Author Topic: Which is better, XP or Vista?  (Read 5601 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Which is better, XP or Vista?
I could tell you something about win.... vista, but the language I'd use would get me in trouble on here.
I can't reveal my sources, but I have acquiescences who can acquire "things", they told me to stay with win XP for as long as possible.
All vista problems can be corrected, by upgrading to XP

 

Offline neoterran

  • 210
I could tell you something about win.... vista, but the language I'd use would get me in trouble on here.
I can't reveal my sources, but I have acquiescences who can acquire "things", they told me to stay with win XP for as long as possible.

I own windows vista, there's nothing you can tell me about it I don't already know. It's still better than XP is. If you want to stay with a system that has an outdated audio subsystem and paints all over its windows with ugly white redraws in the same manner as windows 95 (ie, with a desktop composition model from 10 years ago) that's fine by me. I'm firmly in the camp of 3D accelerated desktops with no redraw or sync issues.
Official Taylor Fan Club Member.
Chief Grognard.
"How much code could a coder code if a coder could code code?"

 
I could tell you something about win.... vista, but the language I'd use would get me in trouble on here.
I can't reveal my sources, but I have acquiescences who can acquire "things", they told me to stay with win XP for as long as possible.

I own windows vista, there's nothing you can tell me about it I don't already know. It's still better than XP is. If you want to stay with a system that has an outdated audio subsystem and paints all over its windows with ugly white redraws in the same manner as windows 95 (ie, with a desktop composition model from 10 years ago) that's fine by me. I'm firmly in the camp of 3D accelerated desktops with no redraw or sync issues.

The problems I have with Vista are all security related, When the kid down the street can't get in, then I'll buy it unless M/S made it possible for my after market security stuff to work on their latest and greatest. Thats the only thing between me and Vista.
All vista problems can be corrected, by upgrading to XP

 

Offline neoterran

  • 210
the kid down the street has a much, much easier time getting in on windows xp, which doesn't have User Account Control (which limits what any invader could do if they do break into your system) OR ASLR (Address Space  Layout Randomization - which scrambles the pattern differently on every machine of the footprint of data structures in memory - prevents a whole host of buffer overflow type attacks)

As for Symantec making a big fuss, which I think you're referring to - you should be using the absolute best security program for any windows already anyway, which is Nod32 2.7, anti-rootkit, anti-spyware, and anti-virus app. only 40 bucks a year. Works flawlessly on vista.
Official Taylor Fan Club Member.
Chief Grognard.
"How much code could a coder code if a coder could code code?"

 
the kid down the street has a much, much easier time getting in on windows xp, which doesn't have User Account Control (which limits what any invader could do if they do break into your system) OR ASLR (Address Space  Layout Randomization - which scrambles the pattern differently on every machine of the footprint of data structures in memory - prevents a whole host of buffer overflow type attacks)

As for Symantec making a big fuss, which I think you're referring to - you should be using the absolute best security program for any windows already anyway, which is Nod32 2.7, anti-rootkit, anti-spyware, and anti-virus app. only 40 bucks a year. Works flawlessly on vista.


Ewwwww you said the word Symantec, you couldn't pay me to use that, I had Norton A/V once, only once. I currently have NOD32 2.70.16, NOD is the only A/V that you will ever find on my computer for anti_spy I have 3, one from NOD, Adware SE pro, and Ghost Surf 2005, My "firewall" isn't a firewall at all, its a port closer. But I never knew anything from NOD would work on vista, thanks for the info, makes Vista look a little better. I do wonder why they have 4 different versions I can have here at my house though, kinda seems liek they will want a little more money for a little more features, that used to come with the OS
« Last Edit: December 16, 2006, 06:43:29 pm by wolfen »
All vista problems can be corrected, by upgrading to XP

 

Offline Goober5000

  • HLP Loremaster
  • 214
    • Goober5000 Productions
I own windows vista, there's nothing you can tell me about it I don't already know. It's still better than XP is. If you want to stay with a system that has an outdated audio subsystem and paints all over its windows with ugly white redraws in the same manner as windows 95 (ie, with a desktop composition model from 10 years ago) that's fine by me. I'm firmly in the camp of 3D accelerated desktops with no redraw or sync issues.
Fine, I'm putting you firmly in the camp of "fanboy n00b".  This sort of attitude is not only stupid and immature, it's dangerous.  New systems always have tons of bugs and security issues that need fixing.  (Don't forget that Windows XP didn't become anything close to safe until after the release of SP1.)

 

Offline Selectah

  • 27
  • Unsuspended
I own windows vista, there's nothing you can tell me about it I don't already know. (emphasis mine)
Could this be entered as a contender for "Most Arrogant Statement In HLP's History"? Please?

[...] in the same manner as windows 95 (ie, with a desktop composition model from 10 years ago).
But.., but.., I still use Windows 95...  :blah: Oh, it's the desktop...


Cordially,
~Selectah

(Come to think of it, I also have an MS-DOS box for certain stuff. It's kinda ridiculous to run MS-DOS -- yes, I know, it's more than 10 years old -- on 2000+ mHz, but it's also great fun.)
Selectah Fan Club Member

disregard this post

 

Offline Herra Tohtori

  • The Academic
  • 211
  • Bad command or file name
(Come to think of it, I also have an MS-DOS box for certain stuff. It's kinda ridiculous to run MS-DOS -- yes, I know, it's more than 10 years old -- on 2000+ mHz, but it's also great fun.)


More than ten years old... well, in fact it's 24 years old. The first one was released in 1981.


It's still the best Microsoft software series ever released.
There are three things that last forever: Abort, Retry, Fail - and the greatest of these is Fail.

 

Offline neoterran

  • 210
I own windows vista, there's nothing you can tell me about it I don't already know. It's still better than XP is. If you want to stay with a system that has an outdated audio subsystem and paints all over its windows with ugly white redraws in the same manner as windows 95 (ie, with a desktop composition model from 10 years ago) that's fine by me. I'm firmly in the camp of 3D accelerated desktops with no redraw or sync issues.
Fine, I'm putting you firmly in the camp of "fanboy n00b".  This sort of attitude is not only stupid and immature, it's dangerous.  New systems always have tons of bugs and security issues that need fixing.  (Don't forget that Windows XP didn't become anything close to safe until after the release of SP1.)

Excuse Me ? I don't insult you by calling you names Ian. Please show me the same courtesy. You don't have to agree with me, hell, argue with me, provide some decent points and get a discussion going, but calling me a fanboy n00b? That's pretty disappointing, coming from you, someone I have until now respected.

As the project leader (even though Taylor is doing all the work these days) and also the administrator of the forums you really should hold yourself to a higher standard.

I'm putting you firmly in the camp of "I haven't tried windows vista, I don't want to hear from someone who officially beta tested the system since beta 1, and unofficially since the 36xx builds, and I would rather just persist in my belief that any newly developed work must be inherently insecure because thats the common wisdom and the way it was in the past, and I'm not changing my ways"

Windows xp sp2 as it currently exists is WAY LESS secure than vista despite the fact that even if vista contains new security issues (of perhaps, the new networking stack for example - something i see cited often but with absolutely no objective examples as to why other than "it's new, it must have problems/be buggy") then it's own technology like ASLR and UAC goes a long way to mitigating them out of the box for the vast, vast majority of users.

For one,  think of the fact you have removed a ton of code from the codebase that was written in the days well before buffer checking was in vogue, and was compiled prior to the advanced complier technology microsoft has used for vista to detect these types of issues.

I've used vista long enough "in the wild"  to know that it is more secure than windows xp sp2, and it is also a hell of a lot nicer system to use as well.

As far as arrogant attitude, well, i'm sorry if it came off that way, that wasn't my intent. But I dont' see any one else in here discussing the details of why vista is better or bringing examples as to why it is, in fact, more secure right now than xp will ever be, or vice versa, providing exact details of why it is more insecure... instead I see those that have probably never even used it, and certainly haven't proved to me that they know more about it than I do,  basically being microsoft haters and saying "it's probably full of bugs" without even giving it an objective chance.

Prove me wrong, tell me exactly which features create more issues for than xp does ? and why ? Come up with a decent argument that I cannot refute, instead of calling me names because you don't agree. The ball is in your court.

And i'm not a microsoft fanboy. I use open source software all the time at work and at home (I work with ruby on rails for example - amazing) but I also like good, commercial software solutions, and one of the happens to be Windows Vista. I also dual boot with CentOS Linux as well - good for certain things, but I prefer vista for daily desktop use, and gaming.

 
Official Taylor Fan Club Member.
Chief Grognard.
"How much code could a coder code if a coder could code code?"

 

Offline Turey

  • Installer dude
  • 211
  • The diminutive form of Turambar.
    • FreeSpace Open Installer Homepage
I dont' see any one else in here discussing the details of why vista is better or bringing examples as to why it is, in fact, more secure right now than xp will ever be, or vice versa, providing exact details of why it is more insecure...

Maybe that's because the name of the topic is "Computer voice?" not "Which is better, XP or Vista?"

If you want to get more opinions (and support for your position) on Vista vs. XP, it'd get more attention in it's own topic, instead of buried in this one.

Back on topic, I don't really notice any problems with the computer voices, mainly because I have them off most of the time.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2006, 06:48:24 pm by Turey »
Creator of the FreeSpace Open Installer.
"Calm. The ****. Down." -Taristin
why would an SCP error be considered as news? :wtf: *smacks Cobra*It's a feature.

 

Offline Goober5000

  • HLP Loremaster
  • 214
    • Goober5000 Productions
Based on Turey's astute observation and advice, I've split the offending posts and moved them to a different forum.

Excuse Me ? I don't insult you by calling you names Ian.
Hmm.  On a first name basis now, are we?

Quote
You don't have to agree with me, hell, argue with me, provide some decent points and get a discussion going, but calling me a fanboy n00b? That's pretty disappointing, coming from you, someone I have until now respected.
An insult is only insulting if it's true.  You don't have to take them personally anyway.  The hallmark of a good debate is cutting through the crap to focus on the underlying issues.

And I'm rather surprised that a single insult can overturn the respect garnered by a five-year career on HLP.  Either you held me in low regard already, or my insults are more powerful than I thought. :)

Quote
As the project leader (even though Taylor is doing all the work these days)
Co-leader, with Taylor.  I defer to Taylor on nearly all matters where we have a difference of opinions, by the way.

Quote
I'm putting you firmly in the camp of "I haven't tried windows vista, I don't want to hear from someone who officially beta tested the system since beta 1, and unofficially since the 36xx builds, and I would rather just persist in my belief that any newly developed work must be inherently insecure because thats the common wisdom and the way it was in the past, and I'm not changing my ways"

Windows xp sp2 as it currently exists is WAY LESS secure than vista despite the fact that even if vista contains new security issues (of perhaps, the new networking stack for example - something i see cited often but with absolutely no objective examples as to why other than "it's new, it must have problems/be buggy") then it's own technology like ASLR and UAC goes a long way to mitigating them out of the box for the vast, vast majority of users.
Okay, let's take these issues one at a time.

1) I'm placing you in the camp of "fanboy n00b" because it appears, from your posts, that you believe beta-testing Vista has bestowed some sort of elite status on you.  That may or not be true in your case, but in general it is quite common for members of an exclusive club to form some sort of superiority complex.

2) Your posts appeared to have an arrogant tone to them, as both Selectah and I noticed.  Whether or not you intended it this way, it detracted from your authority to speak on the subject.

3) You are trying to make the case that Windows Vista is more secure than Windows XP.  But that's not what you claimed in your earlier post: "If you want to stay with a system that has an outdated audio subsystem and paints all over its windows with ugly white redraws in the same manner as windows 95 (ie, with a desktop composition model from 10 years ago) that's fine by me. I'm firmly in the camp of 3D accelerated desktops with no redraw or sync issues."  The only thing you mentioned was graphics; and graphics are completely irrelevant to performance, stability, and reliability.  Graphics are nothing more than marketing, when you come right down to it.  A judgement of two systems based on graphics only is a very poor judgement indeed.  That more than anything else solidified your status as a fanboy n00b in my mind.

4) Any newly developed work is inherently insecure.  That's not only common wisdom, it's a well-established pattern.  Human beings aren't perfect; any brand-new system they design is bound to have bugs in them.  This happens with new developments in all fields of engineering; it's not exclusive to Microsoft.

You may not remember, but back when Windows XP first came out, people were hailing it as the most secure Windows operating system ever, the greatest single step advancement in Windows technology since Windows 95, etc.  There were Windows XP fanboys back then just as there are Windows Vista fanboys today.  And what happened?  Windows XP was revealed to be chock full of security holes.  There were people back then who were asserting that Windows 2000 was more stable and secure than Windows XP, and they were right.  I believe the people saying the same thing about Windows XP over Windows Vista will be proven right too.

Quote
I've used vista long enough "in the wild"  to know that it is more secure than windows xp sp2, and it is also a hell of a lot nicer system to use as well.
That might be the case.  But it very probably is also the case that Windows Vista has a whole bunch of security flaws that haven't even been found yet.  Again, Windows XP went through the same routine.

Quote
As far as arrogant attitude, well, i'm sorry if it came off that way, that wasn't my intent.
Okay, fair enough.  I would advise you to be more careful constructing your tone in the future, though; since at least two readers reached a conclusion you did not intend them to reach.

Quote
But I dont' see any one else in here discussing the details of why vista is better or bringing examples as to why it is, in fact, more secure right now than xp will ever be, or vice versa, providing exact details of why it is more insecure... instead I see those that have probably never even used it, and certainly haven't proved to me that they know more about it than I do,  basically being microsoft haters and saying "it's probably full of bugs" without even giving it an objective chance.

Prove me wrong, tell me exactly which features create more issues for than xp does ? and why ? Come up with a decent argument that I cannot refute, instead of calling me names because you don't agree. The ball is in your court.
I was forming a reasonable conclusion about the stability of Microsoft products, based on their long and celebrated history of falling flat on their face in that regard.  Considering that past Microsoft products ship riddled with bugs and security flaws, it is rational to expect future products to ship with the same bugs and flaws.  It would be irrational, in fact, to expect anything different.  You may be right; Vista may be the counterexample.  But the odds are against you there.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2006, 11:38:28 pm by Goober5000 »

 

Offline neoterran

  • 210
Re: Which is better, XP or Vista?
Quote
I would advise you to be more careful constructing your tone in the future, though

Fair enough. From now on instead of appearing to be arrogant I'll simply just dismiss people out of hand and call them by nasty internet slang names. It's quicker, and more effective, as you have aptly demonstrated  :blah:

I'm not trying to be a microsoft apologist but I really feel as if they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. They're criticized no matter what they do. If they don't add features to windows they get "what ? it's no different than xp". If they add features people want then it's "You copied that from apple/linux/insert pet os here"

As far as bugs are concerned I think the quality of microsoft software has been on the rise for a long time. Visual Studio is an excellent IDE, Office 2007 is much easier to use than in the past and has a pioneering interface that finally gets rid of gigantic menu substructure and Vista improves sound, graphics, networking, multitasking, memory manangement, performance, installation, and security of the Windows platform. Errors are easier on the eyes and make more sense, Explorer is much improved, the interface is vastly better, and it is easier to maintain than XP, thanks to improved admin tools like reliability monitor and the revamped event log.

Quote
The only thing you mentioned was graphics; and graphics are completely irrelevant to performance, stability, and reliability.

One thing I wanted to address specifically.  Lets look at graphics on vista. Now that the graphics driver doesn't run in the ring 0 kernel space and instead lives in userland, if the graphics card driver catches a fatal error, guess what happens ? that's right, in vista, it goes blank and immediately restarts the display with an error message. Everything is still running. What happens in XP ? Oh, BSOD. I'd say that graphics in Vista also have improved its stability, besides the eye candy.

As for security. Let's not forget that during this time security has been an evolving and changing threat and everyone has seen issues, Linux has had serious security issues, and OS X has serious security issues, despite what some may want you to think. It's just that, especially with OS X you have security through obscurity.

I think Windows was definately behind the times with "everyone runs as admin" but that's been improved in Vista with the split-token UAC elevation. Might not be as nice as *nix but definately better than XP, yet another reason to move a way from an OS that is inherently insecure by default. At least vista runs locked down from the first install.

I think Vista will do better. XP was a pretty crapily executed upgrade to windows 2000 that really was crap until SP2 actually added stuff that was vista technology (Security Center comes to mind). A lot of the problems that plagued XP  was due to how microsoft built software and that  basically came to a head with vista, which was a mess until they completely started over and rebuilt windows into several layers, a painstaking process that took a long time (why vista is so late).

Suggesting to stay with XP when you can reap the benefits of all that improvement makes  no sense to me. That's like saying, hey, stick with retail Freespace 2 - there's more untested stuff in the SCP and more bugs. Well, that might be true, but running the SCP is a HELL of alot better than running retail, despite the additional issues you might encounter as a result.

And that's all I have to say on this topic.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2006, 12:57:49 am by neoterran »
Official Taylor Fan Club Member.
Chief Grognard.
"How much code could a coder code if a coder could code code?"

 

Offline Nuke

  • Ka-Boom!
  • 212
  • Mutants Worship Me
Re: Which is better, XP or Vista?
its my experience that its better to use newer software on newer systems. the reasont being is that vista was designed with an idea of what the current state of hardware was. they had a rought idea of what kind of processor performance there would be avalable over then next several years, they had an idea of how much ram theese machines would use. they took things like 3d capabilities of modern video cards. then they designed the os accordingly.

while it is possible to run vista on older hardware considering you meet the requirements, thats not why you make a new os. you make a new os so that you can keep up with the hardware. when i build this machine i had initially decided to install windows 2000. but the results were kinda crappy. had problems with power settings, my sleep functions didnt work, i had an occasional glitch where the computer would sometimes reboot itself rather than shutting down, as if the mobo didnt know when to kill the power. minor glitches like this. i tried xp and everything worked fine. with this in mind il probibly get me a copy of vista when i build my next computer. by then it should have matured properly.+

of course xp was my favorite windows thus far (98se being a very close #2). who knows i might like vista better. il not know untill the time rolls around to start gathering computer parts. xp had its run, its now what 5 years old. in technology term,s thats ancient, and its time for something new.

*edit*
uhmm, why is this in games and gaming?
I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Nuke's Scripting SVN

 

Offline Ulala

  • 29
  • Groooove Evening, viewers!
Re: Which is better, XP or Vista?
Meh, I never had much of a problem with XP when it first came out, and I was very, very happy to switch to it from Windows ME. With Vista, I probably won't be in a such a rush to upgrade/dish out $$, but I'm still looking forward to it for various reasons.  :)
I am a revolutionary.

 

Offline Nix

  • 28
  • In the morning!
    • Minecraft
Re: Which is better, XP or Vista?
The installation process has been over-simplified IMO.  When I installed RC1, I wasn't given an oppurtunity to configure partition sizes, etc, like I can in the text-based setup of XP.  It was basically "Choose a drive" *click* "OOOKAY! Heerre we go! I'm spewing OS data now!" Very little choice over the matter.  I hope there's some way to have an advanced install, or something like that.


 

Offline neoterran

  • 210
Re: Which is better, XP or Vista?
The installation process has been over-simplified IMO.  When I installed RC1, I wasn't given an oppurtunity to configure partition sizes, etc, like I can in the text-based setup of XP.  It was basically "Choose a drive" *click* "OOOKAY! Heerre we go! I'm spewing OS data now!" Very little choice over the matter.  I hope there's some way to have an advanced install, or something like that.

You can still do all the functions you could in the previous versions, you just probably missed it - it's under show advanced options when you look at the drives. You can create, delete, resize partitions, etc. I'm talking specifically about loading from when you boot from the DVD - a clean install. 
Official Taylor Fan Club Member.
Chief Grognard.
"How much code could a coder code if a coder could code code?"

 

Offline Taristin

  • Snipes
  • 213
  • BlueScalie
    • Skelkwank Shipyards
Re: Which is better, XP or Vista?
Im siding with neoterran here, Vista is a super large jump over XP. Goober, quite frankly, you're coming off as a bandwagonner n00b by simply bashing him the way you did.
Freelance Modeler | Amateur Artist

 

Offline Unknown Target

  • Get off my lawn!
  • 212
  • Push.Pull?
Re: Which is better, XP or Vista?
I read in Maximum PC that Microsoft's new EULA says that you can only install it on ONE machine. Period. It's enforced through product activation, which means that if you upgrade your system too much, you'll need to buy a copy of Vista.

 

Offline Goober5000

  • HLP Loremaster
  • 214
    • Goober5000 Productions
Re: Which is better, XP or Vista?
Im siding with neoterran here, Vista is a super large jump over XP. Goober, quite frankly, you're coming off as a bandwagonner n00b by simply bashing him the way you did.

I actually don't particularly care whether XP is better than Vista or vice versa.  I had two points that I wanted to draw attention to: the arrogant attitude that his posts appeared to have, and the fact that he initially based his claim of Vista superiority solely on graphics.  Now that those have been brought to light and addressed, I don't have anything else to add. :)

 

Offline Turambar

  • Determined to inflict his entire social circle on us
  • 210
  • You can't spell Manslaughter without laughter
Re: Which is better, XP or Vista?
the DRM **** still worries me.

i want it gone.
10:55:48   TurambarBlade: i've been selecting my generals based on how much i like their hats
10:55:55   HerraTohtori: me too!
10:56:01   HerraTohtori: :D