Is Vista how XP should be?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I had the opportunity to try Vista Home Basic for a week or so. This version
is limited to the very basic functions and none of the bells and whistles.

So far so good. It is stable and usable -- I like it.

But I am suprised that after all the time and money invested in developing
the product the end result is effectively a polished version of XP in terms
of interface and experience.

I guess I was expecting a more radical change. I'm not sure exactly what,
but new ways to manage files (offline and online), search and display
information. I was also hoping that the whole thing would be speedier.

Or is all of the above offered by premium versions of Vista?

Finally, if the choice is between a new PC with Vista Home Basic and one
with XP Pro, wouldn't the latter be a better choice as it's much less 'heavy'
and a more tried and tested system?
 
A dual-core CPU computer with 2GB RAM
and any version of Windows Vista will
out-perform Windows XP in a heartbeat. And
you'll enjoy the enhanced security built-in to
Windows Vista, not the added-on security needed
for Windows XP. I've been using Windows Vista
since last January and Windows XP is now a
distant memory whose life-cycle is coming
to an end.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

---------------------------------------------------------------

:

I had the opportunity to try Vista Home Basic for a week or so. This version
is limited to the very basic functions and none of the bells and whistles.

So far so good. It is stable and usable -- I like it.

But I am suprised that after all the time and money invested in developing
the product the end result is effectively a polished version of XP in terms
of interface and experience.

I guess I was expecting a more radical change. I'm not sure exactly what,
but new ways to manage files (offline and online), search and display
information. I was also hoping that the whole thing would be speedier.

Or is all of the above offered by premium versions of Vista?

Finally, if the choice is between a new PC with Vista Home Basic and one
with XP Pro, wouldn't the latter be a better choice as it's much less 'heavy'
and a more tried and tested system?
 
not tried ultimate yet but home premium is also a lot like xp just alot
heavier on the ram. i like using it tho and havent really encountered any
major problems with it usually just new hardware drivers need to be
installed. Most of the controls are the same as xp.
 
When using Windows Vista Aero, open windows glide smoothly on
your screen when you move or resize them. There are no redraw
artifacts, latency, or "tearing" effects that you sometimes see,
particularly in windows that display dynamic content such as video.
Using Aero will give you an even more confident and stable
Windows desktop experience.

Windows Vista Aero Explained:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/aero.mspx
 
"Using Aero will give you an even more confident and stable Windows desktop
experience"

Actually, so far the best experience for me has been the classic view with
the least possible features on (apart from ClearType). I'm a minimalist!

I'll have to test Aero and see if benefits go beyond the smoother and
aesthetic experience.
 
Carey Frisch said:
When using Windows Vista Aero, open windows glide smoothly on
your screen when you move or resize them. There are no redraw
artifacts, latency, or "tearing" effects that you sometimes see,
particularly in windows that display dynamic content such as video.
Using Aero will give you an even more confident and stable
Windows desktop experience.
Click to expand...

This statement is simply untrue. The vast majority of third party tests show
Vista to be significantly slower than XP across the board. Microsoft's own
statments about SP1 indicate that this is the main issue they will be trying
to "fix."
 
Carey said:
A dual-core CPU computer with 2GB RAM
and any version of Windows Vista will
out-perform Windows XP in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Out perform how??
Certainly not on speed in my experience...

Guy
 
Old PC:

System: Intel Pentium 4, 3000 MHz
Memory: 2048MB RAM
Disk: Drives C, E
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT
Internet: MSIE 7.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727
Windows: Windows XP Pro SP2
Score: 1760

New PC:
System: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+, 2000 MHz
Memory: 2048MB RAM
Disk: Drives C, D, E
Video: ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO
Internet: MSIE 7.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Windows
Windows: Vista Ultimate
Score: 2351

Ref: PC PitStop

Windows Vista...the clear performance winner!

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

---------------------------------------------------------------

Bigguy said:
A dual-core CPU computer with 2GB RAM
and any version of Windows Vista will
out-perform Windows XP in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

Out perform how??
Certainly not on speed in my experience...

Guy
 
Carey Frisch said:
A dual-core CPU computer with 2GB RAM
and any version of Windows Vista will
out-perform Windows XP in a heartbeat. And
you'll enjoy the enhanced security built-in to
Windows Vista, not the added-on security needed
for Windows XP. I've been using Windows Vista
since last January and Windows XP is now a
distant memory whose life-cycle is coming
to an end.
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct. Vista will crash faster than XP, screw up my data
faster than XP, throw up security road blocks faster than XP, block my
music faster than XP.
 
I had the opportunity to try Vista Home Basic for a week or so. This version
is limited to the very basic functions and none of the bells and whistles.

So far so good. It is stable and usable -- I like it.

But I am suprised that after all the time and money invested in developing
the product the end result is effectively a polished version of XP in terms
of interface and experience.

I guess I was expecting a more radical change. I'm not sure exactly what,
but new ways to manage files (offline and online), search and display
information. I was also hoping that the whole thing would be speedier.

Or is all of the above offered by premium versions of Vista?

Finally, if the choice is between a new PC with Vista Home Basic and one
with XP Pro, wouldn't the latter be a better choice as it's much less 'heavy'
and a more tried and tested system?
Click to expand...

Like you, I was very, very skeptical about Vista. I've been with
Windows since Window for Workgroups 3.1.1, and went through all the
versions, including the agonizing Windows ME. I really like Windows
XP, and have some version of it running on all of my machines, and on
the relatives' machines that I support.

Then Vista was introduced. I read the mixed reviews. I read the
newsgroups and the forums, since last December, realizing that most
posters were asking for problem resolutions.

Then it was time for me to replace one of the older desktops in my
house. I wanted to get a Core 2 Duo, but had to decide if I wanted XP
or Vista shipped with it. I was on the fence for a long time, but
finally decided to get Vista, and if I didn't like it, I'd set up a
dual boot with XP as the primary OS.

I got my Vista Home Premium machine a week ago. It is a Core 2 Duo
with 2 MB ram, and a 256 nVidia dedicated video card. It all set up
flawlessly. I wouldn't try upgrading to Vista (even Vista Basic) on
older hardware. I think this is where most people have problems, due
to insufficient computing power and lack of updated drivers. My new
Vista machine does indeed run rings around my older XP set ups. Of
course, I have new hardware. If you're going to consider Vista, and
you're hoping to get improved speeds, you'll need new hardware.

I do expect to climb a steep learning curve to become proficient with
Vista. It is different. I didn't care about the improved security,
which seems really to just be the OS asking you all the time if 'you'
are the one that asked to make 'this or that' change, junk mail
filters and anti-phishing with the new Windows Mail, and a user admin
account (as opposed to THE admin account).

The only peripheral I've installed thus far is an older Canon i560
printer. I had to have a printer to print out search results, etc.
Although Vista has a native driver for this printer, I did have some
problems, but managed to prevail.

I may have other problems, who knows. I've still got to install other
peripherals and software, and do networking. I've already determined
what hardware needs driver updates, and some of my favorite software
will not work on Vista; I'll need to purchase newer versions. Ouch!

Nonetheless, I haven't gone back to my XP based machines since I got
the Vista box.

If I was going to buy a new pc, I'd get it with Vista, and the proper
hardware to support Vista. For home users, XP will be a thing of the
past, like it or not.
 
No.. XP is like Vista should be!

they could have done so many things to improve windows.. WITHOUT making it
bloated as a pregnant whale, slow, and darn right stupid!

Vista is the most horrible OS microsoft has ever made...

yous suggestion that it some kind of improvment is insulting!
 
Nice to see all the propaganda get to you...
Vista is a thing of the past...

It will be forgoten like windows Me was, as something of a bad nightmare
 
Thai Berry (U.S.) said:
Nice to see all the propaganda get to you...
Vista is a thing of the past...

It will be forgoten like windows Me was, as something of a bad nightmare
Click to expand...

Kinda like you when your Mommy finds out you are using the computer.

Thai Berry will be forgoten like yesterdays news, something of a bad
nightmare !
 
Carey said:
Old PC:

System: Intel Pentium 4, 3000 MHz
Memory: 2048MB RAM
Disk: Drives C, E
Video: NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT
Internet: MSIE 7.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727
Windows: Windows XP Pro SP2
Score: 1760

New PC:
System: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 3800+, 2000 MHz
Memory: 2048MB RAM
Disk: Drives C, D, E
Video: ATI Radeon HD 2400 PRO
Internet: MSIE 7.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Windows
Windows: Vista Ultimate
Score: 2351

Ref: PC PitStop

Windows Vista...the clear performance winner!
Click to expand...

Different processors, different mo/bos, different GFX cards, different
RAM...

What exactly is this supposed to show? ;-)

The only three PCs I have personally installed Vista on (clean install)
were all a tiny bit slower with Vista than with XP.

And they wanted an extra 1GB RAM to run as smoothly... YMMV

Guy
 
I have noticed the same results, and this method of comparing speed is
actually valid, unlike Carey's.
 
Thai said:
No.. XP is like Vista should be!

they could have done so many things to improve windows.. WITHOUT making it
bloated as a pregnant whale, slow, and darn right stupid!

Vista is the most horrible OS microsoft has ever made...

yous suggestion that it some kind of improvment is insulting!
Click to expand...
Please, just STFU! You have noting of importance to say and we've heard
your "hate Vista diatribe" one to many times. Your big mouth bitching
about Vista shows your childish ignorance and in the end will have
absolutely no effect at all on MS or Vista.
IOW, you're just a whiny loser.
Get lost and don't come back.
Frank
 
Please, just STFU! You have noting of importance to say and we've heard
your "hate Vista diatribe" one to many times. Your big mouth bitching
about Vista shows your childish ignorance and in the end will have
absolutely no effect at all on MS or Vista.
IOW, you're just a whiny loser.
Get lost and don't come back.
Frank
Click to expand...

Lets look at the flip side:

Frank never will STFU and never adds anything of importance to any
thread and we've heard his pro Vista and pro Microsoft diatribe
hundreds of times. Frank is infamous for his big mouth bitching, his
daily childish rants, his constant unfounded name calling and child
like ignorance on many topics. Frank is without a doubt a proven liar
and a whiny loser. Frank has been on a non stop hissy fit that's
continued for at least eight months and counting. He should get lost
and never come back or at the very least just shut-up for awhile. We
only wish. Please Frank, take a hint!
 
Back
Top