I got vista for free so... meh
It works great on my machine, and I prefer it over XP.
I understand why some people dislike vista... some people don't want/have time to learn a new OS.
Win 95/98/ME/2000/XP were pretty similar compared to Vista which is a bit different.

I agree Mussels, the other argument that I see is that Vista uses a lot of RAM.
That is interesting, as one has to wonder exactly why you have RAM.
An operating system that makes use of your RAM is a good thing in my eyes.
What is the point of having 4GB of RAM and the OS only uses 400MB ?
Vista happily releases anything it put in RAM that it is not using when you load up something that requires a large amount of RAM.
Personally, I want my system to use the hardware I bought.

well to be honest my rams a lot faster than my HDD, so yeah... i prefer my OS to be loaded into ram.

you kinda cant argue with that...

Musselsthe only rational arguments that have come up so far, is that systems with 1GB of ram or less shouldnt use vista.

so far, no one else has had anything else to offer in argument of XP over vista. To be honest i agree - if your rig is so old that you only have 1GB of ram, stay the hell away from vista. its a great OS, but its not for old rigs like that.

before people complain that they dont want to buy more ram... well i'd never game on XP with 1GB again either, lol.

You have to think that there's no argument of Vista over XP either, which is the point. For most of the people, it's not deciding between new XP or Vista, is stick to XP or shell out the money for an OS that is still not better than what they already have. I read somewhere more than 90% of houses in the US and more than 80% in EU have a PC, so the market is narrower. Add to that the growing percentage of people that know how to upgrade and do upgrade their hardware (versus buying a complete new one) and the fact that the rest of people are heading towards cheaper PCs like Asus Eee. That means that there's fewer people that would require to buy a brand new OS. That leaves only the posibility of an upgrade from XP. That's the truth for anyone that I know personally. And the fact is that right now Vista is not an upgrade for anyone with XP. We have just one more factor, and that is that XP is the Windows that lasted more, so much that most of the PCs out there now are running XP or at least Win 2000. That was not the case with previous versions, any comparison between Vista and previous releases is pointless. Growth base was a lot bigger, price difference smaller and the dominant hardware was faster when compared to high-end than today. Vista could only be a success if it offered something that was a lot better than XP, when in reality has been totally the contrary for too long. Expecting to sell an OS that is struggling to compete with the OS it is supposed to replace is naive at best. In that situation Vista is been trying to keep up with XP rather than improving over it. Even right now is not better enough to worth an upgrade except for most enthusiast people, and not for all of them. How could it be good for Average Joe then?

EDIT: And the RAM argument you guys are using is not valid IMO. Just because we can have more RAM and current aplications don't use it we need an OS to waste it? Obviously no, wasting memory is not using it, it's better to just leave it unused. Vista uses a lot more RAM and I haven't seen any benefit on my laptop. That only means it is using more RAM for nothing. With 4GB probably it doesn't matter, with 2GB it does, and honestly how many people have 4GB of RAM nowadays. Don't start looking in these forums, obviously a lot will have...

DarkMatterYou have to think that there's no argument of Vista over XP either, which is the point. For most of the people, it's not deciding between new XP or Vista, is stick to XP or shell out the money for an OS that is still not better than what they already have. I read somewhere more than 90% of houses in the US and more than 80% in EU have a PC, so the market is narrower. Add to that the growing percentage of people that know how to upgrade and do upgrade their hardware (versus buying a complete new one) and the fact that the rest of people are heading towards cheaper PCs like Asus Eee. That means that there's fewer people that would require to buy a brand new OS. That leaves only the posibility of an upgrade from XP. That's the truth for anyone that I know personally. And the fact is that right now Vista is not an upgrade for anyone with XP. We have just one more factor, and that is that XP is the Windows that lasted more, so much that most of the PCs out there now are running XP or at least Win 2000. That was not the case with previous versions, any comparison between Vista and previous releases is pointless. Growth base was a lot bigger, price difference smaller and the dominant hardware was faster when compared to high-end than today. Vista could only be a success if it offered something that was a lot better than XP, when in reality has been totally the contrary for too long. Expecting to sell an OS that is struggling to compete with the OS it is supposed to replace is naive at best. In that situation Vista is been trying to keep up with XP rather than improving over it. Even right now is not better enough to worth an upgrade except for most enthusiast people, and not for all of them. How could it be good for Average Joe then?

Good points. Vista I think is a better OS than xp, but to the average Joe there isn't much reason to upgrade, aside from MCE and DX10 if gaming. Snazzier and more powerful interface isn't enough reason to pay to upgrade. But it's gotten to the point that people who are buying completely new machines don't even want vista b/c it's gotten so much bad press. And that should be quelled b/c for home use it IS better, especially w/ a new machines hardware. Upgrading though, maybe not so much.

DarkMatterEDIT: And the RAM argument you guys are using is not valid IMO. Just because we can have more RAM and current aplications don't use it we need an OS to waste it? Obviously no, wasting memory is not using it, it's better to just leave it unused. Vista uses a lot more RAM and I haven't seen any benefit on my laptop. That only means it is using more RAM for nothing. With 4GB probably it doesn't matter, with 2GB it does, and honestly how many people have 4GB of RAM nowadays. Don't start looking in these forums, obviously a lot will have...

The OS does use it, it doesn't just waste it. Try using vista on 2gb and then 4gb. The os uses different amounts for the different amounts of ram it has accessible, and it's noticeable. Vista is more powerful, and it does require more hardware, and it does it well. Standard today is 2gb. Most machines bought in the last year or so that wasn't on the super cheap will have 2gb. And that will run vista fine, but 4gb does it better. So I can't see how you can say the OS doesn't use it. You can't compare it to xp, it is different.

farlex85Good points. Vista I think is a better OS than xp, but to the average Joe there isn't much reason to upgrade, aside from MCE and DX10 if gaming. Snazzier and more powerful interface isn't enough reason to pay to upgrade. But it's gotten to the point that people who are buying completely new machines don't even want vista b/c it's gotten so much bad press. And that should be quelled b/c for home use it IS better, especially w/ a new machines hardware. Upgrading though, maybe not so much.

Yep, I agree with ya man.

If you have an old rig with XP on it, might as well leave it...if you have access to try Vista, then you should do just that, TRY IT. I wish more people could or would try Vista on their PC before spending money on it, just like XP, Linux, Mac, or whatever else, Vista isn't for everyone, nor will it ever be, Windows 7 will be the same way, it'll be improved for some stuff, may even have some revolutionary stuff, but it won't be for everyone.

I find Vista better for what I do, but I could do almost everything I do on XP 32/64 except for DX10 gaming which has slightly grown on me now that there's at least a small library of games and demos out there that utilize at least a portion of DX10. Vista x64 has impressed me greatly in how quick and stable it is, and trust me I've had plenty of good and bad in Vista, XP, and earlier. It's just part of the cycle I suppose.

yes i wont suggest EVERYONE to go to it. everyone with a NEW system (as in buying a new rig or getting a major upgrade) should consider it, but the people with working rigs shouldnt really bother.

its true that vists uses different amounts of ram. it tends to use 33% of your ram (40% on 1GB at most) and uses the rest for superfetch.

Evolution of a OS is at times painful for everyone. What do you think happens with all the hardware that is out of date in a matter of months in some cases. It goes into making cheap systems. Something that OEM's need to do to make a profit and not suffer a loss, to stay in business. So XP still lives in these machines because Vista is a resource hog. Vista and XP have there place. MS understood this and gave OEM's an extension using XP for those systems. What MS should have done is figure out a OS that compliments both poles...a unified OS that can be loaded into any computer. I still run XP and read and listen to users that use Vista, I am not impressed either way but logically stay with XP for now because it suits my needs. I am also pissed that MS won't write a compatible DX 10 for XP. But as I said evolution of a OS is painful for everyone. Lets hope that MS simplifies the next time around.

Are those XP users just the general public though? I've used Vista, with SP1 no less, and I still think it sucks. Vista looks "pretty", beyond that, what does it really offer XP cant already do? Nothing.

i have not used a non Aero machine, so i don't know how "windows Vista capable" machine would handle. I have used a core 2 machines with onboard video and 1gb of memory and Vista with Aero isn't so quick with lower end machines, so i'm skeptical how Vista Basic would even do. That said, there in lies the one of the issues, we shouldn't have to upgrade our hardware just to run an OS, and that is how every company feels currently, especially the jump in upgrade, its not a slight one. Also, Microsoft bug team are its end users. I've used free OS's with less bugs/problems at launch. Its just crazy that the money Microsoft makes and then they release their new OS and it has a a lot of problems?? why?? Yeah, they are all pretty much fixed now, but Vista was also suppose to be so much more than it is. Its more secure than XP, yeah, but now supremely, which it was suppose to be. In this situation i feel Microsoft is just learning a little lesson, they can't just push whatever they want onto the people.

DarkMatterNo it doesn't. If I had to conclude that it does, at the same I'd have to conclude that for example, Nvidia's GT200 are worth a lot over Ati's HD4000 series too, which I'm not inclined to believe. No, seriously, Vista does not offer anything worth $20 (pff even $5) over XP (at least up until now), except "futureproofing". :roll:

Don't worry, I already have Vista on my laptop, so I will continue testing it over the time, and I'll upgrade my main system when it is worth it. Unless windows 7 is close and it really is an upgrade...

I have to admit, anyway, that I wasn't very informed of the prices of the OS's now. Vista has come down a lot. But I can tell you something, Win XP here in Spain (I can't talk about the rest of the world) is a lot more expensive (that means €25-50) than 6 months ago, which IMHO is intriguing...

Hell it's more expensive than when I bought it back in 2003!!!!

are you aware of whats been done under the surface?

The Kernal mode access was restricted which restricts what a virus can do and helps system stabilty.

The new network protocols provide increased protection, granted these are also in SP3.

The WDDM driver model talks to directX and all drivers have to uniformly conform to the standard to be used, meaning some of those devices that caused problems with XP because there was lee way in the WDM program model are not present in WDDM because of the stictness of the driver protocols and drivers are less likly to cause system failures

there are some of the features in Vista you don't see but are there and actully help to make the system more stable

yogurt_21there's more than the cost of the disk that factors into it being double I can run windows xp on a 10 year old rig without issue, I can't with vista, theres no getting around the fact that vista needs a better rig to run nice vs windows xp. so when joe blow with his pentium 3 decides between the two, what do you think he's going to pick? it's the same with the athlon xp users pentium 4 users and even early athlon 64 users. they will simply run faster on xp. no that's not opinion, that's fact.

so bein that 90% of people have those cpu's or older in their rigs, you can see why those same 90% didn't think vista was so bad when used on decent hardware. which is exactly the point, joe blow can't afford or doesn't care enough to upgrade his rig to run vista.

vista isn't the worst os put out, (it's not the best either) but it requires more from hardware which in the end always takes a while to get adopted.

yea you can SP0 and SP1 i have XP SP2 on a P3 800 with 256mb of ram and its sluggish this was the normal machine 8 years ago, sure XP will work on any 233mhz Pentium1 with 128mb of ram but does that mean it preforms right if thats your argument though, then Vista can be run on any 8yr old computer. Vista will install and operate on a P3 800, 512mb of ram and a TNT2 i know i tried vista on my P3. You dont get most of the eye candy and its slow but its like running XP on a 10yr old PII 400 computer

KreijI like this civil discussion without anyone going off and being as asshat. We are here to discuss, not to trash.

The recommended reqs of Vista is a 1Ghz processor and 512MB of RAM.
This is interesting as the Pentium 3 ranged from about 600Mhz to 1.4 Ghz.
We all know that a system with a P3 is not going to run Vista worth a crap.

I think that MS should have been a little more specific in their specs about Vista, and perhaps should have been a little tighter on the specs (like minimum P4?).

Just some casual observations.

well no actully i got it up on a P3 800 and after tweaking its decently fast actully, set theme to classic, disable visual effects, disable indexing. This free's up alot actully.

candle_86are you aware of whats been done under the surface?

The Kernal mode access was restricted which restricts what a virus can do and helps system stabilty.

The new network protocols provide increased protection, granted these are also in SP3.

The WDDM driver model talks to directX and all drivers have to uniformly conform to the standard to be used, meaning some of those devices that caused problems with XP because there was lee way in the WDM program model are not present in WDDM because of the stictness of the driver protocols and drivers are less likly to cause system failures

there are some of the features in Vista you don't see but are there and actully help to make the system more stable

I knew about those things, not deeply, but I heard of them. In theory they make it more stable, but in practice, that's another thing. Everyone has his own experience with Vista I suppose, and mine is not being very good on my laptop as of now. Maybe it's just because is a laptop (it's my first one), but I have XP SP3 on it too and does a far better job. Under Vista I had many program crashes, granted the consecuencies are smaller and no BSODs, but there's still the fact that they crash. Maybe the programs are a bit old and newer versions work without a flaw, but I shouldn't have to upgrade them because of Vista.

Which leads me to the next issue. I must admit it could be all dogma (as in btarunr's post), but I have seen some people reporting that some of their devices stopped working (properly) under Vista. I don't know if this is because of WDDM, but my router doesn't work well, it doesn't find automatically my wifi router under Vista. Again, I shouldn't (me as an Average Joe) have to upgrade to have a working device.

Those are problems, even if you don't want to see them, because they won't affect you. Vista has many problems with older hardware/software (and probably unknown brands at all) and even if this doesn't make a difference for you or enthusiasts in general, it is a big problem for many people. Even though those programs that failed to me are not very important and I could pass without them, but that's not the point. Vista is only good if you have everything new, otherwise you can encounter many problems. SP1 has fixed a lot of them, but there are a lot left yet.

But those issues aside, I know Vista has a lot of things under the hood and I never questioned if they were better. I have always defended Crysis and it's exactly in the same circunstances. But I do question them NOW. For the average PC Vista is not good. It can run on 2GB but not as well as XP, not when you start opening programs, I can assure you, and same goes for the CPU and everything. Should anyone buying an OEM PC get Vista? Sure, I never said otherwise, I said I myself, back when I bought my laptop (before SP1) I'd have taken XP if I could and if they returned the price difference. If you can have both XP or Vista for the same price, the election is clear. But I reafirm myself that anyone doing an upgrade, having to pay the full price for Vista, is not worth it, and many many people that only want the PC for mailing and web browsing paying anything more doesn't make sense either. Also many small bussinesses, organissms, etc... And forget about Linux, those people don't know and don't want to deal with it, then XP being the next cheaper option is the best for them. That's more than half the users and that's why Vista didn't sell as much, everything else is excuses.

KetxxxAre those XP users just the general public though? I've used Vista, with SP1 no less, and I still think it sucks. Vista looks "pretty", beyond that, what does it really offer XP cant already do? Nothing.

There's alot of things going on in the background that you don't notice, like it automatically defragments when idle and it introduces new cryptography standards as well. Also it builds on voice recognition and touch screen although they only touched on it. There's probably tons of things but I can't remember it all.

so what about ReactOS?

I hooked up a 6 year old printer to my vista machine and it worked.
Vista already had the drivers for the printer.
Tons of people don't know about compatibility mode for programs either...

the only thing i dont like is the fact that MS went to the idea of making every driver available on the HD, im sorry but i dont need all those drivers on my system wasting space, id rather have them ask to insert the Windows CD, that or allow option to place all drivers from the CD onto the HD.

eidairaman1the only thing i dont like is the fact that MS went to the idea of making every driver available on the HD, im sorry but i dont need all those drivers on my system wasting space, id rather have them ask to insert the Windows CD, that or allow option to place all drivers from the CD onto the HD.

I do agree there, but I see why they did it that way...people just expect to hook things up and at least have a base driver if not a correct driver (albiet maybe not the most up to date, but at least it's signed right? :D )...I think during installation they should give that as an option, sure on pre-built stuff put the whole shooting match on the HDD...but for system builders, they should give you options before install, basic drivers to ensure stability and usability to get newer drivers after install would be kinda nice to have and it would save on HDD space, but with massive HDD's getting cheaper every day now it seems, this really shouldn't be that huge of an issue in all reality.

:toast:

KursahI do agree there, but I see why they did it that way...people just expect to hook things up and at least have a base driver if not a correct driver (albiet maybe not the most up to date, but at least it's signed right? :D )...I think during installation they should give that as an option, sure on pre-built stuff put the whole shooting match on the HDD...but for system builders, they should give you options before install, basic drivers to ensure stability and usability to get newer drivers after install would be kinda nice to have and it would save on HDD space, but with massive HDD's getting cheaper every day now it seems, this really shouldn't be that huge of an issue in all reality.

:toast:

despite the drives getting bigger you still lose that space for more Movies/Games/Pictures/Music.

I totally agree, which is why I said they should allow the option before hitting Install. Would be very cool of MS to allow this option to system builders and those capable of installing an OS and know what they want and don't. :D

But, hell I have a single 640GB drive, 30GB is an OS partion, which still has almost 7GB free after page-file, some programs and Vista...then I have the rest of my drives, which has a backup of my G/F's stuff, my stuff and I still have about 200GB free last I checked! I don't forsee MS OS's getting any smaller, they never have in the past...so it's something we'll have to adjust to, it's part of the whole making things work for people that don't know what they're doing that stings the rest of us a tad...I'm sure you could use vLite like others have and remove the stuff like drivers you don't want. I've contemplated it, but since my OS partition isn't getting any fuller, and the OS runs so well I don't mind.

:toast:

KursahI totally agree, which is why I said they should allow the option before hitting Install. Would be very cool of MS to allow this option to system builders and those capable of installing an OS and know what they want and don't. :D

But, hell I have a single 640GB drive, 30GB is an OS partion, which still has almost 7GB free after page-file, some programs and Vista...then I have the rest of my drives, which has a backup of my G/F's stuff, my stuff and I still have about 200GB free last I checked! I don't forsee MS OS's getting any smaller, they never have in the past...so it's something we'll have to adjust to, it's part of the whole making things work for people that don't know what they're doing that stings the rest of us a tad...I'm sure you could use vLite like others have and remove the stuff like drivers you don't want. I've contemplated it, but since my OS partition isn't getting any fuller, and the OS runs so well I don't mind.

:toast:

Yup until one of the better Builds of Linux goes Commercial, or ReactOS/

KursahI totally agree, which is why I said they should allow the option before hitting Install. Would be very cool of MS to allow this option to system builders and those capable of installing an OS and know what they want and don't. :D

But, hell I have a single 640GB drive, 30GB is an OS partion, which still has almost 7GB free after page-file, some programs and Vista...then I have the rest of my drives, which has a backup of my G/F's stuff, my stuff and I still have about 200GB free last I checked! I don't forsee MS OS's getting any smaller, they never have in the past...so it's something we'll have to adjust to, it's part of the whole making things work for people that don't know what they're doing that stings the rest of us a tad...I'm sure you could use vLite like others have and remove the stuff like drivers you don't want. I've contemplated it, but since my OS partition isn't getting any fuller, and the OS runs so well I don't mind.

:toast:

you can always delete the drivers.cab file, i usally do

On my lappy, Vista 32 SP1 runs and looks like a purring kitty, when I tried Vista 32 as soon as he came out on my desktop... can you say: Games have half of the frames compared with Windows XP. But SP1 for Vista brought some stability, so I believe that in some years, Vista will become mainstream.