Yet another Vista question...

[Zelig]

Except for a limited number of niche users, there's really no need to use Vista. DX10 might be one of them, but even the games that use it still mostly support 9. If you like the eyecandy of Aero, go to youtube and look at Compiz Fusion. If you're still impressed by Aero, then I'll never change your mind. Security, there's nothing Vista has that can't be done on XP with free 3rd party programs, and that goes for pretty much all of the other "features". Sure, the average user can be perfectly happy with Vista, but they can be just as happy for cheaper with XP. Or you can be happier still and learn Linux. It's not nearly as hard as most people think, and except for a slightly larger niche group, will do everything you need.

Vista Home Premium on Newegg is $100, XP Home is also $100, that's not cheaper with XP.

Stuff that can't be done in XP with free 3rd party programs:

• Support for large amounts of memory
• Improved memory management
• Improved multi-core management
• Improved audio stack
• Improved update system
• Increased performance
• Improved networking
• Improved driver model

 

[Aramazd]

So the suggestion is to throw money on the problem till it goes away? Doesn't that usually fail?

Adding more RAM will help, and it's about $20 for a gigabyte of DDR2.

Except for a limited number of niche users, there's really no need to use Vista. DX10 might be one of them, but even the games that use it still mostly support 9. If you like the eyecandy of Aero, go to youtube and look at Compiz Fusion. If you're still impressed by Aero, then I'll never change your mind. Security, there's nothing Vista has that can't be done on XP with free 3rd party programs, and that goes for pretty much all of the other "features". Sure, the average user can be perfectly happy with Vista, but they can be just as happy for cheaper with XP. Or you can be happier still and learn Linux. It's not nearly as hard as most people think, and except for a slightly larger niche group, will do everything you need.

There's no need to downgrade to XP either, assuming your system has decent specs. I imagine the average user would still be happy with Windows98.

 

[taper]

Vista Home Premium on Newegg is $100, XP Home is also $100, that's not cheaper with XP.

XP will run on lower hardware. There's more to cost than just the OS.

Stuff that can't be done in XP with free 3rd party programs:
Support for large amounts of memory
Improved memory management

Anybody actually need more than 3.5 GB on XP? Fits in the niche category if you do.

Improved multi-core management
Improved audio stack
Improved update system

All are functional in XP

Increased performance

Based on what? Buying an upgraded system when you install Vista? At the extreme top end I believe Vista should be better, but how many people are at that point versus lower performance on average hardware?

Improved networking
Improved driver model

Again, everything worked in XP. Small improvements don't justify the performance and cost hit for the average user.

There's no need to downgrade to XP either, assuming your system has decent specs. I imagine the average user would still be happy with Windows98

What's considered decent specs now? My laptop has a 1.8GHz Mobile Sempron(not even close to a 1.8GHz Core2 Duo), 512MB RAM, and integrated video. It ran XP just fine(now has Linux), and does everything I ever asked of it. A similar system should run around $200 now. Win98 might be a little low on features by now, but 2000 is still used by a lot of business, because it still works great.

Please note that I don't hate Vista just because it's the latest from Microsoft. I have a problem with bloat, and the average user simply shouldn't have to spend $700-$1500+ just so they can do basic tasks.

 

[Aramazd]

What's considered decent specs now? My laptop has a 1.8GHz Mobile Sempron(not even close to a 1.8GHz Core2 Duo), 512MB RAM, and integrated video. It ran XP just fine(now has Linux), and does everything I ever asked of it. A similar system should run around $200 now. Win98 might be a little low on features by now, but 2000 is still used by a lot of business, because it still works great.

2000 is used by businesses on computers that were bought with 2000. It's only used on older computers.
My point is that with Win98 the average user could do all he wanted, even today, so why use XP, it's such a resource hog compared to 98.

Please note that I don't hate Vista just because it's the latest from Microsoft. I have a problem with bloat, and the average user simply shouldn't have to spend $700-$1500+ just so they can do basic tasks.

You don't. Any computer with 1 gig of RAM and a C2D with searching and precaching off will run fine with Vista if you only do basic tasks.

Based on what? Buying an upgraded system when you install Vista? At the extreme top end I believe Vista should be better, but how many people are at that point versus lower performance on average hardware?

IIRC, Vista SP1 runs faster than XP SP2/SP3 assuming the hardware can handle Vista in the first place.

 

[Speedo]

You wanna see the baby photo's of me sitting on my dads lap watching him work on the computer?

I learned how to read using a computer..

And you think that imparts some knowledge of the Vista kernel because...? Please, I know people who've worked on/with computers in a professional capacity for 20+ who are still completely ignorant about Vista.

Maybe some of those people have used Vista, and while they may not know how it works deep down, they know that it doesnt work for them.

Then maybe these people should stick to saying that they just don't like Vista instead of spreading false information.

Anybody actually need more than 3.5 GB on XP? Fits in the niche category if you do.

This will be changing in the very near future. Not so much the need for > 3.5GB total system RAM, but programs are going to start needing > 2GB address space, and Vista64 is the only viable option for that until Windows7.

All are functional in XP
Again, everything worked in XP. Small improvements don't justify the performance and cost hit for the average user.

/Yawn
Exactly the same argument was used against XP by the people clinging desperately to their copies of 95/98. We go round and round the merry-go-round forever... can't wait to hear all these arguments crop up again when Windows7 hits the shelves.

 

[t0mme]

IIRC, Vista SP1 runs faster than XP SP2/SP3 assuming the hardware can handle Vista in the first place.

And that's the main thing really. I've seen computers for sale with Vista installed and no way near enough resources to run it. I mean, Vista Ultimate with an integrated gfx-card and 512MB simply won't cut it.
Then again, I've seen systems which might not handle Vista in optima forma, but would be a cracking XP-system.
BTW, this year I bought my cheapest PC ever. €700 for a dual-core at 2Ghz, 2GB RAM, Geforce8400 and a 19" widescreen monitor WITH Vista Basic and it runs like a charm (UAC, searching and indexing disabled). Though with the recent exchange rates, €700 is about a million dollars.

If you really want to put yourself on a tight budget with older, but cheaper, hardware, XP might be the way to go. But I do feel I can recommend Vista. Just don't expect it to run on 2 year old 'crappy' hardware.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Then maybe these people should stick to saying that they just don't like Vista instead of spreading false information.

Please point this out?

 

[Dabur]

you know guys , a lot of people use programs that conflict , or they change the OS in such a way it was not designed for , i have been working with the beta for a long time and got vista with a new comp , it still has to crash , ....

or any other of the 136 other comps in the office on vista , .....

as for mem , yes one gig is prefered , since that is cheap now instead to complain , spend the money on it , its worth it , you get so much more for it

and there is always the page file , or the mem stick boost that a lot of people dont even know about

ill challenge any person to run a program on 98 SE or XP pro to make it run faster then on vista home ed pre , ......

 

[Speedo]

Please point this out?

"And the fact that it uses up ungodly amounts of memory. Dont get Vista unless you plan on having more than 3 gigs of RAM and no legacy drivers and dont care for a new UI or etc."

 

[innonimatu]

This will be changing in the very near future. Not so much the need for > 3.5GB total system RAM, but programs are going to start needing > 2GB address space, and Vista64 is the only viable option for that until Windows7.

click here

Or simply change off windows altogether. Lots of OEMs are starting to sell with Linux, Apple's share is also growing fast, and the windows fee is becoming increasingly unnecessary to the common computer user. Web browsing, pictures, music &video, and games are the things people use Windows machines for (outside the corporate world). Windows only retains an edge in games, and the growing popularity of Apple machines may soon end that. Not to mention that consoles and the popularity of simpler java and flash-based games is making even that irrelevant.

/Yawn
Exactly the same argument was used against XP by the people clinging desperately to their copies of 95/98. We go round and round the merry-go-round forever... can't wait to hear all these arguments crop up again when Windows7 hits the shelves.

You're seriously trying to compare the 98->XP switch made by consumers (business happily continued to use 2000 and in some cases even NT4 for a few more years) to the present situation (XP -> Vista)?

 

[Aramazd]

click here

XP64 is terrible. No drivers at all compared to Vista 64.

Or simply change off windows altogether. Lots of OEMs are starting to sell with Linux, Apple's share is also growing fast, and the windows fee is becoming increasingly unnecessary to the common computer user. Web browsing, pictures, music &video, and games are the things people use Windows machines for (outside the corporate world). Windows only retains an edge in games, and the growing popularity of Apple machines may soon end that. Not to mention that consoles and the popularity of simpler java and flash-based games is making even that irrelevant.

Unless you have Windows-only apps. And your not seriously going to advocate switching to Apple to avoid paying for Windows? Linux, I can kinda see, especially as Wine gets more mature.

You're seriously trying to compare the 98->XP switch made by consumers (business happily continued to use 2000 and in some cases even NT4 for a few more years) to the present situation (XP -> Vista)?

It's almost exactly the same. In 2001 XP was bloated, required extra hardware, and had an ugly UI; today everyone loves XP.

 

[taper]

Let's put it another way. A base 1980 Ferrari Dino had 250 hp. A base 2008 Ford Taurus has 263hp. Does that mean in another 30 years your family sedan will have the same performance as a 360? I doubt it. There comes a point where the hardware allows everything an average human needs. I believe the home and business pc(servers and serious gamers are a different story) is at that point. It wasn't that long ago that MS Word could consistently keep up with a fast typist, I personally didn't use a computer that could until I went to college in the early 00's. Aside from graphics updates, a few stability and security updates, and sometimes a revised UI, the programs the average user has haven't really changed in years, and probably won't for years more.

 

[Aramazd]

Let's put it another way. A base 1980 Ferrari Dino had 250 hp. A base 2008 Ford Taurus has 263hp. Does that mean in another 30 years your family sedan will have the same performance as a 360? I doubt it. There comes a point where the hardware allows everything an average human needs. I believe the home and business pc(servers and serious gamers are a different story) is at that point. It wasn't that long ago that MS Word could consistently keep up with a fast typist, I personally didn't use a computer that could until I went to college in the early 00's. Aside from graphics updates, a few stability and security updates, and sometimes a revised UI, the programs the average user has haven't really changed in years, and probably won't for years more.

What's your point? I see no point in going back to an inferior OS just because it's good enough. If we take your point farther, we might all just use DOS, those fancy GUIs are just wasting CPU cycles.

 

[Speedo]

click here

XPx64 is questionable as a viable OS at the present, and absolutely out of the question for anyone with an eye to the future.

Or simply change off windows altogether. Lots of OEMs are starting to sell with Linux, Apple's share is also growing fast, and the windows fee is becoming increasingly unnecessary to the common computer user. Web browsing, pictures, music &video, and games are the things people use Windows machines for (outside the corporate world). Windows only retains an edge in games, and the growing popularity of Apple machines may soon end that. Not to mention that consoles and the popularity of simpler java and flash-based games is making even that irrelevant.

I just have to LOL at a post which whines about the "windows fee" and then goes on suggest Mac as an alternative. Buying a little to much into the hype there, friend.

Anyway, if you want to summarize Apple's rise in market share (up to 7%! shock and awe!), I'll do it for you in 2 words: "boot camp". I'm sure you're able to understand how it invalidates most of your post.

And as far as consoles killing PC gaming... yeah, only been hearing those claims for about 15 years now.

You're seriously trying to compare the 98->XP switch made by consumers (business happily continued to use 2000 and in some cases even NT4 for a few more years) to the present situation (XP -> Vista)?

For the average consumer it's pratically identical, of course. The exact same arguments used now against Vista were used almost word for word against XP.

Edit:

It wasn't that long ago that MS Word could consistently keep up with a fast typist, I personally didn't use a computer that could until I went to college in the early 00's.

You're kidding, right? Do I need to go digging in my closet for my old IBM 386 laptop to show you some of its word processing programs, circa the 1980s?

 

[Genocidicbunny]

"And the fact that it uses up ungodly amounts of memory. Dont get Vista unless you plan on having more than 3 gigs of RAM and no legacy drivers and dont care for a new UI or etc."

And I'll point out that I was corrected, and that I accepted that I was wrong.

 

[damunzy]

And Vista runs fine with UAC off, I've been running without it for the past 18 months, without any problems.

Unfortunately, that breaks some things like parental controls. I have a Windows Vista Home Basic that I setup for the kids. I use parental controls to allow them to access only approved websites and with UAC off Parental Controls does not work. I is very annoying to get the UAC prompts when I am logged in as root/admin.

 

[Aramazd]

Unfortunately, that breaks some things like parental controls. I have a Windows Vista Home Basic that I setup for the kids. I use parental controls to allow them to access only approved websites and with UAC off Parental Controls does not work. I is very annoying to get the UAC prompts when I am logged in as root/admin.

IIRC, there is a way to disable it for admins only, will google it and get back to you.

EDIT:Here you go. Scroll down to Disable Admin Approval Mode, that should work.

 

[damunzy]

IIRC, there is a way to disable it for admins only, will google it and get back to you.

EDIT:Here you go. Scroll down to Disable Admin Approval Mode, that should work.

Thanks! I will read through that some more (glanced at it quickly). Seems like it will solve my problem.

On Vista- if your system comes with it use it. If it doesn't don't upgrade. Me, I am using XP Pro right now and going to reload XP and dual boot a Linux (going to try Freespire 2.0.8- decided to go with Ubuntu 8.04 since Freespire 2 is based on Ubuntu 7.04).

 

[GrandAdmiral]

XP will run on lower hardware. There's more to cost than just the OS.

Yes it will run better on lower end hardware. For an older system it would be better. Most new systems don't have those kind of specs. Even many of the cheaper machines come with 2gb. The best performance for your dollar is going to be with midrange hardware that will run well with Vista.

Anybody actually need more than 3.5 GB on XP? Fits in the niche category if you do.

You don't need it on XP or Vista. But it would improve performance dramatically and the price of ram has dropped to the point where it is attainable on a lower midranged system. The increased demand for ram from the needs of users to the demands of the software has done nothing but drop the price. 2gb ram today is cheaper than 512mb was when that was the norm.

Based on what? Buying an upgraded system when you install Vista? At the extreme top end I believe Vista should be better, but how many people are at that point versus lower performance on average hardware?

Probably more than you think. Most Mac users are at or near that point. A lot of new sales are of midrange systems because low end hardware is really a poor investment. Plus average users are doing more and more audio video editing, ripping and encoding. People use the example of web surfing but multimedia and entertainment have actually been a huge draw for average users because of MP3 players and that benefits from better specs regardless of OS.

Again, everything worked in XP. Small improvements don't justify the performance and cost hit for the average user.

I agree when it comes to upgrades but I could say that about XP and even Leopard. When it comes to buying a new machine I disagree. The cost of home premium is not jacking up the price all that much. In fact PCs are cheaper than they have ever been. My $1500 laptop that came with Vista Ultimate has great specs and I can even play games with it. 5 years ago any laptop that was decent for gaming would have easily cost well over 3 grand and it still probably wouldn't fit my business requirements.

What's considered decent specs now? My laptop has a 1.8GHz Mobile Sempron(not even close to a 1.8GHz Core2 Duo), 512MB RAM, and integrated video. It ran XP just fine(now has Linux), and does everything I ever asked of it. A similar system should run around $200 now. Win98 might be a little low on features by now, but 2000 is still used by a lot of business, because it still works great.

I would say the specs are low end, especially the video unless this is a UMPC and there is a different version of Vista for those. The average low end system would outperform it. Of course I wouldn't tell you to upgrade that machine. But If XP came out I wouldn't advocate running it on older hardware either. Consequently most popular Linux installs have increase the hardware demands as well although not as much.

Please note that I don't hate Vista just because it's the latest from Microsoft. I have a problem with bloat, and the average user simply shouldn't have to spend $700-$1500+ just so they can do basic tasks.

This really has nothing to do with MS. The average notebook that doesn't come with Windows costs at least $700-$1500. In fact it was the Windows PCs that made up the bulk that lower end. That price range is not unreasonable and what you get for it is far beyond what you would get 5 years ago.

I wouldn't say the average user doesn't need to spend $700 especially if this includes notebooks. Plenty of machines are cheaper but they are mostly crap even with XP. If you are spending less on a new machine you are wasting money as the value and performance per dollar drops dramatically below $700. When XP came out $1000-$1500 was low end. Even a Macbook with the crappiest video card that Apple has available will set you back that much.

I do agree that Windows could shed some pounds but the average complaint includes everything Sony and Dell puts on their new systems. I've done enough clean installs of Vista to know it isn't that bad and most people don't realize that the majority of the space taken up by the Windows install is from the restore point or even the last installation if its an upgrade. Both of which consist of space that you can easily reclaim and are dependent on unused hard drive space. It does irk me somewhat but its not a deal breaker especially since hard drive space grows on trees these days.