I actually like Vista now

Posted on 5/19/2008 @ 10:23 AM in #Non Techie by | Feedback | 65811 views

After having used Vista for a while now, I actually now like it better than XP.

Here are the things I did to make Vista suit me -

  • Install SP1
  • Turn off UAC - run secpol.msc, and under local policies\security options\ turn the UAC setting to "Elevate without prompting".
  • For development Virtualize - as much as you can. Treat your host OS like production.
  • I setup my quicklaunch a bit like this -


  • Turn off Windows Security Center (It is a service set to run as a delayed start). I call this the "I'm not an idiot mode".
  • Anything that needs admin rights to run, create a shortcut for it, right click properties -> advanced -> check the "Run as adminstrator" checkbox. I usually also create a shortcut on my quicklaunch - example VMware.
  • Don't use screensavers - instead use the power options to turn the monitor off. Vista screensavers, albeit pretty, are very horsepower intensive.

And here are the reasons I like vista better than XP -

  • The start button search is priceless.
  • The Aero UI is actually nice.
  • Flip 3d is nice.
  • The OS is more responsive, less hangy.
  • The window edges are thicker, so they are easier to resize.
  • Videos and pictures show thumbnails, and they zoom in and out using your mouse wheel - even on the desktop.
  • Metadata/tagging makes it easier to find my stuff, so does search.
  • Drivers are never a problem (for me atleast). Install Vista, hit update - and everything just works. (I use Vista 32 bit).
  • Most of all - zero virus infections over the past year. I hate virus scanning software, so an OS that makes virus scanning software obsolete, I'm all over that.

Sound off but keep it civil:

Older comments..


On 5/19/2008 12:39:08 PM John Manning said ..
I would give x64 Windows Server 2008 a try using it as a workstation, much much better than Vista and you can get full 4GB RAM. Ace!


On 5/19/2008 1:51:43 PM Sahil Malik said ..
John - Aren't Vista and Win2k8 basically the same?


I haven't taken the 64 bit plunge yet due to application and driver incompatibilities.

Maybe I'll do 64 on a mac :P

SM


On 5/19/2008 2:44:52 PM Mark said ..
I'd have to agree that Vista is far superior to XP, and I thought that well before SP1. I guess I just never ran into all of the issues with Vista that some have experienced, and I've been using it since Beta 1.

Funny thing is, though, I recently experimented with OS X (on a hackintosh, naturally, specifically OS X 10.5.2 on my Dell XPS 420 at home), and ended up buying a Macbook Pro. I run Vista and XP both in VMWare Fusion, and by golly, if it weren't for gaming, I'd never fire up Vista (natively) again outside of work. OS X is just a different level of elegance and cohesion compare to Vista.

Note that this isn't a knock against Vista. Simply put, I couldn't do my day job nearly as well without Office 2007, Vista, and SharePoint, which is where Microsoft has done such a great job. They really do offer tremendous value when it comes to collaboration in the workplace. Apple just doesn't have anything to offer here.

In fact, the worst thing Microsoft could do (or, that Apple could do to Microsoft) would be to add better support for SharePoint into OS X and the Mac version of Office...


On 5/19/2008 3:52:08 PM Granville Barnett said ..
I've been using Vista x64 since early internal releases and I've never had any driver issues. All machines have been Dell ones, Vista seems to of given from the off ok drivers but now the manufacturers seem to be doing x64 and x86 drivers.

Give it a go!


On 5/19/2008 8:57:58 PM Sahil Malik said ..
Mark -

I am thinking of getting myself a MBP if they release it with 8GB RAM this june. Fingers crossed! :)

SM


On 5/19/2008 8:58:34 PM Sahil Malik said ..
Granville -

It's a huge risk man! And if I was to repave, I'd go W2k8.

SM


On 5/20/2008 12:12:14 AM Brad Saide said ..
I have 2 machines running at home on Vista x64 and 2 machines running 2008 x64 (all physical machines) - the only driver problem I've had is with media center. Oh how I wish MS would release instructions that say:


This is how you install the XviD codecs when using Media Center.

Then I would be truly happy and the missus would be off my back :)


On 9/1/2008 12:27:41 PM James G. said ..
* The start button search is priceless.

Are you kidding me? this is the cheapest thing that microsoft has made yet! Taking clues from Google by indexing your entire drive... hmmm. Priceless but stolen ideas.

* The Aero UI is actually nice.

No, Aero is horrible, and unless you have an expensive video card, you'll never get to enjoy Aero at it's full capability. Don't worry, that emachine you bought for 299 won't make it work well.

* Flip 3d is nice.

"LOL Wut?" The best things for vista over XP is the flashy junk? what about actual usage???

* The OS is more responsive, less hangy.

Ok, what kind of system do you have vista on? specs? You know I'll guarantee that Ubuntu (Debian Linux) will run more responsive, and is less "hangy" than vista, and will run on less hardware.

* The window edges are thicker, so they are easier to resize.

Again, back to style? Thats the best things that vista is better than XP?

* Videos and pictures show thumbnails, and they zoom in and out using your mouse wheel - even on the desktop.

Ok? Let's get back to work? instead of playing with videos and pictures on our desktop, and flashy things for fun?

* Metadata/tagging makes it easier to find my stuff, so does search.

All linux systems have been doing this for quite a long time.

* Drivers are never a problem (for me atleast). Install Vista, hit update - and everything just works. (I use Vista 32 bit).

Unlike most people, you're lucky you don't have problems with drivers for Vista, what about drivers for 64bit vista... but you chose a system that fully supported vista, so what does it matter, this is a pointless statement, you went for proprietary hardware to intentionally work with vista.

* Most of all - zero virus infections over the past year. I hate virus scanning software, so an OS that makes virus scanning software obsolete, I'm all over that.

Linux has been that way for about a decade, why is this new to windows??? Oh, and no don't think that vista is immune to viruses, like Linux is... You have just made a completely false statement. Because you know what to look for in signs of what a virus may be or do, doesn't mean it's an OS that makes virus scanning obsolete. Please re-think your statement here. There are too many times people have gotten viruses on vista.

Oh yeah, I am an IT professional, I know, I've seen it all. yes, I've seen viruses on vista.


On 9/1/2008 5:02:07 PM Sahil Malik said ..
I sense a left wing leather pantie linux hippie


On 9/1/2008 5:53:28 PM mike said ..
Windows vista looks nice in my opinion, but linux is way better, there is more freedom.


On 9/1/2008 6:11:52 PM tom said ..
I have it all too:


indexed search... transparent gui... nice flip/cube effects.... responsive,less hangy os... thick window edges for easy resize..... video and picture thumbnails (and audio, when i hoover over an mp3, it plays a piece).... again indexed search.... drivers out of the box.... and no virusses....


All on a P4 1,2Mhz 512Mb with 64Mb videocard......


All thanks to my leather panties :P


On 9/1/2008 7:15:18 PM Kilroy said ..
You are one crazy person, "James".

Yes, Vista is Windows. For you, being a crazy Linux geek, you probably assume it's going to be as bad as ME or something.

Vista is a solid OS, and most Linux distros are great too.

Also, Linux isn't immune, at all. Just because YOU haven't had it happen to you doesn't mean it HAS happened.


On 9/1/2008 8:14:18 PM TurboFool said ..
I agree wholeheartedly. I've actually been using Vista exclusively since a few days before its launch on my home computer, and my wife's computer shipped with it, and I installed it on my work notebook. I've been extremely happy with it and its new functionality is great.

As for James G's rant (I skimmed because it was tired arguments), since when is the fact that the feature has already existed elsewhere a point against it? How does that make it any less useful? Google already did instant search, Linux has had tagging for years, yadda, yadda, yadda. All I care is that now Windows, my primary platform, has these features that I like and they work reliably. Oh, and I have to agree on drivers. Vista does a drastically better job finding its own drivers than XP did, including 64-bit. And you want to talk about work instead of flashy fun things (assuming those aren't related to your work)? Find me any major business running Linux before you start talking about Linux being better for business. Windows still rules the business world, and Vista will eventually overtake XP just like XP did to 2000 (which all the IT professionals were claiming it never would as XP was nothing but unnecessary flash with no useful improvements).

Vista's here to stay, and it's great. Perfect? No. But the best version of Windows so far.


On 9/1/2008 8:22:03 PM DG said ..
Linux is NOT immune to viruses...as it isn't *or wasn't, years ago* a major player in the OS department, there was no point in making viruses for it. Some people confuse this with security. I'll agree tho...most of the points in the article are based around window dressing, and have no basis for comparison with other windows versions, or different OS's period. Like Linux, which I think is way more stable :D


On 9/1/2008 9:00:15 PM Steve said ..
OMG! i love it when a linux person starts posting his opinions about Windows based machines. Also please use spacing in your comments, otherwise its hard to see whats being said.

About Vista seeming immune to viruses, he didnt say they were immune just not many made, and you make it seem Linux is immune to viruses? newsflash, its not, people make viruses for Windows due to that OS being the most dominant, thus making the virus spread easier.

For you being an "IT Professional" you should realise that there is a difference between Windows and Linux so please, stop being an Oxi Moron and just stay off places like this.

As for the post i totally agree. I am using Vista 64 Bit and i am having no problems, all the drivers are working correctly and all my software is also working.

Thats a good post for new Vista users, i hope it gets seen :)


On 9/1/2008 9:04:01 PM Paul Lee said ..
Hey James,

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for Linux, you're giving us Linux lovers a bad rap.

Linux lovers are golden, Linux fanboys are shit


On 9/1/2008 9:43:47 PM William Wilgus said ..
Yeah, but Photoshop CS won't run properly on Vista, and neither will a lot of other programs. I down-graded my new notebook to XP, and XP is on my other 'puters.


On 9/1/2008 9:48:42 PM Ruff said ..
If You really believe that Windows Vista liberates you from having to install an Antivirus software, you're very misguided.


On 9/1/2008 9:54:03 PM repairman jack said ..
Let me suggest that you stop drinking heavily and doing serious drugs before posting something that says Vista (the ME operating system of the 2000.s) is any way superior to XP. It is the slowest, biggest memory-hog operating system since ME. It is apparent Microsoft brought it to the marketplace to try to recover some of its investment in this POS.


On 9/1/2008 9:57:28 PM Dave said ..
" I would give x64 Windows Server 2008 a try using it as a workstation, much much better than Vista and you can get full 4GB RAM. Ace! "... - quoted in 2008.

" I would give (32-bit) Windows NT 3.5.1 server a try using it as a workstation, much much better than Windows 95 and you get drivers loaded high!" ... me - 1995.

Irony?


On 9/1/2008 10:13:00 PM anon said ..
stolen ideas? sound like they took a clue from one of the most successful search engine companies on the planet... sounds smart to me.. and you just sound cynical


On 9/2/2008 12:09:44 AM Marius said ..
Vista is now the prime target for virus writers now that XP is no longer sold and Micro$oft is forcing us to switch. That you have not been infected without presumably running a realtime scanner is dumb luck at best. Get yourself something free like AVG before your luck runs out. As for Vista's stability, I will personally vouch for this failure by stating that NONE of my pre-Vista programs would run stable on Vista, and that Vista blue screened on me repeatedly before I ripped it out and put back XP. This was with current Vista drivers for all my hardware, including the cut-down sound driver from Creative (that's another post altogether). If I ever pay another dime to Micro$oft for anything, someone throw a brick at me...


On 9/2/2008 12:21:42 AM sean said ..
haha you guys are dumb. Just use a mac!!!!


On 9/2/2008 1:13:08 AM bob said ..
I would never buy a mac not worth the money also it doesn't have hardly any games. All Windows get virus,it's because your running in root the whole time. linux can get viruses but it's exceptionally hard to make them, windows is easier to hack anyway.


Overall I enjoy gaming on windows, and linux runs great on old pc and new. Even tho apple users are a wired bunch of people, but a guy (Steve Jobs) who told everyone if you mess with your Iphone I will throw the KILL switch and give you an Ibrick. IF you don't believe me look it up yourself, I will NEVER but anything form someone who has a kill switch to anything I PURCHASED, if he doesn't like the way I use it. I

p.s. I work in the pc field, so I've meet a lot of people


On 9/2/2008 9:27:17 AM Darren said ..
The most ill-informed post I've seen in a long time. Vista sucks, deal with it. It's a pig with lipstick, XP with a conservatory on the back. XP is better for getting stuff done, and Linux is better, as is Mac OS. Microsoft are a directionless mess, and need to be put out of our misery, or shape up.


On 9/2/2008 10:46:16 AM getReal said ..
Anyone who thinks that vista is better than XP doesn't know very much about software and computers in general. I'm using vista on my work computerS for almost 2 years and I tell you: it's BAD.


On 9/2/2008 11:17:07 AM Dan said ..
Vista came with my new system and thus far I have only two complaints (I am sure more will come later after more use); 1. explorer hangs when loading new programs and has to be restarted, 2. "had" a 2Wire USB NIC to use with my AT&T wireless connection (came with U-verse package) and it caused Vista to Blue screen on reboot or shut down; so I bought a Vista compatible wireless NIC to resolve that problem. All other programs that I had running on XP for the last 6 years work fine on Vista. Like any new OS there features you have to get use to or change, but overall it seems to be running fine. Instead of being afraid of a new OS, I embraced the change and look forward to a new challenge. If I wanted something made for children, I would have gotten a MAC.


On 9/2/2008 11:26:00 AM Dave said ..
I am running Vista Ultimate x64, and I can say that I have had no real issues with compatibility or drivers. It seems that anything that needs to run as x86 does, and there were x64 drivers for all of my hardware. I had to go x64 as I am running 4gb of RAM along with 2x 9800GX2's, so the memory address limit on x86 was a problem for me.


On 9/2/2008 5:11:49 PM Bit101 said ..
"haha you guys are dumb. Just use a mac!!!! "


No. You're just stupid. Honestly, I've used Macs before. They're fine for my Mother and that's about it. Now, on to the main topic.


I use Windows Vista 32-bit on a Dell XPS 410 and it is one of the most annoying operating systems of my life. And I know annoying. I used Windows ME from 2000 till 2006. I never ONCE had to reinstall ME. Vista? This is my third install. I also support Linux entirely and installed VectorLinux dual booting on my (former ME now XP)secondary computer. I love Linux and would much rather have it on my Vista if not for the fact my parents wouldn't let me. But, unlike Mr. John here, I admit Linux has many flaws. I spent a week straight getting Linux to work with my system. Even Vista didn't take THAT long to fix (though usually none of the repair options worked and I just reinstalled).


...


Shoot, I've run out of steam. I guess John just pissed me off and I had to at least make my opinion somewhat heard. On one final note:


"Linux is NOT immune to viruses...as it isn't *or wasn't, years ago* a major player in the OS department, there was no point in making viruses for it. Some people confuse this with security. I'll agree tho...most of the points in the article are based around window dressing, and have no basis for comparison with other windows versions, or different OS's period. Like Linux, which I think is way more stable :D"


Although that is technically true about viruses, Linux and *nix systems in general are more resistant to viruses due to their file system and security system. Though the lack of popularity helps :) I also agree with the article observation.


(for the record, I'm 13)


On 9/2/2008 5:41:34 PM LakotaJames said ..
I don't know a whole lot about Vista, but I have used it a little. It is a lot prettier than XP, but so is Linux+compiz. And regardless of the reason for it, there are no viruses for Linux (not really, anyway) and there never will be, as long as Windows is the popular OS. Plus, I can run Ubuntu Linux with all the compiz stuff turned on with my 512mb ram and AMD Sempron and still be faster than the Vista laptop one of my relatives purchased with 3gb ram and Intel Core2 Duo.


On 9/2/2008 8:59:06 PM Javier said ..
Bunch of idiots, get linux :), its free, thousends of times better, no viruses, no spyware, and prettier.


On 9/4/2008 12:45:20 PM ejes said ..
okay i guess i have to school you all

VISTA sucks ass. very simple. and you're stupid "no viruses?" WTF is wrong with you? VIRUSES ended in 2002 - get over it - look for malware of which there are plenty that run on vista - and i'm sure that you have lots of it. (don't beleive me? get helix and run it on your machine)

of XP & VISTA, xp is of course WAY more mature, and for that reason (and that reason alone) it is better. however, if you're really intrested in security and "pretty effects" go with ubuntu or a mac.

if you want to play games? go get yourself XP and n-lite to reduce it's footprint, do some NiST hardening - oh and you might want to create an image of your installed drive so when it does get compromised (and yes, it will) you can restore it to your original configuration

otherwise run linux... better faster stronger.

simple


On 9/4/2008 9:48:10 PM Zebulon said ..
To all you Linux people.. gimme a break.

Linux can do this, Linux can do that... sure. If you've got the time to devote to it all. I don't want an OS that I have to treat like a fucking second job, I want an OS that does what it's supposed to, easily, and Windows XP and Vista do that. Sure, YOU may be perfectly happy with Linux, but for 99% of the population, it's NOT, and you have to understand that. You want Linux to be successful, make it so my Mom can do anything she wants without a manual or a CompSci professor leaning over her shoulder. THEN I'll buy it.

Oh, and just so you know, MY OS of choice is HP-UX, so I'm not a fanboi of ANYTHING.


On 9/5/2008 5:11:15 AM Anonymous said ..
Yeah, right. Vista > XP? Hardly. Not that either compare to Linux.

Oh, btw, Zebulon, sounds like you never even tried Linux, at least, none of the Ubuntu family, which my grandma could have used without trouble.

This article makes me laugh though. Where should I start?

To start with? I actually did use Vista, even after SP1 was released, and I still saw no reason why Vista was any better than XP. After making the switch to Linux, I saw Vista for the bloated hog that it was, and reading this article, I released that this idiot's biggest mistake was disabling just about all the security and then assuming he is 100% virus free.

Let me start.

"The start button search is priceless."

The search function in Vista is crippled. In the months I've used Vista, I found myself missing the old search feature that ME and previous used simply because it didn't bullshit the search. You TOLD it what to look for, and it looked for it. Vista's search pussyfoots around indexed searches and frequently misses files that ARE there simply because it relies way too much on indexing, which has always been a bad idea since FindFast.

"The Aero UI is actually nice."

The Aero UI is ugly and just as featureless as ever. Compare it with the desktop environments of Linux, which have FULL customizability down to the fricking window decorator, widget toolkits, and even the titlebar buttons (If you use Emerald.).

Aero offers nothing like that, Aero is just as customizable as the rock. You can paint it a little but you can't really change it.

"Flip 3d is nice."

*Snrk* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!

You mean the scarce amount of visual effects Vista actually offers? How many? 3? Compared to what? XP, which offered none? Lets see....... here in Linux, the latest Git Compiz Fusion compiled from source gets me... lets count... *96* plugins at least for Compiz Fusion. Each of which can be configured to a ludicrous degree, and even offer more practical functionality than Aero's effects. On top of this we have the SUPERB Emerald window decorator which allows for many more combinations of decorative effcects: opacity, button customization, drop shadows, glowing...

What can poor little Vista do? Change the color and opacity? That's the extent of configuration for VFX for Vista? Lame.

Vista's visual effects wouldn't even clear the LIGHT setting in Ubuntu.

"The OS is more responsive, less hangy."

As opposed to being completely responsive and not hangy at all, like Linux? What'd you do to get that, btw? Put in more RAM so that Vista will actually run faster than molasses? Vista is a bloated memory hog.

"The window edges are thicker, so they are easier to resize."

In Linux, I don't need the edges at all? just a keyboard with a windows button and a mouse. ALT+RIGHT_CLICK_DRAG. Vista just makes itself look more clunky and ugly with those edges. Try again.

"Videos and pictures show thumbnails, and they zoom in and out using your mouse wheel - even on the desktop."

Which GNOME, KDE, and Mac OS X were able to do for... what... a decade? Microsoft took 10 years to figure out how to do that?

"Metadata/tagging makes it easier to find my stuff, so does search."

Which UNIX has basically done since it was created over 38 years ago? Linux itself has metadata to identify files. It took Microsoft way too long to do? Ever notice how Windows always acts... old?

"Drivers are never a problem (for me atleast). Install Vista, hit update - and everything just works. (I use Vista 32 bit)."

Again, I LAUGH at you. Let me guess, this is an OEM install... which means you never actually HAD to install drivers on Vista? Let me clue you in:

Out of the box, ALL my hardware worked on Ubuntu. Out of the box, NONE of my hardware worked with XP. (Can't comment n Vista, that was OEM for me, too.) and I had to spend 5 hours getting my hardware working and downloading drivers. Why is it Linux can install its hardware successfully out of the bbox, from the Internet, while Windows fumbles around like a crippled fat guy?

As for Windows updating drivers over the internet, that's also something Windows is VERY late in reaching.

Drivers, alog with most other software, are centrally updated and installed in Linux since the package managing system were created in 1992-1993. Back then Windows wasn't even getting sound and CD-ROM right, let alone Internet access.

"Most of all - zero virus infections over the past year. I hate virus scanning software, so an OS that makes virus scanning software obsolete, I'm all over that."

Wooooooooooow, that was probably the stupidest statement of them all. No virus scanner... on Windows... on the Internet... with ALL the security disabled. I'm sorry to tell you this man... but you're infected. Your computer is probably part of a botnet spamming people on a daily basis. You must be an idiot to think you don't need a virus scanner.

Not to say Linux doesn't have viruses... but... 30 in the wild viruses for Linux, a naturally secure operating system... versus 50,000 in-the-wild viruses for Windows... and you have your security disabled and you claim you don't need a virus scanner? Your box was probably compromised in 45 seconds.

You know what I think? Windows FAAAAAAANBOOOOOOOOOOY.


On 9/5/2008 12:57:33 PM Adam said ..
I hate to say it, but I actually like Vista now as well - I was more than reluctant to upgrade from XP, but I have Vista 64 running on a Core 2 Duo with 8gb of ram, and I haven't run into any major problems. Only little snag was that with my 3-monitor setup, my onboard VGA used a different driver than the video card I had installed so (strange they made it this way), I could only run one at a time. Had to get a PCI card that used the same drivers to get the whole thing running, but now the whole thing is running flawlessly.

You need a heavy computer I think to run Vista properly. On my other machines, I'm still running XP and wouldn't try to upgrade. I had vista running on a mid-grade laptop for a bit, and the whole thing was falling apart - installed XP x64, and speedy as a rocket.


On 9/5/2008 3:25:08 PM Brendan said ..
UBUNTU ROCKS - Microsoft only survives because of their enormous market share. If every machine shipped with a _NIX system the world would be a better place.


On 9/5/2008 5:42:36 PM AxeFestis said ..
Hmm, if you don't like viruses get linux. You will me amazed


On 9/5/2008 9:09:32 PM Cokehead said ..
Linux is functional if you want to spend DAYS configuring it.

Vista is functional from day one. XP, samely.

I love Vista. I'd never go back, ever. It's perfect for me; I've had no trouble with it. The only issues I've had were related to 64-bit architecture (points to awkwardly designed Razer AC-1 drivers)

Tell me, comrades who have installed it recently and actually tried it out on a decent machine: What problems did you have? And what caused them, precisely? Because I've had no problems at all with Vista.


On 9/6/2008 10:20:48 AM kamikaze.cockroach said ..
@Sahil Malik "Aren't Vista and Win2k8 basically the same?"


They share a similar core but have significant differences. For example, Windows 2008 doesn't suck. On a more serious note, a lot of consumer utilities like firewalls, anti-virus etc won't run on Windows 2008. It's probably not a technical issue but the software companies want enterprises to pay more for "enterprise" software.


On 9/8/2008 2:56:00 PM vista user said ..
I also like vista and the new technology it employs, ready boost & superfetch are excellent since sp1 although a fast hd is required and 2gb ram minimum. launch times are reduced by a significant margin, it's a shame most people don't understand these technology's. Vista will always use all available ram this is by design as it will not let ram go idle like all others os's.


The introduction of the tv feature pack has turn my old xp mce pc (4gb ram & quad core) into a full featured media center with digital txt, something linux does not have..


Yes I had driver issues as I did with xp, 2000, 95 and v3. Linux is great for certain tasks but for a pc that can do anything you want it's needs to be windows, hopefully this will change as Linux develops.


On 11/19/2008 6:16:15 PM ddrfreak said ..
Define Virus:


A malicious program or piece of code that performs unwanted actions or hinders legitimate software actions. ( overly simple... i know ,but work with me here.)

Primary reason that viruses and the like are so destructive and prevalent in the Windows world is because everything the user runs runs at highest privilege. This gives virus writers just about a billion ways to exploit or infect a system. It also gives viruses unparalleled access to the OS. Turing of the UAC basically says "I want to revert my primary method of protection.

Compare this to Linux which takes the opposite stance. In a linux system there is strict control over every aspect and the only one with limitless power is root. Meaning that the average user has a much harder time inadvertently installing malware.

It's not to say that Linux is immune to viruses, but rather that it has fewer routes of infection.


On 12/23/2008 1:12:53 PM Steve said ..
the windoze fanboys at the top of this post are so ridiculous...obviously have never tried a Linux system lately, anyway. First of all, Linux is free (as in cost and as in usage): you cant beat that with a $200-$400 DRM-infected OS that is just trying to copy features of OSX and Linux. visually, Linux+compiz rules in prettiness and customization...just search youtube for "Linux compiz" and try to disagree. if you like the look of windows, you can customize it to look identical, and the same goes for the look of OSX. There is more of a learning curve, but its not so steep as to prevent a normal person from learning it. Linux also works on almost any hardware (including printers, peripherals, etc), which cant be said for either Windoze or OSX. lastly, it is a 200% faster than other operating systems even with lower end hardware. quit pretending and try it if you don't believe me. personally, I would recommend the latest version of Ubuntu or other Debian-based distro


On 12/24/2008 11:12:14 AM overcircumsized said ..
of course xp is faster, it was designed for 11 year old technologies! DUH! and um... xp indexed (poorly) the drives so its not like google ever had patent on that and ms completely retooled it for vista anyway. you xp fans probably either miss the stupid disc defrag meter, or are too cheap to buy a cpl of new stix of ram. as for the linux-lovers, lol at yal. the damn os was never mentioned and yet there is this weird linux pep rally in the comments. vista wasnt the revolutionary os we were promised but it the CURRENT incarnation of NT. remember, just because you enjoy playing with a dog turd doesnt mean you get to down the kid with the lego set. not everyone can afford doggydoo like you. Half of u r judgemental, the rest r jus mental


On 1/12/2009 9:40:22 AM daxx said ..
Oh my god. I so agree with this article. Especially the virus thing. I have not had a single virus since I got vista more than a year ago. After about a month I actually stopped scanning (got lazy). I checked it three or four days ago. In roughly 12 months, I had accumulated 10 tracking cookies - that's it. Not to mention it doesn't crash or bsod at all.


On 1/14/2009 1:17:47 AM GMNightmare said ..
So, first you removed all the increased security functions of Vista? Right... Way to change that to an XP...

Oh, yes, the search text bar. I see that as rather bad actually. I use Launchy, superior in my eyes to the Vista version. It's also skinable. Classy.

With regards to OS, side by side with same hardware specs, a XP computer is faster and more responsive than a Vista. Most likely, it's just because you upgraded hardware with your computer, or you just didn't keep your XP computer clean and have a bunch of trash on it.

Pictures show thumbnails on a XP (and with videos it's also possible). I guess you didn't know how to change your view. You got me with the mouse scroll though, but I consider that completely pointless and with time I think you will as well. You can tag on a XP as well with some programs, just so you know.

Drivers? That's funny. I've never had driver problems with XP. Oh, I guess updating is a hustle, but it's not altogether necessary. Indeed, they have some programs out there to automatically do it.

All graphical enhancements? Hah, I have you beat with Stardock's Windowblinds, it does all that plus MORE than what Vista does. I can even simulate Vista perfectly. What did it cost me? 20$. What did Vista cost you? A couple hundred? It seems I got the better deal by a long shot.

As for the virus... I've never gotten a virus on my XP. In fact, I don't have any spyware either. But that's me, because I know how to set up everything for max security. But does that mean I don't have spyware and virus protectors? No. I do, and that's how I know. For you to assume you don't have a virus, and then not have a virus scanner is quite bad. Just because you don't think it's not there, doesn't mean it isn't. Indeed, you may have one, or a few trojans to boot. For free solutions, Comodo internet security suite does everything you'll ever need (and really good once setting some options), and is less resource extensive than... heh... Vista's Windows Defender.

So all and all, your view that it is better is shallow and not very true. There is little there that XP doesn't benefit to as well with a little modding. Congratulations on having a computer that can run it well though... because I've seen the countless nightmares of those who can't.


On 4/22/2009 11:26:35 AM Darkstriker said ..
Will all the Linux trolls please wait outside until they have upgraded from TCP/IP Desktop output to something that actually could be more responsive than Vista (like OGL)!


On 4/24/2009 11:02:17 AM D said ..
Ever tried to install Creative SB Live! ?:) Advice: Don't !!!


On 5/5/2009 1:00:37 PM Orvar said ..
"The OS is more responsive, less hangy."

Haha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahahahahaha. Come again?


On 3/29/2010 1:54:16 PM Vista_user said ..
For all the flaming going on here over which OS is better, I think you've all seem to have missed the point. Nearly everyone here seems to be a computer geek who wants to spend ages fiddling with their system once they've installed the OS. What about those who just want to use it for something? Those are the people who think Vista's ok. I tried running the Vista upgrade advisor on my old XP box (AMD Athlon 2200+ (1.8GHz)


2Gb RAM


40Gb HDD


CD writer/DVD ROM drive


ATI Radeon 128Mb graphics


XP Pro SP3


)

and of course it told me it would struggle to run it. So I bought a new laptop (Dell inspiron, Celeron 64 - dunno or care what model), and all I had to do was put a stick of RAM in it as I bought it with just 1Gb to save purchase cost. These days it's just as cheap and easy to just get a new machine than try to upgrade my old one. I've installed a load of open source utils and apps on it and the only problem I've had is an ongoing issue with the Dell wireless card when resuming from suspend - a pain but I can work around it.

I did turn off UAC pretty much from the off as it just got in the way, but other than installing the usual MS updates I've had no probs.