|
abohrandy
|
Don't just support Vista because it is new.
I really like my XP SP2, but i want to know what others think about Vista and XP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fdeveloper (m)
|
Just one question, has there ever been a version of Windows that wasn't better than the previous one(s)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seun (m)
|
I prefer Windows XP because it can run on less expensive systems. Even on more expensive systems, Vista will tend to consume all the system resources that application programs are supposed to be using. That's bad. Just one question, has there ever been a version of Windows that wasn't better than the previous one(s)?
Yes. The infamous Windows Millenium Edition ('Windows Me') was worse than Windows 98. It crashed a lot! |
|
|
|
|
|
otuonye (m)
|
My personal opinion: I think I prefer Vista to XP. Although, it is a bit slower on certain systems, but hey, have you checked the registry files, the new and inviting interface, network compatibility [compared with that of XP]?
I think Vista should have an edge over XP and maybe very sson, people might start admiring the essential new features in this new software.
Jojo
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidoo (m)
|
i have a dell inspiron E1705 which came preinstalled with a vista and i can tell u it works like magic, what makes the difference is the interface which is similar to linux not to talk of the security, u wont go for anything less  |
|
|
|
|
|
dakmanzero (m)
|
seun, windows me was *not* worse than windows 95. 95 is one of the worst pieces of trash in OS history. It only became useful after osr2 and even that was slipstreamed so badly that it is a compleet tos up whetehr or not you ended up with one of the bugridden builds.
windows 98 proved to be even worse than 95 (there's your example for ya!)
windows 98 SE was such a RADICAL improvement over 98 and 95 that many grew so atatched to it they did not upgrade to me or 2k and had to be FORCED to leave it for XP by MS creating artificial scarcity of support and apps, like what they are tryiong to do with vista and xp.
Me was of course a big step backwards compared to 98se. But please do not compare it to 98 or 95. Thankfully I still have a copy of windows98 hanging around so if you want to argue I'll just send it to you so you can see for yourself! 98 first edition was so bad it was normal to see people working with completely corrupted desktops and frozen windows left right and center. It was horrible.
personal opinion?
from what I've heard of vista, I prefer XP for now. It appears vista has crippled programmers in the name of security, and vista may not be such a great platform for development as XP was. However in the long run vista will be a good replacement for XP, also because of the same security features. The problem is that PCs will lose a lot of their multipuropse power and become more like 'appliances', doing a few things, but doing them pretty well. While joe user may like this, i prefer my computer to do what *i* want, not whjat some corporation wants, and so I'll prolly end up with Linux once XP ceases to be useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bLacK GoLd (m)
|
From my point of view(professional experience of both), i would say and stand to be corrected that Windows XP is much better than Vista. Windows Vista is Microsoft trying to imitate the strong selling points of Macintosh(interface) and Linux(security). seun, windows me was *not* worse than windows 95. 95 is one of the worst pieces of trash in OS history. It only became useful after osr2 and even that was slipstreamed so badly that it is a compleet tos up whetehr or not you ended up with one of the bugridden builds.
I would permit the flaws of 95 considering the fact that it was the dawn of a new day for Microsoft and its consumers(i.e integration of ms-dos and GUI) but as for Windows Me, i know and u may ask Microsoft, it was a total Failure(IT wise and financially) |
|
|
|
|
|
abohrandy
|
vista is just fine for digital stuff.
n i want to believe that if u need a vista u need to get it preinstalled on a system than u doing it yourself like with an xp. even if u want to upgrade from xp to vista u hav to think about your hardware too n not just the software.
forget about the interface, u are on the net; get a vista theme n set your xp like vista. thats all
|
|
|
|
|
|
texazzpete (m)
|
First of, lots of people are installing vista on systems they shouldnt be doing that on. Just because a system has 'Vista compatible' stickers on it doesn't mean it's going to run the new Aero interface very well. People install vista on systems with intel GMA900 chipsets and they get flung back to the plain, Aero-less version of Vista. Then the complaints begin.
Vista increases security, simplifies loads of things and is loads more stable than XP. at least no one's experiencing Blue Screens of Death on Vista. Please try and be objective an check out the Microsoft recommended specs on their website before you upgrade. If your system faisl to meet this requirement, please do not upgrade!!
Nigerians are buying up the pirated copies of Vista in Otigba, but 99% of them are from the Beta versions, and those are incomplete. Get the 100% release version of Vista before damning the OS.
@Dmz
most of the complaints about vista is the somewhat intrusive prompts and checks fom the OS. This feature can easily be turned off. also, manby people overseas whine about the activation process needed to validate the OS. what they don't tell you is that this is a one-time, 5 minute process. don't know what the fuss is all about!
As for those complaining about vista needing expensive system specs, a p4 2.8ghz system with 1GB ram and a 64Mb gfx card coupled for less that 80K in otigba will run Vista admirably. Why do we scrooge when it comes to buying systems? My VAIO cost me N240000, and i don't regret the cash spent on it one bit!
As for compatibility, most popular productivity software works perfectly on Vista now. even Apple's itunes has a new update which is Vista compatible. We shouldnt cling on to the old, let's try and embrace the new. I nearly didnt upgrade to Xp many years ago simply because it didnt support Connectix VGS (then). Now i know better
|
|
|
|
|
|
alanbolo (m)
|
From my point of view(professional experience of both), i would say and stand to be corrected that Windows XP is much better than Vista.
Windows Vista is Microsoft trying to imitate the strong selling points of Macintosh(interface) and Linux(security).
Totally aggree with blackGold. It's a mixture of XP2 and Linux X. Market-wise, MS have to come out with a viable product in as much ways as possible to counteract Apple and all those Linux variations. Based on corporate usage that I've worked with, W2K is still the best out there. We've discovered that w2k is more effiecient on processor usage with basic applications, but due to business application geared towards XP and faster processor, we have to abandon W2k and move to XP and we're not planning on migrating to Vista till 1st qtr of 2008. From win98se with the exception of winME to Vista "a.k.a Longhorn" they're all ok due to your usage and preferences and of course financial constraint need 2 b considered as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
Glamourgal (f)
|
i'm currently using vista and it's better than XP(so far)'
mine works fine and it hasn't crashed (yet).
it's good for this modern age as almost everything is digital.
it's good for students doing multi-media and all that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coleslove
|
Vista is good but calls for much upgrade to be done on your system or laptop, like 1gb ram and so on, But know what is really cool about it??? when it is being infected by virus it doesnt eat into the OS. But above all i think i like virtually most of the OS. Like i have used and i am still using Sp3 trying to get Sp4 and i was using XP-Spirit now have to XP-Unlimited and its cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nkc (m)
|
please where can i get vista in abuja
|
|
|
|
|
|
IBEXY (m)
|
I keep wondering if all that graphics is needed. What is the essence of having all active windows flying past in 3d when ALT+tab does the same or why would I risk operating my system using voice when I don't have American accent. I could delete my files when it mistakes copy for delete. The transparent window thing looks cool but at expense of a large amount of your pc resources. What of the pain of having to upgrade? I am a bit warry of vista until it has stayed for one year. I think its a glorified version of XP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
oyb (m)
|
First of, lots of people are installing vista on systems they shouldnt be doing that on. Just because a system has 'Vista compatible' stickers on it doesn't mean it's going to run the new Aero interface very well. People install vista on systems with intel GMA900 chipsets and they get flung back to the plain, Aero-less version of Vista. Then the complaints begin.
Vista increases security, simplifies loads of things and is loads more stable than XP. at least no one's experiencing Blue Screens of Death on Vista. Please try and be objective an check out the Microsoft recommended specs on their website before you upgrade. If your system faisl to meet this requirement, please do not upgrade!!
Nigerians are buying up the pirated copies of Vista in Otigba, but 99% of them are from the Beta versions, and those are incomplete. Get the 100% release version of Vista before damning the OS.
@Dmz
most of the complaints about vista is the somewhat intrusive prompts and checks fom the OS. This feature can easily be turned off. also, manby people overseas whine about the activation process needed to validate the OS. what they don't tell you is that this is a one-time, 5 minute process. don't know what the fuss is all about!
As for those complaining about vista needing expensive system specs, a p4 2.8ghz system with 1GB ram and a 64Mb gfx card coupled for less that 80K in otigba will run Vista admirably. Why do we scrooge when it comes to buying systems? My VAIO cost me N240000, and i don't regret the cash spent on it one bit!
As for compatibility, most popular productivity software works perfectly on Vista now. even Apple's itunes has a new update which is Vista compatible. We shouldnt cling on to the old, let's try and embrace the new. I nearly didnt upgrade to Xp many years ago simply because it didnt support Connectix VGS (then). Now i know better
sorry, i beg to differ. a lot of users out there cannot afford expensive systems, especially when you consider, what are the benefits(unless you want to count HALO 2 , is it out on pc yet?) .is there anything in particular that i need windows vista for that i can't do with Xp as to compatibility issues:recently, one of my colleagues wanted to buy a laptop.i recommended a system with vista (so that in future, he wouldn't have to upgrade with a pirated version and lose out on all those 'validation required' freebies). we tried installing autocad 2006.immediately, we got a message(this applicatioon has known compatibility issues).we went ahead. acad wouldn't run .we had to troll the net for a breakthrough.(for anyone else with that problem select the acad.exe file, select properties, aand select run in compatibility mode). ditto for google sketchup i'd say if you're going with vista, you'd best get the LATEST versions of all the productivity apps.(more money down the drain) |
|
|
|
|
|
kike001 (f)
|
i watched this on the gadet show n its just that vista is staight forward n window Xp is complicated
|
|
|
|
|
|
obiguy (m)
|
vista baba!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
nkc (m)
|
where can i get one
|
|
|
|
|
|
dolami (m)
|
As for me both are very good for now. Every lover of XP will soon find favour in Vista, just like other previous lower Os. You can't be rigid because of the cash involved for some upgrade. But my advise to who want a new system is to settle for Vista compliant. (avoid future upgrade) However many are still computer literate because of lower price second hand computer in otigba. we should understand that there is need to encourage more people to be computer literate, but with vista the result is zero.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ivgotfleas (m)
|
I have both, Vista is a good OS, and seems very secure. MS completely recoded their security base and added many new features. The interface isn't much more than a flashy XP, but its still pretty cool. However, for the price i would not switch to Vista unless you are buying a new computer and getting it with that computer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fdeveloper (m)
|
To all those who claim that XP is better for Vista, I'm suspect the exact same arguments were advanced when XP was first released and yet here we are today singing it's praises admittedly after a number of service releases.
What I would say is that Vista is certainly not a necessity and you are not obliged to upgrade by any means but putting that to one side, I'm yet to see a sound technical argument (and not just the "I like it statement") proving beyond doubt that XP is definitely than Vista. The fact that Vista requires a higher specification PC is in my view not a valid argument. In view of the new features present in Vista it's hardly surprising that it demands a higher specification PC than what you need for XP. Whether you need to upgrade to Vista or not is a separate argument and should be treated as such.
@Seun, I take your point about Windows ME.
|
|
|
|
|
|
texazzpete (m)
|
Anyone who can't shell out a measly 80K for a new, forward compatible system shouldnt even be thinking about Vista.
Afterall, the Vista OS (Genuine!!) costs at least 15K in Nigeria, and if you can afford that, then why can't you afford an 80K system? or at least, the upgrades alone won't come more than 40K.
However, most of the people who want to run Vista and claim they can't afford the upgrade are just plain pirates/thieves!
|
|
|
|
|
|
dakmanzero (m)
|
@tp small small o. Most people can't afford a 240000 laptop OR a licenced version of windows OR a net connection to activate.
My personal decision is to stick with XP as long as possible, and only move to Vista when it becomes ubiqutous. Even then I may still retain XP on machines around me.
Reasons?
a)Vista has not been proven to be more secure. It could go either way.
As a previous poster said, MS recoded the 'security base'. That means they threw away a stable Network stack that had passed through the pains of msblaster and redlof and started afresh. Once the hackers hit it we'll know how secure it is. However since they cracked it and found buffer overflows already during the beta, I'm not holding my breath.
UAC is obtrusive and just a psychological form of protection. Viruses trying to do weird things in a blatant fashion will trigger it off, but a *real* security threat will get around it quite easily. The best way to do what UAC does is the unix way- keep userland away from the kernel. But since it is impossible to run windows without admin privileges (runit properly i mean) they need to do this nonsense.
The only form of security that vista TRULY provides is unbeatable DRM. and DRM means security not for you, but for people who want to send you video you can't record, audio you can't copy, documents you can';t print. In short if you accept that YOU are the criminal, vista is more secure.
b) Vista eye-candy
I like the idea of having nice shiny graphics but the truth is that you need a powerful PC to appreciate it. Already when hanging of moving slowly, windows has troubloe blitting windows onto the screen. The interface is still 2d, so why waste procesor cycles with 3d graphics? It is a waste if you ask me, and it will simply make REAL 3d apps (games and 3d rendering software) run slowly. ALready games are showing lower performance on vista. Dx10 is not released for xp simply because people would see XP providing superior performance.
c) Vista multimedia
Vista's multimedia capabilities are REDUCED compared to XP's. fewer options for analogue output, more restrictions, and reduced performance due to excessive crypto.
Now why will I use vista in the future?
The most obvious reason is that I'll be forced to. new hardware/software will only syupport vista. but also":
a) vista security
SInce this can goeither way, theres the possibility it could get better. Theres also the possibility that ms could relax the DRM in the future, or hjackers will just crack it to pieces , making vista useful again.
b) eye candy
In the beginning i always used windiows xp in classic mode. Nowadays I used stylxp till ti nearly killed my system and now I standarduise on full eye-candy. In short, when we are all using 10-core processors with 2 tb of holographic RAM the eye candy will be less of a strain
c) Multimedia
When mass-market hd video becomes a reality (for now its a joke) , the standard players and readers will be best supported on Vista, and faster computers will mitigate vista's performance problems.
So, I say XP now, Vista later. PLUS i say NEVER upgrade to vista, buy a new computer with vista on it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seun (m)
|
To all those who claim that XP is better for Vista, I'm suspect the exact same arguments were advanced when XP was first released That's not true. When I installed XP on a computer formerly running Windows 2000, it actually booted faster. The same cannot be said about Vista. Most systems running Windows XP can't even run Vista. Windows Vista is comparable to the first edition of Windows NT, which was better only for servers. |
|
|
|
|
|
texazzpete (m)
|
There's a reason why Microsoft has had the minimum requirements for Vista on their homepage for over a year now. By now we're all supposed to know that Vista runs only on reasonably powerful systems @Seun Requirements wise, there weren't too many differences between Windows 2000 and XP. However, it seems there's a growing trend towards high powered hardware. Apple Mac users won't feel it because they're hardware locked, you can't just go out and buy a copy of Mac OSx, you get the OS on Apple hardware. An apple macboook pro (the laptop) comes with a dual core intel processor and an above-average Graphics card. Ditto for many new mac notebooks. Also, apple makes their OS for a select group of hardware, while Microsoft has to come up with an OS that runs on a diverse blend of hardware. In the developed world, many users have long since switched from Generic, old hardware to fast systems. Intel has sold millions of centrinos and Core DUos worldwide, most of which can handle Vista. After all, any system that can play Half-Life 2 reasonably well can run Vista, and millions of copies of HL2 were sold! In Nigeria however, people buy 6 year old 2nd hand Pentium 3s from otigba, purchase a N300 copy of Vista, install it and understandably get crappy results. Go figure |
|
|
|
|
|
dakmanzero (m)
|
@seun:
It's true that windows xp booted faster than windows 2000: Thats because the boot process of 2k was seriously broken.XP boots even faster than windows 98 (if you include the 'firstboot'
However once the system is up and running, most tasks were faster in 2k, if only because of the smaller memory footprint and the smaller number of running services. I vividly remember my old pentium mmx 233- with 128megs of RAM it barely ran 2k, but flew once i upgraded to 256meg. XP runs like dog crap on 256megs and hardly works at all on 128megs.
@TP
To be completely honest, the difference in requirements between xp and vista is rather similar to the difference between xp and 2k. The real reasons people notice a huge performance drop are:
1) the need for 3d accel. Previously, video cards were not part of the equation. Now they are.
2) Multimedia: Vista does a LOT of heavy CPU-loading crypto at a driver level when you are running any sort of multimedia system, and the multimedia subsystem is more heavily abstracted than xps (that means more stuff is not allowed to talk directly to hardware). This causes a BIG performance drop
people that disable aero glass and use word/excel will not notice such a huge performance drop, and from reports (i don't know this for sure) there are some things that are supposedly faster, especially in the area of networking. You know xp used to hang a lot when trying to read nonexistent network connections, etc. Supposedly vista is a lot smarter and will not waste your time so much. Have to verify that, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
aaarodell (m)
|
obvy vista, it new n faster than xp, ffs people use your brains lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
abohrandy
|
for real xp runs on systems that take even win 98.
so what i suggest is that the average nigerian who can't afford an expensive PC or laptop sholud wait like we waited for Xp to come down before we start playing with it the way we play wit xp today in nigeria
vista is fine ( from what i have seen n heard about it) but it u want the vista look on your system, u can get a theme on n u are @ it. well vista will surely find its way into our hearts like Xp but i don't think anyone had a prob with Xp as its new interface was just terrific.
|
|
|
|
|
|
texazzpete (m)
|
@abohrandy
running a vista theme on your xp machine gives it a performance hit! If you've got a fast system, but you only run Office apps and other less demanding stuff, that's fine! If you're a serious enthusiast/gamer, it takes vital ram off you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fdeveloper (m)
|
@Seun,
I don't doubt what you say however I believe the hardware requirements for 2000 & XP were not as divergent as XP & Vista so I'm not sure that's a valid comparison?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seun (m)
|
I don't doubt what you say however I believe the hardware requirements for 2000 & XP were not as divergent as XP & Vista so I'm not sure that's a valid comparison? That is precisely my point: I am criticizing Vista for having excessively high hardware requirements. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fdeveloper (m)
|
That is precisely my point: I am criticizing Vista for having excessively high hardware requirements.
Well, I don't see how all the new features implemented in Vista could be possible without significant additional hardware resources so I don't agree with you assertion that the requirements are excessive. Surely it's a simple inescapable fact that more features= more resources. You can certainly argue that some of the new features are unnecessary however I believe that is a separate point. |
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Poll
Author
