Hate to ask again XP or Vista?

isofa

It's personal choice. If you are happy with XP, it does all you need and you have good 3rd party security and anit-spyware applications, older applications / printers / scanners etc. - then it's a good choice.

If you want the latest, then Vista is a good choice, but only on modern fast hardware with plenty of RAM, it's a dog on slower systems with low RAM.

Like for like, XP Pro will run faster than Vista - but as other posters have said, it depends on all manner of variables.

For everyone who says Vista is great, you'll have another saying it's rubbish. I think it's far from perfect for all sorts of technical reasons, but I'm happy for home users to use it, seems an OK system. However Mac OS X is far superior IMO. And for some bespoke apps and a variety of external hardware I'm using at the moment (and dealing with large corporates who are only just moving from Windows 2000 to XP!), XP Pro is the option for me.

I wouldn't touch XP Home, nor the basic versions of Vista, with a bargepole.

This thread could go on forever, it's been discussed over and over again!

aaranj

aaranj wrote: »

how about linux? it's free! :money:

also i'm running two p.c's at the moment. 1 high spec with vista and 1 medium spec with linux. i'm using my linux pc more for web browsing/email music and photo's. i'm only using my windows p.c every now and then for itunes.

iviv

The main problem that vista had was the sale of PCs that were labeled 'Vista ready'. In reality, most of these could only run vista basic (With is a load of rubbish, you shouldn't use it). So people installed Home Premium, then complained because it was slow, simply because the PCs weren't up to spec.

I've not read the 3 pages, but essentially, vista is a great OS. Yes, it needs more system resources than XP, but thats known as progress. XP needs more than Windows 98, and so on. I'm sitting here with Vista x64 and 4Gb of ram. Just with firefox open, its using 57% of my Ram. People immediately say 'OMG! Look at all the resources its using! Its rubbish!

But the thing is, whats wrong with it using so much ram? Its not doing anything anyway, so why not fill it up? When you turn vista on, it loads up your commonly used programs into the ram, so they startup much quicker. When you load a game or something which actually needs lots of ram, it gets it. Vista dumps the contents of the ram into the page file on the hard drive, so the ram is free for whatever needs it.

Most crashes and bluescreens aren't actually vista's fault, but are driver problems. The only bluescreens I've had on my Vista pc came from a rubbish set of Belkin wireless drivers. While this is a vista problem, the problem isn't with vista, its lazy coding by belkin.

I've been using Vista since it came out, recently switching from 32 to 64-bit, and aside from the aforementioned problem, its been smooth sailing. Sure there was a performance hit in games, which was eventually removed thanks to ATI pulling their finger out and getting some good graphics drivers out.


So, to answer the OP, it depends. Depending on how 'low spec' the PC is, depends on what you should get. If it meets the Vista home premium 'recommended' specs, then go with that. If not, see if you can get XP. Or consider linux if you're adventurous/technically minded.

savemoney

I just installed Vista ultimate 64bit so far all applications have worked flawlessly so have the hardware including printer.

I do have a dual boot with Xp pro on too but I am finding it less than less using it I think I will just use it for gaming as games run slightly better at mo.

EDIT I have 4gb with firefox and a few plugins/ av/firewall and widgets and it says I have 2728MB left used1366MB out of 4096MB

Hoseman

I havent used both so therefore cant comment but I think its amazing (or maybe not) that M$ have come out with a product that isnt significantly better than its predecessor. There's been lots of talk about speed not being that much different or even Vista being slower. Im in 2 minds also because Im due to upgrade my PC but I will probably end up Vista because its newer and it depends how long you intend to have your machine for as XP could become very out of date. Also, I read the next edition of Windows isnt that far off, 2010 I think but if you need a new machine there is no point waiting that long.

iviv

Hoseman wrote: »

I havent used both so therefore cant comment but I think its amazing (or maybe not) that M$ have come out with a product that isnt significantly better than its predecessor. There's been lots of talk about speed not being that much different or even Vista being slower. Im in 2 minds also because Im due to upgrade my PC but I will probably end up Vista because its newer and it depends how long you intend to have your machine for as XP could become very out of date. Also, I read the next edition of Windows isnt that far off, 2010 I think but if you need a new machine there is no point waiting that long.

Basically, if you're on XP and are happy with it, there's no real need to go out and buy Vista, unless you prefer the way it looks, or want some of the features. However, if you're buying a new PC, don't try and avoid vista, since there aren't problems with it anymore.

[Deleted User]

Hoseman wrote: »

I havent used both so therefore cant comment but I think its amazing (or maybe not) that M$ have come out with a product that isnt significantly better than its predecessor. There's been lots of talk about speed not being that much different or even Vista being slower. Im in 2 minds also because Im due to upgrade my PC but I will probably end up Vista because its newer and it depends how long you intend to have your machine for as XP could become very out of date. Also, I read the next edition of Windows isnt that far off, 2010 I think but if you need a new machine there is no point waiting that long.

It all depends on what your assumption of 'significantly better' is. Architecturally speaking, Vista is lightyears ahead of XP in relation to system stability and security, but Microsoft making these changes pulled the rug of poor practise from under software and hardware developers meaning that the first incarnations of drivers were woeful. That in turn contributed to the onslaught of accusations that it was slower than XP, which XP was criticised for when it came out, Windows 2000, Windows 98 etc.

Windows is due the first quarter of 2010, which is be approximately Vista's fourth year of release. Closing the gap between releases is a much better way to update as it doesn't leave such a gap in technology.

You can get Vista Home Premium OEM for £70, it's not a great outlay. If you want to buy it you've got the option, if not wait for it to be bundled with your next machine if you buy them pre assembled.

robt_2

Hoseman wrote: »

I havent used both so therefore cant comment but I think its amazing (or maybe not) that M$ have come out with a product that isnt significantly better than its predecessor. There's been lots of talk about speed not being that much different or even Vista being slower. Im in 2 minds also because Im due to upgrade my PC but I will probably end up Vista because its newer and it depends how long you intend to have your machine for as XP could become very out of date. Also, I read the next edition of Windows isnt that far off, 2010 I think but if you need a new machine there is no point waiting that long.

Ignorance is bliss.

Hoseman

robt wrote: »

Ignorance is bliss.

My comment is based on other people's opinions which is all Ive got to go on and there seems to be quite a lot of people who are undecided or in two minds. Ive heard of quite a few also who have gone back to XP after trying Vista. Ive never heard of this with previous releases and of course this is going to cause some debate as this thread proves. PCPro had a feature on this very issue also which surely means it is an issue worth discussing or people want to know about. While we're on the subject of debate, if you have anything useful to add, be my guest.

[Deleted User]

Hoseman wrote: »

My comment is based on other people's opinions which is all Ive got to go on and there seems to be quite a lot of people who are undecided or in two minds. Ive heard of quite a few also who have gone back to XP after trying Vista. Ive never heard of this with previous releases and of course this is going to cause some debate as this thread proves. PCPro had a feature on this very issue also which surely means it is an issue worth discussing or people want to know about. While we're on the subject of debate, if you have anything useful to add, be my guest.

Corporations have been downgrading Vista machines to XP and that is quite understandable. Having a mix of operating systems in an environment will make it more difficult to administer, bespoke applications may not work and typically business machines are cheap and functional, therefore may not be getting reasonable performance with a copy of Vista on.

You will find with every release of Windows that this has been the case. Do you not remember the shambolic reception XP received?

Here's the problem, the internet has given those who cannot think for themselves a platform to soak up the opinion of others, whether right or wrong, and regurgutate this as their own without any real understanding.

Ah, PCPro, the tome of all computing knowledge..