When is a Vista sale not a Vista sale?

esuhl

be_alright wrote: »

I can understand why businesses may wish to downgrade machines to XP, or have them preinstalled with XP, but I think in the majority of the home users it's because a friend has had a bad run with it, or knows some one who has, or has read something on the internet. Once again, a little knowledge is dangerous

I disagree - have you seen Vista running on 512MB? It's an absolute dog! And that's on a totally clean test PC. Sure, RAM is cheap, but XP beats Vista by a long way when it comes to performance.

Also, I don't find the Vista layout particularly intuitive or familiar. I know no one likes change, and maybe the Vista design makes it easier for those using a PC for the first time... but XP *works*, is fast, doesn't require a major upgrade of hardware, and has a clean, logical look to it.

I'm either gonna use Linux (if my head can take it!) or skip to... is it Vienna (the next MS OS)? And just use XP for as long as I can get away with!

benjus

Surely Windows 2000 was more of a predecessor to XP than ME...?

Windows 2000 was a nice operating system - it may not have been very well received at the time as it failed to accomplish what it set out to do (combine the "Home" and "Professional" streams of Windows operating systems) but it has aged well, and now, 8 years later, you can still run a lot of modern applications on Windows 2000. I have an old Pentium 3 PC at home running Windows 2000, and it's quite capable of playing movies, writing movies to DVD, running MS Office, browsing the web, using Messenger and Skype with a webcam, etc.

I recently chose a laptop for my Dad. He insisted that he wanted XP because his business partner had had lots of trouble with Vista and he was already used to XP. Initially I told him that he should consider Vista, but in the end I decided that he probably wasn't going to miss out on much by sticking with XP.

At work we have only recently upgraded to XP...

robt_2

esuhl wrote: »

I disagree - have you seen Vista running on 512MB? It's an absolute dog! And that's on a totally clean test PC. Sure, RAM is cheap, but XP beats Vista by a long way when it comes to performance.

Yes, I have seen it on 512MB and it runs OK. Nothing special, but it works. You know that only Home Basic is suggested to be run on 512MB? Anything else has a suggested minimum of 1GB.

XP does NOT beat Vista performance wise on an upto date PC which runs Vista well.

Conor_3

esuhl wrote: »

I disagree - have you seen Vista running on 512MB? It's an absolute dog! And that's on a totally clean test PC. Sure, RAM is cheap, but XP beats Vista by a long way when it comes to performance.

Also, I don't find the Vista layout particularly intuitive or familiar. I know no one likes change, and maybe the Vista design makes it easier for those using a PC for the first time... but XP *works*, is fast, doesn't require a major upgrade of hardware, and has a clean, logical look to it.

I'm either gonna use Linux (if my head can take it!) or skip to... is it Vienna (the next MS OS)? And just use XP for as long as I can get away with!

Why aren't you using Windows 98? After all, the arguments you're making for not going to Vista are exactly the same as people made about XP compared to Win98 in its first 18 months. So surely to get the speed it's capable of, you should be running Win98?

Oh, and have you seen your beloved Linux running on 512MB? Runs like a dog compared to XP on 256MB...

BillScarab

esuhl wrote: »

Also, I don't find the Vista layout particularly intuitive or familiar. I know no one likes change, and maybe the Vista design makes it easier for those using a PC for the first time... but XP *works*, is fast, doesn't require a major upgrade of hardware, and has a clean, logical look to it.

I'm either gonna use Linux (if my head can take it!) or skip to... is it Vienna (the next MS OS)? And just use XP for as long as I can get away with!

So, you don't like the Vista interface, which is pretty similar to XP really, so instead you may move to Linux which is even more dissimilar to XP?

I really don't understand why people have so much trouble with the Vista interface, my kids (4 & 7 at the time) went from XP to Vista without asking me any questions. I think I explained to my wife about the search function and that was it she had no trouble. It really isn;t that different to XP, just a bit less "Fisher Price" in look.

Still, if XP does what you want there's no real need to upgrade although for me personally I find Vista much nicer to use.

As for Windows 2000, at work we just upgrading our W2K servers to Windows 2003, God knows when we'll go to 2008!

[Deleted User]

esuhl wrote: »

I disagree - have you seen Vista running on 512MB? It's an absolute dog! And that's on a totally clean test PC. Sure, RAM is cheap, but XP beats Vista by a long way when it comes to performance.

Also, I don't find the Vista layout particularly intuitive or familiar. I know no one likes change, and maybe the Vista design makes it easier for those using a PC for the first time... but XP *works*, is fast, doesn't require a major upgrade of hardware, and has a clean, logical look to it.

I'm either gonna use Linux (if my head can take it!) or skip to... is it Vienna (the next MS OS)? And just use XP for as long as I can get away with!

Why would you bother installing Vista on a machine that doesn't meet it's system requirements, then blast it for running at sub par performance in comparison to another operating system where the specs far exceed the minimum specification to run it?

It's hardly the most neutral or balanced of tests is it?