Winxp or Vista ?

[MadduckUK]

Not my scanner or laser printer for starters.
And modems were a nightmare

must just be unlucky, had a TI chipsetted external modem, OKI laser printer and a mustek scanner from circa 1994 working from pretty much day one. and im sure the modem was using a driver specified for 95/NT4 too

[redlight]

must just be unlucky, had a TI chipsetted external modem, OKI laser printer and a mustek scanner from circa 1994 working from pretty much day one. and im sure the modem was using a driver specified for 95/NT4 too

Yes and thats what people are saying about problems with drivers for Vista so nothing has changed.
This time I have been lucky.

[peterb]

Which thread? The one I posted about the two big updates? If so, they're out matey, all official like My point was that the perception that a service pack will be the thing to wait for in Vista is flawed - the major problems have all been driver related and this, coupled with the fact that MS is updating it periodically through Windows update anyway means the service pack is more likely to be a rollup than a ground breaking release (aka SP2 for XP for example). The dark days are mostly behind us now - even nVidia drivers have started working (most of the time, or at least as well as the XP ones) which was a real killer for me. At the end of the day it's pointless to buy XP now - it's obsolete (period) and Vista, bar driver issues (which may not even affect you now), is a solid OS with a few niggles (just like XP). Updates will keep coming out, things will steadily improve. We're 8/9 months in now and third parties are finally getting a handle on Vista driver development - heck, even realtek are managing not to kill PCs

OK - maybe'waiting for the service pack' was loose terminolgy - but as you say it has been out 8 to 9 months. The point being that new releases are (history shows with XP, Win2K etc) likely to have teething troubles that will be rectified as time goes on. Early adopters face those - if you don't want to face them - don't be an early adopter! Thats all!

[redlight]

This looks familiar
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-274947.html

[MadduckUK]

topical, but the faults seem to boil down to not being able to play snow white and not being able to access MSN for a few hours?

edit: and the MSN problem was not actually a huge amount to do with XP

[Clunk]

I have used it. Work laptop filled with the usual gubbings I set up to test. The only thing not working was Aero, as it just had a crappy SiS chip, but as Aero is all in the graphics memory anyway (unless you have TurboCache or HyperMemory), that doesn't adversely affect performance side of normal things.

I will try it on my laptop, I have some 512MiB sticks of RAM somewhere, but I'm quite enjoying the instant respone of XP, even on the laptop.

Does anyone else have a dual boot with XP/vista and find everyday things much much faster on XP?

Roll on the updates.

[acrobat]

Every time I read one of these threads, I find more stuff that won't work. The new one I found today is phone software? Amongst other things...

I still have a copy of Vista 64 sitting here, but I can't see me installing it anytime soon. Minor niggles are one thing... but not being able to use bloomin phone software is another.. Surely thats one of the most commonly used apps nowdays? And then theres that business about an error copying things over a network? And also it corrupting .avi files? My gods... Thats all in addition to the other stuff I knew about (dodgy Creative drivers etc..).

Sounds like the wild west of operating systems to me. Looks like I'll be on this XP for a long while. So much for their WOW slogan. The only thing I can imagine saying to myself when moving to vista is, "Wow, none of my stuff works properly anymore".

[dangel]

The fact that MS have had to release all those patches in the linked thread proves that it is not all driver related.
Unless you don't consider things like almost unusable writing speeds and the OS corruption AVI files to be 'major' issues?

Sigh - I didn't say 'all' issues were driver related at all - and there's a world of difference between a showstopper (BSOD) and a glitch in copying files across a network. The point is that the new driver model (this is a kernel up new version of Windows) has been far more painful. If you can cast your mind back to Windows 2000 being launched it wasn't exactly bug-free (and is directly comparable as that was the last major revision of Windows to arrive from MS) either! Again, don't put words in my mouth - my point was only that the majority of issues have been driver related - that's fair isn't it?

Vista is getting better, sure, but it still has issues.
At the end of the day, if someone wants a OS with maximum compatibility with the current market, this second, XP is the best choice.
Sure, it will be obsolete well before Vista, but that doesn't mean it cant do its job properly.
It really doesn't matter if its the underlying OS causing problems, or the applications running on it. Most people wont care, all the majority want is a working system without the niggles.

At the end of the day the question isn't whether XP is currently better (in the sense of a lower bug count) but whether he should pay money for a 5 year old OS or a new one which is starting to get into it's stride. My contention is that Vista is a decent choice now.

The fact that this forum is full of users who really know their stuff (like Clunk and David Ross), and still constantly bump into issues kinda speaks for itself.
As the big guy who owns this site has as his MSN tag at the moment - "Ive upgraded from Vista to XP".

Well, i've been in the industry for er.. 18 years, i've been developing for Windows for a large chunk of that and i've been using Vista for well over a year, full-time in my day-to-day job (part of my job spec is to investigate new technologies and their suitability for production). I'm writing this in it now, it's perfectly stable and all my software works too (the specs are below). We've about 5 Vista machines here in R&D and about 4 more in the lab; we test a wide variety of hardware with it too. I was on the beta program for Vista, actively reporting bugs (they even changed something as result of one of my reports lol) and running each build in turn. Willy waving aside..
I've had my share of issues too (witness the fun of realtek drivers killing my home PC during installation or my media center problems [nvidia drivers] too) which i've posted up here.. Work-wise i'm surprised how little we've had to do to achieve Vista compatibility - a few oddities in the new theme schema aside - pretty much all the software worked ok and we had no issues withe hardware/firmware aside from Maxtrox being unable support DX9.1c (we use them because of their dual hardware overlay support).

Not everyone has the same trouble free ride that you're having. Simply saying its suitable for everyone because you don't have issues just isnt fair.

What isn't fair is telling me i've done so - read the OP again - that's the question i'm answering here. If you want to debate the wider issues then fair enough: and yes, XP is more suitable in all sort of situations. Is Vista perfect? No. Will it all matter so much in six months? No. What would I buy with my pre-built system? Vista.

OK - maybe'waiting for the service pack' was loose terminolgy - but as you say it has been out 8 to 9 months. The point being that new releases are (history shows with XP, Win2K etc) likely to have teething troubles that will be rectified as time goes on. Early adopters face those - if you don't want to face them - don't be an early adopter! Thats all!

...and I didn't disagree Result!

I will try it on my laptop, I have some 512MiB sticks of RAM somewhere, but I'm quite enjoying the instant respone of XP, even on the laptop.

Does anyone else have a dual boot with XP/vista and find everyday things much much faster on XP?

Roll on the updates.

I've not had good experiences on laptops either - aside from the fact that (unlike XP) Vista installs all my hardware off the bat which is much easier than tearing the house apart for the laptop driver CD - it seems much slower.
I dual boot here at work and i'd say i find the opposite to be true: for desktop apps Vista is faster - mostly due to the fact the CPU isn't doing the drawing (which is a major boon in visual studio 2k5). On laptops though I find it a different story: but then i've not had a modern laptop to test with it. Certainly for older hardware (see my sig) XP is a much better choice (or was for me as I can't bear to run the basic version). For games it varies - on my home pc (001 below) it depends on the nVidia drivers and the game in question - I need both OS' as nVidia's drivers for either are often complete junk lol

[pitbull46]

And now there is talk of an SP3 for XP, their's life in the old dog yet guy's.

[peterb]

...... I want to control my system and know what's going on and not have an operating system making decisions for me!

It seems they've spent alot of time making the GUI look really fancy and all the glassy effects etc.. is not what I want from an OS. I like something useable, functional and powerful. ....

Looks like you are a Linux man then (but haven't realised it yet!)

[OriginalDon]

I would stick with Windows XP for a least a year. This should allow *** to sort out the problems with Vista. More DX10 games should also be available.

If you intend to get >= 4GB of RAM, go for Windows XP 64. This is what I will do when I build my machine.

[Agent]

Sigh - I didn't say 'all' issues were driver related at all

Sigh - "the major problems have all been driver related"
Thats exactly what you said mate
Not "all" the major problems have been driver related at all. You only need to look over the Vista patch list to see that.

and there's a world of difference between a showstopper (BSOD) and a glitch in copying files across a network.

Yes, of course, but I never said anything about instability just the bugs which it has. The copying file 'glitch' is a heck of a lot more. It slows even the most quickest of systems to a crawl. While it doesn't result in instability as far as I know, It can make the experience for the user annoying to the point of hurting productivity.

The point is that the new driver model (this is a kernel up new version of Windows) has been far more painful. If you can cast your mind back to Windows 2000 being launched it wasn't exactly bug-free (and is directly comparable as that was the last major revision of Windows to arrive from MS) either!

Windows 2000 wasn't aimed at the home desktop environment. Somewhat of a difference between a home OS and a business based one. Driver support was bad almost because of that alone. For example, once a stable driver was released for a product, it would rarely get updates because the businesses world simply doesn't demand them.
There would be no gain updating the drivers of top end graphics cards for Windows 2000 when almost all business based installs will be using an integrated Intel GMA, or similar.
If there is little demand, there is going to be less updates.

Again, don't put words in my mouth - my point was only that the majority of issues have been driver related - that's fair isn't it?

"Again"? That was my first point and I quoted the exact piece from you. Where does the "again" and putting words in your mouth come from?

At the end of the day the question isn't whether XP is currently better (in the sense of a lower bug count)

Actually, I think in a thread titled "Winxp or Vista ?" its going to be one of the questions which need looking at. Not what's a new OS, but what's the better one for him to use in the given situation, regardless of if thats Vista or XP.

but whether he should pay money for a 5 year old OS or a new one which is starting to get into it's stride. My contention is that Vista is a decent choice now.

Who cares how old an OS is as long as it does what he needs and works?
I would actually also recommend going with Vista too, but purely because it will be supported for longer, and not because XP is getting older.

Well, i've been in the industry for er.. 18 years, i've been developing for Windows for a large chunk of that and i've been using Vista for well over a year, full-time in my day-to-day job (part of my job spec is to investigate new technologies and their suitability for production). I'm writing this in it now, it's perfectly stable and all my software works too (the specs are below). We've about 5 Vista machines here in R&D and about 4 more in the lab; we test a wide variety of hardware with it too. I was on the beta program for Vista, actively reporting bugs (they even changed something as result of one of my reports lol) and running each build in turn. Willy waving aside..
I've had my share of issues too (witness the fun of realtek drivers killing my home PC during installation or my media center problems [nvidia drivers] too) which i've posted up here.. Work-wise i'm surprised how little we've had to do to achieve Vista compatibility - a few oddities in the new theme schema aside - pretty much all the software worked ok and we had no issues withe hardware/firmware aside from Maxtrox being unable support DX9.1c (we use them because of their dual hardware overlay support).

Well im glad that the move for you went smoothly, but plenty of people are still having issues
If you are a developer with 18 years in the industry, im sure that you'll agree that a lot of the things in the first service pack simply shouldn't have been missed pre-gold. There is some beta stage bugs still in there IMO.

What isn't fair is telling me i've done so - read the OP again - that's the question i'm answering here. If you want to debate the wider issues then fair enough: and yes, XP is more suitable in all sort of situations. Is Vista perfect? No. Will it all matter so much in six months? No. What would I buy with my pre-built system? Vista.

You see, just there you say "XP is more suitable in all sorts of situations", and then previously "At the end of the day it's pointless to buy XP now". Somewhat or a contrast there

[this_is_gav]

Yes, of course, but I never said anything about instability just the bugs which it has. The copying file 'glitch' is a heck of a lot more. It slows even the most quickest of systems to a crawl. While it doesn't result in instability as far as I know, It can make the experience for the user annoying to the point of hurting productivity.

It can slow things. One of my systems wasn't effected at all, and the one which was it didn't really bug me to be honest.

As for the topic, if I was buying now, I'd get Vista - the last 3 systems I've specced have all been with Vista, and the only issue was an old USB modem, which was getting replaced anyway. If I currently had an XP license (and I do), then I'd probably use that. Vista's great, but it doesn't do anything better than XP sufficiently to move over just yet for me.

[Agent]

It can slow things. One of my systems wasn't effected at all, and the one which was it didn't really bug me to be honest.

Yeah I know mate, its not an OS wide issue.
Like I said;

If you get hit by the 'file speed' bug....

[dangel]

Sigh - "the major problems have all been driver related"
Thats exactly what you said mate
Not "all" the major problems have been driver related at all. You only need to look over the Vista patch list to see that.

I thought I made this pretty clear - an intermittent and relatively rare issue (with no effect on stability) carries far less weight than one that occurs for far more users and results in BSODs. I think it's more than fair to say that, you don't. End of story really. Mate. lol. edit - note: here some humour was intended, however tenious. ok?

Windows 2000 wasn't aimed at the home desktop environment. Somewhat of a difference between a home OS and a business based one. Driver support was bad almost because of that alone. For example, once a stable driver was released for a product, it would rarely get updates because the businesses world simply doesn't demand them.
There would be no gain updating the drivers of top end graphics cards for Windows 2000 when almost all business based installs will be using an integrated Intel GMA, or similar.
If there is little demand, there is going to be less updates.

Er.. ok. No idea what all that was about - my point was (simply) that Windows 2000 (NT5) was the last big shift in driver model for MS. Nothing more. Drivers must be stable regardless of target audience, and the business market is far from forgiving.

"Again"? That was my first point and I quoted the exact piece from you. Where does the "again" and putting words in your mouth come from?

Would you like a lollipop? edit - boring reply: "again" was referal to myself, not you - and, quite simply, i feel you were/are misconstruing the meaning behind major in the context i applied it - which i've covered in the rest of the post, and before and probably will have to again.

Actually, I think in a thread titled "Winxp or Vista ?" its going to be one of the questions which need looking at. Not what's a new OS, but what's the better one for him to use in the given situation, regardless of if thats Vista or XP.



Who cares how old an OS is as long as it does what he needs and works?
I would actually also recommend going with Vista too, but purely because it will be supported for longer, and not because XP is getting older.

Great, so we agree. Job done.

Well im glad that the move for you went smoothly, but plenty of people are still having issues

Er.. no, it didn't Mostly it does, but i did mention some of those niggling 'major' issues

If you are a developer with 18 years in the industry, im sure that you'll agree that a lot of the things in the first service pack simply shouldn't have been missed pre-gold. There is some beta stage bugs still in there IMO.

As a developer I appreciate the complexity of such a project, I appreciate also how far Vista has come from the public Beta (which was bloody awful) and also that sooner or later you have to think about a threshold for release (I believe it was circa 500 known bugs, down from 35,000) and then fix things in patches. Every developer does that (heck we do) because otherwise you'd literally get nothing out the door - ever. In the context of an OS that's even worse, especially one that has to run on a huge set of hardware (there are something like 19,000 drivers on the Vista DVD) and in a multitude of environments. It's quite literally impossible to not miss something - even with the vast testing base they had (it's probably the most tested OS MS have ever got out) - especially those nasties that only occur given a certain set of conditions and intermittently too. A bug report of a reproducable crash is a dream to someone like me (it's easy to find/fix), a weird glitch (especially an intermittent one) is a nightmare.

You see, just there you say "XP is more suitable in all sorts of situations", and then previously "At the end of the day it's pointless to buy XP now". Somewhat or a contrast there

Not if what you're doing is answering the original OP's question rather than debating the wider issue which we are now. I made this pretty clear in my last post (or so I thought, it appears not..). The sad thing is, we actually agree - so where's the arguement here? Have a good weekend.

[Agent]

...I think it's more than fair to say that, you don't. End of story really. Mate. lol.
.....

Would you like a lollipop?

I thought you were one of the more mature members who liked discussion without the condescending attitude when posting on here
Shame, the conversations where people have different points of view are usually the ones that offer the most benefit for everyone.

Have a good weekend too