|
|
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 888
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
That sounds like driver issues.
Vito Cassisi: Tech Blog
|
|
Rank: I'm new around here
Joined: 7/8/2008
Posts: 3
|
I run a small computer business so I do have a little experience in the hardware and software area.I think the Vista Xp battle is a bit like the Ford Holden one. If you started with one type you are usually quite happy with it and don't want to change. In the case of the Vista XP battle it comes down to what you want to use your system for and how old the software is. A lot of my customers use old accounting and business software which will just not work with Vista and when you have invested thousands of dollars in some cases, it is quite reasonable not to want to spend more. In some rare cases it is just not possible to get an update so XP is the only way to go. If you started with Vista and you use Vista compatible software and hardware you will have no problems. So there is no real difference between the two systems. Going back to the car analogy, you wouldn't use a low slung sports car to go off road so why use software that is not really suited to the task at hand.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 888
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
That is correct. Vista is designed for new systems which need an updated OS to manage the several cores and new APIs. People who have a vendetta against Vista are ignorant, because it is the OS to use. XP SP3 is fine for older machines and software, but to inform people not to buy it alongside a new system is plain stupid.
Vito Cassisi: Tech Blog
|
|
Rank: I'm new around here
Joined: 7/8/2008
Posts: 1
Location: Orange NSW Australia
|
Vista is very slow for Adobe CS3. I had to revert to XP for a customer. XP is much faster. The machine was a very fast quadcore Dell, so it does not matter what hardware you throw at Vista, it is still slow.
Edited by wwwalker: 8/7/2008 11:46:22 AM
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 888
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
What specifications was it? If you don't mind sharing.
Vito Cassisi: Tech Blog
|
|
Rank: Troubleshooter
Joined: 5/29/2008
Posts: 40
|
Its is ignorant to ignore the facts. I build top end gaming systems for customers who expect the best and to this day Vista is not better by a long way. Its a mix of old XP code and new buggy code that isn't working well yet.
Dell brought back XP due to huge amount of complaints from its customers and drop in sales.
Microsoft even printed more copies of XP after they said there would be no more. Yes I am a Microsoft System Builder but I deliver what's best for my customers first.
For all new 64 bit systems the Windows XP Pro 64 bit edition will blow away Vista Ultimate on all new systems and is rock solid. Its hard to justify the expense of the Vista install and not see any gain in performance but a loss. If you like pretty new vista icons you can get many skins for XP that will make it look the same.
I am sure like when XP was released it will improve in time.Just because it new don't make it good.lol
By the way Vista will run on most older systems if the drivers have been released.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 888
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Vista is hardly "a mix of old XP code and new buggy code that isn't working well". Vista is pretty much a new rewrite. That being said, if your customers want XP, that's their decision. Vista SP1 is excellent in my experience, and people on the Atomic forums agree (and no, they aren't n00bs, neither do they care about the GUI). It's a better system in terms of stability and security. Performance is closing into XP, and Vista 64bit is more responsive and compatible than XP 64bit will ever be. It's personal preference, but there's no doubt that Vista is the future.
Vito Cassisi: Tech Blog
|
|
Rank: I'm new around here
Joined: 4/22/2008
Posts: 23
|
I am into the GUI, as well as performance and security, and I've had Vista for at least 6 months. From my perspective, Vista is fine. No crashes, very stable, solid security, excellent interface, I have XP on another pc, and I wouldn't go back for all the world.
|
|
Rank: I'm new around here
Joined: 7/8/2008
Posts: 9
|
glad I came across this thread. I am contemplating a lappie which most come loaded with Vista. I have only heard negative about Vista being slow etc etc so this is great to read and get wider reviews. The lappie will not be used for business which is why I am getting one and keeping business on the pc with xp and office pro 2007.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 888
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
Try it out and see how you go. Hopefully the lappy you get isn't preloaded with junk, because that can degrade the system.
Vito Cassisi: Tech Blog
|
|
Rank: I'm new around here
Joined: 7/8/2008
Posts: 1
|
I have used both operating systems but find XP far superior. I don't see a problem with Vista, however, the changes are aesthetic and were not really needed. I had one hell of an experience with Millenium with its constant crashing and with 98 and the active desktop issue and was suspect of XP when it first came out so I kept an open mind with Vista because of how well it worked out with XP. It is very pretty but ultimately it is a revenue pull, that's it. You basically have to have all new specifically designed hardware to get great performance. Vista was a response to a widening market for Macs, trying to get newly converted Mac lovers back to the fold. I have XP and although I like Vista, I wont be upgrading until I absolutely have to and so many people I know have downgraded to XP I am resolute.
But it is all a mute point really with XP reaching the end of its SDLC and the last of the updates released. All of us PC users, if we wish to stay secure online, will have to go Vista or in another way, Linux or Mac etc.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 888
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
cheree71 wrote:It is very pretty but ultimately it is a revenue pull, that's it. You basically have to have all new specifically designed hardware to get great performance. Vista was a response to a widening market for Macs, trying to get newly converted Mac lovers back to the fold. It was obviously created to make money, after all, Microsoft is a business. But it is also structurally better, not just its aesthetics, as I've pointed out in previous posts. It's a whole new OS, targeted at new technology. The OS is modular now, it's more secure, it's very stable, and it's based on the famous NT kernal albeit much improved. The GUI is one thing, but under the covers, it's a whole new system. 
Vito Cassisi: Tech Blog
|
|
Rank: Troubleshooter
Joined: 7/8/2008
Posts: 32
|
Personally I prefer the Vista platform over XP. Sure Vista does chug if its not running with 1GB + of RAM (which, lets get real, with current RAM prices, 2GB of ram isn't a lot).
However the overall package is prettier, more functional (imho) and more immune to forms of malware straight out of the box.
If you want a real desktop OS try installing Server 2008 and converting it into a desktop 'super' OS (http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/). My PC runs so much more efficiently than Vista, still has *almost* the same features (bar Media Center) and still keeps all the server features that you want to install.
Edited by jawsh: 9/7/2008 04:08:24 PM
|
|
Rank: I'm new around here
Joined: 7/9/2008
Posts: 8
|
Vista is suck so damm slow
i bought a laptop and it comes with Vista Business i used it for about a month then i can't bear it anymore i had to change to XP which is lots faster and better (now i have XP SP3) nice
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 888
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
I have no idea why some companies insisted on putting Vista on low end laptops. Especially when it's full of extra junk.
Vito Cassisi: Tech Blog
|
|
Rank: I'm new around here
Joined: 7/7/2008
Posts: 2
|
I'm a XP Pro user and I've heard nothing good about Vista, so why can't Microsoft programers combine the best of XP with Vista and give us a system thats safe and works. kiss is the best policy
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Joined: 3/30/2008
Posts: 888
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
You've heard nothing good about Vista because most people are stuck with the February 2007 mentality. Try it for yourself, and you decide.
Vito Cassisi: Tech Blog
|
|
Rank: Troubleshooter
Joined: 7/8/2008
Posts: 32
|
.:Cyb3rGlitch:. wrote:You've heard nothing good about Vista because most people are stuck with the February 2007 mentality. Try it for yourself, and you decide. Quote from truth.
|
|
Rank: Technician
Joined: 4/28/2008
Posts: 253
|
I don't think Windows Vista is that bad to be honest. I've used it quite alot on my laptop(which it came supplied with) and I use XP a fair bit on my desktop computers and work computers. The difference is minimal to be honest. I had trouble at the beginning with the Wireless Networking but that seems to be fixed, done and dusted. Sure it does feel slightly sluggish, but to be honest XP has had a massive run with heaps of performance updates so if it didn't kick Vista's ass it would be a joke.
If you do get Vista run all the updates you get with it. That should solve most of the issues related to the system. 64 bit is a bit of a different story, its not that Vista 64 bit is bad, but there are no drivers for anything out there with it. Case in point wireless network cards. I had to go buy a generic Shintaro Wireless N card for my friends computer because nearly none of the respected brand names have drivers for Windows Vista 64 bit. I think alot of Vista's problems actually stem for lazy development of drivers that rest on the shoulders of the producers of parts and peripherals. Most of the initial problems most people complain about is not being able to work their current hardware with it not oh this OS is HORRIBLE to use.
|
|
Rank: I'm new around here
Joined: 7/14/2008
Posts: 1
|
XP or Vista in my experience Vista is OK on a standalone system that is not used for storing images, but I could never recommend it in a business environment.
I have been working to integrate Vista with an existing XP environment, Ok I got a lot of NetWare and Solaris on the back end, thank god.
I am still having compatibility issues with some major bit of software from some big names, though is is getting better but very slowly. I was a bit unsure about XP when it came out but software compatibility for the was quickly fixed.
My own workstation is Vista but I do 90% of my "Administration" in a VM XP environment and it I want to access the network drives quickly I use XP as Vista is painfully slow and if it is a large data volume, excess of a couple of TB, Vista takes forever to open it.
Even with all the patches and updates I can run the Vista station more than a few day without needing to reboot.
As I said Vista maybe OK for Home but I would not trust it in a business network environment.
|
|
|
Guest |