Editing OS: Windows XP vs Windows Vista

[Jon McGuffin]

Originally Posted by Jeff Mack

OK, I calmed down a lot overnight. What I am more frustrated over right now is the control Vista seems to take over my machine. Call me paranoid but I think MS has developed a system to secretly control our machines by FORCING us to use their browser, email programs etc. I think it's a conspiracy! BTW, MS took XP Pro 64 bit off the shelves so they can force us to use Vista and btw, why didn't they install a 64 bit version on a 64 bit machine?

George is getting upset!

Well Jeff...

Firefox browser should run and operate just fine on Vista so I'm not too sure your conspiracy theory here is going to hold up. Let's remember, most of what is a pain in the a** with Vista is the attempts Microsoft has made to try and make the operating system safe from the real enemy, the malware, spyware, and virus creators out there.

They probably took XP 64-bit off the shelves because, frankly, it was more problematic for the general public than Vista. Unlike the post a few up from this one where the user was clearly educated and understood what it meant to install a 64-bit OS, the general public has absolutely no clue. The support calls and refund demands must have been through the roof on this OS. They're thinking was probably "Hey, if we're going to offer a 64-bit OS, let's stick to one version and, of course, it might as well be the new one for the future"

Like I said before, I think the error in Microsofts ways was trying to develop an operating system that would work and be compatable with the existing user base to replace Windows XP. I don't know if many of you remember back when WindowsNT was released, but the very definition of that operating system was NT "New Technology" and it was dramatically different than Windows 3.1. It would work on the same hardware, but you definately had to have specific drivers for it and certainly not all applications ran on this OS. NT is still the underlying basis for Windows 2000 (the OS I happen to be running right now on this machine) and Windows XP. Supporting the masses with an existing OS that is mature and reliable while creating a new technology product while not having to make backward compatabity a necessity I think is in the best interest of all.

Jon

[Jeff Mack]

You really know how to ruin a perfectly good Vista Bashing argument!

Thanks for your levelheadedness.

Jeff

[Brian Boyko]

I actually used Windows Vista for 30 days as part of a computer review article called "30 Days with Windows Vista."

I'll sum up the article for you: The thing crashed on me. Frequently. I lost data.


There is no way I'd ever use it as an editing machine.

[Rob Gregory-Browne]

Here's the thing: Vista blows.

I used it as long as I could stand it then fled back to the world of XP and couldn't be happier -- and I deal with computers day in and day out, including Linux, Mac, XP and Vista.

Vista is the only one I'd like to avoid ever using again.

[Shawn McCalip]

Tons of people reacted in a similar manner when Windows 95 was released and started taking over those the users of Version 3.11. You needed a strong machine to not only run Windows 95, but the vast majority of software from 3.11 and earlier didn't work- or didn't work without producing a lot of headaches. Then, the same thing happened when XP came out to replace Win98 and the horrific Windows ME. Personally, I think it's called progress! Of course, it's always at least a little difficult to switch over to a new system. There is the issue of an unfamiliar system that you have to re-learn to a degree, and then there is the huge issue of all the third party hardware and software developers that now must create new bits of code and drivers to get their new and existing hardware to play nice with the new kid in town.

My experience with Vista is limited, but it's growing, and all this talk of crashing makes me wonder just what kind of systems are creating all this trouble. Currently, I'm running Vista Ultimate 64-bit on Core2 Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and a QuadroFX 2500m. This machine runs far better NOW than it did 2 months ago with Windows XP.

On the other hand, I have a relative who is running Vista Home Basic on a Celeron chip with integrated graphics and only 512MB of RAM. That machine is more bothersome to work with. It's very slow to respond, has virtually no multi-tasking capabilities, and takes forever to do even simple tasks like email, word-processing, and web surfing. If that machine was my only experience with Vista, I assure you that I would hate it too! But, like I said in a previous post, that's what happens when you cut corners and buy the $499 special at the local computer outlet. Vista is more robust and requires more resources than XP. You need to have to proper equipment, or else you'll run into trouble and frustration.

Another point to consider is the method of installation. I know of several instances where people had a horrible time running an upgrade disk that installed Vista "over" their copy of XP. I remember that same thing happening with some people upgrading to XP from Win98 or WinME. I think the sad fact of the matter here is that you need to start off with a fresh install of Vista. That means forking over for a new hard or formatting your existing one. Also, have your drivers ready! Before you start upgrading, compile a list of your internal hardware like video card, sound card, wireless, LAN, etc. Go to the websites of the companies that manufactured those components, and look up and download the Vista drivers. Don't install them- just save them all to a thumb drive or burn them to a CD/DVD. One thing I have learned is that Vista isn't very good at recognizing some existing hardware. You'll be looking an 800X600 screen in 8-bit color when you're finished installing, and if you want to get your system running at it's full potential, you'll need to install all or most of those drivers manually.

Speaking of software, many older titles simply won't run on Vista. Yeah, I think that stinks to a degree, but I can't imagine how much MORE space and resources Vista would take up if it was more backwards compatible- not to mention how much more buggy it could've been! Another thing is dependent on what flavor or Vista you're running on. Here at work we've run into a few situations where software has been updated or patched to work with Vista- but ONLY Vista Ultimate. Some of this stuff just plain ol' refuses to run under any other version of Vista.

Before long, everyone will eventually have to upgrade. Third party businesses are working to make their products more capable and friendly to Vista, and that's where the money is going. Do I think Vista needs some work? Yes. I also think Microsoft would've found it in their better interests to let more 3rd party developers in on the whole Vista scene earlier so there wouldn't be this 1-year lag or gap in the pool of compatible drivers and software. I also don't like the selection of Vista Versions. Why not just release ONE title that can do it all? All the other things I can complain about are minor little things that were put in to make your machine more "idiot proof". I've figured out how to turn that stuff off, so now there's no problem with those anymore.

Just my two cents...

[Jon McGuffin]

So, considering Vista is so much more "robust" than XP... can somebody please explain exactly what it actually *does* for me that Windows XP doesn't already?

Jon

[Daniel Ross]

Making something worse until it catches on isn't really progress.


Vista is ME all over again.

Unfortunate to need to pick an OS right now.

XP can't be the answer, because that would be going backward and getting stuck. But Vista is so bad in so many ways, and even if in some bizarre way you like it, it just isn't ready yet-- compatibility, stability, etc.

For now, stick with XP, but be wary of getting stuck there. Though it may be better than Vista, microsoft is pushing the update, so you'll be stuck soon-- unfortunate as it is.

Longhorn is coming... sometime... will it be another mess, or will it be to Vista that XP was to ME? And, of course, the fundamental question, will microsoft actually recode the whole thing this time? Or, better yet, will they at least just not recode the whole thing, quit pretending they did, and just fix the security flaws? We shall see.


Then again, I must say I prefer Windows 2000 over the other OSs. 98 was alright, but always crashed. BSOD ftw! Heh. 2000 was a nice upgrade; stable, simple... no complaints. But then the time for XP came when 2000 was just too old. And of course I skipped right past ME. XP is ok, though I don't like the new graphics; I always use it in classic mode-- no idea why vista is so ugly now... I'd be going back to "classic xp" mode, or whatever they call it, only to have an operating system slightly uglier than what I want. Yeah...
And, of course, if you WANT the graphics they are trying to emulate-- just get the real thing, OSX. If not, enjoy windows, but don't play with the silly rolodex window shuffler.


Anyway, off topic. But, hey, if we're discussing the operating systems in detail, might as well say it.


So, as for the specific question here, stick with XP for now, if possible, and move up to Vista once you must-- AND follow and important rule-- don't be a beta tester for Microsoft. They always just dump software on the public to see what bugs exist. Windows with no Service Packs is all but a beta version.

[Rob Gregory-Browne]

Vista LOOKS nice. That's about it as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, of course, there is always a burn-in period for any new application or OS, but as Daniel said, Vista is ME all over again.

One tech guru went so far as to publish an article telling Microsoft to drop Vista and go back to XP:

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9785337-7.html

One of the problems with Vista is that it's so full of security and DRM schemes that is causes more trouble than it's worth. Windows has fallen in bed with the content providers to help them protect their content -- which is their right -- but at the expense of the user? A simple login has turned into a major annoyance.

Not good. Not good at all.

P.S. If I upgrade, it may well be to OSX.

[John Miller]

Look pretty?!!

Right now, probably not very much. There are new features under the hood that aren't being exploited. However, new applications will eventually be released that leverage these new features, making them Vista-only (or Windows 7, depending of the timing).

This is typical when something new comes along whether hardware or software. e.g., when Windows was first launch, most applications were DOS - Windows seemed unnecessary. When Win95 came along, there were virtually no 32-bit applications and most hardware was 16-bit (e.g., my now laughable Orchid Videola capture card!) The switch from the consumer line to the NT line (mainly XP for most) meant few hardware drivers. With DirectX, it took a while for software to make use of it. The introduction of FireWire required new NLEs. In spite of multiprocessor support for years with NT, it is only now that applications are making use of it. Vista is the first 64-bit Windows available as retail. Right now, there's precious little point to it because very few 64-bits apps exist. That will change since MS have made it much easier for developers to create 32- and 64-bit versions of the same product.

BTW, I don't understand the frequent crashing mentioned in this thread. I've been using Vista for almost a year and have had one crash - by that I mean a BSOD. No hangs etc. That's the only type of OS crash. Frequent BSOD crashes are symptomatic of either ailing hardware, overheated hardware, hardware not designed for Vista or bad drivers. The latter can mean using beta drivers or drivers explicitly not designed for Vista. The most troublesome are video and audio. Even having a legacy audio card in the computer can cause BSODs whether or not any drivers are installed (this was the one BSOD I had and out came the card). You should check the hardware vendors' websites frequently to ensure that the latest drivers are being used. If apps are crashing, the most probable causes are either sloppy programming or programs that assume a particular OS version. There are many that incorrectly assume that the highest version is XP. I've rarely had any application crash either. Those that do are usually my own creations that are still in an early stage of development(!)

[Rob Gregory-Browne]

Yeah, I actually think it looks pretty.

And we got the same song and dance about ME when it first came out about growing pains and applications and drivers catching up, etc., etc. and ME turned out to be a disaster.

So I think I'll be jumping over Vista to the next OS system (as I did from 98 to XP), whatever that might be called. Apparently, most of the world is doing the same thing.

[Shawn McCalip]

Originally Posted by Jon McGuffin

So, considering Vista is so much more "robust" than XP... can somebody please explain exactly what it actually *does* for me that Windows XP doesn't already?

Jon

What are you trying to get out of it? What does XP do for you that Win 98 couldn't?

I needed 64-bit support. Vista did that for me, and provided higher performance. Windows XP X64 was not only difficult to find, but drivers are much harder to come across as opposed to Vista.

Vista provides DirectX 10 support for those that need it or want it. You personally might not have a need for it, but I can almost guarantee that the next big release of video cards will support it.

Vista adds more built-in protection. Granted, this may seem trivial and downright useless for more advanced users, but you'd be surprised at just how many people out there are completely clueless when it comes to the functionality and safety/defense of their system. All these complaints about the system asking you permission 3 times before opening a folder/file- You can turn that off. I think some responsibility lies with the end user to learn as many details as they can before they start messing around with their own stuff.

Vista has more sparkly bells and whistles. Once again, things like this don't mean a lot to me, and they probably don't mean a lot to you- but the overall look is more refined and pleasing to the eye.

As far as inner-guts nuts-and-bolts types of advantages, I couldn't tell you. I'm not a code-monkey or anything like that.

I'm not trying to be a Vista fan-boy, but it seems like Microsoft is only taking the next step. We'll see how much things will change over the next 3 years when Vista becomes the norm...

[Jon McGuffin]

Originally Posted by Shawn McCalip

What are you trying to get out of it? What does XP do for you that Win 98 couldn't?

I needed 64-bit support. Vista did that for me, and provided higher performance. Windows XP X64 was not only difficult to find, but drivers are much harder to come across as opposed to Vista.

Vista provides DirectX 10 support for those that need it or want it. You personally might not have a need for it, but I can almost guarantee that the next big release of video cards will support it.

Vista adds more built-in protection. Granted, this may seem trivial and downright useless for more advanced users, but you'd be surprised at just how many people out there are completely clueless when it comes to the functionality and safety/defense of their system. All these complaints about the system asking you permission 3 times before opening a folder/file- You can turn that off. I think some responsibility lies with the end user to learn as many details as they can before they start messing around with their own stuff.

Vista has more sparkly bells and whistles. Once again, things like this don't mean a lot to me, and they probably don't mean a lot to you- but the overall look is more refined and pleasing to the eye.

As far as inner-guts nuts-and-bolts types of advantages, I couldn't tell you. I'm not a code-monkey or anything like that.

I'm not trying to be a Vista fan-boy, but it seems like Microsoft is only taking the next step. We'll see how much things will change over the next 3 years when Vista becomes the norm...

Let me just clarify a few things here..

#1) Vista is does not just "add" 64-bit support. You still have to buy the 64-bit version of Vista to get 64-bit support and you are now in the same exact bandwagon with Vista 64 as you were with Xp 64. Drivers are still hard to come by, etc.

#2) There are DirectX10 graphics boards (Nvidia 8000 series, AMD 2000 series), and they've been working find under Windows XP for some time now..

#3) It would seem that the built in protection is the single largest seperating factor between Windows XP and Windows Vista. The irony in this is that now that Vista is out, you can bet that the hacker community is going to focus more effort on bringing Vista down than any other OS. What that means is if you really want a "secure" PC, you're probably better off actually using an OS other than Vista. Look at what the MAC people have enjoyed over the years, far less suseptability and vulnerability largly due to their OS only have 5% of the marketshare. Windows XP will probably become even more "secure" as time moves on.

I'd argue that Microsoft is NOT taking the right step by releasing an operating system that doesn't add much more than a better visual appearance yet requires a MUCH more powerfull computer to operate as fast as the previous OS? It would be one thing to require faster GPU to render the more "visually improved" new OS, but what is the explanation on why performance across the board for ALL my applications is still down 5-10% using the same hardware on this new OS?

It's a shame I'm in this position really of giving Vista such a hard time.. the reality is that I actually like Microsoft and the products they produce. I've had a history of being an early adopter of their technology. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that Vista is so bad that it's the new "Windows ME" but it's clearly not up to par..

Jon

[Shawn McCalip]

Originally Posted by Jon McGuffin

Let me just clarify a few things here..

#1) Vista is does not just "add" 64-bit support. You still have to buy the 64-bit version of Vista to get 64-bit support and you are now in the same exact bandwagon with Vista 64 as you were with Xp 64. Drivers are still hard to come by, etc.

#2) There are DirectX10 graphics boards (Nvidia 8000 series, AMD 2000 series), and they've been working find under Windows XP for some time now..

#3) It would seem that the built in protection is the single largest seperating factor between Windows XP and Windows Vista. The irony in this is that now that Vista is out, you can bet that the hacker community is going to focus more effort on bringing Vista down than any other OS. What that means is if you really want a "secure" PC, you're probably better off actually using an OS other than Vista. Look at what the MAC people have enjoyed over the years, far less suseptability and vulnerability largly due to their OS only have 5% of the marketshare. Windows XP will probably become even more "secure" as time moves on.

1) If you purchase the boxed package of Vista Ultimate, it comes with a 32-bit disc and a separate 64-bit disc. So, as long as you're running with a Core2 chip or similar 64-bit capable processor, you have a 64-bit system when you install the appropriate version of Vista. The discs are clearly marked. Also, I had a much easier time finding drivers for Vista 64-bit compared to XP x64. Lots of driver developers will have a separate tab or option for Vista 64, but Windows XP is just Windows XP, which I take to mean 32-bit. I will somewhat agree that certain drivers may still be hard to find, but I found all the drivers I needed within about 10 minutes a couple months back when I upgraded.

2) DirectX 10 cards such as Nvidia's 8X00 series will work just fine under XP (The argument that they couldn't was never brought up)- in DirectX 9.0c. DirectX 10 is not supported in Windows XP and never will be. Something to do with new code in the drivers and Shader 4.0 support. There WILL be an update to DirectX9, called DirectX 9.0Ex, which will help Vista machines running non-DX10 cards perform a little better. However, XP will not be getting any more updates for DirectX- unless there's a link somewhere explaining otherwise.

3) I agree with you here-but it's kind of a catch-22. Of course Mac users have enjoyed their position of being able to gloat about not being attacked by hackers... you said it yourself- They have what, about 5% of the market? I'm sure we'd be here discussing the same problems for Macs if they dominated the home computer market. That kind of boasting is on par with saying that travel by horse is so much safer than travel by car- since way more people drive cars and not horses, a lot more people get into car accidents instead of horse accidents, therefore people that ride horses don't have to worry about getting into an accident. Wait... it kind of makes my head hurt.

The way I see it, Microsoft is merely responding to the market. When the market has so many casual users and laymen (for lack of a better term) interacting with its product, they're naturally going to get all sorts of complaints and calls about how their system is "stupid" or not user-friendly because they just wiped out their program file directory or whatever random bone-headed thing people do to their computers that I sometimes get to try and fix. A more intermediate or advanced user would know not to go randomly deleting things in certain directories, but people like us that know what we're doing are in a rather small minority. So when the market collectively cries out "You should help us not do stupid things to our computers!", Microsoft responded by putting in features that you or I find intrusive and annoying. If anything, I find it sad and disheartening that so many people out there feel they need someone to protect them from themselves.

As far as the reduced performance, I'm not sure what exactly you're doing, but like I said, I noticed what seems to feel like a performance GAIN. Besides, I don't see why a small reduction in performance is so surprising or frowned upon. I can't think of one software title, be it Video editing package, 3d modeling app, or First-person shooter game where a new version was released that performed just as well on the same equipment. Each new release is more demanding and more resource intensive than the last. One old Pentium III workstation here at the office had Premiere 6.5 installed, and it ran just fine. Then, we upgraded to Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5, and now the thing crawls. It's almost impossible to accomplish anything on that machine anymore. So why didn't Adobe just make Premiere Pro to perform on an old machine? Why can't I run 3ds Max 9 on my old Pentium 2 with a 16MB Voodoo FX Graphics card? The new software being developed will always try to take as much advantage of the hardware as possible. That's why we keep getting more storage, more memory, and better processors, and that's why software today can do things it couldn't do years ago. 15 years ago, real-time previewing of something as simple as a dissolve seemed far-fetched. Now, its something that most of us take for granted. So, I really don't understand what all the hullabaloo is about.

[Rob Gregory-Browne]

"The way I see it, Microsoft is merely responding to the market."

Frankly, I think Microsoft is trying to CREATE the market and it isn't working. More and more businesses and government institutions are turning to Linux solutions and, from what I've heard, Vista is not selling all that well.

Microsoft may well have moved to improve on XP, and have apparently addressed several security concerns, particularly with IE7, but they've also crippled the product by introducing DRM schemes in some misguided attempt to help content makers at the expense of consumers.

There was a time when Macs were considered must-haves for those of us doing graphics, audio and video work. That changed over the years with XP. But I have a feeling a lot of people will be jumping ship again and heading back to the Mac.

And at the risk of having to eat my words, I predict that Vista will NOT be the norm in three years.

[John Miller]

Originally Posted by Rob Gregory-Browne

More and more businesses and government institutions are turning to Linux solutions and, from what I've heard, Vista is not selling all that well.

Much of the switch to Linux in those markets is from Unix-based servers, not Windows desktops. Few large companies and institutions would switch their entire desktop inventory from Windows to Linux - it would be prohibitively expensive to undertake/manage and to train all the employees in the new productivity applications.

The Linux market share is still very small (<5% as a generous estimate) and will do little to dent Microsoft's dominance.

I expect many corporations will skip Vista and go from XP to Windows 7 unless their upgrade cycles fall short of the estimated 2010 release. This was true with NT4.0 and Win2K - i.e., straight to XP in many cases.

FWIW, the Vista = Me (lowercase e) analogy is silly.