Come on XP supporters!! Vista supporters are catching up in the voting!!! Vote for XP!! XP FOR PRESIDENT 2009!!!!!

1980 nintendo nes vs 1990 nintendo 64

i hate this nintendo 64

look at the ugly joystick, it is not intuitive like my nes game pad

i hate the 3d games. they give me vertigo, where are my old side scrollers

the nintendo 64 will not plug into my old television

my old nintendo nes games will not play on the nintendo 64

nintendo nes all the way

nintendo 64 is rubbish

XP is the better.i go forXP

To say that either of the two is better than the other depends on which perspective you are looking at it from. If you are into aesthetics and want it out of the box, definitely Vista will be the favorite, especially when u have the hardware for it. But if u prefer performance and functionality over anything else, XP is the right OS for you.

Both of them has some advantages over each other like XP having a stronger core and more programs running comfortable on it than on Vista (Vista lovers should take note of these, some programs tend to take down the aero glass interface of Vista or entirely crash upon startup) plus XP upon initial release was able to run at least 85% of existing softwares on Windows ME and 2000, quite unlike Vista which upon its service pack 2 release still has a lot of bugs. Vista on the other hand has some advantages over XP like more support for hardware drivers out of the box that is in most cases 90% of ur hardware works, (XP lovers try installing XP on Dell systems without a Dell recovery CD).

But all that not withstanding, from my humble point of view, Microsoft's best OS is definitely XP till date. Some say Vista is sophisticated, but I say how sophisticated can an OS be when it cant work with softwares from previous editions. So my vote goes to XP cos for me whenever I wanna do some serious work or test run some stuff, XP is usually my OS of choice. Vista even has problems with anti-virus softwares like Avast and some others, asking for administrative privileges all the time. An OS that asks for administrative privileges all the time even when logged in as an Admin is very unproductive and to make it worse it doesn't learn like XP does (XP can remember your last choice on privileges for running a program) neither can u turn off the notifications.

In all, XP is the one for me when I feel like running windows and when I need the aesthetics I can always run programs like WIndow Blinds and as for the hardware support, I always keep a copy of my systems drivers cd handy in case i feel like re-formatting.

[size=20pt]XP United!!! XP For Life!!![/size]

in terms of ruggedness xp is still better.

pls help me o, just of a sudden the 'hibernate' on my system disaspeared, my vga is ok and all my add is ok too. i ;ve tried power options too but all to no avail. pls i dont want to 4mat my sjystem yet i need to find 'hibernate'. pls send me solution to 'sesanomodada@yahoo.co.uk' thanks

Firstly r u sure ur Hibernation option is enabled? Do that by going to control panel/ power options, under hybernation tab, make sure "Enable Hibernation" is checked.

To Hibernate, Click the start bar/ shut down then hold down the shift button. U shd be able to see the Hibernate button among the 3 options.

This is assuming u r using XP OS

Mac OS is better than XP, Vista & windows 7, LOVE Apple with all my life

if you have a machine with spec that can run vista smoothly, you can make vista look like xp. similarly you can can make xp look like vista. anyhow you are running Windows

vista is the lastest version of os from microsoft which added the advantages of the improved hardware technology (memory/speed e.t.c) many people however trys to run these new os on older systems and they compalain. i experience the same more than a decade ago when i was trying to run dos on a 286. it drags on and on. my advice to all is if you do not have a dual core with at least 2gb ram, stick to xp. what you all should understand is that most of the os we use today are dos with enhanced graphical users interface. vista requires so much memory that i still consider our present computer hardware as insufficient. i am even looking forward to an os that surpass visa in terms of memory requirement. i enjoy the zooming tech introduce in vitsa, the fast display from the task bar e.t.c. i often do imagine what new feutures will come with future os,? can't wait to see it. if you think what you have now is ok, stay put. bye

LINUX!!
for human beings
(ubuntu & mint, hmmmm)

lekside44:

vista is the lastest version of os from microsoft which added the advantages of the improved hardware technology (memory/speed e.t.c) many people however trys to run these new os on older systems and they compalain. i experience the same more than a decade ago when i was trying to run dos on a 286. it drags on and on. my advice to all is if you do not have a dual core with at least 2gb ram, stick to xp. what you all should understand is that most of the os we use today are dos with enhanced graphical users interface. vista requires so much memory that i still consider our present computer hardware as insufficient. i am even looking forward to an os that surpass visa in terms of memory requirement. i enjoy the zooming tech introduce in vitsa, the fast display from the task bar e.t.c. i often do imagine what new feutures will come with future os,? can't wait to see it. if you think what you have now is ok, stay put. bye

vista is the current version of windows. the latest is windows 7 which is set for general release october. ive been using the release candidate for close to 2 months now and its faster, smoother, stabler, more beautiful than vista. see the screenshot below from my desktop. it is the best windows ever.

NT, long time no see

whats that dock thingy in the corner

u know yours truly is a widget freak

which do i prefer between xp and vista? xp by a long mile
which do i believe is better?
let's be objective, vista is SIGNIFICANTLY better, however
vista also requires SIGNIFICANTLY better hardware to actually perform up to spec

i think xp users should stop being sentimental about this thing, lets face facts; barring compatibility
issues and driver issues and hardware requirements, what thing does xp have on vista?
and before anybody calls me a hypocrite i truly HATE vista and i hope to NEVER use that os
at least on my personal hardware anyway but the fact still remains that it's a better software,
for instance compare task managers in XP and Vista; also with vista i can actually
reduce the size of my partition(s) without any third party software.

I have however tried windows 7 and , at least it's not so hardware greedy as vista
7's the future of windows and am ready to fight anyone who disagrees with me

@OYB

hey, long time bud. im lying if i told you i remember wot that thing is or where i got it from. i just know its wicked cool and gives useful info with nice animations.

lekside44:

i experience the same more than a decade ago when i was trying to run dos on a 286. it drags on and on.

the last time i saw a 286 was almost two decades ago. and DOS runs perfectly on 286, even an 8086. DOS has no GUI and isnt multitasking so besides TSRs there are no reasons for it to "drag on and on". if however TSR stuff or device drivers are loading high in upper memory, you'll encounter some probs which in this case are strictly related to poor memory management as progs load low.

lekside44:

my advice to all is if you do not have a dual core with at least 2gb ram, stick to xp.

multicore is not directly related to how vista performs, more like how apps were designed to utilize multicores. even if you have a dual quad core but your apps were coded for a single core system, all those extra cores wont help one bit. indeed, they may even slow down system performance.you need apps designed for multicore systems to enjoy the benefits of multicore.

lekside44:

what you all should understand is that most of the os we use today are dos with enhanced graphical users interface.

really? give an example of such an OS besides OS/2, Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0, Windows 3.0, windows 3.1, windows 3.11, windows 95 etc. these essentially have DOS as their foundation, but microsoft let go of DOS in NT, and fully in Windows 2000.

jesus. the ignorance of some people is mind boggling

VISTA! any day.

VISTA ROck!!!, PLease whr can i download window 7 software, please i need the link asap

[size=20pt]WINDOWS XP or WINDOWS 7 FOR PRESIDENT!! DOWN WITH WINDOWS VISTA!!![/size]

@OYB

check out my Transformers skin for Xion. cool animations!

i don't understand why this topic is generating debate? quote:"which do i prefer between xp and vista? xp by a long mile
which do i believe is better?
let's be objective, vista is SIGNIFICANTLY better, however
vista also requires SIGNIFICANTLY better hardware to actually perform up to spec

i think xp users should stop being sentimental about this thing, lets face facts; barring compatibility
issues and driver issues and hardware requirements, what thing does xp have on vista?
and before anybody calls me a hypocrite i truly HATE vista and i hope to NEVER use that os
at least on my personal hardware anyway but the fact still remains that it's a better software,
for instance compare task managers in XP and Vista; also with vista i can actually
reduce the size of my partition(s) without any third party software."
ok lets see, you buy a car, the engine doesnt work well, it doesnt have tires and u need the mechanc every other day, but u tell urself i bought a fine car!!!!!! jeez wake up! as av said if the shit was gud, hell 3 yrs later they releasing something else, hw come. dude wat use is an os where u cant do basic things and it gives u a migraine, yet u say its fine? and for people like me who suffer from sylar mentality, want to knw hw things work and tweak and hack etc etc, vista is a nightmare. ABEG CASE CLOSED!!!. @WEAVER WHERE IS THE UBUNTU CD U PROMISED ME? U DON RUN FROM UBUNTU AND LINUX THREADS?

Majority carried the vote, and it seems majority here says XP is better, though i voted for vista.
because vista is like u know more packed. But truth be said XP is better, i do all my programming
and software development on XP, my vista is just loaded with fanciful stuffs. . .

Windows Xp is better, Bleep down Vista

why do you people keep going on about XP? there are two new OS versions after xp, its old so lets forget it. the rage now is Windows 7 which is more stable, secure, faster and stabler than even XP itself. it performs better than vista even on a 512mb RAM machine.
.

there is no more basis for comparison: xp and vista are old and being phased out; windows 7 is the best windows ever.

^^^^

sadly , windows 7 could still flop- there was all sorts of great buzz about vista when it was in beta - but the beta testing was by techies who know all about compatibility mode, replacing dlls, using the latest versions of applications and general troubleshooting and workarounds. 90% of the posters here will still bitch about windows seven for the same reasons they are bitching about vista because they are the er unwashed masses of computer users - alot of so called 'computer gurus and engineers' will bitch because it ultimately shows them for what they are - pretenders who simply know 1% more than the average computer user and have been coasting along on that.

@OYB

true talk, but you and i know that vista, even from the betas all the way down to the RTM, was buggy and an immense resources hog. actually the final code was faster than the hell the RC was.

so far, bar one or two idiots, the windows 7 RC is unanimously hailed by realworld end users (such as yourself and yours truly). of course, it still doesnt have anything to trump Mac OS X yet especially with the superb new techs in Snow Leopard, but its still a redemption for the travesty that vista is. granted, there is nothing in win 7 that SHOULDNT have been in vista, all the features are like 3 years old, but at leats its fast and stable.

the one good thing i love in windows 7 is the new windows update which 98% gets you the very few drivers win7 doesnt install by default. ive done many installations of win 7 but i only encountered a failed driver fetch for one toshiba TPM driver for the fingerprint module.

all in all, i think people are going to be pleased. i hate M$, but ths time around they've built windows into what vista should have been.

Ex Inferis link=topic=277855.msg4093386#msg4093386 date=1246016339[b:
]
of course, it still doesnt have anything to trump Mac OS X yet especially with the superb new techs in Snow Leopard,[/b] but its still a redemption for the travesty that vista is. granted, there is nothing in win 7 that SHOULDNT have been in vista, all the features are like 3 years old, but at leats its fast

Leopard or Snow Leopard is a great piece of OS. no doubt. but have you checked out the spec of the apple machines(macbook pro, imac) that this OS is installed? common, these are high configurations. which OS will not fly in pc with such configuration? why not run Snow Leopard in a celeron machine with 512 RAM and integrated video card, and tell me it better than xp, vista, win 7 or linux.

@Flyuche

er, i wasnt talking about speed there, mate. im talking about the ease of use, stability, eye candy, features etc. besides, most Dell XPS and ASUS machines out there beat the Macbooks in specs and hardware, but like i always say, its not always the machine, its how the OS works on that machine.

Ex Inferis:


the last time i saw a 286 was almost two decades ago. and DOS runs perfectly on 286, even an 8086. DOS has no GUI and isnt multitasking so besides TSRs there are no reasons for it to "drag on and on". if however TSR stuff or device drivers are loading high in upper memory, you'll encounter some probs which in this case are strictly related to poor memory management as progs load low.

sure, 286 was around 2 decades ago, but many brought it into the country about 10 years latter. back then, computer is computers because they are not much in he country as we have now and anything goes.

Ex Inferis:


multicore is not directly related to how vista performs, more like how apps were designed to utilize multicores. even if you have a dual quad core but your apps were coded for a single core system, all those extra cores wont help one bit. indeed, they may even slow down system performance.you need apps designed for multicore systems to enjoy the benefits of multicore.

sure, multicore computers are not related to how vista performs but they support multicore processors. the os split operations of the programs among the rmulticores processors thus saving time and gainning speeds. we ar yet to have programming lang that are meant for multicores.

Ex Inferis:



really? give an example of such an OS besides OS/2, Windows 1.0, Windows 2.0, Windows 3.0, windows 3.1, windows 3.11, windows 95 etc. these essentially have DOS as their foundation, but microsoft let go of DOS in NT, and fully in Windows 2000.

jesus. the ignorance of some people is mind boggling

o/s 2, win1,2,3,3.1 are basically ms dos with gui. microsoft saw the limitatins of their old and outdated ms dos and plan to redesign dos and its micro kennel. this they did with win nt4. but to ensure compatibility, they plan transistional os starting with win 95, down to win 2000. thus from win 2000,we are more or less using the enhanced or redesigned ms dos with gui. take it or leave it, that is the truth. you may not be aware or this because they have not sold the character users interface version of that os.

This is Uche I.S.M. Omeoga founder of CITCI. Well, XP (Experience) nothing to compare with it in line with Microsoft OS designs, especially SP II. Please, know this, Windows Vista is not bad itself. But I prefer Vista Premium.

lekside44:

  sure, 286 was around 2 decades ago, but many brought it into the country about 10 years latter. back then, computer is computers because they are not much in he country as we have now and anything goes.

we've had a 286 since 1987. im not clear if this is a rebuke or just a restatement of wot you said earlier.

lekside44:

sure, multicore computers are not related to how vista performs but they support multicore processors. the os split operations of the programs among the rmulticores processors thus saving time and gainning speeds.

again, the thrust of your point is lost on me; no one ever said vista does not support multicores. even xp supports multicores. but if multicores do not speed up vista performance without the benefit of apps coded for the core architecture, and you admit same, i fail to see your point.

lekside44:

we ar yet to have programming lang that are meant for multicores.

liar. C and C++ can code for the architecture, its just procedurally harder to do because concurrent threading and farming it out to multiple cores is bloody difficult. Compilers can deconstruct jobs and farm them across the cores, but its managing these jobs (tasks, if you will) and accessing RAM and disk that is difficult. so, in C++ you use threads for tasks, and locks for storage access, but the problem is your overhead of managing all those threads and locks rises simultaneously with increasing number of cores.  schedulers like ULE or compilers like Cray's Chapel make it easier even for new programmers. if one can dig in and get to grips with good memory manaement (especially with x64) and task scheduling its doable. besides, Grand Central  from Apple makes it darn easy to code across multiple cores, and its still Objective C-based.

lekside44:

o/s 2, win1,2,3,3.1 are basically ms dos with gui. microsoft saw the limitatins of their old and outdated ms dos and plan to redesign dos and its micro kennel. this they did with win nt4. but to ensure compatibility, they plan transistional os starting with win 95, down to win 2000. thus from win 2000,we are more or less using the enhanced or redesigned ms dos with gui. take it or leave it, that is the truth. you may not be aware or this because they have not sold the character users interface version of that os.

FAIL!! DOS was completely stripped out of Win 2000, which has the NT kernel. all we have is a layered implementation of similar DOS functionality in what is called COMMAND PROMPT. this, being a very basic shell, was given enhance capability in its windows 7 reincarnation as the PowerShell, which supports scripting (finally). see screenshot of a PowerShell session below.

look, dont start this windows history or foundation wit me because im more grounded in the subject than you are.

ucomeoga:

This is Uche I.S.M. Omeoga founder of CITCI. Well, XP (Experience) nothing to compare with it in line with Microsoft OS designs, especially SP II. Please, know this, Windows Vista is not bad itself. But I prefer Vista Premium.

you're way behind in the times. there already exists a service pack 3 for xp, which further solidifies the OS. windows XP, in comparison to other OS before it, has immense strengths and appeal. but as compared to vista, it is a bit weak. its dominance over vista is speed and performance. its greatest weakness is security, or lack of it, and poor networking capabilities. but windows 7 is by far and without question the best windows in terms of speed, performance, efficiency, networking, security, ease of use, features, and memory footprint.