Author Topic: Would you recommend friends to use XP or Vista? (Read 24267 times)

NewsAndHistory · « **on:** May 08, 2009, 03:07 PM »

Would any of you tell me if XP is worst than Vista, in your opinion (and/or from your experience)? I would like to know whether Vista is easy for end-users to configure (and close backdoors). Since the NSA helped make both operating systems, I've found it difficult to find any "good reason" to download Microsoft's latest operating systems, but I have a PC, and I don't think Linux is any better than Windows XP, Vista, and 7.

Please make your case for any of the Windows operating systems you would recommend to any of your friends. I need honest opinions & tips about how to make the system secure.

hpearce · « **Reply #1 on:** May 08, 2009, 03:53 PM »

At this point, I would recommend people wait for Windows 7.

40hz · « **Reply #2 on:** May 08, 2009, 04:48 PM »

Here's what I tell my friends:

1. If you are currently running XP, stick with it until you decide you need to switch to Windows 7. This late in the game there's no point in migrating to Vista if you haven't already done so.

2. If you are currently running Vista, switch to Windows 7 when it become available.

For good reasons and bad, Vista is now a 'lame duck' release. The past and 'near term' belong to XP. The future belongs to Windows 7. There's no real place for Vista in that scenario.

I'd suggest waiting about 3-4 months after Windows 7 gets released to let the inevitable "early release issues" get worked out.

----

Re: Easy for end-users

Every OS has a learning curve. The sooner an end-user stops hoping for a "no brain" OS the better. Because no matter how "easy" it is intended to be, they'll still have to learn how to use it.

Re: Linux

I happen to use Linux and I like it very much. That being said, you are correct in saying it is not any 'better' than any other operating system. Each OS brings specific advantages and benefits to the party. And each has its own quirks, annoyances, and design flaws. In the end, your choice of OS should be determined by what you're most comfortable using, provided it gets your work done.

Re: downloading Microsoft's latest

Assuming you mean Windows 7, I only know five reasons why most people would want to download a Windows release candidate:

They're curious about it (possibly the best reason of all)
They want to get a head start on using it so they'll be ready (and able to help their friends) when it comes out
They enjoy testing new products and hope to make suggestions for improving it
They want to accrue "geek bragging rights" for being in on the beta of a major product release
They absolutely hate Microsoft -and they're hoping to find a show-stopper flaw that will derail the whole thing and make the boys in Redmond look like a bunch of idiots. (This is possibly the worst reason of all, but there are people like that out there.)

If your friends don't subscribe to any of the above, they shouldn't bother.

Just my 2¢

mouser · « **Reply #3 on:** May 08, 2009, 07:59 PM »

1. If you are currently running XP, stick with it until you decide you need to switch to Windows 7. This late in the game there's no point in migrating to Vista if you haven't already done so.

2. If you are currently running Vista, switch to Windows 7 when it become available.

40hz advice above seems right on the money to me.

however, it doesn't quite tell you what to tell someone who is considering a new system and doesn't know whether to use vista or xp. i am still using xp pro, but i suppose i would tell a new pc buyer to just not worry about it and use whatever of the 2 (vista or xp) comes pre-loaded, and keep your eye open for windows 7 when it is ready.

40hz · « **Reply #4 on:** May 08, 2009, 09:53 PM »

however, it doesn't quite tell you what to tell someone who is considering a new system and doesn't know whether to use vista or xp.
-mouser (May 08, 2009, 07:59 PM)

Ooooo...excellent point! In that case, buy Vista with an XP downgrade option - and run XP.

However, I'd also advise them to put off buying a new system (if at all possible) until either:

Windows 7 has been released - or -
The purchase date would make them eligible for a free upgrade to Windows 7

Last I heard, Microsoft was considering giving free Win 7 upgrades to people who bought new machines on/after July 1, 2009 - but the actual date and details had not been finalized by Microsoft.

Some manufacturers said they planned to offer their own free upgrade program to entice people who are currently holding off on buying a new machine to not wait until July to do so.

Best bet is to check with the people you're buying a machine from to see what they can do for you on that score.

And make sure you get it in writing!

kartal · « **Reply #5 on:** May 08, 2009, 10:06 PM »

I would recommend XP to my best friends, Vista to my worst enemies

40hz · « **Reply #6 on:** May 08, 2009, 10:12 PM »

I would recommend XP to my best friends, Vista to my worst enemies
-kartal (May 08, 2009, 10:06 PM)

I used to feel that way about Milennium Edition!
(Or at least I did until I realized I didn't really have any enemies.)

But in all fairness, for all its flaws, Vista will never be as bad as Me.

Deo gratias et Wilmo Gates!

f0dder · « **Reply #7 on:** May 09, 2009, 11:26 AM »

Depends on the user etc...

Personally I'd rather wait for Win7, but if it's somebody who needs a new machine now, I'd go with Vista. UAC means less risk of getting infected by malware, and the OS really isn't all that bad (I do recommend running it through vlite to get the install size down a bit, though).

Of course if we're talking about really limited hardware, Vista might not be an option since it is somewhat heavier than XP. But that'd be rather low-end hardware we're talking then...

mrainey · « **Reply #8 on:** May 09, 2009, 12:23 PM »

Because I had increasing needs for testing my software in Vista as well as XP, I bit the bullet and bought a full version of Home Basic. I installed it alongside XP Pro on my vanilla laptop (Core Duo, 2GB, two years old). Truthfully, I expected to have problems getting started and to dislike using Vista in general. Surprisingly, everything installed and updated with no problems, HP had all the drivers I needed available for download, and everything worked properly the first time. Vista boots up quickly and I like the way it looks, except for Explorer. Directory Opus took care of that problem.

Functionally, I don't see much to complain about (yet). You could reasonably argue that Vista was an expensive upgrade that didn't make any dramatic improvements to XP.

Curt · « **Reply #9 on:** May 09, 2009, 04:21 PM »

I would recommend Vista to friends if they have at least 4 GB RAM, and to enemies if they have 2 GB RAM or less.

Darwin · « **Reply #10 on:** May 09, 2009, 05:42 PM »

I would recommend Vista to friends if they have at least 4 GB RAM, and to enemies if they have 2 GB RAM or less.
-Curt (May 09, 2009, 04:21 PM)

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #11 on:** May 09, 2009, 05:58 PM »

Having been using both for a while now I'd say use what is on your machine.

For me there is no compelling reason to move from XP to Vista at all - you may as well wait until 7 is released and make the move after the initial flurry of patches settles down (3 months after release).

If you have Vista on your machine I can't really see any compelling reason to ditch for XP any longer so long as you have a minimum of 2Gb of RAM - less that that and I would suggest upgrading RAM. Vista is faster to startup in my experience (by a big margin for me but that might just reflect the installed lifetime of the two OSes). Initially I hated Vista but now that it seems to have been fixed it runs nicely for me and I don't have any particular issues with it.

Either way it looks like Windows 7 is the next move though there isn't a big incentive to move up from XP or Vista in any particular time frame. The RC of Win 7 seems pretty solid and functions well and some of the annoyances of Vista seem to have been ironed out.

The only plus about running Vista is that you will be able to do an upgrade to Win 7 (you can't directly from XP). Having said that I never recommend upgrade installs because you just carry any current issues to the new installation so it isn't a big deal.

NewsAndHistory · « **Reply #12 on:** May 09, 2009, 09:49 PM »

I see what you mean, Carol. I appreciate your help, and same goes to those, who responded (above) your helpful message:

HPearce, 40hz, Mouser, Kartel, f0dder, MrAiney, Curt & Darwin: I appreciate all of your replies on this page. Thanks for your kindness & help, all of you.

At this point, I would recommend people wait for Windows 7.
-hpearce (May 08, 2009, 03:53 PM)

I know what you mean. I see some of the members at this website really appreciate the features in Windows 7. I would like to know if it's as easy to disable commonly unnecessary services & close backdoors on Windows 7 as it is to do so on Windows XP.

1. If you are currently running XP, stick with it until you decide you need to switch to Windows 7. This late in the game there's no point in migrating to Vista if you haven't already done so.
2. If you are currently running Vista, switch to Windows 7 when it become available. [...]

Each OS brings specific advantages and benefits to the party. And each has its own quirks, annoyances, and design flaws. In the end, your choice of OS should be determined by what you're most comfortable using, provided it gets your work done.
-40hz (May 08, 2009, 04:48 PM)

I see what you mean by all of that. You're right about the learning curve that every one of us has to overcome. I appreciate your help. I'll wait for Windows 7 if it's safer to use that rather than Windows XP, which can fit on a CD if unnecessary games & programs are removed from it.

I noticed that Windows 7 is over 4GB. Bill Gates have mentioned that good operating system doesn't need to be more than 700mb.

40hz advice above seems right on the money to me.

however, it doesn't quite tell you what to tell someone who is considering a new system and doesn't know whether to use vista or xp. i am still using xp pro, but i suppose i would tell a new pc buyer to just not worry about it and use whatever of the 2 (vista or xp) comes pre-loaded, and keep your eye open for windows 7 when it is ready.
-mouser (May 08, 2009, 07:59 PM)

I understand you. I appreciate your message. I'll wait for Windows 7. Thanks again! I hope it doesn't have any services that work with RFID chips or backdoor entry.

I would recommend XP to my best friends, Vista to my worst enemies
-kartal (May 08, 2009, 10:06 PM)

hahaha I see. Thanks for your honesty.

Depends on the user etc... Personally I'd rather wait for Win7, but if it's somebody who needs a new machine now, I'd go with Vista. UAC means less risk of getting infected by malware, and the OS really isn't all that bad (I do recommend running it through vlite to get the install size down a bit, though).

Of course if we're talking about really limited hardware, Vista might not be an option since it is somewhat heavier than XP. But that'd be rather low-end hardware we're talking then...
-f0dder (May 09, 2009, 11:26 AM)

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your help & kindness, as well. I'll see how well both of those operating systems work on my machine.

Because I had increasing needs for testing my software in Vista as well as XP, I bit the bullet and bought a full version of Home Basic. I installed it alongside XP Pro on my vanilla laptop (Core Duo, 2GB, two years old). Truthfully, I expected to have problems getting started and to dislike using Vista in general. Surprisingly, everything installed and updated with no problems, HP had all the drivers I needed available for download, and everything worked properly the first time. Vista boots up quickly and I like the way it looks, except for Explorer. Directory Opus took care of that problem.

Functionally, I don't see much to complain about (yet). You could reasonably argue that Vista was an expensive upgrade that didn't make any dramatic improvements to XP.
-mrainey (May 09, 2009, 12:23 PM)

That's an interesting story. I'm glad you had a good experience with Vista & XP. I see what you mean about both of those systems. I remember Vista being a resource hog on others' machines.

I would recommend Vista to friends if they have at least 4 GB RAM, and to enemies if they have 2 GB RAM or less.
-Curt (May 09, 2009, 04:21 PM)

I know what you mean. I'll see how well XP is compared to the other operating systems mentioned on this forum-page.

f0dder · « **Reply #13 on:** May 10, 2009, 07:58 AM »

I would recommend Vista to friends if they have at least 4 GB RAM, and to enemies if they have 2 GB RAM or less.
-Curt (May 09, 2009, 04:21 PM)

My laptop "only" has 2GB of ram, and Vista runs very smoothly here... and that's running stuff like Eclipse, Visual Studio 2008, SQL Server Express et cetera. For "normal user" needs I expect it would run just fine with 1GB and some component tweaking.

There's a few things here and there I don't like. You might want to browse the Vista Immersion Experiment thread

MrCrispy · « **Reply #14 on:** May 10, 2009, 06:08 PM »

I don't recommend XP unless they are running really low end hardware. For everyone else, its either Win 7 RC or Vista. Win 7 is a much better OS, but in some cases there may be incompatibilities etc. Vista/Win7 are much safer than XP, have more functionality and support more devices. What's not to like?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #15 on:** May 11, 2009, 04:15 AM »

Sorry MrCrispy but no one should be using Win7 yet on anything but a testbed machine - it is time limited and you won't be able to upgrade to the final version when it is released (or downgrade to anything else). Only time will tell if it lives up to the current impressions in the final release and we have yet to see if they have really improved software compatibility (given that for most people XP mode won't work) and better hardware compatibility than Vista.

Vista works fine but to say it is more functional and supports more devices than XP is just plain wrong and is one of major the reasons it is a duff Windows release that has largely been rejected. It supports far few devices than XP because manufacturers have, by and large, continued to produce products with XP drivers to support the existing majority user base whereas many devices designed for XP simply don't have Vista drivers - the manufacturers expect you to buy new devices!

As for more functional - name 10 ways! I have yet to find a significant reason for upgrading from XP to Vista - but as I said above so long as you have enough memory there is also no reason now to downgrade to XP unless you have unsupported devices or software. I do think 2Gb should be the minimum to run Vista - even on a clean system Vista to struggles to run smoothly with 1Gb without even installing any software beyond Windows itself. 2Gb makes the whole machine feel more responsive and there is significantly less disk chatter. The true test of whether a system works properly is when you install it with default settings - tweaking is fine for people who are happy to do that but it shouldn't be the required norm for a newly installed system.

The main tweaks I perform on any new system are:

use a fixed size pagefile (not windows managed) and use PerfectDisk to defrag it and place it so it remains defragged. This is an enormous boost.
if there is a second hard disk move the pagefile to the first partition on that drive (and make it a small partition exclusively for pagefile usage)
on multiboot systems set all systems up to share the same fixed pagefile
remove (or disable) pointless software such as Windows Defender
move all user storgae folders to a new partition

Vista is supposed to be more secure but the only security that I have seen added are UAC which is universally hated and ignored by most people (trouble is you either turn it off or become click happy and it has no finesse whatsoever), Windows Defender which doesn't seem to defend anything but is an uncontrollable monster that makes life very difficult at times (So much so you are better off removing it altogether) and an in/out firewall which is an improvement on XP SP2 firewall but no one I know has the faintest idea of how to use it beyond the way XP SP2 works and there is precious little documentation - consequently people are not getting the benefit.

Having now spent time with it I don't mind the new Windows Explorer - in fact it has many benefits over XP's. I also like the way common user folders have been broken up to make data storage both more easily organised and separable from the OS partition - not that many systems come installed that way or any helpful clues are provided within Vista for the average user.

Nikson! · « **Reply #16 on:** May 19, 2009, 03:43 AM »

I would recommend Windiws XP to my best friends...

40hz · « **Reply #17 on:** May 26, 2009, 06:37 AM »

Looks like none other than the U.S.Army idecided to upgrade to Vista according to the folks over @ Daily Tech

Link to full article: http://www.dailytech...le.aspx?newsid=15217

Army will upgrade all its computers to Vista by December

For those critics who bill Microsoft's Windows Vista a commercial failure for failing to surpass Windows XP in sales, and inability to capitalize in the netbook market, perhaps they should reserve judgment a bit longer. Just as Windows 7 hype is reaching full swing in preparation for a October release, the U.S. Army announced that like many large organizations, it will wait on upgrading to Windows 7. However, unlike some, it is planning a major upgrade -- to Windows Vista.

The U.S. Army currently has 744,000 desktop computers, most of which run Windows XP. Currently only 13 percent of the computers have upgraded to Windows Vista, according Dr. Army Harding, director of Enterprise Information Technology Services.

wpeckham · « **Reply #18 on:** May 29, 2009, 10:17 AM »

I depends greatly upon the use and the user. My best recommendation would be to run Ubuntu, with a WinXP virtual in VirtualBox to support any Windows apps or functions. XP is solid, and performs where Vista does not. When Windows-7 is released I would not jump quickly, give it a few weeks for the bugs to shake out. (MS always adds some at the last minute, as if to keep us on our toes!)

rgdot · « **Reply #19 on:** May 29, 2009, 10:25 AM »

Not in regards to the quality of 7 itself but in general if you ask me I would say SP1. Historically speaking if there are problems with a Windows release few weeks is no where near enough to wait.

housetier · « **Reply #20 on:** May 31, 2009, 07:37 AM »

I would take their money and recommend linux, which will receive about as much vendor/technical support as windows XP.

Innuendo · « **Reply #21 on:** May 31, 2009, 11:09 AM »

I noticed that Windows 7 is over 4GB. Bill Gates have mentioned that good operating system doesn't need to be more than 700mb.
-NewsAndHistory

Windows 7 is only over 4GB if you add together both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions. The latest version of Windows 7 I have checked (build 7137 32-bit) is only 2.38 GB on the install disc.

Bill Gates also mentioned that no computer in the world needs more than 640KB of RAM, too. Things change.

OldElmerFudd · « **Reply #22 on:** June 02, 2009, 01:06 AM »

Sorry MrCrispy but no one should be using Win7 yet on anything but a testbed machine - it is time limited and you won't be able to upgrade to the final version when it is released (or downgrade to anything else). Only time will tell if it lives up to the current impressions in the final release and we have yet to see if they have really improved software compatibility (given that for most people XP mode won't work) and better hardware compatibility than Vista.

<snip>

Having now spent time with it I don't mind the new Windows Explorer - in fact it has many benefits over XP's. I also like the way common user folders have been broken up to make data storage both more easily organised and separable from the OS partition - not that many systems come installed that way or any helpful clues are provided within Vista for the average user.
-Carol Haynes (May 11, 2009, 04:15 AM)

NewsAndHistory...

I'm running XP Pro SP 2/3 on all my machines. When what was eventually released as Vista was first proposed by Redmond, it was an entirely new OS in enough ways to be a breakthrough. Vista as released was nothing like that, only slightly more secure, prettier to look at, and intensely demanding on hardware. Now, I'm glad I never switched over. Windows XP is getting long in the tooth, but it works and will do until Windows 7 is released and enough time has passed for the inevitable problems to settle out before I change.

So I would recommend you run XP unless you have a very new computer with at least 3-4 gigs of RAM. When Windows 7 appears as a stable release, that's the next step. If you want to try Linux, Ubuntu 9.04 is a good bet for a user-friendly experience. Whatever you decide, I encourage you to:

A - "Download" from a reliable (read legitimate) source and verify your download is not corrupted.
B - Burn an .iso disk in case a re-install is needed.

BTW, Bill Gates also said no one would ever want anything more than Windows 3.11, IIRC.

hth
2 penny Ron

Tekzel · « **Reply #23 on:** June 22, 2009, 05:06 PM »

I would recommend Vista to friends if they have at least 4 GB RAM, and to enemies if they have 2 GB RAM or less.
-Curt (May 09, 2009, 04:21 PM)
My laptop "only" has 2GB of ram, and Vista runs very smoothly here... and that's running stuff like Eclipse, Visual Studio 2008, SQL Server Express et cetera. For "normal user" needs I expect it would run just fine with 1GB and some component tweaking.

There's a few things here and there I don't like. You might want to browse the Vista Immersion Experiment thread
-f0dder (May 10, 2009, 07:58 AM)

I was going to take exception to that comment myself. In my experience Vista runs fine in 2gb of ram. Its at 1gb that you start getting some issues due to low memory. I equate running Vista in 1gb to running XP running 256mb. Yes, its doable as long as you don't run much in the background.

I was a late comer to Vista, on purpose. After SP1 I went ahead and upgraded and generally did not regret the move at all. However...

About 3 weeks ago, I put Windows 7 RC1 on my machine on a test partition and the Vista install lasted about 3 days. I never went back. I am so in love with Windows 7 I sleep with the DVD I made. I love it so much, I also installed it on my Netbook. And it runs like a CHAMP. Aero and all. I may even get 2 disks on release day if I can afford it. I have never been a huge fan of Microsoft, but they did well with this one.

Regarding not liking Explorer, I am not a huge fan either, so I use Q-Dir. Which I love. They even have a 64bit version. Why does that matter? Heck, it probably doesn't, but I like the idea of running 64 bit software. haha.

In conclusion, I am in love with Windows 7.

Edit: Oh! Forgot to mention UAC. On Vista, it lasted about 10 minutes and then had to go. Most annoying thing ever. I haven't even touched it on Win7. Works much better. Oh yea, Libraries. Love them. Ok, thats enough out of me.

f0dder · « **Reply #24 on:** June 23, 2009, 07:57 AM »

Regarding not liking Explorer, I am not a huge fan either, so I use Q-Dir. Which I love. They even have a 64bit version. Why does that matter? Heck, it probably doesn't, but I like the idea of running 64 bit software. haha.
-Tekzel (June 22, 2009, 05:06 PM)

It really doesn't matter much for a file manager, except for running 64bit shell extensions... but you can usually install 32bit versions of those even on 64bit systems, and keep using a 32bit file manager.

Edit:[/b] Oh! Forgot to mention UAC. On Vista, it lasted about 10 minutes and then had to go. Most annoying thing ever. I haven't even touched it on Win7. Works much better. Oh yea, Libraries. Love them. Ok, thats enough out of me.
-Tekzel (June 22, 2009, 05:06 PM)

Remember to crank the UAC lever all the way to maximum on Win7, otherwise it's not safe at all. Then repeat after me: UAC has never been annoying, shoddily coded 3rd party software is annoying