Vista or XP ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Talal Itani
  • Start date Start date
T

Talal Itani

A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista vs.
XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question now. Is
Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a business
computer, with many types of applications. It will be a performance PC,
with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.
 
On May 25, 9:06 am, "Talal Itani" <tit...@verizon.net> wrote:
> A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista vs.
> XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question now. Is
> Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a business
> computer, with many types of applications. It will be a performance PC,
> with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.


I would suggest XP:

- I talked to the local PC repair guy, who recommended the same
thing..

Google Vista

& here's a link to some stories concerning Vista

http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/archives/2008/05/infoworlds_othe.html
 
Although there are some impressive new technologies under Vista's hood, they
don't really result in a better user experience.

XP is thoroughly tried and tested. If you are happy with its (in my view
patronising) user interface and overall functionality, I'd suggest you stick
with it. Vista's interface is different rather than better.

Vista is potentially more secure, and if this is important to you, it would
weigh the balance more towards Vista.

But basically, there is no compelling reason at all to choose Vista, and XP
does have the benefit of being well sorted.

Personally I prefer Vista, but only because I can't resist upgrading to the
latest of anything, even if it's no good :-)

SteveT
 
Is Vista the way to go? IMO, Yes.
Is my new hardware, capable of things XP's hardware could never do, worth
having? Yes.
Is Vista the last system upgrade that will ever happen? Not likely.
Am I incapable, or just too lazy to innovate solutions for my existing
system,( like so many of those creaking old LANs still running Win2K)? I
prefer to keep up.
Not only is it the way to go, it's the only change available. If you think
users hate the learning curve of Vista, try teaching them *nix. It's keep
up, or fall behind. Saying it's too expensive, too hard, or too flawed is
the whine of someone looking for an excuse to go back to the 'good old
days'.
Vista has the 'nag screen' issue. XP had the 'blaster'. 2K had memory leaks.
95 had the BSOD. 9X had a flawed kernel and DOS had memory limitations. Good
old days, indeed. Win7 is on the storyboard of the war-room as we speak, and
I doubt they are looking backward. :/
--
click the Ratings button. Voting helps the web
interface.
http://www.microsoft.com/wn3/locales/help/help_en-us.htm#RateAPostAsAnswer
Mark L. Ferguson
..

"Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Nvd_j.735$nx6.225@trnddc03...
> A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista vs.
> XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question now.
> Is Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a business
> computer, with many types of applications. It will be a performance PC,
> with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.
>
 
If the applications you need to run have Vista versions then Vista is the
way to go. I'm assuming you want to keep the computer for several years. As
people buy new computers with Vista, Vista will become the standard
operating system. Eventually hardware manufacturers will quit developing XP
drivers for new hardware. When XP was released this took about four to five
years. For the past couple of years most hardware manufacturers have not had
Windows 98 drivers for new hardware. I expect the same time frame will apply
to Vista. Vista has been out for a little over a year. This means that in
another three to four years it may be hard to buy new hardware like
printers, cameras, graphics cards, etc., that support XP. If you plan to
keep your computer that long Vista is a better bet.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/



"Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Nvd_j.735$nx6.225@trnddc03...
>A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista vs.
>XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question now.
>Is Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a business
>computer, with many types of applications. It will be a performance PC,
>with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.
>
 
In article <Nvd_j.735$nx6.225@trnddc03>, Talal Itani <titani@verizon.net> says...
> A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista vs.
> XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question now. Is
> Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a business
> computer, with many types of applications. It will be a performance PC,
> with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.

Take Vista, otherwise you have to switch once to Vista.

--
Met vriendelijke groeten, Jawade. BackUp-progje weer vernieuwd.
http://jawade.nl/ Met een mirror op http://jawade.fortunecity.com/
Bootmanager (+Vista +Linux), ClrMBR, DiskEdit (+Linux), POP3lezer,
DOS-Filebrowser, Kalender, Webtellers en IP-log, USB-stick tester.
 
Looking at the contributions from Mark, Kerry and Jawade, it seems I'm the
only one to recommend staying on XP (even though I use Vista on my main
machine).

It is only partially true to suggest the Vista is "the future", which seems
to summarise their arguments. I would suggest that Vista will have a
relatively short life, and will be replaced in 2010 by something much
better. You could very easily argue the case for leapfrogging Vista
altogether. XP will continue to run just fine until then. It is very well
sorted, and in fact will continue to receive security patches until 2014.

As I say, the problem with Vista is that even though it has lots of rather
good new technology under the hood, it really isn't much better than XP for
day-to-day useage and actually getting your work done. The new interface is
ho-hum, to be honest. In some ways it's a bit better than XP, in other ways
a bit worse.

For instance, in Windows Explorer they've implemented an automatic sideways
scroll of the folder tree, which is kind of cool. But they've also used
different - and much paler - 'hover' and 'selected' highlight colours which
are almost invisible on some monitors.

The new windows management and display technology is much better
technically, and lets you do fancy things like have semi-opaque windows and
title bars. But then when you've played with it for a while you think "so
what?". It isn't actually very useful to see a blurry representation (too
blurry to read) of the window underneath, and can be distracting. I
switched transparency off, eventually.

And some is sheer change for the sake of it. For instance, in XP, to remove
a program in the classic Control Panel, you use 'Add/Remove Programs'. In
Vista you use 'Programs and Features'. Eh?? Ditto the change to the file
copying algorithm. Even with SP1, it's still much slower than XP at copying
large files around. Despite Microsoft's claims to the contrary, it
definitely wasn't "broke" in XP, and it really didn't need fixing.

Don't worry about Vista's stability, by the way. So long as you've got
modern, compatible hardware and drivers, it's rock solid.

If you're the kind of person who likes playing with the latest thing, then
you'll find Vista good fun to mess around with. If you want something light
and fast, and don't mind the patronising "My" in front of everything and the
hideous Fisher Price colour scheme, then XP is for you.

In 2010 Vista will be replaced, and whether you've got XP or Vista, you'll
be able to upgrade to it.

SteveT, USB-stick tester.
 
I'd say Vista. It will better handle your hardware, and it's much more
secure. Automated backup, better sleep and resume (no more waiting for
startups), Direct X 10, Desktop Window Composition makes the desktop "tear
free", making it a much more enjoyable experience, Media Centre for sharing
your videos to your TV (got a Xbox 360??), there's also a lot more under the
hood that mean Vista is less likely to get slow or suffer fatal crashes.

Read

"Is the new Windows an XP-erience to be missed?"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2001/oct/28/microsoft.business

"Windows XP: Breaking Things"
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1001/118.html

"XP Compatibility Problems Persist"
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-332558.html

"Suddenly Everything Sucks"
http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/me/2001/11/1129billboard.jpg

Bottom Line: All articles moaning about how bad XP was (even someone's
photoshopped poster there at the end).
Now XP is suddenly the best thing since bread came sliced. Vista may have
some minor issues (mostly with old hardware) but your new PC is likely to
outlast any of those small issues.

Marc


"Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Nvd_j.735$nx6.225@trnddc03...
>A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista vs.
>XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question now.
>Is Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a business
>computer, with many types of applications. It will be a performance PC,
>with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.
>
 
"Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ujBjFbovIHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> In 2010 Vista will be replaced,

Wasn't XP supposed to be replaced in 2004?? :-D
 
Marc wrote:
> I'd say Vista. It will better handle your hardware, and it's much more
> secure. Automated backup, better sleep and resume (no more waiting for
> startups), Direct X 10, Desktop Window Composition makes the desktop
> "tear free", making it a much more enjoyable experience, Media Centre
> for sharing your videos to your TV (got a Xbox 360??), there's also a
> lot more under the hood that mean Vista is less likely to get slow or
> suffer fatal crashes.
>
> Read
>
> "Is the new Windows an XP-erience to be missed?"
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2001/oct/28/microsoft.business
>
> "Windows XP: Breaking Things"
> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1001/118.html
>
> "XP Compatibility Problems Persist"
> http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-332558.html
>
> "Suddenly Everything Sucks"
> http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/me/2001/11/1129billboard.jpg
>
> Bottom Line: All articles moaning about how bad XP was (even someone's
> photoshopped poster there at the end).
> Now XP is suddenly the best thing since bread came sliced. Vista may
> have some minor issues (mostly with old hardware) but your new PC is
> likely to outlast any of those small issues.
>
> Marc
>
>
> "Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Nvd_j.735$nx6.225@trnddc03...
>> A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista
>> vs. XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same
>> question now. Is Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using
>> this for a business computer, with many types of applications. It
>> will be a performance PC, with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor.
>> Thanks.
>>
>
Okay, one more question on this thread, is there a way to test hardware
before you buy to see if its compatible? I remember XP having such a
tool?
 
IMHO: XP.

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP/DTS&XP)

Taskbar Repair Tool Plus!
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/taskbarplus!.htm


"Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Nvd_j.735$nx6.225@trnddc03...
>A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista vs.
>XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question now.
>Is Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a business
>computer, with many types of applications. It will be a performance PC,
>with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.
>
 
There is the Vista Upgrade Advisor

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/upgradeadvisor.mspx

It is a very good idea to run this but don't rely on the results. It will
flag obvious incompatibilities. It may not flag all incompatible hardware.
It may not know about all updated drivers so some compatible hardware may be
flagged as incompatible.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/



> Okay, one more question on this thread, is there a way to test hardware
> before you buy to see if its compatible? I remember XP having such a
> tool?
 
Vista Readiness Test: http://www.pcpitstop.com/vistaready/default.asp

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP/DTS&XP)

Taskbar Repair Tool Plus!
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/taskbarplus!.htm


"Big Al" <BigAl@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hmh_j.3069$tF1.349@trnddc01...
> Marc wrote:
>> I'd say Vista. It will better handle your hardware, and it's much more
>> secure. Automated backup, better sleep and resume (no more waiting for
>> startups), Direct X 10, Desktop Window Composition makes the desktop
>> "tear free", making it a much more enjoyable experience, Media Centre for
>> sharing your videos to your TV (got a Xbox 360??), there's also a lot
>> more under the hood that mean Vista is less likely to get slow or suffer
>> fatal crashes.
>>
>> Read
>>
>> "Is the new Windows an XP-erience to be missed?"
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2001/oct/28/microsoft.business
>>
>> "Windows XP: Breaking Things"
>> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1001/118.html
>>
>> "XP Compatibility Problems Persist"
>> http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-332558.html
>>
>> "Suddenly Everything Sucks"
>> http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/me/2001/11/1129billboard.jpg
>>
>> Bottom Line: All articles moaning about how bad XP was (even someone's
>> photoshopped poster there at the end).
>> Now XP is suddenly the best thing since bread came sliced. Vista may have
>> some minor issues (mostly with old hardware) but your new PC is likely to
>> outlast any of those small issues.
>>
>> Marc
>>
>>
>> "Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:Nvd_j.735$nx6.225@trnddc03...
>>> A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista
>>> vs. XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question
>>> now. Is Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a
>>> business computer, with many types of applications. It will be a
>>> performance PC, with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.
>>>
>>
> Okay, one more question on this thread, is there a way to test hardware
> before you buy to see if its compatible? I remember XP having such a
> tool?
 
> Wasn't XP supposed to be replaced in 2004?? :-D

With Longhorn, yes. However, the security scares with XP caused MS to
abandon most of the work they'd done and start all over again. One result
is that Vista was developed in rather a hurry - and it shows.

SteveT
 
You were developed in a hurry.... by my guess a blood alcohol level whim

--
Hobbes
Tiger Extraordinaire/ TDTK, QZ,MissAK
"Steve Thackery" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:OPYwZapvIHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Wasn't XP supposed to be replaced in 2004?? :-D
>
> With Longhorn, yes. However, the security scares with XP caused MS to
> abandon most of the work they'd done and start all over again. One result
> is that Vista was developed in rather a hurry - and it shows.
>
> SteveT
 
My preference would be XP over Vista at present.

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Marc " <RmEaMrOcVE@imarc.co.uk> wrote in message news:F018FDCC-79B2-4681-AFF3-381EEDC4642E@microsoft.com...
> I'd say Vista. It will better handle your hardware, and it's much more
> secure. Automated backup, better sleep and resume (no more waiting for
> startups), Direct X 10, Desktop Window Composition makes the desktop "tear
> free", making it a much more enjoyable experience, Media Centre for sharing
> your videos to your TV (got a Xbox 360??), there's also a lot more under the
> hood that mean Vista is less likely to get slow or suffer fatal crashes.
>
> Read
>
> "Is the new Windows an XP-erience to be missed?"
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2001/oct/28/microsoft.business
>
> "Windows XP: Breaking Things"
> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2001/1001/118.html
>
> "XP Compatibility Problems Persist"
> http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-332558.html
>
> "Suddenly Everything Sucks"
> http://news.cnet.com/i/ne/me/2001/11/1129billboard.jpg
>
> Bottom Line: All articles moaning about how bad XP was (even someone's
> photoshopped poster there at the end).
> Now XP is suddenly the best thing since bread came sliced. Vista may have
> some minor issues (mostly with old hardware) but your new PC is likely to
> outlast any of those small issues.
>
> Marc
>
>
> "Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Nvd_j.735$nx6.225@trnddc03...
>>A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista vs.
>>XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question now.
>>Is Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a business
>>computer, with many types of applications. It will be a performance PC,
>>with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.
>>
>
 
On Sun, 25 May 2008 19:33:53 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>> Wasn't XP supposed to be replaced in 2004?? :-D
>
>With Longhorn, yes. However, the security scares with XP caused MS to
>abandon most of the work they'd done and start all over again. One result
>is that Vista was developed in rather a hurry - and it shows.
>
>SteveT

Five years is in a hurry?
 
Per Talal Itani:
>It will be a performance PC,
>with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor.

Can somebody who knows comment on whether it will still be a
performance PC once he puts Vista on it?
--
PeteCresswell
 
Back
Top