SRL Archive - News and General

I'm bored, in school, so I thought I'd start something.

Vista, or XP?

I go XP, because of the nagware in Vista, and because XP just pwns that much.

XP owns way harder, but if you buy a Quad Core prossesor you should get Vista

Yeah, I suppose. I just hate alot of the, erm, non XP-ness of Vista. I also HIGHLY hate the compatability issues with alot of things I like (Halo Custom Edition…)

Vista. It's the time to change now tbh.

Works perfectly for me in every way :)

A year ago i had ultimate, LOTS of compatibility issues. Now, none.

And it also looks a heap better, eye candy ftw!


-Ashur

i have vista, i like it, can be a pain at time, but once you disable the user account control rubbish it gets much better, and if you really want you can turn vista's looks into xp

once we get some good directx 10 games vista will be better.

xp was good aswell never really had a problem

vista is trash…I have it and i don't like it that much. hp makes make sense.

I'm running xp 64 bit, which is basically an upgraded server 03…

i voted XP got vista atm believe me it SUX!

Vista, Suxx

XP definitely, I had Vista for about a year and then couldn't stand it anymore + XP is cheaper.

btw this should be discussions & debates probably.

btw, I vote vista….

click here to find out why

yes you should click it

From: MasterKill
btw, I vote vista….

click here to find out why

yes you should click it

Why would you vote Vista since it is so bad?.. The poll is which is better :p

Epic fail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYIfyDENTIY

I believe MasterKill is being MasterSarcastic….
Unless you were being sarcastic….
then yes

Edit:
rofl at MK's link

You have to upgrade to Vista. XP isn't all too great and the world is moving past it.

From: born2code
You have to upgrade to Vista. XP isn't all too great and the world is moving past it.

I'll move back to Vista again in a year or 2 probably, once it is more-stable & more apps are compatible with it

The only complaints I have with my Vista is the mysterious dissapearing of my DVD/CD Drive every once in a while (quickly fixable though with editing something in the registry, but still annoying), and the fact that it uses more resources. My computer isn't that great though (1.5 GB RAM, 3 GHz proccessor, Dual Core), so I can't expect much from it.

But I'll say Vista - it's time to move on.

The only reason you'd buy Vista is because its a fag/fad. Believe me, this isn't a bandwagon thing. There are performance and legal reasons you'd not want to use it.

Yea I personally like vista because I have the quad core but i like my xp to. Though if I am using smart I go with vista because well for one my Vista is an actual computer unlike my xp which is a labtop and i don't like to run down the battery will I'm killing or something and another because I duplicated scar with that one guys tutorial (props to him but forgot his name) so i can rune to smart scripts at once so with xp it is to much for my computer to handle with only a 1 gb processor and my vista being like 5 or 6 because i installed a new not that I am trying to brag I don't want to look like an —

oops delete this post please!!

windows xp is for old people, btw one option in your poll is in italics, the other is not…bias much? i could be wrong

Well, I like XP because it can run on some pretty crappy computers (I had it running on a '98 server (YES, SERVER) with a max HD space of 4GB (Terrible, I know), and it ran PERFECTLY. Not that anything else did, like the internet, but it ran! Now, if you were to try Vista. FFS, Zeus would smite that thing.

My stance is that XP is smaller, easier to use, more user friendly, and not too gaudy.

I'm not saying that Vista is terrible *cough*yesitis*cough*, but I just don't have the time nor enough pain killers to deal with it.

For Vista lovers: I'm sorry, but I just can't stand something that nags you about programs all the time, and is WAY too flashy for my tastes. I like a nice, clean UI, with some minor adjustments. I don't want something that looks like Oprah's bedroom plastered on my screen (GAH! ANAL SEEPAGE!)

Either way, an OS is an OS. I just think that XP is better. So there :p

From: wazzzup
windows xp is for old people, btw one option in your poll is in italics, the other is not…bias much? i could be wrong

The poll automatically italicizes the current leader of the poll. I won't deny that I'm biased towards XP, but it's not like I don't have reason to. :p

Vista SUCKS. Xp all the way

From: Brain
I believe MasterKill is being MasterSarcastic….
Unless you were being sarcastic….
then yes

Edit:
rofl at MK's link

no I voted vista couse XP can not handle a QuadCore, wich means XP is getting old. Also vista works better now, those endless permision questions can be turned off, and I never had some main crashes yet on my vista laptop.

Whoops, sorry MK, lol, that is a good point though

From: MasterKill
no I voted vista couse XP can not handle a QuadCore, wich means XP is getting old. Also vista works better now, those endless permision questions can be turned off, and I never had some main crashes yet on my vista laptop.

Open task manager > Processes > Right-click a process > Set Affinity.

As far as I know XP supports up to 32 cores at once :). It's the RAM cap that screws it over though.

But yeah, I got my computer when XP was almost brand new, 2.08GHz 32-bit single-core piece of crap with only 1GB RAM. I tried putting Vista on it once, the sidebar crashed within 8 seconds of booting up the first time, and the Aero theme went about a half hour after that. Plus to my knowladge, Vista is the ONLY operating system that has "incompatibility issues" with certain monitors. It's almost obviously a scam just for MS to get more money off of companies like Acer and HP

R0b0t1, mind explaining those legal issues?

Also, Ubuntu is ftw. If you're using Vista because it looks pretty, you should be using Linux with the Beryl theme. If you like Vista because of it "security policy" (meaning no one's allowed to do anything), get Linux :). I only keep my XP around because of SCAR, FL Studio, and Photoshop.

Edit: The XBox 360 OS also has certain "compatibility issues" with certain companies too

From: Widget
Open task manager > Processes > Right-click a process > Set Affinity.

As far as I know XP supports up to 32 cores at once :). It's the RAM cap that screws it over though.

But yeah, I got my computer when XP was almost brand new, 2.08GHz 32-bit single-core piece of crap with only 1GB RAM. I tried putting Vista on it once, the sidebar crashed within 8 seconds of booting up the first time, and the Aero theme went about a half hour after that. Plus to my knowladge, Vista is the ONLY operating system that has "incompatibility issues" with certain monitors. It's almost obviously a scam just for MS to get more money off of companies like Acer and HP

R0b0t1, mind explaining those legal issues?

Also, Ubuntu is ftw. If you're using Vista because it looks pretty, you should be using Linux with the Beryl theme. If you like Vista because of it "security policy" (meaning no one's allowed to do anything), get Linux :). I only keep my XP around because of SCAR, FL Studio, and Photoshop.

Edit: The XBox 360 OS also has certain "compatibility issues" with certain companies too

Fruity Loops and Photoshop CS2 FTW!

Soon, I'm ordering an Alienware laptop with a dual-core processor, 1GB or ram, and a KICK ASS video card ^.^. (It'd better be kick ass. It's all runs up to $1,450)

I've only seen Vista run, and I just don't like it. Like Widget said, it's just a way for MS to scam more money from you (Having to order special parts and shit for them). I just can't get over the compatability issues.

I'm not going to pretend to know what I'm talking about, Vista just looks smexy.

And UAC can be disabled with a few clicks.

I guess I could say that Vista is like a prostitute. Sure, it looks good, and seems to do it's job well. But when you find out you have AIDS, then, well.. Phail.

Makes me mad Vista sunk low to try and copy Mac. tsk tsk.

There's no competition, Vista will always win.

Unless you are one of those people that can't handle change for the better.

From: Widget
Open task manager > Processes > Right-click a process > Set Affinity.

As far as I know XP supports up to 32 cores at once :). It's the RAM cap that screws it over though.

But yeah, I got my computer when XP was almost brand new, 2.08GHz 32-bit single-core piece of crap with only 1GB RAM. I tried putting Vista on it once, the sidebar crashed within 8 seconds of booting up the first time, and the Aero theme went about a half hour after that. Plus to my knowladge, Vista is the ONLY operating system that has "incompatibility issues" with certain monitors. It's almost obviously a scam just for MS to get more money off of companies like Acer and HP

R0b0t1, mind explaining those legal issues?

Also, Ubuntu is ftw. If you're using Vista because it looks pretty, you should be using Linux with the Beryl theme. If you like Vista because of it "security policy" (meaning no one's allowed to do anything), get Linux :). I only keep my XP around because of SCAR, FL Studio, and Photoshop.

Edit: The XBox 360 OS also has certain "compatibility issues" with certain companies too

Minimum ram for vista to operate decently is 2 gb.

vista

i have a xp and a vista
yes xp is more user friendly but vista is future proof
soon xp will become like all the other windows os (95, 98, 2000, me, etc.) it wont be supported anymore
its not that bad once you have used it for a while
i used to hate vista butonce you have a half decent specs then you wont have any problems

my laptop is 2 GHz dual core with 3GB ram

~shut

None of you people seem to realize that Linux is a legitimate operating system now. It definitely supports more hardware than Vista :D
http://i38.tinypic.com/ebcuo9.png

(For those of you who think I'm using the Vista skin, I'm using the Mac OSX GTK Widgets [buttons/scrollbars/etc], and a slightly modified Beryl window decorations in Emerald.}

Silly people who think Vista copied Mac :p

Edit:

From: Shuttleu
yes xp is more user friendly but vista is future proof

Windows 7 will mostly be a revert to XP, but with Vista's new features :p. Future-proof is definitely not the term to use for Vista.

From: Widget
None of you people seem to realize that Linux is a legitimate operating system now. It definitely supports more hardware than Vista :D
http://i38.tinypic.com/ebcuo9.png

(For those of you who think I'm using the Vista skin, I'm using the Mac OSX GTK Widgets [buttons/scrollbars/etc], and a slightly modified Beryl window decorations in Emerald.}

Silly people who think Vista copied Mac :p

Wow! Iz pretty! I've been hearing about linux from you for a while now. What's it like compared to XP? Does it have compatability issues like Mac's do?

From: Widget
Edit:

Windows 7 will mostly be a revert to XP, but with Vista's new features :p. Future-proof is definitely not the term to use for Vista.

I hope Windows 7 will be a revert. And no, Microsoft Epic Phailed with Vista ^.^

Sort of ironic how people in a RuneScape cheating community are shouting "YAY! IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON!!!".. RS is behind pretty much every possible (popular) MMORPG in about all possible ways, so…

I'll stick to XP. And Vista's WORLD REVOLUTION may perhaps have something to do with the fact that most common computer users buy a ready made pc (HP and such) from a shop and guess what OS they stick into every each one of those these days? Some people won't even realize it sucks if it starts acting up and will just rather conclude they have a poltergeist roaming around in their pc.

oops i ment to click xp but i misclicked vist instead =(

gotta be xp just because its what im used to

I voted for XP, I use Windows XP Ultimate Edition (by Johnny). My computer came with Vista and it worked great. Probably because I have a quad core processor and 4 gigs of ram but whatever. After I got infected with a virus, from being stupid, I decided to try something new, so i went with XP Ultimate. I've stayed with it for a long time and would recommend it to anyone. Taken directly from Johnny's site

Experience all in one:

 * Windows XP Professional
    - Performance, Compatibility and Connectivity
    - User Interface

 * Windows XP Media Center 2005
    - Entertainment

 * Windows XP Tablet PC 2005
    - Portability

 * Windows Vista Ultimate
    - User Interface and New Generation Applications

 * Mac OS
    - User Interface

 * Linux
    - User Interface

Plus:

 - SATA and RAID Support

 - Integrated Updates

and much more...

If you want Johnny's website with the newest download link just pm me. Its a torrent so if you don't know how to download don't bother.

And if you want an OS that is small look up MicroXP, its smaller then 100MB. Great for Virtual Machines.

I perfer XP, since theres too many problems with vista atm (games, programs etc) and too much hassle to get 1 program to work (had to get something install on mates computer that had vista, took me ages X_X)

XXXp. Nice clean environment, almost no bugs.

i just got a new computer with vista, and it sucks. Everything looks cooler than xp, but its a bitch to save and run shit like subversion and the totise svn. It wouldn't even let me use my anti-virus program i installed for a while until i turned off the windows firewall n shit, and i cant even download itunes :( (I just got it so dun flame me because i didn't try hard enough or something).

my opinion := XP > Vista
if Vista > Xp then
WriteLn'Your an Idiot';

:P

Vista owns!

to bad you can't get xp 'LEAGALY' any more :rolleyes:

From: noobking21
to bad you can't get xp 'LEAGALY' any more :rolleyes:

Ahh, my dear Watson! That is incorrect.

Alienware sells computers with Windows XP Media Center Edition (Which can be a pain in the ass, but eh. It works fine on my friends computer.) As soon as I can I'm getting a decent one (it will do what I need it to do - and my laundry). But either way, you can still buy it 'LEAGALY' (legally, for those who can spell~:rolleyes:). But thanks for your input =D

XP PWNZ ANYDAY i got vista on my comp and im REALLY regretting it cuz its still pretty glitchy plus u cant do as much stuff as u can on XP. I'm also broke so i cant but XP again (sadface)

I prefer XP, mostly because im used to it, and the interface on vista is annoying, but the widgets are kool, another thing with vista is that allot of things were already made for XP so ittl be a while till vista gets allot of stuff.

From: noobking21
to bad you can't get xp 'LEAGALY' any more :rolleyes:

I could name 20 places….. The Dell Website for e,g Vista is default on all comps pay you can pay $50 to Upgrade to Xp.

From: NiCbaZ
I could name 20 places….. The Dell Website for e,g Vista is default on all comps pay you can pay $50 to Upgrade to Xp.

The word is Downgrade

Greetings

From: Novanext
the interface on vista is annoying, but the widgets are kool

Gadgets on Mac, and Widgets on Linux I think (or is it Widgets on Mac, Gadgets on Vista, and Widgets on Linux =\)

From: migue
The word is Downgrade

Greetings

On the contrary, XP is a step up from Vista.

*Checking to make sure I haven't ranted on this before…*

Ok, never ONCE in my lifetime have I ever HEARD OF an "Operating System" that's capable of not being compatible with a monitor. Monitor's are ridiculously standardized (*VGA and DVI or whatever), not to mention it's the graphics card that has to deal with them, not the operating system. (The whole thing is a big scam by Microsoft to get monitor companies to pay them for "Vista Approved"ness, meaning theirs won't be blacklisted.)

I can't name a single thing Vista can do that either XP or Linux can't. (XP can play every game Vista can (Except DirectX 10 stuff, but hardly any graphics cards even support that still. I sure won't have enough money to buy one that can anytime soon) by using a tiny program that just tells the game that you're running Vista, it has nothing to do with the software itself.) The only thing I've seen Vista do that XP can't is that those diagonal lines that move behind the window borders (take a guess on who they stole that from. I'll give you a hint: LINUX) and the Vista Widgets (scrollbars, buttons, checkboxes, etc.) look overly close to the Mac OS X ones

Edit: Lol, I already said about ¼ of this before, but whatever.
Also, those of you who say people who prefer XP over Vista because we "can't handle change" should really try out XP first and figure out for yourself why it pwns :) [Avatar << Linux Zealot :D]

From: migue
The word is Downgrade

Greetings

Howcome Xp is better?

well i suppose to someone who likes vista better it would be a downgrade, and widget so your saying the whole OS thing is a whole conspiracy? I dunno about it and i dont really care but you did back up your argument well, heh. But i still think vista has only got looks to it

Vista easily owns Windows XP ;) People are upset due to the change, however, give it a couple of weeks, it'll grow on you. However, Windows XP Professional will win if you have Windows Vista Home Basic or Windows Vista Business.

But, if you were to buy it now, i'd say wait about 1 or 2 more years for the Windows Seven release ;)

I'm hoping Windows 7 is more XP-ish with more graphic awesomness. Though, I love simplicity.

You've all heard that Windows Mojave BS right? Aggh! Curse you Microsoft!

I would smell Vista the moment I walked into that room. =P

@Widget: Which program tells other proggies that you're running Vista? Perhaps linkage? (My friend would love this for Halo 2 ^.^)

[QUOTE=Dan's The Man;470413]Vista easily owns Windows XP ;) People are upset due to the change, however, give it a couple of weeks, it'll grow on you. However, Windows XP Professional will win if you have Windows Vista Home Basic or Windows Vista Business.

But, if you were to buy it now, i'd say wait about 1 or 2 more years for the Windows Seven release ;)
I did try, for a whole year. Way to many bugs, SP1 wouldn't even install! On XP now :)

XP FTW! Over the summer I was in Ohio, and my bro sent me a screenshot of our computer and it had vista on it…. He's lucky that I noticed the vista transformation icon on the desktop LOL. I would have literally killed him. Down with vista! Up with freedom from horible OS's like vista!

I have Vista and i voted for Vista too! Just like the interface from vista etc. And it came wih my computer too so.

I vote vista just because it has alot more to offer than xp because of the fact there is no more upgrades for xp and the microsoft team is consentrating on vista- I believe vista's got real potential.

Well, IMO, XP is safer. From what I've heard, Vista is VERY prone to viruses, and crashed often (with some people, not all).

From: ProphesyOfWolf
Well, IMO, XP is safer. From what I've heard, Vista is VERY prone to viruses, and crashed often (with some people, not all).

Well, what you've heard is wrong. Technically, Vista is much safer and recommended by IT Professionals over XP.

ive always prefered xp over vista. works out better for me

I sometimes wish i had xp, cant play all games on vista

XP all the way. vista is too complicated and its has too much blocks on it, and barely anything is compatible with it (lot of games)

From: sn0man
XP all the way. vista is too complicated and its has too much blocks on it, and barely anything is compatible with it (lot of games)

Complicated? Don't think so. It's GFX is WAY better then XP too. Eye candy FTW…


Compatible? Don't think so. We're getting into the point of where most software is now compatible with Vista.


Complete? I think so. Vista's already on its first service pack and developing it's next already.


Ashur owns? I know so.




-Ashur

From: n3ss3s
Vista owns!

Yes, in the evil 781st dimension where everything is reverse. And as Widget said, microsoft just wants money by making vista not compatible with anything unless the companies pay them and you can get eye candy in linux and XP too, as that seems to be the main point for using vista to every vista user. And the crashing is quite fun if I'm at my friends house and his playing some game and right before the next save spot/checkpoint/end of stage or mission etc. *Crash* => RAAAAAAAAGE :p

I love vista, it works perfectly and what you can accomplish is amazing!!

However, right now I have one PC for xp and another for vista. I use xp for gaming right now and vista for any office processing.

Complaints against Vista:
-Insecure (This is true for most new OS'es, so it's unlikely to go away anytime soon)
-Over expensive (Self explanatory)
-Requires at least 3 times the specs of XP (Vista: 800MHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 20GB hard drive with 15GB vs XP: 233MHz CPU, 64MB RAM, 1.5GB of drive space)
-Over protective (User Account Control asks you about everything)
-Uses massive system resources (Even without Aero on, Vista will use half a gig of RAM. With it on, it uses 1GB)
-Many old programs do not and will not run on Vista
-New Start bar / GUI is confusing, cluttered, and some features are hidden
-Refusal to allow access to a users own folders


Compliments to Vista:
-Pretty (Especially with Aero enabled)
-Better file search times (With SP1, it supposedly gets 86% better search times than XP)
-Gives local data transfer rates (If you're copying a file from C:\ to C:\Example, it will tell you the rate and the time left)

I'd say the cons outweigh the pros, and I'll stick to XP.

(By the way, on Vista I get 20% CPU usage; 42% RAM usage; and 1.2GB page file usage running nothing but Vista and AIM 5.9. XP gets 2% CPU usage; 3% RAM usage; 100MB page file usage running only XP and AIM 5.9, Linux gets 0.2% CPU usage; 4% RAM usage; and 20MB SWAP space used running Linux and Pidgin)


Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0Ghz
Intel X38 Motherboard
4GB DDR3 @ 1333Mhz RAM
Nvidia 9800GX2 (1GB VRAM, PCI-E 2.0)
750GB SATA-II 7200RPM Western Digital x2
400GB SATA-II 7200RPM Western Digital x1

From: Wrycu
Complaints against Vista:
-Insecure (This is true for most new OS'es, so it's unlikely to go away anytime soon)
-Over expensive (Self explanatory)
-Requires at least 3 times the specs of XP (Vista: 800MHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 20GB hard drive with 15GB vs XP: 233MHz CPU, 64MB RAM, 1.5GB of drive space)
-Over protective (User Account Control asks you about everything)
-Uses massive system resources (Even without Aero on, Vista will use half a gig of RAM. With it on, it uses 1GB)
-Many old programs do not and will not run on Vista
-New Start bar / GUI is confusing, cluttered, and some features are hidden
-Refusal to allow access to a users own folders


Compliments to Vista:
-Pretty (Especially with Aero enabled)
-Better file search times (With SP1, it supposedly gets 86% better search times than XP)
-Gives local data transfer rates (If you're copying a file from C:\ to C:\Example, it will tell you the rate and the time left)

I'd say the cons outweigh the pros, and I'll stick to XP.

(By the way, on Vista I get 20% CPU usage; 42% RAM usage; and 1.2GB page file usage running nothing but Vista and AIM 5.9. XP gets 2% CPU usage; 3% RAM usage; 100MB page file usage running only XP and AIM 5.9, Linux gets 0.2% CPU usage; 4% RAM usage; and 20MB SWAP space used running Linux and Pidgin)


Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0Ghz
Intel X38 Motherboard
4GB DDR3 @ 1333Mhz RAM
Nvidia 9800GX2 (1GB VRAM, PCI-E 2.0)
750GB SATA-II 7200RPM Western Digital x2
400GB SATA-II 7200RPM Western Digital x1

Complaints against Vista:
-Insecure (This is true for most new OS'es, so it's unlikely to go away anytime soon)
Have you got Vista SP2, that is by far more secure than xp SP3

-Over expensive (Self explanatory)
Depends on where you buy it, all new computers come with vista and you can easily buy it for around £100

-Requires at least 3 times the specs of XP (Vista: 800MHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 20GB hard drive with 15GB vs XP: 233MHz CPU, 64MB RAM, 1.5GB of drive space)
Well give it a thought, it is much more powerful than any other os (Linux can be debatable)

-Over protective (User Account Control asks you about everything)
You can turn down the security settings :p

-Uses massive system resources (Even without Aero on, Vista will use half a gig of RAM. With it on, it uses 1GB)
Depends on which Vista version you have. If it is all too much then downgrade to the basic version

-Many old programs do not and will not run on Vista
Actually quite a few now. Go to the manufacturers website and download the latest patch, most people dont realise this because they do not inform you

-New Start bar / GUI is confusing, cluttered, and some features are hidden
Matter of opinion there :p

-Refusal to allow access to a users own folders
Once again, just turn down the security settings

:)

-Insecure (This is true for most new OS'es, so it's unlikely to go away anytime soon)
Have you got Vista SP2, that is by far more secure than xp SP3
Vista SP2 is not yet out (and hasn't been pirated, sofar as I can tell)

-Over expensive (Self explanatory)
Depends on where you buy it, all new computers come with vista and you can easily buy it for around £100
Prices are listed as $200 to $320 by Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx)

-Requires at least 3 times the specs of XP (Vista: 800MHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 20GB hard drive with 15GB vs XP: 233MHz CPU, 64MB RAM, 1.5GB of drive space)
Well give it a thought, it is much more powerful than any other os (Linux can be debatable)
Most people don't need the increase in power, making it a very costly useless increase

-Over protective (User Account Control asks you about everything)
You can turn down the security settings :p
True, but that defeats the purpose of it. If you turn it down, it no longer protects you.

-Uses massive system resources (Even without Aero on, Vista will use half a gig of RAM. With it on, it uses 1GB)
Depends on which Vista version you have. If it is all too much then downgrade to the basic version
You shouldn't have to go to the basic version because they added too much useless junk into it.

-Many old programs do not and will not run on Vista
Actually quite a few now. Go to the manufacturers website and download the latest patch, most people dont realise this because they do not inform you
Okay, so this is not actually a problem with Vista (Too lazy to actually check if it's true, so i'll give you this point), but it's still a problem with Microsoft, still requires the user to do research on their own, and therefore is still a point against Vista.

-New Start bar / GUI is confusing, cluttered, and some features are hidden
Matter of opinion there :p
The fact that things are hidden and it's cluttered is not an opinion, it's a fact. It's being confusing is an opinion. Microsoft has stated that they were a bunch of idiots for doing it, and that they plan to fix it in the upcoming Windows 7 (""We did encounter some challenges with the power options in Vista's Start Menu," Sareen wrote. "The goal was to bubble-up and advertise the sleep option so that customers enjoy a faster resume. However, we now know despite our good intentions, customers are opening that fly-out menu and selecting other options. We're looking into improving this experience." Hopefully, the experience improvements will include making sleep actually work reliably, especially on notebook PCs, as well as ensuring the other options are more visible (and keyboard-accessible). >http://apcmag.com/windows_7_promises_fixes_for_vista_taskbar_screwups.htm")

-Refusal to allow access to a users own folders
Once again, just turn down the security settings
True, but also once again, removes the security and forces the user to do their own research.

I prefer vista
works fine for me once I edited the settings

From: Wrycu
Complaints against Vista:
-Insecure (This is true for most new OS'es, so it's unlikely to go away anytime soon)
-Over expensive (Self explanatory)
-Requires at least 3 times the specs of XP (Vista: 800MHz CPU, 512MB RAM, 20GB hard drive with 15GB vs XP: 233MHz CPU, 64MB RAM, 1.5GB of drive space)
-Over protective (User Account Control asks you about everything)
-Uses massive system resources (Even without Aero on, Vista will use half a gig of RAM. With it on, it uses 1GB)
-Many old programs do not and will not run on Vista
-New Start bar / GUI is confusing, cluttered, and some features are hidden
-Refusal to allow access to a users own folders


Compliments to Vista:
-Pretty (Especially with Aero enabled)
-Better file search times (With SP1, it supposedly gets 86% better search times than XP)
-Gives local data transfer rates (If you're copying a file from C:\ to C:\Example, it will tell you the rate and the time left)

I'd say the cons outweigh the pros, and I'll stick to XP.

(By the way, on Vista I get 20% CPU usage; 42% RAM usage; and 1.2GB page file usage running nothing but Vista and AIM 5.9. XP gets 2% CPU usage; 3% RAM usage; 100MB page file usage running only XP and AIM 5.9, Linux gets 0.2% CPU usage; 4% RAM usage; and 20MB SWAP space used running Linux and Pidgin)


Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.0Ghz
Intel X38 Motherboard
4GB DDR3 @ 1333Mhz RAM
Nvidia 9800GX2 (1GB VRAM, PCI-E 2.0)
750GB SATA-II 7200RPM Western Digital x2
400GB SATA-II 7200RPM Western Digital x1

Don't go telling people incorrect information ;)

Insecure:
Vista is much more secure than XP. Even before the release of Service Pack 1.

Over expensive:
What is so over-expensive about it? It took 4 years to make. And prices WILL decrease ;)

Requires more system resources:
NOT TRUE! Vista requires very little resources to run. It chooses what's best for your system when installing. ALL the features on Vista, total, requires 456mb of RAM. If you had a low-end system, Vista won't use most of its' features, otherwise if you have a higher end system, Vista will implement most of its' features ;)

Over Protective:
People complained about XP being insecure, but when Microsoft make a more secure system, people blame Microsoft about it being too secure! And the UAC is very useful if you have gotten used to it and very protective ;) It won't ask for your permission if the software is certified by Microsoft, or is a system resource.

Uses Massive system resources (1GB):
Where the hell are you coming from? Seems to me you just like pissing Microsoft off. I have a 1GB RAM system, and Vista takes no more than 460mb of RAM.

Many old programs don't work on Vista:
Many old programs certainly do.. Vista uses a different EXE engine (which is more secure), but still supports the older ones (Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 9 series), so you can set the compatibility mode. People have complained about Age of Empires II not working, i betcha they haven't set which EXE Engine to use, since it works for me (after setting which EXE engine to use).

New theme is confusing, cluttered and some features hidden:
What complete bullshit! Nothing IS cluttered, Nothing IS confusing, and not many features are hidden (except for ones which can be dangerous if configured incorrectly).

Refusal access to own user folders:
You're mistaken very highly. There is no folder called Documents and Settings in the root directory, installers try to write to that location, that's why it's a short-cut ;) For your own user folder, have you ever checked the Users folder? That is the same as Documents and Settings on XP.

Next time don't give out false information. By the way, if you were to run the amount of programs and services on Linux as that of Vista, you'll see clearly Vista is much faster (this IS A FACT).

Personally I like XP more.
Vista has too many bugs that are really annoying.
Unless Vista can get it's bugs fixed, I will not like it :sasmokin:

From: n00b? n00b?
Personally I like XP more.
Vista has too many bugs that are really annoying.
Unless Vista can get it's bugs fixed, I will not like it :sasmokin:

It didn't have many bugs upon releasing and most of them are fixed now from SP1. I really doubt you have even tried Vista.. So, don't just vote XP by other comments and shit like that, even when you haven't even tried Windows Vista.

[QUOTE=Dan's The Man;478083]It didn't have many bugs upon releasing and most of them are fixed now from SP1. I really doubt you have even tried Vista.. So, don't just vote XP by other comments and shit like that, even when you haven't even tried Windows Vista.

Wanna bet? I am using 2 computers right now, one is on XP my laptop is on Vista Ultimate.

I can't install iTunes and other programs I want to install on vista because of something that prevents me from installing even though I am the only administrator on my laptop. (Yes I did look on google for a solution which I was unsuccessful in finding a method that worked or one that I actually understood.)

Well maybe I like XP more cause it's simpler for me and I'm more familiar with it.
Maybe your good at adapting with the rush of technology, as for me I am still trying to familiarize myself with Vista as it no doubt looks much better.

So please there is no need to use "that" kind of language, and don't go randomly assuming I don't know "Shit".

P.S - You are probably much older than me.

Insecure:
Vista is much more secure than XP. Even before the release of Service Pack 1.

No new OS is secure. If it appears to be so, it's only because not enough people switched over to it to make it worth finding exploits for.

Over expensive:
It's $200 - $300, and that's in the US. In Australia, a copy of Vista Ultimate is $751.

Requires more system resources:
NOT TRUE! Vista requires very little resources to run. It chooses what's best for your system when installing. ALL the features on Vista, total, requires 456mb of RAM. If you had a low-end system, Vista won't use most of its' features, otherwise if you have a higher end system, Vista will implement most of its' features ;)

If you have 1GB and Vista is using 456MB, it's using just under half your memory. HALF. On XP, a 1GB system is fine for gaming. You have about 768MB of your RAM still open for games. On Vista, you have slightly over half of your RAM for EVERYTHING. This is insane. I have a computer with 4GB of RAM, and Vista uses 42% of that. On the Home Basic Edition. XP requires 64MB of RAM. Vista requires 10 times the hard drive space.


Over Protective:
People complained about XP being insecure, but when Microsoft make a more secure system, people blame Microsoft about it being too secure! And the UAC is very useful if you have gotten used to it and very protective ;) It won't ask for your permission if the software is certified by Microsoft, or is a system resource.

UAC is not useful at all. The only people I know who left it on did so only because they were unable to find a way to turn it off. Linux does the same thing and manages not to pop a warning box up over and over. Increasing security to the point that the user just ignores the messages and hits 'continue' completely defeats any of the additional security - it's the same as not having it at all.


Uses Massive system resources (1GB):
Where the hell are you coming from? Seems to me you just like pissing Microsoft off. I have a 1GB RAM system, and Vista takes no more than 460mb of RAM.

That's almost half. If you have an older system, say 256MB of RAM, you can't even run Vista. If you have a newer one with 512MB, you get a whole 52MB of your RAM for every application. Aero is 512MB of RAM as well, so I'm assuming you're talking about leaving one of the major pluses for Vista off.

Many old programs don't work on Vista:
Many old programs certainly do.. Vista uses a different EXE engine (which is more secure), but still supports the older ones (Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 9 series), so you can set the compatibility mode. People have complained about Age of Empires II not working, i betcha they haven't set which EXE Engine to use, since it works for me (after setting which EXE engine to use).

Compatibility mode is not new to Vista. I use it often in XP for 90's games. I have been unable to get many of the games running on Vista at all, be it Home Edition, Business x64, or Ultimate.

New theme is confusing, cluttered and some features hidden:
What complete bullshit! Nothing IS cluttered, Nothing IS confusing, and not many features are hidden (except for ones which can be dangerous if configured incorrectly).

Actually, you're wrong here. People who actually worked on the creation of the Vista UI have admitted that they were attempting to hide certain things to push the user into using new options (such as the hidden shut down attempting to get people to use 'sleep' mode instead), and how terribly their plans failed. Users don't want the new things, they want the same old and go digging around for it.

Refusal access to own user folders:
You're mistaken very highly. There is no folder called Documents and Settings in the root directory, installers try to write to that location, that's why it's a short-cut ;) For your own user folder, have you ever checked the Users folder? That is the same as Documents and Settings on XP.

You have me here, however this points back to the older programs not working - they try to write there and there is no such folder.

Next time don't give out false information. By the way, if you were to run the amount of programs and services on Linux as that of Vista, you'll see clearly Vista is much faster (this IS A FACT).

I did run the same applictions, I even listed them.
XP: AIM 5.9
Vista: AIM 5.9
Linux: Pidgin 2.3.1
Vista's system usage was WAY above every other OS.
(and for the record, my Vista was a clean install - only Windows services. My copy of Linux was not a clean install, and had extra services running)

Insecure:
Vista is much more secure than XP. Even before the release of Service Pack 1.

No new OS is secure. If it appears to be so, it's only because not enough people switched over to it to make it worth finding exploits for.

I know no knew OS is secure, but Vista IS much more secure than XP when it was released.

Over expensive:
It's $200 - $300, and that's in the US. In Australia, a copy of Vista Ultimate is $751.

I am in Australia, and that is bullshit! The maximum price i have ever seen in Australia is $209.95.

Requires more system resources:
NOT TRUE! Vista requires very little resources to run. It chooses what's best for your system when installing. ALL the features on Vista, total, requires 456mb of RAM. If you had a low-end system, Vista won't use most of its' features, otherwise if you have a higher end system, Vista will implement most of its' features ;)

If you have 1GB and Vista is using 456MB, it's using just under half your memory. HALF. On XP, a 1GB system is fine for gaming. You have about 768MB of your RAM still open for games. On Vista, you have slightly over half of your RAM for EVERYTHING. This is insane. I have a computer with 4GB of RAM, and Vista uses 42% of that. On the Home Basic Edition. XP requires 64MB of RAM. Vista requires 10 times the hard drive space.

Have you even read what i had said before? It depends how much RAM you have! Vista chooses what's best for you when it installs! Also, it only requires 7gb of Hard Disk space ;)

Over Protective:
People complained about XP being insecure, but when Microsoft make a more secure system, people blame Microsoft about it being too secure! And the UAC is very useful if you have gotten used to it and very protective ;) It won't ask for your permission if the software is certified by Microsoft, or is a system resource.

UAC is not useful at all. The only people I know who left it on did so only because they were unable to find a way to turn it off. Linux does the same thing and manages not to pop a warning box up over and over. Increasing security to the point that the user just ignores the messages and hits 'continue' completely defeats any of the additional security - it's the same as not having it at all.

Technically, it is useful! You can either choose to turn it off, to remember settings or to leave it on and forget the settings!

Uses Massive system resources (1GB):
Where the hell are you coming from? Seems to me you just like pissing Microsoft off. I have a 1GB RAM system, and Vista takes no more than 460mb of RAM.

That's almost half. If you have an older system, say 256MB of RAM, you can't even run Vista. If you have a newer one with 512MB, you get a whole 52MB of your RAM for every application. Aero is 512MB of RAM as well, so I'm assuming you're talking about leaving one of the major pluses for Vista off.

I have Aero on! And as i had said before, it only chooses what to load upon installing, what's best for the system!

Many old programs don't work on Vista:
Many old programs certainly do.. Vista uses a different EXE engine (which is more secure), but still supports the older ones (Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows 9 series), so you can set the compatibility mode. People have complained about Age of Empires II not working, i betcha they haven't set which EXE Engine to use, since it works for me (after setting which EXE engine to use).

Compatibility mode is not new to Vista. I use it often in XP for 90's games. I have been unable to get many of the games running on Vista at all, be it Home Edition, Business x64, or Ultimate.

I know it isn't a new thing, but all games that have worked on XP, on Windows 2000 and Windows 98 work for me on Vista ;)

New theme is confusing, cluttered and some features hidden:
What complete bullshit! Nothing IS cluttered, Nothing IS confusing, and not many features are hidden (except for ones which can be dangerous if configured incorrectly).

Actually, you're wrong here. People who actually worked on the creation of the Vista UI have admitted that they were attempting to hide certain things to push the user into using new options (such as the hidden shut down attempting to get people to use 'sleep' mode instead), and how terribly their plans failed. Users don't want the new things, they want the same old and go digging around for it.

Ok, nothing IS cluttered though, nothing IS confusing and i said only SOME features are hidden. Also, just because the button in the start menu says sleep, it sleeps. It is good like that ;) Also, remember you can change it ;)
Refusal access to own user folders:
You're mistaken very highly. There is no folder called Documents and Settings in the root directory, installers try to write to that location, that's why it's a short-cut ;) For your own user folder, have you ever checked the Users folder? That is the same as Documents and Settings on XP.

You have me here, however this points back to the older programs not working - they try to write there and there is no such folder.

It IS a shortcut for installers, which points to C:\Users! It is only meant to be accessible by programs!

Next time don't give out false information. By the way, if you were to run the amount of programs and services on Linux as that of Vista, you'll see clearly Vista is much faster (this IS A FACT).

I did run the same applictions, I even listed them.
XP: AIM 5.9
Vista: AIM 5.9
Linux: Pidgin 2.3.1
Vista's system usage was WAY above every other OS.
(and for the record, my Vista was a clean install - only Windows services. My copy of Linux was not a clean install, and had extra services running)

Have you ever tried running the exact amount of services (same memory size, etc) and applications on Linux and XP as that of Vista? I, and many others have, and XP is only a tiny bit faster (2%) than Vista. So, XP, is a little bit faster… I admit that!

As far as im aware (without personal experience) Vista is still a bug fest, which is why im sticking with XP for now :p

Vista, very good when you know how to use it :D

I heard that vista has a lot of bugs, so i say xp. But imo if you are getting a new comp (with vista) theres no reason to buy xp

I have Vista and It's nice and fast but whatever. The thing is I can't have any fun with it, No full screen games can't play RS-HD at all, the computer just goes into lockdown and shuts off after like 10 mins:( Any help?:confused:

From: Arcadium
As far as im aware (without personal experience) Vista is still a bug fest, which is why im sticking with XP for now :p

Not really, it still has a few bugs, but not as many as XP has ;)

From: gl3nni
Vista, very good when you know how to use it :D

Very true ;)

From: wromg
I heard that vista has a lot of bugs, so i say xp. But imo if you are getting a new comp (with vista) theres no reason to buy xp

There USED to be a lot of bugs, however, most of them have been squashed ;)

From: Phipps22
I have Vista and It's nice and fast but whatever. The thing is I can't have any fun with it, No full screen games can't play RS-HD at all, the computer just goes into lockdown and shuts off after like 10 mins:( Any help?:confused:

Huh!? Don't know what is happening there.. Everything works fine for me..

Dan's The Man, you seem to refuse that there is ANYTHING wrong with vista.. when you there are… your funny… Hahaha… :)

Vista *only* uses 450MB of RAM? Here's a look at my XP Task Manager (System processes in red):

107480KB, or 104.9MB of memory from the big programs (probably another 10mb or something from the rest)

Vista's Aero looks nice, but it lags when you drag windows, which is pretty sad.

Vista's security settings are a scale from Very Annoying to Insecure. I think Service Pack 1 came out rather quickly, but that's what happens when you release half an operating system on top of another one.

I voted for xp and have heard bad things about vista

Aaaarg I accidentally voted for Vista. I'm always having problems with Vista, but I'm sure the service packs and updates with slowly fix everything like what happened with XP. I can't wait for Linux to get some mainstream software, then it's full time Ubuntu for me.

Vista is still a little bit too buggy… XP is a little more standard also… once Vista not nearly as buggy…then awesome.

If I had to pick one? XP - it's lighter and faster.

My actual preference? Most any Linux distro (Ubuntu and openSUSE being my favourites). They're even lighter, even faster, and you can run a lot of windows-based games on it in Wine.

"Computers are like air conditioning - they're useless once you open windows."

I voted XP. Xp is much easier to use and compatible with like everything. Vista is a little bit harder to use but looks cooler.It can also be annoying at times though. So…….XP ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!

Well XP pro servise pack 3.

Vista uses WAY MORE RAM to run simple programs.
Xp doesn't^.^

Oh, a challenge to all of you:

Hold down the Windows key and E, and see how many 'My Computer's you can open before your Windows slows down :)

Hint: Blur of a blur of a blur of a blur of a blur of a blur of a blur of a blur of a blur of a blur of a blur (Vista) = EPIC INEFFICIENT

Vista is better.



-Ashur

I voted XP. It uses A LOT less RAM, plus if you like Vista's theme, you can always download it, and use it on XP, so really Vista is just a memory hog that has some cool features *The side Bar in particular*.

I was a fan of xp until I got Vista now I would never even think about going back Vista is so much beter imo.

From: MCR__ftw
I voted XP. It uses A LOT less RAM, plus if you like Vista's theme, you can always download it, and use it on XP, so really Vista is just a memory hog that has some cool features *The side Bar in particular*.

You can download the sidebar =P

AlienGUIse also has a nice little bar, too.

Not a big fan of the sidebar in Vista - either it's always hidden under your applications or it's blocking half of them. Not a lot of worthwhile functionality anyway.

XP!cuz…it's more reliable…easier to use and even tho vista has more options that what makes it so…slow..on xp you can do your stuff much faster…even if you have a really fast computer i still recommend xp..


\OFFTOPIC/If not this topic i would say USE LINUX XD..takes some time to learn but that makes it nice :P \OFFTOPIC/

From: theo
XP!cuz…it's more reliable…easier to use and even tho vista has more options that what makes it so…slow..on xp you can do your stuff much faster…even if you have a really fast computer i still recommend xp..


\OFFTOPIC/If not this topic i would say USE LINUX XD..takes some time to learn but that makes it nice :P \OFFTOPIC/

theo you have 100% right. My cousin buyed a computer yesterday and it have Vista and it isn't good like Xp. So i had recommend Xp:D