Vista -> XP

[Cunjo]

Guys... there's a reason Vista is failing in the consumer market.

It is inefficient. Extremely, irreparably inefficient.

I keep hearing people say things like "so what if it takes a gig of RAM?" "so what if it runs slower?" etc... these people are missing the point of computing.

The point of computing is to get stuff done. Period. It's not to look cool, add more features, etc., though these things are a nice bonus - it's to get stuff done. If Vista takes longer and more resources to get stuff done than XP, then it is inferior to XP as an Operating System. That's why they call it an Operating System, and not a Look-Cool System.

Aero? I could take it or leave it... in fact, many other operating systems, including older distributions of Unix and Linux have had far cooler GUIs than Aero, long before Vista ever reared its ugly head... and they were faster at it, too!

Ever hear of Sphere XP? It's a cool 3rd party app for Windows XP that uses an ACTUAL 3D desktop... not some cheap, ripoff side-view-window-perspective-makes-it-look-3d gimmick like Vista.

Transparency/shaders/nice menus? You can mod XP to do that pretty **** easily... and there are a ton of sick and slick themes for XP through WinCustomize - no bloat, no hassle. Or, again, you could just go with another Operating System (many of them free) that has these things already built in.

Security?
Let's be honest here... anyone who depends on Microsoft Windows for all of their security is practically asking to be violated. And XP with 3rd party security is NOT as bad as people make it out to be. I've been running XP with Avast! antivirus, Sunbelt/kerio Personal Firewall, Firefox and Spywareblaster (ALL FREE APPS!) for over 3 years without EVER contracting any serious spyware, adware, viruses, worms or trojans, in spite of sometimes even downloading and decompiling them intentionally. Vista may have better security than XP does out of the box, but I seriously doubt it will stand up to my XP and 3rd party security with the test of time.

Compatibility with DX10 is really the only solid argument for getting Vista, yet even that is just a completely arbitrary compatibility switch set by Microsoft to force the upgrade; sooner or later, someone will hack DX10 to make it work on XP, just like they hacked Halo 2 to run on XP, in spite of Microsoft's arbitrary compatibility denial on that.

So yeah, if you have a killer rig with blazing fast CPU/GPU and an extra 4 gigs of RAM burning a hole in your motherboard, go ahead and upgrade to Vista for all of the 'pretty features'... but the fact remains that it's unnecessary, and you're still sacrificing performance potential to something that hasn't much yet. I have a brand-new, custom-built rig with more than enough resources to support Vista, but I'm still running XP on it... why? because those same resources could be better spent elsewhere, getting things done, and that's what it's all about. An Operating System is meant to operate your hardware and allow your apps to use it, not to guzzle up all of your hardware potential and shove your apps aside to feed on what's left.

XP gets more out of the same hardware than Vista does, and it probably always will... the insane hardware requirements inherent in Microsoft Operating Systems is the company's way of rubbing the hardware industry's back, making more users upgrade their systems and buy newer and faster chips... so that the hardware industry will give Microsoft preferential treatment when providing driver support and OS bundling. It's dirty, slimy and underhanded, but the user still has a choice when buying their software as to what they want to use, and that's the bottom line.

 

[KSoD]

Okay first off you have absolutely no IDEA what you are talking about.

Let me give you a clue. Back when XP was released it called for 64MB of RAM. That was alright but it ran sluggish. It called for 128MB which was high end. 256MB was just about double or triple most common PC's back then. That was just to make XP run.

So why it that people can say it is alright for XP to require up to triple the RAM of 98/ME but not Vista to require double of XP? Boosting hardware requirements is and always has been a thing for the Microsoft OS's. From Windows 95 up to Vista they have pretty much doubled the requirements each time.

So for Vista to require 1GB of RAM is not bad, Considering that is LOW END now a days. Which can be bought in the cheapest PC available at a store like WAl-Mart. Really the answer is who cares. Spend a little money. You just spent $200-$400 on the OS. Spend a little money to make it work right. If you pirated it and gripe. You get what you deserve since you get what you pay for.

Security-
UAC is new. IT stops download drive by's and prevents installation without knowledge. Even though the technology isnt perfect it does mean that if use right, you wont need a **** anti virus. I dont use one and i use UAC. Why cause i know when something is trying to install or run on my PC. No more need for even the FREE Anti-Virus apps.

So really any and all of your points can be argued either way. While XP does get more out of the same hardware....Vista is very efficent. I have been able to run more hard core CPU intensive apps in Vista than XP without lag. But when Window 7 starts up adn the requiremetns are just about double of Vista. I dont want to hear anyone say a word. This is the common trend. People gripped when XP was released. They are girpping when Vista is released. Shut up and dont use the software. No one said you had to.

 

[Cunjo]

So why it that people can say it is alright for XP to require up to triple the RAM of 98/ME but not Vista to require double of XP? Boosting hardware requirements is and always has been a thing for the Microsoft OS's. From Windows 95 up to Vista they have pretty much doubled the requirements each time.

Because XP is a modern system, and has improved compatibility over BOTH Win 9x and Vista. It also offered at least triple the features and stability of 98, whereas Vista mostly just has some eye candy, and nothing you can't get from XP with the addition of some 3rd party software (which still doesn't come close to the resource requirement of Vista). Also, Vista does require triple or more the RAM of XP. My first XP system shipped with 256MB of RAM, and it ran about as smoothly as does Vista on 1GB. On 512, it ran better, and on the same 1GB that Vista is crawling along on, XP runs blazing fast.

So for Vista to require 1GB of RAM is not bad, Considering that is LOW END now a days. Which can be bought in the cheapest PC available at a store like WAl-Mart. Really the answer is who cares. Spend a little money. You just spent $200-$400 on the OS. Spend a little money to make it work right. If you pirated it and gripe. You get what you deserve since you get what you pay for.

Actually many stores still sell systems with 512. What's worse, is they sell shoddy systems with Vista installed on them.
And no, I didn't just spend $200 on the OS - I just got a more efficient OS for $50. It's called Windows XP. I actually spent $2,300 building my computer, and I still see no benefit to spending more money on a system that will get less performance from my high-end components.

UAC is new. IT stops download drive by's and prevents installation without knowledge. Even though the technology isnt perfect it does mean that if use right, you wont need a **** anti virus. I dont use one and i use UAC. Why cause i know when something is trying to install or run on my PC. No more need for even the FREE Anti-Virus apps.

So does Firefox.
The only time my Anti-Virus goes off is when I intentionally download something that I know is unsafe.
And let's not forget that the memory footprint of Firefox and FREE Antivirus apps is still less than 1/3 of Vista.
Also, drive by downloading refers to the practice of downloading things from someone else's unsecured wireless network to prevent an IP trace, so no, Vista does not prevent that, only intelligence (securing your network) prevents that.

So really any and all of your points can be argued either way. While XP does get more out of the same hardware....Vista is very efficent. I have been able to run more hard core CPU intensive apps in Vista than XP without lag. But when Window 7 starts up adn the requiremetns are just about double of Vista. I dont want to hear anyone say a word. This is the common trend. People gripped when XP was released. They are girpping when Vista is released. Shut up and dont use the software. No one said you had to.

No, No, NO.
Vista is NOT efficient. It's pretty, advanced, but NOT efficient. It's about as efficient as a new multifunction machine from HP - the ones that require 3 GB driver installations to run, and break down after several months to a year, while the older (efficient) machines from 1998 are still running on 300KB drivers.
Performance in CPU intensive apps has a lot more to do with the core architecture than the OS, as well it should. I can calculate the first 1M digits of Pi using Super Pi, 19 iterations in 15 seconds flat while running Folding @ Home at full tilt and calculating every prime number between 1 and 10 million. Vista wouldn't do any better at that, and would probably score lower on the Super Pi.

XP was released in 2001. Six years from now, I'm sure Vista will be just fine... but the fact remains, that right now, with current tech and standard, affordable hardware spec, it's not.

 

[Nick]

Have you yourself actualy used vista?

 

[Cunjo]

Have you yourself actualy used vista?

Yes.

[REPLY TOO SHORT]

 

[Nick]

at least your not one of those people who rants about it and has never used it

 

[pc_boy]

So why it that people can say it is alright for XP to require up to triple the RAM of 98/ME but not Vista to require double of XP? Boosting hardware requirements is and always has been a thing for the Microsoft OS's. From Windows 95 up to Vista they have pretty much doubled the requirements each time.

The standard RAM on computers when XP was released was 256MB.
Vista takes 600MB of RAM, XP takes about 100MB. Simple math reveals that's 6 times as much. XP is better than Win 98/Me because it's the first consumer OS based on NT technology, not the DOS crap that is used by Me.

Shut up and dont use the software. No one said you had to.

Actually I do have to because it came loaded on my laptop when i bought it. I don't want to spend $100 on XP.

 

[Cunjo]

whoa now... let's not start comparing things to ME... one thing'll lead to another and soon we'll be invoking Godwin's Law.