Windows Vista Vs. Windows XP

[MistyMeanor]

Yeah I knew this, I just couldnt say anything. At Dell we stopped all ordering of XP on the 26th and then it will be pulled from the shelves on the 30th. Again why I push that you better get used to Vista, start upgrading your software or peripherials (if it can be done) to eventually move into the new OS. Cause XP is "no more".

They discontinued support of it a month or more ago. So if you run into a problem with XP and its not something you can fix. Microsoft is just going to recommend you upgrade to vista.

Just like with windows 98 and ME... people that hung onto their computers with those OS's got to where they couldn't install anything new on them even if the computer worked well. So were forced to go into XP just be able to move forward with everything else.

[bigH2O]

The only fathomable reason MS could be killing XP right now is to squeeze as much revenue out of Vista as they can before they dump it. This ploy is so transparent it makes me ill.

My primary design machine is a q6800 intel chip sitting on a D975XBX mobo with 4GB of ram installed. No doubt in my mind it would run Vista handily... but it just makes me cringe to cowtow to their corporate whims.

Honestly, If I didn't *have* to run Windows, I wouldn't run it at all. My high end RIP applications that tie into the graphics design apps are Windows only apps though, so I'm stuck. I'll use Windows because I have to, but I'm certainly not throwing my money at Microsoft until I have to. As long as my applications will still run on XP, I'll stick with it... and I'll avoid upgrading my apps as long as I can if it means not having to upgrade to Vista to keep them working.

[Zero Tolerance]

Vista is todays version of Windows Me.

If Windows 7 can be, or become as good as XP is...then I would be happy. At work we are too far "in" with 3rd party apps that are totally MS dependent...so we are stuck with microslop im afraid.

[ThunderVamp9]

Originally Posted by MistyMeanor

As long as you have a computer with enough power to support it

To me, this is the most telling part of your argument FOR Vista that tells ME not to get it.

It's an operating system. WHY does it need so much power for an OPERATING SYSTEM? My Linux machine has tons of features that Vista offers as an OS. It doesn't require nearly the power that Vista does. Not to mention MS' very poor decision to release Vista under how many different versions?

I have seen many program compatibility problems and still-poor driver support, even after 18 mos. I was a big MS supporter, but I won't support Vista. I have 4 PC's. One is Windows XP that I use for my games. One is Windows XP that I use for my SAM3 software. One is Linux. One is Mac. None will ever be Vista.

[vantim]

Originally Posted by ThunderVamp9

To me, this is the most telling part of your argument FOR Vista that tells ME not to get it.

It's an operating system. WHY does it need so much power for an OPERATING SYSTEM? My Linux machine has tons of features that Vista offers as an OS. It doesn't require nearly the power that Vista does. Not to mention MS' very poor decision to release Vista under how many different versions?

I have seen many program compatibility problems and still-poor driver support, even after 18 mos. I was a big MS supporter, but I won't support Vista. I have 4 PC's. One is Windows XP that I use for my games. One is Windows XP that I use for my SAM3 software. One is Linux. One is Mac. None will ever be Vista.

Curious, I just would like to review what you said here.

WHY does it need so much power as an OPERATING SYSTEM

Can't really answer that as I didn't code it. It doesn't bother me though. I didn't run it or care to run it until I had a newer PC that could handle it. Any older PC I have already own has an OS on it. (And yes linux is on 2 of them) I certainly wouldn't waste my time blowing the dust off an old relic to try and load something like Linux on it anyway. I'll do what I've always done. Either build a new one or dual boot. If you can't afford to build a new one then you just wait. That seems pretty easy to me. I did it.

Linux has tons of features that Vista offers as an OS.

Good! If it didn't have tons of these features it wouldn't be a very good OS. Some are better than Vista's and some of them are complete crap. This can be turned around to read the opposite way.

Not to mention MS' very poor decision to release Vista under how many different versions?

Vista basic: For older under powered computers
Vista business: For business' Sounds practical
Vista Home Premium: All the bling for the latest hardware.
Vista Ultimate: Everything from domains to solitaire.

That is 5 versions.
Ubuntu Linux: Main competitor to XP and Vista
Kubuntu Linux: Same thing different Package: Useless but cool
Xubuntu Linux: Another desktop aimed at people with less powerful Pc's. Sounds a little familiar. Doesn't it?
Edubuntu Linux: An educational version of Ubuntu Linux
Goubuntu Linux: Designed towards the software creation to release their own version
Ubuntu MID Edition: Mobile version

Ok, there is 6 versions of the Ubuntu distro. Not to mention the many many other companies that have more versions. like Fedora, Open SUSE, Mandriva Sabayon, Zenwalk, Knoppix... Need I list more. There are certainly plenty.

I have seen many program compatibility problems and still-poor driver support, even after 18 mos.

Ubuntu releases a new version of it's distro every 6 months I believe. Why? to resolve issues with drivers and software. I've been running Vista for a while now and haven't had one issue with program compatibility. So far it runs all the programs I run on XP and it handles all the web apps that I've seen.

I believe I mentioned all the points that I can possibly mention. I guess I could add a few more. Things like. Why are there security and issue updates for MS OSes all the time? No more than linux. My Ubuntu downloads updates almost every day.

You choose to not support Vista. That's fine by me. I choose to support all OS's. I feel they all have their strengths and weaknesses. Plus it really puts a notch in the geek gun handle. The real downside to Vista is the cost. Nothing else.

[wroom]

I mainly use XPP, W2KP, 98SE, Slackware Linux, VMS.

I will never use Vista, since i have no use of it, and get the itches when just scratching the surface on the problem of securing a Vista platform.

When there is no half decent platform for running MS Word anymore, then i will stop using MS Word too.

Vista is like a bling showcar, with no engine and no door locks.

I wonder what the target user for Vista is?
It is not built for professional users.
It is not built for users demanding security.
It is not built for gamers that want to use the system resources for their gaming SW.
So what is it good for?

Best thing MS could do is to straight up fire the people responsible for Vista, and also those who brought us the amazing Windows ME, (Meager Edition). And then to focus on supporting their customers with what they need instead.

[vantim]

Originally Posted by wroom

I mainly use XPP, W2KP, 98SE, Slackware Linux, VMS.

I will never use Vista, since i have no use of it, and get the itches when just scratching the surface on the problem of securing a Vista platform.

When there is no half decent platform for running MS Word anymore, then i will stop using MS Word too.

Vista is like a bling showcar, with no engine and no door locks.

I wonder what the target user for Vista is?
It is not built for professional users.
It is not built for users demanding security.
It is not built for gamers that want to use the system resources for their gaming SW.
So what is it good for?

Best thing MS could do is to straight up fire the people responsible for Vista, and also those who brought us the amazing Windows ME, (Meager Edition). And then to focus on supporting their customers with what they need instead.

Here is another case of somebody downing Vista without using it. Amazing

It is built for gamers, considering it's the only Direct X 10 Platform out there.

It has plenty of security. It conforms to all government orange book codes. It has things like advanced file sharing with Share and Access Permissions. Domain Security with Active Directory. File and Drive Encryption. For home users, it comes with spyware protection and a basic firewall. Plus you can assign different levels of network allowage and seperate network profiles. What else could you possibly want or need?

What is your idea of a professional user? I believe that Vista Business and Ultimate take care of all the professional needs. A lot more than the 98SE that you are using does. Considering 98 offers absolutely no security or professional apps. It doesn't even have secure login.

I don't think you'll have to worry about MS Word. You can always use Macintosh to run it. Windows 7 is in the works. Now, they could hurry up and release that for you if you want. (but that is what all you guys are complaining about Vista for. Isn't it?)

[vantim]

Originally Posted by bigH2O

The only fathomable reason MS could be killing XP right now is to squeeze as much revenue out of Vista as they can before they dump it. This ploy is so transparent it makes me ill.

My primary design machine is a q6800 intel chip sitting on a D975XBX mobo with 4GB of ram installed. No doubt in my mind it would run Vista handily... but it just makes me cringe to cowtow to their corporate whims.

Honestly, If I didn't *have* to run Windows, I wouldn't run it at all. My high end RIP applications that tie into the graphics design apps are Windows only apps though, so I'm stuck. I'll use Windows because I have to, but I'm certainly not throwing my money at Microsoft until I have to. As long as my applications will still run on XP, I'll stick with it... and I'll avoid upgrading my apps as long as I can if it means not having to upgrade to Vista to keep them working.

Ok BigH20, we haven't had a good run for a while.

XP is now 7 years old. It's probably the longest running OS in MS's history. It's had its day. After running Ubuntu, Vista and Mac OS 10... XP does seem pretty antiquated. I don't think they are trying to squeeze every last $$$ out of Vista by discontinuing XP. They have always done that. Vista has been out for a year now, XP should be tossed to the side. If a company can't stand behind its product it shouldn't produce it. I don't think MS is going to toss Vista to the curb anytime soon. It's kind of like buying the first model of a car. You should never buy the first one, until its been out for a while. Windows 7 will not hit the shelves until 2010 maybe 2011 to be realistic. So we're just going to have to wait.

Even 98 was discontinued during the incredibly horrible run of ME. The statement you made saying "Honestly, If I didn't *have* to run Windows, I wouldn't run it at all." is probably one of the best statements I've seen in this whole thread. At least you are being honest.

I don't care if someone doesn't like Vista or MS. That's fine. But weak ass arguements will get nowhere in my book. Give me facts, not thoughts. I'm directing that to everyone, not you H20.

I use alternate OS's right along with MS. I have to. It's my job. I can't fix them, if I can't use them.

[bigH2O]

Well vantim, you seem to think that if you haven't used it then your opinion is worth nothing.

I'm just going to pretend that I didn't beta test Vista all the way through RC2 on a test box, and make a general statement as if I had never seen it before. There is plenty of anectdotal evidence everywhere you look that Vista has problems. There is plenty of inculpatory evidence everywhere you look that Vista may not be suitable for certain individuals needs.

In other words, I don't need to sleep with that cute bar skank to obtain proof that she'll give me the crabs. I'm perfectly satisfied to listen to my buds who did sleep with her when they tell me she gave them the crabs.

[vantim]

You're damned right! Show me an OS that is better in every category by the numbers, not by heresay, and I'll stop defending it. I've run countless OS's over the years. Vista ranks in the the top 5 in my opinion.

I'm not being biased either. I hated the 9x platform. It was unstable and shaky. Go back to the Win95/98 days when you had to reboot every 5 mins. Or had to reload windows because the power went out.

Or sit down and try to get redhat 5 working on a monitor that didn't come with drivers and you had to define the scan lines. If I had problems with Vista I would say it. But case and point. I've installed or supported quite a few Vista installs. It's not perfect, but it's been better than all the crap written about it in threads like this. It's not for everyone. That's true. But it works for me. Better than most of them do.

If you go back in the threads you'll see I beta tested it too. BTW... I hated it too back then. You know why? My computer wasn't up to snuff.

Get me drunk enough and protection, and I'll face the crabs