OS Debate: Vista vs XP

[Eric]

So I am planning to get a new PC this year. It will be at least a few
months, but I should be able to get one by Christmas at the latest.
It has been suggested that my best bet would be to start with a 64 bit
machine and a 32 bit OS, and consider switching to a 64 bit OS maybe in a
few years.
I'm currently running WinME so I am going to want a newer OS. Do I go with
XP (Media Center?) or Vista (Premium?)?
What would be the reason to choose one or the other, aside from the
suggestion many have made here that XP should run faster?
I'm going to assume the new machine will be sufficient for either on speed,
and I believe both are similar enough on price, so I'm wondering about
actual functionality. Here's a few suggestions I've found so far...

Possible advantages of XP:
Currently should be more stable
Doesn't have a million pop up security prompts
Doesn't have DRM (Is DRM actually a bad thing?)
Already familiar with controls having used it for several years

Possible advantages of Vista:
Supposed to be more secure
That Aero thing and the 3D windows effects
Newer, will be supported longer, may run much better once they release
service packs
Built in voice recognition

 

[jim]

Yes.. this may be a surprise coming from me.. but if you get a new fast pc
get a 64bit cpu and 32 bit vista...

You seem to know very well what's going on. I cant say that for most in
here.

Why vista? because as you said support will be longer than xp.. see link
below..
vista ultimate will have far less years support that business version of
vista

see here http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=38410

 

[Dave B.]

The biggest consideration is driver availability for your current
peripherals, XP likely supports them, you may have to replace some stuff if
you go with Vista. A bit of research will determine Vista driver
availability.

--

 

[Tom Porterfield]

Yes.. this may be a surprise coming from me.. but if you get a new fast pc
get a 64bit cpu and 32 bit vista...

You seem to know very well what's going on. I cant say that for most in
here.

Why vista? because as you said support will be longer than xp.. see link
below..
vista ultimate will have far less years support that business version of
vista

There is precedent to indicate this may not be the case. Originally XP Home
support was set to expire prior to XP Pro, but MS recently announced that XP
Home will now be supported for the same period as XP Pro.

 

[Tom Porterfield]

So I am planning to get a new PC this year. It will be at least a few
months, but I should be able to get one by Christmas at the latest.
It has been suggested that my best bet would be to start with a 64 bit
machine and a 32 bit OS, and consider switching to a 64 bit OS maybe in a
few years.
I'm currently running WinME so I am going to want a newer OS. Do I go
with XP (Media Center?) or Vista (Premium?)?
What would be the reason to choose one or the other, aside from the
suggestion many have made here that XP should run faster?
I'm going to assume the new machine will be sufficient for either on
speed, and I believe both are similar enough on price, so I'm wondering
about actual functionality. Here's a few suggestions I've found so far...

Possible advantages of XP:
Currently should be more stable
Doesn't have a million pop up security prompts
Doesn't have DRM (Is DRM actually a bad thing?)
Already familiar with controls having used it for several years

Possible advantages of Vista:
Supposed to be more secure
That Aero thing and the 3D windows effects
Newer, will be supported longer, may run much better once they release
service packs
Built in voice recognition

The fact that you are currently running ME indicates to me that once you get
a system you like, you stick with it for a long time. Based on that it
makes sense to me for you to go with Vista so that your support period more
closely aligns with the period that you will be using the PC and OS. SP1
for Vista is scheduled to be released by the end of this year, so you'll
soon be able to take advantage of any fixes/enhancements that will be
included in that.

 

[Eric]

The biggest consideration is driver availability for your current
peripherals, XP likely supports them, you may have to replace some stuff
if you go with Vista. A bit of research will determine Vista driver
availability.

My question is to the possible reasons to choose XP or Vista for a new
system based on functionality. What can one do that the other one is
lacking?

Ignore the following issues:
- I'm guessing XP would run faster, at least initially. Vista may run
faster after patch/service pack release. I've read some people saying Vista
already looks faster for them, so it may be a configuration issue that makes
it faster with certain hardware or OS options configuration
- I know Vista is the better choice for support because it is newer, though
at this point it needs more support because XP already has most of the bugs
worked out
- I would assume Vista will support all peripherals sooner or later. It
will be at least a few months before I buy the new PC. I would hope the
drivers it is lacking will be released this year.

Get to the point:
- What can you actually DO with each OS, that you cannot do in the other, or
cannot do as well?
- Is DRM an advantage or disadvantage of Vista?
- Is the new GUI look really an improvement? Are the 3D windows as cool as
MS says? Did they improve the Start Bar usability or ruin it?
- Is Vista really better for security, or just more annoying with constant
security pop up messages?
- Is Directx 10 available for XP, or going to be, or might this be a huge
advantage of Vista?
- Is the new Vista search feature as useful as they say or simply an
annoyance?
- Did Vista add anything cool or simply annoy us where they changed the
control names and locations ie Desktop > Properties?
etc

 

[Eric]

The fact that you are currently running ME indicates to me that once you
get a system you like, you stick with it for a long time. Based on that
it makes sense to me for you to go with Vista so that your support period
more closely aligns with the period that you will be using the PC and OS.
SP1 for Vista is scheduled to be released by the end of this year, so
you'll soon be able to take advantage of any fixes/enhancements that will
be included in that.

I'm currently running ME because it was the OS my wife picked out when I
bought the PC about 5 years ago and I haven't had a need to switch to XP
that would justify the $99 upgrade. The budget has been tight the past few
years. I don't necessarily stick with it for a long time, just as long as I
can't justify spending money to switch... I expect to switch to the latest
64 bit OS in a couple years, if or when it has decent driver support and
some new worthwhile apps.

 

[Leythos]

This is how I see XP vs Vista

If a new PC, then the following would apply:

Vista:
Computer should (?) be configured for it, meaning it will have 1+GB RAM,
large drive, quality 256-512MB Video Card, and all the drivers will be
vista.

Any software that you already own may need to be upgraded or not work if
it's older than a couple years or if it's based around hardware.

XP:
Computer will more than meet the specs for XP, and everything you want to
run, currently, will be supported.

Any software that you already own may (since your on ME) need to be
upgraded or not work if it's older than a couple years or if it's based
around hardware.

Solution:

If I were getting a new computer, I would get one that is certified for
Vista (not basic) and with a free/cheap upgrade to Vista, but I would get
XP on it, currently. XP will give you less issues with all that you want
to do, currently, but, you need to ensure that you get the cheap/free
upgrade to vista so that you can move to it after the teething period.

You also need to ensure that you have a LOT of performance, and I mean you
should buy as much computer as you can afford, since you keep your systems
for a while, and buy more than you think you'll need.

 

[Andy Bowen]

thats all well and good but the honeymoon period for the free upgrades is in
march and hes not getting the comp for a while yet. If you want an XP system
with vista capability and a free or low cost upgrade you need to get it now.
If you leave it till the later part of this year you wont be able to buy a
new system that wont be running vista as its boot up OS.

 

[Guest]

I've been working with Vista Business Edition since the day after it was
released. My approach to an operating system is for it to be that--a
foundation on top of which I can run applications and hardware. In other
words, it is a means and not an end in itself, although Microsoft marketing
people might have you believe otherwise. I expect the OS to be unobtrusive,
intuitive, and not a burden to the computer. On all three of these points, I
have to give Vista low marks.

UAC gets in the way. Existing functions (Add/Remove Programs, for example)
being renamed to something else just wreaks of Change for the sake of Change.
I still don't have my network shares working, and I'm running a trial
version of Microsoft Windows Live OneCare, because my antivirus won't run
under Vista. And so on. I'm usually a fan of NEW and IMPROVED, but I have
to admit I am hard pressed to find much in Vista that is truly improved--at
least from my point of view (see above). Too much form and not enough
substance, is my conclusion.

The real killer for me--and the reason I will shortly format my system drive
and reinstall Windows XP Pro--is the way hardware manufacturers and software
publishers have responded to Vista. My list (so far) of unsupported programs
and gear that are not supported for Vista, and for which the provider has
announced that they will not patch or update accordingly, totals nearly
$1,200 in replacement cost--to replace working programs and devices! Intuit
QuickBooks 2005, HP 2000c printer, Monaco/XRite monitor calibration program
and device, VCOM System Suite 7, Promise RAID controller, and others. Other
cases, like Adobe Photoshop CS2 (released less than 1.5 yrs ago) are just
ignored by the publisher who says, their new CS3 will support all functions
in Vista.

In most instances, it is simply a matter of greed--Intuit, Adobe and HP have
chosen to not support their products, but rather to force their past
customers to buy again. I can't afford the extra outlay to replace working
programs and devices, and I can't abide that kind of waste, so I'm cutting my
losses. I no longer care whose fault it is that these things don't work
under Vista. Whoever's fault it is, it is still me who is being asked to pay
for it. It's time to just say no.

BTW, Office 2007 is nothing to brag about either.

 

[Bob Eyster]

As for the OS, I would go with XP Pro for compatibility reasons. I will take
a couple years for the software/driver makers to get up to speed with Vista
(if you go with Vista get the Ultimate version).

At the present time there are too many issues with hardware and drivers
compatibility issues. Maybe after the first SP is released thing will start
looking up for Vista.

 

[Eric]

This is how I see XP vs Vista

If a new PC, then the following would apply:

Vista:
Computer should (?) be configured for it, meaning it will have 1+GB RAM,
large drive, quality 256-512MB Video Card, and all the drivers will be
vista.

My next PC will surely have at least 1 GB RAM with a 256 MB video. I will
look for the best available MB and look to save some dough on the other
parts and expect to upgrade them later. It is much easier to put in more
RAM, another or bigger HD, a new video card, etc than to try to replace a
MB.

Any software that you already own may need to be upgraded or not work if
it's older than a couple years or if it's based around hardware.

XP:
Computer will more than meet the specs for XP, and everything you want to
run, currently, will be supported.

That is one of my points favoring XP, that it just works more reliably than
Vista right now. I expect within the next year or two, everything that
works on XP should work on Vista...

Any software that you already own may (since your on ME) need to be
upgraded or not work if it's older than a couple years or if it's based
around hardware.

Exactly. If it works on XP it should work on Vista. If it won't work on XP
I'll need to replace it or just use the old computer for it.

Solution:

If I were getting a new computer, I would get one that is certified for
Vista (not basic) and with a free/cheap upgrade to Vista, but I would get
XP on it, currently. XP will give you less issues with all that you want
to do, currently, but, you need to ensure that you get the cheap/free
upgrade to vista so that you can move to it after the teething period.

XP with a free/cheap upgrade option may be the ideal if I can find a
retailer with a good system offering that OS deal. At least some of those
retailers don't offer great systems. I don't believe Dell sells any AM2
MBs...

You also need to ensure that you have a LOT of performance, and I mean you
should buy as much computer as you can afford, since you keep your systems
for a while, and buy more than you think you'll need.

I will try to either buy max performance, or leave room to upgrade and get a
piece or two for it each year, which doesn't help me decide if XP or Vista
has better functionality.

 

[Saran]

So I am planning to get a new PC this year. It will be at least a few
months, but I should be able to get one by Christmas at the latest.
It has been suggested that my best bet would be to start with a 64 bit
machine and a 32 bit OS, and consider switching to a 64 bit OS maybe
in a few years.
I'm currently running WinME so I am going to want a newer OS. Do I
go with XP (Media Center?) or Vista (Premium?)?
What would be the reason to choose one or the other, aside from the
suggestion many have made here that XP should run faster?
I'm going to assume the new machine will be sufficient for either on
speed, and I believe both are similar enough on price, so I'm
wondering about actual functionality. Here's a few suggestions I've
found so far...
Possible advantages of XP:
Currently should be more stable
Doesn't have a million pop up security prompts
Doesn't have DRM (Is DRM actually a bad thing?)
Already familiar with controls having used it for several years

Possible advantages of Vista:
Supposed to be more secure
That Aero thing and the 3D windows effects
Newer, will be supported longer, may run much better once they release
service packs
Built in voice recognition

XP hands down, if you want a fast machine worthy of all the money you're
going to spend on all that all that new hardware, rather then going
Vista and finding out you in fact paid for a boat anchor.

Either XP Media or Pro will do you fine. It will run super fast on new
hardware

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Today, Eric made these interesting comments ...

So I am planning to get a new PC this year. It will be at
least a few months, but I should be able to get one by
Christmas at the latest. It has been suggested that my best
bet would be to start with a 64 bit machine and a 32 bit OS,
and consider switching to a 64 bit OS maybe in a few years.
I'm currently running WinME so I am going to want a newer OS.
Do I go with XP (Media Center?) or Vista (Premium?)?
What would be the reason to choose one or the other, aside
from the suggestion many have made here that XP should run
faster? I'm going to assume the new machine will be sufficient
for either on speed, and I believe both are similar enough on
price, so I'm wondering a bout actual functionality. Here's a
few suggestions I've found so far...

Possible advantages of XP:
Currently should be more stable

XP Pro SP1 and SP2 have been the most stable of any Windows
version I have used since 3.0.

Doesn't have a million pop up security prompts
Doesn't have DRM (Is DRM actually a bad thing?)
Already familiar with controls having used it for several
years

Possible advantages of Vista:
Supposed to be more secure

How are you protected today? Router? HW or SW firewall? Frequent
malware scans and adequate AV in place? Regular full C:\ image
backup and data backup? if "no" to any of these, NO O/S is going
to help you. And, establishing rigorous self-control rules for
yourself under the name "safe computing" is also necessary.
People in today's post-9/11, malware, and spyware world cannot
blindly depend on any one system to protect them 100%

That Aero thing and the 3D windows effects
Newer, will be supported longer, may run much better once they
release service packs
Built in voice recognition

You don't mention stability or early bugs or failure of your
legacy SW and HW to run or, or, or ... If people have no clear
picture of what the advantages and disadvantages of Vista are,
and I certainly do not, shouldn't be in such a rush to help MS
beta test it on your dime.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Today, Dave B. made these interesting comments ...

The biggest consideration is driver availability for your
current peripherals, XP likely supports them, you may have to
replace some stuff if you go with Vista. A bit of research
will determine Vista driver availability.

Exactly. Many people, certainly me, have legacy HW and SW that will
never be undated, in some cases, the companies no longer even
exist. So, in my view, if you have a choice in the matter, don't
try to fix something that isn't broken, meaning if your current
system is stable, supports your SW and HW and performs useful work
for you, why change?

 

[Wayne M. Poe]

My question is to the possible reasons to choose XP or Vista for a new
system based on functionality. What can one do that the other one is
lacking?

Ignore the following issues:
- I'm guessing XP would run faster, at least initially. Vista may run
faster after patch/service pack release. I've read some people
saying Vista already looks faster for them, so it may be a
configuration issue that makes it faster with certain hardware or OS
options configuration - I know Vista is the better choice for support
because it is newer, though at this point it needs more support
because XP already has most of the bugs worked out
- I would assume Vista will support all peripherals sooner or later.
It will be at least a few months before I buy the new PC. I would
hope the drivers it is lacking will be released this year.

Get to the point:
- What can you actually DO with each OS, that you cannot do in the
other, or cannot do as well?
- Is DRM an advantage or disadvantage of Vista?
- Is the new GUI look really an improvement? Are the 3D windows as
cool as MS says? Did they improve the Start Bar usability or ruin it?
- Is Vista really better for security, or just more annoying with
constant security pop up messages?
- Is Directx 10 available for XP, or going to be, or might this be a
huge advantage of Vista?
- Is the new Vista search feature as useful as they say or simply an
annoyance?
- Did Vista add anything cool or simply annoy us where they changed
the control names and locations ie Desktop > Properties?
etc

XP will always be faster then Vista, mainly because it's slimmer and
more efficient, while Vista just so "heavy" on resources, hence the
"boat anchor" analogy so many use. The 3D gui elements of Vista may look
nice but in the end help to slow things down, butthats jsut part of the
picture.

The whole OS is just sluggish compared to XP... it's just another
concoction to get people to get new hardwares and such. It's got
virtually nothing in the way of progress, just more of the same, for a
higher price, and slowness. XP seems an infinately logical choice if you
care at all about the speed of your system.

And yes DRM is a huge DISADVANTAGE... it's a plague, it complete
tramples over fair-use, and it takes on the presumption that we're all
criminals before we've ever done anything wrong. Yes, theres lots ot
like about DRM.....

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Today, Bob Eyster made these interesting comments ...

As for the OS, I would go with XP Pro for compatibility
reasons. I will take a couple years for the software/driver
makers to get up to speed with Vista (if you go with Vista get
the Ultimate version).

And, likely that long for MS to get out at least one SP to fix all
the bugs, security holes which are still inevitable, AND pick up as
many new drivers as economically feasible.

At the present time there are too many issues with hardware
and drivers compatibility issues. Maybe after the first SP is
released thing will start looking up for Vista.

I started with base XP and upgraded to SP1 about a year after it
came out. I waited on SP2 for 15 months, maybe a bit longer,
watching in these NGs to see what experiences others are having. I
also lurk to see if there are Critical Update issues.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Today, Eric made these interesting comments ...

My next PC will surely have at least 1 GB RAM with a 256 MB
video. I will look for the best available MB and look to save
some dough on the other parts and expect to upgrade them
later. It is much easier to put in more RAM, another or
bigger HD, a new video card, etc than to try to replace a MB.

Only 1 gig of memory? That was insufficient two years ago. I
would think that anything other than E-mail and web surfing that
places at all a heavy demand on Windows memory management to
quickly swap to RAM and not need virtual memory in the swapfile
on your HD is bound to need at least 2 gig, preferably 4. But, it
depends highly on what you do.

 

[Vronans]

The fact that you are currently running ME indicates to me that once
you get a system you like, you stick with it for a long time. Based
on that it makes sense to me for you to go with Vista so that your
support period more closely aligns with the period that you will be
using the PC and OS.

If he cares about speed XP is the one to go with, and support for XP
isn't going to just vanish either. Vista is a mistake. It's slow, it's
main purpose is to get people to buy new hardware just to run it with
minimum lag.... XP on new hardware will scream like a F1 car right past
Vista and the anchor it's dragging behind it.

SP1 for Vista is scheduled to be released by the end of this year, so
you'll soon be able to take advantage of any fixes/enhancements that
will be included in that.

It takes almsot a year to come out with a service pack? What the hell?
If the OS wasn't so buggy I'd understand but in it's current buggy state
that is just stupid. That's almost as much a joke as the OS itself! As
if the DRM wasn't bad enough...

 

[Saran]

I've been working with Vista Business Edition since the day after it
was released. My approach to an operating system is for it to be
that--a foundation on top of which I can run applications and
hardware. In other words, it is a means and not an end in itself,
although Microsoft marketing people might have you believe otherwise.
I expect the OS to be unobtrusive, intuitive, and not a burden to the
computer. On all three of these points, I have to give Vista low
marks.

As a tech support/consultant, I have to agree.

UAC gets in the way. Existing functions (Add/Remove Programs, for
example) being renamed to something else just wreaks of Change for
the sake of Change. I still don't have my network shares working, and
I'm running a trial version of Microsoft Windows Live OneCare,
because my antivirus won't run under Vista. And so on. I'm usually
a fan of NEW and IMPROVED, but I have to admit I am hard pressed to
find much in Vista that is truly improved--at least from my point of
view (see above). Too much form and not enough substance, is my
conclusion.

Yep, more flash than anything else... I find all the naming changes very
annoying when working on a customer's system... many of the changes
don't make much sense.... and then theres how they left in legacy code
in three too... suc has Fonts -> Install New... same old win 3.1 era
dialog. Much is carried over, and much is tweaked, and much fo that is
tweaked in the wrong direction IMHO. The rest is bloat and flash...

The real killer for me--and the reason I will shortly format my
system drive and reinstall Windows XP Pro--is the way hardware
manufacturers and software publishers have responded to Vista. My
list (so far) of unsupported programs and gear that are not supported
for Vista, and for which the provider has announced that they will
not patch or update accordingly, totals nearly $1,200 in replacement
cost--to replace working programs and devices! Intuit QuickBooks
2005, HP 2000c printer, Monaco/XRite monitor calibration program and
device, VCOM System Suite 7, Promise RAID controller, and others.
Other cases, like Adobe Photoshop CS2 (released less than 1.5 yrs
ago) are just ignored by the publisher who says, their new CS3 will
support all functions in Vista.

Yes I had the same issues with applications with QuickBooks 2005 for a
customer who was dead set on keeping his name HP Vista media machine...
the only solution he would agree on was to put a virtual machine running
XP Pro SP2 on it and run the previous versions... he didnt' want to
spend money on all the new versions, but would of had I not found a
better way.

What's really funny is the virtual mahcine with XP Pro SP2 ran FASTER
than the Vista Premium host running it. How do you like that? (And yes
the comparison included the speed of Vista when the VM wasn't running.)

In most instances, it is simply a matter of greed--Intuit, Adobe and
HP have chosen to not support their products, but rather to force
their past customers to buy again. I can't afford the extra outlay
to replace working programs and devices, and I can't abide that kind
of waste, so I'm cutting my losses. I no longer care whose fault it
is that these things don't work under Vista. Whoever's fault it is,
it is still me who is being asked to pay for it. It's time to just
say no.

BTW, Office 2007 is nothing to brag about either.

If you have 2003 or even XP/2002 you have all you'll likely ever need
IMHO.

- - -

IMHO, In the end, Vista is a well decorated boat anchor.