Vista v XP

[SLAYERMAGGOT]

XP x64 because Vista goes down more than a Thai hooker. Even Microsoft are stepping over that turd and moving on to Windows 7

This pearl of wishdom has been quoted a few times I noticed. That's probably because it is complete bullsh*t, but of course you are just trolling a bit

 

Vista is certainly just as stable, or even more stable then XP, it is certainly much more secure, and Microsoft isn't stepping over Vista, as Windows 7 will be in the normal 3 years Microsoft release cycle.

 

The reason Vista was 5 years after XP, was because XP had major security issues, at the time of Vista's (longhorn) early development phase, many programmers had to be reassigned to "rescue" Microsoft's reputation and work on XP service pack 2. and at the same time Microsoft decided to set the security bar much higher, which is ironically also the reason why many applications didn't work running under Vista. They will also not work running Windows 7. I personally admire Microsoft for making this decision, to ensure a more secure operating system, and to force other companies to produce applications that don't need to write data to program files or even system 32 !, and that don't rely on running under an administrator account.

Man you failed with this post

Microsoft gives out the Beta for Public in 13th January 2009, and the groups leaks one build after another, MS works very hard on Win7 right now

 

Windows Codename Longhorn was very unstable like Vista.

Msh*t screwed up the completely OS and filled it up with useless programms.

In Windows 7 then want to cut out all useless things to optimize the system performance. I tried the the Build 6801 and i need to say that it looks nearly like Vista, but it's better in my Opinion.

It starts and shut down faster, and especially the x64-Build is very fast.

[sjaak327]

XP x64 because Vista goes down more than a Thai hooker. Even Microsoft are stepping over that turd and moving on to Windows 7

This pearl of wishdom has been quoted a few times I noticed. That's probably because it is complete bullsh*t, but of course you are just trolling a bit

 

Vista is certainly just as stable, or even more stable then XP, it is certainly much more secure, and Microsoft isn't stepping over Vista, as Windows 7 will be in the normal 3 years Microsoft release cycle.

 

The reason Vista was 5 years after XP, was because XP had major security issues, at the time of Vista's (longhorn) early development phase, many programmers had to be reassigned to "rescue" Microsoft's reputation and work on XP service pack 2. and at the same time Microsoft decided to set the security bar much higher, which is ironically also the reason why many applications didn't work running under Vista. They will also not work running Windows 7. I personally admire Microsoft for making this decision, to ensure a more secure operating system, and to force other companies to produce applications that don't need to write data to program files or even system 32 !, and that don't rely on running under an administrator account.

Man you failed with this post

Microsoft gives out the Beta for Public in 13th January 2009, and the groups leaks one build after another, MS works very hard on Win7 right now

 

Windows Codename Longhorn was very unstable like Vista.

Msh*t screwed up the completely OS and filled it up with useless programms.

In Windows 7 then want to cut out all useless things to optimize the system performance. I tried the the Build 6801 and i need to say that it looks nearly like Vista, but it's better in my Opinion.

It starts and shut down faster, and especially the x64-Build is very fast.

How do I fail ?

 

April 2009 is nowhere near confirmed, and even then, it's still close to the normal 3 year release cycle.

 

I'm running build 6801 as well, and I think it is indeed a tad quicker then Vista, but there will be no major changes under the hood. Windows 7 is clearly based upon Vista, and even though Microsoft is marketing this as a major upgrade, it isn't in the technical sense.

 

Yes there are a few changes, UAC is less annoying, the new taskbar and aero enhancements (aero peek for instance) and indeed they have left out a few appliations, but these were not bothering me in any case.

 

But one thing's for sure, I have installed Vista on a multitude of computers, and it is certainly not unstable.

[torresno9]

if vista is that good, why is windows 7 more or less a fixed version of vista ?

 

http://www.vista4beginners.com/Windows-7-a...eed-to-be-fixed

[gtaivpc]

Linux is the best btw.

[dogmatic69]

i used vista for a yearish when it came out and i can vouch for all the vista guys here... it did not crash once.

 

the fact that nothing ran on it and my pc's main function was the calculator and a pretty screen saver is neither here nor there.

 

sp1 is vastly better but honestly... look at ram usage between vista and ubuntu and you will see the difference... that is how a operating system should run... i want to see you people boot vista off a cd...

 

 

 

[torresno9]

Linux is the best btw.

lol it might be, ive never used it

[Jc84144]

I'm on XP Sp3 and have no issues with the game.

I'll never use Vista, and probably won't touch Windows7 unless they get things right this time.

What exactly did they do wrong with Vista?

[sjaak327]

i used vista for a yearish when it came out and i can vouch for all the vista guys here... it did not crash once.

 

the fact that nothing ran on it and my pc's main function was the calculator and a pretty screen saver is neither here nor there.

 

sp1 is vastly better but honestly... look at ram usage between vista and ubuntu and you will see the difference... that is how a operating system should run... i want to see you people boot vista off a cd...

Very possible, it runs on a usb stick as well, the high memory usage is because of superfetch, which is designed to speed up frequently used applications. I don't get these memory usage people, if you have memory, why leave it unused. Vista will return memory currently reserved for superfetch, if the need arises.

 

 

 

 

[Jc84144]

i used vista for a yearish when it came out and i can vouch for all the vista guys here... it did not crash once.

 

the fact that nothing ran on it and my pc's main function was the calculator and a pretty screen saver is neither here nor there.

 

sp1 is vastly better but honestly... look at ram usage between vista and ubuntu and you will see the difference... that is how a operating system should run... i want to see you people boot vista off a cd...

Very possible, it runs on a usb stick as well, the high memory usage is because of superfetch, which is designed to speed up frequently used applications. I don't get these memory usage people, if you have memory, why leave it unused. Vista will return memory currently reserved for superfetch, if the need arises.

exactly. People who moan about Vista obviously either have an old PC, don't understand how it works, or have not actually used it.

[IcepickFIA]

I used Windows XP SP2. Only installed SP3 because of GTA:IV.

 

Vista? lol. If I wanted Mac features, i'd buy a Mac.

[RuWarlord]

My point is that xp works better than vista

Well you have no point because it doesnt.

[disposeablehero]

My point is that xp works better than vista

Xp is not better, there goes your point, how about explain the features thta make it better instead of mindless dribble?

[disposeablehero]

I used Windows XP SP2. Only installed SP3 because of GTA:IV.

 

Vista? lol. If I wanted Mac features, i'd buy a Mac.

LOL, other then Aero, Vista is NOTHING like crap proprietary macs. Try playing games on Mac, yeah, thats what i thought.

[GTAMonkey2012]

As of today XP, was vista since release day .... here why (for me - XP v Vista test on dual boot pc)

 

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=382322

Edited December 10, 2008 by GTAMonkey2012

[CraZyLiLbOy69]

Vista all the way..why? bcuz it's better. there is no discussion about it

[LanceLongstiff]

if vista is that good, why is windows 7 more or less a fixed version of vista ?

 

http://www.vista4beginners.com/Windows-7-a...eed-to-be-fixed

Because by relaunching it under a new name, some people will asume its a different, and therefore better product.

 

Looks like it worked

[jesushumper]

XP Pro 32bit.

 

I'd probably use 64-bit if drivers were ore common..

 

Vista has absolutely NOTHING for me. The only advantages i saw were transfer speed when moving/copying files and very easy filesharing/LAN setup.

 

I've always thought it was more of a Millennium Edition 2. I guess M$ feels the same way, seeing as they're releasing another OS late next year.

 

Oh, i guess Vista LOOKS kinda hip. DX10, as it stands at the moment, is a joke compared to teh advances DX9 brought.

[torresno9]

if vista is that good, why is windows 7 more or less a fixed version of vista ?

 

http://www.vista4beginners.com/Windows-7-a...eed-to-be-fixed

Because by relaunching it under a new name, some people will asume its a different, and therefore better product.

 

Looks like it worked

lol, i think they've done a bit more than just rename it

 

maybe not much

[deicida]

I hav Vista Ultimate 64bit and 32bit and XP 32bit installed on my pc. Vista is definitely better than XP. Everything is much more organised and easy to get to. Don't believe the myths of it being unstable and incompatible with drivers.

[GTAMonkey2012]

 

Vista is definitely better than XP.

 

Yes indeed in many ways, but im finding through testing (see previous post link) "with this game" ... something different (on my rig) check it out.

[horseonwheels]

XP sp3 32

reason, lazyness. It runs my games, I can do production stuff on it without a problem, I fail to see what would make vista attractive to me as a user at this point.

[Millenia]

 

I had Vista and it sucked balls! It got more bugs, it's slower and many apps from XP don't work on Vista.

XP SP3 is da best 

Which XP apps in particular do not work? I've run across just _one_ app that didn't work during the 1½ years I've been using Vista 64. And what bugs? You're such a misinformed, dumbass fanboy - please refrain from posting crap like this again. Kthxbai.

[deicida]

If XP works for you and does everything you want then there isn't really a point in spending a few hundred on Vista. If you have a choice however for a new PC or whatever then go with Vista. I got Vista Ultimate retail for free off MS for a software design competition, I think it was nearly €500 or something at the time.

 

 

EDIT: Just read this:

 

It got more bugs, it's slower and many apps from XP don't work on Vista.

 

lol the myths are still around.

Edited December 11, 2008 by deicida

[Millenia]

Yeah I wouldn't put Vista on some old PC but it's just downright stupid to buy a powerhouse and put XP on it now. I got mine for 100€ 1½ years ago, the OEM versions are always cheaper than the retail versions.

[disposeablehero]

 

I had Vista and it sucked balls! It got more bugs, it's slower and many apps from XP don't work on Vista.

XP SP3 is da best 

Which XP apps in particular do not work? I've run across just _one_ app that didn't work during the 1½ years I've been using Vista 64. And what bugs? You're such a misinformed, dumbass fanboy - please refrain from posting crap like this again. Kthxbai.

Him and a few others are idiots who have no clue. I am still waiting for any kind of facts, bugs, apps that do not work in Vista, lol. He has no facts, just spreading the myths that Mac fanboys that spread around when Vista launched. He obviously has never used it, if he did he was too stupid to upgrade properly.

Edited December 11, 2008 by disposeablehero