Who Thinks windows vista is better than XP?

Not me, well it does have one thing better than XP, that is how easily you can get dvd made out from digital camrecorder tape, but that is only thing I have found out that is better, I guess it is just me being old fashion again, but I like more from light and efficient OS

lol i agree, its kinda like comparing the efficiency of rolling a wheel, and trying to roll a cube

I have just bought a new PC.

When I bought my OS for it, it came with a free upgrade up Vista, by upgrade, I don't mean Windows Updates, I mean being sent a copy of Vista that you would buy in the shops.

I have every intention of installing it on Jan 31st when it is released. XP has done me proud, and the XP Pro 64bit version I have now is very good.

But, Vista for me, without a doubt.

"When I bought my OS for it, it came with a free upgrade up Vista, by upgrade, I don't mean Windows Updates, I mean being sent a copy of Vista that you would buy in the shops."

No, you get an upgrade CD

Granted.

The point I was making was, the fact it isnt an upgrade from Windows, if that makes sence. Giving the impression I wouldn't have a "proper" or "full" version of Vista.

I will, once I have installed the upgrade CD, have the same version of Vista that you will buy from the shops.

I could of worded it better, but it's 3am. - almost.

Quote from The General Lee :

I have just bought a new PC.

When I bought my OS for it, it came with a free upgrade up Vista, by upgrade, I don't mean Windows Updates, I mean being sent a copy of Vista that you would buy in the shops.

I have every intention of installing it on Jan 31st when it is released. XP has done me proud, and the XP Pro 64bit version I have now is very good.

But, Vista for me, without a doubt.

Have thought of this now very well?

Are you aware that Vista has compatibility issues with several games and programs, do you know that you will need 2GB of ram to get same performance than you got with 512MB with XP?

It may be just fine for your usage, but I really recommend that you check first that all programs and games which you like to use do actually work in it.

or install both
i have linux and windows, if i would have a bigger hd (only 60 gig) i might would get vista too.
then u can always pick the best for what u wanna do

The only thing i like about Vista is the new fancy volume-control. Being able to 'mute' Internet Exploder and Firefox is nice when visiting "noisy" sites. Other than that i couldn't care less right now.

Ofcourse Vista is better, its an improvement over XP. But for most people XP will run better and do the same things they've always done so why upgrade.

I didnt get the point of this poll at all. You cannot compare Vista and XP. There are technologies like DX10 that are Vista-only(yup, just a marketing trick, but that doesnt change the fact). Guys saying that Vista is slower than XP should try it before saying such nonsence. I had Vista BETA2 installed some time ago with all the sweets on and I was really surprised that it was nearly faster than XP. And if you feel braked by Vista - turn the eye-candy off.
Please, dont compare there two OSes. Once we will all upgrade on Vista for sure. Actually, I am planning to get Vista once SP1 for them is out and my PC has some dual-core CPU.

It doesn't really matter which is better, because everybody will "have to" use Vista anyway. I haven't tested it yet, but Microsoft's licence management really sucks - 100e and you don't even get the install media!

Quote from MadCatX :

.....And if you feel braked by Vista - turn the eye-candy off.

Then what's the point of Vista? I have Vista and it was slow..er, but it's on an old H/D so that will make it slower and I only have 512 of ram so I can't run the nicer eye candy, which takes me back to my original point.

With Vista it all depends on what stuff will and what stuff wont work, like older games and software, I need to test it more and stuff but I'll probably end up using it.......I wont be using Office 2007 though, I hated that with a passion!

Vista has native support for 64bit instruction sets, dual-core CPU optimized core, support for new technologies and - as far as MS claims - improved security. Thats the point of Vista. Goddamn Aero crap is just a "Cheese for a mouse" that is supposed to attarct the majority of common users who cares about nonsences like "how nice does it look" and so...

~puts sense of humour back in safety deposit box for later use~ ....I kinda want my OS to look nice as well, it's what I look at the most!

....I get that, that's probably why people are saying it's running slower on their systems. With a new and up to date PC Vista probably runs like a rocket, but that's not my PC and that's not what all my friends PC's are and by the looks of it the majority of the people's PC's here.

Is the reason it's so optimized for new technologies why it's not running so fast on older PC's?

I use the win2k theme in XP but I really liked aero so eye candy is great. Atleast a good looking os from ms, never as good as osx though.

Quote from MadCatX :

Goddamn Aero crap is just a "Cheese for a mouse" that is supposed to attarct the majority of common users who cares about nonsences like "how nice does it look" and so...

"SHINY NU BTTNZ" sell all.

It really PO's me when someone says such nonsences like "I'll get vista ass soon as it gets released-just look how cool Aero looks!"illepall

Seriously.

Such statements make me wanna stab them with an chef knife 400 times....*sigh*

Especially when I mention to them that it's way more safer and more productive to stay on XP until Vista SP1...but noooo,effin "SH1Ny n00 b770nz!!!!!!shift111111eleven!!oneMUSS BUI NAO! "

Quote from Thunderhead :

"SHINY NU BTTNZ" sell all.

It really PO's me when someone says such nonsences like "I'll get vista ass soon as it gets released-just look how cool Aero looks!"illepall

Seriously.

Such statements make me wanna stab them with an chef knife 400 times....*sigh*

Especially when I mention to them that it's way more safer and more productive to stay on XP until Vista SP1...but noooo,effin "SH1Ny n00 b770nz!!!!!!shift111111eleven!!oneMUSS BUI NAO! "

Wow man, you really need to see someone about that...

Quote from spsamsp :

Wow man, you really need to see someone about that...

Hey,I'll see you when some person asks you for an advice for something and then completely ignores your advice,coupling it with a statement like one in my previous post.

Quote from Thunderhead :

"SHINY NU BTTNZ" sell all.

It really PO's me when someone says such nonsences like "I'll get vista ass soon as it gets released-just look how cool Aero looks!"illepall

Seriously.

Such statements make me wanna stab them with an chef knife 400 times....*sigh*

Especially when I mention to them that it's way more safer and more productive to stay on XP until Vista SP1...but noooo,effin "SH1Ny n00 b770nz!!!!!!shift111111eleven!!oneMUSS BUI NAO! "

Oh god, such a luck there is an option to turn the Aero off

@garph: I dont think that Vista has suppressed performace when using old instructions set and so. IMHO the problem is following:

Vista is more HW-hungry that XP - thats sure. But XP core has no optimizations for parallel threads execution, it cant benefit from 64bit code and so. If you ran XP and Vista on for ex. 2GHz P4 with 512MB RAM, you would say "Ahh damn, Vista si kinda slow". Now do the same on new P4 with HT and 1GB RAM. You would say "Ahh, damn, that Vista is quicker that I expected."

It is because Vista can compensate the HW-hunger by using all of the possible speedup methods available(well, not ALL of them, but a lot of them). And BTW, performance of Vistas BETA is significantly slower than the finals because of debug code.

Quote from Thunderhead :

"SHINY NU BTTNZ" sell all.

It really PO's me when someone says such nonsences like "I'll get vista ass soon as it gets released-just look how cool Aero looks!"illepall

Seriously.

Such statements make me wanna stab them with an chef knife 400 times....*sigh*

Especially when I mention to them that it's way more safer and more productive to stay on XP until Vista SP1...but noooo,effin "SH1Ny n00 b770nz!!!!!!shift111111eleven!!oneMUSS BUI NAO! "

Yes, I agree

I have had Vista in testing (All betas actually that were released) and with all candy turned off browsing net took at least 650MB of my ram illepall And that was with just OS installed, my xp takes now around 250MB, but with similar fresh install maybe just over 100MB. That is quite lot more stuff running in memory and remember that is with windows 2000 looks, now if I put eye candy on, it will be over 800MB, I just fail to find any justification for this, those 'are you really sure' popups are certainly not helping

But in 2 years it is vista everywhere indeed, memory chip prices are going down, which is good, even I can then get memory to 4GB (now only 1GB) so I can start using 3ds max with it's full potential in winXP

Oh yes, I have got 64bit cpu, problem with vista is that it loads so much from HDD and with any game it starts to use swap file even with 1GB memory, also heavy big system needs lot of data being processed and transferred to and from memory making things taking time, OS must be lightest possible as it is just base that allow several programs to run and all resources should be available for programs. Guess what, just ordered new quiet fans for my Linux machine, I think I will look even more into moving that world

Wow, thats a bit weird to me, mine Vista Beta2 took about 700MB with all eye-crap on... I also experienced even less swapping than in XP. Maybe there was a difference between 32 and 64bit kernel(My P4 doesnt support EMT64) in eariler stages of developement. AFAIK 64bit Beta2 had about 2-times larger install image than 32bit one.

Quote from MadCatX :

I had Vista BETA2 installed some time ago with all the sweets on and I was really surprised that it was nearly faster than XP.

So what you're saying is that you were surprised that it was in fact slower than XP? How unexptected.

I have 2GB of RAM anyways

But, thinking about it...

Windows actually advise to wait 6 months to get the bugs ironed out, and for compatabilty issues.

So, maybe I will wait. :banana:

Quote from Bob Smith :

So what you're saying is that you were surprised that it was in fact slower than XP? How unexptected.

Actually I supposed that Vista will be significantly slower than XP. So I was surprised that beta of them was generally as fast as XP - depends on what do you mean by "speed of OS". And if you realize that in my XP were about 35 processes running, instead of Vistas 50, it wasnt a bad result. I wonder how Vista runs on some brand new Core2 with faster RAM - my crappy P4, which ran at 3,2GHz when I tested Vista, wasnt proper "testing tool".