View Poll Results: Which Microsoft OS do you use?

Voters
65. You may not vote on this poll
  • Windows Vista - I've no other option, it came with my PC

    30 46.15%
  • Windows XP - I'm a gamer

    32 49.23%
  • Windows 98 - My 'puter is a kitchen appliance

    1 1.54%
  • Windows 95 - I just woke up from a coma

    2 3.08%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 88
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    12,200

    * The real Windows Vista source code revealed

    See for yourselves!
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails MSVista.jpg  

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    5,292
    I run vista business by choice, best MS OS non server.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    7,200
    What about Vista by my own choice?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Top Secret
    Posts
    11,687
    Yeah, the poll is a bit biased towards XP I'd say.

    I'm a gamer, and I use *gasp* Vista. Just working into Vista 64 bit myself, with absolutely no issues at all. Seems some people really need to learn to place blame where blame belongs. Microsoft didn't do terribly bad with Vista , but drivers from 3rd party sources tend to suck. You can't hold Microsoft responsible for that though.

    On another note: UAC , the worst part of vista. It's the first thing I disable on any new install
    WHMCS Guru - WHMCS addons, management, support and more.
    WHMCS Notifications Extended - Add slack, hipchat, SMS, pushover to WHMCS !!
    Always looking for Linux, WHMCS, Support Desk work. PM for details

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009
    I have Vista on the laptop and haven't had an issue since I bought it, 12mths back. Does the job.
    AussieHost.com Aussie Bob, host since 2001
    Host Multiple Domains on Fast Australian Servers!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    16,087
    I run vista on my gaming machine with no issues - runs just as fast if not faster than it did with XP with less crashes.

    On a side note - in XP any time my video drivers or card would stop responding for any reason the system would BSOD or just reset... in Vista at least it kills and restarts the driver/card and allows you to continue using the PC without losing everything.

    It's not an issue for most people, but I have had it happen from time to time with bleeding edge drivers.
    Michael Denney - MDDHosting LLC
    New shared plans for 2016! Check them out!
    Highly Available Shared, Premium, Reseller, and VPS
    http://www.mddhosting.com/

  7. #7
    I never used Windows XP. I am using Vista on pc and have no problem with it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Under Your Skin
    Posts
    5,875
    Quote Originally Posted by Acroplex View Post
    See for yourselves!
    I use vista by choice....

    Seems your CJ poll is about six or seven months too late.

    Or maybe in the wrong forum... try a linux forum, might have better luck there...

    Or wait until the kids wake in a couple of hours... mad cause they are still on xp 'cause their parents have not upgraded yet. They post from school.
    Windows 10 to Linux and Mac OSX: I'm PARSECs better than you. Eat my dust!!!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    4,033
    I love Vista.
    Have been using it for quite some time now.
    Aspiration Hosting [US UK SG AU] - Cloud Web Hosting | Managed Cloud Server
    LiteMage / LiteSpeed Cache for Magento, WordPress, Joomla, Drupal & XenForo

    Web Development Support Unmetered Bandwidth Aspiration CDN Magento Optimized

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain
    Posts
    3,397
    Windows Vista Ultimate, because it just works.
    hi there!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boise, ID U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,503
    My computers both came with Windows XP, although I don't do much gaming with them. I had my desktop computer built to be potentially ready for Vista Upgrade, but I never bothered with it. Both computers also have linux (MEPIS in the laptop, Xandros in the desktop). I mostly use linux for surfing the web, and sometimes to play Tuxracer.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    441
    Vista Ultimate 64bit is downright the best desktop OS I have used. Never crashes, never slows down, as fast as XP (assuming you have a decent machine) and everything just works. XP isnt bad either, especially on slower machines. Oh and also, I game alot on my vista machine, no issue.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    895
    Im enjoying Vista far more than XP.


    It's much more solid
    finally MS is steering in the right direction.

    Vista does have a few hardware compatability issues but not even half as many as XP did.
    I could tell you a joke about UDP. But I'm not sure you would get it!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Amidst several dimensions
    Posts
    4,321
    what i know is, 10-20% of performance is wasted on DRM controlling routines in vista. checking whether you are using copyrighted stuff or not.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by unity100 View Post
    what i know is, 10-20% of performance is wasted on DRM controlling routines in vista. checking whether you are using copyrighted stuff or not.
    reference please....

    I *love* Vista, only had it a few weeks (waited for SP1) but, apart from a few driver problems think it's the best OS to date.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Top Secret
    Posts
    11,687
    Quote Originally Posted by unity100 View Post
    what i know is, 10-20% of performance is wasted on DRM controlling routines in vista. checking whether you are using copyrighted stuff or not.
    No, what you suspect is that. If you knew it, you'd prove it.

    Vista's gt it's kinks, I'm not saying that (UAC was just the WRONG idea from the get go, indexing is not as 'friendly' as they say, etc), but these kinks can be turned off for a better, smoother performing machine.

    I've got to agree with pretty much everyone else tat's said it so far. Ultimate, by far surpasses XP in the performance area, and I'm sure the other two do pretty good as well. As far as stability is concerned, I've had no problems whatsoever with Vista. XP, I'd have to reboot every couple of days, Vista I can leave it on, hell, half the time I forget how long it's been up when I go to reboot it. No crashes, from what I've (personally) seen, a pretty solid OS
    WHMCS Guru - WHMCS addons, management, support and more.
    WHMCS Notifications Extended - Add slack, hipchat, SMS, pushover to WHMCS !!
    Always looking for Linux, WHMCS, Support Desk work. PM for details

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by unity100 View Post
    what i know is, 10-20% of performance is wasted on DRM controlling routines in vista. checking whether you are using copyrighted stuff or not.
    Thats untrue.

    Vista DRM is a Myth if it wasn't I'd have problems.

    My last reboot was in Febuary there is no way XP would run for that long.
    I could tell you a joke about UDP. But I'm not sure you would get it!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    1,046
    I tried Vista Ultimate (cheap from MS store) but Visual Studio.NET 2005 doesn't work on it for me out of the box (when using long long int in C++)
    ML

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,207
    I use vista - im a gamer. is my option.

    dont see why so many people cry over vista.... oh wait its because they either:

    a. have never tryed it and just follow what everyone else say and/or

    b. dont know how to turn half the features off.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Barcelona, Spain
    Posts
    3,397
    Indeed, logged in as an Administrator you no longer have those annoying confirmation screens and if you switch off those dumb window effects that pop in and out upon launching a window, the machine runs very pretty and solid.

    My last reboot was about 2 weeks ago, I run an online radiostation of my box and it should never be offline ofcourse

    Vista is a good OS and everybody that's complaning about it, are either silly, or try to install Vista on an ancient PC with even older hardware and peripherals... That ain't gonna work.
    hi there!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    36

    Arrow

    i wanted xp but had to have vista!

  22. #22
    At college I use XP, but at home I have a macbook myself. It's just alot faster for tasks such as Photoshop for me.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    7,200
    Yeah, I got Vista Ultimate on my laptop almost 2 years ago. It's a very solid OS; haven't needed to do any reformats whatsoever.

    The first thing I noticed was that XP would always slow down after leaving it on for a few hours or days. Vista never slows down. My laptop has currently been on for 321 hours and there are no signs of any slowdowns.

  24. #24
    I like vista alot.

    Wouldn't really change it unless something new is out or to Mac Leopard but like, I want my PC's Windows and only Mac's Macs

  25. #25
    I have Vista business running on my laptop for more than 12 months, have had no issues yet.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Orien View Post
    Yeah, I got Vista Ultimate on my laptop almost 2 years ago. It's a very solid OS; haven't needed to do any reformats whatsoever.

    The first thing I noticed was that XP would always slow down after leaving it on for a few hours or days. Vista never slows down. My laptop has currently been on for 321 hours and there are no signs of any slowdowns.
    it wouldnt do if all you use it for is to spam on WHT

    I have vist home prem with 4gb ram and the 768mb 8800GTX and trust me you notice slow downs when you do graphical things do with any pc/laptop with any OS

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    2,781
    How did you leave out Windows 2000?
    CloudRck.com - Host on Cloudrck
    Unmetered VPS Solutions at it's finest

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    515
    Quote Originally Posted by linux-tech View Post
    Ultimate, by far surpasses XP in the performance area
    Where do you get this stuff? Seriously!

    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...a,1531-11.html

    http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/60147...wer/page1.html

    http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/...rsus-xp_6.html
    Best regards,
    Gil - ZoneServ.com.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    2,781
    As with many things, it's all subjective. But for most people Vista isn't ready for prime time.

    At my office, all of our machines run either Windows 2000 or XP. We had Vista with a new laptop, but found it to be inadequate and unusable.

    At this point in time, I find it very hard to believe Vista is more stable than XP.
    CloudRck.com - Host on Cloudrck
    Unmetered VPS Solutions at it's finest

  30. #30
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    515
    Vista Ultimate on 3 machines, by choice.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    2,781
    Also, I'm curious as to why Vista is the "best OS to date". Disregarding comments "never crashes", as my Windows XP hasn't crashed.
    CloudRck.com - Host on Cloudrck
    Unmetered VPS Solutions at it's finest

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Top Secret
    Posts
    11,687
    At this point in time, I find it very hard to believe Vista is more stable than XP.
    Because you haven't USED it. You have no credibility to make that statement, because you haven't USED it at all.

    But for most people Vista isn't ready for prime time.
    That's funny. Looking at the poll results, 'most people' have chosen , hrrrm, what? Oh yeah, Vista. In fact, not only is it what 'most people' have chosen, but it dwarfs the competition, even when the competition is added all together! That says a hell of a lot.

    Again, subjective. You're not "most people". For YOU , vista isn't ready for prime time, because YOU haven't used it on the proper hardware, or TRIED to use it on the proper hardware.

    Where do you get this stuff? Seriously!
    From personal experience, nothing else.
    I don't care what some off the wall 'hardware shop' tells me, I care what I test, what I use, and what I personally have experienced. Those 'hardware shops' don't do anything but test the BASE OS, no tweaks, no modifications, no driver specializations, nothing but the BASE OS! They don't take into account user customizations, the usage of the OS, different versions of the OS or anything.

    From a user standpoint, with drivers in there, fully, Vista knocks XP dead. Of course, the hardcore 'XP' fans are going to whine "We don't want to change, we hate change, XP works", but at the end of the day, you're not going to have much of a choice. Vista is here to stay. XP is yesterday's OS

    Of course you'll only notice the ADVANTAGE in vista if you're using up to date hardware (512m ram is nowhere NEAR enough to run even 'home'). If you're not, duuh, you're going to notice slowdowns. That's not Vista's fault, it's not Microsoft's fault. You're running a slow system to begin with.

    Also, I'm curious as to why Vista is the "best OS to date"
    I don't know, maybe because it actually supports up to date hardware, stuff that XP can't even begin to figure out?

    Maybe because it IS, in fact rock solid (XP was not, though it was close).

    Maybe because it DOES remain reliable as long as you have the right hardware in it (again using YESTERDAY'S hardware isn't going to cut it). XP crashed quite frequently for me. Vista manages to go quite a while without it (I've seen a few BSOD's, but not many).

    Maybe because it just 'works', whereas XP has problems, again, with up to date hardware.

    Maybe because they got their crap together re: licensing:
    With vista, I can change my hardware, and have to call M$ once, as long as I don't change it again.

    With XP, I had to call M$ every time I reloaded my OS, after the first 6 months, because, according to them it was a "new pc". That gets annoying when you end up having to reformat every month or so.

    With Vista, I reformat every few months (3-6) for whatever reason, hardware performance, new hardware, typically because something got screwed up (app installs and registry usually).

    With XP, I was LUCKY if I went 30 days without a format. This wasn't a "choice" thing, something was ALWAYS getting in and screwing up the registry.

    In the end, you're right, it's all subjective, but unless you've EXTENSIVELY used and tested both, your opinion doesn't amount to anything, because you HAVEN'T used both extensively.

    At the beginning, I wasn't all too fond of Vista. I'm still not so crazy on the install, because of their install nightmare, and the rare times I have to call them up (Microsoft). However, I have found it to be incredibly stable and worthwhile, much more so than XP ever was.
    Last edited by whmcsguru; 05-01-2008 at 02:39 PM.
    WHMCS Guru - WHMCS addons, management, support and more.
    WHMCS Notifications Extended - Add slack, hipchat, SMS, pushover to WHMCS !!
    Always looking for Linux, WHMCS, Support Desk work. PM for details

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    2,781
    Because you haven't USED it. You have no credibility to make that statement, because you haven't USED it at all.
    Again, subjective. You're not "most people". For YOU , vista isn't ready for prime time, because YOU haven't used it on the proper hardware, or TRIED to use it on the proper hardware.
    Quote Originally Posted by daejuanj View Post
    At my office, all of our machines run either Windows 2000 or XP. We had Vista with a new laptop, but found it to be inadequate and unusable.
    You obviously can't read.
    You're telling me I haven't tried Vista? That's a bold assumption, that's is terribly WRONG. (I can use all caps too).

    My office was attempting to update all of the CAD workstations. So in turn, they purchased a single NEW machine that came with Vista. The box says Vista compatible. So, you're telling me the manufacturers of the PC AND Microsoft are wrong when it comes to "proper" hardware?

    I myself, used Vista everyday for a week, doing everyday things at the office. For the business taks, such as Microstation, Epicor, etc, it failed to perform on par with our older, machines running Windows XP. This is with Vista running 4GB of ram on a Dual core Core2Duo.

    Remember, it's usually bad to assume things, than state them as facts.

    I don't know, maybe because it actually supports up to date hardware, stuff that XP can't even begin to figure out?
    This blanket statement doesn't convince me. What hardware are we talking about?
    Last edited by cloudrck; 05-01-2008 at 02:55 PM.
    CloudRck.com - Host on Cloudrck
    Unmetered VPS Solutions at it's finest

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Top Secret
    Posts
    11,687
    The box says Vista compatible.
    So what?
    You have a lot to learn about what 'compatible' means. That means it can RUN it, but it does NOT guarantee that it will run without issues, or that there is enough hardware TO run it.

    Hell, I went in last year and replaced my soundcard. The box screamed 'Vista compatible', and it was put out by a reputable provider (creative).

    I got the box home, thinking it was going to be the best thing ever (and it is, now), only to find that there WERE no stable Vista drivers out there. Damn, all my hopes, gone. Of course, I did what any normal person would do, checked the website, found BETA drivers, and installed them.

    A laptop with 512m ram can be considered 'Vista compatible', but does that mean it's going to RUN vista well? Hell no!

    A PC (or laptop) with 1g ram can be considered 'Vista compatible', but does that mean it's going to RUN vista well? Hell no! Though with a gig, you can do some pretty good damage with Vista.

    In order to run Vista, you need at MINIMUM 2 gig of ram, and the more the better.

    This is with Vista running 4GB of ram on a Dual core Core2Duo.
    Then you're doing something wrong. That's not Microsoft's fault.
    It's not microsoft's fault that your drivers don't work

    It's not microsoft's fault that your programs are slower in Vista. That's a design flaw, on the part of the manufacturer, and an indication that they need to update their software.

    Microsoft is responsible for the OS, only. Not some 3rd party garbage programs, not WoW, not drivers, not anything else. If the programs work faster on XP, then, run them on XP, but that's a backwards solution. The PROPER solution is to UPDATE the programs to take advantage of Vista's advantages, rather than use older, outdated software and programming techniques.

    Just because a box says 'Vista compatible' doesn't mean it's going to RUN vista perfectly, or run it as smoothly as it should. Sometimes, you, the user have to get in there and tweak it to work how YOU want it to work, to get the best use of it.

    Making a comparison based on NON Microsoft , NON OS products is like comparing apples to bananas. They're both fruit, but that's where it stops. Application developers need to update programming techniques. It's not surprising many won't, but that's NOT Microsoft's problem.

    Remember, it's usually bad to assume things, than state them as facts.
    Just as bad as it is to make assumptions about product performance based solely on uninformed decisions, or someone ELSE'S product.

    Oh, and by the way, I NEVER said anything was a "fact" here. You went all out claiming "But for most people Vista isn't ready for prime time. ", and I proved it wrong. For YOU, vista isn't reaady for prime time because of a handful of applications that work (supposedly) slower on Vista. That's NOT Vista's fault, it's the developer's fault. Don't blame Microsoft for something that isn't their fault, they've got enough blame already.

    This blanket statement doesn't convince me. What hardware are we talking about?
    I'm, not going to bother with you. You're already sold on the fact that "Vista sucks", because of your inability to relate products properly with their problems. I could care less about 'convincing' anyone. I know, from experience what I'm talking about, and have absolutely NO need to qualify that experience to you. You, on the other hand show a great misunderstanding when it comes to relating problems.

    Microsoft Vista didn't make your product run slower, the product designer did, when they didn't update their programming practices and standards, or update their program to take advantage of what Vista has to offer. That's not Microsoft's fault, it's the designer's fault.
    WHMCS Guru - WHMCS addons, management, support and more.
    WHMCS Notifications Extended - Add slack, hipchat, SMS, pushover to WHMCS !!
    Always looking for Linux, WHMCS, Support Desk work. PM for details

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    2,781
    Quote Originally Posted by linux-tech View Post
    So what?
    You have a lot to learn about what 'compatible' means. That means it can RUN it, but it does NOT guarantee that it will run without issues, or that there is enough hardware TO run it.

    Hell, I went in last year and replaced my soundcard. The box screamed 'Vista compatible', and it was put out by a reputable provider (creative).

    I got the box home, thinking it was going to be the best thing ever (and it is, now), only to find that there WERE no stable Vista drivers out there. Damn, all my hopes, gone. Of course, I did what any normal person would do, checked the website, found BETA drivers, and installed them.

    A laptop with 512m ram can be considered 'Vista compatible', but does that mean it's going to RUN vista well? Hell no!

    A PC (or laptop) with 1g ram can be considered 'Vista compatible', but does that mean it's going to RUN vista well? Hell no! Though with a gig, you can do some pretty good damage with Vista.

    In order to run Vista, you need at MINIMUM 2 gig of ram, and the more the better.


    Then you're doing something wrong. That's not Microsoft's fault.
    It's not microsoft's fault that your drivers don't work

    It's not microsoft's fault that your programs are slower in Vista. That's a design flaw, on the part of the manufacturer, and an indication that they need to update their software.

    Microsoft is responsible for the OS, only. Not some 3rd party garbage programs, not WoW, not drivers, not anything else. If the programs work faster on XP, then, run them on XP, but that's a backwards solution. The PROPER solution is to UPDATE the programs to take advantage of Vista's advantages, rather than use older, outdated software and programming techniques.

    Just because a box says 'Vista compatible' doesn't mean it's going to RUN vista perfectly, or run it as smoothly as it should. Sometimes, you, the user have to get in there and tweak it to work how YOU want it to work, to get the best use of it.

    Making a comparison based on NON Microsoft , NON OS products is like comparing apples to bananas. They're both fruit, but that's where it stops. Application developers need to update programming techniques. It's not surprising many won't, but that's NOT Microsoft's problem.


    Just as bad as it is to make assumptions about product performance based solely on uninformed decisions, or someone ELSE'S product.

    Oh, and by the way, I NEVER said anything was a "fact" here. You went all out claiming "But for most people Vista isn't ready for prime time. ", and I proved it wrong. For YOU, vista isn't reaady for prime time because of a handful of applications that work (supposedly) slower on Vista. That's NOT Vista's fault, it's the developer's fault. Don't blame Microsoft for something that isn't their fault, they've got enough blame already.


    I'm, not going to bother with you. You're already sold on the fact that "Vista sucks", because of your inability to relate products properly with their problems. I could care less about 'convincing' anyone. I know, from experience what I'm talking about, and have absolutely NO need to qualify that experience to you. You, on the other hand show a great misunderstanding when it comes to relating problems.

    Microsoft Vista didn't make your product run slower, the product designer did, when they didn't update their programming practices and standards, or update their program to take advantage of what Vista has to offer. That's not Microsoft's fault, it's the designer's fault.
    I'm, not going to bother with you. You're already sold on the fact that "Vista sucks", because of your inability to relate products properly with their problems. I could care less about 'convincing' anyone. I know, from experience what I'm talking about, and have absolutely NO need to qualify that experience to you. You, on the other hand show a great misunderstanding when it comes to relating problems.
    I'm not going to bother responding to anything, or fully reading your post, as you're just reiterating what I already know, while making assumptions that I misunderstand "relating problems", which is far from the truth, so you can stop acting like a Best Buy sales rep. I also like how you misquote me, I never said "Vista sucks".
    CloudRck.com - Host on Cloudrck
    Unmetered VPS Solutions at it's finest

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Top Secret
    Posts
    11,687
    you can stop acting like a Best Buy sales rep.
    I'm certainly NOT acting like a 'best buy sales rep'. I'm acting like someone who's had more than a little bit of experience with what's going on here, as opposed to someone who say notices a slight decrease in speed and rushes to assume it's the fault of the OS (which it's not).

    As a (somewhat hardcore) gamer, one of the most important things to me is response time and refresh rates. Lag kills, whether it's hardware or network, and I've got to say that Vista definitely outperforms XP in that respect (actually tried at one point on a Dual Boot). Again, it's all in the updates made by the product manufacturer, and how they go for taking advantage of the capabilities of Vista.
    WHMCS Guru - WHMCS addons, management, support and more.
    WHMCS Notifications Extended - Add slack, hipchat, SMS, pushover to WHMCS !!
    Always looking for Linux, WHMCS, Support Desk work. PM for details

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Philadelphia, Pa
    Posts
    949
    my main os is Gentoo (Linux), but for what it's worth, my windows VM has XP in it.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    California, USA, Earth
    Posts
    1,049
    Being programmers here and not big fans of M$ we found this particularly hilarious... but where's the none of the above option in the poll?

    It's all about Mac and Linux, Windows is for games.
    Blesta - Professional Billing Software
    Innovation that benefits the user experience
    Trial - Demo | 866.478.7567 | Twitter @blesta

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    515
    Quote Originally Posted by linux-tech View Post
    Maybe because it IS, in fact rock solid (XP was not, though it was close).
    What are you basing this on? XP is extremely stable.

    Quote Originally Posted by linux-tech View Post
    XP crashed quite frequently for me. Vista manages to go quite a while without it (I've seen a few BSOD's, but not many).
    Well, isn't this cute? I did not have any BSOD, regardless to my OS actually (XP on my PC/ Vista on my laptop).

    Quote Originally Posted by linux-tech View Post
    With Vista, I reformat every few months (3-6) for whatever reason, hardware performance, new hardware, typically because something got screwed up (app installs and registry usually).

    With XP, I was LUCKY if I went 30 days without a format. This wasn't a "choice" thing, something was ALWAYS getting in and screwing up the registry.
    Sounds like you are having problems! Formatting your computer every few months means there is either something wrong with the way you work around you computer or hardware issues/changes.

    Quote Originally Posted by linux-tech View Post
    In the end, you're right, it's all subjective
    I guess you can say that, but there are facts like Windows XP is faster than Vista at the moment, same rig fully updated with all patches.

    As far as I can see; your opinions are biased, I wouldn't mind if Vista was better - I like change and new experiences, but the fact is that Vista is bloated, it is a resource hog.

    I say this from my experience, Microsoft has failed me.
    Vista is indeed the new operating system on the block, is it the future though? I think not, not on the current stage of affairs.

    Remember Windows ME? Same thing can happen with Windows 7 breathing down Vista's neck.
    Best regards,
    Gil - ZoneServ.com.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    1,201
    http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/...rsus-xp_6.html

    Round 5: Performance
    Windows Vista is a bloated pig of an operating system. In fact, compared to Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or 3, Vista requires roughly twice the hardware resources to deliver comparable performance. Even stripped to the bone, with every new UI enhancement turned off and every new background service disabled, Vista is a good 40 percent slower than XP at a variety of business productivity tasks.


    The above is no generalization. I've run the tests (repeatedly). I have the hard numbers. (You can see the full range of my results at exo.performance.network, or take in a quick snapshot of Vista/Office 2007 versus XP/Office 2003 results here; see the Test Center Daily for info on the Clarity Studio OfficeBench test script I used for these tests.) Upgrading a user from Windows XP to Vista, without upgrading their hardware, is tantamount to crippling their PC. Think of users with torches lining up outside your datacenter. It's not a pretty picture.


    So just wait for the next hardware upgrade cycle and hit them with Vista then, right? Maybe. But consider this: For every CPU cycle wasted bringing Vista's bloated image on par with XP's, you could be providing your users with an actual performance increase across their core applications. If there were some compelling reason to run Vista over XP – a quantum leap in usability or manageability – I could see why the investment might be worth it. But upgrading hardware just to maintain the status quo seems silly.


    Decision: Would you rather throw new hardware cycles at offsetting Microsoft's code bloat and voracious appetite for CPU bandwidth, or at a tangible, measurable improvement in application throughput and user productivity? Enough said.
    My biggest gripe with XP is the fact that DirectX 10 is not available for it. I do a good amount of audio editing/creation and I shudder to think what would happen to the overall usability and performance if I were to switch to Vista.

    I see no reason to upgrade, but I am glad to see that others have had such pleasurable experiences with Vista. Eventually I'll probably make the switch, if it becomes absolutely necessary. It would be nice to use DirectX 10, but the overall performance hit is not nearly worth it to me.

    Oh yeah, and btw, I have a very powerful system, but I do not wish to sacrifice a portion of that power for no good reason.

    /2cents
    Ryan - Limestone Networks - Client Relations Manager
    Cloud, Dedicated & Enterprise Hosting - Premium Network - DDoS Protection Available
    Dedicated Servers @LimestoneInc - limestonenetworks.com - 877.586.0555

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •