vista's better than xp?

[tehsnipah]

it's definitely xp for gaming, right?  then for some reason, my friend that has vista can play same games as in xp, and a lot smoother..... can someone explain how this is possible?  most of the vista players have a choppy game play when they play games.

[blackdevil0742]

Vista just uses more of your computer hardware. So if you have a good rig then it doesn't matter what OS you have.

[Mangled*]

Vista is the worst OS for running games. It uses a lot of system resources to run and so games run slower because less memory is available to them to run on.

XP is better because it's a faster and more efficient operating system which allows you more freedom, whereas Vista is designed to prevent software piracy and ultimately sets limitations on users which may hinder whatever they use their computer for.

blackdevil: If you've got a good 'rig' then using XP will still make your games run faster than with Vista.

[tehsnipah]

well, i guess that may be in general, but is there at least one way that vista can be a better gaming computer than xp. because if there is no way, then my friend can't be having a freakin vista....

[Graham]

When RAM prices drop dramatically Vista will be fine for gaming.

[Mangled*]

When I get my new PC, I'll be getting XP for it, not Vista.

If Vista is really so good then why are hundreds of thousands of people switching back to XP or opting for XP instead?

[a-4-year-old]

When I get my new PC, I'll be getting XP for it, not Vista.

If Vista is really so good then why are hundreds of thousands of people switching back to XP or opting for XP instead?

because their printer company doesn't make vista drivers?

Microsoft isn't to blame for a lot of the problems with vista, but they certainly could have spent more time with other companies making it a smooth transition to vista.

[Veritas]

If Vista is really so good then why are hundreds of thousands of people switching back to XP or opting for XP instead?

Because people are sheep and believe everything they read on the internet without actually trying the product at hand.

[FliesLikeABrick]

When I get my new PC, I'll be getting XP for it, not Vista.

If Vista is really so good then why are hundreds of thousands of people switching back to XP or opting for XP instead?

because their printer company doesn't make vista drivers?

Microsoft isn't to blame for a lot of the problems with vista, but they certainly could have spent more time with other companies making it a smooth transition to vista.

A lot of the driver issues are certainly MS's fault.  Towards the end of Vista development, they started making changes to how Vista's driver infrastructure works, breaking a lot of drivers that had already been written for vista and making it difficult for hardware manufacturers to create working drivers in a timely fashion.

As for Vista on the whole, I stand by the fact that an operating system should not require more resources than any application that runs on it.  Vista doesn't do anything that XP can't, people have no reason to switch to Vista.

At our school, a huge number of people who get laptops with Vista end up putting XP on them. 

[a-4-year-old]

As for Vista on the whole, I stand by the fact that an operating system should not require more resources than any application that runs on it.  Vista doesn't do anything that XP can't, people have no reason to switch to Vista.

Just DX 10 support.

[8th_account]

There is really no major reason to switch to Vista. However... If you don't have cheap, horrible hardware and want some of the visual perks that Vista offers - Such as a better looking and cleaner desktop, folder view, windows and services - Then Vista isn't really a bad choise, especially since many stores sell XP and Vista machines as the same price.

My two favourite things about Vista over XP would be the removed border on the sides of Firefox, as in F11 mode, and how I can put my cursor over the down-right clock a second time and still see today's date.

[M.rSnow]

I heard that vista uses the graphics card more than Xp whitch runs on the processor. Only heard that dunno if its true.

[FliesLikeABrick]

I heard that vista uses the graphics card more than Xp whitch runs on the processor. Only heard that dunno if its true.

Any benefit from that is COMPLETELY undone by the extent to which Vista wastes your computer's resources

All of our brand new dual core laptops on campus that have Vista run much slower than 5 year old XP machines.

[Mangled*]

There is really no major reason to switch to Vista. However... If you don't have cheap, horrible hardware and want some of the visual perks that Vista offers - Such as a better looking and cleaner desktop, folder view, windows and services - Then Vista isn't really a bad choise, especially since many stores sell XP and Vista machines as the same price.*

My two favourite things about Vista over XP would be the removed border on the sides of Firefox, as in F11 mode, and how I can put my cursor over the down-right clock a second time and still see today's date.**

* That's true... but that also means with XP you get more out of your hardwear for the same price. You get more compatibility for the same price. You get a faster system for the same price. You don't have all the piracy restrictions of Vista (not that that should make any difference)

** XP also does this. Although I admit it's merely an ugly yellow rollover box.

[mar77a]

Vista is fine if you have enough RAM.

4GB or more if you want to do the same you did with XP.

[8th_account]

** XP also does this. Although I admit it's merely an ugly yellow rollover box.

I think you misunderstood. Though it may just be a problem on my country's L10n of XP, the mouseover date only works once every hour or so.

[Hair|Trigger]

In my opinion XP and vista are pretty fairly matched.  I just hate people who dislike vista merely because all their friends tell them it's crap.  And they go making up stupid reasons to prove it.  XP may use less resource, but it's not suitable for some instances where you want quicker access to files etc.  And Vista supports DX10, whereas XP supports DX9, go figure.  The problem in the first place is Microsoft, THEY are crap.  

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

* That's true... but that also means with XP you get more out of your hardwear for the same price. You get more compatibility for the same price. You get a faster system for the same price. You don't have all the piracy restrictions of Vista (not that that should make any difference)

The same was true when shifting from Windows 98 to XP.  XP took up more resources and wasn't as compatible.  Then, the default hardware improved and drivers were programmed, and people switched to it.  Just give Vista time.  Of course a new operating system isn't going to work as well as a well-established one.  Why should it?

[Mangled*]

Yeah but it's not the same kind of difference is it.... The bulk of Vistas resource whoring just goes into fannying about with pretty graphical effects rather than actually contributing to the physical interfacing of the system.

Honestly... Microsoft could have saved so much bother for everyone involved if they just packed XP together with all its service packs, thown in some new features and graphical effects for the pansy crowd and whoop-de-do there you would have a decent operating system.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Yeah but it's not the same kind of difference is it.... The bulk of Vistas resource whoring just goes into fannying about with pretty graphical effects rather than actually contributing to the physical interfacing of the system.

Except Vista uses the GPU for the interface, unlike Windows which uses the CPU.  It's actually much more efficient that way.  The resources (I assume you mean RAM) are used to cache programs for quick loading, so yeah, it'll take up a lot of space.  However, when you need RAM for a game or something, it'll clear the program cache as needed, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Just take a look at the Wikipedia article for Vista.  There's a TON of new features, as well as architectural changes that aren't immediately visible to the average user.  It's not a bad OS by any means, just an immature one.