What does Vista do better than xp?

[Frank Jr.]

Ok I am no computer geek as most know. I have heard most people do nothing but complain about Vista. My IT dept. has nothing good to say about Vista. Even the people who defend Vista are not very convincing to me. If I were to change something it would be for the better of things. Windows xp is fine for me but if the computer industry along with Microsoft is going to force this os down my throat how will this improve things. Why not continue to improve xp. I do not want to hear oh wait awhile they will fix it or improve it down the road. That's bs. If it would work better than xp fine. This begs the question. What does Vista do better than xp?

 

[digiblur]

Ok I am no computer geek as most know. I have heard most people do nothing but complain about Vista. My IT dept. has nothing good to say about vista. Even the people who defend Vista are not very convincing to me. If I were to change something it would be for the better of things. Windows xp is fine for me but if the computer industry along with Microsoft is going to force this os down my throat how will this improve things. Why not continue to improve xp. I do not want to hear oh wait awhile they will fix it or improve it down the road. That's bs. If it would work better than xp fine. This begs the question. What does Vista do better than xp?

Slows your PC down better.

 

[dfergie]

And adds more DRM I suppose

 

[stogie5150]

After a month of using Vista I cannot see ANYTHING it does better. I agree with Digi though, it does make a blazing computer MUCH slower. :up

 

[charper1]

They need to go all the way back to Win 2k Pro

 

[dfergie]

I liked ME better than the Vista on my notebook

 

[Pepper]

The 64 bit version with VirtualPC or Virtual Server supports multiple virtual machines up to 4GB RAM each if you have sufficient hardware. Don't even try that with your wimpy 32-bit OS. You can run XP, or Linux, or Win98 or whatever in those.

(ok, technically you can do the same with Win2003 x64 or XP2003 x64 but how many people have either of those running on their desktop)

 

[haertig]

Don't think of Vista as an upgrade for users, it is an upgrade for those who wish to control what you do with music, software, movies, etc. The people who think "Hey, you paid $19 for this movie DVD, so that means I get carte blanch control over your computer to protect my content". Vista is a fantastic upgrade for that second bunch. But not so much for the people actually running it. You get baited in with improved eye candy, but the real payload for those selling it is your loss of control (DRM). To be honest, the whole HD-DVD/BluRay thing is a bit like that too. But we won't talk about that too much, because around here we all like our HD eye candy.

 

[mike123abc]

One of the main benefits of vista x64 is 4GB+ RAM. In a year or 2, 4 GB will probably be common with value at 2GB and performance at 8GB. Forcing developers to at least work to improve their device drivers may eventually pay off.

 

[dfergie]

But the tradeoff is that it takes more RAM etc to just run the basic Vista Os... it's a hog for sure...just switched to my notebook that runs Vista and does not get along with my xp machines network wise...

 

[charper1]

One of the main benefits of vista x64 is 4GB+ RAM. In a year or 2, 4 GB will probably be common with value at 2GB and performance at 8GB.

I am confused but what you are saying here; are you saying that 32-bit 2000 or XP will not handle 4GB of RAM? I really know that can't be it. Please explain; as they do/will.

 

[vurbano]

Don't think of Vista as an upgrade for users, it is an upgrade for those who wish to control what you do with music, software, movies, etc.

Thats why it will never enter this household.

 

[TheForce]

charper1 I got the same thing from my Dell rep. When I asked about the benefit of 4Gb of ram (just for curiosity since it was way too expensive anyway) he said won't matter with XP but with Vista, you'll want it. I called a Sony rep on my Vegas software and they said the same thing that beyond 2Gb on XP doesn't matter.

 

[FIREBIRD81]

2gigs on XP doesn't matter because software doesn't currently use more than that and there is no real performance gain for the vast majority of users. 2 gigs is the standard needed for Vista to even run on par with XP, with 4 gb being the sweet spot. It's because Vista is a resource hog, not that it uses to RAM better, although microsoft claims otherwise.

The ONLY thing Vista deos better, is Directx10---a Vista exclusive and the hook Microsoft is using to sucker people in--get the gamers and the world will eventually follow. And, with games like Crysis coming out, the writing is already on the wall----we are all going to be stuck with this horrible OS in the coming years. Note to Microsoft: having my computer ask me three times instead of once if I really want to do something is not making a more secure OS. It's just making a more frustrating one. And mannufacturers selling notebooks with anything less than 1 1/2 gigs and Vista preloaded are ripping their customers off.

 

[charper1]

Ahh, so the statement isn't that 2000/XP WILL NOT run more than 2GB RAM, but that it just does not realize any major performance improvements after that point. So seeing all the "non-benefit" Vista comments here and everywhere; as clean & efficient as my 2000 Pro desktops and XP Pro laptops are setup the 2GB+ on each runs like "scalded dogs" (as my buddy down here says) LOL! He is on Vista with his new laptop and HATES IT! I did at least go in and set it up to "look like" the old 2000 desktop and handling he was used to; and prefers.

 

[DWS44]

and they said the same thing that beyond 2Gb on XP doesn't matter.

Are we talking OS performance alone, or any app on the machine?!? If they meant for any app, they obviously never used any CAD software. On my work PC (still XP...Vista not coming anytime soon), I ended up with a few extra sticks laying around that matched my machines config, so i bumped it from 2 to 3 GB, and there was a noticable difference in AutoCAD and especially in Civil 3D.

At Home, I switched to Vista on a new PC I got in January this year. 400 MS and driver updates later, it does seem a bit more stable than in the beginning, but you will learn not to bother with "sleep mode" in Vista. It's like your own personal game of russian roulette. Roughly 1 out of 3 tries to enter sleep mode will either, shut down monitor & keyboard, then lock up with tower still running, or immediately throw a BSOD.

 

[mike123abc]

XP process limit is 3GB of memory. Vista is 4GB. XP max physical memory is 4GB, Vista is 4GB 32bit, 128GB is x64 Ultimate. 64 bit processes go to 7-8TB.

Memory Limits for Windows Releases (Windows)

MS and OEMs should really be pushing the x64 version more. Of course most of Intel's desktop chip sets are limited to 8GB at the moment.

 

[Lazybird000]

I am curious about this also , right now most pcs on the market are vista , it has higher requirements for the pc.

 

[Poke]

Vista over all has worked great for me so far. I would just make sure to be running on current hardware nothing too old which some people do like any other piece of software. Which when you do this things will always seem slow.

 

[ONUOsFan]

And mannufacturers selling notebooks with anything less than 1 1/2 gigs and Vista preloaded are ripping their customers off.

Totally agree - I had to upgrade the RAM in my laptop (from 1G to 2) less than 2 weeks after we bought it because it was slow and kept locking up. That being said, it works great now, other than the annoying "are you sure" messages...

I did at least go in and set it up to "look like" the old 2000 desktop and handling he was used to; and prefers.

That's kind of like buying an HD TV and turning off the HD, isn't it? All they have left is the crap, and it doesn't look/work as good as it used to on the old model. The look of Vista is the best thing about it...