TECH6.0

sathish5566 · #1 20-10-2008, 10:11 PM

I'm used to using XP but i like Vista after seeing it on my Dad's new computer, only thing is he HAD a really good Dual-core when he had XP on it, then when he got Vista it became really laggy when gaming and things, it really screwed the computers performance.

cyborg · #2 20-10-2008, 10:48 PM

Micro$oft will stop supporting XP in 2010. For XP users all over the world.. just use it..
Vista will get better from time to time, SvcPack to SvcPack. There will be no more SvcPack for XP after 2010.

webwizzy · #3 20-10-2008, 11:04 PM

I use XP currently because I am used to it and don't have much VRAM to run Vista at its best.

But I'll surely move to Vista Ultimate once I get a 4 GB RAM and some graphics.

theAdviserMe · #4 28-10-2008, 05:06 AM

I am still using the XP and given the chance will venture into Vista possibly...I heard that after some reluctance a lot of people are now into Vista.

Spec_tray · #5 29-10-2008, 09:06 PM

Yeah..

mee too ..

using XP now ..i dont want to move towards vista now may be later....

Dreams · #6 02-12-2008, 10:27 PM

I am currently using vista ultimate which is really smooth and cool only thing is that you should fulfill all the recommendation other wise it becomes leggy as some of my friends really facing so better to experience things based on their recommendation. and try to be update as much as possible specially with technical issue.

lukog · #7 31-12-2008, 07:30 PM

well i like XP better because it has all the functionalities and is a stable OS. vista is still not stable. not all drivers are out there. also XP does not bite into your personal RAM that u have stored for games and apps. if u own a PC running vista and have less than 1GB of RAM, then its useless. no matter what kind of processor u r running, it will be slow. i would recommend atleast a 2GB RAM.

webwizzy · #8 31-12-2008, 08:35 PM

well i like XP better because it has all the functionalities and is a stable OS. vista is still not stable. not all drivers are out there. also XP does not bite into your personal RAM that u have stored for games and apps. if u own a PC running vista and have less than 1GB of RAM, then its useless. no matter what kind of processor u r running, it will be slow. i would recommend atleast a 2GB RAM.

As Said by lukog

Its not like "Vista is not stable". XP wasn't too at its first release, but XP SP2 and SP3 are. Similarly, with the release of Vista SP2, it would be rocking. Bugs are part of a software and are fixed with time and discovery.

Again Computer hardware is something that needs an upgrade with time. 1 GB RAM is nothing today.

I remember the days when I got my first PC in year 2000. It had 20 GB HDD with 64 MB RAM and it was SUFFICIENT for me. But now I cannot even imagine that.

There's simply no reason to blaim Vista. Its actually the hardware that needs an upgrade to run latest built programs most efficiently.

Technology is never still.

TaL · #9 05-01-2009, 10:33 AM

I agree to a point...I feel that NO release from M$ has ever been stable until the second service patch has been released. Are you aware that the look and feel of Vista can be achieved from XP if you get some extra packs...Most of the Vista stuff is actually in XP (just not turned on). I never bothered to set it up on my system as I do not like the look of Vista. XP with SP3 is very nice though.

Why bother bogging down your PC with Vista just because it has a cool newish look? Expand your mind...Take Linux for a spin (unless you are a hardcore gamer...then build a dual boot PC with XP and Linux). You can download the CD and run Linux from the CD without installing it on your PC right away. Download Kubuntu Linux and boot from the CD to check out just how easy it can be to use. This is a very easy version of Linux if you have no experience with it. It is full GUI, the OS is free , rock solid stable, and customizable to a degree you wont believe if you are a Windows user...the software for it is free and customizable too

For the programmers here, Linux will be a breeze

I never felt it was worth upgrading my hardware just to be able to run a new OS...especially one that does not really have much new stuff in it except many extra layers of useless security that are only designed to restrict me and the use of my computer. In my books, it is not a good trade off.

Not to mention that I hate the M$ philosophy of selling stuff that does not work and then keeping us hanging on while they come up with patches at their leisure after they have my money.

I have also heard some roumers in the PC tech industry that Vista may be another Windows ME...doomed from the start but only time will tell.

webwizzy · #10 05-01-2009, 04:11 PM

Thanks for such a lovely post TaL, rep++

Though the fact that Linux is a breeze to work on, one reason why I and many others still prefer Windows is that we are very much adapted to it and I myself is working on it since 7-8 years. And changing the complete environment (the OS) would change the computing experience totally and will take time to get used to it. Also, in my country, besides professionals, very very few people are actually using it. Windows rock for everybody here. (ofcourse people aren't much aware of it)

I do have 5-6 distros of Linux including Red Hat Enterprise 4. Have had it installed alongwith Windows once, no doubt I really enjoyed its speed, performance and stability, but as all the work was done on Windows only, I got rid of it and never installed it since then.

You would find this interesting, Windows vs. Linux vs. Mac OS X, Ignorance is bliss...

Btw, let me know your thoughts over Mac. With the launch of iMac I see many people switching to it. And if ever I decide to switch OS, I'll go with Mac.

TaL · #11 05-01-2009, 10:28 PM

Firstly Webwizzy, I have to give you kudos for having some experience with Linux. I now feel that you can at least make an informed decision

I should also admit that I have XP installed on my Linux PC in VMWare (man I just love VMWare) just so I can run those windows programs that I have to run but I have not had to run it in months.

I have to say though that the reasons that you offer: It is what we have here and it is what most people use, sounds a lot like my arguments from a couple of years ago.

The first thing I noticed while reading this is that they are comparing the perception of security of the "out of the box" Unix/Linux with a secured patched Windows. Everyone should understand that anything you install needs to be configured.
The statement that a lot of people run Linux with no anti-virus is very true but to make no changes to the OS to protect your own security is just silly...NOTHING is secure if you leave the defaults in place!

For viruses, try and see it this way...who writes viruses? Except for script kiddies, viruses are written by hardcore geeks. What do most hardcore geeks use? Linux/Unix. Now, why write a virus? To send a message of hate to the object of your scorn...The Giant M$ machine (who by the way are having their new OOXML format banned by some governments and the US Department of Transportation has declared that they will have no Vista at all and are exploring Open Source solutions to replace all Windows they are running). People tend not to attack what they like which is why there are so few viruses out there to effect Unix/Linux but make no mistake about it...there are some!

In terms of the stats on the vulnerabilities, The most important numbers to me here are the total numbers of High Level Threats found...this speaks more to the underlying stability of the code...yes patch development time is a factor...but that is directly relational to the number of people developing the patches and we all know that the M$ machine is HUGE! I would love to see stats on how many actual coders were involved with patching each OS ie. how many programmers patched how many bugs per day

In general terms, I am an advocate of OS X as it is Unix based and Apple has long been the forerunner for any kind of video manipulation. I have to admit that I have only ever worked on 1 Apple machine but I have many friends who have them and they all love it.

I realize that I may sound a bit preachy about Linux but after supporting Windows for the last 15 years, I am sick and tired of the Microsoft mentality. I am just trying to help people realize that they have other options that are just as good...if not better

I will try and keep my preaching limited to people asking advice on OS's

Even here in Canada, there is a push starting to try and get M$ out...check out this.

webwizzy · #12 05-01-2009, 10:50 PM

oh man, you sound tooo professional TaL

I'm no way near to you, hoping to learn a lott from you.

after supporting Windows for the last 15 years

So, does that mean you are quite new to Linux ?

TaL · #13 05-01-2009, 11:04 PM

oh man, you sound tooo professional TaL
I'm no way near to you, hoping to learn a lott from you.

So, does that mean you are quite new to Linux ?

As Said by webwizzy

I have been playing with it for the last year or so and once I got my head around the fact that there is no "C:\" just "/" and that everything is just mounted as a local resource, I have been having nothing but fun playing with it

TaL · #14 06-01-2009, 12:13 AM

Windows is on the rocks in France too...look here for some interesting info...

Also, way to go Peugeot! 20,000 more installs of Linux!

TaL · #15 06-01-2009, 12:45 AM

One last thing I can't believe that I forgot to mention.

If Vista is so great, why is M$ already planning the release of Windows 7 so soon?

webwizzy · #16 06-01-2009, 06:19 AM

One last thing I can't believe that I forgot to mention.

If Vista is so great, why is M$ already planning the release of Windows 7 so soon?

As Said by TaL

I don't think its soon, its the final improvement of Vista unlike Windows XP to Vista which was a major upgrade which took nearly 5 years.

According to Wikipedia, Microsoft stated in 2007 that it is planning Windows 7 development for a three-year time frame starting after the release of its predecessor, Vista. Windows 7 is intended to be an incremental upgrade with the goal of being fully compatible with existing device drivers, applications, and hardware. Windows 7 Beta has beaten both Windows XP and Vista in several key areas, including boot and shutting down time, working with files and loading documents.

I read somewhere that they have also stated that Windows 7 would be the final version of Windows as a 32 bit Operating system. After that, they would only be developing 64 bit editions of windows.

It is most likely to be a much improved version of Vista. I would say, 8 years of development (5+3) of an OS by Microsoft would definitely turn out to be very good and I am really hoping so.

TaL · #17 06-01-2009, 09:54 PM

It is most likely to be a much improved version of Vista. I would say, 8 years of development (5+3) of an OS by Microsoft would definitely turn out to be very good and I am really hoping so.

As Said by webwizzy

I have to agree with this. After 8 years of development (5 of which are live testing) they should be able to have a very nice product by then

They usually end up with a nice product...it just takes them a while to get there

santan · #18 09-02-2009, 10:51 PM

For good visual graphics Windows Vista and for reliability Windows XP is best according to me.

Dreams · #19 16-03-2009, 11:01 PM

well didn't have that much hands on that linux thing but the reason i relay on MS product is compatibility with development Environment. Like Visual Studio i am a die-hard .net programmer so have to use VS very frequently so i can't install it on VMware or virtual machine (MS Product). Well currently i am using Server 2008 Enterprise edition with VS2008 And SQL Server 2008 Both enterprise Ed. so Don't think that Linux Is Good For Me.

kannan · #20 06-04-2009, 12:25 PM

i feel xp is the gud one.it is an comfortable one for me.it is user friendly one.it requires a less space when compared to vista.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

TECH6.0

XP or Vista?