[Pooch]

I ran XP for years and never had any problems and never a BSOD that I can recall. I now run Vista Ultimate 64 bit version and there's no comparison. It's fast,rock solid, no driver compatibility problems, it even automatically installed my Canon i860 printer. The 64 bit version seems to use the dual core processor to full advantage. I'm totally satisfied with Vista.

[dhh1]

I find it most appauling that so many people jump on whatever any editor says. Most of us really don't understand the true workings of an OS. We assume it's great because it works well on our machine and when it doesn't we complain. I had ver few compatability issues since using XP home and pro. I tried Vista I don't like the way it looks to start and I have had many compatibility issues. It's not user friendly, every time you attempt to do something with Vista you have to go read the help file and it wasn't very helpful. Those who don't like Bill gates or his products are first to write as bad a review as possible. Yes there are issues with XP as with any and all OSs. Now the editor complains about trivial things such as the activation, the ballon text, and the search engine. Please, is that really a problem. What it boils down to is what a person likes and don't like and what works or don't work.

I could really care less about the editors likes or dislikes. Tell me what are the pros and cons of both OSs and let me decide what I like and don't like. The editorial begins biased so why should I give credit to his editorial. First he says "I don't intend to mount a whole-hearted defense of Vista" and then he says "I never liked XP." Why don't he just say Windows OSs sucks, buy MAC OS or Linux.

[nauart]

Can you imagine how much hell would be raised if a year or two after you bought a new car the manufacturer stopped servicing it, or told you that you needed to renew your ownership buy paying for it again. My ten year old car still works fine and I can get service and upgrades from the open market. If MS is going to turn off its attention to XP OS than they should make it public domain where interested programmers can fix the problems that MS didn't want to spend programming time on. For the little tweaks that MS puts into the new OS they should be forced to only charge a small upgrade fee, but why should they when so many people make their living off of selling this less than perfict stuff. There should be a Lemon Law applied to software.

[coastie65]

Hey Nauart and welcome to the forums. Good post. That was an interesting point about the public domain factor. I hadn't really thought about that. I do know that movies end up pubic domain after a period of time and the copywrite protections have expired. That would allow someone else to make any "fixes" that would be needed. coastie65

[mariebermudez]

MY thoughts exactly....I was having trouble at first but now I find myself more and more comfortable with it. You're right....our children will venture into the future of geart tech. advancement. Problem solved!!! People should stop whinning and get with the new program.

[RNR19952]

Look, for all you home users, who cares what you run?
You can suffice on a couple of monks and some carbon paper!
The issue is in the business world, where it is affecting the companies bottom line. Vista is just not ready for prime time, this fact is plainly evident everyday, companies that initially stated they would upgrade, or were planning to upgrade, just are not upgrading. Even Intel.
http://www.pcworld.c...le/147678/intelbackstabsmicrosoftbyabandoning_vista.html
I have not had a single company ask to be upgraded to Vista, all of my customers have been making sure their replacement PC's contained XP Pro.
But Microsoft discontinuing XP Pro is just more work for me, whacking Vista biz for XP Pro
thanks Bill!

[Number3124]

coastie65 said:

Hey number, As far as i know, if the retailer has XP in stock after the 30th, then they can and will sell it until the remaining inventory is gone. coastie

I know that. I was saying that if there is a demand for XP but not as much for Vi$ta then doesn't it make since for M$ to keep selling XP along side Vi$ta.

[mpheadley]

Ha! While we were all debating this, there is a new article on PC World that states that Intel will not upgrade their computers to Vista. So apparently Intel corporation agrees with me that their situation is neither "good riddance or sad farewell" !!!

[NrWarren]

I read this story and then took a nap.

My initial reaction is that I thought the article was written quite articulately by the editors and owning vista myself I have similar earmarks myself on the ups and downs.. its general knowledge that vista had alot of driver issues (AT FIRST), but after accumulated usage, I found any issues I had to be solved through their auto-updates with their auto-detecting software. I saw no mention at all about a stronger DRM agenda in vista, which is going to be good/bad for the anti-piracy people.

After my nap... my reaction was, just get over
it people. the biggest argument i've ever heard was a whine that "its too bulky and bloated", yeah?... and? the more programming instructions you insert and the more an OS performs, the slower its going to be. This is what we want people, the video game industry has advanced our graphics processors to incredible speeds. you can't expect the world in features and then complain it costs too much cpu. -Warren

[chokwlee]

Buying high end computer with 2 GB of ram for Vista - $1,500

Stay with XP with no eye candy - $0

Change your OS to Ubuntu with XP dual boot and telling MS whats in your mind - Priceless.



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

Ubuntu 8.04 with XP dual boot.

Sony VAIO, 1GB, 15.4'.

New to Ubuntu and loving it.

[josephfuentes]

Let me begin by stating that I swing both ways. I have 3 Vista machines at home along with two XP's. I love them both!
I love Vista's looks though many will say that's a so what. It's chockful of tutorials, tools, and a very nice media center. All the things that make your PC easier to use at home and be more productive at work. I think.
XP SP3's slightly improved look is also nice. My older XP has the little doggie in the search engine. My newer XP is a bit more professional.
What I don't like about Vista is the well known sys requirements. That really drives up the price of your HW. Also it's slower. MY XPs are lower end machines and they run lean and quick.
XP I will keep you forever in my older machines. You're not going anywhere. Vista, welcome home.

[Adama]

I never had XP, so for me it's not a problem. I've been using Vista for a little over a year now, and I really love it.

Goodbye, XP, I know there are many people who are going to miss you! :(

[Geek]

Man I like both operating systems but Ill have to say Vista is better it has more enhanced features and it looks great it can also run PC Games smoother too I checked it out on my cosuins New Dell Inspirion and let me tell you: Beautiful No problems so blazing fast. The operating sytem Looks real nice on my Acer Notebook too. That article was a good one Ill have to go with the guy on Vista even though I still like XP. I will miss that OS

[Tubamajuba]

Okay... it all comes down to this- We can't go about using the same software and hardware forever. Don't you think people complained with the transition from Windows 2 to Windows 3.1? 3.1 to 95? 95 to 98? 98 to XP? Sure each of the transitions mentioned required some sort of jump in hardware capabilities, and those jumps may not seem big today, but they were at the time. I see people complaining about XP performing all their tasks better than Vista, so that begs a question- why not just use Windows 95? On a modern day computer, 95 would fly past XP and work with all your older hardware and software. It won't run newer programs, but that doesn't seem to be a concern with XP aficionados. so we can simply ignore that.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that small incremental updates are nothing new for operating systems. Yes, every new OS has some compatibility problems. Yes, every new OS requires more powerful hardware. But if everybody had the same mindset that the people not letting XP go have, we'd still be using Visicalc on an old IBM PC (or PC compatible) from the early 80's. Now, if you have a computer with less than a gig of RAM, keeping XP is not a problem. But if you're out to buy a new PC, ANY computer on the market manufactured within the last 6 months can run Vista well, and most computers today can make Vista fly. Will XP run faster on newer computers? Probably so, but if you're that concerned with negligible speed differences, install Windows 95 or 98- those suckers wait for you to respond- what OS today can say that?

My final thoughts? XP was and is a great OS, it served us very well, and those people with older computers should continue to enjoy XP rather than try to upgrade to Vista. But if you're looking for a shiny new computer, Vista is the right way to go. Incremental as it is, Vista improves on XP's kernel, is more organized than XP (even if you think otherwise, type the program or feature you want to access into the start menu search bar and skip the menus), and yes, is more secure than XP. UAC works magic despite the initial annoyance- it is literally impossible for rootkits to be installed on Vista, and it makes any sort of unwanted attack on your computer harder to pull off. And finally, the next version of Windows at the least will be using a similar kernel to Vista, so compatibility problems from Vista to 7 will likely be nonexistent.

Let XP lie to rest and take in a breath of fresh Aero (pun totally intended)! Give Vista a real try (and really, maybe you need a new printer anyways).

[RNR19952]

Good one!

[RNR19952]

Your logic would dictate that everyone SHOULD have upgraded from Windows 98SE to Windows ME, That never happened. The VISTA "upgrade" seems extremely similar. Granted if you are going to get high end hardware that would run better on Vista, say $1500.00 on up, go 64 bit, with SP1 it works.
Most people want a $500.00 laptop and that will only run XP.
And really this debate is useless for home users, it really does not matter what you run at home. Businesses are not upgrading, that is a fact. OEM's have been selling Vista business licensees since it came out, but the machines have been coming with XP Pro pre installed, that's why MS can crow about how much they sell. I would love to hear from any IT people that have migrated their businesses to Vista.

[Tubamajuba]

Well, ME introduced System Restore, but otherwise it was stagnant and doomed from the start. 2000 was already more capable and XP was on the horizon with about a year to go- why would anyone care about ME? Vista is the designated successor for XP, and Microsoft has made that clear. And a $500 laptop will only run XP? I got mine more than a year ago for about the same price, and it ran Vista great then and continues to run it great now. A $400 desktop and a $500 laptop bought today will both run Vista and all it's visual features even better- perfectly, I might add. Seriously, go up to Best Buy or any local computer shop and try out any Vista computer there- they will run great no matter what you do, with the possible exception of a few netbooks. Not a thorough test, but it gives you hands-on experience.



I'm not arguing that happy XP users migrate to Vista- and that includes businesses. Obviously most businesses are happy with the computers they have and that's great. But when anybody- and that again includes businesses- needs new computers, Vista is not a bad choice at all.

[rtfire1]

I think my $599.99 lap handels vista just fine xp thats a diffrent story. When i got my laptop I could have got a 15 inch screen and smaller hd for 500 it runs vista fine I know this because my granmother bought that on where she did not want a bigger screen

[rajdiz]

To all you XP geeks... get over it, if you have older equipment, undoubtable you still have a copy of XP. Just keep using it!!!Why not even go further and start clamoring for Windows 3.1! I am sure it is much less bloated and will run even better on your obsolete hardware.

Sure Vista is not the world changing OS that Microsoft promised a few years ago, but running Vista 64 on 2 MODERN PCs with MODERN hardware, I have really no complaints, my laptop which is on XP blue screens all the time, my two Vista PCS run very reliably. You never mentioned Vista has DX10, very important for us gamers (who tend to keep our PCs modern).

Anyway, noone is telling you that you can't keep using XP on your PC, they are just not putting it on new computers or selling it anymore. Get over it, Vista is not as bad as people keep telling you and the 64 bit version runs pretty damn well. Don't like UAC? Turn it off and stop whining. Don't like Aero? Turn it off too. Want less bloated? Buy the Vista Basic

[goodoldave]

I've been using XP and Vista side by side for six months now, and I thoroughly hate Vista. Other than cosmetic appearance it offers no real benefit over XP that warrants forcing me to upgrade. I've already run head first into a number of favorite apps that won't run under Vista, while XP OTOH is friendly to every peripheral and app under the sun. If you don't like the layout of XP it only means you're too lazy to customize it- there are lots of toys that make it look and act like Vista, and OS X too for that matter (I.E. Rocketdock). Seeing that Linux's KDE is even more no-frills that XP is, Strohmeyers arguments about XP's appearances become that much more ridiculous.

FYI unlike XP and Linux, OS X can can't be installed on any system without the Apple logo which is 99% of the machines out there. According to Strohmeyer's own definition, then, OS X isn't a mature OS either.