Poll: XP vs Vista (2008)

[Which OS do you prefer?]

Which OS do you prefer?

XP Home

 14 (13.1%)

XP Pro 32 bit

 47 (43.9%)

XP Pro 64 bit

 6 (5.6%)

Vista 32 bit

 24 (22.4%)

Vista 64 bit

 11 (10.3%)

Other (Linux 32 or 64)

 5 (4.7%)

Total Members Voted: 105

[tym]

 Myself I just prefer xp pro. With 2 gig of ram and a dual core processor it hums right along. I have tried vista and can see no reason to switch. I have been a geek for sometime. So backing up my harddrive with nortons ghost is a snap. I run dual harddrives. I can take care of my own security and virus and spyware issues.

 Vista may be great for thoes just starting out with computers. Myself, I just prefer xp. Why they made booting vista and xp on dual drives such a hassle is something I have no clue about. Unable to edit vista boot file is nuts, Trying to gain control of your own files can be a hassle. I can see hackers using that one to there advantage.

 I really think vista is gonna be the next windows me. Its the stepping stone to the next major release. Have to wait and see what apple does so they can "borrow" there ideas. I will skip vista and shoot for the next os. I just think having to have a moster computer to run a os is nuts. Time to get off my soap box. I hate vista. Newer is not better.

[hawkman]

Vista Ultimate is definately the way to go. Whether its 32 or 64 bit it doesn't matter. Of course software needs to be developed for the correct processor, but microsoft has made tremendous strides in security and stability. The eye candy isn't half bad either.

[Palebushman]

Discuss the "why's" you have chosen a particular bit depth structure and OS generation below.
1) More memory availability
2) More Stable
3) Better Driver availabililty
4)

No flaming others for their opinion, but constructive complements and criticism is welcome.

Points 2 & 3 are a couple of reasons for me staying with XP Pro.

When XP was first launched, it too was full of wrinkles and creases that needed a fair bit of time, before folk like our host BV,
got well in to the depths of what made it 'Tick' so to speak, then ironed it all out so that so many of us could benefit from his tireless efforts.
Without BV's similar time and experiences with Vista, yet to match that which he so gallantly gave to XP for our benefit.
I for one, will stick with XP Pro until such a time I see very many compelling reasons to switch to Vista, start to appear on  http://www.blackviper.com/index.html

[starwhite]

I certainly have my own opinions of Vista formed by years of alpha and beta testing various builds of longhorn and Vista.  For the last year I ran Vista Ultimate 32 bit.  I grew tired of menu options hid under layers, the slowness, and sluggishness of the OS.  So, I backed up my data and reinstalled XP pro.  The WOW definitely started again.  I was very happy to have XP back.  My PC features single core dual Xeons @ 3.4 GHz, 2 MB on board cache, 4 gigs of DDR2 RAM, a 512 MB video card.  I found Vista to be basically eye candy.  Everything I can do in Vista I found I can do better and much more comfortably with XP.  With Vista, memory was being used at 45% to 55% at any given time.  Programs were sluggish.  Vista reacts like a (Memory) hog stuck in the mud.  XP on the same PC uses (depending) uses 19% to 26%.  And thanks to BV's great site i have my XP flying at the speed of light!  I am very grateful for all the advice and great help I've had over the years.  Hats off! 

[Euphonium]

Other:- Windows 2000 sp4

It does everything I need it to do, in a way I am familiar with, and has been stable and reliable.

XP and Vista don't offer me anything worth the time of a reinstall, let alone the money. 

[coyley]

Still not sure wether to upgrade to Vista will the XP Service Pack 3 make any difference to sticking with XP a little longer?

[Black Viper]

Still not sure wether to upgrade to Vista will the XP Service Pack 3 make any difference to sticking with XP a little longer?

Unless you desire DirectX 10 for gaming, no reason exists to go to Vista without having it already installed on a PC you purchased.

[coyley]

Appreciate your reply, thank you.
Will stick with XP until I can afford a new PC.

[aragornthur]

No better option. I have to have a dual boot into either XP Pro or Vista. Tweak back the vista and it's ok, at least it does what I need it to do without a lot of fuss. So 90% XP, 10% Vista.

[DRSLETMEDOWN]

Vista 64-bit.

It’s a sound piece of software, and the best OS I have ever used…and I have used them all to some extent except for a Mac’s.

I really don’t understand the frustrations some are having with Vista. I have had no issues to speak of, and all this stuff I have been reading on the net about XP being faster than Vista is just a flat out lie in my experience, and I don’t understand how it could be just my copy of Vista that is performing better.  I am at work and don’t have a lot of time to answer in more detail.

Vista is solid.  Period.

Spawn

My complaint is that just about every piece of software I have won't work & there are no driver updates etc.
I was told & lead to believe there were but all the products just want you to buy all new Vista compatible versions & that I don't like.
My Nero, Roxio, paperport, MS Works & more all have compatibility issues & no fixes.
After using all the tweaks the OS seems to work fine now but it took a lot of time & work.
In my HMO it's better eye candy but that's about it.
Anything should work & work well without having to spend the time required researching how to make something new work & not be snail slow & produce error messages & blue screens. Again it works great now but not everyone knows how to do what it takes to make it work right & should not have to. Not only with Vista but with any O/S. It not for BV I would be like all the rest of the non geek users just thinking that it was as good as it could be.
My father in law is one of those & bought a new laptop with Vista from one of the major computer stores. Paid $1,500.00 & Paid extra to have it so called cleaned out & made faster & it still is pathetically slow.
I don't like paying for something with known issues & still released anyway & then have to buy new software. ? Wonder who all made money off that idea ? Live & learn but I like XP Pro better.

[Dstarar]

I prefer Vista, if I can get all the drivers to work.  It's just got more.  I don't upgrade computers to Vista though.  Problems.... too many problems.  But if I want speed, I stick to XP...  So I suppose I run both.  Vista for fun, XP for serious.

[Wyzzard]

Well, as I've said other places, XP Pro 64bit rocks.

Definitely the best bang for ya buck that Micro$ux has come up with to date. Never did understand why they put so much money into developing an inferior OS(Vista), when they already had a winner that was MEGA popular.  --Now, having said that, I'll say this. I alpha AND beta tested Longhorn. I'd have supported Longhorn. Unfortunately, far too much of what was Longhorn never made it into Vista. And far too much of what was NOT Longhorn did.--

I used Vista in both 32 and 64 bit editions. What a pain. User Account Control. YES !!!!, dangit, I want to do this! (Turned it off.)

And where EXACTLY DO I FIND <insert file or system process you couldn't find here> I am not a stupid child...do not dumb-it-down and hide things from me or make it more trouble than it's worth to get where I need/want to be.

And drivers??.....oh lordy, don't even let me get started on that.  And all the 32bit software that won't run at all on Vista 64bit?--unlike XP 64 bit with WOW...same thing, don't even get me started on that.

I could go on, but I won't. If you have a pc for ya kids, install Vista on that one. Dang sure they won't be able to change or adjust anything, lol. At least the copy of Vista you paid too much for won't go to total waste.  But if ya want a system that is responsive to you and your needs, XP can't be beat.

[Framaris]

I was an early adopter of Vista (because of my work), but I run it for more than a year along side XP which was my home for years and it had pretty similar performances, so I was using Vista for testing/tweaking and not as my daily OS.
A couples of weeks ago I have made the step to Vista 64bit and since day one it has became my main OS, almost forgot XP has ever existed and I when I have to go back for some task I haven't installed in Vista yet it feels like the old times. Vista 64bit is my OS of choice for the simple reason that my PC feels like a new one and thus saved me an upgrade this year  .

My hobby is tweaking which makes me an early adopter because I can't pass on any new OS that arises (too exiting , this includes Linux distros.... 
I believe that Vista was the victim of sensationalist journalists that miss used the child sickness's (all new OS's have at launch, XP included) to increase websites numbers.
look at most forums on the net the last couples of years, one all generation of fanboys that likes to rant at everything...and they are the journalist that informs us today...difficult to find unbiased opinions today .
Luckily this forum is not one of them .

One thing I never understood was why MS didn't make Vista a 64bit OS only...how long must we wait in the name of compatibility?
Anyway 64bit is getting much better and drivers are greatly improved....   

[Black Viper]

One thing I never understood was why MS didn't make Vista a 64bit OS only...how long must we wait in the name of compatibility?

I question this exact same thing.

[couttsj]

The world moved from 8 Bit computing to 16 Bit without hesitation. The move to 32 Bit computing took a little longer, but there was only minor hesitation because it increased the accessible memory addresses substantially. To understand why 64 Bit computing is taking so long to gain acceptance, one must first understand the various numbers that the computer is required to work with.
Binary Flag – 1 bit
ASCII Text – 7 bits (extended char set – 8 bits)
Unicode Text – 16 bits
Integer – 16 bits
Long Integer – 32 bits
Long Integer (new) – 64 bits
Single Precision – 32 bits
Double Precision – 64 bits
To load a single variable of each type takes one memory cycle. Many compilers have dropped support for the 16 bit integer, and now refer to the 32 Bit Long Integer as just Integer.  On a 32 Bit computer, it takes the same amount of time to process 32 bits as it does to process 16, so why not. It would take twice as long to process the new Long Integer and the Double Precision number on a 32 Bit computer.

Variable   8 Bit      16 Bit      32 Bit      64 Bit   (register utilization)
ASCII      1      ½      ¼      1/8
Unicode   2      1      ½      ¼
Integer   2      1      ½      ¼
Long      4      2      1      2
Long (new)   8      4      2      1
Single   4      2      1      ½
Double   8      4      2      1
Memory   256      64K      4GB      16 million TB

64 Bit computers will often support both the 32 Bit instruction set and the 64 bit instruction set and the actual address bus is physically limited to say 40 Bits because support for the full capacity would be a waste. To take advantage of the 64 Bit capabilities, the operating system must run in 64 Bit, and the programs must be compiled in 64 Bit. 8 & 16 Bit computers actually had more memory capacity than indicated, because they used segment and offset logic, which became unnecessary in their larger cousins.

So the justification to move to 64 Bit computing really depends on the type of work you are doing. It is only advantageous if you are working with very large numbers, or if you need to do large file memory mapping. For the type of work that I do, I only utilize 20% of the 3 GB of memory that I now have, and there is no real justification for me to make the move until it becomes mainstream.

J.A. Coutts