would do the same in vista, but I will never get the chance to do that, because I am never going to buy it (or even download it).
On top of all that, it's going to SUCK for gaming. It has severley crippled OpenGL support:
http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001
I think microsoft has done that in order to force game makers to use Direct3D instead of OpenGL, eliminating gaming on mac and linux. It's also moving away from hardware accelerated audio, basicly giving the finger to all of us who bought the expensive X-Fi sound cards. There's tons of other things that I don't want to get into. Vista is going to be the next Windows ME.
Keeper
12-10-2005, 11:40 PM
Windows vista is going to suck. There were like two guys here (not exactly sure which subforum) that had vista beta 2, and after a fresh install with nothing else installed, it ate up over 500mb of RAM. All the features that would have made it worth buying were removed, such as WinFX. If you really need 64-bit support, just upgrade to XP64. Vista is like AOL, a huge compilation of bloatware. It actually surprises me that you guys even care about how it looks. I have visual themes disabled in XP so it is faster. I would do the same in vista, but I will never get the chance to do that, because I am never going to buy it (or even download it).
On top of all that, it's going to SUCK for gaming. It has severley crippled OpenGL support:
http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boards/cgi_directory/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000001
I think microsoft has done that in order to force game makers to use Direct3D instead of OpenGL, eliminating gaming on mac and linux. It's also moving away from hardware accelerated audio, basicly giving the finger to all of us who bought the expensive X-Fi sound cards. There's tons of other things that I don't want to get into. Vista is going to be the next Windows ME.
Beta 2? I was not aware there was a Vista Beta 2, I wonder if these two have something else. Nov. 1, 2005 the Vista Beta 1 is still what developers are getting from Microsoft. Maybe they have Longhorn Beta 2, really old and flakey software. On the OpenGL issue, Microsoft is getting an earful about it and a great many other issues. Of course, that is why they send out developer copies years before a retail version is released.
I would not sell it as a loser yet, look what happened with XP, all we heard was bad news from "users" with "developer" copies of the software; when released it was a hit. These developer copies are unsupported software, no question about it, they are not expected to work like a retail copy, we get to test them and give Microsoft feedback to make it a better product. It is a really stable beta for still close to two years before retail. The next beta will be better, and even the better the next. Come first quarter 2007 when it will probably hit the stores; who can say what it will be?
So far I've been very unimpressed by what I've heard of Vista. When it gets to about six months pre-launch, I'll probably make my decision as to if I'll upgrade or not.
Badge56
12-29-2005, 09:10 PM
Well just to put in my 5 cents, I loaded Vista beta ( the first release a few months ago). I was verry impressed but it was beta and could not even get my printer working. I was impressed by the looks and the way it worked.
As for the cry babies that say its all bloated, why dont you use 3.1 and some old 486...... every release of Windows you get the guys who say... we dont need it, its much to big, it uses to much RAM etc etc,,,
Get real......... Vista will whant 2 gigs of RAM they say.. so what. I already have 2 gigs and most people have 1 gig. $39.00 will get you the gig...
But maybe you wnat to go back to w2k or maybe 3.1..... ya why not just go all the way back then you could live without all the blaotware..:stick:
Circaflex
12-29-2005, 10:20 PM
well really start to see vista shape up by beta 2
omga14
12-30-2005, 12:03 AM
it seems a bit much to require 2gb just to upgrade to an OS. sure you might be able to find another gb for $39 but would it be something you want in your comp? i personally don't want to ever get "cheap" ram. just to many things that might go wrong. sure i have 1.5gb but for those that are still running with 512mb of ram in there systems it's gonna come as a shock that they will have to spend alot more than the cost of a new OS.
i still use 2k and my wife uses XP. i'll get XP64 when enough native software comes out for me to feel it's justified. right now 2k does everything i like and need without the added overhead of XP. i like it but not enough to move over just yet.
axion
12-30-2005, 12:38 AM
im sure everyone will try it.
everyone talked how bad XP was, and months after it came out everyone was on it. people still used 2k for benchmarking, but XP was highly used.
Yup, I remember right before XP landed people were shouting from the tree tops about how bloated it is and how noone will beable to run it and it went fine and I don't notice that much bloat anymore.
I ran the Vista Beta1 and a XPSP2 in dual boot a time..
Benches:
Superpi1M was much faster with XP. About 4s i think. 44s versus 48s (was an old AXP)
3DMark03: Vista was much faster! I used the first released nvidia drivers, which didn't support visual effects. The newer ones with the effects were slower.
XP: 10k
Vista with old drivers w/o graphics: 10,4k
Vista with new drivers with graphics: 9,8k
I think Vista could beat the old Windowses in Performance. We'll see.
I uninstall it, because my sound drivers didn't work properly.
Arkangyl
12-31-2005, 08:37 AM
Well by the time Vista comes out I'll be in college and ever place I've toured has made note to say they can sell MS stuff to students dirt cheap, so yea, I'll try it out.
I'd also be game for OSX, especially if the gaming support for it goes up. XP64 bit might get some time too once more 64-bit stuff comes out
IamAnoobieCheez
01-12-2006, 02:26 PM
Is it faster than win server 2003? which one is more stable? and performance?
demonbane23
01-12-2006, 08:37 PM
I will stick with what i got probably I have been running X64 for the past two months,, and really like it so far,,, slowly more games are being patched to utilize and im sure over time more will come into the mix,,,,,
zabomb4163
01-12-2006, 09:25 PM
i dont like the integrated DRM...
leviathon-nz
01-13-2006, 07:14 AM
I've tried out vista and it does have a large performance hit without the large amount of ram. The eye candy is acceptable and I think it will be something most average people will like but its not something I enjoy. I have had all the operating systems right from 3.11 to 2000 advanced server to xp and server 2003 and I still stick with my windows 2000 install running litestep, its fast its clean and i can change anypart of it I so desire. Oh and for those that seem to trash windows 3.11 I still have a copy of it running on an old cyrix with works version 1.0 the one that came on 5 floppys.:cool:
Serra
01-18-2006, 09:56 AM
Is it faster than win server 2003? which one is more stable? and performance?
That's completely comparing apples to oranges. Windows Vista was still designed as an end-user intuitive desktop solution... whereas server 2003 was, well, designed for intensive multi-client processing use.
RAMMAN
01-30-2006, 05:57 PM
i must know what the minimum cpu requirement for games that run on vista are going to be.i know that a single core p4@3ghz+ht is the mimimum cpu requirement for the operating system itself but what about games? i sure hope an overclocked 670+physics card will get acceptable framerates in games like crysis.
Pinnacle
01-30-2006, 09:25 PM
OSX for x86
This is interesting! I might consider it
Alante
02-15-2006, 10:20 AM
im sure everyone will try it.
everyone talked how bad XP was, and months after it came out everyone was on it. people still used 2k for benchmarking, but XP was highly used.
...I have Win2k Sp4 and I use it for daily work,even games,I'm one of those peoples that don't like shiny cars that eat lot of gas,...they are fan to watch but expensive to Drive,...I don't know if this would be the case with Windows Vista,...I'v never instaled WinXp on my system(but I did helped others instaling it on their system - some will say I'm a bad man for this,I'v tried to change their mind,but they like shiny cars that eat lot of gas) for the moment Win2k is Ok for me,...even whit the latest joke from Microsoft (Age of Empires 3 - Windows Xp or above),...lol,they don't suport their own OS,....
...If you need more then 1Gb DDR for a OS,...hell with it,...let them use it,...:slapass: ,...I consider going to WinXp 64 Bits for the 64 bit Future,...I'm not sure of the WinVista price,...things are to expensive as we speak,....I have to work more then 30 days for WinXp 64 bits,...if their new OS will cost twice,....no way i'l go for that,it's not worth it :nono: ,...with those money you can buy a new hardware part(mainstream),...:fact:
Serra
02-15-2006, 04:07 PM
I'll probably end up getting Vista and putting it on every-day partition. If I decide I like it enough and it's fast enough, I might switch over other partitions to it too, but that would take a lot of time and convincing.
[XC] Lead Head
02-15-2006, 07:36 PM
...I have Win2k Sp4 and I use it for daily work,even games,I'm one of those peoples that don't like shiny cars that eat lot of gas,...they are fan to watch but expensive to Drive,...I don't know if this would be the case with Windows Vista,...I'v never instaled WinXp on my system(but I did helped others instaling it on their system - some will say I'm a bad man for this,I'v tried to change their mind,but they like shiny cars that eat lot of gas) for the moment Win2k is Ok for me,...even whit the latest joke from Microsoft (Age of Empires 3 - Windows Xp or above),...lol,they don't suport their own OS,....
...If you need more then 1Gb DDR for a OS,...hell with it,...let them use it,...:slapass: ,...I consider going to WinXp 64 Bits for the 64 bit Future,...I'm not sure of the WinVista price,...things are to expensive as we speak,....I have to work more then 30 days for WinXp 64 bits,...if their new OS will cost twice,....no way i'l go for that,it's not worth it :nono: ,...with those money you can buy a new hardware part(mainstream),...:fact:
AOE3 works on Win2000, you have to install it on an XP machine then transfer the installed folder+registry keys to the win2000 machine, and it will work
Alante
02-16-2006, 03:25 AM
AOE3 works on Win2000, you have to install it on an XP machine then transfer the installed folder+registry keys to the win2000 machine, and it will work
...I didn't try that,...but officialy it doesen't (I got an error "Win Xp or Above"),...tx for the hint ;) ,...who knows,maibe in the future the games will say Win Vista or above,...if that would be the case then Microsoft needs to get some discipline :slapass:
Eversor
02-16-2006, 07:45 AM
In terms of functionality and speed at the time xp came out i tried it and then went back to win98se for like a year, till i really need XP. a few months after i started looking for a new os cause xp had too much bugs, and not simple stuff, reinstall your system stuff, wich happened when i was messing with drivers.
Tried win 2000 and it was alot more robust, still have a year old install running fine, tough i don't use it that much now, only to play one or two games.
Currently i'm using linux and im a lot more happier with it.
Still for M$ OS users i would suggest you stick with 2000 sp4, it's faster and less buggy, tough not so pretty.
biohead
02-16-2006, 08:29 AM
All I want is an OS to be the base of my machine and that it supports everything. If Vista does eat so much memory as said, hell with it. I mean, TWO GIGS OF MEMORY? What the... I've always been a resource sucker; I start up with +/-16 processes to dedicate the rest of my actual memory do video-editing. Sure it's only 1 gig but the same as 1,5 gigs running like 45 processes.
But it MIGHT just consider it if it turns out to run everything smooth as butter. I heard the entire interface is run by the GPU right? (right..? :rolleyes:).. That would put the CPU to better use with applications and cpu-benchmarks, but what about games/3dmark? It might just run faster with all the eye candy disabled (which I always do anyways), as you see the resultscomparison one of you made, and ofcourse things will run better when drivers start to mature.
[XC] Lead Head
02-16-2006, 11:57 AM
I heard you need a 64mb 3D Capable graphics card minimum to run vista :eek:
Minimum, I think. 128MB+ recommended, though.
If I had a 1900XTX to beat Vista into submission, I'd be more tempted. Simply shoot down all the eye candy I don't want, and I'm sure it could be taken down a step or two.
Even then, though...damn.
pocketbikeuk
02-17-2006, 02:32 AM
i have vista and i have to say i quite like it in the 3dmark side i found it gave me around 500points in 03 as soon as there is more support for the 64bit vista il put that on and test out some 64bit farcry tests and a few other benchmarks overall it will succeed xp and i have no doubt it will be a better operating system for people who have the right spec machine if you wish to complain about vista using lots of memeory then you have to look at it this way(upgrade) vista make much more use of the memory it uses and with its nice interface i find that it is very pleasing to use. vista is for the future and is based on being run on future machines so if ur on a xp2000 and have 256mb of ram then its not for you.
FragTek
02-17-2006, 03:27 AM
I'm already planning my permanent migration to SuSe 10.0 x64 Edition. Buhbye M$! :explode2:
BlueWonder
02-17-2006, 04:49 AM
I like light weight. I'd still be on 98 if it had a bit of a re-work. Haven't tried 2k but sounds like it's worth a look. Might also try a unix based sytem some time soon on a spare hdd for a bit of a look.
Entity_Razer
02-21-2006, 02:03 AM
Vista don't make me laugh. They canceld WinFS (or well they poseponed it) ; for the not knowing win fs was a new filesystem they where going to use, was scrapped/iced/put on hold for unknown reasons last I heard
Avalon, the new security manager and stuff, had it main parts iced also. Most likly these features will come in a SP (how the hell they are going to incorporate a new filesystem in a servicepacks beats the living daylights outta me but...)
So for me, no to vista.
DRM's, just a bit of graphical bs added and no real reason for me to migrate. if it proves to rock at rendering and video editing and graphical work I might consider it but for now I'm good using XP pro and Win 2003
SamHughe
02-24-2006, 07:45 AM
Ok I need some education here. I use xp pro with all the eyecandy turned off. So what you guys are saying is win2000 would still be faster than a slimed down xp with all the visual stuff and unnecessary services turned off?
Clint
02-24-2006, 08:19 AM
I will not go near either Vista or AMD2 until the DRM/TC/Palladium/HDCP/Fritz chip issue has been dealt with.
I'll stick with my Ultra-D and Opty 170 until -07...then all that crap should have been taken care of.
Rickster_64
03-02-2006, 01:54 PM
I have the beta from Feb. 06' waiting for me at home right now, so I will be installing it this evening and see how things go.
I've tried the beta. Its what xp was to 2k, just a shinier prettier version. No real new features, juts more overhead. I'll stick with 2k thanks.
Orangeman
03-24-2006, 02:42 PM
As an engineer, I can't wait for Vista. XP/2000 has been out for so long now it's boring. Will the Vista platform be stable when it comes out? Probably yes. The biggest issues will be getting your old apps stable on the new platform. That always seems to take a year or so. While Mac and Linux are great, they just can't do everything that M$ can... including pay the bills.
Pinnacle
03-24-2006, 02:54 PM
As an engineer, I can't wait for Vista. XP/2000 has been out for so long now it's boring. Will the Vista platform be stable when it comes out? Probably yes. The biggest issues will be getting your old apps stable on the new platform. That always seems to take a year or so. While Mac and Linux are great, they just can't do everything that M$ can... including pay the bills.
I guess you missed this http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=93832
Serra
03-24-2006, 03:37 PM
As an engineer, I can't wait for Vista.
Well as a student I can't either. I also can't as a guy sitting down. Nor can I wait as a male with black hair. Why can't I wait as those things? Same reason you can't wait as an engineer I suppose...
Delirious
03-24-2006, 04:07 PM
I guess you missed this http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=93832
Thats just hilarious!
I have the vista beta 2 and yes, it does use around 500mb at idle, yes it is pretty to look at.
However all the built in security features designed for the computer illiterate makes me feel stupid just looking at it. Everything feels like its burried ten menu's deep and more hidden.
That being said ill probably upgrade if not atleast give it a try.
Orangeman
03-24-2006, 05:50 PM
Serra-
I can wait as a guy sitting down or as a male with brown hair. I can wait as a gamer and as a web surfer. Personally, I'm more interested to see if Chemlawn can kill the weeds in my yard this year than the Vista launch.
Professionally, I'm excited. New OS means new hardware --> lots of billable hours. When you join the labor force you will understand.
triangle
04-24-2006, 10:27 PM
Hello,
WinFS is imho really great file system. If you wish to find out more on it, I suppose you give a look at this info source, that contais some really useful info
http://www.ntfs.com/
masterofpuppets
04-25-2006, 12:49 AM
Don't threadbump. Microsoft f**ked up big time dropping WinFS, that was the only feature in Vista that I thought would make me even consider using it, but it looks like I'm gonna be sticking to 2K/XP/*nix for another few years :rolleyes:
Sheik
04-25-2006, 05:17 AM
I'll get it cause I am a sucker for new OS's. Even used Windows Millenium :eek:
aug1516
04-25-2006, 08:11 AM
I'll get it cause I am a sucker for new OS's. Even used Windows Millenium :eek:
I'm the same way. I'll end up using it just because it's fun to play with the new MS operating systems. Eventually I'll turn all the visual stuff off and can hopefully make it as fast as my stripped down windows xp install.
Den Leiw
04-27-2006, 02:55 AM
Downloaded Vista form MSDN
It does look refreshing, but there are a lot of useless programs on it, which I will never use (Windows Mail, Media Player,etc) amd they take up more space/ram then in XP
I think I'll stick with XP for quite a while. install Vista though on the family computer
xerogenesis
04-27-2006, 10:07 AM
When Vista drops in the latter half of 2006, do you plan on upgrading? Maybe upgrading to XP64 if you haven't already, since 64-bit apps, drivers, and games will become more numerous in native 64-bit form?
Or, will you ditch Microsoft, and get a cracked version of OSX for x86 or go to Linux?
I might consider upgrading to Vista, but the idea of not having easily accessible administrative rights in Windows would annoy me, I think. Also, Vista's interface might have too much system overhead, and although I hear it will have the option to go to classic Windows view (I.E., Windows 98/2000 appearance), I haven't heard about reverting to the XP look (though I assume that will be put in).
XP64 dual booted with the latest Debian release might be my system of choice in the future, :)
Thoughts? Rants?
i have my xp set to windows classic theme and if/when i upgrade to vista ill have it set to that as well, only reason i upgrade is for security and software support, other than that ill likely stick with xp till its unsupported
Drunner611
04-27-2006, 10:11 AM
I'll be running XP well into 07, unless I can steal a copy of Vista and try it out. Even if I did, I ain't spendin another 400$ on a card to run a candy eye os. DX10 is a joke. I can say that until I want to play the new farcry game balls out. Not for a year for me.
littleowl
04-28-2006, 08:22 PM
I decided to reply to this just to give my opinion!! From what I have read, seen and heard so far about vista it looks really pretty but at the expense of your free speech! (Sorry but I will keep my self safe you just make your junk work like it is supposed to!!) I don't like half the junk that comes with XP and now with vista I get even more junk and the junk I already have gets bigger in size!! I feel that when vista comes out it will be a lot like when win 95 came out and will be very hard to deal with! Also why do they need to make so many different vistas!!?? My opinion they should only make 2 a retell version and a business version!! You know places like dell will start giving out the cheap one with there pc's and we will have to fix them for the people that bought them and didn't know anything about it!!!!!! Also I don’t feel they should charge so much for any operation system! The OS should be really cheap so that you will buy computer parts and other software! Oh but then again Microsoft couldn’t take all of my years earnings!! I think that is bad they are already making a CD for security because they know that it is going to be hacked and virus infested within 48 hrs of release!!! Sorry guys just my opinion!!
maybe read this might help your decision http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/archive/c0605/30c05/30c05.asp&guid=AA2B70ABBF24401FB232798C91625EDA
Nanometer
04-28-2006, 11:24 PM
I go where the software support goes. By then there will be a bucket load more than there is now, including games. I will upgrade about a month after it releases. It will give myself and excuse to upgrade. Everyone enjoys upgrading.
PkG.1337
05-07-2006, 04:37 PM
I refuse to upgrade.
Responsiveness is the main reason
I will stay with my heavily tweaked windows XP
Budwise
05-08-2006, 01:39 PM
i dont think your sig is big enough...
triangle
05-09-2006, 01:14 PM
Gretings,
WinFS seems to be a really interesting one filesystem. I've searched over to get more info on it and came upon this source http://www.ntfs.com/ There is much useful data there, I'm pretty sure if you wish you might also find it useful.
MaxxxRacer
05-10-2006, 05:02 AM
i'll upgrade if there isnt major bugs at release...but i know that wont happen
and I want a gold plated Ferrari...
MaxxxRacer
05-10-2006, 05:09 AM
Gretings,
WinFS seems to be a really interesting one filesystem. I've searched over to get more info on it and came upon this source http://www.ntfs.com/ There is much useful data there, I'm pretty sure if you wish you might also find it useful.
REading that I see that WinFS is a total waste of time and will just slow down my computer for anything but searches adn will for the most part be a total waste of my time and my cpu's cycles...
crackhead2k
05-16-2006, 11:00 AM
If your gaming/performance US XP
If your in for looks use Vista.
MIN REQUIREMENTS ARE HIGH.. wWAY TO HIGH
You need to have dualcore and 2 gigs to make it run well and game.. xp does far better imo after trying it with my 4800+ 2gb
Well i use it for gaming so....ya
You can download vista from the net...or get beta off somebody that got the CD from some OEM.