Windows XP vs Vista

[Zelig]

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).

I haven't had any crashes since starting on the 15x.xx line, I only use official WHQL drivers, currently on 162.22 with my 7900 gt.

Features I'm not so sure about, I don't use any features in the control panel, so wouldn't notice any missing ones.

Comparably, I'm not sure about performance either, as I haven't been gaming much at all in the past year. I can't complain about performance in the games I have played recently (ut2k4, Far Cry, civ4), but none of them push modern cards much anyway.

Major performance problems with WoW FWIW, it's been a documented problem in the release notes for a while now, non-issue for me, as I'm never going to play WoW.

edit: NVidia's release notes are actually quite good, worth perusing for anyone wondering if a certain feature is missing from a driver set, or if your favourite game has a known problem.

 

[Shadylookin]

Problems that I've had:

even though vista can install on a select partition, it still doesn't create a bootloader so that I can boot to XP or Linux at start up. It was a lot of fun to be led to believe that because windows finally introduced partitioning they may also use a bootloader.

XP doesn't either, but by 2007 I would have thought MS would have stolen an Open Source bootloader.

I get random graphics glitches in vista. I would blame it on my vid card, but it's not old and it works just fine in my other OSes.

I have an onboard card that shares system Ram. Somehow vista has dedicated 857MBs of System ram to my vid card(or so dxdiag says). No clue how to change that.

My sound card wasn't recognized on start up I had to download drivers for it. XP recognized it out of the box, unix recognized it, and linux recognized it.

vista drains my laptop battery faster than XP.

Vista processes and my firefox browser take up 28% of my system memory(I have 2.5gigs of memory assuming vista didn't give all of it to my video card)

There are 8 different versions of Vista(4 are updates). I got windows vista ultimate free from school, but if I actually had to pick a version I wouldn't have the slightest clue which one to buy for my needs.



now this is just nitpicking:

I really don't like how they did the start menu.

I also think their icons are ugly looking for an OS thats only selling point is that it's supposed to be pretty.



Good points to vista:

The only thing I think Vista really outshines XP in is eyecandy. the program windows have much better looking borders, and the graphics do look prettier(icons being the exception).

 

[Asher]

Problems that I've had:

even though vista can install on a select partition, it still doesn't create a bootloader so that I can boot to XP or Linux at start up. It was a lot of fun to be led to believe that because windows finally introduced partitioning they may also use a bootloader.


XP doesn't either, but by 2007 I would have thought MS would have stolen an Open Source bootloader.

Windows has supported both partitions and bootloaders for ages... Vista's bootloader's actually more flexible than most out there in many ways, in that it's also firmware-independent. See the startup and recovery section of System Properties.

I get random graphics glitches in vista. I would blame it on my vid card, but it's not old and it works just fine in my other OSes.

I have an onboard card that shares system Ram. Somehow vista has dedicated 857MBs of System ram to my vid card(or so dxdiag says). No clue how to change that.

These are all video card driver issues (and/or options). Nothing to do with Vista.

My sound card wasn't recognized on start up I had to download drivers for it. XP recognized it out of the box, unix recognized it, and linux recognized it.

Vista has a 100% new audio engine, in addition to the new driver systems. Seeing as it hasn't been out very long, it's not at all surprising to find you have compatibility problems out of the box. Same thing happened with XP vs 98.

Vista processes and my firefox browser take up 28% of my system memory(I have 2.5gigs of memory assuming vista didn't give all of it to my video card)

As has already been mentioned, Vista uses and reports memory usage different from previous O/Ses for speed improvements -- frequently used programs are cached in RAM rather than loaded from the Hard Drive constantly. If you have lots of memory, the more it is used (rather than being empty). If you start genuinely using the RAM, you'd immediately notice the percentage of RAM used by your system drops quickly, as it only uses it when it's otherwise empty.

There are 8 different versions of Vista(4 are updates). I got windows vista ultimate free from school, but if I actually had to pick a version I wouldn't have the slightest clue which one to buy for my needs.

Yes, it is very difficult to read the tables with checkboxes with feature breakdowns on the back of the box.

I really don't like how they did the start menu.

Probably just used to the old one (which is an option to revert to, so why even bother whining about this?). The new one is far more functional if you use it as it's intended, which is to say not exactly like the old version....eg, use it as a quick search field, not a menu.

 

[Shadylookin]

Windows has supported both partitions and bootloaders for ages... Vista's bootloader's actually more flexible than most out there in many ways, in that it's also firmware-independent. See the startup and recovery section of System Properties.

it didn't create a bootloader for me.

These are all video card driver issues (and/or options). Nothing to do with Vista.

well it worked just fine in XP and now it doesn't. I know microsoft doesn't actually code the drivers, but nevertheless it's only an issue in vista.

Vista has a 100% new audio engine, in addition to the new driver systems. Seeing as it hasn't been out very long, it's not at all surprising to find you have compatibility problems out of the box. Same thing happened with XP vs 98.

well every other operating system pulled it off flawlessly.

As has already been mentioned, Vista uses and reports memory usage different from previous O/Ses for speed improvements -- frequently used programs are cached in RAM rather than loaded from the Hard Drive constantly. If you have lots of memory, the more it is used (rather than being empty). If you start genuinely using the RAM, you'd immediately notice the percentage of RAM used by your system drops quickly, as it only uses it when it's otherwise empty.

I didn't notice this drop in RAM usage. At what point after 100% ram usage am I supposed to notice this?

Yes, it is very difficult to read the tables with checkboxes with feature breakdowns on the back of the box.

I didn't see any breakdowns of the features on Microsofts site. They give you a brief description of what type of functions they were designed for(basic home, home use, work, and work and entertainment). I'm sure if I really wanted to dig up the information I could find out from another site though.

I don't know anything about the boxes though since I've never actually shopped for vista.

Probably just used to the old one (which is an option to revert to, so why even bother whining about this?). The new one is far more functional if you use it as it's intended, which is to say not exactly like the old version....eg, use it as a quick search field, not a menu.

as I said it was nitpicking about the start menu and the icons

 

[Kranden]

One thing I wonder is what is the main difference between all the different vista editions.

You have Ultimate

Home Premium

Home Basic

Business

Enterprise

If your not careful you may end up with the bad version http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/02/02

 

[Speedo]

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.

I also think their icons are ugly looking for an OS thats only selling point is that it's supposed to be pretty.

Well, at least you guys are proving my point about M$ leaving 99% of consumers ignorant about the worthwhile features of Vista.

it didn't create a bootloader for me.

If you didn't have a bootloader, you wouldn't be running Windows. At all.

well every other operating system pulled it off flawlessly.

Sorry, but you're smoking something good if you really think that.

I didn't see any breakdowns of the features on Microsofts site. They give you a brief description of what type of functions they were designed for(basic home, home use, work, and work and entertainment). I'm sure if I really wanted to dig up the information I could find out from another site though.

I don't know anything about the boxes though since I've never actually shopped for vista.

One thing I wonder is what is the main difference between all the different vista editions.

You have Ultimate

Home Premium

Home Basic

Business

Enterprise

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx

 

[The Yankee]

I'll be sticking with XP for a while yet, since I haven't seen any reason to switch to Vista (which won't happen for a while anyway, given the expense). Additionally, I'm wary of jumping into the new versions of Microsoft Office...given how much they revamped those programs.

 

[Shadylookin]

Well, at least you guys are proving my point about M$ leaving 99% of consumers ignorant about the worthwhile features of Vista.

apparently

If you didn't have a bootloader, you wouldn't be running Windows. At all.

touche. I meant a bootloader that would let me boot into other partitions, instead of overriding grub and forcing me to boot into windows.

Sorry, but you're smoking something good if you really think that.

Well on Win XP and multiple versions of unix/linux distros it worked just fine without having to hunt down a driver.

 

[Ramius75]

im using vista premium home now with a 4GB ram machines . its running quite fine with newer hardwares, but it got compatibility problem with all of the old hardwares.

its cool looking thou. looks good in widescreen too.

 

[Quintillus]

I can't tell much of a practical difference between XP and Vista, honestly. I know there's changes inside the box, but just using it, I don't notice much different other than sometimes the interface. The Control Panel is a bit different, too, in where things are located. For example, Device Manager has its own icon in Classic View instead of being a button under a tab under System. Speed-wise, I can't tell a difference based on the OS (that might change once I start using programs on a more regular schedule and SuperFetch configures better), though there's a noticeable difference due to my processor and hard drive upgrade.

ReadyBoost also probably is a nice feature if you need more RAM - I plugged in a Hi-Speed Kingston USB drive and ReadyBoost worked with it. But with 2 GB of RAM, you should have more than enough with Vista Home Premium/Business/etc. Even playing CivIV. My idle usage is 600 MB, not counting SuperFetch, which decreases as needed. It might be higher for most users (I disabled Sidebar - possibly why I can't tell much of a difference between XP and Vista) - but there's still RAM to spare.

The QuickSearch on the Start menu also probably is a nice feature, as are the indexed searches. At this point I don't have enough programs to need them. And, alas, the only search I did required a file in a non-indexed location.

The only thing I didn't like was UAC (User Account Control). Asking for permission on tons of items is one thing, but not allowing the administrator to save files in any location - not even giving a cancel/allow dialog - is just going too far. I disabled UAC, and it's almost like XP again.

I'd say get Vista on a new machine, don't spend the $ to upgrade an old one. But I'd recommend that for any Windows release after Windows 95.

It's pretty similar to how it went when I went from 98 to XP. A fast new computer without thousands of old files I'll never need again = great fun. But I'd have been perfectly happy to keep using 98 awhile longer. I still don't mind switching back and forth between my 98, XP, and Vista computers, provided the software I want runs. I'm using XP now.

Hey, they both run and ! That's what really counts, right?

 

[Grisu]

I don't really like Vista. Got it bundled with our new PC and my gf's been complaining to get back to XP ever since. But since I don't have a spare XP licence that would mean buying one and I'm don't really want to buy another one.

I switched Aero off after about a week. the constant 'this application doesn't support aero so it's been disabled' and then enabled again on exit went on my nerves. Furthermore I didn't think it was all that breathtaking. I've had prettier looking Desktops on Linux for some time now.

I also switched off UAC, that constant questioning was getting on my nerves

I haven't had any probelms with Games so far, though, which came as a bit of a surprise after reading so many horror stories.

so in short, I probably will be going back to XP soon, unless I get the problems with Photoshop 7 and ArchiCAD sorted out.

 

[GenMarshall]

Well, at least you guys are proving my point about M$ leaving 99% of consumers ignorant about the worthwhile features of Vista.

How is stating that I will encounter software and driver problems with Vista proving your point?! Do I have to show you the results of the Vista Upgrade Advisor? I already know about the features of Vista, but I am not going to go through the headache of not having some of my software and drivers not working on Vista.

 

[Zelig]

How is stating that I will encounter software and driver problems with Vista proving your point?! Do I have to show you the results of the Vista Upgrade Advisor? I already know about the features of Vista, but I am not going to go through the headache of not having some of my software and drivers not working on Vista.

What hardware or software do you have that doesn't work in Vista?

 

[Asher]

it didn't create a bootloader for me.
well it worked just fine in XP and now it doesn't. I know microsoft doesn't actually code the drivers, but nevertheless it's only an issue in vista.

well every other operating system pulled it off flawlessly.

So? It sounds to me like you're in over your head. Vista is new. Duh.

Do you understand what an Operating System is? Do you understand how they work? With this in mind, why on earth would you throw a fit when a brand new OS has compatibility issues with old hardware? Then why would you say "but it worked before!" as some kind of excuse? I have some old dot matrix printers that worked brilliantly in Windows 3.1 that don't work at all now in the modern-age of Windows 98. Damn WindozeeE!!

I didn't notice this drop in RAM usage. At what point after 100% ram usage am I supposed to notice this?

I call your lie and raise you a demand for a screenshot of your "Processes" tab with 100% full RAM.

I didn't see any breakdowns of the features on Microsofts site.

It's on the back of the frickin box. A chart. With feature breakdowns vs each version.

as I said it was nitpicking about the start menu and the icons

And I think the font you are typing in is fugly. That's my nitpick.

 

[Shadylookin]

So? It sounds to me like you're in over your head. Vista is new. Duh.

I"m in over my head because vista can't recognize my sound card or install a bootloader that allows me to boot into multiple partitions(or give me the option to leave my current bootloader alone)

Do you understand what an Operating System is? Do you understand how they work? With this in mind, why on earth would you throw a fit when a brand new OS has compatibility issues with old hardware? Then why would you say "but it worked before!" as some kind of excuse? I have some old dot matrix printers that worked brilliantly in Windows 3.1 that don't work at all now in the modern-age of Windows 98. Damn WindozeeE!!

an operating system is a kernel with programs. I'm not throwing a fit? you're the one having a hissy because I said I didn't enjoy my experience with vista not me. I don't think my two year old card is that far behind the times in audio technology. I do however feel for your dot-matrix printers.

I call your lie and raise you a demand for a screenshot of your "Processes" tab with 100% full RAM.

i uninstalled vista a while back so I can't do that. However feel free to call me a dirty liar if you must have faith in windows vista.

It's on the back of the frickin box. A chart. With feature breakdowns vs each version.

I've never shopped for vista, my university paid MS 100,000 dollars so that they could distribute it to students. so I didn't know it was on the back of the box, I just know that I couldn't dig up the differences on MS site.

And I think the font you are typing in is fugly. That's my nitpick.

I didn't know there were people that would get so upset because I didn't like their operating system

 

[Asher]

I"m in over my head because vista can't recognize my sound card or install a bootloader that allows me to boot into multiple partitions(or give me the option to leave my current bootloader alone)

You're in over your head because you installed a radically new OS without first checking compatibility of your hardware.

You're in over your head because you are trying to boot multiple partitions without the faintest clue how to do it.

an operating system is a kernel with programs. I'm not throwing a fit? you're the one having a hissy because I said I didn't enjoy my experience with vista not me. I don't think my two year old card is that far behind the times in audio technology. I do however feel for your dot-matrix printers. [/qutoe]
It doesn't matter how old your card is. State of the art cards are also still not fully supported under Vista yet. It's a new technology that needs to be mature before vendors can develop fully-functional drivers on top of it. This is why MS provided many hardware compatibility lists and even automatic programs to prevent people from upgrading who shouldn't.

i uninstalled vista a while back so I can't do that. However feel free to call me a dirty liar if you must have faith in windows vista.

I call you a "dirty liar" because I've used Vista for over a year on a daily basis, including many, many highly-resource intensive situations from games to video encoding to software development. I've also read whitepapers on the design of the OS and experimented with the memory usage extensively for my 768MB RAM laptop. You are either "mis-remembering" or lying, I don't care which term you prefer.

I've never shopped for vista, my university paid MS 100,000 dollars so that they could distribute it to students. so I didn't know it was on the back of the box, I just know that I couldn't dig up the differences on MS site.

Again, this is on the MS site as well. As I've said, you're clearly in over your head here.

If I got a new engine put into my car, I don't think it's a valid complaint to whine that my exhaust system needs to be replaced as well. If I didn't do any kind of research into the engine, it's also not a valid complaint to say I don't know what the difference is between it and its other versions.

If there's one pet peeve I have, it's uninformed, gratuitous whining...

 

[LordRahl]

No reason to get vista for another 2 years or so. XP is great the way it is right now, and not a resource hog.

 

[Speedo]

No reason to get vista for another 2 years or so. XP is great the way it is right now, and not a resource hog.

My gut says that Vista x64 will be forced to mature and become the OS of choice - for gamers at least- at least within 2 years. We already have a few games knocking on the door of the 2GB user address space in 32 bit Windows, and the number of those will only increase.

 

[Shadylookin]

You're in over your head because you installed a radically new OS without first checking compatibility of your hardware.

You're in over your head because you are trying to boot multiple partitions without the faintest clue how to do it.

well I've set up bootloaders for 4 years now using the bootloaders that come with unix/linux distros. Of course I can't configure a bootloader from scratch but for MS who prides itself on usability creating a grub/lilo style bootloader should be easy as pie.

It doesn't matter how old your card is. State of the art cards are also still not fully supported under Vista yet. It's a new technology that needs to be mature before vendors can develop fully-functional drivers on top of it. This is why MS provided many hardware compatibility lists and even automatic programs to prevent people from upgrading who shouldn't.

well state of the art is rather meaningless if it doesn't work. My comp meets all vista standards.

I call you a "dirty liar" because I've used Vista for over a year on a daily basis, including many, many highly-resource intensive situations from games to video encoding to software development. I've also read whitepapers on the design of the OS and experimented with the memory usage extensively for my 768MB RAM laptop. You are either "mis-remembering" or lying, I don't care which term you prefer.

well it's not so hard to believe my laptop was running out of ram. It only has a little less than a gig and vista dedicated the majority of it to my video card.

If I got a new engine put into my car, I don't think it's a valid complaint to whine that my exhaust system needs to be replaced as well. If I didn't do any kind of research into the engine, it's also not a valid complaint to say I don't know what the difference is between it and its other versions.

I don't see how its not valid to complain when you're not satisfied with the job done.

If there's one pet peeve I have, it's uninformed, gratuitous whining...

well if there's one thing in life that brings me joy it's annoying people

 

[Asher]

well I've set up bootloaders for 4 years now using the bootloaders that come with unix/linux distros. Of course I can't configure a bootloader from scratch but for MS who prides itself on usability creating a grub/lilo style bootloader should be easy as pie.

Why would MS put time and money into R&Ding ways to make it easier for you to use a different OS? That's not something MS should be doing, nor is it something I thought anyone would use. What's wrong with GRUB? Why re-invent the wheel?

well state of the art is rather meaningless if it doesn't work. My comp meets all vista standards.

Again, you simply do not understand. This is not about meeting standards or hardware being old or hardware being start of the art. It's about a from-the-ground-up new audio engine with new driver models that requires every single hardware vendor to create, from scratch, new drivers. This takes time for the vendors to do.

well it's not so hard to believe my laptop was running out of ram. It only has a little less than a gig and vista dedicated the majority of it to my video card.

First -- no, it's not hard to believe that your laptop ran out of RAM. That was not what I was saying you were lying about. I told you that the more RAM your programs use, Vista throttles down its memory usage since it uses much of it to cache programs used frequently. You essentially said this was not the case because you ran out all the time. I wanted a screenshot of your processes tab so I can show you exactly what was going on.

I don't see how its not valid to complain when you're not satisfied with the job done.

Because it has nothing at all to do with the job done, and everything to do with you jumping into something you didn't even give 10 seconds of research to. Upgrading the central pillar to your whole computer is a big deal -- period. The whole point of new operating systems is change, and if you're not equipped to deal with change, don't use it. Go back to typewriters, Apple IIes, or Windows 95 for all I care...just don't whine when you jump to something new and different as soon as it comes out and then whine that its driver support isn't mature as a 10 year old platform's.