XP/Vista Dilemma

[jonmulzer]

The major problem I have seen with Vista is that it is a complete and total resource hog. If you take two machines, for instance a single-core CPU with 1 GB of RAM and a dual or quad core CPU with 4GB of RAM and you load XP on the lower level one and Vista on the higher end one, the XP machine will be more responsive and more satisfying to use on a daily basis. The Vista display would be prettier though.....

IMHO Vista is a total dog and, in Microsoft style, was released 2 years late and 2 years before it was ready. I firmly believe the only way Microsoft could make something that did not suck is if they made vacuum cleaners.

[JSUPreston]

I firmly believe the only way Microsoft could make something that did not suck is if they made vacuum cleaners.

So, if a Microsoft vacuum cleaner didn't suck, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal!

[Kristofor]

Well, I run Vista64 on one of my home machines, but only for DirectX 10, and support for >4GB RAM. It's a beefy box with 8GB RAM and a fairly quick quad-core CPU. The 64Bit version adds even more fun with drivers for legacy hardware, but that's not really an issue on this newer box.

Is it workable, yes. Are there lots of compatability issues with old hardware/software, yes.

You can run XP inside Virtual PC or VMWare to help with the software issues. However, that won't do anything for hardware issues, and do you really want to take the resource hit to run a virtual environment?

Is it worth paying more for Vista? If you don't specifically need any of the new features probably not. Would I recommend users pay extra for XP if they didn't have a bunch of legacy hw/sw to deal with, also probably not. One thing is pretty clear in my mind. The general reaction to Vista was not the "WOW" that Microsoft Marketing was trumpeting.

There have been a few MS OS launches that weren't a huge improvement. IMHO MS OSes that were significant upgrades from previous versions were DOS3.x, DOS6.x, Windows3.x + WFW3.11, Win95, Win2K. So ME, 98, XP, and Vista have all added some nice features but the cost/bennefit ratios have felt lower than for some of the others...

Kristofor.

[Tom Hintz]

We have gone to Vista on all of our office computers inlcuding the graphics machines we use for processing photos and video. The extra memory vista supports (4 gig) has been a big help. We have all high end video and sound cards but everything was supported and we found current drivers for everything. All works fine, all are networked and everybody is talking to everybody.

[rnelson0]

You can from Dell. I priced out a quad core machine last night and I had the option to choose XP or Vista.

I was referring to the June or July timeframe at which Microsoft says they will not sell XP for OEM installation anymore.

[gsmittle]

I received my HP last November with Windows Vista. VISTA SUCKS!
My up dates won't install, have had problems getting some of the programs to work.
Microsoft won't answer or address my complaints.
I should have purchased the Mac.

Oh, yeah. Then you could run Winderz under Boot Camp or Parallels/Fusion if you want to.

Back when 95 came out Apple corporate called it "Mac 85."

Keep in mind I'm an avowed Macintosh fanboy.

g.

[MilDoc]

I have not "upgraded" to Vista and never intend to.

And, there are reports of a "new" version of Windows slated for next year, to replace Vista.

I'd wait.

[pacwind3]

this thread has inspired me to buy a mac.

[jonmulzer]

We have gone to Vista on all of our office computers inlcuding the graphics machines we use for processing photos and video. The extra memory vista supports (4 gig) has been a big help. We have all high end video and sound cards but everything was supported and we found current drivers for everything. All works fine, all are networked and everybody is talking to everybody.

Are you running the 64=bit edition? XP and Vista 32-bit have the same memory limitation basically. It is limited by the 32 bit memory addressing system so you basically get 4GB - videocard memory and memory addresses allocated to other resources. So upgrading from XP to Vista 32-bit has no advantage in regards to how much memory you can add in. The limits for how much memory addressed range between 2.5-3.5GB for both operating systems, depending on individual machine.

[wbsettle]

I'm not going to sing the praises of Vista, but I'm not going to curse it either.

I've bought two Toshiba laptops in the past year preloaded with Vista, one Home Premium and the other Basic. Once you turn off the "pretty" stuff and the "features" that keep you from shooting yourself in the foot, it seems fine to me. Since I'm running different hardware, I can't do a true A/B, but seat of the pants tells me my Vista machines are more stable than my company Dell running XP Pro.

I've only run into a couple of software issues. The most annoying being the video editing software that came with my JVC harddrive based video camera. Even though I purchased it a month before Vista was released, JVC wouldn't give a free upgrade to the Vista compatible version. Not Microsoft's fault. Same thing with an external HP DVD burner I received as a present to compliment the JVC camera...HP wasn't offering upgrades to Nero or even Vista drivers.

Fortunately, the Toshiba Home Premium machine included video and DVD authoring software.

In addition to a lot of the complaints just being because it's new, I wonder how user satisfaction tracks with upgraded machines versus factory installed.

Based on my experience, I wouldn't upgrade from XP just to upgrade. However, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a machine with Vista installed. As with any computer, more horsepower is always better. But, you can improve a lot of things by simply turning off the default eye candy...it's no diferent with XP.

Background: 2nd generation computer geek. Computer Science degree and 17 years and counting as a practicing IT proffessional.

-Brent

[Stytooner]

Actually the new machines I bought worked pretty well under Vista once you got past permissions. Having to ask if you can have a snack is unknown in my house, so as soon as I could, that was eliminated. Therein may lie some of my trouble as well. I could not get if fully compatible to network with XP. Features were missing in turbocad and the features that were missing were my most used and critical.
My other issues were with hardware designed only with Vista drivers. This meant I had to become athletic and jump through hoops to get XP to run the hardware on these new comp.
I still run Vista on a machine, but unless held up at gun point, I ain't upgrading to Vista on the others until SP2. I have bought Ultimate even and that was only because Virtual PC was only compatible with it. One machine had Vista home premium and the other basic. Could not load VPC. I got upset just about that part only. Forced me to get the highest upgrade and then was only able to function crippled. It would still not see any drive but the flash drive.
I don't mind the cash, cause you guys keep me from lacking in it, but I find this unacceptable behavior. I am unwilling to accept that it was an accident cause these guys make more in a year than I can ever expect in a lifetime.
I do however want to apologize for only ranting here lately. I do get a chance to read some amazing posts from you guys and y'all really deserve a better than rant response.
I think Vista may be inevitable for some, but I also have to think that 7 will have it's own issues until maybe SP2.
Upgrade at the risk of your own sanity.

[jax]

XP/Vista

I have a new comp with Vista Home edition preloaded on it. About the only good thing I can say about Vista is that it seems to handle graphics and multimedia a bit better than XP. But not "better enough" for me to cast a vote in favor of Vista.

Some of the problems I've had with Vista:
-Some of my peripheral hardware (scanner and some printer functions) won't work with Vista and no one is working on the problem. Solution: give it all away and buy new Vista compatible stuff.

-Toss all your computer security software. Vista won't run my old (2007) Norton, CA nor McAfee security programs. Vista likes "Windows Defender" from Microsoft.

-Drag out all your manuals and documentation for your programs because the embedded "Help" programs won't work with Vista. Vista will not recognize any .hlp files.

-You can't just hook up a serial cable from one computer to another computer to transfer data from Comp A's hard drive to Comp B's drive with Vista. You'll have to buy an "Easy Transfer Cable" or spend hours (days?) transferring the data via another format (CDs, floppies, etc). Couldn't use my old tape drive back up because it won't work with Vista.

-Get used to using the term BSOD in your everyday vocabulary (BSOD=Blue Screen of Death). You can practice using it while you are on hold (but your call is very important) with Microsoft. Actually Vista has a new and improved BSOD.

But the picture of my nephew holding up a dead fish looks pretty good on the Vista machine.

That's my two cents.

[LCHIEN]

I work in an organization with 50,000+ employees and FWIW, our IT says No Vista.

[stormdog74]

IF you have a machine with sufficient Memory, Video and CPU (In that order) it is a fine operating system.

Well, the only problem with that is that most of the manufacturers are shipping preconfigured computers with only 1 or 2 GB of memory - at least when Vista first came out. We bought a new HP from Office Depot for my wife, who does very basic things like email, word processing, and VERY basic games and it was very slow out of the box. I tweaked a number of things and got it to run "okay", but it didn't really work "well" until we loaded it to the max of 4 GB - my laptop with 2 GB and XP is much faster and I run some pretty intensive mathematical programs - I would be afraid to try it on the Vista machine - it might explode!

By the way, it shipped with 1 GB (2 512 sticks) and four slots, so we had to buy all 4 GB and the 2 512's are just gathering dust. So, the cost of the machine was quite a bit more than we thought it would be.

Oh, and one more thing - it just stopped working - a week out of warranty! I have come to the conclusion it is the motherboard, but I have this suspision that Vista somehow took over and killed the motherboard!

[Tom Hintz]

Are you running the 64=bit edition? XP and Vista 32-bit have the same memory limitation basically. It is limited by the 32 bit memory addressing system so you basically get 4GB - videocard memory and memory addresses allocated to other resources. So upgrading from XP to Vista 32-bit has no advantage in regards to how much memory you can add in. The limits for how much memory addressed range between 2.5-3.5GB for both operating systems, depending on individual machine.

We run 32-bit. In XP we just could not get it to recognize over 2 gig of RAM, Vista sees 4 gig and that helped us a bunch. The video and sound cardzs freed up more physical memory also as well as processor loads. Processor tasking wasn't a big issue for me as we use all good dual core Intels but the video and sound cards have sped up the graphics computer noticeably and I suspect some of that is coming from lower processor loads overall and more available resources. Whatever is doing it, I like it a performance in heavy-duty photo and video work is way better these days.