Windows Vista

[vbetts]

Too long didn't read. And no, the contest is not won. I say Vista is better because it can be run on any modern hardware legally.

 

 

That's common sense though. >_> Os X wasen't made to run on PCs, if it was then that'd defeat the purpose of Mac computers. I prefer Mac over Vista personally.

[scj312]

I'm sure it would be as stable as OS X if it didnt have to run on billions of different hardware configurations.

[Alessandro17]

I'm sure it would be as stable as OS X if it didnt have to run on billions of different hardware configurations.

 

Hard to believe. Here are the reasons:

 

1) I have pretty "standard" hardware. Yet I have had countless, unrecoverable crashes with Vista.

2) XP is also made to run "on billions of different hardware configurations", and yet it is a lot more stable than Vista (especially true of XP x64). Ergo: Microsoft can make decent operating systems, but for some mysterious reasons it ends up always by promoting the crappy ones.

3) Linux is also made to run "on billions of different hardware configurations", in fact many more than Vista. Heck, it will even run on your toaster! And yet the distributions I have deemed stable, after trying virtually all of them, don't cause me a fraction of the trouble caused by Vista.

[vbetts]

2) XP is also made to run "on billions of different hardware configurations", and yet it is a lot more stable than Vista (especially true of XP x64). Ergo: Microsoft can make decent operating systems, but for some mysterious reasons it ends up always by promoting the crappy ones.

 

This is actually the exact opposite of my expirence. >_> Vista has been 10x more stable than what XP was for me, and even more on 64-bit XP. I haven't had one issue with Vista yet. Cept that DX10 isn't used yet... D:

 

The biggest problem with Vista is hardware. Basically, it decides if it wants to work in the long run. That's the way it's going though, some users like me are having a good expirence with Vista, but then there are some like Alessandro17, who have a horrible expirence. This is something that Microsoft needs to work out.

[robotskip]

Hard to believe. Here are the reasons:

 

1) I have pretty "standard" hardware. Yet I have had countless, unrecoverable crashes with Vista.

2) XP is also made to run "on billions of different hardware configurations", and yet it is a lot more stable than Vista (especially true of XP x64). Ergo: Microsoft can make decent operating systems, but for some mysterious reasons it ends up always by promoting the crappy ones.

3) Linux is also made to run "on billions of different hardware configurations", in fact many more than Vista. Heck, it will even run on your toaster! And yet the distributions I have deemed stable, after trying virtually all of them, don't cause me a fraction of the trouble caused by Vista.

So, do you have, you know, a source for claiming XP is more stable than Vista, and you claiming that XP x64 is more stable is well, ridiculous.

 

Out of curiosity, what are all these these countless, unrecoverable crashes caused by?

[djrbx]

Okay, I wasn't going to post but seeing as I have nothing else to do ATM here I am. Secondly I'm not choosing sides here, just dropping my 2 cents on what I think is better. You can either agree or agree to disagree, but I am not here to start an argument. That being said...

 

Personally, I have been using Windows way longer than OSX, and I'm pretty sure a lot of us are on the same page with that (not all, but a lot). I've been a die hard Windows fan and currently use both XP and Vista. XP for my gaming and Vista for everything else. From my experience, Vista has been way more stable than XP. Although there are times were XP has the upper hand in terms of reliablity in the form of drivers, that is long gone. Vista now has more support and I am finding less and less incompatibility issues using Vista. Not that I'm saying the Vista is perfect, just stating the fact that compared to when Vista was released, Vista is doing exceptionally well in terms of

software and driver support. (XP wasn't any better the first year as well if my memory serves me correctly)

 

As far as OSX goes, I just recently got onto the OSX bandwagon just to try it out (thank the iPhone for that, more jailbreaking techniques are release for OSX first) Now, I do admit that OSX is nice to look at, easier to use, and there is just something about using OSX (feeling wise) that you just can't get using Windows. But if a person is to talk about compatibility verses Vista and lets say Tiger. It's a no brainer. But please consider that Tiger is built to run on Apple hardware. Yes apple might look to outside sources for parts to build their PCs, but the fact remains that Apple knows the type of hardware their software is going to run on.

 

On the other hand there is Vista. You can say that you are running Vista on standard hardware, yet forget that not all computers are the same. Your system can be "standard", so can mine, and also Joe's and Bobs down the block, yet none of our systems specs. have anything in common. Vista is built for the majority PCs out there, Microsoft does not and will never know the number of combinations of PCs there are on the market (this doesn't even count non-supported third party hardware). I'm sure that if Microsoft starts becoming a hardware competitor and builds PCs for their OS instead of lets say Dell or HP, Apple will have a run for their money and their rise in popularity. If Microsoft starts to develop hardware for Vista, I'm sure no one will complain about no driver support (which is number one issue why people don't use Vista in my opinion if price is not an issue), not to mention Vista will also become 1000x more reliable (bye bye BSOD).

 

Sorry it sounds a little bias, but that's my two cents. OSX and Vista are like apples and oranges (kind of). One is built as a whole (OS+hardware), the other is built for everything else (OS).

[apowerr]

Djrbx, I agree. What you said makes sense.

[mhbas0001]

I agree as well.

[Alessandro17]

So, do you have, you know, a source for claiming XP is more stable than Vista, and you claiming that XP x64 is more stable is well, ridiculous.

 

My source is my own experience and that of all my friends (all very computer literate, IT professionals).

 

When you say that my claim that XP x64 is more stable is ridiculous, you are only showing your ignorance. Unless you want to claim that Windows Server 2003 is not a stable OS.

[mhbas0001]

I've used both the x32 bit and x64 bit versions of Windows Vista (the latter of which currently serves as my main operating system), and haven't noticed any tangible differences in stability. That's not to say they don't exist, because I'm sure they do, but making the switch from x32 to x64 hasn't made an ounce of difference to my everyday computing.

[Alessandro17]

djrbx,

What you say might sound right, but at the end of the day it is only speculation.First of all, "XP for my gaming and Vista for everything else. From my experience, Vista has been way more stable than XP." sounds very much like a contradiction. If Vista is so stable, why do you choose XP for gaming?

Standard hardware. Since last year I have built 3 computers, all based on Intel motherboards and CPUs. GPUs: Intel GMA 950, ATI X1600XT, Nvidia 7900GT.Now let's replace the word "standard" with "popular". If Vista doesn't run stable on hardware like mine, used by most PC manufacturers, you tell me where it is supposed to run.

 

I've used both the x32 bit and x64 bit versions of Windows Vista (the latter of which currently serves as my main operating system), and haven't noticed any tangible differences in stability. That's not to say they don't exist, because I'm sure they do, but making the switch from x32 to x64 hasn't made an ounce of difference to my everyday computing.

 

My comparison was not between the 2 Vista versions, but between XP x32 and XP x64, which are two totally different operating systems.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_Pr...nal_x64_Edition

 

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is based upon Windows Server 2003 SP1 (build 5.2.3790.1830), as that was the latest version of Microsoft Windows during the operating system's development, but takes Windows XP as its name. It is designed to use the expanded 64-bit memory address space provided by the x86-64 architecture.

[scj312]

Hard to believe. Here are the reasons:

 

1) I have pretty "standard" hardware. Yet I have had countless, unrecoverable crashes with Vista.

I have never seen what a blue screen looks like in Vista. I find it very stable, especially so now in SP1 (no explorer crashes).

 

 

Microsoft can't set up every computer that they want to support in their office when testing an OS. Apple can, and that's why OS X works on all supported machines. If it didnt work on say a G4 Mini, then they would be pounded because it has "supported" specs.

[aboldinu]

I believe people generally game on XP because it uses lower system resources and has better driver support, to be expected considering it's 5 years old IMO.

[scj312]

I can say that Vista blew at gaming when I first installed it, 10fps drop from XP, which was sad considering at the time I had a card where I was getting only 20fps on my games in XP.

 

Now in Vista I get the same FPS on my games. The new Nvidia drivers have helped A LOT.

[djrbx]

@Alessandro17

 

Again not here start a flame war, but since I again have nothing better to do ATM.

If you must know why I chose XP as my gaming OS is because I like to play a lot of the older games, and the majority of those games play well on XP and yea, on Vista as well. I'm not saying that all games run fine with Vista, but that some games DO only run under XP and there is no more support for the game due to the fact that support is now done and over with being the case of an OLD game. And like I said, Vista is not perfect. No OS is perfect. I just prefer gaming on XP so all my games can be installed on one OS instead of two and so that I can also play that one or two games that will not run on Vista. Is it really Vistas fault that developers stopped releasing patches for their games caused by problems from a new OS? I think not.

 

And about standard hardware, you also tend to forget that Microsoft still does not create drivers for the hardware. It is up to the hardware manufacturers to create supporting drivers. Hence the problem with Nvidia (http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=21884 & http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070206-8784.html) driver support when Vista was released (that does not include all the other hardware manufactures that did not support Vista at the time of release). Is it really Microsoft's fault that your "standard hardware" is not working with Vista? I think you should be pointing your finger at the hardware manufacturers who makes the hardware you are using like "Intel, ATI, and yes Nvidia" for only programing half working drivers.

 

Apple on the other hand, again, knows what hardware their OS is going to be installed on. That is why you or the general public; do not hear any problems due to no driver support. But if you put OSX on what Windows has to go through, which is being installed on millions of combinations of hardware, then we have another story on our hands. Just look around the Hackintosh forums here at the site, you'll see hundreds of people asking for help because OSX does not run on this motherboard or some other hardware incompatibility issue. And don't go into "Well OSX isn't meant to be installed on regular non Apple PCs", I'm just stating that Apple and OSX is also not perfect, nor is Linux for that matter. Apple knows this, and they know that if OSX is released for general PCs, then the faults of their OS is going to shoot up and through the roof (removing the fact that Apple makes most of their money on hardware sales from the equation).

 

Again, just my two cents and I am not here to start a flame war. You asked and pointed me out, I'm just here to give my side. You can either agree or agree to disagree.

[apowerr]

Unless you want to claim that Windows Server 2003 is not a stable OS.

Windows Server 2003 is Rock-{censored}-Solid. Server 2008 is going to be amazing!

[robotskip]

My source is my own experience and that of all my friends (all very computer literate, IT professionals).

 

When you say that my claim that XP x64 is more stable is ridiculous, you are only showing your ignorance. Unless you want to claim that Windows Server 2003 is not a stable OS.

So, you just have anecdotal evidence, right? Rad.

 

If you're going to claim Windows Server 2003 is a stable OS, than you might want to know that Vista is 'based' on Server 2003. So, by your logic, it's stable but it has many, many, many years of extra work, etc.. so, it'd be even more stable. Also, Server 2008 is using the same codebase as Vista and it's been stable enough for a long time for Microsoft.com [and some of it's sites] to be using Server 2008 (RC0 now, I think) and when SP1 is out Vista will benefit from the extra development time for Server 2008 since they share the same codebase and Vista will be updated with a new kernel, binaries, etc.

 

But, unless you mean to say that your basis for XP X64 being 'stable' (Despite it known for bad driver support and not being particularly stable) is that it's based on Server 2003 but despite the fact that Vista is too, and it's benefited from years of extra development, etc -- it's magically less stable. I mean, I bet Microsoft magically forgot everything that made XP x64 bit stable and removed all the code from Server 2003 that made it stable just so that Vista wouldn't be stable.

 

Are you really going to try and claim that? If so.. oh dear.. and good luck, lol. Oh, and do you have any factual evidence for Vista not being as stable as XP, 32bit or 64bit? And one last thing, do you still stand by your claim that I'm 'ignorant'?

[Alessandro17]

There is one flaw in your reasoning: XP x64 is more than "based on Windows Server 2003", it is in fact a workstation version of it. As to Vista, evidently a lot has been modifidied, added.... since Windows Server 2003, else a simple Windows Update or installing a program like Firefox wouldn't break it beyond repair.

It is quite obvious to me that Vista was released when it was still extremely buggy. The proof is that if you download one of those "integrated" Vista isos from the internet, you'll find out that Vista is now a lot more stable.

[mhbas0001]

It's a shame you've had such an unfortunate experience with Vista. I have Firefox installed and haven't had a single problem with it (besides the fact that it looks awful in Vista's new GUI), and Windows Updates works absolutely fine for me. Having said that I haven't had any trouble with my Macbook either. Works a charm.

 

Still, I suppose everybody's experiences are different.

[djrbx]

It's a shame you've had such an unfortunate experience with Vista. I have Firefox installed and haven't had a single problem with it (besides the fact that it looks awful in Vista's new GUI), and Windows Updates works absolutely fine for me. Having said that I haven't had any trouble with my Macbook either. Works a charm.

 

Still, I suppose everybody's experiences are different.

 

I agree with you. And as Vista gets older and more and more companies start to migrate toward Vista, compatibility issues will start to disipate. Vista is a great release but with all the thrashing going around, people tend to have a blind sight when looking at Vista and jump right into "This OS sucks compared to XP" right off of using the OS for only 5 minutes or less. Part of it is due to all the Apple commercials bashing Windows and Vista for that matter and never really talking about how good OS X is. Those commercials are targeted for the average user that does not know how to use a computer other than documents and web browsing. These targeted customers are the ones who would want to switch over to OS X cause less spyware and viruses are tageted to the system. + look at how apple advertises their OS Get a Mac

 

4. 114,000 viruses? Not on a Mac.

Mac OS X was designed for high security, so it isn’t plagued by constant attacks from viruses and malware like PCs. Likewise, it isn’t plagued by never-ending security dialog boxes like those in Vista. So you can safely go about your work — or play — without interruption.

With the first one, it is plainly obvious that apple has less viruses. First off, lets say if I were to create a virus intended to retrieve SSN out of 10 people. 8 out of 10 are using Windows and the remaining 2 are using Apple. I can only program the virus to attack one OS. The most common sense would be to create a virus which give me a bigger payload, which would be attacking Windows. Now apply that to the real world where most PCs sold at Bestbuy, Fry's, CompUSA, and all other computer stores out there are sold with Windows preinstalled (we're talking about average Joe here remember; who does not know what Anti-Virus software is much more updating it). It is only a matter of time untill Average Joe opens an attachment and destroys his system. Obviously with the way Apple is advertising, Average Joe will want to switch to a mac. Now the way how apple is advertising, do you think people will bother installing Anti-Virus software on a mac? I know there are exploits already discovered, just not exploited yet (don't ask for a link, google it, just remember no OS is 100% virus free). With that state of mind the typical Apple user has, plus the rising popularity of apple, it is just a matter of time untill OS X is truely put to the test.

7. No hunting for drivers.

Just about everything works with Mac — even the stuff you used with your old PC. All you have to do is plug it in. A Mac has USB drivers for printers, external drives, digital cameras, input devices, iPod, and more. It can see Bluetooth cell phones and headsets, as well as FireWire cameras. No rebooting, no hassles.

And on with driver support. How can a user go wrong when apple says that hunting for drivers are long behind you when you switch to a mac? All I have to say about that is try finding working drivers for Trendnets Wireless USB device TEW-242UB and a thousand other types of hardware that a user can use with Windows but not on a Mac. Hell, I have 3 old usb webcams by logitech that work perfectly with Vista and XP; but when I try using it for my MacBook, goodbye support. I even visited the Apple store here in San Francisco and talked to the people over at the Genius bar, they pretty much told me to contact logitech and that I was SOL. So much for plug & play support huh?

 

Again, Agree or Agree to disagree.

 

edit: posted with my MacBook Pro LOL

[Ayanami]

It's a shame you've had such an unfortunate experience with Vista. I have Firefox installed and haven't had a single problem with it (besides the fact that it looks awful in Vista's new GUI), and Windows Updates works absolutely fine for me. Having said that I haven't had any trouble with my Macbook either. Works a charm.

 

Still, I suppose everybody's experiences are different.

 

True. Vista on my MBP was and is outstanding. I only wish I could have some better luck with Parallels and using MS Office 07 in OS X.

[robotskip]

There is one flaw in your reasoning: XP x64 is more than "based on Windows Server 2003", it is in fact a workstation version of it. As to Vista, evidently a lot has been modifidied, added.... since Windows Server 2003, else a simple Windows Update or installing a program like Firefox wouldn't break it beyond repair.

It is quite obvious to me that Vista was released when it was still extremely buggy. The proof is that if you download one of those "integrated" Vista isos from the internet, you'll find out that Vista is now a lot more stable.

Only one flaw, eh ? Neat, I guess that means you agree with all the other things I've said and take back your petty insults like calling me ignorance or at least apply it to yourself ?

 

You say proof yet you don't provide proof -- here's a hint, just randomly saying Windows Update or Firefox will 'break Vista beyond repair' isn't proof, hell, you could at least throw in some anecdotal evidence so at least someone, somewhere belives you.

 

I know others on here would be happy with your whimsical statements but there are some of us who like facts, proof, etc -- not just random "LOL UPDATE BREAKS IT RAWR!"

 

 

 

Oh, and djrbx deserves a medal. +1 Finally another objective person.

[waradmin]

I hate to say it but Windows Vista's market share speaks for itself on how good of an OS it is. Here is an experiment I did last weekend tracking data on websites I host/own, and I discovered based on over 6000 requests to those sites, very few were from vista.

 

Now I realize that is not 100% accurate because it wasn't tested in a closed environment, etc, but out of 6000 requests, 660 were from Vista machines, where as 2400 requests were from OS X systems, just trailing behind XP (with 2700). I found that very interesting. Vista is a flop.

 

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/...indows-in-japan

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2209837,00.asp

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/11/14/le...ned-from-vista/

 

Just some articles.

[apowerr]

Waradmin, were the sites you monitored of particular interest to Mac users? That OS X percentage was awfully high!

[Lostgame]

I have never seen what a blue screen looks like in Vista.

 

It's really nothing special. Once you've seen it 30 or 40 times it starts losing it's interest value.