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

[gappie]

both work most of the time. but i think vista is a bit heavy for just 'a platform'.

[leezer3]

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.

I'm trying to explain that thats irrelevant (This is an over simplification I know)
XP, crash= Bluescreen
Vista, crash= System recovers itself, things carry on. The application may need re-opening or updating, but things still work.


The difference is in what happens when the OS crashes, not how/ why it does.

-Leezer-

[Mr ChriZ]

I've never had any stability issues with Vista.
Performance issues, wifi issues, compability, Usability yes but never stability.
Been running 1 Vista machine for over a year now, but have two others I play with
at work.  This also includes performing development and working with SQL Server apps
with it.

Only issue like this I find is it can get carried away with assuming an app is dead, when in fact it's just busy

[secretsuperstar]

It's funny because this was pretty much the same debate as when XP came out.

The difference is that XP didn't suck.

[MrHaugen]

There have been alot of negativity towards Vista. I don't blame anyone. I have been there my self, but have changed opinion after a while. With the release of SP1 there is very limited reasons not to change.

Here are my arguments:

1. The hardware support is really starting to get close to XP. Mostly outdated hardware that's not supported anyway. As drivers for Vista are more tricky to develope than for XP, alot of produces descides to drop support for their older products. This also gives them an excuse to sell new hardware I guess.

2. The hardware requirement. YES, they are much higher than XP. Would be strange not to except a good increase after so many years since XP came out.
   - You don't HAVE to run aero.
   - You don't HAVE to have a superfast CPU.
   - You do need alot of RAM. 80 bucks or less for 4GB.... Come an. That's not a huge problem.
The reason it also uses alot of RAM is that it's trying to load data into memory that you will use later on. That way it will be a faster and better user experience. When an application need more RAM, Vista will make some available. The games today have similar requirement when it comes to hardware. Why is it so unacceptable for an OS?
As people say: Intel and Microsoft have both nuts on their legs when it comes to Vista compatibility and Vista ready products. Shame on you both. But when you do zero research before buying a computer, you probably deserve it

3. Choose the right version. Don't go for Ultimate. It has a really nice looking, but crappy Media Center. That's about it, and it slows down your PC. I have to have my computers in a domain, so a business version is about the only choise for me.

4. UAC can be a nightmare for people tweaking settings all the time. This can be disabled with 3 clicks or so. Normal users don't run into this problem as often. And I belive it will help some people in preventing malware for doing harm.  So this is not an issue. But the MAIN reason for UAC was to get the programmers of application and drivers to develope apps that did not need admin rights and access to the kernal. This is a GOOD policy. Security wise. Microsoft ALLWAYS intented for this to be a nuisance of sorts. It was a big step, but had to be done. Hopefully this can be a bit lighter in Windows 7.

5. DX10 is not all that right now, but just wait. Developing games to take DX10's full advantage takes time. It was the same for DX9 as well.

6. The bad file transfer and Windows Exlorer not responding alot is REALLY frustrating. It have gotten a little better, but is still an issue. This is the only negative I can come up with now.

Running 2 Vista business, XP Pro (HTPC). Reason why my HTPC still is XP is because of all the codecs and the small apps I use to tweak my system. Don't think they are all supported on Vista yes.

[hit_ny]

3. Choose the right version. Don't go for Ultimate. It has a really nice looking, but crappy Media Center. That's about it, and it slows down your PC. I have to have my computers in a domain, so a business version is about the only choise for me.

That's second vote i see for Vista Business...

Are you saying its like XP Pro in the XP world (also my preferred version of XP) but for Vista ?

[MrHaugen]

Yes. It's less bloated by useless small apps and services, and that makes it more professional in my book.
I don't know all the details here, but when my colleague with 15 years of experience with MS products and twice the ammount of certifications on the products say it is less demanding; I tend to belive them.
Only thing I know fore sure is that business/enterprise don't include MC, Ultimate extras and video background support (or is that a part of Ultimate extras?). Not sure, but either way it's all a bunch of junk.

[datdude]

Other than UAC, I have had zero problems with Vista.  I really like it and think it is a big upgrade over XP.  I think this is assuming you have a PC built for Vista.  If not then yes, you are going to have problems.  Is that something Microsoft should have a dressed, maybe, but not going to happen now.

[Matchbox]

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.

I think it's fair to compare the current XP to the current Vista.  If the current Vista is no better than the current XP, why switch.

My XP on my desktop works and Vista on my laptops is a pain.  Just using Windows Explorer in Vista is painful without the toolbars.

[MrHaugen]

OH OH! Speaking of Windows Exploder. I just HATE the way they have removed the UP button. THAT is a really negative point.
I allways used backspace to get up levels in the directory, but OH no. That's back now. It's SO logical to go back into a deleted folder etc.
Now we gotta use Alt + Up arrow. Christ! An extra toolbar is shown when you hold down ALT key by the way.

Explorer could be sooo much better. Make it look a bit like norton commander and toal commander.
Preferrably with option for up to 4-8 windows in one frame. I would be in heaven.

[Valisystem]

That's second vote i see for Vista Business...Are you saying its like XP Pro in the XP world (also my preferred version of XP) but for Vista ?

A few months ago I wrote up a short list of the features that distinguish Vista Home Premium and Vista Business - http://www.bruceb.com/news/2007_06_01_archive.html#3106878328180764281  The unique features in Home Premium are not all that exciting for most people, and Vista Business has a couple of features that are quite nice - in particular, Shadow Copy (Vista's version of Apple's "Time Machine"). Extra copies of documents and pictures are tucked away in a hiding place twice a day, automatically, so it's easy to recover earlier versions of files or accidentally deleted files.

[KingSparta]

Just using Windows Explorer in Vista is painful without the toolbars.

Try Using Directory Opus 9

They Have A 30 Day Trial, And it Is Very Good.

[GHammer]

I've run Vista for quite some time.
Early on, I had NVidia drivers cook my video card. Seems they forgot to throttle the GPU if it started getting too hot. Surprisingly, the GPU ran hard with the new UI... Not exactly MS' problem.
I had a few apps that did not work well with Vista. The important ones were fixed quickly, others I found a replacement for. Just like when I started using XP.
For me, drivers have not been an issue. Except for the deadly NVidia driver anyway. My hardware, including an OLD laserjet is recognized and the drivers are either available or already in Vista.
I disable UAC on first boot after an install. Why? I don't like it and I don't need it.
I don't care for the liberal use of junctions in Vista. I have some tools that get confused and keep looping back on the junction. C:/Users/GH/AppData/AppData/AppData/AppData, and on until they hit max length. Again, is it a problem with Vista? Nope, but it still annoys me to have to find new tools that are junction aware.
My wife got a new laptop for Christmas. She runs a statistics suite that only liked XP. I downgraded her laptop and quite a bit of the 'magical' functionality went away. She asked every week when I could put Vista back. When her suite was finally upgraded, she went back to Vista. There is a noticeable difference in the usability of the system. And, she just likes the way things are done in Vista. It's shinier too!

I never had much luck with skinning XP and I have a few apps I use that feature WindowBlinds compatibility options. Not a good sign in my opinion.

Maybe that's why I don't have the problems others have. I have reasonable but not new hardware. I have new applications when they are available. I do not skin or tweak. I do not disable drivers, don't use "Lite" install creators, don't add "supercharger" utilities.

I run many, many things in the course of a day. I beta test a fair number of apps including anti-malware. Yet Vista keeps humming along. Same for the wife's machine, and 3 of 4 family members I provide "support" for. In fact, Vista has cut down on family and friends calls drastically. I'll miss them...

Now, some just plain don't like change and that's fine I guess. I have a client who is running their business on Server 2000 SBS. It is running on a Celeron 1.7 with 256 Mb RAM. Is it slow as snot? Yep. Does it cost them extra when I go to do maintenance? Yes, it takes FOREVER to do anything on that machine and we charge by the hour. But run it does and they will keep it until it dies.

Server 2008 shares a great deal of code with Vista. In fact, many updates/patches are common. Server 2008 simply sits and runs. Day in day out. Of course it is not being changed/tweaked and has certain hardware requirements. Maybe having adequate hardware and not second guessing the designers is the key to stable operation?

Downgrade my machine to XP? Not likely.

[xen-uno]

Where's the option "Hell no!!!"

[GHammer]

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

Kind of lost credibility with this:
"If you take an eight-year-old PC running Windows 98, put it next to a current PC running Windows XP (with the Fisher-Price colour scheme turned off), the typical user won't be able to tell you what's changed without a point-by-point comparison of system features from one machine to the other."

[xen-uno]

The article is credible to me. You can probably de-toxify Vista enough to be included in that quoted comparison, but you'll still need a ton of RAM, CPU, and disk space. Sure ... all of these items have never been better or cheaper, but I sure wouldn't waste a 3GHz C2D and 4 GB of RAM just to run a bloated OS whose claimed architecture is superior, when it's predecessor was easily up to the any task. Leave content protection to the content providers, rather than gunking up the OS (so apparent with Vista, isn't it? ... or not?). XP x64 and Server 2003 is what Vista should have been, with the further massaging & improvements that 3 years or so would have made. So where is that Linux version of MC? I saw the link somewhere ...

[Doof]

The difference is that XP didn't suck.

That was insightful. Thanks for your input.

OH OH! Speaking of Windows Exploder. I just HATE the way they have removed the UP button. THAT is a really negative point.
I allways used backspace to get up levels in the directory, but OH no. That's back now. It's SO logical to go back into a deleted folder etc.
Now we gotta use Alt + Up arrow. Christ! An extra toolbar is shown when you hold down ALT key by the way.

Use those breadcrumbs! That's what they're there for. Not only can you go up a level in a single cick, but you can also go up two or three levels in a single click, or switch to a sibling folder (or aunt/uncle folder?) with two clicks. I don't see how you could miss the up button when it's functionality is still there and greatly improved upon.

[MrHaugen]

Use those breadcrumbs!

What's breadcrumbs? I suppose you refer to the directory structure in the adress field? Instead of the old "C:\Program Files\J River Media Center 12" look right?

Those ARE usefull, yes. But only when you can see them. If the directory above is to long, it will not show up in the adress field. That's a person.
I'm also a big fan of using the keyboard to navigate. It's simply much faster when you get the hang of it. With the arrows, typing of the letters and the backspace.
Now I have to use another key. Just don't like that. But there ARE alternatives. And I will inverstigate a few of them for sure.

Just don't understand that explorer have not evolved more that it have to this date. The Commander apps was, and still is far ahead in a few ways imo. Even after so many years.

[flac.rules]

I have used vista a little over a year. Think I will go back to XP when SP3 comes out, my dualcore with 2 gigs of ram is to slow for vista. I also have problems with Media Center hanging up and displaing "not responding" from time to time, seems to be triggered by some kind of workload. i have a libary of approx 150k files shared over local network, maybe somethin in this combo doesn't work out too well.

[hit_ny]

but I sure wouldn't waste a 3GHz C2D and 4 GB of RAM just to run a bloated OS whose claimed architecture is superior, when it's predecessor was easily up to the any task. Leave content protection to the content providers, rather than gunking up the OS (so apparent with Vista, isn't it? ... or not?). XP x64 and Server 2003 is what Vista should have been, with the further massaging & improvements that 3 years or so would have made.

I think you encapsulated very well what the detractors feel about Vista.

Why an OS that crashes less ie supposedly better engineered or looks better should necessarily require more resources ?

That the direction was more inline to serve content providers with the future aim to drive more revenue M$'s way than the *actual* customers of said system. As such it marks a shift away from M$'s attention to their customers as was the case in the past,

Is the writing on the wall already ?

That M$ can't rely on ppl to automatically keep on upgrading without additional income from other areas..like content.

[gappie]

i just hope windows 7 will really improve things, so i can use part of the memory vista (and also xp, but less) uses for programs.

interesting to see how passionate people always get about an os, is it apple, or xp or vista.

[pank2002]

Why an OS that crashes less ie supposedly better engineered or looks better should necessarily require more resources ?

Exactly what I think too! Why make an OS that uses more of everything, while not adding anything significantly (IMO)? I do not get it! It seems that some Linux systems have added more fancy stuff, while not adding need of extra CPU, RAM etc. On laptops, Vista had less battery life than XP -- might have been fixed, though.

I doubt I will be getting Vista. Next time I will get a new OS it will be a Linux distribution or maybe Seven. MC is kind of what it holding me back from going Linux.
-Rasmus

[BillT]

I also have problems with Media Center hanging up and displaing "not responding" from time to time, seems to be triggered by some kind of workload. i have a libary of approx 150k files shared over local network, maybe somethin in this combo doesn't work out too well.

Vista is significantly slower in its file handling than XP, particularly over a network. SP 1 improves this a lot (although it still doesn't get up to XP performance).

[dgoodrie]

I didn't see any performance differences between VISTA running in basic mode verses XP.  I did replace my laptop and I am now running in Aero mode.  One thing I did notice that after running in Aero mode for about a month is that when I switched back to basic mode and rebooted and then switched back to Aero mode screen panes seem to snap up faster.  Perhaps Aero mode has a memory creep issue or the caching MRU/LRU is not operating correctly.  I'll try the same procedure later to validate my observation.

I don't see the cost benefit in going to VISTA verses XP today.  Perhaps later when the PC turns into a TV and you want to run split screen. However, I prefer the 50" screens for that type of operation.

[flac.rules]

Vista is significantly slower in its file handling than XP, particularly over a network. SP 1 improves this a lot (although it still doesn't get up to XP performance).

Yeah i know its slower, but i have SP1, and its not the usual "hiccups" that MC12 has when updating a lot of folder art for instance, wich only slows it down some seconds, quite frequently the program stops completly (it plays the song currently playing to the end though), and I hav tried waiting for an hour for it to "get started" again, with no luck, so I doubt network-performance is the only culprit.

[JimH]

so I doubt network-performance is the only culprit.

You could prove that by playing local files.

We have seen problems in the past that were fixed by updating drivers.  The "Weird Problems" thread in my signature has a few examples.

[flac.rules]

Difficult to reproduce the conditions locally, I'm sure as hell not installing Vista on the fileserver And I don't have the room for nearly as much music locally.

[Doof]

I'm running Vista on both my primary PC (which acts as the fileserver) and my HTPC (which accesses all of the music on my primary PC through the network) and even when neither was at SP1, I never saw the problem you describe on either machine. Right now only my primary PC is at SP1, and I still never see that problem.

[Stargazer]

OH OH! Speaking of Windows Exploder. I just HATE the way they have removed the UP button. THAT is a really negative point.
I allways used backspace to get up levels in the directory, but OH no. That's back now. It's SO logical to go back into a deleted folder etc.
Now we gotta use Alt + Up arrow. Christ! An extra toolbar is shown when you hold down ALT key by the way.

Explorer could be sooo much better. Make it look a bit like norton commander and toal commander.
Preferrably with option for up to 4-8 windows in one frame. I would be in heaven.

When using Windows Explorer in Vista.... Click on the arrows/triangles between the directory levels in the and you can go straight to ANY directory at that level...  or click on the directory name to go to that level.... no need for a UP button any more.

Doug

[gregoryx]

... and ALT-left-arrow still works for up / back.

[flac.rules]

I'm running Vista on both my primary PC (which acts as the fileserver) and my HTPC (which accesses all of the music on my primary PC through the network) and even when neither was at SP1, I never saw the problem you describe on either machine. Right now only my primary PC is at SP1, and I still never see that problem.

How big is your library?

[Doof]

How big is your library?

Well, it's not monstrous. ~26,000 files (audio, images, and videos), but it uses up ~250 GB of drive space. The majority of the music is in APE format, images are almost entirely JPG and the videos are a mix. Some are simple little quicktime or wmv files, but I've streamed 1.5 GB MKV videos across my network without a hiccup.

I currently have everything running on a gigabit LAN, but even when it was all on 100 megabit, it was fine.

[JimH]

I currently have everything running on a gigabit LAN ...

Why?   

[MrHaugen]

When using Windows Explorer in Vista.... Click on the arrows/triangles between the directory levels in the and you can go straight to ANY directory at that level...  or click on the directory name to go to that level.... no need for a UP button any more.

Doug

I know, I know. I use them all the time. Simply miss having one button on my keyboard to go up. Browsing with a keyboard is just faster in most cases. Especialy when you know where you are going and using those letters to quickly finding the right directory. It's good they still left some keyboard choises though. As gregoryx mentioned, ALT key is good to have. ALT + Up arrow works as "up" and left works as "back". That will help, but I'd preffer to have one single button. Don't like to use two hands where I used to use one. Just that lazy.

[Doof]

Why?   

Simply because every motherboard they make these days comes with gigabit NICs on them? It's really as simple as that.  The final piece was my wireless router. I came home one night and it was dead. So I replaced it. Instant gigabit.

[Doof]

I know, I know. I use them all the time. Simply miss having one button on my keyboard to go up. Browsing with a keyboard is just faster in most cases. Especialy when you know where you are going and using those letters to quickly finding the right directory. It's good they still left some keyboard choises though. As gregoryx mentioned, ALT key is good to have. ALT + Up arrow works as "up" and left works as "back". That will help, but I'd preffer to have one single button. Don't like to use two hands where I used to use one. Just that lazy.

Refresh my memory... how did it work in XP? I know there was a single toolbar button that would take you up a level, but you still have that with the breadcrumbs. Just click the name of the folder at the level above the one you're on. Except that you now have the benefit of also being able to go up two or even three levels with a single click, or more easily moving to sibling folders.

So the only difference I guess is the way the keyboard works in explorer? What were the keys that moved you up a level in XP?

[Dutch Peter]

I use Vista on my Desktop. Works fine.
My laptop came with XP. I will not upgrade it although it is Vista capable.
It works fine with XP.
My next laptop (in the coming months) will be Vista, and I will leave it like that.
I am looking into Microsoft Virtual PC to be able to run XP if necessary.