Vista or XP?

[fvbounty]

Originally Posted by ATINUT

Right now DDR3 is so expensive, I didn't even bother with getting an X38 board back in March, I said heck with that noise, and got my 975XBX2. DDR2 800 memory is so cheap right now, I said heck with it, I'm getting 8GB's of ram, which I did, and that memory will be delivered to my front door tomorrow by UPS.

Here's the thing, Vista will run good on 4GB's of ram, if using 32bit or 64bit Vista. However it runs even better if you have 8GB's.

I wouldn't advise going out and buying more DDR3 memory right now, unless prices on DDR3 memory start dropping.

Side note, Vista will run on 2GB's of ram, but not very good. I've seen this at a local computer shop.

Yea thats why I'm staying with XP and 2 gigs...good enough for me!

[ctal]

Originally Posted by johnrr6

But----if I remember correctly----XP had basically a lot of the same issues----it was not a whole lot compelling at first either....

Driver issues and not a lot of bang for the buck----at first.....

Then SP1 and certainly SP2 (and available updated drivers) changed all that.

I'd take exception with this part of your otherwise excellent post, John. At least with respect to home users, who were coming from Windows Mistake Edition, or from 98SE or earlier. For those like me who did a clean install of the original release of XP, replacing Windows ME, what had been a PC that would have program crashes at intervals measured in minutes, and bsod's several times a day, was instantly transformed into a machine that essentially never crashed, and was a pleasure to use.

And the NTFS file system did away with the possibility that a crash or a power drop-out during boot would make the machine unbootable (which happened to more than one person I know).

Those people I know of who were satisfied with 98SE and ME typically had what were then very large and expensive amounts of RAM, and were the exception rather than the rule. But even they had much improved stability and robustness with XP.

As you know, the introduction of XP was unique in that it combined a kernel and a file system descended from the business-oriented NT/2000 evolutionary path, with features that descended from the DOS-based home-oriented 95/98/ME path, and in so doing it provided the best of both worlds. The result was a breakthrough in stability and robustness for home users and for some business users, that I think was exceptionally compelling right from the outset. And that I think represented The Chief Software Architect's greatest accomplishment.

Regards,

-- Al

[INVALiD]

VISTA
I'd be a little concerned about all that digital rights management crap that
vista's got intertwined in all it's monsterous code.
What is it like 10-15 GB for a clean instal? That's just outrageous.
I know that software and os's are trending toward code bloat, but give me a break!

It might not be half bad and worth trying to tweak if it were'nt for the DRM.

I'll keep my XP until Window 7 or until someone figures out how to get rid of DRM.

I think Vista is like another win ME failure but on a more grandios scale.
It's got some decent features from what I have read, but is it worth it?


Widows XP was a solid improvement over ME by light years

[zman88]

JMO, but, I think you"ll be waiting for someone to figure it out, because Windows7 or any other windows after that will have it (DRM) or something similar, and probably better and harder to crack.

[S.SubZero]

What is something that you feel DRM would prevent you from doing?

[zman88]

I was going to ask that ? too ! Pirating could be the only answer I guess!

[INVALiD]

No, it's the code bloat.
As it stands right now, one needs to have HD blue Ray and a supported monitor for this DRM to kick in.
It's also a matter of point. If you don't have Blue ray whats the point of having all this completely useless code bloating up an operating system???

This is a blatant slap in the face to everyone who doen't pirate.
It's like saying FU to all your costomers while gleefully taking your money.

[zman88]

With todays faster and bigger Hd's and faster cpu's , more memory etc...... I don't personally think it's a major issue. JMO

[INVALiD]

No, it may not be a major issue for most people, but it is for some of us who like to have control over our operating systems.

I don't know what the ramifications of all this extra code, so closely intertwined in the operating system, will have on overall performance. But I can't see it being of any benefit to stability & performance.
...I guess only time will tell. It's still a relatively new os.

[zman88]

Well I have control of my system ! It just took some tweaking and the uninstall of some programs. And getting used to some differences , just like it was going from 98 to xp. It is obviously more bloated than either of those OS's but even on my older setups it is running atleast as fast if not faster and a heck of a lot more stable. JMO

[S.SubZero]

The Vista DRM “Monster” Doesn't Affect Unprotected Content - Even when unprotected content plays alongside materials that require constraint - Softpedia

Windows Vista Team Blog : Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers)

[ephekt]

Originally Posted by INVALiD

No, it's the code bloat.
As it stands right now, one needs to have HD blue Ray and a supported monitor for this DRM to kick in.
It's also a matter of point. If you don't have Blue ray whats the point of having all this completely useless code bloating up an operating system???

This is a blatant slap in the face to everyone who doen't pirate.
It's like saying FU to all your costomers while gleefully taking your money.

How is it a slap in the face if you've paid for the content? It only matters if you pirate. And you can't watch BluRay on your TV unless it supports HDCP either, so imo this is a silly argument.

Originally Posted by INVALiD

No, it may not be a major issue for most people, but it is for some of us who like to have control over our operating systems.

I don't know what the ramifications of all this extra code, so closely intertwined in the operating system, will have on overall performance. But I can't see it being of any benefit to stability & performance.
...I guess only time will tell. It's still a relatively new os.

Vista is actually more stable than XP - and XP was fairly stable. At least in Vista an app crashing doesn't take Explorer with it or make the system unusable for minutes...