advantage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter martin
  • Start date Start date
M

martin

Hello,

I was wondering: In this newsgroup there are all kinds of Vista-testers.
Now what is are the main advantages of Vista in comparison with XP?

Is it really such an innovation, and will it really be worth spending 100's
of Dollars on this 'new'(?) OS?

kind regards,

martin
 
:

I was wondering: In this newsgroup there are all kinds of Vista-testers.
Now what is are the main advantages of Vista in comparison with XP?
Is it really such an innovation, and will it really be worth spending 100's
of Dollars on this 'new'(?) OS?

I have both RC1 and 5728 (legit downloads) Installing them and running them
side by side on two identical computers produced no significant differences.
I believe some of the bug fixes were directed at the Media centre, which I do
not normally use. My main complaint was that a few of my software items,
which ran perfectly on RC1, failed on 5728. The warning on the anti virus
path which leads to one of the few programs which can be installed on 5728
(E-Trust pc-cillin)is definitely spamming and could lead to more legal
troubles for dear old MS. But then it was not a wide release so perhaps they
have covered their bums there!
 
I have been testing the Vista Betas up to date. The latest release, 5728,
whilst it offers more "eye candy" , does not show any significant improvement
over XP. I am informed that the kernel is rewritten and the security is
vastly improved. We all know that security, however tight, is sooner or later
hacked. - Particularly if the very name of Microsoft is in the equation.
There are a few extra "toys", all of which are available as third party
add-ons for XP. The bottom line is that Vista still runs a tad slower than XP
in most respects. If you have a satisfactory XP setup on your computer, keep
your hands away from your wallet.
 
I think the only fair way to tell is to try both and compare for yourself.
Everybody here is going to have an opinion, all that really matter is what
works best for you.

There are some things I like in Vista - it is great ''to look at'' - but XP
does all I need to do without any problems.
I will continue to play with the Beta until June and then see if the dollars
are worth spending.

Hello,

I was wondering: In this newsgroup there are all kinds of Vista-testers.
Now what is are the main advantages of Vista in comparison with XP?

Is it really such an innovation, and will it really be worth spending 100's
of Dollars on this 'new'(?) OS?

kind regards,

martin
 
martin said:
Hello,

I was wondering: In this newsgroup there are all kinds of Vista-testers.
Now what is are the main advantages of Vista in comparison with XP?

Is it really such an innovation, and will it really be worth spending
100's of Dollars on this 'new'(?) OS?
Click to expand...

Hybrid sleep and hibernate.
Much better security.
3D accelerated desktop.
Much improved UI.
ClearType on by default.
New networking stack.
New audio stack.
Games explorer.
Performance rating for software compatibility.
Instant search.
Improved start-menu.
Multiple clocks (timezones).
Sidebar.
Automatic file backups.
New backup tool (that can ghost the entire install).
Games re-built.

It's the biggest leap forward since Windows 95.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove 'nospam.' to reply by e-mail*
 
Hybrid sleep and hibernate.
Can you elaborate? and what is the utility for the average user?
Much better security. Useful.

3D accelerated desktop. Eye-Candy

Much improved UI. Eye-Candy

ClearType on by default.
Click to expand...
Less than Eye-Candy. takes less than a minute to toggle it on in XP
New networking stack.
Click to expand...
Probably useful
New audio stack.
Click to expand...
Probably useful for multimedia pros. Not useful in office environment. and
pros will spend a few hundred bucks for pro software anyways.
Games explorer. Toy.

Performance rating for software compatibility.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate?
Instant search.
Click to expand...
Third-party tools available for free.
Improved start-menu.
Click to expand...
Eye-Candy. I don't see much diff anyways.
Multiple clocks (timezones).
Click to expand...
Third-Party tools available for free.
Sidebar.
Click to expand...
Third-Party tools available for free.
Automatic file backups.
Click to expand...
Third-Party tools available within $100. Corporate users already have them
installed.
New backup tool (that can ghost the entire install).
Click to expand...
Probably useful.
Games re-built. Toys.

It's the biggest leap forward since Windows 95.
Click to expand...
because we were stuck with XP for 5 years

So the really useful things that we have are (a) security, (b) Networking
Stack, and (c) Ghosting an entire install. I would not pay more than 75 bucks
for entire package. and toss in another 25 for rest of the stuff. that is
$100 max for me. and that is in office environment. for home usage
improvements are not worth more than 25 bucks. additionally, all the new
eye-candy causes performance hits and there are like a million services
running for god knows what.

honestly, i have used build 5728 for less than 48 hours and I am already
considering going back to XP. I wasted 2 hours for downloading, 3 more for
installation, 1 for backing up my data, plus a DVD and will waste 3 more for
reverting the whole process. Although I would like to congratulate the UI
designers for much more elegant looking themes. I would suggest making them
available for download. $1 per download wouldn't be bad pricing.
 
I think that is a question most user will be faced to answer. What are the
benefits? Are they greater than what can be done with XP and third party
additions? Is the 'bang for the buck' enough to justify the expense? If I
decide to get Vista, which version, and do I get the full version or the
upgrade version? Everyone will come up with their own answers.

William
 
"I would not pay more than..."
Then don't.
The majority of users have no need to upgrade an OS when initially released.

The best way for most to upgrade is when replacing hardware with Vista
coming with the new computer.
Other times are when a specific piece of new hardware or software requires
the new OS, but this will probably not be an issue for most for probably a
few years after Vista is released.
This has always been the case and Vista is no different.
 
Can you elaborate? and what is the utility for the average user?

Less than Eye-Candy. takes less than a minute to toggle it on in XP

Probably useful

Probably useful for multimedia pros. Not useful in office environment. and
pros will spend a few hundred bucks for pro software anyways.

Can you elaborate?

Third-party tools available for free.

Eye-Candy. I don't see much diff anyways.

Third-Party tools available for free.

Third-Party tools available for free.

Third-Party tools available within $100. Corporate users already have them
installed.

Probably useful.

because we were stuck with XP for 5 years

So the really useful things that we have are (a) security, (b) Networking
Stack, and (c) Ghosting an entire install. I would not pay more than 75
bucks
for entire package. and toss in another 25 for rest of the stuff. that is
$100 max for me. and that is in office environment. for home usage
improvements are not worth more than 25 bucks. additionally, all the new
eye-candy causes performance hits and there are like a million services
running for god knows what.

honestly, i have used build 5728 for less than 48 hours and I am already
considering going back to XP. I wasted 2 hours for downloading, 3 more for
installation, 1 for backing up my data, plus a DVD and will waste 3 more
for
reverting the whole process. Although I would like to congratulate the UI
designers for much more elegant looking themes. I would suggest making
them
available for download. $1 per download wouldn't be bad pricing.
Click to expand...


What's wrong with eye candy? Some people buy computers for play and the eye
candy.
 
One of the big changes you've indicated as "eye-candy" which I don't believe
tells the whole story. The desktop is now painted by DirectX, which offers a
couple of advantages over XP: 1. More robust handling of crashes related to
graphics and 2. The desktop is now drawn by the GPU, not the CPU, freeing up
the CPU to do, uh, CPU-like tasks. That, in and of itself, is reason enough
to switch to Vista, in my humble opinion. The systems on which I've been
testing have been, by and large, fairly stable. I have seen a couple of app
crashes that Vista handled with aplomb when those same types of crashes in
XP would have, at the very least, required a restart.

Yeah, security is improved, but that will, for now and evermore, always be
an issue with Windows, mainly because it's the 1,000lb Ape.

Lang
 
Lang Murphy said:
One of the big changes you've indicated as "eye-candy" which I don't
believe tells the whole story. The desktop is now painted by DirectX,
which offers a couple of advantages over XP: 1. More robust handling of
crashes related to graphics and 2. The desktop is now drawn by the GPU,
not the CPU, freeing up the CPU to do, uh, CPU-like tasks. That, in and of
itself, is reason enough to switch to Vista, in my humble opinion. The
systems on which I've been testing have been, by and large, fairly stable.
I have seen a couple of app crashes that Vista handled with aplomb when
those same types of crashes in XP would have, at the very least, required
a restart.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and no longer having windows tearing when dragging them around can
only help relieve eye strain.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove 'nospam.' to reply by e-mail*
 
Hiya Paul - I used to work in South Somerset DC offices. Gone to Guatemala
where its hotter and much much cheaper Colin
 
Back
Top