Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Clearly better

37 (37.8%)

About the same

19 (19.4%)

Not as good

20 (20.4%)

Clearly worse

22 (22.4%)

Total Members Voted: 95

[JimH]

Microsoft wants to end distribution for Windows XP and I'm seeing a lot of opinions in the news.  We're interested in yours.

Do you use it?  Would  you do it again?

[p7389]

I'm a Vista early adopter on quite aged hardware (P4 and 1 GB RAM)... But I'm happy, and wouldn't want to go back.

[AoXoMoXoA]

My laptop came with Vista, I had no choice. After the warranty expired I immediately "downgraded" to Windows XP Pro.

After turning off most of the built-in security and the excess eye-candy in Vista it ran just ok, but not great. Then I started to read up on all the costs or running Vista. And about all the compatability issues. And about the hardware driver issues. And all the performance issues. And I bought myself a full-retail copy of XP Pro.

I am much happier with the machine's performance now. It does everything I need and without issues, it has shown itself to be a really stable OS. Next machine I will do the same or look to Mac as an option.


** edit:  "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection"  http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

[Listener]

Microsoft wants to end distribution for Windows XP and I'm seeing a lot of opinions in the news.  We're interested in yours.

Do you use it?  Would  you do it again?

I did my homework and decided not to use Vista.

I have 4 PCs running XP.  3 are 2 GB desktops with 2 GB of Ram and lots of Hard disk space - 2 bought after Vista went on sale.  I have a copy of Win XP Pro OEM on the shelf for use in the next PC I build.  I might buy another copy of XP today.

I don't see going to Vista so I'm looking for a long term alternative to Windows. (I don't see paying Microsoft an annual subscription for the successor to Vista either.) If MC 12 ran on Linux or Mac OSX ,I'd be free to move 1 or more PCs to something other than Windows.

Bill

[mark_h]

You'll have to drag me kicking and screaming to Vista.

Mark

[Valisystem]

Vista is a winner.

The architectural improvements for security are important steps forward in an online world where attackers are becoming ever more sophisticated.

Microsoft dropped the ball badly on marketing. They should have made it clear - firmly and unequivocally and unapologetically - that Vista requires new, powerful hardware. Yes, people would have moaned about bloatware but the feedback on Vista would be far more friendly if everyone using it had 2Gb of memory, a new processor, and a dedicated video card. Intel wanted to keep selling underpowered motherboards and Microsoft caved in and created a Vista marketing classification for them, opening the door for all the underpowered cheap computers still on the market. That might turn out to have been a fatal miscalculation.

The hardware and software vendors bear some responsibility for Vista's poor reception, too. By itself, Vista is speedy and stable, with features that are virtually identical to Mac OS X. Almost no one sees it by itself, though, because new computers arrive loaded down with crapware and too many products include unnecessary or confusing  or poorly designed software. The result is frustration and unstable computers. Too many manufacturers used Vista as an excuse to force customers to replace hardware or upgrade software but made little effort to explain to customers that their motive was anything other than greed.

I've been advising my clients for a year - never upgrade an existing computer to Vista; buy Vista Business, which has a better set of features than Vista Home Premium; and buy decent hardware. Those people like Vista a lot.

[BartMan01]

I run Vista on my desktop (old Athalon 64 X2 machine) and XP on my corporate laptop.  Of the two, I prefer Vista overall.  When I loaded Vista, I set the machine up to dual-boot to XP and also created an XP VM to run on top of Vista.  Haven't used either yet.

I wonder how many people will vote 'not as good' or 'clearly worse' when they haven't even used Vista as a primary OS (on a machine really capable of running it) for any length of time.  Most of the issues I have seen have been non-MS issues such as vendors refusing to create drivers for recent hardware or (in Creative's case) just doing lousy drivers with limited functionality.  Most of the 'UAC' issues are due to software vendors that have not updated their code to work with Vista's new security infrastructure.

[hit_ny]

Microsoft wants to end distribution for Windows XP and..

If you are talking about for OEMs or system builders or business customers then yes.

However if you are referring to just mere consumers isn't it 2014 ?

I wouldn't bother with vista until SP2 is out and even then only if there isn't anything better on the horizon.

I wonder how many people will vote 'not as good' or 'clearly worse' when they haven't even used Vista as a primary OS (on a machine really capable of running it) for any length of time. 

..and that precisely is the problem, the heftier horsepower does not really get you anything earth shaterring in comparison to XP.

[Mr ChriZ]

Not had a good time with Vista overall, although new laptops with it
are working fairly well, apart from delays when typing sometimes...

Sick to the teeth of it on my home machine though, always grinding the disk for some reason
so tried installing Ubuntu the other day.
After a week of playing I'm completely failing to get Wifi working, will not recognise WPA key =(
What was amusing was yesterday after giving up, I sat down and started playing
Gnometris a clone of the good old fashioned Tetris.
After a while the pieces weren't rotating properly.  I brought up system manager
and watched the processor while playing, and found that my AMD X2 5000 was being
pegged out 100% on both cores by the game...   ?

So I think my next new operating system will probably Windows 2000 with SP4.

[lee269]

feedback on Vista would be far more friendly if everyone using it had 2Gb of memory, a new processor, and a dedicated video card

This is me. I got Vista Home Premium just over a year ago with a new PC. So far its worked fine with no problems. On my first XP PC this state of affairs was amazing after years of imaging/restoring Win98 PCs to keep them up an running. Vista was less impressive because it also did what it was supposed to do(!) - a bit flashier, sure, but nothing obvious as a killer feature. My vote: About the same. I wouldnt recommend it as value for money to anyone buying an upgrade, but equally wouldnt recommend avoiding it on a new PC.

MC has worked fine on it too.

new computers arrive loaded down with crapware

Amen to that.

[matt-uk]

I don't think Vista deserves anywhere near the negative publicity that it's been given . I'm very happy with Vista. It's been extremely fast, stable and reliable for me. I actually now use it more than OS X on my Macbook Pro! 

[steveklein]

Vista Ultimate with SP1, after modifying it to your tastes, absolutely obliterates XP. i haven't used macs enough yet to really know how it stacks up... but with my limited use, i just find PCs still preferrable to Macs.

i am running a dual core 2.2ghz system. 2 gb ram, on-board video though. i'm about to drop a video card in..

[brossmac]

I wouldn't go near it.  I've used it on powerful machines, but it doesn't justify the outlay of a new machine for the range of features it offers.  I'd either pay the extra and go Mac or pay nothing and go Linux.

It seems like MS thought they could do no wrong, since they own such a huge percentage of the operating systems in operation.  In their hubris they assumed people would get new machines.  But the economy is crawling and people are realizing that they don't have to chase the latest version all the time.  The computer they have does more or less what they need it to do.

Between the Vista debacle and online office suites, MS sees the writing on the wall.  Hence the Yahoo! offer.

Chances are very great that my next computer will be Linux, even if there isn't a native MC....   

[Doof]

It's funny because this was pretty much the same debate as when XP came out. Everybody hated the way it looked, it was incompatible, nobody could find the control panel applets, etc.

Now here we are and XP was apparently the savior of humanity. Never mind the fact that it wasn't until SP2 came out that it was really a decent operating system. Don't believe me? Go stick a pre-SP2 XP machine onto the internet without the benefit of a firewall and see how long it takes before it's completely unuseable.

Is XP a great OS? Yes. But it didn't start off that way and it took quite a long time before it earned the respect it has now. Vista may or may not ever achieve the same level of respect, but to just write it off because of adoption pains is ridiculous. I've running Vista on three seperate (modern PCs) and it's fantastic.

Is UAC a pain? Depends on how you use it. If you use it as intended, it's really not that intrusive. By "intended" I mean that you follow every PC expert's advice and don't use your PC on a day to day basis logged in as admin. Even if you do, it's still less intrusive than OS X constantly pestering you for your admin password even if you're logged in as admin. At least with UAC, you can just click "Continue" instead of keying in your password over and over. And if you really don't like it, you can shut it off. I really don't see what the big deal is with it.

Hardware support? Can't really blame MS for this one. It's not like the hardware manufacturers didn't have years to write Vista drivers. But why would they? They've got a choice of writing Vista drivers for existing hardware or selling you a new device. I wonder which choice they'll make. Does it suck for the end user? Yes. But again, it's not Microsoft's fault.

Ultimately, it's kind of our fault. We always demand backwards compatibility. Windows is shackled by it. The OS isn't as good as it could be because some company somewhere refuses to update their DOS based software that half of the automotive/medical/scientific community uses so the new version of Windows has to somehow work with it. If it doesn't, it's crap. If it does, it's unstable. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Apple picks on MS and Windows saying it's not Windows fault that it doesn't work because everything is made by so many different companies. Well, they're right. Microsoft's taken on a nearly impossible task and for the most part, they've pulled it off. Why does it take so long for security and compatibility patches to make it out for Windows? Because they have to be tested on a billion different configurations before they can be released to the public.

Meanwhile Apple is in control of their hardware, OS, and the software that runs on it. Every time my Macbook crashes (which is far more often than the Vista machine I'm typing this post on now), it is absolutely inexcusable.

So um... hm. What was the question again?

[KingSparta]

I Think I Will Stick With Windows XP For Now.

It Works.

[steveklein]

I Think I Will Stick With Windows XP For Now.

It Works.

certainly nothing wrong with that.

for me, windows vista works better and faster and is a whole lot prettier to boot.

and since i know i will eventually have to upgrade, i went ahead and bit the bullet.

vista ultimate with service pack 1 is awesome.

[Vulcan]

Honestly, I'm a big fan of Vista.

It's a letdown in the fact so many features ended up never getting implemented, but overall its still a step above XP in my books.

The key for running Vista is having a powerful system.  I have an E6750 @ 2.8GHz, 4GB of ram, and a 9600GT graphics card and I get superb performance.  You really shouldn't bother with Vista if you aren't using a real dual core processor and don't have at least 2GB of ram. 

Admitedly, the thing I like most about vista is the way it looks.  Albeit superficial, DWM realy makes Windows more usable for me.  Finally I can resize and move windows without any tearing.  DWM's other features such as live previews and animations just make my experience better.

Vista is an evolutionary upgrade more so than anything revolutionary but you won't catch me running XP anymore.   

Let's hope Windows 7 ends up actually being a rebuild of Windows from the ground up, though.

[Marty3d]

Liking Vista as well. Sure, when my new laptop arrived, it had it's quirks, but the major bugs was ironed out pretty quick. SP1 didn't do much for me actually, except removing stuff to comply with stupid EU regulations. (Search functionality mostly, thanks for nothing, Google!)
Some things I really miss on XP:
1. Search from Start menu. It's soooo nice! I belive it saves me at least an hour a day.
2. Reliability monitor. Cool to have an instant report on whats not working so good.
3. Problem reports and solutions. To get updated info on bad drivers and fixes is super
4. Media handling. It's so much prettier! Images in folders, for instance
5. Small things as well... the expanded info when you hovering the clock

[rjm]

I use XP (desktop) and Vista (laptop) on a daily basis. Provided that you turn off UAC Vista works well. I find it completely unusable with UAC on.

I see no advantage of Vista over XP other than looking pretty.

[johnnyboy]

I have a triple boot with Vista, XP and Ubuntu.
I spend 90% of my time in XP.

Vista crashes on me tons and is a resource hog and offers me nothing over XP while losing me some compatibilities and I'm not about to go out and buy more new hardware after already buying a new OS.
Why spend money to then make you have to spend more money and gain nothing (how I feel about Vista - it really doesn't offer me anything over what I already have with XP).

I think Vista is a bit of another ME and I think Windows 7 is going to be the next XP from the sounds of it.
I'll happily jump from XP -> Windows 7 I think.
My friends have Vista on new laptops they've bought and both want me to downgrade them to XP. The machines (reasonably high spec) are running slow as hell (they're just average web surfers etc) and the reason is the machine isn't high enough spec to properly run Vista. The shop told them to buy more RAM to properly handle Vista - I personally see no reason average Jo user should have to buy these power beasts just to surf the web and write emails.
XP is what your average Jo user should be getting on a PC.

[Frobozz]

I use Vista.  A+++++ fast service would use it again

I would only consider using XP for computer applications that aren't ready for Vista yet (things like DAW work and other specialty applications).

For home use Vista rocks.  The media handling is well integrated.  Explorer has special views for MP3, pictures, video, documents, and such.  It imports photos from digital cameras intelligently.  The search features are improved.  The Start menu is improved.  Search in the Start menu is wonderful.  Desktop Gadgets are nice.

And under the hood Vista has many improvements as well.  You can now actually run the computer with a lower privileged account and not be completely stymied.  Security features like ASLR and improved memory protection is nice.  Better caching (that's why it uses as much RAM as it can).

A nice benefit of Vista is that it is encouraging and forcing software developers to be more security conscious and think about their application works on a lower privileged account (so users don't get annoyed by constant UAC prompts).  That is a good thing.  Apple's latest QuickTime update included security fixes like ASLR and proper hardware DEP support.  Finally, Apple finally gets security religion with QuickTime and takes advantage of some of Vista's improved security features.  More developers need to do the same.

I have two computers at home. Both run Vista.  A desktop with an AMD X2 4200 and 2GB RAM and Nvidia 7600 GPU.  A sub $700 Acer laptop with the lowest spec Core 2 Duo and 2GB RAM.  Both run Vista quite adequately for my needs and I consider myself a power user.

Vista has never blue screened on me.

My main complaint is that NVidia's drivers for Vista are not yet up to the same feature set as the XP drivers.  Dual monitor support isn't as well done in the Vista drivers and there is no virtual desktop support.  NVidia still has work to do.

[Matt]

Funny how if you post a message with some facts and say that you hate vista, your post mysteriously disappears.

way to remain objective.

Opinions are fine.  Crude language is not.

[JimH]

Funny how if you post a message with some facts and say that you hate vista, your post mysteriously disappears.
way to remain objective.

p.s - vista is crap. I would explain myself, but my post would be deleted for being too damaging to the vista camp.

I'll confirm what Matt says.  Your post was removed for language.  Your second post was better, but "vista is crap" doesn't mean much.  Specifics might help.

[eba]

I agree very much with what Doof said.
I've been using Vista since the beginning, and for the most part it's good.  My laptop's a couple of years old and not the most powerful ever.  I've just upgraded to 2GB of memory as 1GB really wasn't enough.

Going the reverse way to everyone else, I'm sorry, but I think what has to be said about XP is this: it's ugly.  I thought that when it was released, and I still think it now.  It took me a long time before I finally started using the XP theme, previously having always used the classic theme.  The reason to finally convert was because the classic theme didn't work nicely with newer apps like Live Messenger.  Changing from the default blue to the less bright silver, and reducing the hideously oversized Minimize/Maximize/Close buttons, I learnt to cope with it.  I still never liked it.  This is something that they have definitely got right in Vista.  The only thing that annoys me is the fact that they never do the less resource heavy themes properly.  Vista Basic looks hideous, and Vista's classic theme is virtually unusable.  Even using the Classic Style Start menu on Vista, I'm treated to far too much baby blue.

Would XP's ugliness stop me going back?  No (and due to performance issues I have been tempted at times).  The main reasons I don't are actually far more simple things that, in many cases, always annoyed me on XP:
1. Using Explorer, Alt-Up goes up one level.
2. Renaming files doesn't by default try to rename extensions.
3. Start plus number gives access to the Quick-Launch toolbar.
4. Explorer Windows' really nice and easily customizable Favourite Links section, plus the Folders View always available with one click.
5. Network Connections are just so much simpler.
There are others but I always forget what they are until I start using an XP machine again, and get thoroughly frustrated when they're not there...

Oh, and the poll options seem to have an option missing (Vista is a bit better, which is what I would select).  There are two options for Vista is not as good, which gives the impression that more people think it's better as the people who think it's worse are split between two...

[Doof]

Funny how if you post a message with some facts and say that you hate vista, your post mysteriously disappears.
way to remain objective.

p.s - vista is crap. I would explain myself, but my post would be deleted for being too damaging to the vista camp.

Yeah, as if the JRiver guys have some reason to want to only have pro-Vista sentiment in here. Reading through many of the threads on here, it's pretty clear that they have no particular love for Vista. It's obvious that it's caused them more than a few headaches.

It's funny that a whole bunch of other people managed to post negatively about Vista but for some reason you were targeted to have your post removed. Clearly it's only because you don't like Vista. 

[leezer3]

This got lost in the confusion about the deleted post, so I'll put it back
Vista is a whole change in kernel and architecture. Something people often forget is the age of XP compared to Vista (Nearly 7 years now!). In XP, both developers and users developed hacks and ways around the idiosyncracies of the OS, and complain when these don't work in Vista. Equally, MS have tightened up the kernel and driver practices in many places to improve overall stability. This once again means that sloppy coding or old kludges that worked at the time won't any more- Blame lazy developers, not MS!

Equally, technology has moved on since the advent of XP. Don't expect Vista to run on the same ancient machines as XP will, as it won't. Instead, you get more features, and better user friendlyness. Additonally, on any newer machine you should in fact see an increase in performance, as Vista has moved the basic screen painting (Creating what you see on your monitor) from the processor to the graphics card.

Free memory- This is NOT good, most emphatically not in Vista. Free memory is not doing anything, hence== Wasted! Vista uses the memory that was 'free' in XP to pre-cache programs etc. that it thinks you might want to use. This should speed things up, not slow them down, especially as this memory is released as soon as another app needs it- Win/ win situation

Cheers

-Leezer-

[hit_ny]

It's funny because this was pretty much the same debate as when XP came out. Everybody hated the way it looked, it was incompatible, nobody could find the control panel applets, etc.

Yes for the most part cept XP ran quite well on existing hardware.

What's important about this 2009 date is that it will effectively force business users to migrate as there won't be support provided. So to companies where this matters they will be left with no choice.

I think this move alone will drag in the rest of the dissenters kicking  & screaming.

personally, i'm hoping windows 7 will be the full monty

[leezer3]

Yes for the most part cept XP ran quite well on existing hardware.

Vista runs nicely on pretty much anything from a P4/ AthlonXP up- I really don't see your point. A comparable level of hardware for XP would be about the 486=> P133- Theres no way in heck you'd get XP running nicely on a 486 without very major hacking.
Its the rose-tinted spectacles phenomon again- You wouldn't expect XP to run on every machine 98 runs on, so why expect Vista to run on every machine from the last 7 years; Not feasable!

Cheers

-Leezer-

[hit_ny]

Point is simple the extra hardware does not really get you anything much over XP on a lower spec machine.

I don't really buy the productivty arguments as you can be quite productive once you become proficient with any app. Therefore any 'improvements' are mainly from an admin pov ie invisible to users. Now if you buy a PC chances are XP won't be offered anymore and as i said earlier, Vista is what will be there, Now onceSP2 comes out i'm sure a lot of the wrinkles will be ironed out just like with XP.

If i'm springing for new hardware its cos the current setup isn't really doing it anymore. Cept now with the apps etc more or less stable and a lack of new killer apps since the last few yrs. The reasons to upgrade are lesser than they used to be, if you don't play games or *need* HDTV on a PC.

[leezer3]

Sorry, but thats only a surface illusion
Vista is a whole new kernel architecture, and one that should be far more stable and easier to use. Just because you can't see anything new on the surface doesn't mean that there haven't been internal changes. You could say exactly the same thing about the transfer from 98 to XP- Again, all that was really added when you distill down to the visible basics is a few more UI bits and tweaks & the firewall; 98 at the time of XP's launch would have exactly the same characteristics you describe, but would you like to run 98 now?

Cheers

-Leezer-

[ogurgey]

It's yet another OS; which has good, crispy sides, but as well as some nags, and some major deficits.  I think it is just badly marketed, to much hyped, and too late arrived.

I have used Vista since the Beta period, never was really impressed.  Have a system installed, mainly for compatibility tests, with our existing software.  Have no intension for the near future to give up ol' XP.  Just wait 'till the SP2 for Vista comes our way

[gregoryx]

I find it very similar to every other OS upgrade I've been through on PCs (DOS6/DRDOS, Win3, Win3.1, Win95, Win98, Win98SE, NT, W2K, XP, now Vista) including my experience with the server stuff (Novell 2+, NT, WinServer, Unix, etc): there's a lot of good stuff and a lot of "maybe" stuff that seems really bad at first and ends up seeming like a pretty good idea a few years later.

From Win95 through Vista (and even all the way back on Novell 2.1), I've found that I'd prefer to: 1) wait a bit before actually using it too much (now seems good, for example); and 2) turn off many of the new "maybe" features until they seem like a good idea.

So I have UAC disabled and many services turned off, etc. This is the same as with NT and XP, etc.

Vista is SO much better for TabletPC handwriting than anything else now or in the past that it's well worth the trouble if using a pen. Also, the focus of responsiveness over file-transfers and the such is something I welcome on a system that has many, many things open but only one that I'm "using".

I am not using it for my home MC system. I'm using XP for that. My file servers are Linux-based NAS units. All our office PCs (except TabletPCs) remain on XP for now. Office servers are W2K3 or Linux or Linux appliances.

I don't see going the Mac or Linux desktop direction any time soon - especially if they don't get a decent Tablet working really well.

[hit_ny]

Again, all that was really added when you distill down to the visible basics is a few more UI bits and tweaks & the firewall; 98 at the time of XP's launch would have exactly the same characteristics you describe, but would you like to run 98 now?

Haha, nice try.

Stabilty of XP vs. 98
XP (or even W2k) no contest

So yes, internal changes are responsible here, true multi-tasking as opposed to pre-emptive multitasking, def productivity improvement.

Stability of XP vs Vista not any different (yes with proper vista drivers incld.)

What did i get for these 'internal' changes again

[JimH]

It is pretty.

[leezer3]

Haha, nice try.

Stabilty of XP vs. 98
XP (or even W2k) no contest

So yes, internal changes are responsible here, true multi-tasking as opposed to pre-emptive multitasking, def productivity improvement.

Stability of XP vs Vista not any different (yes with proper vista drivers incld.)

What did i get for these 'internal' changes again

Rot 
You're looking at things through the rose-tinted spectacles perspective again because you've been using XP for the last 7 years!
XP/ W2K were unstable when they were launched, programs stopped working and all sorts- Things didn't just magically 'work' off the bat, it took at least until SP1 to iron out many of the major problems.


Internal changes wise, the whole kernel has been rebuilt. Graphics drivers are now one of the few things left with full kernel stack access, whereas in the XP era, most stuff used a kernel mode driver, not a user mode one. This means that there's far less opportunity for bluescreens under Vista than there is under XP.
UAC, although an overworked pain in the but (Yes, I have turned it off FWIW), increases security a massive amount, by only allowing things to run in the user space, not the admin area. Notice that just about anything needs admin access to work in XP, Vista has built this out

Cheers

-Leezer-

[Doof]

What did i get for these 'internal' changes again

Try better security, for one. Support for new technologies and improved support for existing technologies (IPv6, WPA2, etc), parental controls, instant search (I love how integrated this is. It even helps me find control panel applets, even though they are much easier to find than they were in XP. None of the other desktop search utilities are this thorough).... none of which even involves the new GUI.


But let's look at the GUI for a minute and see the improvements there...

Start Menu search - has completely changed the way I start apps. I don't even hunt for an icon anymore, I just hit the Windows key, type a couple of letters and hit Enter.

Taskbar Preview - hover your mouse over the taskbar buttons and see a preview of the window. Now I don't have to keep switching back and forth to check on the status of that CD I'm burning, or that big download. Just hover your mouse over it and see where it stands.

The new File Copy/Move tool is incredibly useful. Now you get detailed explanations of your choices when you try to copy a file over an existing copy, including the option to keep both! Now I don't have to cancel out of a huge file moving operation just because one file was going to overwrite another and I said no. Plus, when you drag a file from one place to another, Vista tells you exactly how many files are being moved/copied and where to. No more guesswork.

Those are just my three favorite GUI enhancements, and the three features I miss the most when I sit down at an XP machine now. There are tons more, and I'm sure I'm even missing some that I now take for granted.

[DarkPenguin]

those of us who were running win2k prior to loading up xp found xp to be wonderful pretty much from day one.  those who were running 98 or me probably didn't have the same opinion.

vista has auto updated itself into non function twice so far.  it has crashed an insane amount.  it has given me a nice search setup and one or two other things i like.  but it is slower and it is ugly.  for the most part it gives me little that i didn't already have with xp.

it has to be helping apple in a big way.

[hit_ny]

Rot 
You're looking at things through the rose-tinted spectacles perspective again because you've been using XP for the last 7 years!
XP/ W2K were unstable when they were launched, programs stopped working and all sorts- Things didn't just magically 'work' off the bat, it took at least until SP1 to iron out many of the major problems.

Internal changes wise, the whole kernel has been rebuilt. Graphics drivers are now one of the few things left with full kernel stack access, whereas in the XP era, most stuff used a kernel mode driver, not a user mode one. This means that there's far less opportunity for bluescreens under Vista than there is under XP.
UAC, although an overworked pain in the but (Yes, I have turned it off FWIW), increases security a massive amount, by only allowing things to run in the user space, not the admin area.

Sure, SP2 is usually watershed time, when's vista's coming out btw ?

I'm typing this on my net laptop a P3(!) thats been running W2K for the last 5 yrs on the trot. Only blue screen i got was with a bad memory chip.

..and yes the net box is on 24/7/365 x 5...all these yrs.!! (minus the downtime for updates)

Even on the XP boxes blue screens are pretty rare. To date faulty hw has been the usual culprit or the odd dodgy software but that's exceptional. Never reinstalled an OS, as i keep OS images at each software install.

Notice that just about anything needs admin access to work in XP, Vista has built this out

Perhaps, but this is mostly an admin issue, i've been virus free for many yrs now and i dont even run an active anti-virus!..runinng behind a NAT solves 99% of infections right there.

My point is stability wise that was nailed already, the changes you mention AFAICT are certainly a boon to admins the world over, makes their lives easier but its not translating to a 'feature' for me the user. There's certainly other features added that i've considered nice to have but nothing essential.

Security is something thats very easy when you control the boxes and are sufficently clued up on what to click or not. Add less clueful users into the mix and the game  changes quick

found best was to just firewall myself from them

[rjm]

Sleep/resume is much snappier on Vista than XP. A real plus for laptop users.

[leezer3]

Dunno what you're running then 
All sorts of slightly less common stuff, but not out of the ordinary can crash XP at the drop of a hat from my experience. (Graphics drivers in combination with certain games, Daemon Tools & CD images on network drives, some of the really ancient W95 stuff, drivers for a godawful scanner, seen plenty more)

I've found that Vista has been more stable overall, but have still seen some BSODs, again graphics driver related. The point is, theres far less loaded into the kernel stack. Whether any given setup crashes or not is wholly irrelavant- Its all about limiting the potential for crashes before they happen If you're running wholly stable drivers and common basic apps (Internet, JR, Word etc), you're far less likely to see BSODs than someone like me, who has multiple virtual drives, debuggers at times and various other bits and bobs running in the background. (I have a list of 6 basic background apps that run in the background of any install before I even consider it usable  Added to that, theres about 200 other applications that I need installed and available- May seem like a lot, but its what I've evolved, with each filling its little niche )

Cheers

-Leezer-

[Doof]

I guess it's just me, but I really think this poll should be reworded to:

Would you rather be using Vista now, or XP the way it was a year after release?

Let's compare apples to apples, at least.

[Frobozz]

The days of the lightweight desktop OS are over, at least for Windows.  The game now is more security.  The OS needs to layer on more security in the forms of things like memory protection, ASLR, more DEP, compartmentalization, sandboxing, virtualizing, etc. etc.  All more layers in the name of better security.  The internet is a nasty place for a full featured desktop OS to connect to.

Linux will be able to stave off the desktop security bloat, but will eventually have to succumb.  Apple is already on the same path as Windows.  The result is inevitable.

This direction does present a challenge for applications like DAWs that need realtime response and interaction with the OS.  I don't know how that is going to work out in the future as the OS gets more and more layered along with more restricted direct access to the hardware.

[johnnyboy]

The internet is such a nasty place yet I barely get Virus's or anything else, guess I'm just lucky huh?

As for stability, all this new kernel re-writing etc might sound great but I get more BSOD's in Vista than in XP and this is with new hardware with the latest drivers.

As for XP being ugly - sure it is, that's why stardock have such a raging business and for FAR less than the cost of Vista, you can make XP look as gorgeous as you want, you can also give it widgets and any other number of things.

As far as seeing the status of a download, 'download status bar' for Firefox gives this instantly with no hassles.
For launching apps - XP's start menu sucked as does Vista's. Easily fixed by manually tidying it up a bit and also by using something like 'truelaunchbar' I can get to most apps I want in two clicks, 1 (to launch it) for my most used. There are a ton of super lightweight apps out there to launch your apps super fast, most even faster and easier to use than Vista's - try: http://www.launchy.net/#screenshots
Cost: $0, speed 10/10
That canes Vista's start menu.

Vista doesn't have much to offer me that I cant get super easily for XP with a bit of effort. Sure if you're lazy just fork over a few hundred dollars, if like me you enjoy playing with a computer than save yourself the money and get XP humming like a bird

[darichman]

I haven't jumped ship to Vista yet... no bad experiences, no bad sentiments about it, just giving them time to sort out all the major issues and maybe release a service pack or two

[Frobozz]

You can dress up XP as much as you want to improve the UI and user experience.  But you cannot do much to improve the security measures under the hood.  XP is already showing its age there.

We live in a world where content from a web page or documents or files from wherever can take advantage of buffer overflows and other errors to pwn a machine.  We can either believe that developers are never going to make any more programming errors that allow bad guys to compromise a machine or we can address the problem with more layers of security in the OS.  Vista is a step in the direction of more security layers in the OS.  Future versions of Windows are going to have to go even further and add even more layers of security.  Application developers are also going to have to get on board and program their apps in ways that are more secure and to take advantage of the security features that Windows provides.

It's not a pretty future for those who strive for minimalism and want an OS to stay out of the way.

[meaningless]

It's ok for me But I'm Not big Fan of Vista  because Some time it's missing my Sound card driver And I can't play Some old and my Fav games on it ...

[jmone]

For me, on average, Vista is a winner for HTPC applications:
- Better Sound
- Better Video
- More Stable
- Built in Drivers for MCE Remote / Keyboard
- Inbuilt Blu-ray / HD-DVD hardware support

....but not all things are "better"
- It has taken a long time to get Audio/Video drivers working properly
- in MC12/Theaterview you see the Desktop when playing Video from time to time
- You have to get used to UAC (not to bad now)

Nathan

[hit_ny]

All sorts of slightly less common stuff, but not out of the ordinary can crash XP at the drop of a hat from my experience. (Graphics drivers in combination with certain games, Daemon Tools & CD images on network drives, some of the really ancient W95 stuff, drivers for a godawful scanner, seen plenty more)

I've found that Vista has been more stable overall, but have still seen some BSODs, again graphics driver related.

Common theme i'm reading here is graphics drivers and their legendary ability to take down a whole OS. Agreed Vista is maybe more robust with them. I'll let you in on a dirty secret, if you test apps on a staging box before rolling them out you catch all these nasties b4 they affect you

All i'm doing is working around windows limitations and this is also what i tell the non-windows lot 

If you install 100s of apps without any testing then it can get pretty hard to find problems later. Granted its not as much fun but then neither is fixing the mess afterwards.

Whether any given setup crashes or not is wholly irrelavant- Its all about limiting the potential for crashes before they happen

Exactly, question of strategy and i've been doing the above much before XP. I'd go so far as to say, follow the above and it won't really matter what OS is being used  and stability then becomes a moot issue

If you're running wholly stable drivers and common basic apps (Internet, JR, Word etc), you're far less likely to see BSODs than someone like me, who has multiple virtual drives, debuggers at times and various other bits and bobs running in the background. (I have a list of 6 basic background apps that run in the background of any install before I even consider it usable  Added to that, theres about 200 other applications that I need installed and available- May seem like a lot, but its what I've evolved, with each filling its little niche )

What's interesting is you say you prefer Vista which i think even you would agree is not as stable so early in the game compared  to say XP.

Nevertheless you still find Vista to be the more solid platform  ?

[leezer3]

You're trying to compare apples with oranges again & horribly confusing matters in the process 
My opinions as they stand in simple bullet points:

• XP at start was just as bad as anything else. Now it has a slight advantage, but this is because there have been 7 YEARS of development and tweaking to get round the problems
• Vista is inherantly more stable than XP, with less chance of a BSOD. This doesn't mean that applications are more stable- Applications which have been developed to work around XP bugs are much less likely to work properly under Vista. Conversely, if one of these apps crashes, it will be far less likely to take down the whole system than on XP.
• If something crashes, I'm well aware of where the problem is- I'm fully aware of the situations that cause certain apps to crash, I work around this as the apps are IMHO in my opinion the best for the job. Many apps doesn't mean things are less stable.
• A testing box is all well and good, but it simply cannot replicate a live situation. I've got well over 3TB in storage, several hundred gigs of apps and use odd file formats quite a lot (Just as an example I've got about 3GB in .viv files, nothing plays them or converts them properly these days, but they're still useful)
• Graphics card drivers can take down an OS precisely because they're the one single thing that requires kernel access. Without working graphics drivers, nothing can be put on the screen short of a simple DOS prompt- You want to try MC in DOS? 
  

Cheers

-Leezer-

[hit_ny]

• XP at start was just as bad as anything else. Now it has a slight advantage, but this is because there have been 7 YEARS of development and tweaking to get round the problems
• Vista is inherantly more stable than XP, with less chance of a BSOD. This doesn't mean that applications are more stable- Applications which have been developed to work around XP bugs are much less likely to work properly under Vista. Conversely, if one of these apps crashes, it will be far less likely to take down the whole system than on XP.

Sure, but aren't you also saying then that its better to remain with XP till things stabilise ?
ie the sum of apps+OS more stable on XP over Vista.

No, there's something Vista has, that you need and i'm trying to put my finger on it  ?

You mentioned games ( or i think you said that)...

How important is DirectX10 ability for you ?

If yes, then of course you have no choice but to use Vista in this case.

Not implying that it is *the* reason of course but an important factor and in which case Vista is the better overall option.