Windows XP vs. Vista?

Keebler Elf

The Original Elf
Aug 31, 2001
14,794
473
83
The Keebler Factory
So I'm thinking about buying a new computer. Pretty much everything but the monitor, keyboard, mouse, case, SATA hard drives, and speakers will be new. I have an external (USB) enclosure for IDE drives so that's how I'll transfer my old data over.

Key point: I don't really want to go to Vista but this thread is about the pros & cons of doing so. I know most people hate Vista (if I could do without it I would) but this is more about what's the downside to using XP vs. Vista on a new computer. I had been hoping to hold out until the new Windows comes out a couple years down the road but my current computer woes look like that's not an option.

I currently have an original OEM Win XP Home and I anticipate it won't work with the new system as too many components will be changing, so I'll very likely have to buy a new OS one way or the other.

1) From what I understand, the biggest problem is that XP can only handle 32-bit capability but Vista uses 64-bit. So if I use XP, I won't be utilizing the full capabilities of the system. How big an issue is this? If I'm not even going to notice, then it's not an issue.

2) What about old software? I have a bootleg Adobe Pro (which I actually use a fair bit, vs. just the Reader) and a bootleg Microsoft Office. Will these work with Vista? I'm thinking not, which means I'll have to replace them both. That means more money.

3) One of my biggest concerns is I keep hearing Vista isn't compatible with a lot of things. I'm usually not a front-of-the-line, get the latest and greatest type of guy. I usually wait a couple years until the kinks have been worked out as I don't need high performance computer parts. World of Warcraft is the most advanced game I've played and otherwise I just use my computer for word processing, surfing the net, and other basic tasks. No high-end graphics usage here.

What are people's thoughts on the above?
 

Hobbyer

Member
Feb 17, 2008
395
0
16
32bit vs 64bit - Don't even worry about this, not an issue, Vista or not. Being able to address more than 4GB is meaningless unless your application knows how to. I only know of a few apps that benefit from 64bit and these are very, very, very specialized programs (even still, I use the 32bit version of these).

Likewise, forget about performance between the XP and Vista. You won't notice a thing on a modern computer unless you enjoy running benchmarks.

Future - When XP came out people were pointing crosses and garlic at it, but now look how solid it is. Vista will be the same. Like it or not, Vista is the future for Windows PCs and from my experience and those of others it's very solid O/S. Driver issues are a non-issue now (I used Vista the day it came out and yes old hardware was a problem then, but not anymore).

Software compatibility - new stuff will definitely be Vista compatible but old stuff will be hit and miss. But we're talking really old stuff here, anything relatively recent from a reputable company will work. Free shareware off the internet written by some 14 year old might not.

Annoying talkback and popups. These are the worst parts of Vista but can be disabled thank God.
 

Keebler Elf

The Original Elf
Aug 31, 2001
14,794
473
83
The Keebler Factory
Hobbyer said:
Like it or not, Vista is the future for Windows PCs...
Actually, it's not. Vista is already a lame duck as the next Windows OS is being worked on and expected in about 2 years.

That being said, your points about not noticing the difference are good ones.
 

Hobbyer

Member
Feb 17, 2008
395
0
16
Keebler Elf said:
Actually, it's not. Vista is already a lame duck as the next Windows OS is being worked on and expected in about 2 years.

That being said, your points about not noticing the difference are good ones.
Vista was in the works the day XP was released...
 

Hobbyer

Member
Feb 17, 2008
395
0
16
Keebler Elf said:
Actually, it's not. Vista is already a lame duck as the next Windows OS is being worked on and expected in about 2 years.

That being said, your points about not noticing the difference are good ones.
Vista was in the works the day XP was released...

2 years? are you kidding? this is Microsoft.

(sorry I ended up posting this twice)
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,064
6,191
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Saw an article on the web saying Windows7 will out by Xmas and if it follows MS tradition it will still have some bugs to work out.

Both Vista SP1 and XP are solid. I have the 32b versions and see no compelling reason to go to 64b. Put 4GB ram in my laptop and Vista SP1, 32b flys, it uses 3.54 of that 4GB ram which is OK with me.
However when I switch to Ubuntu 32b on that same dual boot laptop, it is even quicker....it really flys with that 4GB of ram.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,064
6,191
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
overlgrover said:
Sorry It had to be said. The only OS that matters. It is true I have recently converted and would never go back.
Leopard OSX 10.5
Just take a look
http://www.apple.com/ca/getamac/
You should have tried Ubuntu first.
The switch wouldn't have cost you a penny!...;)
 

Hobbyer

Member
Feb 17, 2008
395
0
16
I posted in another thread (can't remember which one), that it is the application that determines what O/S you should use. If it's for everyday email, surfing, and light use of specialized apps, some gaming, then your choices are abundant, pretty much everything.

If you need to use a specialized program, don't just install an O/S because it's so great and then find out later that your favourite app is not made for it. Realistically, this doesn't apply to 90% of people out there, but I just want to make a point of it since Keebler was concerned about software compatibility.
 
O

OnTheWayOut

works for me ......x 2

I've purchased 2 PCs with Vista preloaded, a desktop and a laptop. Both have run flawlessly and neither has had a single crash in close to 9 months. My SO is what I term a needy user, always seems to have issues and calls me for help. My tech support duties for her are down to almost nil with Vista. I turned off the Vista user control crap (the annoying boxes that ask permission to blink or take a dump or whatever) and it does everything I need.

Most people I've seen that have issues with Vista have older devices that do not have Vista drivers.
 

blueman

New member
Sep 3, 2005
1,315
2
0
buy a Mac

I have to agree with overlgrover. If I had the opportunity to do it all over again I would buy a Mac.

There is nothing I know of you can do on a PC that you can't do (better) on a Mac.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,064
6,191
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
blueman said:
There is nothing I know of you can do on a PC that you can't do (better) on a Mac.
Yes there is something better than a Mac, it's Linux.
Linux is more stable than a Mac, does everything a Mac does and more, plus Linux and all it's apps are FREE, while a Mac costs far more than a PC!...;)
 

Hobbyer

Member
Feb 17, 2008
395
0
16
blueman said:
I have to agree with overlgrover. If I had the opportunity to do it all over again I would buy a Mac.

There is nothing I know of you can do on a PC that you can't do (better) on a Mac.
For media production and general home use sure...

In certain fields, however, the best applications do not run at all on OSX.

BTW, I run Leopard on a Hackintosh (so that I can run Logic Studio), so I know what OSX is all about. To be honest, for normal usage I see no difference other than being initially wowed by the pretty graphics and slick look. Both systems get the job done. I'm not any more productive on an Apple vs PC for similar tasks.

I use whichever O/S the application was designed for, and in the case of Logic, it only runs on Mac. On the flip side, all my work applications are PC only.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,064
6,191
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
tommy2bit said:
Vista uses 3.54 of 4GB ram? That's a lot!! I was thinking of upgrading an XP machine to Vista but it only has 2GB ram.
The Vista laptop came with 2GB ram, it ran OK.
Decided to max it out to 4GB ram because ram was cheap and some techies told me Vista 32b will use 3.54 of 4GB ram. After the ram upgrade Vista is noticeably quicker and boots up quicker in both Vista and Ubuntu.

Not sure how much of 4GB ram XP 32b will use.
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,064
6,191
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
tommy2bit said:
Thanks for the info on Vista ram. I run XP 32b with 2GB ram, and at times I do some heavy multitasking. In my own use, I rarely see memory consumption go beyond 1.2 GB. That could be much different for others though.
Vista is a resource HOG and needs more ram than XP.
 

Hobbyer

Member
Feb 17, 2008
395
0
16
WoodPeckr said:
Yes there is something better than a Mac, it's Linux.
Linux is more stable than a Mac, does everything a Mac does and more, plus Linux and all it's apps are FREE, while a Mac costs far more than a PC!...;)
Sure, you can do technically do "everything" on Linux but...

Considering that it's free, who actually uses Linux for serious use as a client O/S (i.e. non web/file serving)? Believe me, if businesses could save money and still get the job done they would. The fact that businesses and many people will actually PAY lots of money for Mac's and Window's tells you something about the quality of Linux apps. I mean, what are the Linux equivalents that can compete with Photoshop, SAS, Logic, Office, AutoCAD, Final Cut? I've tried some of them and they are a complete joke, I'd never use them for real use.

IMO, all the free apps for Linux do not add up to even one good app on Mac or PC. This is not the fault of the developer, but on this open source BS. I mean, what's the incentive to make a decent app?
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,064
6,191
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Andy Stitzer said:
I'd be running Win 98SE if I had my copy.
LOL!
I liked Win98SE to and thought it normal for it to crash once a day!
Then I loved XP more because it could goes months before a crash.....:D
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,064
6,191
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Keebler Elf said:
So I'm thinking about buying a new computer. Pretty much everything but the monitor, keyboard, mouse, case, SATA hard drives, and speakers will be new.
FWIW
If I were getting a new PC it will have one of these new Intel Core i7 CPUs in it.
They will be out shortly.
 

Hobbyer

Member
Feb 17, 2008
395
0
16
Andy Stitzer said:
I have a gig of ram with XP and I don't think I've seen it go much beyong 700 megs, and thats with trying to push it beyond what I normally would do.

My problem with Vista is that it would require extra horsepower and for nothing. I don't give a shit about the OS, I run apps, and a good OS will let me do so without getting in the way like Vista does, or it seems require obserue non intuititive command lines like Linux [lets forget games for a moment], or being a raging homo like Mac. That being said, I'd be running Win 98SE if I had my copy.
You said it bro! Windows 98SE was awesome.

From Win95 => Vista the O/S is still doing what it has always done but just under a prettier environment. So can't really expect more than that. The resource hog problem has always been there

95 was a hog compared to 3.1, 98 compared to 95, 2000 to 98 and XP to 2000, Vista to XP... but in due course it all works out as high mem in systems become the norm, and all the bells and whistles start to work with no hiccups under the fast systems.

But I agree, Microsoft has to start shipping Vista with those annoying talkback "are you really sure" messages turned OFF.
 
Toronto Escorts