Windows Vista vs Windows XP

[Frank]

I would suggest you spend some time browsing this news group. There are
few real advantages to vista and there seems to be a rather high
liklihood of significant problems. Several consultants, system builders
and sellers I know are advising clients against the purchase of vista
until more issues are settled - SP1 does not seem to be doing that much
good.

How would you know?
Hell, you don't even have Vista.
You're an MS hating lying linux troll.
Frank

 

[Canuck57]

Of course. Most people didn't have any problems either. I certainly
didn't. It's just the perpetual whiners who like to complain about
anything new.


I went from a P4 3 GHz with 2 gigs RAM running XP to this Core 2 Quad with
4 gigs RAM running Vista 64 Ultimate. No comparison - Vista is miles
ahead of XP. And no, it wasn't a "6 year old install of XP so of course
it was slow". It was less than 18 months old because I bought new drives
and reinstalled.


Vista is fine here. SP1 does speed up file copies - I've been running SP1
for a couple of weeks now. Post SP1 you will see more businesses
starting to move to Vista - just like with XP post SP1.

Funny. I had set Update to download an notify me but never got notified.
Had a whole load already installed but 3 just came in when I manually ran
it. For whatever reason it missed notifying me of an optional 3, one in
particular - KB946041, even though I had selected include recommended ones.
It is the one I expect just increased my network copy performance by about
33%, now only very slightly behind my XP MCE.... also dropped fresh boot
memory utilization from 22% of 8GB to 17% of 8GB (got 400+MB back). Disk to
disk copy of 64GB, was 4 hours and 5 minutes, now 21 minutes.

If SP1 has a 3-4 updates like this, it might turn me around. Can I get it
early? Does look like MS sites are getting slow already....

 

[Bob Campbell]

It is the one I expect just increased my network copy performance by about
33%, now only very slightly behind my XP MCE.... also dropped fresh boot
memory utilization from 22% of 8GB to 17% of 8GB (got 400+MB back). Disk
to disk copy of 64GB, was 4 hours and 5 minutes, now 21 minutes.

If SP1 has a 3-4 updates like this, it might turn me around. Can I get it
early? Does look like MS sites are getting slow already....

SP1 is going to "turn many folks around", just like XP's SP1 did.

AFAIK you can only "get it early" if you have an MSDN subscription or a
TechNet subscription, unless you go the BitTorrent route.

I have a full MSDN subscription provided by my employer (I do Windows
software development), so I have been running Ultimate 64 bit with SP1 for a
couple of weeks now.

 

[ray]

How would you know?
Hell, you don't even have Vista.
You're an MS hating lying linux troll. Frank

Hmmmmmm - exactly where in my post did I indicate that I owned a copy?
Just FYI, frankie, I have used it a few times. Didn't see any particular
advantage. BTW - I suggested that the OP should spend a while perusing
this group to get a feel - I suppose you think that is bad advice.

 

[Frank]

Hmmmmmm - exactly where in my post did I indicate that I owned a copy?

Never said you did.

Just FYI, frankie, I have used it a few times.

A few times huh?

Didn't see any particular

advantage.

Why would you?

BTW - I suggested that the OP should spend a while perusing

this group to get a feel - I suppose you think that is bad advice.

A feel? Ha! Install it and use it for a couple of weeks. That's what I
always do when I want to try out a linux distro?
Why not Vista?
Frank

 

[DarkSentinel]

I would suggest you spend some time browsing this news group. There are
few real advantages to vista and there seems to be a rather high
liklihood of significant problems. Several consultants, system builders
and sellers I know are advising clients against the purchase of vista
until more issues are settled - SP1 does not seem to be doing that much
good.

And the likelihood of this is determined how? The people coming to this
newsgroup do not represent a true demographic of all Vista users now does
it? No more than the smacktards that fill this newsgroup with their drivel
are representative of all the users of Linux. I run Vista on a daily basis,
and have had NONE of the problems reported. Now, either I am a super
computer god, or Vista is not as bad as you say it is. Which is it? If it
runs well for me on a half ass Acer with run of the mill components, then
the problems reported here are the exception rather than the rule. Just like
it is in any other newsgroup of this kind. Some of the dips from c.o.l.a.
are fond of saying people are too stupid to run Linux if they cannot are
having problems with it. Now which is it? IS Linux too hard? Do you see
where I am going here? Because a small percentage of people have problems,
doesn't mean any of the operating systems are unusable. Just means that
particular user is having a problem. Me, I like having all resources
available to me SHOULD I have a problem. Which is why I have been doing this
stuff since the Fidonet days. I have yet to have a problem with Vista, so I
try and help others when I can. That is the difference between people like
me, and the smacktards. I actually DO want to help. The smacktards just want
to follow whatever imbecilic agenda they may have.

 

[Kris]

I love how folks still get freaked about Vista's so-called memory
"mismanagement." It's called SuperFetch folks. 'Look it up'
(http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/performance.mspx).
You should be far less concerned about how Vista tries to use all that
wicked-cool overclocked OCZ memory you paid for and perhaps wondering
why all previous versions of the OS were more than happy to leave that
gig or so of high-end RAM free and happily cache to disk instead.

Personally, I love it when my measly 4GB is running at 75% or better,
and saves all that nasty pagefile swapping to my dog slow 10,000 RPM sys
drive...

nice link and good point. Thanks!

also on that link - I wonder whose engine they're using for the scheduled
defrags. That may be interesting.....

 

[ray]

And the likelihood of this is determined how? The people coming to this
newsgroup do not represent a true demographic of all Vista users now
does it?

I don't know. Does it? I would tend to think so - do you conclusive
evidence to the contrary?

No more than the smacktards that fill this newsgroup with their
drivel are representative of all the users of Linux. I run Vista on a
daily basis, and have had NONE of the problems reported. Now, either I
am a super computer god, or Vista is not as bad as you say it is.

If you'll actually read my post, I did not say that the OP would have
problems with vista. I only indicated that "there seems to be a rather
high liklihood of significant problems", and encouraged the OP to peruse
the group for a while.

Which
is it? If it runs well for me on a half ass Acer with run of the mill
components, then the problems reported here are the exception rather
than the rule. Just like it is in any other newsgroup of this kind. Some
of the dips from c.o.l.a. are fond of saying people are too stupid to
run Linux if they cannot are having problems with it. Now which is it?

I didn't say word one about Linux. Why are you bringing it up? That was
not in the OP's question.

 

[Colon Terminus]

With enough hardware, Vista runs great!

Get the following, at least:
Windows Vista Ultimate Edition
Quad core processor
4GB RAM
Large, fast hard disk
SLI X16 Video

and never look back.

Enjoy your Vista Experience.

 

[Gordon]

With enough hardware, Vista runs great!

Get the following, at least:
Windows Vista Ultimate Edition
Quad core processor
4GB RAM
Large, fast hard disk
SLI X16 Video

Rubbish. Twaddle.
Vista Home premium running perfectly OK here on a T2330 dual-core Pentium
with 1GB RAM....

 

[Gordon]

With enough hardware, Vista runs great!

Get the following, at least:
Windows Vista Ultimate Edition
Quad core processor
4GB RAM
Large, fast hard disk
SLI X16 Video

Rubbish. Twaddle.
Vista Home premium running perfectly OK here on a T2330 dual-core Pentium
with 1GB RAM....

 

[Red Dog]

Red Dog here; Thanx to everyone who responded to my question. I think I
will go with Vista 32bit Ultimate version. Does anyone think that the 64 bit
is better? My system is Asus P5E3 Deluxe, Core2Quad Q6600, 3GB Kingston
DDR3, PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer, Radeon HD 3870 512MB Diamond Viper,
Seagate Barracuda ES 750GB 7200RPM 16MB cache. Thanks again.

 

[Bobby McNulty]

Vista home premium works fine
on Athlon 64 dual core 4200+
1 GB Ram
No problems here.

 

[Canuck57]

Red Dog here; Thanx to everyone who responded to my question. I think I
will go with Vista 32bit Ultimate version. Does anyone think that the 64
bit
is better? My system is Asus P5E3 Deluxe, Core2Quad Q6600, 3GB Kingston
DDR3, PC Power & Cooling 750W Silencer, Radeon HD 3870 512MB Diamond
Viper,
Seagate Barracuda ES 750GB 7200RPM 16MB cache. Thanks again.

If you are going to do it, do 64 bit no mater what with only one exception.
If your computer can only be upgraded to 2 or 4GB...a draw.

But if it can hold 8GB even though you do not have it yet, go 64 bit.

 

[Canuck57]

Another vote here for 64 bit. That is a 64 bit MB that can handle 8 GB
RAM. Unless you have some ancient piece of hardware that you HAVE to
use (printer or scanner or something that has no 64 bit driver), the above
system will serve you better with a 64 bit OS. It will be crippled with
a 32 bit OS.

In fact, since I haven't bought one in awhile, my 32 bit XP laptop just got
a stay of execution.

I will not be buying a laptop with Vista unless I can meet or exceed the
following with it:

8GB RAM
4 Proc
Battery lasts 4 hours
Dedicated video RAM, 256 or 512M
17" wide
Under $1000
Vista 64 bit

Vista 32 bit will dies inside of 2 years. I have a good PCI-E video, 1/2
the problems with portables today is this UMA/shared memory junk chipsets.
Microsoft goofed thinking the UMA stuff was Vista capable.

For that mater, a 1960's Beatle can run Vista.

 

[DarkSentinel]

I don't know. Does it? I would tend to think so - do you conclusive
evidence to the contrary?

Let's at least TRY to be unbiased shall we? MS claims 100 million copies
sold. I'll even be generous and say half that. 50 million. Now, again, lets
be generous and say there are 50 unique questions per day here. You can't
count responses or the moronic flame wars the smacktards start. I mean
actual questions too. Not where one of the buttheads morph, and post some
drivel, and not follow up as people try to help. This newsgroup is not THAT
busy so you can't claim more than that. So, that 50 people out of 50,000,000
works out to somewhere around .001%. Even you, a known Linux shill, can't
believe that that number represents a true demographic of all Vista users.
And if you do, you just lost any credibility you thought you might have.

If you'll actually read my post, I did not say that the OP would have
problems with vista. I only indicated that "there seems to be a rather
high liklihood of significant problems", and encouraged the OP to peruse
the group for a while.

And again, you come to that conclusion HOW? I've just shown that the
problems posted here are not a true representative of real world numbers.
These newsgroups are for people that DO have problems, just as there are
groups for XP, Mac, and Linux. Do you wish everyone to believe that THOSE
groups represent the problems of THEIR user base as a whole? Please tell me
you are more intelligent than that. I know you are, because we are active in
another group. The problems posted are things that MIGHT, and lets say that
again slowly, MIGHT, happen. I have exactly ZERO of them. How do you explain
that?

I didn't say word one about Linux. Why are you bringing it up? That was
not in the OP's question.

ray, let's try and read things in context shall we? Re-read EXACTLY what I
said IN context.

 

[Gordon]

I will not be buying a laptop with Vista unless I can meet or exceed the
following with it:

8GB RAM
4 Proc
Battery lasts 4 hours
Dedicated video RAM, 256 or 512M
17" wide
Under $1000
Vista 64 bit

Well good for you. The AVERAGE user doesn't need anything LIKE that...

 

[William Bunch]

I understand your needs,
I don't do laptops due to limitations, but a friend of mine has a laptop he
paid 2k or 3k and it can only take 2 gigs of dual channel RAM and it is 64
bit.

64 bit has issues with some of his games and other issues with connecting to
x86 32 bit type systems. He is running Vista Ultimate. Also the graphics
cards in laptops are not that great for 3k systems. I would suggest spending
8k for you a good laptop from Dell so they can customize it to your needs I
am sure it will be no more than 5k. I have a desktop for 1,200.00 US and it
has 4 gig RAM (32 bit) Vista Home Premium and SLI with 8600GTS Nvidia video
cards with 256MB on each. 800WATT PSU and 2x 250gig SATA HDD all on 680i
mobo with a quad core.