XP vs Vista

[mipoikel]

Originally posted by Kev367th
I'm still with Win 2000 (as is the companies who's network I support) , would only ever goto XP or Vista kicking and screaming.

I didnt say XP is everywhere. I know companies who still use NT.

[Edbert1]

Okay guys, I am with you on there not being a compelling reason to switch to Vista at this time. But are you serious that you think W9x or NT4/W2K are superior in any way other than running on 32MB sub-200MhZ systems?

XP is every bit as stable as Windows 2000, and it provides security and flexibility that 9x could never have dreamed of. To me none of those other OS'es provide any benefit over XP other than lower footprint/resource consumption.

[Kev367th]

Gotta disagree Edbert -

Windows 2000 is a much more mature, stable, and secure system than XP is.
All XP has going for it - it looks pretty, and thats its major problem also. All the extra crap put into XP is what causes the problems.

Or the fact that MS did some major tinkering with the 2000 kernal for XP, look at the dual core problems on XP, they don't exist on 2000.

But Uncle Bill can't resist tinkering and releasing a new OS every couple of years just to fill his pockets even more.

By the time they drop support for 2000 (cringe), I would expect XP to be as good as 2000 is now.

[Stone]

I can see it now HTC OS 1.1

Boot the PC from the CD and run the game from there

Too bad there is no game support on Linux that HTC can use

Stupid no fun penguing

But I guess in 2-3 years we are all on Vista, so poor Bill dont run out of money.

[Brenjen]

My retail XP home is less bloated than my Dell OEM installed XP pro (of course) & therefore works better...but my XP pro is not bad really, it has a little hiccup now & then, nothing serious.

 My 98 & 98SE were no better & in fact my XP home version on the machine I'm using at the moment is better than they were. Both my 98 versions would lock up now & again, allthough the 98SE was the better of the two.

 Now in my definition "bad" was ME...my god that OS was the worst! I have a P/c sitting at my feet right now that uses ME...or locks up continually trying to use ME, I've been thinking of playing with the OS, maybe installing a free one like Xandros or whatever it's called.

[Edbert1]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Gotta disagree Edbert -

No problem, we can agree to disagree, it's all good

Originally posted by Kev367th

Windows 2000 is a much more mature, stable, and secure system than XP is.
All XP has going for it - it looks pretty, and thats its major problem also. All the extra crap put into XP is what causes the problems.

If by mature you mean older, well, of course it is. I have never had any stability problems with XP, I support almost 500 workstations all running Pro and have no problems with it whatsoever. I give much of that credit to my skills though...LOL. Outside of the OS, 3rd party drivers and software can cause issues, but that is true with any OS though. Security-wise I'd say they are about equal, what is there about W2K that you see as superior in that department?

But you can add the game support that W2K doesn't have. Disclaimer...last time I compared XP to W2K there was poor graphics and DX support for the older OS, so XP gave better frame rates, I do not know if M$ has closed that gap since W2K-SP2 or not, but if they did I'd wonder why.

Originally posted by Kev367th

Or the fact that MS did some major tinkering with the 2000 kernal for XP, look at the dual core problems on XP, they don't exist on 2000.

No comment, I've never run XP on a dual-core chip, it works well with x64 though, can W2K do that (honest question, I've never tried)?

Originally posted by Kev367th

But Uncle Bill can't resist tinkering and releasing a new OS every couple of years just to fill his pockets even more.

No argument at all from me there I saw XP as a real improvement, merging the best of 9x (speed and gaming) with the best of W2K (stability and security). Vista is just there for the reasons you mentioned IMO.

Originally posted by Kev367th

By the time they drop support for 2000 (cringe), I would expect XP to be as good as 2000 is now.

I say we are there already.

Stone...We can dream can't we? If "tEh p3ngU1N" ever supported gaming I'd be there in a heartbeat!

[Krusty]

I have to say this:

I used Win98SE for a long long time. I loved it. It was better than 95, WAY better than ME, but when XP came out, and I made the switch -- I wasn't going back. With 98 when the system crashed, it crashed. It stayed there. You have to hard boot because you couldn't even shut down (no explorer listed in the task manager).

With XP, it catches 90% of all crashes before they happen, it doesn't crash. On the odd occasion that it DOES crash, it restarts explorer in the task manager and you may continue from there.

In all the many years using Win98SE I rarely got a BSD, and when I did it was my fault (installing/running questionable drivers, bad software, etc). I don't think I've ever gotten a BSD in XP, ever, since I've been using it.

Keep in mind I'm using XP Pro, a retail copy (not a pre-packaged "BloatWare (TM)").

XP was way way more stable than 98SE in general. I had to go through more hoops to set XP up the way I like, but its possible. Also, now that I have upgraded and have a lot more RAM (from my 98SE days) I'm glad I've got XP. 98SE doesn't handle large amounts of RAM so well. XP does (up to a limit).

So there's no benefit to running 98SE if you have XP. XP is better in several categories, including stability and memory. The ONLY reason to run 98SE is games. To me that's not a valid reason to choose your version of Windows.

As with all the other comments about 98/XP, mine are subjective, but I have a lot of first hand experience with both OSes, and XP is better in my book.

[Roscoroo]

the problem w/ 98se is most people dont know about the unofficial service packs or how to tweek the memory settings ect in it so as its ran on newer hardware it becomes buggy , along with the fact that it needs 40 gb partitions to work best ..  Besides that its a really good OS ... but was left out on the porch when xp came out .

w2k pro has all the goodies needed to run the xp only games without the bloatware .. it still lets you add your own security and other goods .very stable os , even on small machines .

xp well to me it feels like the goverment is spying on me ,,, and MS is trying to take over my pc and demand i only use there crud. The reason its not seaming /erroring as much anymore is that pc power has more then tripled since it 1st came out .

Vista is truly turning into the King of Bloatware ,, along with the fact that it needs to Frelling "Think" for 10 mins befor it does anything .

MS is living off there heyday from the beginning and most of there employees are just there to collect a paycheck these days ...


As I said I'm really looking forward to what Google is working on currently for a new OS  ...

And now as Paul Harvey would say  " Good-----Daaaaay"

[Nemeth]

oops thought it said system requirements... skiming + tiredness = bad reading...

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Edbert1
No problem, we can agree to disagree, it's all good

 
If by mature you mean older, well, of course it is. I have never had any stability problems with XP, I support almost 500 workstations all running Pro and have no problems with it whatsoever. I give much of that credit to my skills though...LOL. Outside of the OS, 3rd party drivers and software can cause issues, but that is true with any OS though. Security-wise I'd say they are about equal, what is there about W2K that you see as superior in that department?

But you can add the game support that W2K doesn't have. Disclaimer...last time I compared XP to W2K there was poor graphics and DX support for the older OS, so XP gave better frame rates, I do not know if M$ has closed that gap since W2K-SP2 or not, but if they did I'd wonder why.

 
No comment, I've never run XP on a dual-core chip, it works well with x64 though, can W2K do that (honest question, I've never tried)?

 
No argument at all from me there I saw XP as a real improvement, merging the best of 9x (speed and gaming) with the best of W2K (stability and security). Vista is just there for the reasons you mentioned IMO.

 
I say we are there already.

Stone...We can dream can't we? If "tEh p3ngU1N" ever supported gaming I'd be there in a heartbeat!

Security wise - If they are still finding security holes in Win 2000 after 4-5 years, you can bet there are a lot more 'undiscovered' ones in XP.

Graphics - 2000 runs DX9c just like XP, but yup there is usually a small increase in frame rates in XP, and I mean small.

Dual core - Running 2000 on an AMD 4400X2 dual core, no problems. In fact it seems to be the only OS with an AMD dual core that runs AH2 flawlessly. All due to MS tinkering with the thread handler in XP.

[Nemeth]

Originally posted by Krusty
With XP, it catches 90% of all crashes before they happen, it doesn't crash. On the odd occasion that it DOES crash, it restarts explorer in the task manager and you may continue from there.

Ive crashed XP more than i have 98SE (cept on r crap P2/3's @ school that havnt been defragged in 3 yrs)
I liked 98SE alot better than XP, even thou it cant have as good specs, ive never had FR issues w/ games like i have in XP

[MrRiplEy[H]]

I tried installing Windows95 on new hardware once. It was flying on crack! Unbelievable speed into all desktop tasks you could imagine.

Unfortunately it crashed with the same speed with driver support no longer available for the chipset I had back then (nforce1).

But if it wouldn't have crashed..

[Roscoroo]

vista and laptops

here ya go ... more headaches from M$ Bloatware .

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/windows/0,39020396,39272583,00.htm

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Well, here are the offical minimum requirements for Vista.  MS posted them today.

================================
- 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor.
- 1 GB of system memory.
- A graphics processor that runs Windows Aero.
- 128 MB of graphics memory.
- 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
- DVD-ROM Drive.
- Audio output capability.
- Internet access capability.
================================

Keep in mind, 1GB of system RAM is just for the OS.  If you plan on running anything, you will need much more RAM.  Every application will grow as the API is highly bloated.  What takes 20MB of RAM now, will take about 35MB of RAM.

wow.  They are gonna requirement themselves out of business!

[smash]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Gotta disagree Edbert -

Windows 2000 is a much more mature, stable, and secure system than XP is.
All XP has going for it - it looks pretty, and thats its major problem also. All the extra crap put into XP is what causes the problems.
 

I switched to XP with this new machine, and I dislike it.  Its unstable at times and just feels flakey.  I hate to switch back to Win2K at this point, but I think about it daily.