Why get Windows Vista?

[so0ky]

I don't know much about Windows Vista, but I thought I would ask this question here....

I think Windows XP is the complete operating system, and I see no point in upgrading. All vista does is change where stuff is, change certain run commands, and it asks you permission to do everything. Its annoying. Windows XP is a very good Network Operating System, and is VERY stable. In my opinion, I think Microsoft shot themselves in their foot by making such a good operating system. Because I am completely satisfied with XP Pro, and I am NOT going to upgrade to Vista.

Does anyone have reasons why I should upgrade to Vista?...

[Random1]

Vista is a bit more stable, looks better, more secure, optimizes RAM a lot better, superfetches, looks a lot better, compatible with newer hardware, DX10 and a few more.

XP took two service packs and hundreds of updates to get where it is.

[so0ky]

Hey,

Sorry to respond to this super late. But I got into a discussion with one of my bosses, and well...I kinda have a few points.

First, even though it took Windows XP a lot to get to where it is today, wouldn't that make it a good operating system? And even though Vista maybe more stable, Windows XP is very stable. Both probably uses the Windows NT technology where the famous HALL program is started. This provides a seperation between the operating system and hardware.

I have had my copy of Windows XP Professional for four years. I can tell you with 100 percent certainty, that my computer has frozen less than 10 times. It has had critical errors, but has to be less than 10 times. I'm dead serious. So lets say Vista gets more stable than XP. It can't be by much.

So the features of Windows Vista. It looks pretty, you got more efficient RAM usage, and other stuff you said. This makes some practical sense if you are a gamer. None if you are an office user. Current technology supplies, if not exceeds the speed and storage demands of the typical office user. So why upgrade? And the recommended hardware requirements is just an insane jump.

The recommended system requirements for XP is I think 300 Mhz processor, and 128 MB of RAM. There is other stuff. This may not be totally accurate, but it is a ball park. Vista Home Premium, what my dad has, recommended one gig of RAM. ONE GIG OF RAM!!! So think about the required upgrades to get this new operating system, that only has more practicality to advanced users. Oh and I forgot, it looks nicer....give me a break. That isn't important. And they redesigned everything, and I honestly think the design of XP is very good. Why change it?

So I still think Microsoft shot themselves in their foot. XP takes up such less system resources, and it is very good considering all the updates that it has gone through. And sure, there maybe new features of Vista...but really ask yourself....are these features really necessary? Because a lot of people are doing serious upgrades to their machines to just run this operating system. And a lot of them are home users. I bet the computer part industry is super happy about this....people are going to buy their products to be able to run it.

I still think Vista is a waste of money. For what I am doing, those added features are not important. I have DirectX9, and it plays the games that I play...and the games I play I am pretty much going to play for a very long time. XP is very stable, even if Vista is more. And finally, since it takes up such less system resources, my computer is SUPER fast, because it is a gaming machine.

[Random1]

You are foregetting that when XP game out, it was a "resource hog." Most computers sold within like 2-3 years have the required 512MB RAM, and now 2GB+ is becoming standard for mid-end desktops. I have a laptop from 2004 that runs Vista excellently, with the only upgrade being RAM to a gig. Few people actually buy the OS anyways. Usually it comes preinstalled, and the people who know how and want to install a new OS will probably have adequit hardware.

So, what you are saying is that, "It is good enough, why bother advancing technology."

Vista will actually tell you that a program has froze/stopped responding and automatically ask you if you want to stop it. In XP, you have to do it yourself. Nice little feature in my eyes.

Both probably uses the Windows NT technology where the famous HALL program is started. This provides a seperation between the operating system and hardware.

What is the HALL program? Isn't it the job of the operating to interact and regulate hardware and compenents, and to provide a standard for programs to run upon?

Oh and I forgot, it looks nicer....give me a break. That isn't important.

Call me weird, but I actually care how my computer looks. There is a reason for having a wallpaper, custom screensaver, and for XP being skinable. Plus, it is a lot easier on the eyes.

are these features really necessary?

A GUI isn't necessary, but I am not complaining.

[Dave@Bytes]

I look at Vista as the go-between Operating System from the OLD way things were done and the NEW way things will be done.

While I have had a couple of compatibility issues with Vista, I'm quite happy to have upgraded as a home user.

I see no real reason for Corporations to embrace Vista, but the home user can certainly benefit from the added security of Vista.

[so0ky]

Excellent points my friends...

First, I don't want to sound like I am attacking your views or anything...I'm not trying to be disrespectful. But...I guess I have a response.

Vista tells you when a program isn't responding. But well...you can tell pretty obviously if a program isn't responding. Like if a web browser isn't responding, you can't close it. Go to task manager, and end the application. So a cool feature, sure. But I don't think it is necessary. I guess Microsoft is trying to make the learning curve as simple as possible.

You had a good point. A GUI is a good thing. I would agree, the average user wouldn't be able to use the command prompt, and if they could, would they want to learn it? So yes, there are some features that are good. It is just some of the features you posted I don't think are necessary.

Advance technology all you want. But there comes a point that it isn't necessary. For example, HD TV. It is an advancement in technology, and it enhances watching sports....i LOVE watching sports on HD TV. But when I am starting out on my own, I am not going to get HD TV. I am happy without it.

What I am saying, is current technology meets the needs. So why update your computer, to just run an operating system? Word processor, spreadsheets, and data interpretation software don't need a gig of RAM to run. Now...you maybe right that XP might have been a resource hog. But as bad as Vista? we are talking 300 Mhz processor, with 128 MB of RAM. My old HP Pavilion, ran windows 98. I got it before windows XP. You want to know its stats? Intel Celeron 466Mhz, with 512 MB of SDRAM. So as you can see, at least with that computer, I don't need to upgrade. With Vista, at least with my work computer, I would have to make a processor and memory upgrade. This in turn might need a motherboard upgrade. See? In my mind, that is just rediculous. You guys may disagree, but that is my opinion.

I just learned about this in my MCDST. Its a microsoft certification, and it focuses ENTIRELY on windows XP Professional. Which pisses me off, because when Vista comes out I am screwed. I have to learn it all over again. Anyways, I will quote what the book says.

"After the kernel is loaded into memory, NTLDR passes control of the boot process to the kernel and to another file named HAL.DLL. HAL.DLL controls Windows' famous hardware abstraction layer (HAL) which is the protective layer between Windows and a computer's hardware that enables such stability in the Windows XP environment."

Walter Glenn, Tony Northrup. Supoorting Users and Troubleshooting a Microsoft Windows XP System (MCDST). Microsoft Press. 2006.

Just so I don't get in trouble for plagerising. I think that is how you spell it, oh well. I wouldn't be suprised, if Vista is using the same HAL.DLL file, with some alterations to it. That is all I am saying. So I really doubt stability is better by A LOT, because it is based off of the same technology. Now, I am saying this by my intuition, I don't know this for certain. So maybe I am wrong, but...I just think that Microsoft wouldn't do that.

If you are happy with your upgrade, then great! All I am saying is I don't see a point to it.

Now as to computers come pre-installed with it...my dad came pre-installed with Windows Home Premium with his new 650 dollar system. It was designed to meet the recommended system requirements. And it is still a snail. I can't stand using it, because it is so much slower than my computer. My computer easily beats the recommended system requirements of XP. Companies are just trying to meet the recommended, but honestly, and this is just me, I don't think that the recommended performance is good. I think it is bad. So people may upgrade, but then soon to find that their system is running slower than before! Thats all.

Tell me what you guys think.

[Money2themax]

i can run Linux SuSE 10.1 with 256 min but I'd recommend 512

[Random1]

I just learned about this in my MCDST. Its a microsoft certification, and it focuses ENTIRELY on windows XP Professional. Which pisses me off, because when Vista comes out I am screwed. I have to learn it all over again. Anyways, I will quote what the book says.

Nice thing I heard about the IT industry is that it has a half life for knowledge of 18 months. Half the stuff you learn becomes obsolete/pointless every 18 months. This was from a programmer, though.

My take is that, if it is useful and I like it, then it is great. Does not need to b e necessary, though.

Security is a big plus in Vista, and I like how everything is sandboxed. I agree, though, that there is no need to get Vista, it is just nice. I am not sure how a new computer can run vista slow. I have a P4, Radeon 9600, and 1 gig of ram and it ran as fast as XP. How much extra stuff was on it from the factory?

[Money2themax]

I work with hardware so IDK what OS its for if its not mine i just install what the consumer wants

[so0ky]

Here is what is crazy. It is a dual AMD processor system with each processor with speeds of 2.4 ghz. So that is basically a 4 ghz system right? He has a gig of DDR2 pc2700 RAM. So the RAM can handle four instructions per clock cycle. SSSOOO...does that mean the RAM is twice as efficient as just DDR RAM? Just a question that I am wondering. And his video is onboard video on the motherboard.

He has Microsoft Office for Vista. He has some advertisement software. And he came with spybot. And an anti-virus software. The fact that you say Vista runs great, makes me wonder. There is port filtering on my router, he has windows firewall enabled, and he does scans with up-to-date definitions. I am wondering if there is still malicious code in his computer. Can a virus spread over wireless? I know it can spread over wired.

The thing is, I look at products as what I need. If I don't need it, I don't buy it. That's because I grew up with not much money, so I kind of prioritize things differently than certain people. I know some people that must have the newest thing in technology. It makes sense to them, but it doesn't make any sense to me. So I guess in the end, people do what is right for them, even though to me it doesn't make sense!

But one thing that is universal, is buisness application. A buisness is all about money. And right now, I really don't think buisnesses should make the upgrade to Vista. I would stick with Windows XP Professional. I would only do that if they need a program that only runs on Vista.

All in all, I am going to use XP for as long as I can.