Worth going with Vista?

[AD-15]

hello,

I am looking to buy a system, and I have a choice of either XP pro or vista. I've heard that driver and general software support for Vista is beyond awful. However, if I were to buy XP pro now, and wait to upgrade to vista, the cost would be enormous.

What do you guys think?

[Robbie G]

Definitely Vista. Support definitely isn't as bad as people say. Some have good luck some bad depending on if you have any less common hardware, but generally people have few problems. Vista is the future and will end up being much better than XP in every way once support improves, so I say bite the bullet and go for Vista.

[DecomposingStar]

Vista.
The only things i've had support issues with are made by companies that obviously don't have alot of funding or don't care about their customers much (ie, my motherboard is a bit etchy when using the utilities that came with it). As long as you stick to trusted named brands when setting up your PC hardware, you'll be fine.

Vista is definatly more efficient than XP.

[chuckskull]

For a new PC, I just cant recommend XP over Vista. The driver and software support is there now and getting better constantly.

I put Vista x64 on my new machine and for the first few weeks there were some headache, after a few solid weeks of updates from just about every company it's all good now.

Get it, you'll never want XP back.

[Defenestration]

If you do a lot of video encoding, then stick with XP which has been shown to be 18%-20% faster than Vista for this task.

Other benchmarks usually show XP with a slight advantage.

[DecomposingStar]

If you do a lot of video encoding, then stick with XP which has been shown to be 18%-20% faster than Vista for this task.

Other benchmarks usually show XP with a slight advantage.

It's very true, but Vista has alot of efficiency, it's just the programs that haven't been updated to utilise it yet.

[Defenestration]

It's very true, but Vista has alot of efficiency, it's just the programs that haven't been updated to utilise it yet.

Most of the code efficiency in Vista relates to the graphics sub-system. Programs which are very CPU intensive (like video encoding) will always be slower on Vista IMO due to the internal checks (which happen many times every second) implemented in the Vista kernel which are used to protect media content from being copied (eg. HD-DVD and Blu-ray in particular). These checks do not occur in XP. Therefore, unless these checks are removed from Vista (very unlikely to happen) then Vista will always be slower than XP for certain tasks.

Video encoding is one such task which is much better suited to XP.

[Nick F]

Vista has handled everything I have thrown at it so far without a single crash or freeze. I think it's a massive step over XP and would tell anyone to upgrade.

Oh and if you can get the ultimate edition so you can get Dreamscape installed. It's amazing.

[coco]

if your going to buy a new system, you might as well get vista
now, but if you've got a system with xp i wouldn't bother

[DecomposingStar]

Most of the code efficiency in Vista relates to the graphics sub-system. Programs which are very CPU intensive (like video encoding) will always be slower on Vista IMO due to the internal checks (which happen many times every second) implemented in the Vista kernel which are used to protect media content from being copied (eg. HD-DVD and Blu-ray in particular). These checks do not occur in XP. Therefore, unless these checks are removed from Vista (very unlikely to happen) then Vista will always be slower than XP for certain tasks.

Video encoding is one such task which is much better suited to XP.

I suppose, but it's usually not a HUGE amount slower... I can't see how it would truely hinder anyone.

[chuckskull]

I suppose, but it's usually not a HUGE amount slower... I can't see how it would truely hinder anyone.

Well overall it's going to be faster. If you're buying a new system as yu're going to gain a lot of power. Exspecially say with Core 2. Last gen chips, can barely keep up, a gen before that is a huge amount of difference.

[acrobat]

Does Vista work with an 8800GTX ok?

My friend said there is only a none MS certified driver for it, so it will cause trouble with Vista but he is wrong sometimes so thought I would check.

I really want to get Vista but that is holding me back. Also, I see people on the net saying that their 8800GTX is actually a bit slower in Vista than it is in XP. I could handle slightly slower, especially if it will get better in the future when DX10 starts working and drivers are updated and stuff, but how much slower are we talking?

(Sorry for talking in this thread, but its probably better than starting another Vista thread)

[chuckskull]

the vista 8800gtx drivers are pretty good now. the latest release especially, still not perfect but getting there.

[acrobat]

Whats not perfect about it? Would ya recommend me getting Vista with all that in mind?

Im actually having quite a few problems with the card in XP, so I doubt it can be any worse But im just a bit wary of upgrading. I have a copy of Vista but its quite a big deal to reinstall everything.

[excalibur2]

Whats not perfect about it? Would ya recommend me getting Vista with all that in mind?

Im actually having quite a few problems with the card in XP, so I doubt it can be any worse But im just a bit wary of upgrading. I have a copy of Vista but its quite a big deal to reinstall everything.

Why dont you have dual boot winxp on c: vista on d:...............don't put all your eggs in one basket.

[TheodanUK]

I would definately go with Windows VISTA.

The Nvidia drivers seem pretty stable now and I am having zero problems with my 8800GTS, running plenty of games (Supreme Commander, Guild Wars, Titan quest) all without any issues.

I think the performance compared to XP is a few frames per second slower, which is not going to be noticeable and this will eventually disappear and probably reverse once newer drivers are released.