Anime, Hentai, Manga, Bishoujo Games, Live Action Films, Music, Art, and Erotic Doujinshi Discussion Forum

It is currently October 17th, 2017, 3:42 pm


All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Vista vs XP
PostPosted: November 12th, 2007, 2:41 am 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
I'm planning to do a major upgrade of my computer at the end of this year. I've settled on most of the hardware and peripherals, and there's just one issue left to resolve:

Do I install Vista on this new machine? Or stick with XP? I've heard a lot of horror stories about incompability with Vista, and of poorer game performance compared to XP. Since I primarily use my PC for gaming, that's a BIG factor in deciding.

So to anybody out there who has Vista on their machines, what's your experience been like with it? Would you recommend Vista?

(And as an aside, does anybody here who plays Bishoujo Games know if they work alright on Vista?)

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 12th, 2007, 3:11 am 
Offline
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 15th, 2007, 11:57 pm
Posts: 755
I've had a friend who installed Vista only to find that half his games stopped working. Those were older games mind you, so if you like to take trips back in time... well...

Well there were jokes about how you could play multiple eroges at once with Vista... so they'd probably work. Unless you're talking about the old ass games like True Love or Paradise Heights.

I'd say dual boot, XP and Vista. When Vista is done sorting out its kinks with service packs... then you can get rid of XP. But for now, why not have both? Plus theres all these newer games that need Direct X 10, and you need Vista to play them, since DX10 is only for Vista. But then you got to look at your computer specs, if its not gonna be able to run those spanking new DX10 games, might as well forget about Vista.

_________________
Image
http://depleted.wordpress.com/
The contents of a deranged mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 12th, 2007, 3:58 am 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
Storm_Shinobi wrote:
I'd say dual boot, XP and Vista. When Vista is done sorting out its kinks with service packs... then you can get rid of XP. But for now, why not have both?


Well, the cost is the main issue against that idea. :P I'm not going to buy a copy of Vista AND another copy of XP just so I can dual boot.

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 12th, 2007, 5:37 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
I started out dual booting with XP and Vista, but have since stopped using XP altogether. In fact, I can't even think of a reason nowadays to use XP, especially considering how far Vista drivers have come since January. Vista is more secure than XP out of the box, with features like UAC and the fact that Microsoft locks away most of the core kernels. Of course you can turn off UAC, but then obviously security isn't a priority. Also if you have a fast computer with a good amount of RAM, (and considering how cheap RAM is these days, that's probably not a big deal) Vista also runs faster than XP since it uses your system RAM more efficiently than XP did.

Vista also doesn't tend to get bogged down like XP does after long periods of usage. With XP, after I had installed a lot of programs (as I tend to do), or have used it for a long period without rebooting, it tends to slow down significantly. Not so with Vista. I've installed pretty much as many programs on my current install of Vista Ultimate and so far, it's just as fast as when I first installed it.

Then there's the user interface and useful things like Readyboost. All in all, if you're going to be in the market for a new OS, then I would definitely suggest Vista over XP.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 12th, 2007, 7:03 am 
Offline
Regular

Joined: March 26th, 2007, 4:09 am
Posts: 556
Location: The Bastion of Imagination
Hmmm... Alright, if I WERE to get Vista, which version of Vista would you recommend? Bearing in mind that I don't really do multimedia work like video or graphics editing; all I really use a PC for is word processing, web surfing and gaming.

And what's the difference between 32 bit Vista and 64 bit Vista?

_________________
In the end, all we have are the stories we can tell. And, if we are fortunate, somebody who will listen. - sylara{Z}


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 12th, 2007, 8:25 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Zaxares wrote:
Hmmm... Alright, if I WERE to get Vista, which version of Vista would you recommend? Bearing in mind that I don't really do multimedia work like video or graphics editing; all I really use a PC for is word processing, web surfing and gaming.

And what's the difference between 32 bit Vista and 64 bit Vista?


I would probably go with 64-bit since it is the most future-proof version of Vista. And we're already seeing the limitations of 32-bit Windows, especially with the RAM limitations. I'm still running on 32-bit Vista but I'm going to upgrade to the 64-bit version as soon as some of the newer games come out which will be especially RAM-heavy. Don't worry though, Vista comes with both 32-bit and 64-bit versions on the same disc.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 12th, 2007, 3:16 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: June 18th, 2007, 1:06 am
Posts: 818
I would stick with XP. A guy in my class said he went to a Microsoft conference and the Microsoft Vista guys were talking bad about Vista. They went into detail about how there is a high chance Vista will get swept under the rug and a new Microsoft OS would be coming soon.

Basically a new OS that looks just like Vista but called something different. But you didn't hear these words from the horse's mouth so take my words as a grain of salt.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 12th, 2007, 3:30 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
zero_chaos wrote:
I would stick with XP. A guy in my class said he went to a Microsoft conference and the Microsoft Vista guys were talking bad about Vista. They went into detail about how there is a high chance Vista will get swept under the rug and a new Microsoft OS would be coming soon.

Basically a new OS that looks just like Vista but called something different. But you didn't hear these words from the horse's mouth so take my words as a grain of salt.


Hmm considering it took Microsoft seven years to release Vista and the good things that corporate customers in particular have been saying about Vista, that seems very unlikely. This trend of OS-hating is not new though. About seven years ago, there were plenty of people hating on XP, namely die-hard Windows 98 users. It always happens when a new OS comes out. I've heard so many people bitch about Vista and most of those people have never even used it. And from the people I know who have used Vista for a significant amount of time, very few of them have bad things to say about it.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 12th, 2007, 9:28 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: March 14th, 2007, 7:39 am
Posts: 199
^According to Chris Pirillo, Vista was actually developed as a divergent path of the project that was supposed to be the successor to XP; and that Vista was actually born in just 2 years.

I'm probably gonna get Vista in my new laptop(large OEMs have large discounts) and dual boot it with a Linux distribution.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 13th, 2007, 12:21 am 
Offline
Lurker
User avatar

Joined: October 6th, 2007, 7:19 pm
Posts: 73
Well my current computer I got over the summer came with Vista. I have nothing go wrong so far. Granted I don't play a lot of games on it.
Even if I find a game that doesn't work with Vista, I can always go to my other computer that has XP on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 13th, 2007, 2:54 pm 
Offline
Regular
User avatar

Joined: May 15th, 2007, 2:23 pm
Posts: 430
Location: Brazil
Quote:
^According to Chris Pirillo, Vista was actually developed as a divergent path of the project that was supposed to be the successor to XP; and that Vista was actually born in just 2 years.


That's true, original XP successor was too heavy and was prone to be a failure specially because of a new file system they wanted to make, so they scrapped the whole idea and started again. And Vista is still heavy so I don't want to imagine what it's predecessor looked like.

Vista:
pros: increased security, fancy interface
against: there goes more memory, more CPU, lots of resource to waste just to boot up.

XP:
pros: reverse against from Vista, light, still more compatible and will remain so for a couple of years
against: less security if you don't know how to update your anti-virus and enable a firewall

W98:
pros: can you run XP with only 32Mb footprint? you can with W98. Enough pro
against: even less security, unfit for internet

Linux:
pros: can beat even W98 resource-wise and still be an updated system, can run all the fancy effects that Vista does (requiring a video card) only without a special video card and all the resource hunger (see Ubuntu)
against: still somewhat complicated for computer illiterate, is not compatible with most games

Conclusion:
Games: stick with XP forever unless you can affort a better spec
Home use: if you can't protect yourself, get Vista, otherwise, XP is better
Work use: get Vista for the increased security
Expert use: Linux with dual-boot for XP for games. No reason for an expert user to use Vista
Terminal use: w98 since you don't need security at terminal use and w98 can handle games and applications as well as XP, with less OS/resource overhead. An example of terminal use would be Lan-house computers (except the server, which should be XP, Vista or Linux)

And when XP SP3 comes, you might consider using it instead of Vista.

I will be using XP until the end of times =p

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 14th, 2007, 10:01 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: June 18th, 2007, 1:06 am
Posts: 818
Caiobrz wrote:
I will be using XP until the end of times =p


I second that. Good write up too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 15th, 2007, 9:30 am 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
Caiobrz wrote:
Vista:
pros: increased security, fancy interface
against: there goes more memory, more CPU, lots of resource to waste just to boot up.


Except that Vista is actually using the memory for a useful purpose: as system cache, whereas in XP that memory is just sitting there unused. (Well actually this isn't technically true was with XP, a lot the previous used data remained in the memory so that even though the Task Manager may say you have so and so free memory, this actually wasn't really true.) And considering System memory is about 37 times faster than a typical hard disc, caching on the memory is a pretty good idea in general. Basically the main difference between XP and Vista is that while XP stores a whole bunch of basically useless data from recently-referenced data in the memory, Vista is actually preloading data into the memory that it thinks you'll probably need, which is definitely an improvement over the old memory-management system.

And like XP, you can always shut down a lot of the more or less nonessential resource hogs if you don't have a fast computer.

Caiobrz wrote:
XP:
pros: reverse against from Vista, light, still more compatible and will remain so for a couple of years
against: less security if you don't know how to update your anti-virus and enable a firewall


Actually XP is less secure period. Even if you install anti-virus or firewalls, the kernel was not locked down nearly as tightly as with Vista, which was part of the reason why third-party Anti-Virus software is easier to develop for XP as compared to Vista. This also made XP more vulnerable to viral attacks without a firewall or AV program installed. Also XP has no UAC, which effectively makes every normal user an administrator. Like I said, you can turn off UAC in Vista if you know what you're doing, but that's only suggested for people with a high amount of knowledge of firewall and anti-virus software.


Caiobrz wrote:
Conclusion:
Games: stick with XP forever unless you can affort a better spec
Home use: if you can't protect yourself, get Vista, otherwise, XP is better
Work use: get Vista for the increased security
Expert use: Linux with dual-boot for XP for games. No reason for an expert user to use Vista
Terminal use: w98 since you don't need security at terminal use and w98 can handle games and applications as well as XP, with less OS/resource overhead. An example of terminal use would be Lan-house computers (except the server, which should be XP, Vista or Linux)


Really the performance difference in games when it comes to Vista vs. XP is pretty much negligable at this point. Considering it took longer for XP to match and then exceed Win 98 in terms of gaming performance, this is actually a pretty good sign for Vista. Sure some really old games may not be compatible with Vista at this point but why should we expect them to be? Vista has changed significantly from XP including the removal of XP features like the Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL). We can't expect flawless backwards compatibility for every piece of software on a new OS, especially when the OS has been released for less than a year. Just like you can't expect the PS3 or Xbox 360 to play every single Xbox or PS2 game.

As for software compatibility and driver issues, well think of how many issues XP had before SP2. Considering that, I don't see what basis you have for ranting about Vista not being 100% compatible with every piece of software or hardware imaginable.

Caiobrz wrote:
And when XP SP3 comes, you might consider using it instead of Vista.


Unlikely. XP just felt so damn sluggish and arcane the last time I attempted to use it. The only case I can make for someone to use XP over Vista is if they have an older system that simply cannot run Vista well. But new operating systems are built for new hardware, not old ones, so it's a natural progression. Ranting on Vista's hardware requirements is pretty silly.

As for a new OS coming right after Vista, well Microsoft does have plans for a new OS three years after Vista's release. But remember that this has been the longest time without a new OS release for Microsoft for a while. You can remember back in the days when MS came out with Win 98, then Win ME, then Win 2000, etc each within 2 year windows. So it's Vista long delay that's out of place for Microsoft, not the release of a new OS only two or three years after Vista's release.

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 15th, 2007, 1:22 pm 
Offline
Senior Member

Joined: June 18th, 2007, 1:06 am
Posts: 818
spazmaster666 wrote:
Actually XP is less secure period. Even if you install anti-virus or firewalls, the kernel was not locked down nearly as tightly as with Vista, which was part of the reason why third-party Anti-Virus software is easier to develop for XP as compared to Vista. This also made XP more vulnerable to viral attacks without a firewall or AV program installed. Also XP has no UAC, which effectively makes every normal user an administrator. Like I said, you can turn off UAC in Vista if you know what you're doing, but that's only suggested for people with a high amount of knowledge of firewall and anti-virus software.


Couldn't you say that because Vista is the new and more used OS now that the viruses are aimed more at Vista than XP?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: November 15th, 2007, 3:13 pm 
Offline
Major Contributor
User avatar

Joined: April 26th, 2007, 7:33 pm
Posts: 1210
Location: Austin, Texas
zero_chaos wrote:
Couldn't you say that because Vista is the new and more used OS now that the viruses are aimed more at Vista than XP?


Yes, but I would say there are probably still more viruses for the XP since it's simply easier to develop viruses for XP than it is for Vista. Not to mention, there are more people using XP than Vista (even though pretty much all new PCs now all come with Vista instead of XP)

_________________
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group