Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Lacrima Castle _ Computeralogical Stuff _ Windows XP vs. Vista
Posted by: lilcases Jul 3 2007, 06:17 AM
I'm thinking about upgrading to Vista, but is Vista really better then XP?
Posted by: Leyviur Jul 3 2007, 06:57 AM
Better security, better layout, more intuitive, more user friendly...
Yes.
Posted by: Chaos Seraph Jul 3 2007, 07:04 AM
No brainer tbh.
The only possible problems you might have involve some games, and even then, Microsoft released something a while ago that lets you run their old os's over Vista to play older games.
If you can afford it, go for it.
Posted by: zesler Jul 3 2007, 01:39 PM
Xp. Vista moved the location of some of the stuff(run for example isn't in the start menu), you need more ram to be able to use all the said functions and possibly a graphics card for the "aero" interface. Furthermore, you can change your XP to look like Vista with "aero" interface and various other functions.
Not that user friendly for those that have used Xp because of the different layout. Furthermore, you need to update software, hardware, because its a new OS. And some hardware/software may not have it availible yet so you have to wait on a company to produce drives to use it again.
Plus companies can still produce computers with XP until January 2008.
Posted by: aerozero Jul 3 2007, 05:05 PM
If your computer can handle it, then go for it, the interface is a lot nicer.
My computer ran really slow when I installed it, and only a couple of the programs, games that I had worked, so I reverted back to XP.
Posted by: Sauce XIV Jul 3 2007, 07:03 PM
While I've only operated XP until now, I'd honestly say Vista is better. If it's not better right now, it will be very soon.
Posted by: lilcases Jul 3 2007, 09:51 PM
Thanks,but I'll think about more though.
Posted by: Chaos Seraph Jul 4 2007, 12:26 PM
Its not rocket science.
Posted by: zesler Jul 4 2007, 01:50 PM
Its not rocket science.
True but thats a gaming device. It isn't that hard to figure out. The same is with Vista but its annoying. Its still user friendly(I never said it wasn't. I said its not that user friendly.). GBA never had an interface last I checked. You turn it on(assuming you have a GBA cartridge) and it runs. I don't see an OS where you have to go thought stuff. Do you?
Posted by: Chaos Seraph Jul 4 2007, 04:14 PM
Thats the point. It doesn't have one, the DS has a very simple one, and its not exactly hard to figure out what to do is it?
Posted by: Leyviur Jul 4 2007, 05:27 PM
If you get lost in Windows Vista in any way after using XP for years you are probably mentally retarded anyway.
Posted by: zesler Jul 4 2007, 10:39 PM
I'm just saying that because of how everything is moved, its annoying. -_- I'm not lost in Vista. Where everything is moved makes it annoying to remember. Yet people argue otherwise.
Posted by: Sauce XIV Jul 5 2007, 01:11 AM
That's just like saying playing RPGs are annoying because you can't remember everything when you mostly play Action/Adventure games.
Posted by: zesler Jul 5 2007, 01:23 AM
eh. Its dragged out too long and pointless(literally). Well you vista-users, and vista supporters(ie. those that argued against me) enjoy it then. I'll parallel it with mac, linux and what not.
Posted by: Takeru-kun Jul 5 2007, 06:50 AM
Vista is, in almost every way possible, technologically and fundamentally superior to XP. However, like anything in this world that gives you choices, I think that Vista should be purchased depending on your needs. However, certain situations make it near impossible to upgrade, whilst others make it imperative.
Here's what I think, in list form for your convenience. Anything with a star is a mandatory reason, meaning if you fulfill this requirement, DO AS IS SAID.
Don't buy Vista if...
- ...your computer sucks (Vista uses almost 3 times as much memory and CPU to run compared to XP).*
- ...you don't own the computer you plan to upgrade. Unless the actual owners, for instance, your parents, are perfectly okay with it, or you know what you're doing, do not change the OS.*
- ...you're an idiot and feel like wasting money on Home Basic (which isn't nearly different enough from XP to warrant $200; trust me on this).*
- ...you're perfectly content with XP.
- ...XP never crashes (Haha... yeah right).
- ...you're planning on buying a brand new computer.*
- ...you have a GeForce 8 card (if you have one and you haven't bought Vista yet, you're either severely lacking funds or extremely mental. Or both).*
- ...XP crashes a lot, or is riddled with bugs, virii, and spyware.
- ...you have $250 or more and don't know what to do with it.
- ...your current computer is nice and fast (meaning 2+ GB RAM, 40+ GB HDD, and 2.0+ GHz processor).
- ...you've always loved the fluid interface of Mac OS X.
- ...you're a hardcore gamer.
- ...you think Luna looks disgusting (I do).
- Forget it. Most likely you're too much of a close-minded fanboy who thinks Mac is better simply because you use it. However, if you're not that, then don't anyways. Most likely you have good reason to use a Mac over a PC and it would defeat the purpose if you switched to Windows. Besides, it wouldn't be worth the upgrade; Windows runs horribly on Mac.
But I'm glad to finally see a thread where the majority opinion is in favor of Vista. Most of the other forums have threads like this that eventually boil down into Vista-bashing. But then again, most of the forums I go to are filled with idiots.
Posted by: Sauce XIV Jul 5 2007, 01:39 PM
Buy Vista if...
...
...you're a hardcore gamer.
Haha, you got to be kidding, right?
Posted by: zesler Jul 5 2007, 02:52 PM
Buy Vista if...
- ...XP crashes a lot, or is riddled with bugs, virii, and spyware.
- ...your current computer is nice and fast (meaning 2+ GB RAM, 40+ GB HDD, and 2.0+ GHz processor).
- ...you're a hardcore gamer.
- ...you think Luna looks disgusting (I do).
Although I shouldn't argue, I will anyway in this case. Wouldn't you just use parallel or any similar program and use both(for anyone like hardcore gamers who want to use it all?)? You get both benefits and should one crash you can always use the other. *points to Mac/PC friend with Parallel*.
Doesn't any Window crash a lot? The only one I use that doesn't crash often, rarely actually, is Windows 98.
My computer is fast enough to support it.
The other comment is that since Windows Vista uses almost 3 times as much memory and CPU to run compared to XP wouldn't hardcore gamers stay with XP because they want as much FPS as they can get?
Also, although this is old news, its better to just buy a new computer, rather than upgrading it. There are weird glitches should you upgrade... forgot the list.
Luna?
By this point I'll just use the all windows program and run it all.... -_-
Posted by: Takeru-kun Jul 6 2007, 12:39 AM
Although I shouldn't argue, you make some good points, so I will anyway.
For starters, paralleling OS's isn't always an option. Focusing on Mac in particular, Mac OS X can't be run on a PC, or vice versa, without serious tweaking and lots of third-parties, which in the end make it a relentlessly glitchy experience. Then there are some people don't have nearly enough space to run two OS's at the same time, or would at least like as much available room as possible on their hard drive. Also, it's an inconvenience if one would have to switch between two OS's just to operate, an experience made worse by Vista's horrendously long boot time (2-5 minutes on a clean install). For those who can deal with it, I guess it isn't that big of a deal, but for most, it's an inconvenience. I mean... heck. I do it.
My computer is fast enough to support it.
Well, it's true that any Windows, and any operating system in general, will crash a lot. It's just that Vista does a helluva lot less crashing than older versions. I'm running Ultimate, and I barely if ever crash.
Potentially, yes. That depends on how much memory the game uses, and how much memory you have. For someone who has a lot of memory, it wouldn't matter at all, because there wouldn't be any difference (I have 2GB RAM and have had no problems). The killer is that the new Direct3D 10 API is exclusive to Vista, making it a must-have for anyone who wants to squeeze the most graphic potential out of their games.
This is very true, and I forgot to add that to my "Do Not Buy" list. It's risky business if you try doing an upgrade from XP, which is why I highly recommend a reformat and a clean install. Most people wouldn't like reformatting their computer though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Windows_XP.PNG. (<-- That's a link. Click it. I always wondered why this forum system never colored links.)
Posted by: zesler Jul 6 2007, 02:34 AM
I'll continue shall we?
For starters, paralleling OS's isn't always an option. Focusing on Mac in particular, Mac OS X can't be run on a PC, or vice versa, without serious tweaking and lots of third-parties, which in the end make it a relentlessly glitchy experience. Then there are some people don't have nearly enough space to run two OS's at the same time, or would at least like as much available room as possible on their hard drive. Also, it's an inconvenience if one would have to switch between two OS's just to operate, an experience made worse by Vista's horrendously long boot time (2-5 minutes on a clean install). For those who can deal with it, I guess it isn't that big of a deal, but for most, it's an inconvenience. I mean... heck. I do it.
Hard Drives are not expensive... a little of $100 for 500GB hard drive is not expensive. Also, it doesn't take that much to switch. My friend runs it in an explorer window with a separate process. I see Macs doing it often. Although it does cost money to get the said OS $50~150 and software if needed $50~150 again, its often better because should it fail in one OS switch it. Furthermore, my giant computer I'm visiting sells the "Complete Windows Pack" where it allows you to run any and all windows , 3.1 NT, etc. Space 2GB. No format required and runs off additional windows created.
Well, it's true that any Windows, and any operating system in general, will crash a lot. It's just that Vista does a helluva lot less crashing than older versions. I'm running Ultimate, and I barely if ever crash.
Everything crashes. Thats how it goes. Its not perfect. It also depends on how you use the computer. The same also applies with me. It just about never crashes and even if I shut it off in the middle of something. I can boot it and it still works with no problems. Can't say no to that when you don't have a UPS.
Only question, did your computer come with Ultimate or did you have to buy it and upgrade it.
Posted by: jcdietz03 Jul 15 2007, 03:07 PM
Xp. Vista moved the location of some of the stuff(run for example isn't in the start menu), you need more ram to be able to use all the said functions and possibly a graphics card for the "aero" interface. Furthermore, you can change your XP to look like Vista with "aero" interface and various other functions.
Every power user uses Windows-R to access the run box. Presumably that still works???
Graphics and memory get cheaper every day.
I am surprised you didn't mention compatibility problems (Especially with games). Has anyone noticed anything w/ emulators?
DX10 guys: You need to say "DX10 looks better than DX9." Also there is one DX10 compatible game now: MS Flight Simulator. I will be a bigger deal in the future, but isn't now.
Does Vista really never crash? XP crashes extremely rarely for me - I can't remember the last time it did.
Microsoft wants too much money for something I don't need. I like the clean interface of XP. Aero - It has cool factor but I was never a cool guy.
Also, I tried Linux but found it to be impossible to set up and configure. There is too much not working stuff and not enough industry support of it (At least for home users) to be viable. All I wanted was my Zonet wireless card to talk to my router running WPA-PSK. I couldn't do it.
Posted by: Takeru-kun Jul 17 2007, 10:32 PM
Hard Drives are not expensive... a little of $100 for 500GB hard drive is not expensive. Also, it doesn't take that much to switch. My friend runs it in an explorer window with a separate process. I see Macs doing it often. Although it does cost money to get the said OS $50~150 and software if needed $50~150 again, its often better because should it fail in one OS switch it. Furthermore, my giant computer I'm visiting sells the "Complete Windows Pack" where it allows you to run any and all windows , 3.1 NT, etc. Space 2GB. No format required and runs off additional windows created.
Well that's the difference. We're not talking about the "Complete Windows Pack", we're talking about Windows Vista. The boot time is long as a bitch. And laptops don't have expandable HD space, unless you're talking external hard drives, and externals are generally more expensive than internals.
Everything crashes. Thats how it goes. Its not perfect. It also depends on how you use the computer. The same also applies with me. It just about never crashes and even if I shut it off in the middle of something. I can boot it and it still works with no problems. Can't say no to that when you don't have a UPS.
Right. That's what I said. Everything crashes. But again, Vista just does a helluva lot less of it than XP (I've had terrible experiences with XP on my last three or four computers).
Only question, did your computer come with Ultimate or did you have to buy it and upgrade it.
It came with it, but even if I had bought it at the store, I would have reformatted my computer before installing it. Because, you know, that's clearly an option.
Every power user uses Windows-R to access the run box. Presumably that still works???
I have no idea what Windows R is.
Graphics and memory get cheaper every day.
It's still expensive at this point for Vista Premium Capable results.
I am surprised you didn't mention compatibility problems (Especially with games). Has anyone noticed anything w/ emulators?
No.
DX10 guys: You need to say "DX10 looks better than DX9." Also there is one DX10 compatible game now: MS Flight Simulator. I will be a bigger deal in the future, but isn't now.
True.
Does Vista really never crash? XP crashes extremely rarely for me - I can't remember the last time it did.
Vista never crashed for me. Not unless I induced the crash on my own by doing my usual experiments.
Microsoft wants too much money for something I don't need. I like the clean interface of XP. Aero - It has cool factor but I was never a cool guy.
Personally... I think XP's theme looks disgusting. Clashy colors and all. Vista accomplishes what Mac OS X accomplished: a clean look that's still very appealing, yet retains functionality and intuitivity. Of course, that depends on whether it's your cup of tea or not.
Also, I tried Linux but found it to be impossible to set up and configure. There is too much not working stuff and not enough industry support of it (At least for home users) to be viable. All I wanted was my Zonet wireless card to talk to my router running WPA-PSK. I couldn't do it.
Try Ubuntu.
This post would have been so much easier to write if Invision wasn't such epic failure. Get SMF.
Posted by: zesler Jul 25 2007, 02:32 AM
Hard Drives are not expensive... a little of $100 for 500GB hard drive is not expensive. Also, it doesn't take that much to switch. My friend runs it in an explorer window with a separate process. I see Macs doing it often. Although it does cost money to get the said OS $50~150 and software if needed $50~150 again, its often better because should it fail in one OS switch it. Furthermore, my giant computer I'm visiting sells the "Complete Windows Pack" where it allows you to run any and all windows , 3.1 NT, etc. Space 2GB. No format required and runs off additional windows created.
Well that's the difference. We're not talking about the "Complete Windows Pack", we're talking about Windows Vista. The boot time is long as a bitch. And laptops don't have expandable HD space, unless you're talking external hard drives, and externals are generally more expensive than internals.
I'm not talking about Laptops. The Packs[Window packs] doesn't execute when your computer starts, or at least my friend's doesn't. Once it fully starts you execute it as a normal program. As for the mac/linux thing, it doesn't take that long for him as well.
Everything crashes. Thats how it goes. Its not perfect. It also depends on how you use the computer. The same also applies with me. It just about never crashes and even if I shut it off in the middle of something. I can boot it and it still works with no problems. Can't say no to that when you don't have a UPS.
Right. That's what I said. Everything crashes. But again, Vista just does a helluva lot less of it than XP (I've had terrible experiences with XP on my last three or four computers).
Bummer, well I guess I see what you mean about that. Hating XP and all.
Only question, did your computer come with Ultimate or did you have to buy it and upgrade it.
It came with it, but even if I had bought it at the store, I would have reformatted my computer before installing it. Because, you know, that's clearly an option.
Well I would do that too... Clean installs work better because your theoretically reformmating the drive, like new, and burning it all in.
Every power user uses Windows-R to access the run box. Presumably that still works???
I have no idea what Windows R is.
Graphics and memory get cheaper every day.
It's still expensive at this point for Vista Premium Capable results.
And the fact is new cards keep on coming out. The old ones do go one sale and if they don't sell off, they disappear(well they get scrapped and use in newer cards or remelted). So yes you are getting more memory but the good cards still cost a good computer. X_X
I am surprised you didn't mention compatibility problems (Especially with games). Has anyone noticed anything w/ emulators?
No.
DX10 guys: You need to say "DX10 looks better than DX9." Also there is one DX10 compatible game now: MS Flight Simulator. I will be a bigger deal in the future, but isn't now.
True.
Does Vista really never crash? XP crashes extremely rarely for me - I can't remember the last time it did.
Vista never crashed for me. Not unless I induced the crash on my own by doing my usual experiments.
Microsoft wants too much money for something I don't need. I like the clean interface of XP. Aero - It has cool factor but I was never a cool guy.
Personally... I think XP's theme looks disgusting. Clashy colors and all. Vista accomplishes what Mac OS X accomplished: a clean look that's still very appealing, yet retains functionality and intuitivity. Of course, that depends on whether it's your cup of tea or not.
Also, I tried Linux but found it to be impossible to set up and configure. There is too much not working stuff and not enough industry support of it (At least for home users) to be viable. All I wanted was my Zonet wireless card to talk to my router running WPA-PSK. I couldn't do it.
Try Ubuntu.
This post would have been so much easier to write if Invision wasn't such epic failure. Get SMF.
There are various other OSes as well.
Posted by: blues 3 Aug 1 2007, 02:03 PM
How new is your computer? What exactly have you been doing to make sure that you might be able to run Vista? (Zelser pretty much laid that out for you though)
Posted by: SyphonVectorman Aug 30 2007, 02:15 AM
I was going to get a new computer, but then my parents said to wait for the price to drop more. O:
So uh, it was Vista and they also contacted a friend of their's who was swell with computers.
He said Vista was buggy and we should stay with XP right now.
I mean, I dunno for sure (My parents phoned him) and they told me this after. ):
So um, how much bugs are there anyway and what do they do? D:
Posted by: Leyviur Aug 30 2007, 08:24 AM
Vista isn't buggy. Isn't not compaitble with everything that's made for XP, but that's because it's a totally new OS.
Posted by: sandpenguin Aug 30 2007, 01:26 PM
Well, if it is buggy, why just update it? I know Microsoft will always give its customers updates to fix up the bugs. New OS always turned up to be like that....Just like when XP first come out long time ago.....
Posted by: Raijinili Aug 31 2007, 06:29 AM
Everything is buggy. It's one of the first things they teach us: You WILL have bugs. The preceding statement is blatantly not true.
Posted by: Marionette Aug 31 2007, 06:39 AM
...Jesus god, TL;DR posts guys.
Anyway, I've had Vista for a few months now and it's worked perfectly fine. I have no complaints at all.
Posted by: zesler Jan 4 2008, 05:01 PM
Vista isn't buggy. Isn't not compaitble with everything that's made for XP, but that's because it's a totally new OS.
Can't you still do the right-click, run as .... to attempt to run Vista as XP, 98, etc?
Posted by: Raijinili Jan 6 2008, 01:30 AM
I have a huge problem with Vista: It does a wacky "OMG EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN" sometimes when I hibernate it.
Posted by: The Angel of Ruin Jan 7 2008, 01:32 PM
I've had Vista(and my new PC) for about a month, and other than older programs not working, I don't have any problems with it
Posted by: Teeky Jan 7 2008, 11:54 PM
Posted by: Geek4life07 Jan 9 2008, 11:09 AM
ahhh.................this is the post i waiting for...............not really but it is about computer and geek4life07 likes it..............
okay xp and vista..............hmmmmmmmmmm
xp??????????
vista???????
lets compare them without any upgrade or such things..........
i think vista.(the god of geek has spoken),why because many things have been added to it , but if xp has 4 gb omg, newest geforce card omg, new video card omg and anthing.................. vista has no chance to take over
Posted by: Captain Ahoge Jan 19 2008, 04:26 PM
I got a copy of Vista Ultimate for Christmas and so far, no problems have popped up.
Posted by: Megaolix Apr 17 2008, 12:23 AM
I borrowed a friend's portable with Vista once. It crashed while I was browsing the usual websites I check.
So it's no wonder to say that I would choose XP over Vista.
Posted by: Astraea Apr 28 2008, 01:20 AM
Vista still has a lots of bugs since its new... that's why I'm still using XP
Posted by: Raijinili Apr 30 2008, 06:44 AM
My Vista laptop crashes randomly and without warning. Just a sudden blue screen with white lines randomly dispersed.
Posted by: Lux Nov 22 2008, 06:24 PM
Drop Windows all together and go get a Mac, or download Ubuntu.
But, if you are a gamer or whatever, I find that games run better and have better FPS on XP than Vista, but most new games are Vista-only.
My dad got Vista and hates it, but that's just him. I don't have much trouble with it.
Posted by: Raijinili Nov 23 2008, 04:52 AM
Back in June, I smashed my laptop after another crash and lost Windows. Now I'm using FreeBSD but I STILL don't have WINE and the USB ports working.
Posted by: Neon_the_Chao Nov 25 2008, 02:34 PM
I don't actually have Vista, but I like it.
Black is sexy.
And I don't know anything about the bugs... haven't encountered any.
Posted by: Leyviur Nov 25 2008, 03:51 PM
If you don't have it, how can you encounter bugs?
My Vista works perfectly. Either you guys are liars or have shitty luck.
Posted by: Aether Nov 25 2008, 09:00 PM
If you don't have it, how can you encounter bugs?
Seconded for confusion.
Posted by: Neon_the_Chao Dec 12 2008, 05:18 PM
My friend has Vista on his computer, so I've used it there.
Sorry for the ambiguity.
Posted by: LukewarmHoliday Jan 4 2009, 04:38 AM
Not much I can say that hasn't been said...
Vista is fine, it uses a TON of ram while idiling though I noticed, but now it's not hard to get a computer that can easily handle vista. I can't wait for Team fortress 2 to get its long overdue vista and multi-core processor improvements.
Play an RPG on your friends Vista computer, many RPG's have bugs for you to encounter.