Vista Advantages

Forums › Microsoft Windows › Vista Advantages

zaptor

745 posts

Ultimate Geek

#25803 2-Sep-2008 12:03

Hi,

Recently friends purchased a new PC from their local PC shop. They showed me the quote prior to purchase for me to check it out, and I said it was okay with the only caveat that they get XP instead of Vista (they moved to a different town, otherwise I would've handled things myself).

Anyway, they purchased the PC, but the shop insisted on Vista explaining that Vista's issues were the same situation as when XP was first released.

At the moment, I personally don't recommend Vista because I don't see any real advantages over XP.

What I'd like to know is if anyone call tell me if Vista actually does have any real world advantage over XP. Is there something about Vista that I'm missing?

1 | 2 | 3

BDFL - Memuneh
79253 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#161503 2-Sep-2008 12:09

zaptor: At the moment, I personally don't recommend Vista because I don't see any real advantages over XP.

If there are no advantages (from your point of view) then they are similar, in which case it makes no difference?

I think the store is saying that, like XP was at launch, vista required updated drivers and hardware. Current crop of systems are actually good at running Windows Vista, since most have enough power to provide what the consumer wants - video downloads, video decoding, 3D games, etc.

When Windows XP was launched people complained that updating from Windows 2000 would require machines with more memory, etc.

If you are getting a new machine, why not get one with power for current and future system upgrades then? If the option was Windows XP or Windows Vista to be installed on an older PC as an update or rebuild I would cringe at it. But with new PCs I see no reason to just delay the inevitable...

magu

Professional yak shaver
1599 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

BitSignal

Lifetime subscriber

#161531 2-Sep-2008 13:41

If you want gaming, stick with Windows XP for now.

Vista may have been patched up now, but it's still in the early stages of Microsoft life, which makes it somewhat irritating (from my point-of-view).

For end (dumb) users, though, it is safer than having XP, as Vista nags you more when you're trying to do something bad to the system. But power users will get stressed trying to accomplish normal tasks.

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads." - Doc Emmet Brown

rscole86

4973 posts

Uber Geek

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#161539 2-Sep-2008 14:00

magu: If you want gaming, stick with Windows XP for now.

Why? I can play all of the games I want on my Vista machine.

Vista may have been patched up now, but it's still in the early stages of Microsoft life, which makes it somewhat irritating (from my point-of-view).

Fair enough

For end (dumb) users, though, it is safer than having XP, as Vista nags you more when you're trying to do something bad to the system. But power users will get stressed trying to accomplish normal tasks.

Might be a bit harsh to call people dumb

, but I do not think one is safer than the other. If people are that dumb, then no matter what you do, or MS do, they will still be opening those attachments from unkown people, doing the free security scans etc etc.
And for those of us who know what we are doing (which is only some of the time for most of us) the stress cannot be too bad can it?

Balchy

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#161540 2-Sep-2008 14:00

magu: If you want gaming, stick with Windows XP for now.

Vista may have been patched up now, but it's still in the early stages of Microsoft life, which makes it somewhat irritating (from my point-of-view).

For end (dumb) users, though, it is safer than having XP, as Vista nags you more when you're trying to do something bad to the system. But power users will get stressed trying to accomplish normal tasks.

Cant you just turn off the User Access Control thingee?

For billions of years since the outset of time, every single one of your ancestors survived, every single person on your Mum and Dads side, successfully looked after and passed onto you life. What are the chances of that like?

timestyles

424 posts

Ultimate Geek

#161544 2-Sep-2008 14:13

Unfortunately the days of major improvements in OS design are gone, what can be fiddled and improved with an OS has already been done to a large extent, all changes from here are just likely to be incremental.

Having just got a new Vista system, the only major improvement I can see is UAC, since previously I had two accounts, one with admin rights and the other didn't. Swapping between them was a pain, especially before I upgraded from 512MB.

Excluding stuff that I don't know about (security etc) there have been little changes here and there, it looks nicer, parental controls seems a good idea and the Start button has no longer got writing on it.

Trying an XP system after using Vista, it seems a bit clunkier, but in reality, the two are pretty much the same with the exception of the whole UAC thing.

magu

Professional yak shaver
1599 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

BitSignal

Lifetime subscriber

#161545 2-Sep-2008 14:15

rscole86:
magu: If you want gaming, stick with Windows XP for now.

Why? I can play all of the games I want on my Vista machine.

Vista may have been patched up now, but it's still in the early stages of Microsoft life, which makes it somewhat irritating (from my point-of-view).

Fair enough

For end (dumb) users, though, it is safer than having XP, as Vista nags you more when you're trying to do something bad to the system. But power users will get stressed trying to accomplish normal tasks.

Might be a bit harsh to call people dumb

I know it may sound harsh, but that all depends on what "dumb user" means to you. To me it means the user that calls in to ask why the computers some computers aren't working and there's a loud beeping on the background, and after 5 minutes off diagnosing you discover they have no power to the building and the beeping comes from the UPS, which they unplugged their computers from thinking it was the cause of the problem...

As to gaming, I know for a fact that certain older games (I have a few) that worked on XP fail to launch in Vista. Some of the ones that DO work, have lower framerates than when running under XP. That is not to say that Vista is the problem, but most likely the drivers for it haven't been optimized enough to allow for some really good gaming. For me, XP is still king in framerates on my machine (taking OS X out of the picture, of course).

Cant you just turn off the User Access Control thingee?

You can, but that defeats the purpose of it, doesn't? Of course, I did turn off mine, but just as an example: I have a piece of software (stock charting) that sometimes looses the connection to the server. To fix it, I have to manually refresh the network connection. To do that in XP, I just had to right-click the icon on the taskbar and select Repair. In Vista, I have to go into Network and Sharing Center, click on Network Connections and then right-click the connection and select Repair for an easy task.

And no, I do not like Vista's Diagnose option. I know what's wrong, and I know the fix for it. Why on Earth do you have to make it so hard to do it?

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads." - Doc Emmet Brown

zaptor

745 posts

Ultimate Geek

#161546 2-Sep-2008 14:15

Hi Mauricio,

If there are no advantages (from your point of view) then they are similar, in which case it makes no difference?

Yes, I view XP as having better compatibility (especially with older software), and less of a resource hog.

I think the store is saying that, like XP was at launch, vista required updated drivers and hardware. Current crop of systems are actually good at running Windows Vista, since most have enough power to provide what the consumer wants - video downloads, video decoding, 3D games, etc.

Yeah, that's what I gathered he was trying to say also.

When Windows XP was launched people complained that updating from Windows 2000 would require machines with more memory, etc.

Yep, I remember that. However, I think the complaint regarding hardware resource was more for the transition from Windows 98 & ME (horrible horrible OS) to XP. 2K and XP share the same kernel, and I think it was more of a case of businesses being concerned with stability. My work stayed with 2K for ages, not really sure why, I thought XP was fairly stable for a long time.

If you are getting a new machine, why not get one with power for current and future system upgrades then? If the option was Windows XP or Windows Vista to be installed on an older PC as an update or rebuild I would cringe at it. But with new PCs I see no reason to just delay the inevitable...

Most (all?) off-the-shelf parts will have XP driver support (i.e. if doing a custom build PC). Of course certain brand name models will only have Vista drivers available (i.e. XP is not an option). However, I've noticed that XP is still available as a "downgrade" option with Vista Business licenses on consumer systems. My personal feeling is that XP third-party support isn't going away anytime soon - irrespective of Microsoft's roadmap.

My feeling is that the XP -> Vista transition isn't as major as the 98/ME -> XP one. From what I understand, the Vista kernel isn't a whole lot different from the XP one. Indeed, the Vista driver model is a sensible improvement, but at the end of the day it still seems like XP with extra features.

I believe XP offered a significant tangible improvement over 98/ME. It was a full-blown 32-bit OS for a start. A 4GB address space doesn't look as massive nowadays as when XP first came out, and Vista is still 32-bit (I know there is a 64-bit flavour, but in general software vendors are going write software for the mass market).

Maybe if Vista was 64-bit only, that'd be something (sadly Windows 7 is still going to have a 32-bit version). I realise writing 64-bit native code isn't exactly straight forward, especially with a huge existing code base (i.e. major 32-bit apps - games shouldn't be a problem though), but still.

I guess I'm just after some kind of tangible confirmation that tells me Vista hasn't suddenly made great strides over XP.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

chiefie

I iz your trusted friend
5877 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#161550 2-Sep-2008 14:22

I ask you... Vista is resource hog in regards to what?

If you are judging that by looking at Vista's memory management and the way it reports back regarding free memory, then it is an old flawed thinking. Vista's memory manager has improved a lot and actually do use whatever resource you have to anticipate your usual/daily tasks, so it is ready to pounce on whatever you want to do, and for you, it will be quicker to launch applications that you often use.

Please read my reply in regards to this, in one of the Gaming topic.

For current system, with 2GB ram and decent CPU and GPU, don't trade that FUD for XP, go Vista!

For older system, without much upgrade, stay with XP.

Internet is my backyard...

«Geekzone blog: Tech 'n Chips Takeaway» «Personal blog: And then...»

Please read the Geekzone's FUG

Balchy

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#161552 2-Sep-2008 14:28

You can, but that defeats the purpose of it, doesn't? Of course, I did turn off mine, but just as an example: I have a piece of software (stock charting) that sometimes looses the connection to the server. To fix it, I have to manually refresh the network connection. To do that in XP, I just had to right-click the icon on the taskbar and select Repair. In Vista, I have to go into Network and Sharing Center, click on Network Connections and then right-click the connection and select Repair for an easy task.
And no, I do not like Vista's Diagnose option. I know what's wrong, and I know the fix for it. Why on Earth do you have to make it so hard to do it?

I really dont know what you expect from MS - and I'm not their biggest fan but seriously how can you expect something to be developed that suits the need of all individuals users out there - everyone has different styles and ways of working and the point of being able to turn off UAC is to satisfy the "power Users" out there but lets be honest the overwhelming majority of users are the so called "dumb users" everyday joe bloggs who wants their PC to work but doesnt want to break anything.

I'm assuming you work in IT going by your comments about the users - but just remember if there wasn't "dumb users" you sir would be out of a job.

magu

Professional yak shaver
1599 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

BitSignal

Lifetime subscriber

#161554 2-Sep-2008 14:40

Balchy:

You can, but that defeats the purpose of it, doesn't? Of course, I did turn off mine, but just as an example: I have a piece of software (stock charting) that sometimes looses the connection to the server. To fix it, I have to manually refresh the network connection. To do that in XP, I just had to right-click the icon on the taskbar and select Repair. In Vista, I have to go into Network and Sharing Center, click on Network Connections and then right-click the connection and select Repair for an easy task.
And no, I do not like Vista's Diagnose option. I know what's wrong, and I know the fix for it. Why on Earth do you have to make it so hard to do it?

I really dont know what you expect from MS - and I'm not their biggest fan but seriously how can you expect something to be developed that suits the need of all individuals users out there - everyone has different styles and ways of working and the point of being able to turn off UAC is to satisfy the "power Users" out there but lets be honest the overwhelming majority of users are the so called "dumb users" everyday joe bloggs who wants their PC to work but doesnt want to break anything.

I'm assuming you work in IT going by your comments about the users - but just remember if there wasn't "dumb users" you sir would be out of a job.

Spot on! Although I'm on the "server administration" side of IT now, I did come to NZ to do customer support.

But what I DO expect from MS is consistency across products. Not having to re-learn things everytime MS changes system. Look at OS X: the same menus have been there since 10.0, and it works. Look at Ubuntu. Same thing. UAC is a good tool for end users (dumb or not) in a sense that it makes it harder for them to cause damage to the system, which is great from an IT point-of-view. What I don't like is that MS just changed (again) the way certain things work, and I cannot see the point why.

Give me Vista in a year's time and I'll probably have good things to say about it. But for now, I'm better off with XP. But that's not to say that everyone else should be doing the same. What works for me may not work for you, etc...

I'm all about trying new things, but Vista disappointed me in many ways. Or maybe I'm just getting old...

"Roads? Where we're going, we don't need roads." - Doc Emmet Brown

Balchy

484 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#161555 2-Sep-2008 14:45

lol good points - I personally like when they keep changing things as I am a business analyst and that keeps me employed! hehe

zaptor

745 posts

Ultimate Geek

#161569 2-Sep-2008 15:17

Hi Chiefie,

chiefie: I ask you... Vista is resource hog in regards to what?

Assuming, one considers things such as memory, and CPU as a resource then I'd say in regards to XP. Although, I have a sneaking suspicion you knew that already?

If you are judging that by looking at Vista's memory management and the way it reports back regarding free memory, then it is an old flawed thinking. Vista's memory manager has improved a lot and actually do use whatever resource you have to anticipate your usual/daily tasks, so it is ready to pounce on whatever you want to do, and for you, it will be quicker to launch applications that you often use.

Please read my reply in regards to this, in one of the Gaming topic.

Ummm....

For current system, with 2GB ram and decent CPU and GPU, don't trade that FUD for XP, go Vista!

Why please?

If I can purchase the same box with the same hardware specs with either Vista or XP what exactly am I getting with Vista that XP doesn't give me?

For older system, without much upgrade, stay with XP.

Aren't you contradicting yourself (just a little?)

When you say "without much upgrade", what are you referring to (I'm genuinely curious)?

Thanks.

chiefie

I iz your trusted friend
5877 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#161571 2-Sep-2008 15:26

With today's new purchase, there is no reason why not to get Vista. Initially when Vista came out, vendors and manufactures are skimping on memory, and only sold bare minimum of 512MB ram and puny-weak GPU which doesn't do Vista any good. BUT today's system are comfortably at 1GB (which is good for Vista Home Basic) and most are 2GB (Vista Home Premium) and some high-end at 3GB+. These system can work well with Vista which it was designed for anyway.

For an existing computer, which one may be looking at upgrading ram or hard drive, and happy with XP then should stay with it. Unless it is an overhaul which justify newly a rebuild of new hardwares all out (almost like new system) and the user is thinking of Vista, then sure, upgrade to Vista ONLY if the upgrades are signficantly matching new system sold with Vista.

That is the point I made.

I have systems that I am happy with XP still, and have a system that is capable to take the best of Vista. That doesn't mean I should go and get upgrade for other XPs. But IF I am getting new system, I also don't be-little on Vista and stubbornly insisting XP to go with it.. I will embrace the goodness and use the new system to its fullness with Vista (with right configuration and specs, if course).

Vista may not be for everyone, but just as the same XP may not be for everyone. But forcing and FUD people to think Vista is forever bad without proper understanding of its changes. Vista is going through what XP did to Win98/2000. With new stuff, people are resistive to changes.

I know this because it took me over a year to warming up to Vista even though I have a well-spec system to drive Vista.

Internet is my backyard...

«Geekzone blog: Tech 'n Chips Takeaway» «Personal blog: And then...»

Please read the Geekzone's FUG

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#161578 2-Sep-2008 15:44

zaptor: If I can purchase the same box with the same hardware specs with either Vista or XP what exactly am I getting with Vista that XP doesn't give me?

Lets turn this around - what does XP give you that Vista doesn't?

zaptor

745 posts

Ultimate Geek

#161582 2-Sep-2008 15:49

I appreciate the reply chiefie.

However, I don't think you've actually answered the real issue/question I'm trying to address.

I'll repeat it:
"If I can purchase the same box with the same hardware specs with either Vista or XP what exactly am I getting with Vista that XP doesn't give me?"

I think it's a legitimate question.

1 | 2 | 3