[funkyspider]

Microsoft have now stopped selling XP to retailers and major computer makers

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/...e/microsoft_xp

I know it's been tricky to get XP on a new machine for a while, but some manufacturers, notably Dell, were still offering it. Unfortunately now we are forced to have the resource hogging Vista. That is of course until late 2009 when a new (supposedly slimmed down) version of an operating system (imaginatively named Windows 7) will be released - this is despite the fact that on launch Microsoft initially claimed that Vista would be the last big OS release, all future releases would be online updates around the vista core.

[Steven]

Just to point out Microsoft are aiming for that release date. The world waits to see if the features dropped from Vista make an appearance

[overkill]

Originally Posted by LFC_SL

Just to point out Microsoft are aiming for that release date. The world waits to see if the features dropped from Vista make an appearance

Knowing Microsoft though LFC, not with bated breath..........

[Flimber]

There are few ways of getting a 'lite' version of vista and there are custom installers (e.g., http://www.vlite.net/index.html). Youtube has a vid of a system running merrily in 256MB RAM, IIRC.

[audionewb]

there's always linux if you don't game.

[Orson]

I believe you can still 'downgrade' to XP though, depending on the version of Vista you buy.

[CGizzi]

Originally Posted by Orson

I believe you can still 'downgrade' to XP though, depending on the version of Vista you buy.

Yep

I had a laptop which came with XP drivers also, I took the XP option for now & in the future will go to Vista when forced to.

[Chrisoldinho]

I find Vista much better than XP for the majority of tasks now. Took a few months to bed in and get used to but after a while everything just feels better built and more secure. It does have it's annoying features (as every OS does) but on the whole it's definately a step forward IMO.

I wouldn't use XP through choice, much prefer Ubuntu 8.10 with tons of free software and even lighter on resources.

Chris.

[evilgenius]

vista is soo much better on my system than Xp ever was. Im on Vista x 64.

[wormvortex]

TBH vista is basically XP but with some kewl obvious advatanges as well as many you don't notice day to day.

People who still bitch about it being crap and whatnot are just jumping on the bandwagon that most people got off last year

[Sporran]

aero ftw

[overkill]

Originally Posted by wormvortex

TBH vista is basically XP but with some kewl obvious advatanges as well as many you don't notice day to day.

People who still bitch about it being crap and whatnot are just jumping on the bandwagon that most people got off last year

I have had Vista 64 on the same system as XP for nearly a year now. I cannot see any great advantages to Vista in a (literal) side by side comparison.

I think tbh, if anything, people are getting the 'I'm used to it now so it must be better' syndrome.

One thing about Vista is though, it certainly isn't for the faint hearted. Twice recently it's updated automatically and come up with odd messages and just re-booted. I nearly did something nasty to my underwear the first time, as it came up with what looked like an terminal error message on boot then just re-booted itself in what looked like a crash.

Palpitations were in order - until it rebooted ok.

[Elmer]

On my current system Q6600 and 4 gig of ram when I built it last August I did a clean install of Vista 64. After putting up with it for 8 months and seeing no difference after the service pack, I changed to XP pro and everything was noticeably faster.

Maybe it's something to do with my setup, I don't know, but I'm certainly in no hurry to try Vista again, programs open up a lot faster for me with XP.

[Singh400]

Originally Posted by Flimber

There are few ways of getting a 'lite' version of vista and there are custom installers (e.g., http://www.vlite.net/index.html). Youtube has a vid of a system running merrily in 256MB RAM, IIRC.

I wouldn't touch nlite nor vlite with a barge pole. The amount of damage you can do to your Windows installation is unreal. Number of times, I've read a person has a major problem with Windows, only to find out that he/she nlited the XP install and unknowningly removed a critical system component.

[Brausch]

I shall be sticking with XP, I don't see why I should spend good money on Vista when it offers me nothing more than a resource hog interface, constant file indexing (great for your HD's lifespan) and DX10 (taken the gaming world by storm so far). We'll see if Windows 7 has all the features promised for Vista. Microsoft need to get back to basics and realise an OS is just a way of connecting to more interesting software and above all it should be secure and efficient, only then they can add silly things like Aeroglass

[Singh400]

Originally Posted by Brausch

I shall be sticking with XP, I don't see why I should spend good money on Vista when it offers me nothing more than a resource hog interface, constant file indexing (great for your HD's lifespan) and DX10 (taken the gaming world by storm so far). We'll see if Windows 7 has all the features promised for Vista. Microsoft need to get back to basics and realise an OS is just a way of connecting to more interesting software and above all it should be secure and efficient, only then they can add silly things like Aeroglass

I'll bet within 18/24 months you are running Vista. The I-hate-vista bandwagon is long gone and people are starting to see what Vista really is - a good OS.

Originally Posted by Brausch

resource hog interface

Vista actually manages it's memory more effeciently than XP

Originally Posted by Brausch

constant file indexing

I disable this, as I know where I put my files and I don't need to search for file "x" every "x" days. Although, I would agree it is a little harsh on your HD.

Originally Posted by Brausch

it should be secure and efficient

I take it you've disabled UAC then? Nuff said.

Originally Posted by Brausch

DX10

What? Assassin's Creed, BioShock, Call of Juarez, Company of Heroes, Crysis, Flight Simulator X, Gears of War and Lost Planet: Extreme Condition aren't enough for you? Not to mention Alan Wake, Crysis Warhead, Far Cry 2 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky.

[audionewb]

none of those titles are anywhere near dx10 let alone proper dx10 ala dx10.1 or even dx11 when microsoft will put everything they left out because of whining nvidia back in.

true i ma not a vista hater as i have heard plenty of good things about it and most people problems with all windows os's are usually there own fault and lack of knowledge.

however, dx10 was one of it's selling points and they screwed that up and game dev's are just lazy and don't want to have to rewrite whole engines to natively support dx10.

[Brausch]

I'll bet within 18/24 months you are running Vista. The I-hate-vista bandwagon is long gone and people are starting to see what Vista really is - a good OS

.

I bet I won't.

[gazbarber]

Newer is not better Xp will be missed, and its likely MS will make further U turns on this, its the new coke scenario all over again.

Originally Posted by Singh400

I'll bet within 18/24 months you are running Vista. The I-hate-vista bandwagon is long gone and people are starting to see what Vista really is - a good OS.

Tell that to anyone in the tech industry or anyone who has used a computer for longer than since say windows 2k, or anyone who doesn't have a ninja PC or anyone in a house share that needs to copy files between housemates every now and again.

The core problems with vista still exist, i.e. general slowness and unresponsiveness on existing (fast) hardware, DRM, poor basic operating system functionality i.e. file copying, and basically no real improvement apart from a face lift. That’s if you can use it as your applications don't run, but this is a problem every time a new OS comes out.

XP was a vast upgrade on windows 98 (and ME ) and although to some extent it was nothing more than a media friendly (games, movies, music ect...) updated version of windows 2k with teletubby graphics, it provided stability, ease of use, keeping the majority of the metaphors, vastly improved multi-tasking and providing a pretty rock solid foundation for applications while not getting in the way. The new interface was simply a skin and could be turned off to get similar performance to w2k for those that wanted to.
Its purpose as an OS is to run applications, full stop, its a hardware/software interface with some handy helper functions for hardware, file and application management.

Originally Posted by Singh400

Vista actually manages it's memory more effeciently than XP

Where is the don't make me laugh smiley?

If you have more than 2GB it may be true, otherwise expect the whole system to grind to a craw, some people seem to think an OS is an application in and of itself, it is not, instead it is a platform to allow the user to run programs and provide some features for managing the system. It should never include DRM , should run in the background providing as many resources to its running applications and generally be a good host

If it does indeed manag things more efficiently, run several systems of different configurations together, the new uber pc may run as fast as XP, but all the others will run at a variety of slow ‘ness in comparison.

I repeat the changes from previous especially consumer/home use OS's to XP were massive and mainly focused on reliability and scaleability, vista provides nothing beyond this and yet makes the user suffer, an OS should put up and shut up, and run my damn applications without hassling me, bogging me down or otherwise just getting in the way.

Originally Posted by Singh400

What? Assassin's Creed, BioShock, Call of Juarez, Company of Heroes, Crysis, Flight Simulator X, Gears of War and Lost Planet: Extreme Condition aren't enough for you? Not to mention Alan Wake, Crysis Warhead, Far Cry 2 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky.

I need that smiley again^

How many of them either look significantly better or fun faster (due to the new optimised DX ) than on DX9/XP. Company of hero's DX10 'upgrade' consistered of a few rocks on the ground and didn't Crysis pretty much cheat with its DX10 features as they were available on DX9 but they just turned them off, change an ini file and bam DX10 features on a DX9 machine, wow that’s progress, pay to stifle your competition (which is your own bloody product)

Another thing to remember is the days of doubling performance of a pc system in a year or so, which brought actually tangible advantages are well behind us, a 2-3 year old system with XP can run anything anyone could possibly every want with the exception of truly hardcore games on a huge resolution. Even for that scenario, stick in a top end graphics card and it goes a long way to evening the odds (4870 for £190ish anyone?). The only reason people who are happy with XP will upgrade their OS next is to overcome the 4GB memory limit in XP, this is likely to be gamers, once we get to 2GB cards its ram is gonna compromise general OS performance, for everyone else I and a great number of other people in the industry can't see why you'd bother.

Finally I'd say Microsoft’s problem is that it has made a product, that while not perfect, is good enough and that’s all most people want at the end of the day. If they wanted a better OS and cared they would probably be using Linux now.
Newer is not better

[andykn]

Originally Posted by wormvortex

TBH vista is basically XP but with some kewl obvious advatanges as well as many you don't notice day to day.

People who still bitch about it being crap and whatnot are just jumping on the bandwagon that most people got off last year

PCPro magazine reckon Vista is about 10-15% slower than XP, like for like.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by Brausch

.

I bet I won't.

Wouldn't blame you if you didn't. I have it running on a decent dual core, plenty of ram, and, well, so what tbh? I might feel different if I was into using tons of multimedia on it - but I'm not.

This, in the end, is what has seen Vista dubbed, even by the reviewers now it's bedded in, a disappointment. It just doesn't 'wow' enough to persuade it's that much better than XP. Not to mention that XP is the longest running MS OS (Between releases that is) and people are now happy with it.

Since XP, unless MS send out a crap update, is stable as a rock for the majority of users, how is Vista, any 'more stable'?

Yes it is more 'secure', but that only applies if you are not sitting behind at least two firewalls (hard and software). Which I hope to God most people are. Again, so what then?

I don't mind the OS myself, I am happy enough with it, I just don't see why anyone would 'have', or would 'want' to go for it if they are happy enough with XP.

Because in all honesty, I cannot say, hand on heart that I would be happy dropping XP in favour of it.

[Razor]

Good riddance to XP I much prefer Vista. If you have a half decent pc with more than 2gb of ram you wont have any problems. I have been running vista on both my pc's since it was released over a year ago, with no issues at all. I hate going back to use xp now and I wouldn't have it installed on my rigs.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Razor

Good riddance to XP I much prefer Vista. If you have a half decent pc with more than 2gb of ram you wont have any problems. I have been running vista on both my pc's since it was released over a year ago, with no issues at all. I hate going back to use xp now and I wouldn't have it installed on my rigs.

What do you not like about xp, that makes you hate it so?

[Razor]

I was waiting for you to pop up.

I just prefer vista, its allot slicker, looks nicer, is more polished, side bar, good search feature, very fast boot times, very polite and has lovely front end. Its also very suited to a HTPC. XP looks old compared to vista. The differences on vista are subtle at first but after a while when you go back to xp you will realise how dated xp feels in comparison.

EDIT: I have done this conversation with you a few times in a few different threads now.

[Gary D]

I've been running vista Ultimate for over a year and i'm perfectly happy with it, i'm no longer a geek so i'm not tossing about with stuff every 5 mins and unlike Razor I'm not running my local AMC on it (hi Razor ) so that may have something to do with it.

I've got XP on my works laptop and it does feel a bit dated - but as long as they are stable then i dont really mind which i use. But i have to say i never got why Vista was panned so much.


Gary

[Singh400]

Originally Posted by Brausch

I bet I won't.

Your on.

Originally Posted by gazbarber

Newer is not better Xp will be missed, and its likely MS will make further U turns on this, its the new coke scenario all over again.

Never said newer is better.

Originally Posted by gazbarber

Tell that to anyone in the tech industry or anyone who has used a computer for longer than since say windows 2k, or anyone who doesn't have a ninja PC or anyone in a house share that needs to copy files between housemates every now and again.

2GB is pretty much standard nowadays. And thats all Vista needs to run smoothly.

Originally Posted by gazbarber

The core problems with vista still exist, i.e. general slowness and unresponsiveness on existing (fast) hardware, DRM, poor basic operating system functionality i.e. file copying, and basically no real improvement apart from a face lift. That’s if you can use it as your applications don't run, but this is a problem every time a new OS comes out.

Most if not all of these have been addressed in SP1.

Originally Posted by gazbarber

XP was a vast upgrade on windows 98 (and ME ) and although to some extent it was nothing more than a media friendly (games, movies, music ect...) updated version of windows 2k with teletubby graphics, it provided stability, ease of use, keeping the majority of the metaphors, vastly improved multi-tasking and providing a pretty rock solid foundation for applications while not getting in the way. The new interface was simply a skin and could be turned off to get similar performance to w2k for those that wanted to.

...and you can turn off Aero in Vista aswell.

Originally Posted by Gary D

But i have to say i never got why Vista was panned so much.

Gary

That's easy, because people don't like change. It was exactly the same when XP was released - huge uproar, about how XP is this, that, and whatever.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Razor

EDIT: I have done this conversation with you a few times in a few different threads now.

Yea I know, I couldn't help bailting sorry

It comes down to you liking the interface and having a pc with the resources to make it work 'slicker'. If on the otherhand you were not so fortunite and had it forced upon you for what would be for vista an underspeced laptop or pc i think your opinion would change. Further if you had to use it for any sort of productivity, your opinion would likely change.

My dad has a sony laptop, Centrino, core 2 duo 5500 and 1.5GB of ram and for example when you run a single youtube video it stutters every now and again (like once every 30 secs), nothing else open but one IE or firefox. It originaly had 1GB and bought another 1gb Stick, but sony had put 2 512mb's in ... You could imagine I hope what something that actualy uses processing power or I/O is like, copying, remnaming and moving files takes an inordinate amount of time .... To many problems for me, but maybe i'm asking too much?
Also the machine doesn't have any really sony bloat and mainly just had anti virus and firewall running.
I will get another 1gb stick soon, but what if your max memory is less than 2gb, or one of those ultra mobiles that for some reason has vista as the standard option (hp mininote, a variety of samsung q1 and a similar sony)?

If he ran this on xp things would be very different, its technicaly apart from the integrated graphics faster than my home pc and I multi task like buggery and never have any jerk'ness or any performance issues except for my 4 year old install of XP taking about 2-3 minutes to fully boot.

Razor I'd say you are one the forunite few that fit into the tiny bit of the ven diagram that vista is really for, and I'd be supprised if you ddin't like it. When a £600-£700 laptop 6 month to 1 year after vista's realease isn't usable at stock what else but a problem would you call that ? As time marches on and more cheap pc's reach the power of yours the userbase will be happier I'm sure, but as an upgrade, no thanks.

I hope you can see that for you, its great, for many the thing is just too damn slow and for others like me, all the fancy eye candy in the world wouldn't offset the poor performance of file operations or the long boot and shutdown times.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by gazbarber

Razor I'd say you are one the forunite few that fit into the tiny bit of the ven diagram that vista is really for, and I'd be supprised if you ddin't like it. When a £600-£700 laptop 6 month to 1 year after vista's realease isn't usable at stock what else but a problem would you call that ? As time marches on and more cheap pc's reach the power of yours the userbase will be happier I'm sure, but as an upgrade, no thanks.

I hope you can see that for you, its great, for many the thing is just too damn slow and for others like me, all the fancy eye candy in the world wouldn't offset the poor performance of file operations or the long boot and shutdown times.

No worries on the baiting mate, you are my sparing partner on this topic.

This is my take on vista is this. Dont use vista on a pc with less than 2gb, in fact use more than 2gb as it caches less. Dont use it on a single core cpu.

Basically its the new OS and the new OS needs new hardware and decent specs to run it. The same happened with XP. People with pentium 2's with 256-512meg of ram were trying to run it and it was performing like a sack of ****. Everyone complained about xp and said that they would never leave windows 2000.

You need the right hardware for the right OS, just like you need the right hardware for certain games to run correctly. There is no real excuse for buying or selling a brand new pc/laptop to use with vista with less than 2gb as memory is so cheap these days.

[gazbarber]

Originally Posted by Singh400

Never said newer is better.

I know (don't think i said you did ), but its usually implied that "your in the past man" attitude to why vista is better, and it doesn't hold water.

Originally Posted by Singh400

2GB is pretty much standard nowadays. And thats all Vista needs to run smoothly.

Really? maybe for the sort of thing you can afford but many bog standard models, which vista is installed on by defualt, don't have 2GB most have 1GB. What is a user who knows no better ment to do, just put up and shut up I guess.

Originally Posted by Singh400

Most if not all of these have been addressed in SP1.

Really? I'd better tell my dads pc that ... it obviously isn't aware that it should be working properly now

Originally Posted by Singh400

...and you can turn off Aero in Vista aswell.

Can you turn the DRM off, the real reason everything is slow? As said XP's visuals were just a wrapper over a modified win2k, the core of Vista is whats rotten.

Originally Posted by Singh400

That's easy, because people don't like change. It was exactly the same when XP was released - huge uproar, about how XP is this, that, and whatever.

But when they make a well informed decision to stay with something that works on their current hardware they get barrated for not joining the jet set.

XP like vista wasn't ready, XP got ready and useable much quicker than vista has, and I don't think vista will, unlike XP its problems are artictectural (XP being based on 2k, just needed a little more umph), MS made a bo boo.
Further I wouildn't have recomended XP to anyone while it was still in the shape that vista currently is.

Change for the sake of it, unless you like eye candy then buy a new machine that can haddle it. As said I want an os to run applications, quickly, securerly and reliably, XP in its current form provides me all this, and provides the vast majority of current hardware a better user experience -eye candy.

What can I do on Vista that I can't do on XP (we've already went through DX10 and the joke that is)?

[pringtef]

Balmer himself, and Gates before him, have admitted that they have made substantial mistakes with Vista, most noticeably rushing it out of the door before it was ready.

The biggest hit Microsoft are taking is the lack of companies migrating to Vista, their timing of news of the proposed date for the release of Windows Seven seems to acknowledge that Vista will be viewed as another Windows Millenium