flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > Windows XP SP3 -> Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 - worth?

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
OzzY



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 1029
Location: Everywhere
OzzY
Is it worth the upgrade to Windows Vista? What really new does it offer besides more bloat?

Should I just keep using XP SP3 and Linux until Windows 7 is released?

Share your opinions! Very Happy

BTW... I tried the latest version of Ubuntu and it's very very well done and stable linux OS. I would use it as my main OS and Windows for gaming only. LOL
Post 27 Jun 2008, 01:35
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
wisepenguin



Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 129
wisepenguin
hi ozzy,
i still use windows xp/xp x64 and im totally happy with them
and ive used vista for a while too. i prefer xp over vista
any day of the week.

my productivity is worth much more to me than windows loading
applications 3% faster because its cached some stuff.

if you can get it free then give it a bash, otherwise save your money
or spend it on a good anti virus.

have a good day
Post 27 Jun 2008, 09:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
OzzY



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 1029
Location: Everywhere
OzzY
Yes, I got a free student lisence. I think I'll give it try. I can't say it's bad without trying.

BTW... did you say it would run faster? I though Vista was supposed to run slower. LOL

I'm gonna tell you, I want to install it mainly because of curiosity and of couse the awesome chess game it includes. Laughing
Post 27 Jun 2008, 15:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
asmcoder



Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]


Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:57; edited 1 time in total
Post 27 Jun 2008, 16:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
madmatt



Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 1045
Location: Michigan, USA
madmatt
I've used Vista for just about a year now. So, if your going to try Vista, you'd better have a least 2gb of memory and a high speed CPU+GPU. Sad The arguments that Vista is a resource and memory hog are accurate. Exclamation After all that, the Vista aero interface is a much better improvment over XP. I noticed multitasking is smoother than in XP. One final warning, I've had nothing but problems with installing video drivers, crashes, missing .inf files, this is with my ATI motherboard GFX AND with my new NVIDIA geforce 8500gt. Crying or Very sad Good Luck! Shocked Very Happy

[EDIT] Heres another Slap in the face to Vista:
Quote:
Intel, the giant chip maker and longtime partner of Microsoft, has decided against upgrading the computers of its own 80,000 employees to Microsoft’s Vista operating system, a person with direct knowledge of the company’s plans said.

The person, who has been briefed on the situation but requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of Intel’s relationship with Microsoft, said the company made its decision after a lengthy analysis by its internal technology staff of the costs and potential benefits of moving to Windows Vista, which has drawn fire from many customers as a buggy, bloated program that requires costly hardware upgrades to run smoothly.

“This isn’t a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista,” the person said.
Post 28 Jun 2008, 07:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
OzzY



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 1029
Location: Everywhere
OzzY
Yeah, I tried it and wasted time. I didn't really seen improvement. Only graphical stuff, even though linux can be just as beautiful and lighter.

Even though I have a good machine with 2GB of RAM it still felt slow. And wasn't compatible with my webcam.

I'm going back to WinXP until MS releases Windows 7 that might be lighter.

Plus, I'll be dual booting with Xubuntu (ubuntu base + XFCE desktop = cool OS).

But hey, at least with the next clean install I'll try to be more organized. This setup was already messed up anyway. Very Happy
Post 28 Jun 2008, 16:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
SP1 fixed a lot of stuff with Vista. SP3 for XP (which I just got this week, heh I'm lazy) doesn't seem to speed up at all vs. SP2 (but I do have some background stuff running).

They are mostly discontinuing XP for general use, so you're going to have a harder time finding it. Of course Vista is vaguely better in some ways, but it does need higher requirements. You can turn Aero off, though ("desktop composition" makes UAC take a few secs to appear vs. instantaneous with it off). And not all Vistas are the same (Ultimate > Home Premium but costs more). VPC2k7 won't run on Home versions. And supposedly? even MSVC2k5 still won't run on Vista (only 2k8). Windows 7 will share the same kernel / core / driver model as Vista, so you won't be gaining anything huge there (except maybe better performance, smaller footprint). No reason to wait just for that.

BTW, I'm typing this on my P4 (XP), and this computer (XP) is very noticeably slower than my AMD64x2 (Vista) at bootup. Of course, dual cores should be faster, plus P4 is typically a slow dog (at the instruction level) with a high clock speed and no barrel shifters (or whatever).

Oh, and Vista SP1 does have a registry setting (dword, e.g. "128000000") you can add to increase the DPMI limit to > 32 MB.

HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Wow\DpmiLimit

No, Vista isn't nearly as compatible in apps (esp. drivers!) as XP. So don't switch if you aren't sure your crucial devices and apps will run. And it ain't that cheap, but whatever, what MS OS ever was?

I'm starting to think that all OSes are hampered by device drivers more than anything (and RAM, cpu speed, etc. shouldn't EVER be an issue these days).

Basically, if Vista runs all your apps and devices well, then good. If XP does it, then good. If one or the other doesn't work as well, don't use it. But MS definitely wants to push Vista (ah, salesmen, gotta love 'em). I hate to promote a Mac because I don't want to sound like a shill, but at least they have a *nix underbelly and optionally let you dual-boot XP via BootCamp (best of both worlds?). Or you could try XP under Parallels or VMware or whatever (never tried), but QEMU-W32 at least seems too slow for heavy use.

From now on, be very VERY careful about what software / hardware you buy, and make sure it is explicitly compatible with either XP or Vista (whichever you use most).

EDIT: Forgot to mention that Vista is non-admin by default (unlike XP). And some programs compiled by MinGW (e.g. most of the PAQ8 series) uses tmpfile(), which writes to the root dir [why??], and that doesn't work by default on Vista unless you run CMD as admin first. Very annoying, and obviously you can blame either MS or the coders for linking/using MS' routine. Plus, auto-update for Google's Picasa2 worked fine on XP but didn't work at all on Vista (among other minor issues). Just to warn you, some things do indeed break. For all the crap that MS gets about being too backwards compatible, they really aren't! Beware, only because you will be disappointed if you think 100% of your stuff will still work exactly as before. (It's not really THAT dire, but it's pretty noticeable.)
Post 30 Jun 2008, 20:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ManOfSteel



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1154
ManOfSteel
So Vista is non-admin by default? At least that's a good thing. That will mean a little less malware infections for the incompetent user and programmers paying more attention to where they're saving settings. I just hate it when a program stores its settings in "Program Files" or the HKLM hive.


I tried Vista on more than one Pentium D 3.0 GHZ and 2 GB of RAM.
At startup, before running any program, the free memory is just above 900MB (out of 2GB)!
Even though it starts quite fast, it takes ages to open any program. For example, there's this toolbar on the right where you can add a clock, stocks, weather, puzzle game, ... well, when I tried to open its configuration dialog it took a whole minute and almost froze the PC.

IMHO, Win2000 is way better, nicer and faster.
Post 01 Jul 2008, 07:29
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
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 vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.