comaprison between XP and Vista

[sanjay890]

which operating system do you think better product of microsoft..Vista or Xp

 

[C1]

Possibly this is an unfair question. XP has had a long in-service run and thus has had the time to evolve possibly to the fullest (at least regarding drivers & bug solutions). VISTA is the new next generation OS & attempts to provide various new capabilities & features. However, being new code, it does suffer classically its share of issues typical of new (relative to XP) code programs. If you're getting a new computer you will (or should) have VISTA on it. This is the future. XP is going away.

As for me personally, my new computer came with VISTA, but I couldnt live with the issues associated with VISTA trying to run with my particular hardware, so I went back to XP & am very pleased. Other peoples experience has been the opposite. In general VISTA is more. More DRM, needs more memory & disk space, more CPU, more of your time to learn the OS (& its GUI layout), some more money to replace or upgrade non-reuseable software (ie, that ran fine under XP), etc. Your individual mileage will vary.

PS: This thread really need to be moved to the "Operating Systems" forum

 

[Rockinacoustic]

This is like trying to compare the reliability your trusty old car with 200k miles on it to that brand new car you've only put 2000 on.

 

[0roo0roo]

sp0 vs sp0?

vista

dude....xp sp0 had squat. you'd sh8t yourself if you had to use it

 

[Chiropteran]

If you are going to buy an OS, buy Vista.

XP might be slightly more stable now, but Vista honestly is stable enough. My Vista machines are perfectly stable and the few problems I have had in the past could be directly linked to poorly written drivers (cough, nVidia).

More importantly, when you buy Vista you can use the same license for a 32bit or 64bit install. 4GB might not be that common today, but a year from now you will probably still be using the same computer. You are going to be hating life if you are stuck with the sub 4GB limit of a 32bit OS, such as XP. You will probably end up upgrading to Vista 64 anyway when you want to upgrade to 6 or 8GB of RAM, so IMO it's best to just save your money and buy Vista or buy a computer with Vista in the first place.

 

[jesterb84]

In my personal experience:

Windows XP 32-bit > Windows Vista 32-bit
Windows XP 32-bit < Windows Vista 64-bit

Having run both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista, I honestly had stability issues and felt the 32-bit version of Vista to be more sluggish than XP 32-bit, even when SP1 was applied (to Vista). I have had much more success with the 64-bit version and as mentioned previously, you can essentially get BOTH Vistas for the price of one. If you were to purchase either one, I would stick with Chiropteran's recommendation, mainly due to the 4GB-limitation which severely limits a 32-bit OS's lifespan.

 

[lxskllr]

Vista 100%

 

[Net]

Minimum Requirements

Vista Home Premium / Business / Ultimate

?1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
?1 GB of system memory
?40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

?Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
WDDM Driver
128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
32 bits per pixel

Windows XP Pro

?PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum
required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD
K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended

?128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may
limit performance and some features)

?1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space

?Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

your call. If you have a newer processor and don't game it might not make that much difference to you.

as for me if I spend a $100 more for more MHz on my cpu I want to get the full benefit. I would rather not spend the resources to have cool graphics when looking for files etc...

I'm very content with XP and enjoy the additional power. so it comes down to what you want.

 

[BladeVenom]

Considering MS went from ME to XP, and XP to Vista. I'd say XP was better for its time.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Considering MS went from ME to XP, and XP to Vista. I'd say XP was better for its time.

That is not exactly accurate.

It's more like Windows 2000 > Windows XP, and at release XP was very buggy and testably slower than Windows 2000 at gaming. It wasn't until SP2 that XP was widely recommended and the great OS everyone remembers it as, although with SP1 it was fairly usable.

 

[Wellsoul2]

Originally posted by: sanjay890
which operating system do you think better product of microsoft..Vista or Xp

XP is the better product since it works with most every piece of hardware or software.

I bought Vista a year ago and everything would work but my creative sound was crap.

Upgraded to an ASUS Zonar PCI Xpress soundcard and a new motherboard.

Hooray my sound is good...oh wait a minute..Vista hates this chipset (VIA)

I've given up and will sell the Vista on Ebay.

It was just too much work to get it to work with all my hardware...tv tuner..
soundcard..NIC card...ATI Video card...tweak and update it all...
Then be left with no solution to some hardware combination Vista hated.

I'd never recommend Vista to anyone with less than totally brand new hardware.
Even then in some cases you'll still have some crippled features with some software or
hardware.

I like to update my computer incrementally and Vista is just too picky to deal with
continually. It updates slow..it boots slower..it does everything you want to do slower.

I purchase the computers for my company. Yes to Vista laptops..no to desktops.

From a pure productivity view XP is ten times better.

 

[C1]

re: Wellsoul2 "It was just too much work to get it to work with all my hardware...tv tuner..
soundcard..NIC card...ATI Video card...tweak and update it all...
Then be left with no solution to some hardware combination Vista hated."

I hear ya!

VISTA has issues which some people just cant solve with a reasonable level of effort & arent willing to live with. I had to fall back to XP because, among other things, my VISTA couldnt play a movie while at the same time performing a file transfer in the background (nobody could fix - no excuses as this is the system Fujitsu assembled). Now I was looking for a portable USB HDD. The (latest & greatest ) 320GB Buffalo Ministation (hardware) looks real good but check out the review findings when trying to use it with VISTA.

"It is very important to note that there were some definite discrepancies with the drive's performance and Windows Vista. Performance in Vista was just absolutely horrid with read and write speeds coming in at 16.4 MB/s and 14.6 MB/s respectively. Turbo USB didn't change anything as the results were the exact same with it enabled. A wide variety of testing was done on Vista to try and isolate the issue, including two completely different systems, Vista x86 and x64, and with and without service pack 1. It seems that this is just one more issue with Vista that needs to be sorted out and since the drive performs excellent in XP, Vista is simply the only thing we can point the finger at."

 

[clarkey01]

Vista + 1