Windows Vista vs. Windows XP

[JPB]

Ok, It won't be long until I rebuild my entire PC. But I have a few questions about the Operating System. Here goes:

1) Has gaming performance improved since Vista was first released ?

2) When is the first Service Pack due ?

3) If I upgrade to Vista, will it take the route of Windows ME and become replaced with something alot sooner than expected ? Or will it stick around as long as XP has ?

The one that worries me the most is question #3. I would hate to buy this, then in a year or so..it be replaced.

So any thoughts on these few questions would be most helpful.

John

 

[Seppe]

hey,
1. if ur not an fps addict u should be fine, u wont notice any difference compared to xp
2. first quater 2008, they are currently betatesting sp1
3. hard to tell, rather not answer than to say stupid things

 

[Mem]

3) If I upgrade to Vista, will it take the route of Windows ME and become replaced with something alot sooner than expected ? Or will it stick around as long as XP has ?

The one that worries me the most is question #3. I would hate to buy this, then in a year or so..it be replaced.

The official SP1 for Vista is not due until next year,it'll have some improvements /bug fixes,however some are already out via Windows Updates,remember no driver updates will be included in SP1 ,this is not a problem since most manufacturers are releasing drivers often.

I also read SP1 will have DX10.1,I think you'll find Vista will be around(a lot longer then ME) for awhile,especially Vista x64 (64 bit version).

Gaming performance is up there with XP now,link.

 

[Sunner]

For #3, one crucial difference between Vista and ME(aside from ME's incredible all around suckage) is that ME was entirely a consumer product, while Vista is aimed at businesses as well.
Consumers generally don't care much, they get their OS with their Dell, they use it until the computer breaks down 5 years later or simply gets too slow for whatever they're doing, then they buy a new Dell with whatever OS is out by then.

Businesses don't, they use one OS for all of their computers(well, mostly), old and new alike, then when the powers that be decide that the time has come, they roll out a new OS at enormous expense(assuming it's a fairly large corporation).
Needless to say, the latter don't much care for change unless there are obvious benefits, and even if there are obvious benefits, they still won't like change if it happens too often.

 

[balane]

Gaming performance has improved dramatically since Vista's introduction. Manufacturer drives have gotten faster and more stable at a consistant rate. I have 64 bit Ultimate and I have yet to find a game or application that I couldn't run. My computer never crashes, is fun to use and gorgeous to look at. When I now use XP computers they seem old and out of date to me. Not that it matters but finally, when I was able to overclock my 8800 card in Vista 64, my 3DMark06 scores have passed what I was able to get in XP Pro.

How long is Vista going to be around? There's no way to tell. But right now it's the best OS going so it's going to be the one on my computer. (Along with Ubuntu just to have for fun.)

 

[JPB]

Originally posted by: balane
Gaming performance has improved dramatically since Vista's introduction. Manufacturer drives have gotten faster and more stable at a consistant rate. I have 64 bit Ultimate and I have yet to find a game or application that I couldn't run. My computer never crashes, is fun to use and gorgeous to look at. When I now use XP computers they seem old and out of date to me. Not that it matters but finally, when I was able to overclock my 8800 card in Vista 64, my 3DMark06 scores have passed what I was able to get in XP Pro.

How long is Vista going to be around? There's no way to tell. But right now it's the best OS going so it's going to be the one on my computer. (Along with Ubuntu just to have for fun.)

Thanks for the responses guy's. I guess I made my mind up, I have decided to go with the 64-bit Vista Ultimate.

Now there are two version of that on Newegg, any idea what the difference is ?

Here is one

Here is the other

 

[Mem]

OEM version is tied to one motherboard build its installed on,so if you plan on installing a new or upgrading your motherboard in the future on your PC then retail version will allow you to do so as many times as you like without being restricted.

 

[Canterwood]

1) Yes its improved, and is improving. Thats to be expected.

2) Early 2008 I believe

3) Vist wont be the No.1 OS any where near as long as XP was .
I've read that Steve Balmer has stated MS should be going back to a 2 yearly upgrade cycle.

 

[Mem]

3) Vist wont be the No.1 OS any where near as long as XP was .
I've read that Steve Balmer has stated MS should be going back to a 2 yearly upgrade cycle.

I doubt that will happen,takes time and effort to produce a good OS,also user/business demand for a new OS every 2 years will be very low.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Mem

3) Vist wont be the No.1 OS any where near as long as XP was .
I've read that Steve Balmer has stated MS should be going back to a 2 yearly upgrade cycle.

I doubt that will happen,takes time and effort to produce a good OS,also user/business demand for a new OS every 2 years will be very low.

Well, it would be more profitable to Microsoft, and not unprecedented. Look at :

95 to 98
98 to ME
ME to XP

and

3.51 to 4.0
4.0 to 2K
2K to XP

The XP to Vista timeline is vastly out of place historically. With the lukewarm reception to Vista, it might be a way to steer more users from XP to (Win 2009?), as Vista hasn't attracted the expected attention. From what I understand, because PCs are so cheap, and more people are buying more than ever before (not uncommon for one family to have several PCs these days, as opposed to 1 or 2 a few years back when they were more expensive), that most Vista sales are OEM pack-in with new PCs (where the consumer has little choice), but I just don't see much demand for Vista at my shop. I understand that I am in a smallish town, but the most action I see regarding Vista, is some poor sod bringing me their PC asking me to get rid of it and put XP on there. About 1/3 to 1/2 the time, I'm able to talk them into staying with Vista (after some Ram, tuning, and training), but quite often, they insist on getting rid of the hated Vista.

I think many would welcome a replacement for Vista (including many of the promised features, such as WinFS, and so on), as it's somewhat impractical to recommend XP32/Vista32 for much longer (severely limited upgrade path with the memory limitation).

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Mem

3) Vist wont be the No.1 OS any where near as long as XP was .
I've read that Steve Balmer has stated MS should be going back to a 2 yearly upgrade cycle.

I doubt that will happen,takes time and effort to produce a good OS,also user/business demand for a new OS every 2 years will be very low.

Well, it would be more profitable to Microsoft, and not unprecedented. Look at :

95 to 98
98 to ME
ME to XP

and

3.51 to 4.0
4.0 to 2K
2K to XP

The XP to Vista timeline is vastly out of place historically. With the lukewarm reception to Vista, it might be a way to steer more users from XP to (Win 2009?), as Vista hasn't attracted the expected attention. From what I understand, because PCs are so cheap, and more people are buying more than ever before (not uncommon for one family to have several PCs these days, as opposed to 1 or 2 a few years back when they were more expensive), that most Vista sales are OEM pack-in with new PCs (where the consumer has little choice), but I just don't see much demand for Vista at my shop. I understand that I am in a smallish town, but the most action I see regarding Vista, is some poor sod bringing me their PC asking me to get rid of it and put XP on there. About 1/3 to 1/2 the time, I'm able to talk them into staying with Vista (after some Ram, tuning, and training), but quite often, they insist on getting rid of the hated Vista.

I think many would welcome a replacement for Vista (including many of the promised features, such as WinFS, and so on), as it's somewhat impractical to recommend XP32/Vista32 for much longer (severely limited upgrade path with the memory limitation).

Vienna is their next OS,I hope Microsoft take their time with that,I'm pretty sure they will,Vista is still pretty new and they still have more improvements to add to that like service packs etc down the road,I can't see them going on a 2 year cycle without quality of the OS being effected.

Too many operating systems on the market from Microsoft will just confuse people.
No point putting a new OS on the market unless the demand and need for it is there ,not to meantion stability etc......I don't think Microsoft will go back to their old ways.

Microsoft already have the problem of trying to get everybody to move over to 64 bit OS ,let alone another new OS or should I say multiple operating systems if they go on 2 year cycle,I don't think so somehow.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Mem

3) Vist wont be the No.1 OS any where near as long as XP was .
I've read that Steve Balmer has stated MS should be going back to a 2 yearly upgrade cycle.

I doubt that will happen,takes time and effort to produce a good OS,also user/business demand for a new OS every 2 years will be very low.

Well, it would be more profitable to Microsoft, and not unprecedented. Look at :

95 to 98
98 to ME
ME to XP

and

3.51 to 4.0
4.0 to 2K
2K to XP

The XP to Vista timeline is vastly out of place historically. With the lukewarm reception to Vista, it might be a way to steer more users from XP to (Win 2009?), as Vista hasn't attracted the expected attention. From what I understand, because PCs are so cheap, and more people are buying more than ever before (not uncommon for one family to have several PCs these days, as opposed to 1 or 2 a few years back when they were more expensive), that most Vista sales are OEM pack-in with new PCs (where the consumer has little choice), but I just don't see much demand for Vista at my shop. I understand that I am in a smallish town, but the most action I see regarding Vista, is some poor sod bringing me their PC asking me to get rid of it and put XP on there. About 1/3 to 1/2 the time, I'm able to talk them into staying with Vista (after some Ram, tuning, and training), but quite often, they insist on getting rid of the hated Vista.

I think many would welcome a replacement for Vista (including many of the promised features, such as WinFS, and so on), as it's somewhat impractical to recommend XP32/Vista32 for much longer (severely limited upgrade path with the memory limitation).

Vienna is their next OS,I hope Microsoft take their time with that,I'm pretty sure they will,Vista is still pretty new and they still have more improvements to add to that like service packs etc down the road,I can't see them going on a 2 year cycle without quality of the OS being effected.

Too many operating systems on the market from Microsoft will just confuse people.
No point putting a new OS on the market unless the demand and need for it is there ,not to meantion stability etc......I don't think Microsoft will go back to their old ways.

Microsoft already have the problem of trying to get everybody to move over to 64 bit OS ,let alone another new OS or should I say multiple operating systems if they go on 2 year cycle,I don't think so somehow.

Well, one possibility is sharing the driver model like they did with 2K/XP. If Vienna uses the same drivers as Vista, then it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to offer an updated OS. Things to improve : choice of interface/layout, even with the 'classic' look applied, Vista's layout is unintuitive to the point of exhaustion. All the extra clicking to get to familiar places is unnecessary. Making UAC less intrusive. Better control of Refresh rates. Some kind of hardware accelerated sound support. And so on. I think a lot of people would upgrade to it, and Vista has frustrated so many people that I think it would have a much better chance of getting traction. Did I mention profit? If we're not talking about a 'revolutionary' OS vs. an 'evolutionary' OS, then development costs shouldn't be too extreme. I mean like 98 to 98SE to ME, that was all evolutionary compared to the revolutionary change of taking ME to XP. I realize that XP was once NT 5.0 (I even have one of those beta CDs!), but still, it was a giant leap in the consumer space. I don't think XP to Vista is near the leap that 98/ME to XP was. And the leap from Vista to Vienna should be even smaller.

Anyway, sort of thinking out loud, you're a good listener