[rgreen4]

300DShooter - while we may disagree with a members position or comments, personal insults and put downs are not allowed in the community.

If you have forgotten the Community Standards you agreed to when you signed up, here is a [link.|d-1000]

[300DShooter]

You're right of course, my applogies..

[okidok]

I am just being honest here with my personal experiences with windows, having used it since windows 98. I have nothing to gain or loose by siding with either one of you.



I have VISTA on my one desktop installed and i dont see much differences between XP and VISTA. I am not using 64bit, still on 32bit. Even if i use 64 bit soon, it still wont be different than XP.



Vista is not an advancement in windows OS, it is not a lean mean engine. Consumers must feel at ease and feel the awe when a new OS is developed. Vista is almost a copy of XP.

Btw, i love XP. It was a major upgrade then when they introduced XP. Now, that was and is worth paying for, XP that is.

[geogray]

Respectfully, Okidok, I have to disagree just a bit. XP and Vista share much of the same kernel and have a lot in common, code wise...but...Vista is quite different under the hood. It's video subsystems are very different. XP's video driver runs in 'ring zero', meaning it is running right there with the kernal, so if a poorly written driver goes astray, the result is one of XP's infamous 'blue screens of death'. Vista is a heck of alot more secure and, say what you will about it, UAC is a part of that. Vista's 'Aero' theme and effects by themselves distinguish Vista from XP. But, for me, perhaps the best reason to go Vista-if you are a parent-are the parental controls. The upgrade price was well worth it for my son's computer. A computer, by the way, that had less than a gig of RAM and a single core AMD Sempron. Adding another half gig of ram and a good ATI video card made the system quick, more stable and, most importantly, pretty secure and kid proof. Internet Explorer 7's protected mode, the content filtering-which works really well, so much so that it blocked Nickelodeon.

Vista is not perfect, however. It still has filecopy issues, even after SP1. SD and USB file copy are STILL freaking slow! And the interface inconsistencies drive me freaking NUTS!

[shippou]

Three words: try Vista Ultimate. Now see what the author means.

[pogson]

I had an opportunity to see Vista in several situations in recent months. I saw folks who did not have access to the Internet having trouble with phoning home. I did a side-by side test of GNU/Linux on a P4 as thin client/GNU/Linux running on a P4 as a thick client/XP on a P4/Vista on a Celeron with 512 MB/Vista on an AMD64 X2 5000 with 2gB. The thin client beat everything because of file caching. XP and GNU/Linux beat Vista handily. Vista took 2 minutes just to boot. It was dreadful. The thin client booted in 22s. I have seen a Celeron-m run Vista reasonably well. The key seems to be RAM and cache. Vista needs huge memory. That requires anyone switching to Vista to be careful of the hardware on which it will run. Anyone with a raft of last year's machines would indeed be foolish to run Vista. Perhaps in a couple of years Moore's Law will make Vista viable but people are living in the present and may have a lot of equipment that runs perfectly well. If XP is killed and new equipment is added to a system, it makes a lot more sense to move everything to GNU/Linux rather than have a mix of XP and Vista. It makes no sense to trash a bunch of equipment just because it does not run Vista.

Why anyone would pay for Vista just to use XP is beyond me. It is like paying for a Cadillac so that you can run a beater. It is just crazy. On the other hand, I helped an orgainsation that was expanding from 25 seats to 153 seats use GNU/Linux instead of XP partly because XP is being killed. The cost of acquisition was half what XP would have costed and they did not have to add any IT support. If Vista is M$'s best solution, I do not know what is the problem. GNU/Linux works very well on equipment up to about 10 years old and even longer as a thin client. It makes little sense to upgrade hardware just to upgrade the OS except for power consumption. Using thin clients, there is no advantage at all to upgrading the hardware to go from XP to Vista. The powerful machines needed to run Vista are power guzzlers compared to a thin client using 20 watts or so for GNU/Linux.

[keiths]

Can GNU/Linux run Adobe CS3 Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, & Illustrator?

You say that "Vista needs huge memory". Can you be more specific? I found it ran fine with 1gb on my dual 1.9ghz AMD.

[pogson]

The cache on the AMD64 system we tested was 512 MB. RAM was 2gB. Vista sucked. The Celeron-m we tried had a 2MB cache and 1 gB RAM. It was pretty good. This suggests that Vista has some very large innermost loops. Compare that with Debian Etch running on our old terminal server: one Xeon processor, 2 gB RAM, 700+ processes,24 simultaneous users all happy with the performance. The performance per dollar with GNU/Linux is astronomical compared to Vista. OpenOffice.org loads in 2s for our users and Office took several times as long on the Vista machine. Our system uses about 256 MB for GNU/Linux, 50 MB per user for RAM, and hundreds of megabytes for file caching which means snappy performance.



Only a few per cent of PCs in the world run those applications. You can check that out by dividing revenue posted in SEC filings with licence fees. If you need them on GNU/Linux, try WINE. Otherwise stick to XP. Vista will not help you run a version from XP in many cases. I rather look at functions than applications. If I need to edit an image, I use GIMP. It does everything I need to do. I do not print colour images. I believe PS may have advantages for that. I use Bluefish for HTML. I use OpenOffice.org and FireFox for almost everything else. Studies of large migrations show that about 80% of seats in most systems can run GNU/Linux very well. We are not all accountants, lawyers or graphic artists. Some of us just do e-mail and browse.

[pcalvillo]

I run both Windows XP 32 bit, and Vista Ultimate 64 bit on my system. And Vista 64 bit runs games a whole alot better then XP. As you can see I have not made a complete change to Vista. But you should I since I can benefit from both. And yes, you have to have a well built system for Vista, but if you are a gamer you should already know that. So don't be dumb and use both that's if your system can handle it.

[keiths]

I guess from your long hand answer, GNU/Linux can't run Adobe apps. I deal with a lot of clients who use Photoshop & Flash, I don't know of a substitute for them, especially when I'm trading PSD & FLA files back and forth with them. I also know of no replacement for programming Flash.

I was once asking someone if he had done anything with Linux. He said that he uses windows to make money and knows people who use Linux as a toy. That has been an observation by many.

Agreed, Vista is a pig, requires more ram and processor. Just like every other windows upgrade or new version. I remember when XP first hit the fan. It was much worse in its first year or so than Vista has been. PC guru buddies of mine were recommending taking XP off and going back to w2k or w98 2nd ed. Bottom line about Vista, its inevitable, evolve or become extinct. Use what the public uses or receive a lot less work from them.

[rgreen4]

I fell for that line when XP came out. I bought an HP business class desktop that came with XP in Dec. 2003 and removed the HD. Put in a new HD and installed Win2K, which didn't work too well. I finally reinstalled the original HD with XP about 3 month's later and have never looked back. The original HD is still in there over 4 years later.

This time around, as soon as I got my free upgrade for a machine bought in late 2006, I installed Vista and have loved it. It is easier to set things up and is as stable as my old XP installation. I build a new machine and boot Vista, XP and W2K on it. The latter are for research in answering a question. They are on separate drives so can me added or removed as need be. On a boot test with a stopwatch was W2k, followed by Vista followed by XP. Surprise! A clean installation of Vista on good equipment will perform well. All three had password protection and Vista was timed until Sidebar came up, the other two to the desktop.

[keiths]

Installing XP on an existing pc was a nightmare when XP was new. Buying a big name pc with XP on it already brought far fewer problems. So, with Vista, I bought a new pc and it has me wondering why so many people are complaining about it, even SP1 was uneventful. There are a whole lot of people who live on complaining about anything new and different, many of them with no firsthand experience.

[bperetto]

Saying XP runs faster that Vista is like saying Windows 3.1 runs faster than XP. Of course it does, it's older and less complex. Also remember that back in the 3.1 days I had 4 megs of RAM on a 33Mhz machine and now I have 4 Gigs on a 4.6 GHz -- for cheaper. If you have a 5 year old machine, then you're stupid to put Vista on it without an upgrade. If you buy a new machine, then you're stupid to downgrade to XP.

I've used XP for years (MANY years). When I built my new PC, I put on Vista Home Prem and it blows the doors off XP. In other words, an average PC built in the XP era is slower than an average PC built in the Vista era.

If you want to live in the past, go ahead; but don't be afraid of the future and what those clueless people blog about- Vista is fine and I've had absolutely NO problems with drivers, security, reliability, performance, compatability, or anything. Yeah, it took me about 2 hours to adapt to GUI changes, but that'll happen when you adopt any new OS.

[sparrownightmare]

Well.. Having been through every OS that Mickeysloth has put out since Windoze 286, I have to say that it is very reassuring to know that the company that Bill built has not changed much. First they came out with windows 3.0, then with minor teaks Win 3.1 and 3.11 for networks. Basically the same OS but sold as a totally new OS. Okay, then came Windows 95, and the world collectively said eegads what a memory hog. At the time that 95 came out, I was working for a large east coast ISP called TEAC, and you would not believe the calls we were getting from customers who suddenly could not connect after installing it... Okay, then Windows 98 came out and was sold as a new OS, a few bug fixes and some new bugs. Then Millenium, arguably the most despised OS ever released (Until Vista that is). Again, this OS was sold as a brand new OS and the world fell for it. Then XP. XP was actually a repackaged and prettied up version of Windows NT 4.0, just as Server 2000 was. It had a flashier interface, but that was about it. It took over two years for the OS to become really stable, and it was once again sold as if it had some ground breaking technology in it. Then Vista. Ah.. Vista.. The killer OS that Bill and Company was sure they would be able to market as a truly new OS, which coincidentally had almost the same core to it as XP. So much for innovation. I waited over a year to try it on a new box, to make sure it was relatively stable. The truth is that Microscoff hasn't seemed able to put out a truly innovative OS since Win 95. All of their major consumer and SOHO OS' have been fancy rehashes of old OS' that they have just remarketed. Microsoft seems to have a pretty predicatable cycle that keep the cash rolling in. It is as follows... In old Basic to help us old timers get a laugh.



10 Put out an OS with a ton of bugs.

20 Charge for support for it and slow down bug patching as much as possible, also make sure to discourage outside bug fixes.

30 After a few years, change the UI a bit, fix some more bugs, make sure it has some new bugs, add one or two features that 99% of people won't use and sell it as a brand new OS (see Win95, 98 and me).

40 Make sure to charge more for it and just toi help out the PC manufacturers, make sure it has an exponentially increasing list of minimum system requirements.

50 Last step, goto 10

Now personally I kind of like the Vista interface, and I haven't had any problems with it, but I built the new system I am running it on with Vista and 3D modeling in mind. While not bleeding edge, it is definitely in the high end category. I am sort of afraid to put it on either of my other two systems since; while not exactly obsolete; they don't have quite the oomph that the new box does.

Vista and ME are both the same in one respect. Their users either have a great experience and love them, or they don't and they loath them. I found a few annoyances such as the UAC system which was the first thing I disabled after repeated hassles cleaning out some older software. I do not like an OS that talks back. I have other less annoying security measures to keep out the riff raff. But all in all, I haven't found any software yet in my inventory which the system has any problems running.

A lot of the folks I chat with that seem to have problems with Vista, are running older Intel chip based machines with 1GB or less of RAM and usually have those junky Intel on the board video chipsets and/or built in sound chipsets. Storage can also be an issue because Vista eats up physical RAM faster than XP did, so it spends more time swapping in and out of the hard drive which HAS to be fast for Vista to work well.

I was heavily disappointed when MS indicated that they were dropping the new file system. Honestly my final opinion on Vista is this, It seems very stable to me, although not a lot more stable than XP. It has a flashier interface with Aero. It runs everything I need to run although not much faster than XP. It is pretty secure, but no more so than XP. It does have better multimedia features (I use Vista Ultimate 32 Bit). It's networking needs a revamp. I find that the old XP/NT networking interface as far as properties and settings goes was a lot less confusing and easier to use.

In short, had they not been planning on scrubbing XP soon, I would have stayed with XP Pro. The new Vista, while nice, really isn't a new OS, just a glossed over XP kernel and infrastructure. It takes way too much control away from the operator and second guesses him or her much more often. It simply isn't worth the overbloated prices that MS has set for it. If I had not gotten it as a bundle from the Ebay dealer I got my new motherboard from at a good price for the upgrade retail box, I would probably ended up keeping my old XP on it.

In case anyone is wondering what I have that actually works well with Vista, here are my system stats for an upper mid range Vista PC that works well.

AMD Phenom 9600 quad core CPU, MSI K9A2 Platinum motherboard, 4GB (3.5GB usable) RAM, ATI Radeon 365HG PCIE Video Card, SB Audigy 2zs sound card, 4 Seagate 500GB SATA II hard drives.Thermaltake swing case, Coolermaster CPU Fan. Samsung SATA II DVD-RW optical drive, Vioewsonic 22" widescreen display (Flatpanel LCD)



Those are my thoughts on it anyways. Have a great weekend, I'll be defragmenting 3TB of drives.... :(

[piyushsingh]

There will be no point in debating on this as i m also tired of doing the same again and again on the same issue..... :(

btw - 3TB of drives , that will surely take time.

[sparrownightmare]

I have been thinking of running Vista 64Bit for a while. It would be nice to get the most out of my RAM and 64Bit CPU. I actually have my system set up to Dual Boot Vista Ultimate 32Bit and XP Pro 32bit right now. I am just not sure about how well a triple boot would work. Have you run into any incompatabilities? And how much of a speed increase did you get?

[sparrownightmare]

Yeh it will. I always do the system boot drive last so I can still do some other work while it's running. The internals aren't that bad but only 2TG is internal, the rest is spread on 3 external drives, those take a while.

[rtfire1]

wow 3tb I thought my 1.5 tb was bad but ouch. I have mine over 5 ext drives. I due a drive a night sun-thur.

[xanarchyx]

Y'know everybody complained about ME too, but once I learned how to tweak it I never saw the dreaded BSOD again. Vista is much the same way! I've been running Vista x64 Ultimate OEM for about six mos, with no problems....it just runs differently then XP that's all. I think that the big manufacturers didn't research, they just built boxes. Either this was because of Microsoft not providing Vista compliance or they just used what componenets and hoped for the best....who knows. Probably a little of both! I did a lot of research into the hardware I built with, for probably about three mos. before I built my box. most people who are having problems I don't think really researched what to use as far as hardware went. I read everything pertaining to Vista comptibility on vendors websites. talked to other builders I know and read every article in every magazine I could lay my hands on. Then I decided what to lay out my hard earned dinero for, maybe I got luky or maybe I did it the right way!

[xanarchyx]

Here's My Box:
Abit KN9-SLI MOBO
AMD x2 6000 CPU (OCed to 3.5 gHz.)
4g- Corsair XMS DDR2 800mhz PC6400 RAM
WD 500gig Caviar HDD Sata3
2-MSI 8600GT GPUs in SLI(Iknow,Iknow but it works great!)
Asus Combo Drive
Asus DVD/Rom
52 in 1 Card reader with USB/Firewire/SATA ports

Trust me it's runs fantastic! It's all in the research!