Is Vista Any Good

[EVAN]

I keep reading that there are problems with Vista and that a recent survey suggests that 50% of people buying new machines are specifically asking for XP and insisting that Vista is NOT used.

What exactly are the problems with Vista? It certainly doesn't seem like a step forward if people don't want it.

Anyone know the truth?

[redbull{wings}]

Vitsa isn't all that bad. It is different and it'll take some getting used to but overall it's just as good an OS as XP the only difference is you need a newer machine to run it which for most poeple isn't a problem. The reason everyone is asking for XP is mostly because they are too used to the way XP works or aboslutely need an app that hasn't been made Vista compatible. Overall yes Vista works and chances are all your drivers and apps will work theres always an exception but most of the time it'll be fine.

[godspeed]

Vista isn't bad but most people ask for XP when buying a computer because it has previous service packs and is more secure. Also alot of people that don't run games or other programs don't need things like Dx10 so they have no reason to upgrade and they would rather get more out of a product by running and older O.S that is easier to run for the computer. Finally the majority of problems from vista that i know come form compatibility issues like using old hardware. The driver for some devices also have not been that great but this i have found is only is you are using old hardware.

[werty316]

Vista isn't all bad and its not like XP was great when it first came out so I am sure Vista will get better as more SP are released.

[barone]

I dont think Vista is less secure than XP? Is that true? I think Vista is absolutely pathetic. They had so much time to prepare it, and it was a disappointment.

[ZhengHe]

There's also something to be said of XP using less power on it's lowest settings then Vista does. With such a spike in energy prices that has to factor in.

[HTRN]

Using Vista or XP really all depends on your systems spec's and how you want the look and feel or your pc.

Vista - recommend a higher end system with 2gb ram good video and a newer cpu ( preferably dual core ) vista is more eye catching and plesent to look at right out of the box

XP - basic system 512mb to 1gb ram intergrated graphics will be fine, and you can tweak it to look like vista.

[Olin Coles]

This is the intro for an upcomming article that matches the topic perfectly:

As a professional product analyst, there aren't too many people on this planet who test hardware to the limits that I do on a daily basis. While it would be foolish of me to expect people to accept everything I say without question, it would be foolish of people to discount my high level of experience earned from constant exposure to the technology. With some hope, I expect that readers will appreciate the level of skill used to shape and fashion my professional opinion, and use it to guide them in making decisions on their purchase.

Of the many experiences I endure on a day to day basis, the most recent has envolved testing two new bleeding-edge motherboards (X48 and NF790i chipsets) with high-speed DDR3 system memory. For the past several years Windows XP has been my Operating System of choice; and over time I have been able to wittle down the system services and operate with a mere 16 processes running in the background. However, we are seeing the end of an exciting era, and the beginning of a much less enthusiastic one.
Not long ago, Microsoft released its first service package for Windows Vista. Like most people, Benchmark Reviews believes that Microsoft has made a tradition out of releasing software before it's mature; and like most people, we wait for that first service pack. So when Vista SP1 was made available, we jumped at the opportunity to begin publishing test results with the new Operating System. My first experiences however, were not so positive.

To begin this (rant), I should confide that Windows Vista is not a new product to me, and that I have not been pleased with the Operating System since I first laid hands to it back in beta testing. Nevertheless, times are changing and Windows Vista is here to stay. So with a degree of optimism, I used two brand new Raptor hard drives to load Windows Vista Home Ulitimate SP1 and Windows XP Pro SP3. Both of these Operating Systems shared the exact same processor, motherboard, memory, and video card; thus they were identical in hardware and separated by only the Operating System software.

Testing with Windows XP Pro SP3 was no different than it has ever been over the past few years, and my system operates with incredible snap. The performance and test results were exactly the same as I had seen over all of my past tests. Good enough, I though, and so I proceeded to begin testing on Windows Vista. This is where the story really begins, and why this introduction has so much to do with a 4GB system memory kit.

While XP is confined to DirectX 9, Windows Vista offers the "improved" DirectX 10 graphical application interface; so I didn't expect for a moment that the graphical benchmarks would be at all comparible. But what about general user experience, such as installing a program or running a video game? Well, this is where my eager experience turns to total disappointment with Microsoft. Without going into the details of why Windows Vista should have never been made into a 32-bit Operating System, I can safely say that Microsoft has given the hardware industry good reason to feed its pig of an Operating System nothing but the finest high-performance hardware.

The very first thing I noticed during testing was the incredibly sluggish performance compared to Windows XP. Windows Vista caches startup programs so boot times are decent, and it indexes every single file (if you let it) for faster searches, but if you want a genuinely fast Operating System, you had better be prepared to change your idea of what "sufficient hardware" is. Programs and games alike suffered from poor performance, and at the end my testing I was very much convinced that the 2 GB of system memory used in Windows XP was simply not enough to enjoy (or cope with) Windows Vista. It was time to step it up, and the first thing that needed to be done was to upgrade the RAM. Installing 4 GB worth of Aeneon AXH860UD20-16H DDR3-1600 XMP RAM worked like magic, and would end yet another great era: the usefulness of 2 GB RAM kits in a modern Operating System. Benchmark Reviews continues our DDR3 Review Series (http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=117&Itemid=1), and today we focus on the system builder and enthusiast users who will most benefit from the additional system memory capacity.

[edge]

vista should be burned inside a bag of fresh flaming dog sh!t.

can anyone say windows ME?

I have vista ultimate 32 and 64 that I bought. I want a refund... Hell I could buy a new video card with the amount of cash I wasted on that bloated, unstable operating system.

Sorry if I'm a little harsh on vista, but after putting it on 30 plus machines at the customers request "after I begged them not to use it" then less than a month later having to take a train 3 hours to go put xp back on and recover all their corrupt data I have little kindness left in me for that as I said flaming pos operating system.

Want to check your email, its fine for that. Anything else is like asking the Hindenburg blimp to race in nascar.

[BuffaloChips]

Everyone that I know of that says they have no problems with Vista and like it have high end PC's. People like me that have the more moderate set-ups are bound to have issues. While my system will surely run Vista, I definitely do not have sufficient RAM for the job. Two GB is just a waste for me to worry about the change.

[Olin Coles]

Everyone that I know of that says they have no problems with Vista and like it have high end PC's. People like me that have the more moderate set-ups are bound to have issues. While my system will surely run Vista, I definitely do not have sufficient RAM for the job. Two GB is just a waste for me to worry about the change.

Stop and think about what you just said...

... everyone you know could be anything. It could be your mother. It could be your neighbor. Everyone I know is not happy with Windows Vista; and that's about 34 different commercial clients who have suffered from their decision to use it. Everyone else I know, to include me, my girlfriend, about seventeen friends locally, and numerous others who I talk with, all dislike the Operating System. Try to qualify "everyone".

But here's where opinion doesn't even matter: it doesn't offer anything new, yet it consumes over 400% more system resources. Let's put this another way, since this seems to escape so many people:

The 2007 Ford F150 got 18 MPG. But the new for 2009 version of the truck has a nice new paint job, bigger wheels, and gets 4 MPG. The engine is bigger, but the horsepower and torque are actually less in this new model. Everyone I know says they have no problem with it. :D

[Olin Coles]

It just so happens that I have just loaded Vista Home Ultimate on a new PC for testing. Directly from a fresh install, there are 46 processes running. This is almost 300% more than I have running on Windows XP. On top of this, there are dozen more services running, most of which are completely unwanted by most users.

[BuffaloChips]

Wow! I was just saying that, out of everyone I know that has at least tried it, only the people that like it have "super-duper killer everyone-wants to have" systems.

Here's a question for you Olin ...

Why are there always half a dozen instances of svchost running? Why isn't one enough?

[Olin Coles]

Sorry if that was overboard, but I think I'm ready to burn up my Microsoft certifications in protest of this new "Operating System". It shames me that Vista is what we must consider as a successor to Windows XP, while on so many levels it seems a step backwards.

As for svchost, that is a combination of services running in dependant groups. The idea is that each group can remain independent of one another and reduce the chance of a system wide crash if one fails.

[edge]

only the people that like it have "super-duper killer everyone-wants to have" systems.

I would not call the pc's I was referring to in my last post super duper systems. but they all run core 2 E6600 chips and run 2x2gb of ram. 4 total/3.25 or so usable in xp. The company uses the pc's for engineering purposes. vista left them needing more ram which was impossible because they were running 32 bit vista. And the 64 bit version is not compatible with most of the software they use for their work.

My personal pc is currently running a 2gb kit of gskil gbhz ddr 1000.I ran vista with a 4gb 1000mhz gskil kit and it was a little better but not enough to keep it installed lol...

Just a note. When I installed vista I left xp on a 36gb wd raptor, then on a 2nd 36gb raptor I installed vista.
Same exact hardware only changed the boot order. Almost every game I have lost a minimum of 15% fps off the top. Many lost far more than that.

I was playing lots of dods at that point, xp was 150+fps, same settings on vista I was lucky to get 60fps. Same setting, res, AA and AF ect.

64 bit was slightly worse for me. I believe its because that WOW crap "windows on windows".

I still have vista installed on a older setup running a amd 4400 X2, 2 gigs of cheapo ddr 800 and a old 1900gt 256mb lol. I update it whenever they release vista updates in hopes it will get fixed. But I'm not holding my breath.

Waiting for windows 7...

[Olin Coles]

Edge, this is exactly what I have found to be the case in all installations of Windows Vista. Same hardware, same settings, 50% or less performance with Vista.

Oh, and it consumes 9.4 GB of hard disk space on a clean installation. Not so sweet when you're installing on a 16 or 32 GB SSD like I am. **** Windows Vista.

[edge]

I just feel bad for all the people now buying laptops and getting stuck with it.
You pretty much need 2 gigs of ram just to run under normal situations. And many companies still offer a base model with 512mb lol. Can you imagine?

Even with the fluff turned of the best I've been able to do is get it down to 500-600mb at boot. Start up anything and its paging.

[.:Cyb3rGlitch:.]

Vista is the best solution for new hardware. XP is best for older hardware, or XP fanboys. Or you could just dual boot.

[BuffaloChips]

My specs are Asus P5N-E SLi, C2D E6550, Crucial Ballistix DDR2 667 2x1GB and a GeForce 7800GTX. Supposed to be getting a second 7800GTX this coming week to play around with SLi. I want to see what it'll do in SLi.

As I said, I could run Vista, I just don't think it would run real well. I need more RAM. Plus, I like to play games like Crysis, CoD4, UT '04 and UT3. I just don't want to lose any frame rates.

[edge]

Vista is the best solution for new hardware. XP is best for older hardware, or XP fanboys. Or you could just dual boot.

I'm not a fanboy rofl... I like linux more than anything made by ms.


Cyb3rGlitch: Please clarify how you cameto this conclusion. I have tons of new hardware and vista sucks on all of it... I'm not saying xp is the best thing since sliced bread but vista has issues no matter what you put it on.

[Olin Coles]

Vista is the best solution for new hardware. XP is best for older hardware, or XP fanboys. Or you could just dual boot.

Curious, from a purely technical standpoint, but please explain how Windows Vista is "best" for new hardware. I take this to mean that XP didn't have some technology or feature that handled new hardware to the degree that Windows Vista does; or put another way it could mean that Vista has a new way of handling hardware that XP didn't. I would like to know what that is... because I think my version came without it.

If people want to use Windows Vista, I say let 'em! It's their mistake to live with. I'm only a fan of XP when comparing it to Vista; if I had my choice it would be 64-bit computing for us all, and probably on a Server 2003 R1 or 2008 platform.

[.:Cyb3rGlitch:.]

Curious, from a purely technical standpoint, but please explain how Windows Vista is "best" for new hardware. I take this to mean that XP didn't have some technology or feature that handled new hardware to the degree that Windows Vista does; or put another way it could mean that Vista has a new way of handling hardware that XP didn't. I would like to know what that is... because I think my version came without it.


1. Better CPU schedualer - XP was never built to support multiple cores effciently.

2. DirectX 10 - Not so much a feature now, but more and more games are beig developed using it.

3. It's cheaper. XP is expensive in comparison to Vista at this time.

4. Vista is more stable. I've rarely had a crash which didn't recover by itself. XP tends to have a higher frequency of irrecoverable crahses.

That being said, if you have XP, definitely dual boot. But I find it counterproductive buying XP if you don't already have it.

[clockz]

Cyb3rGlitch:.

I'll reply in the order that your "brilliant" your statements

1. I agree with this point to a degree. Vista was supposed to have better scheduling than xp but so far I've seen nothing that says it does. Show me some benches. Another thing, xp is almost identical to windows 2000, win 2000 Fully supports multiple cpus/cores - windows 2000 server??? ever heard of it? Xp expanded off windows 2000/2000 server which easily supports multiple cpu's.
Now you can say that scheduling is different than simply supporting multiple cpu's, but if vista actually does schedule better then this "new scheduling" is being wasted on the 50+ processes it starts up.

2. DX10 is the one and only feature that would make me even remotely think of running vita on my gaming machine.

3. Its cheaper? Your actually using that as a reason to buy faking vista? Faking hell. Windows 98 is cheap as hell should we all but that too?

4. Now this one is god damn epic. "Vista is more stable" Is your helmet on to tight? are you a little special? Vista is more stable than what, a BiPolar hermaphrodite monkey? Because its not more stable than xp.

And this "I've rarely had a crash which didn't recover by itself. XP tends to have a higher frequency of irrecoverable crahses" Please tell me how in the flying fak a crash recovers itself. Crashing, hard locking, bsods, and hung applications are all different things. What exactly are you calling "irrecoverable crahses" because you sound like a salesman at bestbuy trying to sell a product he obviously knows jack shit about.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you've had a pc for what 2-3 years tops? You must be one of those people who reads a few forums and suddenly thinks you understand it all. I've read a few of your other post here and have to say most of them have been equally useless, misleading and down right wrong.

Also you really should look at this save xp (http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/archives/2008/04/sign_the_save_x.html) theres 193,827 people that all want to save xp, I'm sure theres 200k more that just haven't seen that site yet.

If vista is such an amazing operating system then why would 193,827 people want to save XP? Its funny I don't remember this happening with windows 98.

I'm guessing I will be banned but I had to reply to this thread.

[BuffaloChips]

Personally, I am betting that Vista is cheaper because MS knows that it has a very short lifespan. I have heard that it is expected to be replaced in another year or two. Supposedly, like XP was to ME, we will get the OS that Vista was intended to be.

[.:Cyb3rGlitch:.]

Cyb3rGlitch:.

I'll reply in the order that your "brilliant" your statements

1. I agree with this point to a degree. Vista was supposed to have better scheduling than xp but so far I've seen nothing that says it does. Show me some benches. Another thing, xp is almost identical to windows 2000, win 2000 Fully supports multiple cpus/cores - windows 2000 server??? ever heard of it? Xp expanded off windows 2000/2000 server which easily supports multiple cpu's.
Now you can say that scheduling is different than simply supporting multiple cpu's, but if vista actually does schedule better then this "new scheduling" is being wasted on the 50+ processes it starts up.

2. DX10 is the one and only feature that would make me even remotely think of running vita on my gaming machine.

3. Its cheaper? Your actually using that as a reason to buy faking vista? Faking hell. Windows 98 is cheap as hell should we all but that too?

4. Now this one is god damn epic. "Vista is more stable" Is your helmet on to tight? are you a little special? Vista is more stable than what, a BiPolar hermaphrodite monkey? Because its not more stable than xp.

And this "I've rarely had a crash which didn't recover by itself. XP tends to have a higher frequency of irrecoverable crahses" Please tell me how in the flying fak a crash recovers itself. Crashing, hard locking, bsods, and hung applications are all different things. What exactly are you calling "irrecoverable crahses" because you sound like a salesman at bestbuy trying to sell a product he obviously knows jack shit about.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you've had a pc for what 2-3 years tops? You must be one of those people who reads a few forums and suddenly thinks you understand it all. I've read a few of your other post here and have to say most of them have been equally useless, misleading and down right wrong.

Also you really should look at this save xp (http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/archives/2008/04/sign_the_save_x.html) theres 193,827 people that all want to save xp, I'm sure theres 200k more that just haven't seen that site yet.

If vista is such an amazing operating system then why would 193,827 people want to save XP? Its funny I don't remember this happening with windows 98.

I'm guessing I will be banned but I had to reply to this thread.

You obviously don't remember that the same thing happened when XP came out. XP was bashed just as bad as Vista, but now it's praised.

Interesting that.

[BuffaloChips]

The way it is going right now, Vista is turning into the WindblowsME of this era!

[Olin Coles]

Also you really should look at this save xp (http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/archives/2008/04/sign_the_save_x.html) theres 193,827 people that all want to save xp, I'm sure theres 200k more that just haven't seen that site yet.

Make that 193,827 +1. I'm too busy writing reviews to keep on top of social events and whatnot. Thank's for the heads-up.

On the other hand, this must remain a civil discussion. You just earned a time-out to cool down.

[edge]

You obviously don't remember that the same thing happened when XP came out. XP was bashed just as bad as Vista, but now it's praised.

This thread as a whole is worth a gg and a wow...

I don't plan on getting into all of this.
I will say xp after a few of the bugs were patched was mostly greeted with open arms. There were a few hardcore folks that stuck with windows 2000 for benchmarking reasons, I was one of them... Even though I had all of the beta's and RC's from msdn.

But Over all that number of hardcore clockers/tweaker's was relatively small.
And the average user made the switch to xp in a year and a half or less.
Vista is how old now 2 years? And companies like dell are pleading with microsoft to allow them to keep installing XP on machines per the user request.

That never happened with xp. There was no pleading with anyone to keep installing 98/ME/2000. And 2 years after the release of xp it was not being bashed by anyone...

Every administrator I know that operates or maintains large numbers of MS OS computers is keeping xp on them. And for good reason. And as I said earlier if I'm a fanboy of anything its linux so don't take my statements as coming from a fanboy...

[XJnine]

I don't think it's really an issue of "Vista's bad" but more of "Vista's not better".

I can honestly say that after I have used Vista for quite a while now that I like it but there isn't really a feature, function, application, or perk that it offers that makes me happy I'm running Vista instead of XP. Sure, Microsoft went in and changed some things, some for the better and some for the worse in my opinion, but none of the changes have made me say "Wow!".

I don't think Vista is any more or less stable than an up to date XP system, however there are times when something that would blue screen XP is able to recover in Vista and let me keep working.

The only real gripe I have about Vista is the larger hardware requirements (which comes along with every new OS) and the price tag. I don't see the value in Vista yet because there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to use it. Sure it has DX10 but the few games that use it don't seem to take good advantage of it or the performance hit is so great you end up running in DX9 mode anyways. Why should I pay more for a different way of doing things, not necessarily a better or faster way?

Vista got a bad rap early on because of the lack of driver support. Unfortunately for MS, that responsibility falls on the hardware vendors. Beta's and RC's of Vista were out for a VERY long time. Hardware companies either had too hard of a time writing drivers for their hardware or they just ignored their responsibility and MS/Vista users felt the pain. That reputation has hung on and the uninformed consumer just knows "Vista's bad" without knowing why they think that way or what's supposedly bad about it. If you purchased a new system with Vista on it everything would run fine, it was the people trying to upgrade their 3 year old systems that were having problems.

Ok, enough rambling. Maybe I'll be back with more...

[edge]

I don't think it's really an issue of "Vista's bad" but more of "Vista's not better".

Well said m8.


My take on vista is coming from the admin point of view. Office pc's often run software that is unsupported by vista.
Though its poor performance in gaming also plays a part in my decision to hold off on upgrading my own rig's, even though I bought two 3 pack versions of ultimate.