Busting Vista Myths

[zorrt]

Can't you just change the interface of Vista to resemble XP? Turn off all the UAC and stuff? Thats what I did even if its not recommended I don't care its my personal computer. I still keep the aero theme though.

My first impression of Vista on a brand new ASUS laptop was this OS is a piece of crap! Crashes so often when I load Windows Explorer and start sharing files, moving files, copying files, browse network and it ran terribly slow. Was a core2 laptop too. Not too sure why it ran so bad nor was I willing to fix it up since it wasnt my laptop.

But recently I decided to give it a chance on my computer and it runs great, nothing near the experience I had with it on the laptop. I even find it more responsive than XP for some reason. Took me a couple of days to get used to it and a couple of weeks to sort out my overclocking issues but hey thats what I like doing with new things. Work out how to use them. I pretty much set up mine to look like XP with the aero theme, games runs fine on it too (except for bioshock, crashes when I change resolution).

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: fishjie

Originally posted by: BD2003
Truthfully, the Vista interface is so similar to XP, that if you actually need to retrain someone to use it, I'd have questioned why anyone would have hired them in the first place.

what's annoying is that with every new version of the OS, they make changes to the UI. yes, you can figure it out eventually, but the changes are stupid and pointless. the UI that existed before hand was just fine.

for example, I had learned how to use IIS just fine in XP, and then they went and switched the entire UI. i would argue that it is completely different and not similar at all. yeah, with enough experimenting i figured out how to do the stuff i already knew how to do, but it was a complete waste of time. the new UI accomplished nothing.

people grow accustomed to a UI and become optimized to use it and simply dont want to relearn it every single time.

well,you don't need a PhD to learn UI, everytime they try to make UI more productive so for the sake of saving future time, you have to make an effort- so it takes the same effort to install vista and get used to it. It's all about doing things without waiting and making man more lazy, thats why there is voice, speech, touch, search etc

 

[brencat]

Been running Vista 32 HP on my new build since early December and I love it. Seems to me (average tech skills at best) to be much more stable than XP was. Before I installed a single thing, I immediately turned off UAC, set the OS to notify me of available updates but not to download until I approve, downloaded all the hotfixes including the one for virtual memory addressing, and set folders to classic view.

Only after the above was completed did I install my games, music, and other stuff. I'm using a beta driver for my vid card (no stability issues). COD4 fully maxed with AA/AF @ 12 x 10, and Crysis all settings at High (not Very High) with 2x AA @ 12 x 10 both run terrific on my system.

I have to agree with the OP that Superfetch is probably the single biggest reason to go Vista. Other Aero effects like the window fade when you open/close are really slick too. I know some of you don't care about special effects. But as a moderate gamer and office apps user, I am more than satisfied and can't imagine ever going back to XP. I'll concede however, that having all new components and 3gb RAM certainly doesn't hurt either.

 

[soonerproud]

Sorry, had to take a hiatus and was unable to maintain this thread or reply to post. I will reply to some post tonight and will add more myths to bust.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: ChronoReverse
If you were only using the XP partition sure. There's no way Vista is worth using if you only have 512MB of RAM.

A technical user would be able to turn off enough services and features to make Vista run ok on 512 for light word processing and web browsing. Anything more than that and you will need a gig minimum.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: johnnyjohnson
This troll is not convinced. Vista is a dog as far as I'm concerned and I have tried it out extensively. I don't like being forced to do things the way Microsoft wants me to do them, and that is what Vista feels like as I try to do things in it.

Same exact arguments made against XP when it was released. If you don't like doing things the Microsoft way, then you should be using Linux or a BSD variant since you can custom build these operating systems to your exact desire. This is just not a legitimate argument against using Vista over XP and is actually off topic.

Originally posted by: johnnyjohnson
Besides the eye candy, it simply doesn't offer me a compelling reason to switch to it, plus it's slow. Benchmarks in the article about the 45nm Core Duo that Anandtech just posted show that XP is about 10% faster across the board over Vista. That is significant.

How about better security? That is a big reason to upgrade alone in today's world with identity theft being committed at epidemic levels. No matter how security conscious you are, you can still be a victim of identity theft and Vista makes it much harder for that to happen. (Not impossible, just much harder.) UAC, even with all the bad press, actually empowers the user by letting them know what is going on behind the scenes. Hackers will have a much harder time breaking into a Vista system without alerting the owner that something bad is happening.

If raw performance is the issue, then why are you using XP and not 2000, 98 or even DOS for that matter? I bet both 98 and DOS perform much more than 10% faster than XP.

Lets not forget the driver stack including the sound stack were moved to the user space to improve stability and security. These are both very damn good reason to take a 10% performance loss in some areas especially on production machines. Downtime is the number one problem IT faces and cost corporations (and individuals) far more that a slight performance hit.

Originally posted by: johnnyjohnson
I am using a custom slipstreamed pared down version of XP that weighs in under 300MB on the installer disk. Try that with Vista. I have my system tweaked for speed and it flies. No desire and no need to go to Vista. It's great news that XP will be supported for another 5 years.

Ever heard of Vlite?

 

[ChronoReverse]

Yes of course, but if you were running XP with 512MB, you'd have a lot more wriggle room.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: johnnyjohnson
Someone else made the obvious point that we should be using whatever OS works best for us and not get into OS debates. But the debates are here as evidenced by the fact that this thread was started in the first place. XP is the OS I prefer at the moment because it does everything that I need it to do and it does so with speed. In a few years it's quite possible I might decide to migrate to Vista. But for now? No Vista for me.

This thread was not started to debate a thing. It was started to inform less technical users on the realities of Vista and to show that much of what is on the internet is uniformed or just plain wrong.

Personally, I think people should use what works for them. If that is XP, then that is great and I fully support them. However, many of these people feel the need to spread FUD about Vista to keep others from moving to it. This thread was started to counter those people and help those seeking information make an informed decision.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Some good info here, but I'd still like to point out that for many people, XP SP2 is still a better fit.

The other thing is many corporations and institutions are unwilling to make the switch to Vista until at least SP1... my university IT dept refuses to run Vista because it does not have all the issues ironed out, and driver and application support are still lacking. We do have a test lab here with Vista/Linux dual boots though.

Especially with older or slower hardware. Companies tend to upgrade in cycles and may actually skip an operating system upgrade. XP would have been skipped by most in the corporate world had Microsoft delivered vista two to three years sooner than it did.

 

[taltamir]

Very good article. I would say that while its possible to run XP on 512MB and vista on 1GB, SIGNFICANT gains can be made to overall performance by going 1GB on XP and 2GB on vista. With modern programs and games I would recommend 4GB for both today. but back in the day 2GB was "enough" for XP and 4GB "enough" for vista (IE, upgrading beyond that rarely makes sense)..

However EVERY person, regardless of what their usage is, will see a huge speed improvement by using 2GB in vista over 1GB. And I would consider 2GB a minimum.

Other then that, good post.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: KeypoX

While i do not agree with the op i think you can find any comment you want on the internet. The truth is that vista is slower PERIOD. but it prefer it, it looks better and searches better. And time in ms is to insignificant for me to notice. LOL $300 video card fckin top of the line video card is only $200 (8800gt)

I never said Vista was as fast or faster than XP in everything. In some cases it is slower than XP, but it is not enough to warrant the reaction it seems to be getting. The improvements outweigh any minor loss of performance over XP.

(The file copy issue is a bug that is being fixed in SP1 for the most part.)

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: fishjie
what's annoying is that with every new version of the OS, they make changes to the UI. yes, you can figure it out eventually, but the changes are stupid and pointless. the UI that existed before hand was just fine.

for example, I had learned how to use IIS just fine in XP, and then they went and switched the entire UI. i would argue that it is completely different and not similar at all. yeah, with enough experimenting i figured out how to do the stuff i already knew how to do, but it was a complete waste of time. the new UI accomplished nothing.

people grow accustomed to a UI and become optimized to use it and simply dont want to relearn it every single time.

This is probably the number one reason people hate Vista. It takes some time to get used to change and Vista made some big ones all over the place. Once you get used to these changes, using Vista actually is a pleasant experience.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: taltamir
Very good article. I would say that while its possible to run XP on 512MB and vista on 1GB, SIGNFICANT gains can be made to overall performance by going 1GB on XP and 2GB on vista. With modern programs and games I would recommend 4GB for both today. but back in the day 2GB was "enough" for XP and 4GB "enough" for vista (IE, upgrading beyond that rarely makes sense)..

However EVERY person, regardless of what their usage is, will see a huge speed improvement by using 2GB in vista over 1GB. And I would consider 2GB a minimum.

Other then that, good post.

I will update the first page to offer that advice. Thanks for the compliment. :beer:

 

[phexac]

Good post. I have been using Vista since day 1 (literally ordered the DVD on the day of release) and I have honestly not run into any issues with it.

 

[Cl1ckm3]

some of you need to look at what your getting out of box. things like drivers and 3rd party apps do not apply here when it comes to discussing differences between OS's and price comparisons.

xp is 7 years old, you need a driver "floppy mind you" disk in specific instances just to install the OS.
xp has has no real memory management, very few built in apps by comparison but most of all is the most un-secure OS in existance

Vista has alot of built in drivers and support for more hardware than xp could dream of.
game benchmark differences are within 5 fps. Nvidia has already made numerous claims about this and how much more difficult vista was to write drivers for and will take a while before they can tackle performance. took them 6 months just to release a stable driver and ATI is in the same boat.

i think the real issue is some people are just upset that their still stuck using XP cause vista doesnt offer what they specifically desire so they claim XP is the best despite they obviously want something else, otherwise why would they try out vista to begin with?

 

[mooseracing]

Wow this thread is full of so much love. Xp is awesome, vista blows, wait no Xp blows, Vista is king. Everyones comments need to be taken with a grain of salt. Use what works for you and stop spreading crappy rumors.

In my case Vista x64 has slowed things down, compared to even my old fragemented XP x64. But I will admit Vista x64 has had better driver support out of the box.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: KeypoX

While i do not agree with the op i think you can find any comment you want on the internet. The truth is that vista is slower PERIOD. but it prefer it, it looks better and searches better. And time in ms is to insignificant for me to notice. LOL $300 video card fckin top of the line video card is only $200 (8800gt)

I never said Vista was as fast or faster than XP in everything. In some cases it is slower than XP, but it is not enough to warrant the reaction it seems to be getting. The improvements outweigh any minor loss of performance over XP.

(The file copy issue is a bug that is being fixed in SP1 for the most part.)

Actually there was a hotfix released in Dec independent of SP1

 

[Nothinman]

xp has has no real memory management, very few built in apps by comparison but most of all is the most un-secure OS in existance

That is so wrong it's not even funny.

XP's memory management is very close to that of Vista, the main difference is that SuperFetch (which is a userland thing anyway) preloads data into memory instead of waiting for you to request the file and caching it then.

I admit my time with Vista was short but as I remember it there wasn't exactly a plethora of included software either. Sure there was more than came with XP but not by much.

Security in XP is fine for the most part. Vista adds some more layers to protect users from themselves but in the end the security of the machine is determined by the person sitting at the helm.

Vista has alot of built in drivers and support for more hardware than xp could dream of.

And in 2 years it'll all be out-dated just like XP is now. The whole point is a non-argument because the newest OS will always have better support for hardware released around the same time.

otherwise why would they try out vista to begin with?

Because it's the newest release and that's what people do with new releases?

 

[flexy]

your posting suggests, with that nice term "vista ready", that 1GB is good to go.

You forgot just something essential: USUALLY people do NOT only "use vista", but they also want to game and use applications.

Much fun playing Gothic III, Crysis or most of the other recent games with 1GB in Vista

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: flexy
your posting suggests, with that nice term "vista ready", that 1GB is good to go.

You forgot just something essential: USUALLY people do NOT only "use vista", but they also want to game and use applications.

Much fun playing Gothic III, Crysis or most of the other recent games with 1GB in Vista

You see, most people don't game or do the memory intensive type things those of us on this forum are used to doing with our PC's. RAM is very cheap, and there is no good reason not to run 2Gigs. However, if someone is just surfing the net and doing word processing, 1 Gig is more than enough to have a decent experience with Vista.

 

[Cl1ckm3]

Originally posted by: Nothinman[/i]

XP's memory management is very close to that of Vista, the main difference is that SuperFetch (which is a userland thing anyway) preloads data into memory instead of waiting for you to request the file and caching it then.

so you said what i just did...what was the point of rewording it? vista has THE memory managment system that performs. XP, not so much, how they work is completely irrelevant isnt it.
that is the difference that we both of us just spoke of, why you try to disagree with what you already agreed to i'll never know.

I admit my time with Vista was short

*gasp* the heck you say. i never wouldve guessed.

Security in XP is fine for the most part.

LMAO. it only has more malware written specifically for it than any OS in history. out of box it has 0 security.Pcworld even mentioned what others have proven by demostration that xp out of box only lasts about 20 minutes online on average out of 50 results before the average user hitting random sites crosses malware.... good job on your well thought out opinion.

And in 2 years it'll all be out-dated just like XP is now. The whole point is a non-argument because the newest OS will always have better support for hardware released around the same time.

you successfully mirrored my point. that out of box it includes more support good job, you get a cookie
where you failed however is to realize that the present time is all the matters.

Because it's the newest release and that's what people do with new releases?

ONLY if your looking for something and only enthusiasts do that with new releases.