Testers see Windows XP passing Vista
 

I thought I had posted this, when it came out and realized I just bookmarked the page and forgot to.

Article
Outside of Directx 10, I have yet to hear anyone I know give a good reason to go to Vista.

I love XP. One of the best OSes ever made. So easy to install, and it'll go on pretty much anything with little to no hassle.

I hated to hear Microsoft not issuing any more licenses after Jan 2009......

And you never will. Vista is not as bad as WinME, but it's pretty damn close.

Oh WinME. The memories I have of helping friends get it to work at all. Of course I failed.

Vista is the painful new skin that the Microsoft snake is forcing us to grow into...

Hell, I miss 98. That OS had more issues than Lindsay Lohan's police record... but it wasn't very resource intensive and booted lickety-split.

I hope this happens. If I can get my Windows XP machine to run anything like my Macbook does, that would be great.

I still don't understand most of the complaints about Vista. I am running Vista Ultimate x64 and love it completely. I'm usually a slow adopter (I used Win2k for many moons after XP was released. To me XP just looked to childish and 2000 was stable as hell). The driver support for Vista is pretty damned good, even on the 64-bit side. I game on it, browse the web, process words and edit photos with PSCS2 and have not noticed any serious flaws or slow spots. *shrug* Maybe the x86 version just sucks really bad. I dunno...

I think a lot of the ill will towards Vista came with how MS forced people to upgrade to get DX10. Don't get me wrong, you can't just patch DX10 into XP without a Service Pack size change to the OS... but really, that's what they're offering?

And businesses haven't adopted it yet 'cause all their software doesn't always work on it quite yet. I'd bet that's hurting MS too.

My complaint about Vista is that Microsoft is attempting to force me to upgrade to a new untested operating system with new 'features' that I do not want or need by holding my software hostage. I don't feel the need to pay $200 or more for the privilege of running Vista and if the only way they can get people to upgrade is by 'encouraging' vendors to make their software Vista exclusive than I'd argue that their operating system is fundamentally flawed.

People hate Vista because:

1. Hating Microsoft is cool, just like hating Sony is cool now.

2. XP will run on a 200 MHz CPU with 128 MB ram decently. Get 512 MB of ram and you can't tell a difference from a computer made 6 years ago running XP and a computer made today running XP. Vista REQUIRES you to have a good computer with at least 1 GB of ram. Most users without a PC bought this year have less than 1 GB of ram, so Vista is a money sink for them. They see it as Microsoft forcing them to buy new hardware even though it's not an unreasonable request.

I think it's funny. I see people talking all over the web about how great XP is now that Vista is out and on it's way. I also found articles that claimed XP is terrible and the poster will not use anything other than Win98 or 2000. Years later the dialogue is repeating itself but now with different versions of Microsoft's OS's.

It's true the demands for a system running Vista is higher, but look at the technology 5 or 6 years ago. You wouldn't have thought all of this would be available. The only reason XP runs as good as it does now is because newer technology allows for better preformance. The same will be for Vista.

I don't think that XP on a 200MHz, 128mb of ram will be fun nowadays, technology took care of that. (If any of you are running that configuration, I applaud you. You have a lot of patience)

I too am running Vista. I have found no faults that everyone is getting upset over. The laptop I am running on was 'Designed for XP'. But Vista runs better than XP did.

As for testing I tested it for 2 years once I was able to be on the beta team.

It is a long standing truism that software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.

My company bought a bunch of Vista machines, and after 2 months running them we are downgrading all of them back to XP with a complete clean re-install.

Because of issues with a dying small 6 year old computer, I made the very painful decision to buy anew. My new machine is an HP m8200n media center-dual processors, 3g RAM, 500g HD.....and Vista.
I asked if it could be downgraded to XP and it would have cost quite a bit over and above what I paid and was told that MS would not be making any more drivers, improvements or programs for it.
Well, shit.....I haven't purchased new software in over 3 years. I have Dreamweaver(MX2004), Flash, Photoshop 7 , ferchrissakes, Illustrator CS, Indesign and a truckload of plugins for this stuff......
Furthermore, Adobe is being prickish and not offering up any updates for their software-essentially forcing people to A) pay through the nose for new software or B) pirate it.
According to a couple of sites I found and the geeks at the store, although Adobe isn't offering updates, MS will be by the end of January and the software will run, just not optimally.
We are at the mercy of conglomerates once again.....

Here is what I wrote on another forum 2 hours into my Vista experience on my main PC a month ago:


I think I'll be going back to Win XP pretty soon.. This is my issue list from a total of about 2 hours total Vista use.

So far:

- Sound blaster Live = no support. I know, welcome to 1990. They sounded great still to this day though, so I never switched it out (until now).

- Nero 6.6 = not supported. I installed it anyways, and now it crashes any folder thru explorer that has a video in it. After uninstall of nero I think it's working again..

- Norton Antivirus 2004 = not supported. I ended up installing Kaspersky AV, which I've read is one of the quickest / best now.

- Microsoft Visual Studio 2005 PRO - Not supported. Will not install. The funny thing is that Visual Studio FREE version works fine...

- Browsing folders through explorer is slow at times. I'm not sure if it's working through a caching process now, since it has seemed to speed up a bit since my initial few uses.

- The security feature that pops up every time you change a setting / install shit is very fucking annoying. That needs to go.

- Every file I had prior to the Vista install has permission issues. To move any folder, I have to hit 'continue' like 5 times before it moves anything. I've had to change folder permissions about 20 times already to do simple things so far.

- It takes longer to boot a base install of Vista than my copy of XP (including norton AV).

- CCXGUI - Will not connect. This is server software that can stream video to a modded XBOX. No matter what I try, I cannot get windows to open the port. I cannot even connect to localhost from my PC to test this software.

(Yes, I have disabled Windows Firewall).

- VNC - Will not connect from a remote PC. The service is running. The port is open. When I try to connect, it brings up the password box, but after login, it says 'Connection closed by host' or something to that nature.

I can't even get into VNC Config. It says I don't have permission to do it... I've even changed permissions on all the vnc files to me and it still does it.

I did later find out that there was a version that could be purchased from RealVNC that would work with vista.

- Nvidia video driver has crashed twice now. Never once had a video issue in XP.


I used Vista for 3 weeks before going back to XP. There wasn't a day that went by that I wasn't craving XP back on my PC. I also found that any time there was anything even remotely resource intensive (unpacking files, opening programs), the network would slow to a crawl and / or disconnect completely...

I think I've finally dealt with all of the hardware issues now, so I can say with some confidence that I like Vista better than XP. I haven't had my computer slow up to something unbearable due to spyware/virus vulnerabilities. I think it's kinda cool that Vista recognizes my Sprint AirCard without using the application that comes with it, and I like the little bit of eye candy that Aero provides.

Vista's cool now, but Microsoft should've waited until they had all of the major issues resolved before they started pushing it out to everybody.

I'm quoting you for absolute truth. Vista is looking ugly and sluggish, but you make an excellent point and I, too, am willing to give Vista time. When XP came out I remember hearing all sorts of this and that - It wasn't even until SP2 came out that XP panned out so nicely. Can we assume Vista will do the same? No, but I'm willing to at least give it a chance ... in time.


Currently I'm running XP on a lame-o eMachine with 256mb of RAM. Sucks, but it's bearable.

Usually when new OS is released, it is (supposed to be) released because it is BETTER in some way than the previous (ie. efficiency, features, performance, hw support, etc).

When you release an OS that not only is slower but has other serious problems, like a lot of programs & hardware doesn't work etc and just about the only nice thing about it is the pretty interface... well, people aren't pleased. Why you'd use it, aside from checking out the "new" "cool" thing, or your new pc came with it, I dont know.

Hearing about friends' experiences with Vista makes me tempted to buy a Mac for my next system.

I've used Mac's OS for over 3 years in a business/production environment. I went from OS 9 to OS X and was blown away by the improvements.

When I first started using computers, it was a PC loaded with Windows 3.1. I switched to Windows XP with similar results--I was blown away. I currently use XP on my home desktop for general use and gaming.

However, when I test drove Vista, all I thought about it was: Looks pretty, but it's really just bigger and more convoluted.

I have yet to try Mac's OS X Leopard, but in reading the improvements and changes, it looks like Mac is further putting Windows to shame with its performance, stability, and simplicity. I have mentioned this following tidbit in another thread, but I will state it here as well: At my place of employment, we are running Mac OS X on the following hardware to passable functionality: PowerPC 433MHz processor, 256MB RAM, 10GB hard drive (or less). Try just booting Windows XP (let alone Vista) on similar hardware and see what you do to the hair on your head. Now imagine running the same OS but using an Intel 2.4GHz duo-core chip and 1GB RAM with a 280GB hard drive (the new iMac we just picked up).

Doesn't Microsoft own a piece of Apple? Can't they figure something out? Boy, they reaaally need to pull their socks up on Vista. There is a lot of potential, especially with the new graphical technology, but they have a lot of patching to do it seems.

I also use a Mac running OSX (Tiger), and switched over about three years ago. I don't know if I'll ever go back to a Windows-based computer, especially after using Vista on a few machines owned by friends. I'm considering upgrading to Leopard, but I usually wait for my boss (who is also a Mac loyal) to do so first and give me his reviews.

Don't get me wrong, I still have XP installed on my Mac (Bootcamp!) so that I can use some statistical software packages designed for a Windows platform, but I literally only boot into Windows maybe once a month. I just really enjoy the OSX interface, and I actually LIKE that most games aren't available for Mac.. I'm more likely to focus on my classes that way. ;)

Bootcamp is no longer beta in Leopard. Its official release is a part of the preload. :)

I will probably continue to use Windows machines for gaming, so I hope they "fix" Vista before I'm forced to get it as a preload. Maybe if you throw enough hardware at it and learn how to hack it, it isn't so bad.

I'm interested to see what SP3 will do to my current machine.

I know, which is one of the big reasons I want to upgrade.. but I'm happy with Tiger, so I'm not sure I'm into spending the money. I did install Parallels on my MacBookPro, but it doesn't work quite as well as I wanted it to (and luckily, it was a gift), so I just quit messing with it and just use Windows through Bootcamp.

One of the reasons I'm reluctant to upgrade is that I will have to go through calling Microsoft AGAIN to get a working key for my copy of Windows because I will need to re-install it. When I installed Parallels I had to do that, and it took a good 15 minutes for the person to agree to give me a key. Buh. :grumpy:

If I was a bigger gamer, I might have a windows desktop again. I sold mine after I got my PowerBook G4, and honestly.. I don't really miss the gaming. This machine is more than capable of handling the games I'd like to play if I ever want to buy them (i.e. Spore) and install them on Windows.. but I probably won't. I have an Xbox 360 AND a Wii, so if I really want to play games, I am more than capable. I'd just rather be outside!

An ex of mine had Vista preloaded on a powerful laptop he bought. It ran games really well.. but Vista still isn't compatible with a lot of programs (and some games) so he dealt with frustrating crashes a lot. I also heard a lot about issues with downloaded "unofficial" files/programs in Vista around this time last year.. I don't know if any of that has been fixed or addressed, but I sure hope Microsoft gets it together soon.

My self-built computer up and died a few months ago and because I have no patience I bought a Dell. It's the first computer I have bought in a decade. I've always built my own. Anyway, Vista was going to be the default OS from Dell. I hade to spend over a hunred dollars more to get XP Pro and avoid Vista. (Had XP Pro before, long story.) It's funny that I had to pay more for older tech than Vista. Hmmm, maybe it's a plot. I know it is. Remember, Bill Gates once said that nobody would need more than 640K of memory in their computers, but my Dell has 2GB so it can handle Vista. Long story short: sticking with XP for now, will probably switch back to Linux soon. Vista and MS can kiss my @ss. If it wasn't for price and software issues I'd have bought a mac.

.. hahahha ... people still run Winblows?

In all reality, I agree .. Vista is trash - the only reason I tried it out was for the 64-bit component. Which by the way is amazing except for the fact that there are almost NO 64-bit drivers.

Hell, I even tried XP 64-bit and had a ton of driver issues.

Which leads me to my original statement .. hahahha ... people still run Winblows?

People should really give Linux a try - you can download the *.iso file for many distributions FOR FREE and try it out. When I say try it out, I mean .. burn the CD and boot directly from the CD (or DVD) without having to install it on your hard-drive. Hell, you can even decide to install it on your hard-drive and dual-boot, allowing you to keep Winblows on your machine.

.. but really .. XP becoming 10% faster means it will now be between 60% and 110% faster than Vista .. nice! :p Good f'n work Microslop!

what is DX10, and why is it important? I'm running DirectX 9 (i think) on my XP, and have no idea what is on my Windows 98 machine (except that it takes about 10 mins to boot!!). I also have a new-ish laptop with Vista, and have been happy with the GUI and performance, but don't see any mention of DX10.

QFT. I remember getting in all kinds of arguments with people when XP came out and them calling me stupid for getting it and abandoning 2000. These are the same people who are calling me stupid now for abandoning XP for Vista. People always hate new things.

XP was fine but it would turn sluggish after about 6-8 months and would need a reinstall. I have not had this trouble at all with Vista. One thing with XP though is that I could get 125 FPS in CoD4 in XP with DX9 instead of the 115 FPS I get in it with DX10 with every setting at max. That's game breaking right there.

edit: also, don't tell me that Mac OSX is the perfect system. I have a Macbook Pro with Leopard installed on it and there are plenty of problems with the OS, but that's not to say that it still isn't a nice OS. It's just not the godsend, super OS every Mac fanboi claims it is.

Spore will be released for both PC and Mac. :thumbsup:
http://www.news.com/Coming-to-the-Ma...3-6226087.html

I've been running Vista 64bit since Beta 2 and have only had one component, my very old wireless card, not have drivers (this is not counting that fiasco with Nvidia and their 8800 non-WHQL beta bullshit). Generally, what I've seen is that if there is a 32 bit driver there is also a 64 bit for Vista. The reason you didn't have any drivers for XP64 is because M$ never officially supported it. No one used it therefore the hardware people had little incentive to support it.

Screw it. I'm going back to my Commodore 64.

I'm running XP with SP3, I had vista but because early adopters get the shaft when it comes to software support (drivers, feature utilization) theres no reason to go to vista until you're forced to.

Vista is "pretty" but serves no practical purpose over XP, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the 2 in terms of capability unless you get in to some really advanced features that are obscure and probably only appeal to full blow MSCE types.

Well, you can't play Crysis at its prettyest in XP.

You can. There are DX10 hacks for XP.

I've got 2 64/128's in my basement right now, one brand new in the box. Wolfenstein rules.