why people seem to want xp over vista?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ben
  • Start date Start date
B

ben

I have been looking around at laptops recently and reviews and see people
going out of their way to avoid Vista. I did see that some complain about
drivers. This problem didn't seem to be the case when XP came out why is
Vista different that everyone is unprepared? Is there any other reason a
person would avoid Vista for XP? Doesn't need such a fast machine, memory etc?
 
Well, honestly, I was planning to get Vista but my uncle told me he
has it on one of his laptops and it was running a lot slower than his
5 year old pc running Linux even when the laptop was brand new. I
found that unbelievable. But, it was true. I looked at Vista reviews
and many people avoided Vista because

1) Most people think Vista's look is overdone. Too much of the glossy
and shiny icon looks.
2) Not many programs are available for Vista right now.
3) Some people, like me actually think Vista is more complicated than
easy.
 
Vista is a substantial upgrade to XP as it offers improved security, more
novelty features, in many cases better performance and other improvements.

For average uses, the new security model can be annoying but many of it's
features can be opted to be disabled to reduce the annoyance. It's also a
"new" operating system, so quality of experience will be greatly determined
by the quality of hardware vendors and driver support, which will of course
vary.

Vista also has some other issues that many people have opted to stay away
from. The new Genuine Advantage is highly invasive, with the requirement for
your PC to send unique, identifiable information to Microsoft on regular
intervals else stop functioning fully (Reduced functionality mode where you
can't run most applications until you "check in" with Microsoft). Plus
Microsoft has created "big brother" policies on driver signing and device
drivers that allows MS to stop the functioning of hardware on your PC should
it be deemed non-digital-rights legal or legitimate drivers in use. These
civil liberty issues are enough to thwart most people to stick with XP until
they are properly addressed.
 
ben said:
I have been looking around at laptops recently and reviews and see
people going out of their way to avoid Vista. I did see that some
complain about drivers. This problem didn't seem to be the case when XP
came out why is Vista different that everyone is unprepared? Is there
any other reason a person would avoid Vista for XP? Doesn't need such a
fast machine, memory etc?
Click to expand...


Well, this is just my two cents, "another voice in the crowd", but I
know from those around me that a lot of people share these views:

XP had one big problem: Horrific security holes. That's why Micrososft
has been patching it since it's release (look at the "Windows Update"
files on your computer - something over 80% of them are security
patches. That is inarguable. But - and it's a big but - aside from
that one glaring deficiency, XP is probably the best OS Microsoft has
released for home use yet. 95 was "Rube Goldbergian" in many ways, but I
never though it was THAT bad. Windows 98 was a turkey, Windows 2000 was
no big improvement, Windows ME was a REAL turkey, and XP - aside from
the security issues - is the most "had-their-stuff-together" OS
Microsoft has released yet. It works pretty well, is much more stable
than any OS before it, and is comfortable to use. Many people - myself
included - often wonder why Microsoft has to come out with a COMPLETELY
NEW AND DIFFERENT operating system every five to seven years - to keep
the high-paid engineers on their toes?

If you do heavy gaming or graphics editing work, and your computer is
hardware-ready for it, Vista offers some advantages - but that's the
main thrust of it's "advantages" to *most* (not all) users. It is also
a resources hog (compared even to XP). My closest friend - the most
gifted geek I've ever known (he builds all his computers from scratch
and writes code as easily as you or I write a thank you note) has told
me - and he has run Vista since the beta testing stage - "don't upgrade
to Vista until you absolutely have to - it really would'nt offer you"
(me that is - an ordinary, everyday computer user)"any advantages".

Make no mistake - we'll probably all be using it eventually. But I'm in
no hurry - I like XP the best of any Windows OS I've used yet. And I
also agree with another poster who mentioned the "kill you with glossy
graphics" angle. Enough already! I use the "Windows Classic"
interface, and like it better than anything else. And I am not out to
smear Vista here either. But if you - like me - are an "average,
everyday computer user" (whatever that may mean to each person), and you
are in no hurry to upgrade to Vista, I would day: "I hear you, friend -
and you and I have lots of company".

Tony
 
Tony said:
XP is probably the best OS Microsoft has
released for home use yet. 95 was "Rube Goldbergian" in many ways, but I
never though it was THAT bad. Windows 98 was a turkey, Windows 2000 was
no big improvement,
Click to expand...

Would you mind telling us what are the "major" differences between
Windows 2000 and Windows XP? If Windows 2000 (NT5.0) is no big
improvement over Windows 98 what makes Windows XP (NT5.1) that big an
improvement?

John
 
--
It is a poor student who does not surpass his master


ben said:
I have been looking around at laptops recently and reviews and see people
going out of their way to avoid Vista. I did see that some complain about
drivers. This problem didn't seem to be the case when XP came out why is
Vista different that everyone is unprepared? Is there any other reason a
person would avoid Vista for XP? Doesn't need such a fast machine, memory etc?
Click to expand...

One phrase: User Access Control. in XP all .exe's were run as
administrator. With UAC, even if you are logged in as an administrator,
running an executable requires that you either enter an Admin passowrd if you
have one set up or you are logged in as a standard user or that you click on
the 'continue' option if you are logged on as administrator.

Also I remember reading that in Vista there is something called a Shadow
Registry where things are installed first. If I remember correctly it makes
system restore point use easier.
 
I have been looking around at laptops recently and reviews and see people
going out of their way to avoid Vista.
Click to expand...


*Some* people. Whenever *any* new version of Windows come out, there
are always those who are uncomfortable with change. What's old and
what they know how to use makes them feel more comfortable.

They won't tell you that, of course. They blame it on the new
operating system, and all its "problems."

Personally, I've been running Vista since November without any
problems. I don't like everything about it, but that's true of almost
everything. I like it and see no reason for anyone to avoid it.

I did see that some complain about
drivers.
Click to expand...


Drivers are a potential issue in two areas: 64-bit Vista, and if you
have older hardware. If you have an old printer, for example, it may
be that the printer's manufacturer didn't find it economically
advantageous to write a Vista driver for it.

Personally, I've had no issues finding drivers for any of my hardware.


This problem didn't seem to be the case when XP came out why is
Vista different that everyone is unprepared?
Click to expand...


I think the problems then were almost identical to the problems now.
They were then, and are now, vastly exaggerated.

Is there any other reason a
person would avoid Vista for XP? Doesn't need such a fast machine, memory etc?
Click to expand...


Yes. Almost without exception, newer operating systems do more, and
therefore need more powerful hardware.

I don't necessarily say that everyone should rush out to upgrade to
Vista, but if you are buying a new computer, in my view, you should
clearly get it with Vista. Be prepared to spend some time learning the
differences, though.
 
John said:
Would you mind telling us what are the "major" differences between
Windows 2000 and Windows XP? If Windows 2000 (NT5.0) is no big
improvement over Windows 98 what makes Windows XP (NT5.1) that big an
improvement?

John
Click to expand...

As I said, you're getting just one persons opinions here, but I have
used both, and found - have found from the start - XP to be less glitchy
and more user-friendly than 2000 was. The relative stability of the NT
platform over Win95/98 goes without saying. In fairness, though, next to
XP, 2000 was probably the second best Windows OS I've used.


And a ".1" difference can be a big one. I well remember the difference
between "Windows 3.0" and "Windows 3.1". The latter was much better -
again, in my experience. Other folks mileage may vary, of course.
 
I have been looking around at laptops recently and reviews and see people
going out of their way to avoid Vista. I did see that some complain about
drivers. This problem didn't seem to be the case when XP came out why is
Vista different that everyone is unprepared? Is there any other reason a
person would avoid Vista for XP? Doesn't need such a fast machine, memory etc?
Click to expand...

Vista needs about 3 times the CPU and 3 times the Memory to be happy,
and it doesn't offer any real benefit over XP.

I avoid Vista currently because it means that you have to upgrade or buy
new applications that worked fine under XP (mostly things that use
hardware devices), new AV software, drivers, etc...

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
I am interested in this topic because I recently bought a laptop which came
with Vista installed. My current PC runs XP Home and although I am happy
with that, I decided I may as well have Vista on the laptop as, presumably,
we shall all be using it one day.

However, I have tried working with Vista and really find it frustrating,
perhaps because it is more than I need.

What I would like to know is, if I decide to install XP on the laptop,
should I leave Vista on it and 'just ignore it'. Is this easy to do?

TIA
 
Well you can't just "leave Vista on it and 'just ignore it'" if you install
XP on your laptop. Your best bet, in my opinion, is to let XP format your
hard drive first and then install it which would mean Vista would be
completely gone. Your only other option is to repartition your hard drive
so you can install XP to a separate partition and have dual-boot
capabilities. But you have to know what you're doing. Depending on what
you use to repartition your hard drive and how it is done it is quite
possible that Vista would be unusable.

Randy
 
Thanks. I may try dual booting.

Randy said:
Well you can't just "leave Vista on it and 'just ignore it'" if you
install XP on your laptop. Your best bet, in my opinion, is to let XP
format your hard drive first and then install it which would mean Vista
would be completely gone. Your only other option is to repartition your
hard drive so you can install XP to a separate partition and have
dual-boot capabilities. But you have to know what you're doing.
Depending on what you use to repartition your hard drive and how it is
done it is quite possible that Vista would be unusable.

Randy
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top