Was Vista really 'that' bad? XP still leading the way

Discussion in 'News Discussion' started by HardwareHeaven, Oct 5, 2009.

  1. clanman

    clanman New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    151
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think Vista was better than XP and Windows 7 is better than both. I never had any problems with Vista with any of my games, but I don't really play old games. everything ive tried since Vista was released worked fine. Never saw the fuss with this ANTI vista stuff. Good news post though, wasn't aware XP was still so massively ahead. Its actually quite scary how many people are happy however running outdated software. :wtf:
     
  2. OldBuzzard

    OldBuzzard DH's oldest Geek

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,777
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Windows 7 is more than just "Vista with a fresh coat of paint".

    For instance, I have 7 running quite happily on an Asus eee900 netbook. That's a Celeron 900 CPU, with 2GB Ram (I upgraded from the stock 1GB), and a 16GB SSD. 7 is running better on it than the original XP install did, even with the extra RAM.

    There is no way in hell I'd try running Vista on that system. I know better than to ask a system to run software that it's just not capable of running.

    That's probably the biggest 'failure' of Vista. Too damned many people tried running it with sub-standard systems.
     
  3. caqde

    caqde Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    28
    True though it still is the same architecture. The main reason it works better is because they rewrote a few subsystems that deal with how the computer draws to the screen making it more efficient not to mention friendly on your memory. (Better threading for drawing to the desktop / No duplicates of memory between Videocard and CPU memory for the desktop) Of course these improvements also seem to show up better on Multicore systems with Highend Graphics cards, but will help those with lowend systems too.
     
  4. CitySlicker

    CitySlicker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, Vista shot itself in the foot due to early incompatibility issues with various software and non existing/bad working drivers. Microsoft certainly coped some bashing for their light-hearted approach (cough) and lost a lot of especially corporate customers.

    Vista certainly is an eye-candy compared to dull-skinned XP (burp) and it works very well if your box and graphics card is powerful enough. In that sense a Vista performance index of 5.9 works beaut.

    Only setback is Vista's bad pretty multitasking performance - burning two DVD's concurrently? watch Vista dying with dignity while write buffers drying up like a billabong under Australian sun. It's a stop n go experience make you think you are powered by an classic 8088 power-snail cpu.

    cya
     
  5. brutusmaximus

    brutusmaximus New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Messages:
    520
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I burn two dvds quite often with nero and I never see a problem. I also gotta say that your comments on vista having poor multitasking is pretty unfounded. The whole benefit with Vista was the rewritten kernel support for multicores - there are significant improvements with quad cores for instance compared to the aging XP.

    I also remember way back when XP was released that there were more issues with the NT kernel causing driver issues than when Vista was released (remember the NT kernel was actually more related to business operating systems at the time so it was a big 'first' step for XP to hit mainsteam). I actually noticed very few issues with Vista and drivers initially, apart from sloppy companies such as creative taking forever to sort out their drivers. Not sure you can blame the OS/Microsoft for that.
     
  6. CitySlicker

    CitySlicker Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nero allows concurrent burn sessions? - do we talk about the same thing?

    I can only talk for AMD of course - are you on Intel or AMD and if so do you use sata writers? I would not wonder if Intel is doing fine with that.
     
  7. CDsDontBurn

    CDsDontBurn AMD & Petrol Heads Mod

    Joined:
    May 24, 2003
    Messages:
    25,561
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    123
    i've been using vista on my main machine for just about a year already. and to me personally, it has really made no difference to me how one OS runs over the other. the only issue i have with vista is the networking stuff. to this day i find it rather difficult to navigate through most anything that's related to networking with vista. in winXP, it's a cake walk.

    i'd have to agree with people who have previously posted, that the only reason why vista received such bad bashing when it was first made fully public, was mainly for the lack of driver support, as well as all those people running vista on a 1.5Ghz machine with 512MB of RAM.
     
  8. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    38,537
    Likes Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    138
    mini notebooks/pcs EEE Pcs or whatever you want to call them have windows xp on them so no wonder people are seeing xp sales increase because they don't typically come with anything other then xp.. and people are swarming the stores for these cheap little suckers..

    They do most of everything anyone would want.

    All they are doing is taking the figures in general and putting retarded spins on it to further stomp vista into it's grave...

    Frankly Vista on the Asus EEE PC HA994 i have with 2gb of ram runs beatitfully and far better then the xp install it had
     

Share This Page

visited