[piyushsingh]

i m running vista ultimate on my 2.66 ghz with 2 gigs of RAM and 256 mb nvidia graphics memory. i m happy with its performance and system boots up at same speed as with xp. the main reason for continuance of xp is hardware requirements , i m using xp pro on my old pc and laptop as they cantgo with vista. Anyone building a new system will definitely go with vista. its better than xp in all aspects, more secure, UI is good , UAC is an awsome thing, their internal parental cotrol is strong enough , u dont need any third party restriction tools.
change is always good , many ppl are bored with xp.

[civilwarbuff]

I do not see anything wrong with Vista. I had to replace the two PC's in my house this past summer, and I have had nothing but a pleasant experience....even installing my old apps. I like the added security, and UAC isn't that much of a pain in the neck. I like to be asked before my computer executes something.

[civilwarbuff]

No, I am not kidding. I simply do not see what other Vista users are seeing. The only time I see a UAC popup is when I am installing a program...other than that, nothing.

[DaveInNC]

The biggest problem with UAC is not the annoyance. It's when it won't let you do something for no apparent reason, like copy a file. This can happen even if you have administrator rights.

DaveInNC

[bjbone]

I have 6 computers: 2 with Linux, 2 with XP and 2 with Vista. ...and my VISTA Operating system is - BY FAR - my favorite. It is awesome! I have had absolutely NO problems...and believe you me I was strongly opposed to VISTA BEFORE I actually got my hands on one. I had read all the horror stories leading up to the Vista release - and I am still reading them. And I simply cannot understand what people are doing that they experience so many problems with Vista. When I use my XP computers they feel archaic in comparison to VISTA! LONG LIVE VISTA!

[bjbone]

Hello Terrayr!

I totally agree with you and have posted my response to "resistence to Vista". I do not understand why people fear this Vista OS so much. It is so awesome and runs much faster (than XP) and quieter on my computer. I absolutely LOVE Vista.

I have read many articles how to tweak this and that, etc. - one of my favorite sites is "howtogeek". I have learned from it and also from "Lifehacker". I have tried many of the tweaks - some I didn't like but many I have followed and my new VISTA is totally awesome. XP now seems archaic to me. I really am glad that I overcame my initial "fear" of the new operating system.

And if I can learn (I am 60+ years old) then I know others can learn. ...and one is NEVER too old to learn.

Your great response to one of the "scaredy-cats"!!!! is perfect!

Brigitte

[terrayr]

haha thanks for the support birgitte. I am only 20 years old but I am glad to hear that there are some of the previous generation (no offense) taking an interest in the technology of today. too often people will judge something based on first glance instead of getting to know it and how to properly use the affordances it provides. scaredy-cats is correct. I can understand some getting frustrated due to lack of knowledge of the item, but like you said, if you can do it, anyone can, they just need to take the time to learn about it.

I have never heard of the howtogeek site but will certainly check it out, thank you for the advice...as for the others, great sites to check in on from time to time, lots of great stuff out there. if you are interested in apple at all check out www.tuaw.com you can learn a lot about new stuff on that side of the industry there.

again thats for the support and keep up with the technology, certainly sets you ahead of your friends im sure!

[rgreen4]

mpheadley - Microsoft must have consulted you - XP was released in 2001, Vista in 2007 a span of 6 years.

[rgreen4]

Number 3124 - Since you're not running Vista - how would you know
1. That it takes a ton of space on the HD. Is this a bloated manufacturer load you refer to or a clean install with just the necessary drivers. Programs don't count as they would be the same on XP or Vista.

2. How would you know that it takes a ton of memory? Describe - a ton.

3. Yesterdays gaming processor is today's mainstream processor. Unless you would still like us to be running 8088's.

4. Properly written games and programs run fine on Vista. I have some old 1993 games designed for Windows 3.0 and they run on Vista. They look terrible because of the 1993 graphics designed to look good on 640x480, but 1680x1050 doesn't do much for them.

5. Ugly - depends on the setup. You can change the interface around in Vista just like in XP which many describe as boring.

6. Unstable - again are you speaking of first hand experience on a clean install, or maybe an upgrade dumped onto an XP installation without cleaning up the registry? I have been runing Vista on one machine for 5 months without the first BSOD or crash. Some games give trouble because the developers got lazy and would not listen to Microsoft when they told developers not to use direct video and memory accessing as was the practice starting in DOS, and caused many problems when XP came out.

7. Slow? Compared to what? Have you actually timed anything?

Go back and look in the press 6 years ago, and the same thing they are saying about Vista, they said then about XP. Win98 ran very well in 48MB to 64MB of memory. Of course HD size was limited, graphics were slow, and that is an OS that was truly unstable. A glitch in one program would crash the computer. If you have a glitch in a program in XP or Vista, you normally only have that program terminate.

[rgreen4]

Quicken 2006 runs fine. I have been running it for 5 months in Vista Home Premium. I will upgrade to 2008, as I upgrade on even years. I lost the cash register ka-ching, but I don't miss it.

[rgreen4]

Bobby - you might find it easier just to get a new HD, and install XP on the new drive. Then if you have support in your machine for two drives, put your original drive in the secondary position. You can then boot off XP and have you date on the secondary drive. You will have to reinstall all the programs on the XP drive. Then if you want to change over, you simply put the Vista drive back in the primary position.

Saves re-formatting, reinstalling, etc.

[rgreen4]

BJ - I think they are just repeating what they hear or read. I fell for that drivel in 2001 and installed Windows 2000 instead of XP. This time I was determined not to be fooled, and since I got a free upgrade from XP Media Center to Vista Home Premium, I thought why not - I bought David Pogues book on Vista (I also have the one on XP), installed a new HD, did a clean install, put the original XP HD in the closet, where it still sits.

Anyone who says Vista is not an improvement has never use the drive or network tools. Assigning a drive letter to a network folder takes two clicks on one dialog box, in XP its almost a hassel. Resizing partitions in Vista is a snap, in XP it takes a 3rd party program.

[piyushsingh]

nice reply rgreen , that will silence a lot of vista critics.
even i have my vista ultimate running faster than xp on my system.

[Knifeblade]

thought I'd play with the colors for this post. ;-) It's already been said, I just think that if Vista has just released their service pack in beta, that's rather sad. I'd love to try Vista, myself, but this system won't let it go. Ah, well. Besides, MS is going further within [the next year] the Vista OS for their new OS.

[haju]

I think that Vista is more cold than the other older versions.
This was the first thing that I said when I had installed it.
After starting to use it , you want to discover things that the microsoft developers that done in 6 years.
I am sorry but after a time you discovered onyl the improved graphical interface. It was a big disappoinment.
If we compared the development of windows OS and windows office, we can easily say that office team is more succesfully.
In Office 2007 , they really made an development/ revolution by changing the tabs logic.
But in Vista you can't see anything like these. Everything is the same again.In Startup&Recovery field they removed detailed setup! :(
XP is enough for of all us.
Sometimes " a picture tells a thousand words"
Here you can see what I mean.
Comparation of 98, XP and Vista.
img294.imageshack.us/img294/1651/chartpf7.jpg
Sponge bob developer team never use the newer technics in their cartoons cause of 2D love's. :)

[civilwarbuff]

I have not had those problems either....I have copied plenty of files already. Like I said, I don't see what other Vista users are seeing. Maybe it's the operators?

[Number3124]

I know because I used one for a couple of weeks i don't have any more thank god it was a clean install on a Vista Ultimate certified PC Vista was taking up 15gigs!!!!! thats with noting on it!!!! I installed Lord of the Rings the Return of the King on it and it crashed it so I scanned the DVD-ROM for errors nothing on errors i went back and installed it on a XP system and it worked fine and when I said it was ugly I mean the Aero interface that got so hyped up is ugly and Vista want 2gigs of ram to run that is a ton thats like gaming size ram and I did test the speed I got a stop watch and tested the time it took for Firefox to load on both of them the Vista one took two more seconds than the XP one nether of them had an anti virus ruining and it crashed a lot of other stuff to like FF and IE and Media Player and KasperskyAV and OpenOffice and most of my video games I felt like i was back in ME(-)!!!!!!!!!

[dacohenz]

thelaticsfan wrote,
"I challlenge you to buy a PC that only just meets the requirements for an XP OS and I bet you get the same results,

at the end of the day if you invest more you get more."

The question for you then, is why should we have to invest or spend more money on a computer to get similar results that we are already getting with XP? What is it on Vista that would make anyone want to upgrade?

I am running both operating systems on my machines and after removing the UAC, am having no problems on any of my machines. I am able to run the XP computers with 512mb of Ram, and the Vista machine at a gig with no speed issues.

Given the choice, I would stick with XP, although Vista is really pretty.

[Number3124]

http://blogs.pcworld...ives/2007/09/ohgoodlord_it.html all the proof you need no one likes Vista

[spamme33]

XP is faster, leaner, more stable, and more compatible with existing software and hardware than VISTA. If XP were being newly released, and VISTA was the old OS, everyone would upgrade to XP.

I built a new computer, high end gaming, water cooled overclocked quad to 3.8, 4gb RAM, 8800 ultra, perp drive, and dual boot XP and VISTA. Did this to play new games in DirectX10, and still be able to play old games in XP, in addition to working and finances on computer.

VISTA is slower to boot, slower apps, buggier apps, and buggier games even those with direct X10 (which is almost indistinguishable from graphics in XP direct X 9c but thats another disappointment). AV and Firewalls, love the crashes.
XP never a problem.

I got an idea, take XP sp3 (due out soon), add direct X 10.1 drivers, and call it Vista sp1.