Windows To Vista, or not to Vista..

So, I've always shyed away from Vista as in my experience it runs like a dog, is unreliable, and is clunky.

Is this still the case? Going to be building a newer, faster pc (as per my previous posts), should I bite the bullet and put Vista onto it? For everyday use XP is perfect (Well, I use Slackware Linux actually, and XP if I need microsoft office for my studies, or games), but what's the deal with newer games and requiring Vista?

Quick one-liner of the pros and cons I may have missed is just what I'm looking for I'm talking about dual/triple booting really, as I'll never run a system on vista alone.

 

I have 64-bit Vista and XP on dual boot. Because I have such a backlog of games that I haven't played yet (still unopened), I've pretty much stuck with XP. However, when I do get a newer game, I will be glad to try it out on Vista.

 

I have had no issues with Vista at all. I know prefer it to XP.

 

fixed

+1 As a general rule of thumb, if its a new pc/new hardware, go vista, if its old(2-3years+), stick with xp.

 

Cool, so basically a triple boot sounds the best - I'll continue using linux for everyday use, xp for older games, and vista for newer games... Easy as that eh

Lots of people seem run x64 Vista - considering my build will be all new hardware, is x64 the way to go as 64-bit support shouldn't be so much of a hurdle?

 

Vista 64 is the way to go. Simply because it works better out of the box than Xp, looks better and generally feels better to use.

 

Forget MS, get OpenOffice (opens MS Office files) and CSGames for gaming then just have a single-boot Linux machine and live happily ever after.

 

Pretty much the opposite here, I started like this but now just have XP on a tiny partition for when I can't get a game working, to date the only one that hasn't worked in the end of my collection is Fahrenheit. TBH I will probably be relegating XP to a thumb drive soon. I'd say ditch XP and just dual boot Vista and Linux.

 

+2 for that.

i really want to hear a XP lover to come up with a reason to not go for Vista on newly built machines

 

Because you've still got an XP licence, and Vista would be another £60 you could spend on hardware?

although you might want to keep the old pc...

 

Vista has been fine for me, performance is good (but I do disable some services) for gaming etc.

 

If you have a dual core core CPU (I do not consider a Pentium D as dual core), 2GB of RAM, a descent video card (anything above Geforce 6600GT 128MB (for large (above 19inch)) or equivalent), Watch Vista 64-bit runs very smoothly with default settings and latest drivers from your hardware manufacture website.

Most issues that people encountered was either related to drivers due to the fact that the aimed companies were dumb ass, or Vista 32-bit.

 

agree.

money doesn't matter, try to get one for free, they are virtually everywhere.

 

I hadnt planned to ever get vista, but home premium came on my laptop, and to be honest i really like it, takes a bit of getting used to though. Dont get home basic though

 

I've been using Vista about a month after it was released and the SP1 has helped it run much better. I've got Vista 32bit and 64bit and if your building newer faster computer 64bit runs games quite good.

 

I'd agree, i moved over to vista 64bit and have really enjoyed the experience. I didn't move over until sp1 was released and have been very happy. Moving from xp 32bit to the 64 bit vista also saw video encoding speeds reduce which was nice

 

vista has it's flaws (can't run certain older titles, but can run newer titles) but generally it's pretty good. it seems to be that little bit more stable than xp was, which is nice

sorry to take the thread in a new direction but what's so wrong about vista 32? it's what i've jimmied into my machine and while back, was what everyone recommended (unless you had over 4gb of ram)

I oddly prefer MS office to open office. it's just the familiarity i think which i like. still want to burn it and sacrifice it to satan now and again tho.

 

Nothing wrong with 32 bit. A while back it was better to run 32 bit instead of 64 bit because of the lack of drivers for 64 bit. 4GB of ram wasn't that common either. Nowadays 64 bit is the way to go for future proofing.

And it's not odd that you prefer MS office. It's miles better than OO! OO Is so full of bugs that it's scary. It also feels old fashioned. The new menu system on MS Office is really awesome.

 

Thanks a lot guys, think thats me sorted out!

I also tried the openoffice route, but like many others, it didn't work out. It's not that I'm against change - I mean, I swapped to Linux, which has a completely different GUI, CLI, hell - even installing/compiling programs is massively different to Windows, however I think there's a reason MS office is as popular as it is - it's simply better in many respects. But hey, maybe one day once the bugs and 'quirks' of OOo are ironed out, I'll consider a switch..

(Note that the above applies to 2003, I can't help but feel they *******ised everything good about Office in the 2007 version.....)...

 

Actually is you sped time with Office 2007, you will never look back.
You can do way more things that used to be super complicated with a click of a mouse.
Also you have about every option/features of Office 2007 in front of you, nothing hidden where you need to perfect several menu actions and property dialog box to venture with to get something done.

Example: Create section with header and footers, where some pages either the header or footer appears, with links to the previous section enabled or disabled. Needed stuff when working a book, manual, or long documentation.
Also with the Bibliography generator, table of content generator, improved grammar correction, helps A LOT in not loosing marks at school for stupidities.