XP vs Vista

[Deleted User]

robt wrote: »

Nonsense. Sounds like you are Vista bashing for the hell of it without knowing what you are taking about.

Totally.

But let's not let fact get in the way of a discussion though ey.

custardy

for those slating vista
ive yet to have one of my 2 vista machines crash(touching wood,throwing salt etc)
yes we have had to change our views on what ram/CPU's make a good machine from XP but you can stick with XP if you like.
even if you buy a new machine its not much to buy an xp licence on top.
i like the ease of sharing with vista,its even easier in windows 7

esuhl

I have XP, Vista and Windows 7 on PCs at work. XP and Win 7 are pretty responsive, but Vista seems very slow. None have crashed recently. They are probably more secure than XP, but there is plenty of third-party software to keep an XP installation safe. When it comes to it, I still prefer the "cleaner" look and feel of XP (and XFCE on my Linux PC).

I think I'm gonna stick with XP and Zenwalk Linux (dual boot) on my home PC, and make the leap to Windows 7 only when I really have to.

superstar_2

I started the thread, and Its gone a long way into discussion. Healthy discussion is always welcomed. The problem is that I need to get one very soon, so I have a dilemma of XP vs Vista vs 7? More opinions...

custardy

if i had a choice it would be 7,in your case vista with the upgrade option
however bear in mind that 'upgrade' is a clean install

esuhl

If I were you, I'd probably go for Windows 7. It's quick, reliable, will become the status quo and is more "future proof" than XP.

It will be a sad day when I wipe my XP installation though.

superstar_2

Is 7 officially out now? How much is it if bought externally?

RobTang

Win 7 isn't out till october.

PC world still has some Pros avaliable on discount pre-order (£100) I think.

other wise
Home Prem £80
Pro £189
Ultimate £199

But some places are selling cheaper to undercut the price of a copy of vista+win7 upgrade, IE novatech has HP £65, PRO £155, ULTI £178

moonrakerz

robt wrote: »

Nonsense. Sounds like you are Vista bashing for the hell of it without knowing what you are taking about.

I'm sorry, but why should I believe your self proclaimed expertise over my personal experience ?
Just exactly what do you claim to know about my experiences with Vista ?

My experiences would also seem to be supported by much comment from users and the "PC" press. A quick Google brings up plenty.
If Vista was so good, I wonder why MS were compelled to extend the life of XP ?

robt_2

moonrakerz wrote: »

Thomas Andrews thought he had a very sound understanding of Naval Architecture.

I wouldn't argue about it being more secure - it seems to spend most of its time either "crashed and down" or unable to talk to anything outside of itself - that would make it pretty secure, I suppose.

robt wrote: »

Nonsense. Sounds like you are Vista bashing for the hell of it without knowing what you are taking about.

moonrakerz wrote: »

I'm sorry, but why should I believe your self proclaimed expertise over my personal experience ?
Just exactly what do you claim to know about my experiences with Vista ?

My experiences would also seem to be supported by much comment from users and the "PC" press. A quick Google brings up plenty.
If Vista was so good, I wonder why MS were compelled to extend the life of XP ?

It is a FACT that it is more secure. Opinion does not come into it.