vista is it worth the trouble?

Hello,
at xmas im getting a new computer for myself.
i know vista has some improvements like windows updates being a seprate module and not having to use internet explorer for it and alot more stuff.
but mostly its just eye candy.
i know the eye candy is nice but i dont need it plus i dont need instant search.
since i know alot of tweaks for windows xp and know its stable and everything is compatible with it would it be best to get windows xp again?
the other problem is the motherboard i want doesnt have vista drivers for its on board wireless card.
lodore

 

I would also like to see/hear some serious reasons for switching to it, not the usual 'UAC, more secure' blah blah. I don't want a 'security' aspect opinion, I'm more interested in productivity. Is it faster, better, less resource hog than XP? Isn't that the point?

That said, I certainly won't bother with Vista untill SP1 at least, whatever the reasons given here. I can see that many knowledgable users here already switched to Vista. Why? I would really like to see their opinions, as I ditched it faster than you can say "ditch"

 

i want to see if its faster or better and why.
when we installed vista business at college the UAC kept prompting me just to open up the control panel and stuff and really annoyed me.
ive heard vista uses ram better thou.
lodore

 

If XP runs fine for you and Vista's features don't attract you, then stay on XP. It will still be good for some years.

 

lodore you might want to look through this thread. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=184102

 

I have been running Vista Home premium for a while now and i have come to really like it. On this comp it is faster and every bit as if not more stable than Xp pro was on this same comp. Of course it is a little hard to just trial Vista, I beta tested it for about a year and it sucked. But the final release really works well and I have only found a couple of programs that didn't work well on it. But I would never go back to XP. Vista is really the best OS I have used in several decades, actually it is probably the very best I have used.

bigc

 

i will wait for some more opintions but i think i will get windows xp again.
i know my way around it and its proven to be stable and compatible.
with xp at least ill know all my stuff with work with it.
I didnt quite pass the Installing, Configuring, and Administering Microsoft Windows XP Professional. microsoft exam 70-270 but i was close.
i know my tutor at college uses vista business and wont go back to XP.
@big C dont you get annoyed by the uac prompts?
lodore

 

bigc,

Just to calibrate me, what are the specs of the machine that you're running Vista on?

Blue

 

Hard dives are cheap these days.

I just plug/unplug XP/VISTA drives as to what I feel like using.Just my personal preference instead of dual booting and or master/slave.

Both are good systems on this duo core, 2 gig ddr2 machine.

XP does boot quicker and seems snappier all round.

Vista boots into desktop a little bit slower than XP but then there is heavy hd activity for 30-40 seconds as superfetch is loading apps into memory.

Graphics are better in Vista with this 8500GT 256 card.

The only two games I play are chess and mahjong with Vista having great renditions of both.

ATM Sandboxie and Shadow Defender along with a hardware FW are the only security apps used on both XP and Vista with both working fine.

 

I use Vista because, quite frankly, I was bored with XP. I like a new challenge every now and then. I believe that is caused my foray into the world of Linux while waiting for Vista's release. Ironically Linux prepared me for Vista with features like UAC and SuperFetch.

Granted when I first installed Vista back in February it was no picnic. Some of my software such as the HP printer software did not work. Nvidia and Creative drivers were problematic. But since then HP and others have updated their software to work on Vista. Nvidia and Creative have improved alot but still has some work. I recall going through a similar experience back in 2001 when XP came out.

After the install I experienced a lot of HD activity which alarmed me until I found out that Vista was indexing the drive. This ceased after the first day. While you will get a lot of UAC prompts at first, these will diminish when you have your computer fully set up. The only thing I didn't like was the "blackening" of the desktop before the UAC window pops up. It was kind of "jerky", not smooth at all. But I found a program called XDN Tweaker that got rid of the blackening and now just the UAC window pops up. I did turn off windows animation because it makes it appear that Vista is sluggish.

Another factor in the lessening of UAC prompts is that software writers are now writing for Vista correctly. A case in point, I use Nokia's PC Suite to connect my phone to the computer. The first version was UAC hell, everything I did in it threw up a UAC prompt. But the last version of the software eliminated all of that. Even Norton has improved on this as in NIS '07 any setting change prompted UAC. In NIS '08 you can change whatever your hearts desire without seeing UAC (I did notice that clicking on Help and Support triggered UAC, I don't quite understand why except it must be something Symantec's software writers missed).

People may complain of UAC, but look at the case of the ANI vulnerability that appeared earlier this year. This affected even Vista but for those who kept UAC on was safe from it as long as they did not approve whatever it was doing. Those who turned it off was in trouble.

Vista runs fine on my machine, here are my specs:

Dell Dimension 8300 (bought 5/04)
Intel P4 3.0 GHz, HT enabled
Intel 875P mobo (modified for Dell)
1.5 GB DDR RAM
NEC DVD-RW 16x
Lite-On CD-RW 58x/DVD-R
XFX NVidia 6800XT 256MB AGP
Dell 1907FP (Digital) monitor
Creative Soundblaster X-Fi XtremeGamer Fatal1ty Pro
Inspire P7800 7.1 speakers
MS LaserMouse 6000
Dell Multimedia Keyboard

What I don't understand is that on other forums I read about these people who has systems that can run rings around mine and still complain of Vista being sluggish. All I can do is just shake my head and consider myself lucky, lol.

If you are happy with XP, fine, stick with it. I have nothing against it as it served me well for several years. For me it was time to move on, to seek another unexplored frontier.

 

For me winVISTA means nothing but gadgetry and troubles.
I was an early user of Win2000pro and I don't want to go through all that misery again. I got a bunch of softwares for free along with my new computer and none of them worked properly under Win2000pro, they were only good under win98SE.
Couldn't download many softwares either.

Besides that, what is the point of having the latest Windows ?
I don't do anything with Windows. I work with my third-party APPLICATIONS, that run under Windows and want them to work properly.

My advice : wait a few years, until winVISTA is fixed and then you can enjoy transparent windows, which are by the way not invented by Microsoft. The Romans invented transparent windows and even double glass windows.

 

And the processor is an AMD sempron 64/2. If my computer will run as fast as XP with Vista installed with these specs, I can't understand why some computers with much faster processors are having problems with Vista being slow. The only thing I can say is that it runs extremely well on this Compaq computer. Even running Aero display doesn't affect the way it runs. I play Halo and several other graphics intensive games and they work just fine.

 

That uac background can also be turned off through local security policies.

Type "secpol.msc" in the Start search box.
Press "enter"
Accept the elevation UAC dialog.

Under "Security settings", open tree "Local policies"
Click "Security Options"
Scroll down to:
"User Account Control: Switch to the secure desktop when prompting for
elevation"

Double or right click on it.
Click "Properties" On the "Local Security Setting" tab:
Selectable "disable/enable"
Click OK

 

I contend that XP will "become" ever more secure as time passes because MS will have shoved Vista down every one else's throats, causing the attacks to shift focus to Vista.

Fry's has OEM XP @$80. Get it while its hot.

On the other hand, much as XP has taken time to mature, when Vista matures, it would indeed become the OS of choice for me. By the time Vista comes around to it, hardware would have caught up with its demand and softwares would be in full bloom. But this is probably no less than a year or two away.

 

Well, they may be loaded with a bunch of junk monitoring everything, and more processes monitoring the monitors, etc.. At least that seems to be a typical cause...

I go hot and cold on the worth of try Vista on my old boxes (2.8 GHz P4/1 GB RAM/Radeon 9600XT). They pass the Vista check fine. They're above minimum, maybe not quite recommended, and given the optimistic guidelines that XP was released with, I'm really not sure they're a good platform for Vista and me. XP works fine. Linux works fine as well. Actually, I'm just trying to rationalize a full blown upgrade - although that would put a Macbook in the mix....

Blue

 

XP can be ran with a 7MHz chip...takes 30 minutes to boot..but it runs. Sorry, can't find the link, but its true.

 

@big C dont you get annoyed by the uac prompts?
lodore[/QUOTE]


I don't let the security system bother me. It takes maybe two or three seconds to see what it says and click it. and I only see it maybe two or three times a day. I can live with that for the security it adds.

 

It is a lot easier just clicking on the "Disable Black" button

 

I see a back dated compensation claim for patent infringement coming from Rome .

 

Nice little thread guys.

Nice to see two of the Zen Masters of software swapping comments

@Blue;

Perzackly.

Making my head hurt:
I've had a good run with various Linux distros lately: gaining confidence with each attempt that Linux is close to a mature desktop solution: good help available.
Even PCBSD looks almost the goods.
Current box FLIES with Linux.

Not quite as easy with some apps and older HW drivers as M$

Windows still supremely stable and functional for me with XP despite the known failings Have lots of "expertise" heh, well experience anyway, now.
Know where to go for help: looking at it now..

The first box I ever used for really functional work was an Apple: 20+ years ago (gulp) then all my work stuff went to M$ ( bloody Steve Jobs messed that up ) But now for the desktop ...Macs looking like a serious candidate in view of M$ direction.

Apart from initial $$ long term costs amortise out ( my current box looked expensive at the time but has paid for itself many times)

Just not convinced about any real value adding wrt Vista.
Eye Candy for the sake of it leaves me cold really.
Any real increase in productivity, ease of use,....etc?

Decisions, decisions..too old for this, have to leave it to Gen Y to figure it out.


regards.

 

Jim Louderback left his position as Editor of PC World a couple of weeks ago. In his goodbye column, he said his goodbyes and then took a good blast at - Vista. He had been a proponent and says now it was a mistake. He is fed up with Vista. Here's the column, I bolded his "bottom line":

 

Me:

You've noticed that too, huh?

 

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/
..hhmmm

Its nothing new:..some day I will join you ...but ..not ..yet..

 

Yes it certainly is much easier but I prefer to dig through the system to find those settings as part of a learning curve.

Never know what other obscure settings that may be found along the way.