XP VS Vista

blackout

blackout

Spy
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
812
Reaction score
2
I've said it before: I know shit about computers, can someone tell me the differnce between windows XP and Vista? is Vista better/worse, what are it's advantages/disadvantages?
 
Vista has a user process memory allocation which allows you to do what you're doing faster than background processes. Like if you start up the computer and want to start firefox right away you can do so in less than 5 seconds from signing in provided you have enough ram (2gb works). In XP this usually takes me about 30+ seconds to do. I see no reason to get XP now.

When it comes to gaming, there's not much difference these days. Vista is the only one with DX10 support if that matters to you. Here's some benchmarks.


http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp

0,1425,i=209758,00.jpg


0,1425,i=209759,00.jpg


0,1425,i=209756,00.jpg
 
Vista is newer OS than XP. Vista has directX 10,Aero gui, and other stuff. But it wants 2 Gb RAM for most optimized working and XP is more stabile. It all depends on your computer. If you have powerful rig, i would recommend Vista. If not, XP is better choice. I have Vista.
 
DEATHMASTER said:
Like if you start up the computer and want to start firefox right away you can do so in less than 5 seconds from signing in provided you have enough ram (2gb works). In XP this usually takes me about 30+ seconds to do. I see no reason to get XP now.
Click to expand...

Are you high? I can start up any application in XP in seconds after booting up. Vista has a more efficient memory management system, but beyond that, they're nearly identical. Oh, and good lucking finding driver support for Vista.

You must have a thousand start up apps if it takes you 30 seconds to get Firefox open in XP.

XP is clearly the superior OS until Win 7 is released.
 
You must have a thousand start up apps if it takes you 30 seconds to get Firefox open in XP.
Click to expand...

agreed. it takes just over 10 secs maybe on my shitty laptop. and the laptop is v. bad.
 
Nope, got all my Vista x64 drivers working fine and dandy. And yeah it was a laptop that I use XP with now. Just can't be arsed to install a new OS on it (and I have x64 vista, I don't think the laptop is 64-bit compatible).
 
some friends of mine said that vista is more of a work computer and if you try games on it the graphics turn out crap, I gotta say vista seems better visually. by the way what did you mean g(ordon)-man by rig?
 
Rig = computer system.
Vista works as well as XP in gaming performance with the updates.
 
Yeah Vista makes games like

6086-Crysis4.jpg


look like

doom.jpg


This is due to Vista operating on a different frequency than modern games run on. But that can be fixed by installing a Wavelength Adapter Card into your motherboard.

However, Vista is a great operating system to use Excel on since Excel utilizes Vista's Quantum CPU, however a slight radiation risk comes with the added performance.
 
Oh you Pesh :) . Btw nothing cannot beat Aero. And blackout, are you planning to play or work with your computer?
 
play mainly, so anyway if I can't be bothered to install a wavelength adapter I want to get an XP correct?
 
blackout said:
play mainly, so anyway if I can't be bothered to install a wavelength adapter I want to get an XP correct?
Click to expand...

lol.....


vista will perform as well as your pc hardware allows. vista is more power hungry then xp, but vista does have alot more features, including the graphical updates. if you have crap hardware and a low amount of ram then vista will perform horriblly for you.
 
Wavelenght adapter? Pesh, huh. Hes trying to fool you. I have no wavelenght adapter and i can run crysis on high. So games that use DX10 will run like hell under Vista and games with 9 will play fast too.
 
You can get a good pair of 2gb sticks for about $40-45 now, so Vista taking a little bit more RAM isn't really a problem.
 
stick with XP unless you have some sort of unbridled enthusiasm towards D10.
 
Vista is the better OS. I think the people bitching about Vista never actually used it. Pesh seems to have a real hate of Vista for some weird reason. Driver support? What driver issues have you had with drivers and vista? I've installed over 20 vista workstations in the last year and I've ran in to little problems, drivers being the least of my worries. In fact Vista makes installing drivers much easier than xp as most drivers for vista can now be pulled off directly off windows update. That means if you reformat your computer as long as you can get the ethernet driver working properly (99% of the time it does right out of the box) Vista will install all your remaining drivers for you automatically off windows update. Pretty damn cool and saves a lot of time especially for someone like me that has to do OS reinstallations on a regular basis.

XP is on it's way out. If you are asking which you should go with on a new computer build or something like that then for sure go with Vista, if you don't you'll be sorry in a year or 2 when XP is completely outdated and developers stop supporting it. If you already have XP and are asking if you should upgrade to vista yet then you don't have to quite yet, I would wait to get a little more information about win 7. But win 7 was only announced in 2007, a lot of people seem to think that it will be out in a couple of years based on what M$ has said, but knowing M$ it probably won't be sold until at least 2011 maybe later. So even with win 7 in mind going to vista now might not be a bad idea.
 
Go with Vista.

Vista does use more RAM (just as XP used more than Win 2000), and a large majority of it is program cache, so when you click a program, it starts up much faster since it's already in memory (essentially taking out the step of loading from HDD to RAM, which is great since HDD is fairly slow relatively speaking).

And of course Vista clear that RAM for you when you're playing a game that is using up a crapload of RAM. Just as the Search Indexer gets out of your way once you start playing games on it.

Vista does require a bit beefier machine than XP (but in the 7 years between XP and Vista, computers have gotten a heck of a lot better so it's not usually a problem!)

RAM is cheap, dual-cores are mainstream, and you can buy a 1 TB HDD for $100.

For those complaining about Vista needing a faster machine don't have much of an argument.

EVERY major OS revision always increases the specs. If this wasn't the case, then we would still have like a megabyte hard drive with 640kb of RAM. Yes, there's always a bit of dragged kicking & screaming period, but that always settles out shortly.

Also, I have yet to run into Vista driver issues. Initially, there were issues, mostly with printer & graphics card drivers (graphics card drivers were also responsible for roughly 45% of all Vista RTM crashes with the actual OS crashes taking something like < 3%). It took a bit of time since MS changed the driver model a bit, but by now, most hardware is supported. A printer from like 10-15 years ago may not work, since a lot of companies didn't feel like updating their ancient hardware. Even still, app compatibility and driver issues were further improved with SP1, and even still with the recently released in beta SP2.

Drivers are a moot point now. Graphics cards are performing at or beyond XP performance levels. Most printers people have should work. Also, most applications should work fine (if not, usually turning on Compatibility mode makes the app work).
 
Iced_Eagle said:
and a large majority of it is program cache, so when you click a program, it starts up much faster since it's already in memory (essentially taking out the step of loading from HDD to RAM, which is great since HDD is fairly slow relatively speaking).
Click to expand...

BS. Neither OS is going to load a program into RAM without knowing if you're going to start it. Both of them will only load the app into ram only when you start it.
 
Well I don't know the details of how, but I know that you have to get into a habit of doing stuff in like playing a certain map in a game, that data is stored in cache. But if you don't do it for a long time it's deleted from cache and you have to get it all over again.
 
a few Q's:
what is windows seven?
what is a cache?
what is this DX10 thing?

I will add to this list over time.
 
Windows 7 is a new OS being developed by Microsoft.
Cache is
a temporary storage area where frequently accessed data can be stored for rapid access.
Click to expand...
DX10 is used in some games as of late where, provided your graphics card is also capable, can make nicer graphics like smoother smoke, more realistic water, and some other stuff. Most people don't care for it though.
 
Krynn72 said:
BS. Neither OS is going to load a program into RAM without knowing if you're going to start it. Both of them will only load the app into ram only when you start it.
Click to expand...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/features/superfetch.aspx

You see that startup menu and how it has most frequently used apps? It can be used for more than easy access. That's one way of knowing which apps to preload. The superfetch service also look at what programs you open most frequently to decide on its own.

So, anything else you wish to call BS?

*Edit* and Tom Hardware's opinon on it.

The result is simple and impressive: As you return from your coffee run and launch your applications, they are available much quicker, as they already populate your main memory. Similar to conventional Windows caching, SuperFetch will not touch its cached data unless there is an application that requires main memory space. Windows will not prioritize the SuperFetch feature over memory requests by applications, as this would cause the memory management to swap data onto the swap file, which of course would slow down the whole system considerably.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-vista-superfetch-and-readyboostanalyzed,1532-2.html
 
i hated on vista a lot but i'm using it right now and i'm actually loving it a lot more than xp.

and i opted to disable superfetch.
 
I like how the defense for Vista is that it no longer sucks as much as it did on release. The only reason Vista is allowed to exist right now is because Microsoft pumps billions into marketing and deals with PC manufacturers to have Vista pre-installed on their products.

Microsoft knows that people will automatically switch to their new OS even if it doesn't actually do anything new. Most businesses worldwide switch to Vista because they don't want to get "left behind" in the tech department, even though they're really just paying to upgrade perfectly acceptable hardware and software.

Technical advisors want to cover their asses by claiming XP is no longer going to be compatible with future generation software, which is true because software engineers work for companies that want to push out code for the latest OS, which is the latest territory to cover because Microsoft knows everyone will suck their dick as long as they pump money into deals and marketing.

One giant circle jerk that I will not participate in.
 
A little off topic but can someone point me in the direction of a good Vista theme for XP? I have done google but i am weary as to which sites are good and which are loaded with viruses/spyware.
 
Pesmerga said:
I like how the defense for Vista is that it no longer sucks as much as it did on release. The only reason Vista is allowed to exist right now is because Microsoft pumps billions into marketing and deals with PC manufacturers to have Vista pre-installed on their products.

Microsoft knows that people will automatically switch to their new OS even if it doesn't actually do anything new. Most businesses worldwide switch to Vista because they don't want to get "left behind" in the tech department, even though they're really just paying to upgrade perfectly acceptable hardware and software.

Technical advisors want to cover their asses by claiming XP is no longer going to be compatible with future generation software, which is true because software engineers work for companies that want to push out code for the latest OS, which is the latest territory to cover because Microsoft knows everyone will suck their dick as long as they pump money into deals and marketing.

One giant circle jerk that I will not participate in.
Click to expand...

No offense but I think at this point you are just making shit up.

Microsoft knows that you will buy what ever bullshit they put out? I think Windows ME proves you wrong on that one. As does windows bob.

Yes, businesses are switching to vista so they are not left behind. How in the world is that a bad thing? Do you have any idea how much easier Windows Vista makes it to administer desktops in a domain enviroment that a business would use? Vista has made the lives of system administrators around the world much easier. I am dying to get the budget so we can upgrade the workstations in our company to vista.

You have not put forward a single legitimate criticism of vista in this entire thread. Care to put forward one now? If not then realize your hate of vista is irrational.
 
can i play old dos games on vista (only with compactibility mode), without using dos-box or some kind of emulator?
 
My single criticism is that Vista is a waste of money- no one can name a single thing that Vista offers that I can't do just as easily on XP.
 
The very fact that Vista vs. XP debates exist shows me that Vista is unextraordinary.
 
I have used Vista for four months and have yet to have a single problem with it.
 
The non-existence of problems isn't a concern for me- spending $100-$150 on useless software is.

I don't have a single problem with XP. Why would anyone else have a problem with XP. Why do we all need to jump on the Vista bandwagon. XP even comes with the Vista CD.
 
Pesmerga said:
My single criticism is that Vista is a waste of money- no one can name a single thing that Vista offers that I can't do just as easily on XP.
Click to expand...

Vista home premium is only $10 more then XP home edition ($99 vs $89), so price is only a problem if someone is directly upgrading from XP. You still have people that are building/buying whole new systems, so paying only $10 extra isn't a concern. I agree that there's no reason to upgrade to Vista to replace your XP if it works fine for you, but (now) there's also almost no real reason to pick XP over Vista when building a new PC if you could choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
HL2.NET HORROR SLAP
Replies
7
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Lizardizzle
  • Poll
A proposition: ValveTime Half-Life 1 co-op event
Replies
5
Views
1K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
W
How to load in custom model files?
Replies
0
Views
4K
wantotry
W
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Back
Top