[devilzwrath]

Vista Or XP Guys?..

Specifications:

HP a1702n
Intel Core 2 CPU 6300 @ 1.86 Ghz 1.87 Ghz
3062 MB RAM (Extended it)
O/S: ATM Vista.. Can Change to XP (have CD's)

Which is Better??!

[jonmcc33]

Windows Vista by far, especially if it's already installed.

[devilzwrath]

Thanks, quick reply =)

[psam3]

I say Windows Vista

[kaaos]

Vista still buggy and still some programs that wont run vista and hardware that is not vista ready. and make sure all your old stuff can run vista like web cam sound cards ect.

If i were getting a new PC I'd get XP pro because its still more stable than vista.

[jonmcc33]

Originally Posted by kaaos

Vista still buggy and still some programs that wont run vista and hardware that is not vista ready. and make sure all your old stuff can run vista like web cam sound cards ect.

If i were getting a new PC I'd get XP pro because its still more stable than vista.

Those are all false statements.

[ferrija1]

Originally Posted by jonmcc33

Those are all false statements.

You do a great job including evidence with your statements.

kaaos is right, you should make sure there are Vista drivers for all your hardware before you upgrade. Also, if you run any "less common" (for lack of a better term) software, you should make sure it runs on Vista. Contrary to kaaos, though, I would buy Vista if it will work with all your hardware and software, it is the latest operating system, so soon applications will only support Vista, it has many security enchantments, and looks nice.

[Elvandil]

Funny comparison. Home Premium? If Ultra, then definitely Vista. It supports all my old and new hardware and has tons more features. It's very stable and forgiving. It can only get better with SP1 and I'm sure it will. It got a bad rap for no good reason, even before it was released.

[jonmcc33]

Originally Posted by Elvandil

Funny comparison. Home Premium? If Ultra, then definitely Vista. It supports all my old and new hardware and has tons more features. It's very stable and forgiving. It can only get better with SP1 and I'm sure it will. It got a bad rap for no good reason, even before it was released.

I agree. There was quite a bit of FUD spread about Vista. I had my issues at first but it's a very good OS right now. There were a lot of patches that fixed issues and hardware manufacturers finally started releasing better drivers.

There are a lot of people out there that think Vista is slower than XP, not as stable, has too many software incompatibilities, etc. I had issues myself when it was RTM. In December I decided to just switch and see how things were. I haven't looked back.

Now the problem is when I go to work, my PC there uses Windows XP still. We have a VLA for Windows Vista Business but I think I'd freak out my CIO if I upgraded my desktop without his consent.

[SweaterVest014]

I've used computers with Vista Premium, and our home computer has XP Professional, and I think XP Pro is much better/faster. Vista spends too much time on unnecessary gadgets and XP actually gets the job done quickly and efficiently. Just my $0.02...

[fairnooks]

It all depends on what a person does, how powerful the system is, etc. I run two Vista systems (for replication of error study) and many XP systems. I liked Vista when I first got it but the more I use it the more problems I encounter but I can see where if someone wasn't using most of the supposedly Vista-copmpatible software that I am they would probably have a good experience with it. Its gotten to the point where I know what I can trust Vista to handle and what I have to do in XP, and I'm not someone who only takes a cursory run at trying to make a program work in all aspects that I need it to.

So why don't I just go all XP?...I keep hoping Vista will put on the daddy shoes one of these days, and both systems have the smoking core 2s in them, and the OS is certainly stable enough as far as that goes.

I'll admit also that when I run one thing in XP like Windows Media Player and BANG its playing the file and the same procedure in Vista causes WMP to stall for a good second and then, when I know damm well its already got the codec (for MP3 and wmv.....come on!!!), tell me its aquiring the codec for another one to two seconds....that drives me batty! Especially when I suspect the real reason is the built in DRM. But otherwise I think I give the two OSs a pretty fair shake.

[DVOM]

Vista reminds me of Windows 98. It's got the same program lockups that you can't recover from except for a hard reboot. Plus it's got lag (don't the gamers call it "latency"?) up the wazoo.

lol

I rode that Vista pig for 2 months, scrubbed and scrubbed to get all the lipstick off of it and guess what? It was still a pig. And that's with 2 Gigs of RAM.

So I guess my vote is: go with Win98 or maybe WinME. Or if you like the sketchy software compatability Vista offers, go with Linux.

But if you actually need the machine to perform, such as for some work related type function, then put XP on it and forggedaboudit.

[jmwills]

Windows ME? You can't be serious. There is nothing wrong with Vista that some updated drivers can't fix.
Buy all the copies of XP you need by June 30th becasue that is the end of sale date.

[fairnooks]

I never had the problems with ME that I do with Vista. At the same time I recognize that I've become a much more sophisticated user since then so its a bit of a poor comparison, but Vista does remind me of the "ME" days---I don't think Vista is going to seperate itself as a superior platform until the equivalent of Vista 2nd edition comes along. In the meantime, in the Premium version of Vista (the most common version sold/installed/used?) there doesn't seem to be anything that can't be done as well or better in a properly customized version of XP except what Microsoft has deemed "Vista only" and refused to backport. Carey Holzman from Computer America and others have even said that to the stage of development that DirectX 10 is at right now there is no reason that it couldn't be backported as well but then admited that going forward it would be increasingly difficult to do so as 10 developed. Hmmm, sometime going forward, when that and the new file system and all the other advances that were left on the programming room floor might actually come to fruition. Software companies will also have had enough time to develop thier programs to work better with Vista which seems to be a difficult thing to do for whatever reason. The Redmond Giant will call it something else but it'll be Vista SE.

[jonmcc33]

Originally Posted by fairnooks

I'll admit also that when I run one thing in XP like Windows Media Player and BANG its playing the file and the same procedure in Vista causes WMP to stall for a good second and then, when I know damm well its already got the codec (for MP3 and wmv.....come on!!!), tell me its aquiring the codec for another one to two seconds....that drives me batty! Especially when I suspect the real reason is the built in DRM. But otherwise I think I give the two OSs a pretty fair shake.

Never use WMP. It is pure garbage. Get Media Player Classic: http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/