Windows XP vs Vista

[Kranden]

I've been using XP for years now and seeing the new vista has not impressed me much. It seems to run a lot slower and a lot of websites show reduced clock times in games. The only reason it seemed to get vista was DirectX10 was not going to be compatible at first which luckily was changed.

What are your experiences with Vista? Great or trash.
Discuss.

 

[Padma]

My wife got stuck with Vista when she bought a new desktop a couple months ago. She's basically pulling her hair out. None of her old software works. Usually not even in "compatibility mode". If I hadn't been able to get her Office Enterprise Edition for $20 through my job, I think she would have had me load Win2K on the thing. (I'd rather put Linux on it, but she is averse to change. And what is Vista but change anyway?)

 

[taper]

One of the guys at work put it on his laptop. It's about a year old IBM, decent specs for a laptop, and it scored a 1/5 on the Vista Experience. It won't even run Aero, which is the main eye candy reason for switching. He's had a few compatibility problems, and doesn't like it very much. I might take another look at Vista after a service pack or 2, but there's absolutely no reason to get it now.

 

[Zelig]

It's good, much better support for new hardware than XP. Most modern pieces of hardware and software work fine on it.

Not much reason to upgrade older computers though.

 

[Kranden]

one of my friends who bought a laptop with vista and it would not even run. At first I thought he had a virus and I spent a few hours trying to fix it. Eventually I reformatted it and it was still fubar. Then I checked out the specs and I saw it ran 512 MB of Ram. From what i hear vista even chokes on 1gb. I have 2gb myself but It seems that XP just runs better for gaming.

 

[mdwh]

From what i hear vista even chokes on 1gb.

I've seen it running fine with 1GB. 512MB is madness, though.

 

[GenMarshall]

Vista is a memory hog, both in RAM and Video RAM.

 

[Kranden]

Whats the point of vista then. Look pretty at the expense of precious memory. Sounds pretty stupid to me. What we need is a windows bare bones system that sacrifices "pretty" for quality of gaming.

 

[Zelig]

Vista is a memory hog, both in RAM and Video RAM.

1. Memory consumption in Vista isn't directly comparable to XP. More memory is used in order to increase speed. Unused memory is wasted memory. The Aero interface isn't being rendered or taking any video memory when you're in a 3D game, so it's not gonig to have any effect. Either way, it can easily be disabled, it isn't an integral part of Vista.

2. Like I mentioned, I wouldn't upgrade to Vista on older computers, but with 4GB of memory or more, Vista is vastly superior.

one of my friends who bought a laptop with vista and it would not even run. At first I thought he had a virus and I spent a few hours trying to fix it. Eventually I reformatted it and it was still fubar. Then I checked out the specs and I saw it ran 512 MB of Ram. From what i hear vista even chokes on 1gb. I have 2gb myself but It seems that XP just runs better for gaming.

A manufacturer wouldn't sell a laptop that simply doesn't work, that's not a useful business plan, any way you look at it.

 

[Kranden]

with 4g of ram I bet windows ME would run fine



But say you have 4gigs of ram. Is there any real advantage to vista? I mean from what i've heard and seen myself. its just mostly a visual upgrade to XP and has compatibility issues with programs. What can vista do that XP cant. I have a good computer myself 2 gigs of ram 2x Nvid 6600's 600gb harddrive +100gb slave ect. What advantage would I gain by getting vista.

 

[Zelig]

with 4g of ram I bet windows ME would run fine

It wouldn't, neither does XP, 32-bit operating systems get sketchy past 3GB.

But say you have 4gigs of ram. Is there any real advantage to vista? I mean from what i've heard and seen myself. its just mostly a visual upgrade to XP and has compatibility issues with programs. What can vista do that XP cant. I have a good computer myself 2 gigs of ram 2x Nvid 6600's 600gb harddrive +100gb slave ect. What advantage would I gain by getting vista.

I run Vista with the 2K visual style, I prefer its look anyway. Vista runs particularly better with larger amounts of ram because of its superfetching ability, so ram is actually all used, instead of being wasted. Much better support for multiple cores too, running multiple cpu intensive programs on quad-core machines is generally smoother on Vista than XP.

Numerous other small improvements, but I don't have room to start listing them here, hit up google for a list of features new to Vista if you're interested.

 

[Kranden]

It wouldn't, neither does XP, 32-bit operating systems get sketchy past 3GB.


I run Vista with the 2K visual style, I prefer its look anyway. Vista runs particularly better with larger amounts of ram because of its superfetching ability, so ram is actually all used, instead of being wasted. Much better support for multiple cores too, running multiple cpu intensive programs on quad-core machines is generally smoother on Vista than XP.

Numerous other small improvements, but I don't have room to start listing them here, hit up google for a list of features new to Vista if you're interested.

well first was a joke, I mean ME was something we should all forget.

I haven't seen many good sites on Vista. Most either say it sucks its new and not good enough yet. Or It's so awesome I love Microsoft and i want to hump bill gates.

 

[azzaman333]

Don't get it until you get a new computer.

 

[Speedo]

Vista is a memory hog, both in RAM and Video RAM.

No, no, no.

MS has been thier own worst enemy in marketing Vista. They just keep blabbering on about aero so that most people just assume that it's XP with pretty new colors. I guess they just assume that most people can't comprehend things like "more memory usage != memory hog", but either way the only ones being hurt by it is themselves.

Give me a choice between Vista's VMM and XP's, and I'll take Vista's every day.

2. Like I mentioned, I wouldn't upgrade to Vista on older computers, but with 4GB of memory or more, Vista is vastly superior.

2GB is all that's needed to get Vista into its "sweet spot" of optimal performance, and 1GB is more than enough for the normal things most people do. Honestly, if you're even a semi-heavy computer user (anything beyond the basic internet/typing/pictures/movies/music junk) I wouldn't even consider buying a new comp today with less than 2GB RAM. Vista x64 is the only real choice for windows 64 bit computing though - XP Pro x64 just blows. Personally I'm holding off my next desktop upgrade until Vista x64 becomes a more viable choice (in terms of driver availability and etc).

BTW, most of the comps I've seen with 512MB are running Vista Home Basic, but either way you look at it they're just there to take advantage of ignorant consumers.

It wouldn't, neither does XP, 32-bit operating systems get sketchy past 3GB.

There's nothing sketchy about it, it's just that a 32 bit Windows OS (Vista or XP) won't use much more than 3GB of your memory, even if you have more. 32 bit OS's can address 4GB of TOTAL memory - that's system memory + video memory + BIOS + PCI, etc, etc. 32 bit Windows OS's have a hard limit of 3.5GB useable system memory anyway, but if you have one of the newer graphics cards with > 512MB video memory, you're going to find that you'll only actually be able to use around 3.2GB of your system memory.

IMO, there's no real point in putting more than 3GB RAM into a machine that will be running 32 bit.

I haven't seen many good sites on Vista. Most either say it sucks its new and not good enough yet. Or It's so awesome I love Microsoft and i want to hump bill gates.

I've yet to see more than a handfull of real criticisms of Vista that weren't also levelled against XP at its release - and the main one I have is that OEM's have made it too difficult to still get XP on a new comp. Otherwise, I maintain the following:

1. Lots of people simply hate M$.
2. Lots of other people simply hate change. Of any kind.
3. Vista will improve and mature, and when Windows whatever-comes-after-Vista rolls around, we'll go through all of this again.

 

[GenMarshall]

No, no, no.

MS has been thier own worst enemy in marketing Vista. They just keep blabbering on about aero so that most people just assume that it's XP with pretty new colors. I guess they just assume that most people can't comprehend things like "more memory usage != memory hog", but either way the only ones being hurt by it is themselves.

Yes, Yes, YES!

My opinions are based on the stats of my laptop (Which can be rated as Vista Capable). My laptop only has a max of 1Gb of RAM.

Bad enough (When running the Vista Upgrade Advisor) that I will encounter problems with most of my programs that will have trouble running in Vista as well as my drivers that are specific to the Dell XPS series (adjustible LED colors). I rather wait untill I get a new computer and that the bugs are fixed in Vista that can be usable or continue using Vista (Striped down) in VMware Workstation.

 

[Zelig]

There's nothing sketchy about it, it's just that a 32 bit Windows OS (Vista or XP) won't use much more than 3GB of your memory, even if you have more. 32 bit OS's can address 4GB of TOTAL memory - that's system memory + video memory + BIOS + PCI, etc, etc. 32 bit Windows OS's have a hard limit of 3.5GB useable system memory anyway, but if you have one of the newer graphics cards with > 512MB video memory, you're going to find that you'll only actually be able to use around 3.2GB of your system memory.

"Sketchy" was my quick way of describing what you explained, I feel like I've explained that over a dozen times online, and didn't feel like typing it out.

Good post, the entire thing saved me from a bunch of typing actually.

I haven't seen many good sites on Vista. Most either say it sucks its new and not good enough yet. Or It's so awesome I love Microsoft and i want to hump bill gates.

I've noticed the same, and have concluded that most sites suck. What's going to generate more hits though, "New MS OS horribly flawed." or "New MS OS a general improvement"?

 

[MarineCorps]

XP Pro x64 just blows.

How so? I have it installed on my desktop and short of lack of 64 bit drivers I don't have any problems with it.

There's nothing sketchy about it, it's just that a 32 bit Windows OS (Vista or XP) won't use much more than 3GB of your memory, even if you have more. 32 bit OS's can address 4GB of TOTAL memory - that's system memory + video memory + BIOS + PCI, etc, etc. 32 bit Windows OS's have a hard limit of 3.5GB useable system memory anyway, but if you have one of the newer graphics cards with > 512MB video memory, you're going to find that you'll only actually be able to use around 3.2GB of your system memory.

IMO, there's no real point in putting more than 3GB RAM into a machine that will be running 32 bit.

I acutally had a friend who wanted to upgrade his computer to have 8GB of RAM with 32 bit XP. He thought it would make his computer superfast.

 

[Asher]

Been using Vista for months. No complaints.

It is noticeably snappier than Windows XP. Also boots faster. I also appreciate the live thumbnails in windows (makes software development a bit easier for me with all of my terminals open). No stability problems...I've not run into a single application compatibility problem either.

I don't know what programs people are running that would work in XP but not in Vista, unless you're referring to hardware drivers...dare I suggest the problem lies between the keyboard and the chair?

IMO, there's no real point in putting more than 3GB RAM into a machine that will be running 32 bit.

Given that PCs use dual channel motherboards...your choice is 2GB or 3.25GB (4GB).

I run 4GB in Vista 32-bit because you'd have to be a masochist to run 64-bit Vista right now. It's a nightmare for drivers and performance.

Yes, Yes, YES!

My opinions are based on the stats of my laptop (Which can be rated as Vista Capable). My laptop only has a max of 1Gb of RAM.

Bad enough (When running the Vista Upgrade Advisor) that I will encounter problems with most of my programs that will have trouble running in Vista as well as my drivers that are specific to the Dell XPS series (adjustible LED colors). I rather wait untill I get a new computer and that the bugs are fixed in Vista that can be usable or continue using Vista (Striped down) in VMware Workstation.

Vista runs fine (Home Basic) on my laptop, a 4-year old ThinkPad T40 with 768MB of RAM. Vista itself uses about 350MB of RAM, leaving lots for Office, Firefox, etc.

But to be honest, if you've got a horsehockey laptop with < 1GB of RAM, there's no real reason to put Vista on it unless it's necessary for work (I do .NET 3.0 development). And there's also no point whining about it...Vista isn't an OS for charity cases or people with obsolete computers.

 

[Zelig]

I run 4GB in Vista 32-bit because you'd have to be a masochist to run 64-bit Vista right now. It's a nightmare for drivers and performance.

Have you tried it recently? Support in the last few months has really improved for the most part. I have Vista 64-bit on my desktop, and 32-bit on my laptop, and there's no functionality difference between the two, all the hardware and software that I use work on either.

 

[Asher]

Have you tried it recently? Support in the last few months has really improved for the most part. I have Vista 64-bit on my desktop, and 32-bit on my laptop, and there's no functionality difference between the two, all the hardware and software that I use work on either.

Was debating it, til I read all of the horror stories of using the latest Nvidia drivers in 64-bit. Constant crashes, still lacking basic features, and performance problems (major in some games).