Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

why would you! run Vista?

Last response: in Windows Vista
Share
December 16, 2006 7:44:09 PM

By the looks of thing there seems to be NO reason for running Vista at all. So far it performs as win XP, but takes up 4 to 8 times the amount of RAM to do so. There are some neat trick in vista sure, like the ability to put the page file on a USB pen, and the transparency GUI, both can be done on XP as well though. so what’s the point?
Personally I run 3Ds max/Photoshop and games. so i need every clock cycle and available Kb i can get my hands on. Especially when rendering, or running amok with homemade PS filters, So why run vista?


I'm very interested in knowing why YOU would run it. pros/cons plz, let the list begin :wink:

More about : run vista

December 18, 2006 1:50:33 PM

Because I can.
December 18, 2006 2:40:26 PM

I won't be
Related resources
December 18, 2006 2:44:18 PM

Yes
December 18, 2006 7:38:44 PM

Years ago, the same argument was made by people asking why one would upgrade from 98/Me to XP.

Improved driver support, stability, better 64-bit support, etc. Since you're a gamer, I'm sure you will want DX10 at some point.

While upgrading from XP to Vista isn't necessary right away, eventually you will need some feature that XP lacks. Remember that Vista is an overhaul of the OS, there is a lot of features/improvements in the structure of Windows, It isn't just a fancy new Aero interface.

Unless you're using Microsoft's "hack" (x64), I'm sure you will notice vastly improved rendering performance with 64-bit Vista and 4GB+ of RAM.

Other than 64-bit memory addressing, and breaking the 2T disk limitation, I personally want two features of Vista:
1) The MCE interface has been optimized for HDTV - It's now more horizontally laid-out.
2) Actual OS virtulization support.

Unfortunately, the MCE features aren't available in the business releases of Vista, and the virtulization support isn't offered in the home versions - so it looks like I'll be forced to get the Ultimate edition. :cry: 
December 18, 2006 8:15:58 PM

OT.
Knowing the way XP behaved with a 450mhz & 256mb ram pc I had at work, "800 MHz enough to run Vista, says Microsoft" is so far off. I wouldn't even try vista with a 2.0ghz & 512mb ram. If all you have is a 20gb or 40 gb hd & a 800mhz pc, it's time to upgrade anyway.
December 19, 2006 8:09:36 AM

Quote:
Years ago, the same argument was made by people asking why one would upgrade from 98/Me to XP.

Improved driver support, stability, better 64-bit support, etc. ...

Those were very good reasons to upgrade from 98/ME to W2K. I've yet to see a good reason to upgrade to XP, and at least one good reason not to (PA). So I haven't.

Doubtless the disk and memory addressing issues will eventually force us all to upgrade, but for most users those aren't pressing issues. And there are other ways to do virtualisation.

As for MCE, I've yet to be convinced that a PC is really the answer for media centres. I have a Kiss box that does these jobs very nicely and it's smaller, quieter, cheaper and uses less power than most media PC's.

I think the best way with Vista is to wait a while.
December 20, 2006 5:31:52 PM

Here's a few good reasons. MS drops support for old OS's. That means no more updates for you once that time comes. And the majority of people need those hotfixes from MS.

Two, because Microsoft drops updates and support for the older operating systems, they become more and more vulnerable to viruses, bugs and hackers. I've fixed many 98 and ME computers where it makes more sense for me to whip the drive and install a fresh copy of XP Pro.
December 20, 2006 7:04:50 PM

With 98/ME there's almost no option. With 2K though, you can at least install most programs that were made for 2K/XP only... but I'm sure support for 2K is going to start slowly fading once Vista is released. A lot of modern anti-virus and anti-spyware software will install only on 2K/XP.

To the previous poster: 2K is still very useful, I agree. Perhaps for you there is no reason to upgrade to XP right now... but again I'm sure there will be in the future. Of course with Vista out soon, it's probably better to wait and skip XP entirely. I think 64-bit is going to be one of the most compelling reasons to upgrade to Vista.
December 21, 2006 8:22:29 AM

Quote:
... support for 2K is going to start slowly fading once Vista is released. ...

To the previous poster: 2K is still very useful, I agree. Perhaps for you there is no reason to upgrade to XP right now... but again I'm sure there will be in the future. Of course with Vista out soon, it's probably better to wait and skip XP entirely. I think 64-bit is going to be one of the most compelling reasons to upgrade to Vista.

I will certainly skip XP. Clearly support for W2K will stop, I'd guess in a year or two. Many corporates are still running 2K, and won't upgrade to Vista until SP1 is released, so my guess is that W2K support will continue until then.

By then there will probably be some real advantages to 64 bit, in the form of 64 bit apps. At the moment 64 bit seems to have few practical benefits on the desktop owing to the lack of apps.

So there are some good reasons to upgrade. I'd argue that most of us are best off waiting for SP1, then going for the 64 bit version (upgrading hardware if necessary).

Another very good reason to wait is to spend some time figuring out how oppressive the Product Activation and DRM is.
December 22, 2006 11:30:08 AM

I'm sticking to XP for now.

I tried one of the latest betas a month ago, and had it running for a week or 2.
What pissed me off: file sorting. It happens so, that I keep my eMule downloads sorted by date. Apparently, apart from date, size etc., Vista offers a gazillion new parameters to sort by, which include 5-8 different ones for dates alone. (I know I suck at explaining, but you'll understand me when you see it).

The drivers posed no problem at all. Nvidia had a vista driver ready, and the rest of the system (my audio and NIC) - worked with XP drivers.

I had to disable most of the cool new features, coz they slowed my PC down A LOT. Just opening a folder with a bunch of videos, (not even in thumbnail mode but in simple list view) meant a 10 second torture for my harddrive (a WD 3200KS - not quite the slowest HDD around). I have no idea what Vista was doing everytime I opened that folder - but i didn't like it.

ReadyBoost? Well, that didn't help much. It doesn't put the whole pagefile on the pendrive, rather the tiny files, 'cause flash mem has good random access times, but sucks at continuous reads.

Other than that: it was pretty handy, and, an eye candy. The start menu opened quick, etc.

Tried the RTM version last week - was unhappy with it, after it refused to install a few of system apps that I like using, even in compatibility mode.
Bottom line: waiting for at least SP1, and for software developers to catch up.
January 2, 2007 8:44:15 PM

I'll tell you. After playing with vista ultimate for while now, I then decided to go back to XP. That lasted for about an hour. I reinstalled ultimate vista again. I really like the way the fonts look. I use the classic setup. I also like the way you can move the mouse over a minimized webpage and see what you were working on. I like Vista.
January 3, 2007 10:21:41 AM

Quote:
I'll tell you. After playing with vista ultimate for while now, I then decided to go back to XP. That lasted for about an hour. I reinstalled ultimate vista again. I really like the way the fonts look. I use the classic setup. I also like the way you can move the mouse over a minimized webpage and see what you were working on. I like Vista.


i can relate to that above all the posts here...

its the same i found with LCD TV's & things.. my dad recently bought a 32" HD LCD TV, i set it up for him & went home... 2 days later he said he didnt like it so he plugged in his old TV, while watching that for an hour he asked himself how did he ever watch that & plugged the LCD TV back in & hasnt been unplugged since :) 

i also didnt like XP... i prefered windows ME, but when going from XP after using it for a month back to ME it was like having a couple of fingers removed, installed XP again a week later.
Anonymous
January 4, 2007 10:05:50 PM

I personally don't like the choice microsoft made. They should keep support for some of the older OSes. Some people want a reasonably fast and efficent (memory wise) OS. The only other options are Linux (or any other *ix) or Mac OS.
January 5, 2007 6:37:52 AM

Quote:
Quote:

its the same i found with LCD TV's & things.. my dad recently bought a 32" HD LCD TV, i set it up for him & went home... 2 days later he said he didnt like it so he plugged in his old TV, while watching that for an hour he asked himself how did he ever watch that & plugged the LCD TV back in & hasnt been unplugged since :) .


Very interesting analogy. Had the same thing with my dad and a 26 inch Sony Trinitron a few years ago :) 

Your analogy also holds up for Vista. I've been using the RTM version for a while now and should be purchasing it when it comes out. Bugs are few and far between and it plays Day of Defeat: Source flawlessly so that's all I need :)  I've been back to XP on my other hard drive but as you say it's like having a couple of my fingers missing. It's just easier and better to use.
!