I've been hearing that Vista is having a lot of problems. Are the problems serious enough that it's better to buy an XP machine, in your opinion?
Is it still better to buy an XP machine?
- Thread starter Starfleet Engineer
- Start date
Vista is running fine. You may only run into problems with some older sound drivers because the driver model has changed completely. Other than that all hardware I can think of works well. Vista has native drivers and utilities for almost all hardware, for example just attach your digital camera and the pictures download through Vista's utility, no need for 3rd party software.
Many older utilities, like Anti Virus or disk utilities, don't run in Vista, so you need updated versions. Depending on what you use, you may need to pay for latest versions (like Nero for example) which is a pain. However if you have recent versions, Vista is no problem.
Most games will work fine in compatability mode if they ran fine in XP. (Older Win98 may be a problem.) Sometimes you need to tweek a file setting, like give write permission to a saved game folder, this is easily solved and instructions are available all over the web.
Performance and Compatability fixes have been released for Vista, which are basicly separate updates of what you will get with Service Pack 1. With these Vista is every bit as fast and problem free as XP.
I have a dual boot with Vista and XP Pro, but I've found I haven't needed to bother with XP for months, and on rare occasions when I want to compare something, I've found XP a bit sluggish compared to Vista. This is with a computer that was original built for XP.
A new computer built with Vista in mind will give you no problems at all, compared to running XP. The decision really depends on if you have a collection of 5 year old software you are fond of and don't want to upgrade.
Many older utilities, like Anti Virus or disk utilities, don't run in Vista, so you need updated versions. Depending on what you use, you may need to pay for latest versions (like Nero for example) which is a pain. However if you have recent versions, Vista is no problem.
Most games will work fine in compatability mode if they ran fine in XP. (Older Win98 may be a problem.) Sometimes you need to tweek a file setting, like give write permission to a saved game folder, this is easily solved and instructions are available all over the web.
Performance and Compatability fixes have been released for Vista, which are basicly separate updates of what you will get with Service Pack 1. With these Vista is every bit as fast and problem free as XP.
I have a dual boot with Vista and XP Pro, but I've found I haven't needed to bother with XP for months, and on rare occasions when I want to compare something, I've found XP a bit sluggish compared to Vista. This is with a computer that was original built for XP.
A new computer built with Vista in mind will give you no problems at all, compared to running XP. The decision really depends on if you have a collection of 5 year old software you are fond of and don't want to upgrade.
If you are looking for better performance, I would recommend XP especially after SP3.
piss on both.. Get a mac :thumbsup:
I want to buy a new laptop and I'm thinking the first thing I will do is remove Vista and install XP. I have some older applications I specifically want to use this machine for and I don't want compatibility problems.
Two questions:
1) Any trick to this?
2) After 4 years it's time for a fresh install of XP on my main computer. Isn't there a limit on the number of installs I can do of XP within a certain time period? I have my own personal copy of XP, registered and valid, from a few years ago. I don't want to run into problems installing XP on both machines within a month or two of each other.
Two questions:
1) Any trick to this?
2) After 4 years it's time for a fresh install of XP on my main computer. Isn't there a limit on the number of installs I can do of XP within a certain time period? I have my own personal copy of XP, registered and valid, from a few years ago. I don't want to run into problems installing XP on both machines within a month or two of each other.
^Well, you're violating the EULA and the law by installing one license on two machines. It's partially a valid ethical arguement, even made by IT pro's, that a user should be able to use one license for software on a desktop and a laptop, since they're only going to use one machine at a time. But the arguement isn't recognised in law.
You could install on your laptop, when you go to activate, Microsoft will realize that you have significantly different hardware and will require you to call and get a new activation code. You will have to tell them that your old machine caught on fire or something and you got a new one. If you continue to use your old machine you are violating the EULA, but it is legal to transfer the OS to a new machine if you no longer use the old machine.
There was talk years ago that an installation more than 3 months apart would not be flagged by Windows Activation, but I never actually knew if that was true, and the policy may have changed anyway.
You could install on your laptop, when you go to activate, Microsoft will realize that you have significantly different hardware and will require you to call and get a new activation code. You will have to tell them that your old machine caught on fire or something and you got a new one. If you continue to use your old machine you are violating the EULA, but it is legal to transfer the OS to a new machine if you no longer use the old machine.
There was talk years ago that an installation more than 3 months apart would not be flagged by Windows Activation, but I never actually knew if that was true, and the policy may have changed anyway.
For the OP's question, yes. While I have one Vista machine on my home LAN, I will not let it on my LAN at work at least until Vista SP1 has been released and it's had enough time deployed to declare it fit for human (and subhuman... have to accomodate many in the sales dept) consumption.
Sticking with XP for the time being is my personal and professional recommendation.
AG
Sticking with XP for the time being is my personal and professional recommendation.
AG
YES. Many new laptops do not have XP drivers--just Vista ones. I think Fujitsu still makes XP drivers for their laptops, but I'm not sure which other companies do.
To answer the OP's question, in my opinion it is definitely better to buy an XP machine. It's more lightweight, it doesn't get in the way as much, and for the next year or so it's still going to be more compatible with accessories and peripherals. The only reason to go with Vista would be if you need DirectX 10.
^ Direct X is going to be in SP3, no?
^ You mean DX10, no it won't. Microsoft says the new DirectX requires too much rebuilding of the OS and couldn't be done in XP. Some people say "BULL, sure they could" and it may just be that Microsoft wants to sell more Vista. Either way, DX10 won't be in XP SP3.
And actually you probably wouldn't want it. Most issues with Vista have to do with drivers for graphics and sound that had to be completely revamped for DX10. Put DX10 in XP and you would just be importing NVidia's unstable DX10 drivers.
And actually you probably wouldn't want it. Most issues with Vista have to do with drivers for graphics and sound that had to be completely revamped for DX10. Put DX10 in XP and you would just be importing NVidia's unstable DX10 drivers.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
I haven't had many problems with Vista. The various hotfixes delivered via windows update seem to have fixed up many of the initial niggles.
I recently used an XP machine after regularly using Vista on my laptop and it sort of feels clunky and ancient. I think time has a way of breeding fondness in memory, XP isn't nearly as smooth as i seemed to remember it.
I recently used an XP machine after regularly using Vista on my laptop and it sort of feels clunky and ancient. I think time has a way of breeding fondness in memory, XP isn't nearly as smooth as i seemed to remember it.
The main issue I have with Vista is that it's a resource hog (in my opinion) and doesn't have good backward compatibility.
Using new versions of the programs is not exactly doable for some or some people as we lack the cash to get the new versions, or it's because new versions lack something the older ones have and we need it.
I would rather stick to XP for now and wait for SP 3 to come out.
Vista ... while not entirely bad OS is just way unpolished and has numerous drawbacks (for my own needs) that would set me back instead of provided good move forward.
So for those who aren't worried about backwards compatibility and similar issues, then I suggest you make the transition to Vista if you have the cash for it.
Using new versions of the programs is not exactly doable for some or some people as we lack the cash to get the new versions, or it's because new versions lack something the older ones have and we need it.
I would rather stick to XP for now and wait for SP 3 to come out.
Vista ... while not entirely bad OS is just way unpolished and has numerous drawbacks (for my own needs) that would set me back instead of provided good move forward.
So for those who aren't worried about backwards compatibility and similar issues, then I suggest you make the transition to Vista if you have the cash for it.
Strange, considering that NVidia's OpenGL drivers have all the same functionality as DX10 and I've generally heard they're just fine on XP. There are some issues with them on Vista....
So I don't think it's the new functionality that's causing buggy drivers.
A
Amaris
Guest
SP1 for Vista will be out in March 2008 (crosses fingers...again), and will range in size from 7 to 12 GB. That's a hell of a service pack if you ask me, and from what I've read, you're right, it won't fix everything. I had Vista for a while on my system, and it ran okay the first 2 or 3 days and then started to go south on my system. The nice interface is not worth the loss of stability, compatibility and performance that you have with XP.
I would also recommend getting an XP machine.
J.
7-12gb would include all fixes released to date, so that's a pretty realistic estimate.
Why believe it will fix Vista's problems? Because Microsoft has already released performance and stability hotfixes (not on Windows Update, you have to download them separately) which have improved most of the main complaints like slow file transfers. Most of SP 1 is already available separately, and it works.
Similar threads
