- Joined
- Sep 12, 2007
- Messages
- 9,399
- Points
- 113
I tried vista once... 40% of my apps didn't function properly.
LPF Donation via Stripe | LPF Donation - Other Methods
Links below open in new window
ArcticMyst Security by Avery
Buying a new computer soon: Vista vs XP?
- Thread starter Razako
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 2,007
- Points
- 63
Vista is going to get skipped, get XP now (if you still can) and wait for Windows 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7.
(someone above called it Windows 9, but the current working title is Windows 7)
Microsoft is saying 7 will be out by late 2009 or January 2010. So, in about 1.5 years there's already going to be another new OS out there. Companies, knowing this, aren't going to invest tons into Vista just to have to go to Windows 7 in less than 2 year. And any computer you buy for yourself now is going to last longer than that, so you can skip Vista all together. There's zero reason to get it, at least in my opinion, as long as the computer you get lasts until 2010 (which there's no reason it shouldn't).
(someone above called it Windows 9, but the current working title is Windows 7)
Microsoft is saying 7 will be out by late 2009 or January 2010. So, in about 1.5 years there's already going to be another new OS out there. Companies, knowing this, aren't going to invest tons into Vista just to have to go to Windows 7 in less than 2 year. And any computer you buy for yourself now is going to last longer than that, so you can skip Vista all together. There's zero reason to get it, at least in my opinion, as long as the computer you get lasts until 2010 (which there's no reason it shouldn't).
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,724
- Points
- 0
Murudai said:
Well, that's generally how microsoft works... they release a bad product then follow it up with a more solid version of that product two years later... Win95 sucked, Win98 was more solid. WinME sucked big time, XP came out a year and a half later with most of the bugs worked out. Windows7 will be based on vista's code, but hopefully it'll be free of all the nasty bugs... They've been working on it for as long as vista, since 2000 or so, so hopefully it will have all the bugs ironed out.
mikeeey
0
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,771
- Points
- 0
XP. it's faster, more compatible with everything.
If you have 2gb of ram with vista, then revert back to XP, XP will be faster. 2gb + vista is almost identical to 1gb with XP.
If you have 2gb of ram with vista, then revert back to XP, XP will be faster. 2gb + vista is almost identical to 1gb with XP.
Razako said:
Go with vista. SP1 has been released, so the initial bugs are now fixed. Since you're buying a new computer, hardware support & driver problems also will not be an issue. As for the most anti-Vista sentiments: those were the same when XP was released. XP had no major improvements when compared to Win2k, the GUI was bloated and generally performance was lower. And yes, when XP launched most old hardware also was no longer supported. But how many people are still on Win2k now? Right.
If you are accustomed to XP, you'll know your way around Vista soon enough. It's pretty much the same. If you don't like the aero interface, simply turn it off. Don't like UAC? Turn that off as well. Just like you can make XP look like Win2k, you can make Vista look like XP. But with an evolved OS under the hood. XP is soon to be history, whether we all like it or not.
pseudolobster said:
Well, that's generally how microsoft works... they release a bad product then follow it up with a more solid version of that product two years later... Win95 sucked, Win98 was more solid. WinME sucked big time, XP came out a year and a half later with most of the bugs worked out. Windows7 will be based on vista's code, but hopefully it'll be free of all the nasty bugs... They've been working on it for as long as vista, since 2000 or so, so hopefully it will have all the bugs ironed out.[/quote]
Your comparison is off. Win95 / 98 / 98SE / ME were all MS-DOS based windows versions. That branch died with ME. XP derived from Windows NT, a fully 32-bit kernel based OS. Not from Windows ME. Saying that Vista is the new "ME" is incorrect from a technical point of view. Vista evolved from the XP codebase.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 2,007
- Points
- 63
Murudai said:
I'm not saying it will be better, I'm saying that you're going to have to upgrade to it anyway. Businesses and large institutions, on the whole, aren't adopting Vista, because XP is still working and 7 is coming very soon. On the whole, Vista was had a low adoption rate, and once the new one comes out, they're going to stop supporting Vista then too. So get XP now because it works better. The "You'll have to switch to Vista anyway" just isn't true when the replacement for Vista will be here in only 1.5 years.
Why would you buy the new OS now, just to have to buy another new one in 2 years?
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 2,007
- Points
- 63
I'm not saying Windows 7 will be the savior and the last one you'll ever need, or that you won't have to upgrade it later. I'm just saying that there is no need for Vista. You don't need it. You will never be required to have Vista for anything, so there is no need to worry or bother with any hassle of getting it. You can just get XP, which you're already comfortable with, and then when that computer is gone, the new OS that may at some point be required will be available. But you won't ever need to use Vista for anything, because XP will still be the norm for the next 2 years.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2008
- Messages
- 1,402
- Points
- 0
Well, it's different for different people. Vista Pro came free with my computer and it's given me no trouble. I probably wouldn't have gotten it if it was an option or came separately.
pullbangdead said:
I'm not saying it will be better, I'm saying that you're going to have to upgrade to it anyway. Businesses and large institutions, on the whole, aren't adopting Vista, because XP is still working and 7 is coming very soon. On the whole, Vista was had a low adoption rate, and once the new one comes out, they're going to stop supporting Vista then too. So get XP now because it works better. The "You'll have to switch to Vista anyway" just isn't true when the replacement for Vista will be here in only 1.5 years.
Why would you buy the new OS now, just to have to buy another new one in 2 years?[/quote]
Why would you even install or buy normal OS's? Download TinyVista Rev02 (which has SP1) like me! The minimum amount of ram you need is 256mb. It's pretty darn fast and all the normal Vista crap is removed or disabled (UAC, security centre, ect). You just burn the ISO to a CD and reboot and it will install in 15 minutes.
Here is the link to TinyVista: http://www.theviperfiles.com/index.php?showtopic=26478&st=0&start=0
If you don't want to download from rapidshare because you don't have a premium account, I can give you my user and password for my premium account if your a trusted member.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,724
- Points
- 0
Petrovski said:
Well, that's generally how microsoft works... they release a bad product then follow it up with a more solid version of that product two years later... Win95 sucked, Win98 was more solid. WinME sucked big time, XP came out a year and a half later with most of the bugs worked out. Windows7 will be based on vista's code, but hopefully it'll be free of all the nasty bugs... They've been working on it for as long as vista, since 2000 or so, so hopefully it will have all the bugs ironed out.[/quote]
Your comparison is off. Win95 / 98 / 98SE / ME were all MS-DOS based windows versions. That branch died with ME. XP derived from Windows NT, a fully 32-bit kernel based OS. Not from Windows ME. Saying that Vista is the new "ME" is incorrect from a technical point of view. Vista evolved from the XP codebase.[/quote]
Right, but most of the stuff that plagued ME with instability and laggy bloat was incorporated into XP... System Restore, System File Protection, the new TCP/IP stack, automatic updates, and a bunch of other things... The restriction of realmode MSDOS was not what caused instability vs Win98, but rather all these new features... It wasn't the NT kernel which fixed these problems in XP, it was a couple extra years of bug fixes.
