1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

XP vs. Vista

Discussion in 'Software' started by Hateorade, 2 Jan 2008.

  1. Guest-23315

    Guest-23315 Guest

    Still prefer the up botton though!
     
  2. boiled_elephant

    boiled_elephant Merom Celeron 4 lyfe

    Joined:
    14 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    6,663
    Likes Received:
    888
    Moi aussi.

    Forgive us our ignorance; it's just that enlightenment ain't cheap when Microsoft are selling.
     
  3. fargo

    fargo What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    13 Feb 2006
    Posts:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    this is the best advise I've read here, also when sp3 comes out for xp they say it will run circles around vista!
     
  4. chrisb2e9

    chrisb2e9 Dont do that...

    Joined:
    18 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    4,061
    Likes Received:
    46
    last i checked, if you take 2 systems that are the exact same, and run the same game/benchmark program on them, xp will run circles around vista as it is right now. so if sp3 makes it even better, I wont bother with vista for a long time.
     
  5. Dreaming

    Dreaming What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    31 Jan 2007
    Posts:
    589
    Likes Received:
    7
    Have you seen boot times in Windows 1.0, too? :p

    Come on guys, it's pretty straightforward common sense as one of the first posters said - Vista has more new shiny bits, and uses more resources. I use Vista and get perfect speeds in everything, I'm sure I would if I had XP too. I help run a gaming society at uni that's pretty big (bout 75 of us) so you could say I'm a serious gamer - I am careful with what I buy and so on. Vista for me just offers more than it takes away. For the same price I don't understand why people who have fast systems would get XP over Vista, when Vista is the newer model, and hence where Microsoft are going to be doing the majority of their development.

    Gone to 64 bit the other day and it's very fast. :)

    One thing I like about Vista that is more 'hidden' is that the GUI is run by your GPU rather than your CPU. So if you have something that locks up your CPU (like for example, a program has crashed), you don't have to hit ctrl-alt-delete 50 times to get the screen to come up. The Windows shell just keeps running, you can move the 'crashed' window around, minimise it, let it finish loading whatever.

    When I had XP I couldn't do this. It's just one of the hidden perks of newer technology. We'll be going complete virtualisation in a few years anyway, with some minimal superfast OS akin to a bootloader and you can load up whatever OS you like in a matter of seconds, restored to whatever state you left it in.

    'Windows 7' Due for release 2009/10/11, take your pick.

    If XP is better for you then by all means go for it - but there is a lot of misinformation and uninformed opinion about Vista on the internet, because it's not very popular. Some people use both and prefer XP - but from the people I've spoken to, a lot who prefer XP haven't actually used Vista.
     
  6. Kahuna513

    Kahuna513 What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    1 Nov 2007
    Posts:
    19
    Likes Received:
    0
    I built a system for a friend and had it over here while I tweaked it, trying to see how far it'd go.
    His system: Q6600, 4GB DDR2 800, Asus P5n32-e, 2x 8800GT etc. My system: Q6600 2GB DDR2 800, Asus P5n-e, 2x 7800GTX etc. The main difference? His has Vista x64, and mine XP. I took 2GBs out of his system and just generally had a feel around the OS, as I was new to Vista and I was pleasantly surprised. It's blooming fast, really it is. When you've got this kind of hardware, just as Dreaming said above me, it really doesn't make sense not to go for Vista x64. If you grab yourself an OEM copy, it's not even that expensive.
    Just my thoughts.
    Kahuna
     

Share This Page