Windows Vista

Hi,

I am planning to buy a new Laptop. My old laptop has Windows XP. The new laptop will have window vista business. I have no Idea about Window Vista Business. Has anyone used it? How is it different from Windows XP? Any comments are welcome.

 

its more robust and has had alot of under the hood changes to make it more robust. plus it has alot of adjustments to make it more secure as default.
the interface is different but you will easily adjust to it.

 

It's becoming the million dollars question, especially for Microsoft. You'll find that a lot of people will stick to XP because of system impact, resources, some functions are definitely faster with XP, and others will prefer Vista because it's visually richer, more stable, and secure by default (it offers a lot more things in terms of encryption, and system backup as well).

If your question is about the business version of Vista specifically, I can't comment as I have the ultimate version which should be very similar to the business. I have XP on one computer and Vista on my favorite machine:even though no OS is perfect, I find Vista the best Windows so far, and on a new computer if I was given the choice between XP and Vista, I wouldn't hesitate choosing Vista.

 

I would no longer avoid Vista.

 

I plan to hang on to Vista even after 7 comes out. I won't change until I update my computers which by that time Win8 SP1 will be around, lol.

The XP-Vista analogs goes like this:

WinXP---Vista

XP Home---Home Basic
XP MCE---Home Premium
XP Pro---Business
XP Pro+MCE+Extras---Ultimate

 

A very fair statement, but also only an opinion. Fact are proven that Vista has more security, but beyond that, it is hardware, software and user dependent. Vista is no faster than XP on my machines. Contrary. It is no more stable. It does have more drivers for newer hardware. It does have a very nice feel if you can turn all the goodies on. It does not have an interface that is easy to get used to. It is not easier to do many common things that users have been used to since 9x days.

All that being said, I agree with your statement mostly. My opinion is XP is still the better choise for raw simplicity and performance. But it definately is feeling outdated after using Vista for awhile. My two biggest complaints would be the interface change has made doing things very very slow compated to previous versions. Too many mouse clicks are needed in Vista that were not in XP. But most of all, the hdd performance is nowhere near what XP was. Again, this is hardware/software dependent, but a distrubing fact on my machines none the less. XP is probably twice as fast with hdd reads and writes. This could be attributed to drivers. I have Intel 975xbx2, with ich7r chip. One would think Intel would have a good driver, but who knows.

Having tried 7 and now Vista Ultimate, I would prefer 7, but I think I will transition over to Vista from XP for everyday use. I will wait for 7 to reach SP1 probably, unless it is stellar out of the chute.

Every users experience is different, but coming from a stuanch XP user, and hating Vista (when I had to use it), that has definately softened the more I use it.

I don't think you can go wrong with it really, the only downside would be the support for Vista could be shortlived? Who knows?

Sul.

 

Windows Vista = Windows ME.

IMO, get XP and upgrade to Windows 7. From all reviews of the beta it is basically Windows Vista the way it should have been done in the first place.

 

I purcased a Vista Home Premium notebook from Costco last May, lot cheaper now.

The first thing that hit me was the very significant, in some cases needless, interface changes.

For example, the shortcut to Windows Explorer is not near the top of the Start menu.

In the long run, most of the interface changes will likely make sense, but the training cost is enormous. One really does need to buy the MSFT Press book, Windows Vista Inside Out.

And then there's the enormous interface change to Office 2007.

Of course, I purchased the notebook primarily for developing a program that works with Excel 2007. Other than that, I mostly play chess with the absolutely awful chess program that comes with Vista.

My use of the computer will increase significantly after I ditch NIS 2008, install KIS 2008, and, after all these years, finally switch from dial-up to cable modem.

 

In all honesty, speaking as someone who got a Vista machine in June of 2007 and has since updated it to Vista/SP1, I can say that Vista, pre-SP1 or SP1, is better than XP at any SP level in practically every way.

I suppose if you want to run some 8-bit or 16-bit games, or do not want to update your applications, or have some old scanner or dot-matrix printer you want to use, you might have some problems, though.

There are a number of interface changes. I suppose every new generation has to reinvent the wheel.

 

thats a load of rubbish
vista since SP1 works fine.
windows 7 is just a lighter version of vista with a few new features.
its stable at beta stage because its only had minor changes.

vista had major changes.

have you acually tryed vista service pack 1?

 

From a security point of view: why don't you download the Microsoft Security Intelligence Report volume 6 from here:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...60-dc24-4930-affd-e33572ccb91f&displaylang=en

It takes a bit of time to read through it, but I think it's worth it.

No way I'll ever go back to XP with whatever Service Pack, I had it for years and it worked OK. After I got a new notebook and went with a paid Vista (SP1, I waited out my time), it took a bit of time to read and study and so on, but it was worth it.
I'm very happy with it (64bit) and it runs like a champ. To tell you something: it's even faster than XP was. In booting, in working with it daily, haven't had a single problem yet. That's my personal opinion, YMMV.

 

I don't know what Windows ME was like, but comparing the current Vista to something earlier than XP is counterproductive. If Windows 7 is seen as Vista without its most perceived flaws, it would still be advisable to transit through Vista in order to feel quickly familiar with Windows 7, once it's released.

 

Yes, my thoughts exactly. 7 beta was actually pretty good I thought. I am not as keen on Vista as I am on XP, but I think it is a good idea to get familiar for the upcoming release of 7 by using Vista.

Sul.

 

I don't think much thought went into that statement.....

 

There is no denying that Microsoft itself sees Vista as nothing short of a marketing disaster. Windows 7 is being rushed to make Vista nothing but a painful memory. This is really not some far-out opinion, it is shared by most every observer of Microsoft. Like I said, Microsoft itself knows that Vista is something they want behind them as soon as possible. Reminds me of: Windows ME.

 

ME has some similarities to Vista:

• Both were released without as many third-party drivers for hardware as user's wished were immediately available
• Both implemented new features that were also present and accepted in the subsequent releases, but were widely rejected in the earlier release
• Both seemed to force user's to upgrade to hardware and software; which is not usually a bad thing: forcing change
• Both were on the heels of exceptionally long-lived predecessors
• Both had generally shorter lifespans than either their predecessors or their successors
• Both generated some quick revenue for Microsoft

 

This says A LOT. http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2456
Vista will end up being seen as the stop-gap between XP and 7.

 

In Sept 2000 I got a Dell Dimension 4100 that came with WinMe. After enduring blue screens, memory leakage which I don't think was ever fixed, and a flaky Active Desktop which turned itself on at times (thank heavens MS got rid of it in Vista), I got fed up with it after six months and installed Whistler (XP) Beta which seemed to be more stable than WinMe ever was. I cannot equate WinMe with Vista after 2 1/2 years of troublefree operation. The only BSOD I ever got was when I tried to force a XP sound driver install.

Marketing disaster, probably. OS disaster, no way. MS could have done more to explain the differences in Vista particularly UAC. They could have made a link on the desktop for a tour explaining UAC better. Only people who have experience with admin/standard user accounts (such as in Linux or in the business world) had any inkling to what UAC is for. An average Joe who has been unknowingly running Admin in XP all these years has no clue about it.

 

I have to agree, I can't equate ME with Vista either... I bought my last new PC with Windows ME on it, and after getting fed up with memory leaks and other problems, I slapped Win2k on there and used that happily for many years. Next PC was this one, with Vista x64, and I have no complaints at all, this has been a great experience for me.

I think the only similarity between the 2 is they both got a lot of negative publicity, but technically, they are nothing alike.

If Windows 7 is offered to existing Vista owners at zero or near zero cost, I'll probably move on to 7, otherwise, I'll exist happily with Vista here (and some Linux on the side).

 

I'm sorry but the fact that Windows 7 will allow downgrades to XP doesn't necessarily imply a perception of Vista as a stop-gap. Your argument seems to imply that Vista was conceptually wrong from the outset.

From memory, Longhorn (Vista's code name at the time) had several setbacks because the scandalous vulnerabilities with XP which forced MS programmers to concentrate their efforts in the production of XP Service Pack 2, at the time seen as a complete overhaul of the original XP. Nothing compared to Vista and its first Service Pack. XP SP2 may have been responsible for a hurried release of Vista, hence the first unfavorable reviews, problems subsequently corrected with SP1.

If Windows 7 is seen as a further improvement of Vista, so be it; what's wrong with that? For staunch supporters of XP like you, MS will let you downgrade to XP even from Windows 7, again what's wrong with that? Seems to me they want to please everybody, a good marketing strategy.

 

sorry i have to disagree. i have vista 64 on my newish laptop. i tri boot with xp and windows 7. i still use xp for gaming. try 3dmark, xp always wins. just look around the gaming forums.
its depressing that i have seen reviews stating that the latest windows 7 64 bit is 'almost' as fast as the 10 year old 32 bit xp. its not diffucult to find themes and addons that make xp look nice. how about if micro$oft had spent 10 years developing (finishing) xp, how good would it be now?
i am not even sure about security. why so many patches and hot fixes? (not that i ever download them) who uses m$ security anyway? you have to buy your own virus scanner/security suite then turn off defender be you are told not to trust m$

 

windows ME never worked and was only meant for home users as a stop gap between windows 98 and XP. microsoft stopped selling it after a year because it was so rubbish.
vista may of not been reliable at the start but since SP1 it works very well.
but what do you expect all major changes and it to work perfectly on every computer everywhere?
ive heard enough people say windows xp wasnt very good until SP2.
but now everyone loves windows xp and hates vista.
same old story happerns with any new microsoft release.
before making any judgement acually try vista SP1 for yourself...

windows 7 has some nice under the hood changes which for me is worth paying for. it also has a nice new taskbar which is very functional.

I prefer windows interface over KDE,Gnome and OSX interface.

 

So you didn't bother even reading it?

So stop insinuating XP is better, because it plain isn't. The document to where I linked you prooves it.

 

There is one unsung hero from MS here which never gets mentioned, its fast, rock stable, way quicker than any current OS from MS, with tweaks it boots quicker as well, been using it along with my Ubuntu for last four years and have never been disappointed once. I also have it installed on my dual quad core. Whats the OS? Its MS's step child, cross between their excellent server 2003 and XP, its XPx64.

 

maybe, but it is faster
"Microsoft" "Security" "Intelligence" now theres a contradiction in terms, no i didnt bother, the title put me off