Vista vs XP...

  • Thread starter Thread starter RJK
  • Start date Start date
R

RJK

Vista is hilarious ! ...rather, the people that are installing it and
"using" it are hilarious, ...they seem to be mostly discussing "Aero," in
the Vista General NG...apparantly a Windows "theme" !!!! .....whereby one
is provided with a most wonderfully useful and pretty feature - windows
that are semi-transluscent around the edges ! GOSH ! ..what a major GUI
step forward that is ...WHAT A THRILL ..What a BENEFIT !!! ..ROFL !!!

I've been reading through that NG and one poor chaps "Aero" is apparantly
now not working properly, and he's blaming it on his having installed and
uninstalled lots of older software that's not fully Vista compatible !

It seems there's a heavy price to pay for simply having to have the latest
Windows OS/GUI platform with lovely semi-transparant frames, namely precious
little of ones older software works on it ! This is perhaps a similar
scenario to ones "move" from W98 to XP ...but, I think I can only remember
trouble with one W98 application program that played up in XP !

Then there's IE7 ...which - also seems to be BURSTING with faults, (and I
recently mistakenly thought it had gone "final" but, apparantly it hasn't) -
none of the "new" MS stuff looks very good does it ?

regards, Richard
 
RJK wrote:

It seems there's a heavy price to pay for simply having to have the
latest Windows OS/GUI platform with lovely semi-transparant frames,
namely precious little of ones older software works on it !...
Click to expand...

-------------------------SNIP---------------------------------

Sorry, but that's simply not true. I have a fully loaded desktop with
Vista build 5744 x86 installed and have been using it as my main
production machine for weeks now. I have a laptop fully loaded with the
same build and it works perfectly. I'm dual booting this desktop and XP
Pro is the other OS.
I have only one old app that won't load on my desktop (x86) but did on
my laptop.
I also have Vista 5744 x64 loaded on another desktop and it works really
well. I also have Vista 5840 x86 loaded on the same desktop.
I'm triple booting this desktop and the other OS is XP Pro x64 Edition.
After using Vista and then going back to XP, XP seems "clunky".
Just like going from XP backwards to Win2K.
Frank
 
It would seem that your response is to knock anything new. One should spend
some time checking out all Vista features then make an intelligent report.
Sound and video seem cleaner on Vista than on XPSP2. There was a marked
improvement of sound and video from Millenium to XPSP1 and further improved
when XPSP2 became available. After all, this is Beta and not yet finalised.
 
Oh AERO! You're so dreamy!

Come on now, if Aero is all you have seen in Vista, you apparently haven't
seen much of it. As Frank said, the graphics are much better, all around, the
sound is much better. Because of the new UI set-up, it seems to run much
faster. The security is much better. I personally believe that it is much
more user friendly. All my applications that are compatible run much better
and faster.
IE7? No problems here, everything is working as it should. And the addition
of the Phishing Filter, assists in keeping the internet safer.
UAC is a great option. Many don't like it, but many of us do. I tell you,
personally, it is a little annoying at times, but it has saved me a few
headaches.
the File setup is much better, though some amy not agree, by keeping
programs, especially downloading programs, from downloading into your program
files, it makes it much easier to find things that you have downloaded.
Media Player 11 has a much cleaner look, is very functional and user
friendly. Integration of MCE into the program, rather than having it as a XP
Pro add on, makes it more seemless. the Codec pack I loaded for WMP 11 was
able to integrate itself into the MCE program, enabling it to do more than
say MCE 2002 which I had on my last computer.
Ultimate requires more resources, but seems to use them more efficiently
than XP did.

Do I need to go on?
I am sure you get the point.


Just a thought
 
RJK wrote:

some rant

There's no reason for this blather to be in windowsxp.general. I don't
think there's any reason for it to be in vista.general either, but they
can deal with it.

This newsgroup is not a chatroom. If you want that sort of thing, go
elsewhere.

Malke
 
Hi,

Please do go on.

I have briefly experimented Vista beta 2 for a while and then uninstalled
it.

But I haven't stopped the intensive research on its new features, including
downloaded and read, among others, "Windows_Vista_Product_Guide_60MB.doc"

What you and others listed are very true - but do you think those are enough
for "business" justifications?

And don't you think those are more like improvements than new technologies
as compared with the dropped file system?

So if you or others have more intensive experience on Vista, please do go
on.

I'm not challenging you or the product (as I perceived it as a not-so-bad
replacement for personal use - provided license has been changed and WGA N
is gone), but I don't see any business justifications for replacing office
systems with it.

So leave out the new UI, multimedia, stability, and security as those are
enhancements/improvements, are there any more exciting new features?

I'm willing to learn about those.

Thanks for sharing.
 
Vista is nice. The security measures are long overdue. They are adjustable
too, so if you don't like the default behaviour you can change it. Many
behaviours are similar to XP - which is good - and the new stuff can be very
convenient once you get going on it.

At first some things make one balk, but then you discover things and realize
that it is improved.

IE7 is a great big improvement. At first I found the button placement odd,
but now I use it like the back of my hand and really like some of the
features. It's a great browser.

So while at first one is a bit disoriented in IE7 and in Vista, in almost no
time one starts to enjoy the changes and many if not most are real
improvements.

The Aero - it's OK. I'm either way on it. What 's important for me is
getting around the file system quickly. Vista has a neat feautre in the
address bar where one can names of the folders become like buttons and one
can zip up and down the file hierarchy.

So I don't know what you find so ridiculous as Vista is a fine effort and
should prove to be an good operating system for the desktop.

Saucy


 
Well xfile,

All I can give is what I have seen. To you they may seem like improvements.
But think about it this way, some could have said that win 95 was just
improvement over win 3.x, and lets be honest, all Win 98 really was, was an
improved version of 95.

XP, granted, that was kinda new. And Vista is as well. I m no programmer, I
could no more write a program than paint a masterpiece, or write a
shapesperian play (did I spell that right?)

For business? I am not sure, but I can tell you that where I work, we use a
2000 based network (NMCI) and lets just say, I wish the NMCI system was half
as warm and friendly as Vista is.

As far as new technology, well, to me, everything seems new. But whether
completely new technology, or old technology made better, it is definately
better.

Personally, I could care less about the 1's and 0's read, as long as they do
it well. And Vista fills that void.

To a user like myself, performance is everything, whether I am watching
movies on it, online sitting in a chatroom, writing papers and creating
powerpoints for work, or just blowing off steam, playing Need for Speed.

I would venture to say that for most, this is the plus for Vista. I would
say that Vista Ultimate, and Vista Home Premium are geared just for that. The
home user usually isn't worried about the business end of a home program.
What the common user will see, and what will draw the common user are the
"improvements" as you call them. the UI, the Stability, the multimedia, and
the security.

But then again, if you take away the UI, Stability, multimedia, and
security, what do you really have? Windows NT?

xfile, and I am not putting down your thought on this, so please don't
understand. but it would seem that the true selling point of this operating
system, will be the overall experience. Yes, in some ways, it may seem a
little like XP, and honestly, if all one really sees is the UI, they aren't
really experiencing the overall system. Whether you call it new Technology,
or upgraded technology, I guess some upgrades can make it seem new.

That's all I can give
 
On IE7,
One of the Vista/IE7 features that rocked my socks off was the full screen
mode in IE7. All you have to do is push a button, and your menu/explorer bars
go away. That is just cool. Auto-hide on the browser.
When I first saw it, my reaction was "Who would use that?" Now, I keep the
browser on auto-hide all the time..
 
Hi,

Thanks for sharing additional information.

And please don't misunderstand if it may sound like a questioning or
challenge, I was inviting more sharing from different perspectives.

I went through many documents including those from the official sources, but
I just have problems for coming up solid business justifications for that.
And I'm not alone, many do the same for their companies also share the same.

Once again, I appreciate your kind sharing, and hope I didn't let you down
as well.

Cheers.
 
Folks, I think you're doing RJK a misjustice...he REALLY seems to be poking
fun at the poor misguided individuals, identifying problems with Vista,
where the problem is with the people doing the reporting, not Vista. And I
wholeheartedly agree, if indeed, that's what he intended. People are
generally wont to recognize that Vista's main problems with
hardware/software are the responsibility of others, not Vista. "Vista is
dumb, it won't run my game/video card/sound card/etc...." But a large
percentage of the posters don't seem to accept that Vista is not finished
(completely) and OTHER software/hardware providers are not yet ready to
release final software for their wares.

John
 
Frank Fallon. said:
It would seem that your response is to knock anything new. One should
spend
some time checking out all Vista features then make an intelligent report.
Sound and video seem cleaner on Vista than on XPSP2. There was a marked
improvement of sound and video from Millenium to XPSP1 and further
improved
when XPSP2 became available. After all, this is Beta and not yet
finalised.
Click to expand...

Improvement in sound? Give me a break...I think you expressed your
impressions very badly.
 
....who pulled your chain ?
....and ...that's your opinion, which of course you're quite welcome to keep
to yourself !

regards, Richard
 
Spot on ! I've had to sort out several PC's recently where the "must have
the latest and best" type owners have installed IE7 which caused problems.
There was nothing wrong with their IE6 which was robust and completely
problem free. There was no housekeeping or backup prior to them installing
the damned thing. AND worst of all they'd of course installed a beta
version of it ! One chap had installed the rubbish onto his main office
computer - again - with no precautions such as backup - and his son ;-)
had unnecessarily half crippled and/or reduced security layers to get msn
messenger working ....but, that's a different story !

regards, Richard
 
You are delusional!!!

You can have 16 bit stereo cd quality sound with windows95 and you wont hear
any difference in xp or vista.. or even linux!!! what the.....

Images are made out of bits of color you moron.. there
also is no difference of image quality, unless you mean cleartype on web
pages that Ie7 has, that is revolting to say the least!
Apart from that there is no difference in image quality!

You are mistaking a fancy semi transparent skin and probably the soround
sound of wmp as improvements in quality...

But you could have those with XP...

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about!
 
Video display with a graphics card that has a wddm driver is a vast
improvment over the way video was displayed in earlier versions of Windows.
Vista is able to offload much of the graphics processing to the GPU freeing
up CPU time for other tasks. This is fundametally different from the way
video worked previously in Windows and is far more than just a skin.

Vista also has much better sound capabilities built in

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060907-7682.html

Much of this sound processing can be done with the right software in XP but
in Vista it's built in to the OS. I don't know of any one program that will
give you all the same features in XP.
 
Back
Top