OS Debate: Vista vs XP

So I am planning to get a new PC this year. It will be at least a few
months, but I should be able to get one by Christmas at the latest.
It has been suggested that my best bet would be to start with a 64 bit
machine and a 32 bit OS, and consider switching to a 64 bit OS maybe in a
few years.
I'm currently running WinME so I am going to want a newer OS. Do I go with
XP (Media Center?) or Vista (Premium?)?
What would be the reason to choose one or the other, aside from the
suggestion many have made here that XP should run faster?
I'm going to assume the new machine will be sufficient for either on speed,
and I believe both are similar enough on price, so I'm wondering about
actual functionality. Here's a few suggestions I've found so far...

Possible advantages of XP:
Currently should be more stable
Doesn't have a million pop up security prompts
Doesn't have DRM (Is DRM actually a bad thing?)
Already familiar with controls having used it for several years

Possible advantages of Vista:
Supposed to be more secure
That Aero thing and the 3D windows effects
Newer, will be supported longer, may run much better once they release
service packs
Built in voice recognition

Yes.. this may be a surprise coming from me.. but if you get a new fast pc
get a 64bit cpu and 32 bit vista...

You seem to know very well what's going on. I cant say that for most in
here.

Why vista? because as you said support will be longer than xp.. see link
below..
vista ultimate will have far less years support that business version of
vista

see here http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=38410

"Eric" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uFOMmPoWHHA.4860@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> So I am planning to get a new PC this year. It will be at least a few
> months, but I should be able to get one by Christmas at the latest.
> It has been suggested that my best bet would be to start with a 64 bit
> machine and a 32 bit OS, and consider switching to a 64 bit OS maybe in a
> few years.
> I'm currently running WinME so I am going to want a newer OS. Do I go
> with XP (Media Center?) or Vista (Premium?)?
> What would be the reason to choose one or the other, aside from the
> suggestion many have made here that XP should run faster?
> I'm going to assume the new machine will be sufficient for either on
> speed, and I believe both are similar enough on price, so I'm wondering
> about actual functionality. Here's a few suggestions I've found so far...
>
> Possible advantages of XP:
> Currently should be more stable
> Doesn't have a million pop up security prompts
> Doesn't have DRM (Is DRM actually a bad thing?)
> Already familiar with controls having used it for several years
>
> Possible advantages of Vista:
> Supposed to be more secure
> That Aero thing and the 3D windows effects
> Newer, will be supported longer, may run much better once they release
> service packs
> Built in voice recognition
>

The biggest consideration is driver availability for your current
peripherals, XP likely supports them, you may have to replace some stuff if
you go with Vista. A bit of research will determine Vista driver
availability.

--
----
Crosspost, do not multipost http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
How to ask a question http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
How to Post http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.db-pc.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Eric" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uFOMmPoWHHA.4860@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> So I am planning to get a new PC this year. It will be at least a few
> months, but I should be able to get one by Christmas at the latest.
> It has been suggested that my best bet would be to start with a 64 bit
> machine and a 32 bit OS, and consider switching to a 64 bit OS maybe in a
> few years.
> I'm currently running WinME so I am going to want a newer OS. Do I go
> with XP (Media Center?) or Vista (Premium?)?
> What would be the reason to choose one or the other, aside from the
> suggestion many have made here that XP should run faster?
> I'm going to assume the new machine will be sufficient for either on
> speed, and I believe both are similar enough on price, so I'm wondering
> about actual functionality. Here's a few suggestions I've found so far...
>
> Possible advantages of XP:
> Currently should be more stable
> Doesn't have a million pop up security prompts
> Doesn't have DRM (Is DRM actually a bad thing?)
> Already familiar with controls having used it for several years
>
> Possible advantages of Vista:
> Supposed to be more secure
> That Aero thing and the 3D windows effects
> Newer, will be supported longer, may run much better once they release
> service packs
> Built in voice recognition
>

jim wrote:
> Yes.. this may be a surprise coming from me.. but if you get a new fast pc
> get a 64bit cpu and 32 bit vista...
>
> You seem to know very well what's going on. I cant say that for most in
> here.
>
> Why vista? because as you said support will be longer than xp.. see link
> below..
> vista ultimate will have far less years support that business version of
> vista

There is precedent to indicate this may not be the case. Originally XP Home
support was set to expire prior to XP Pro, but MS recently announced that XP
Home will now be supported for the same period as XP Pro.
--
Tom Porterfield

Eric wrote:
> So I am planning to get a new PC this year. It will be at least a few
> months, but I should be able to get one by Christmas at the latest.
> It has been suggested that my best bet would be to start with a 64 bit
> machine and a 32 bit OS, and consider switching to a 64 bit OS maybe in a
> few years.
> I'm currently running WinME so I am going to want a newer OS. Do I go
> with XP (Media Center?) or Vista (Premium?)?
> What would be the reason to choose one or the other, aside from the
> suggestion many have made here that XP should run faster?
> I'm going to assume the new machine will be sufficient for either on
> speed, and I believe both are similar enough on price, so I'm wondering
> about actual functionality. Here's a few suggestions I've found so far...
>
> Possible advantages of XP:
> Currently should be more stable
> Doesn't have a million pop up security prompts
> Doesn't have DRM (Is DRM actually a bad thing?)
> Already familiar with controls having used it for several years
>
> Possible advantages of Vista:
> Supposed to be more secure
> That Aero thing and the 3D windows effects
> Newer, will be supported longer, may run much better once they release
> service packs
> Built in voice recognition

The fact that you are currently running ME indicates to me that once you get
a system you like, you stick with it for a long time. Based on that it
makes sense to me for you to go with Vista so that your support period more
closely aligns with the period that you will be using the PC and OS. SP1
for Vista is scheduled to be released by the end of this year, so you'll
soon be able to take advantage of any fixes/enhancements that will be
included in that.
--
Tom Porterfield

"Dave B." <mail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:%23iV$FZoWHHA.1636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> The biggest consideration is driver availability for your current
> peripherals, XP likely supports them, you may have to replace some stuff
> if you go with Vista. A bit of research will determine Vista driver
> availability.
>
My question is to the possible reasons to choose XP or Vista for a new
system based on functionality. What can one do that the other one is
lacking?

Ignore the following issues:
- I'm guessing XP would run faster, at least initially. Vista may run
faster after patch/service pack release. I've read some people saying Vista
already looks faster for them, so it may be a configuration issue that makes
it faster with certain hardware or OS options configuration
- I know Vista is the better choice for support because it is newer, though
at this point it needs more support because XP already has most of the bugs
worked out
- I would assume Vista will support all peripherals sooner or later. It
will be at least a few months before I buy the new PC. I would hope the
drivers it is lacking will be released this year.

Get to the point:
- What can you actually DO with each OS, that you cannot do in the other, or
cannot do as well?
- Is DRM an advantage or disadvantage of Vista?
- Is the new GUI look really an improvement? Are the 3D windows as cool as
MS says? Did they improve the Start Bar usability or ruin it?
- Is Vista really better for security, or just more annoying with constant
security pop up messages?
- Is Directx 10 available for XP, or going to be, or might this be a huge
advantage of Vista?
- Is the new Vista search feature as useful as they say or simply an
annoyance?
- Did Vista add anything cool or simply annoy us where they changed the
control names and locations ie Desktop > Properties?
etc

"Tom Porterfield" <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%23cVJJdoWHHA.1636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> The fact that you are currently running ME indicates to me that once you
> get a system you like, you stick with it for a long time. Based on that
> it makes sense to me for you to go with Vista so that your support period
> more closely aligns with the period that you will be using the PC and OS.
> SP1 for Vista is scheduled to be released by the end of this year, so
> you'll soon be able to take advantage of any fixes/enhancements that will
> be included in that.
> --
> Tom Porterfield
I'm currently running ME because it was the OS my wife picked out when I
bought the PC about 5 years ago and I haven't had a need to switch to XP
that would justify the $99 upgrade. The budget has been tight the past few
years. I don't necessarily stick with it for a long time, just as long as I
can't justify spending money to switch... I expect to switch to the latest
64 bit OS in a couple years, if or when it has decent driver support and
some new worthwhile apps.

This is how I see XP vs Vista

If a new PC, then the following would apply:

Vista:
Computer should (?) be configured for it, meaning it will have 1+GB RAM,
large drive, quality 256-512MB Video Card, and all the drivers will be
vista.

Any software that you already own may need to be upgraded or not work if
it's older than a couple years or if it's based around hardware.

XP:
Computer will more than meet the specs for XP, and everything you want to
run, currently, will be supported.

Any software that you already own may (since your on ME) need to be
upgraded or not work if it's older than a couple years or if it's based
around hardware.

Solution:

If I were getting a new computer, I would get one that is certified for
Vista (not basic) and with a free/cheap upgrade to Vista, but I would get
XP on it, currently. XP will give you less issues with all that you want
to do, currently, but, you need to ensure that you get the cheap/free
upgrade to vista so that you can move to it after the teething period.

You also need to ensure that you have a LOT of performance, and I mean you
should buy as much computer as you can afford, since you keep your systems
for a while, and buy more than you think you'll need.



--
Leythos
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

thats all well and good but the honeymoon period for the free upgrades is in
march and hes not getting the comp for a while yet. If you want an XP system
with vista capability and a free or low cost upgrade you need to get it now.
If you leave it till the later part of this year you wont be able to buy a
new system that wont be running vista as its boot up OS.




"Leythos" <Void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:1172594708_837@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> This is how I see XP vs Vista
>
> If a new PC, then the following would apply:
>
> Vista:
> Computer should (?) be configured for it, meaning it will have 1+GB RAM,
> large drive, quality 256-512MB Video Card, and all the drivers will be
> vista.
>
> Any software that you already own may need to be upgraded or not work if
> it's older than a couple years or if it's based around hardware.
>
> XP:
> Computer will more than meet the specs for XP, and everything you want to
> run, currently, will be supported.
>
> Any software that you already own may (since your on ME) need to be
> upgraded or not work if it's older than a couple years or if it's based
> around hardware.
>
> Solution:
>
> If I were getting a new computer, I would get one that is certified for
> Vista (not basic) and with a free/cheap upgrade to Vista, but I would get
> XP on it, currently. XP will give you less issues with all that you want
> to do, currently, but, you need to ensure that you get the cheap/free
> upgrade to vista so that you can move to it after the teething period.
>
> You also need to ensure that you have a LOT of performance, and I mean you
> should buy as much computer as you can afford, since you keep your systems
> for a while, and buy more than you think you'll need.
>
>
>
> --
> Leythos
> spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

I've been working with Vista Business Edition since the day after it was
released. My approach to an operating system is for it to be that--a
foundation on top of which I can run applications and hardware. In other
words, it is a means and not an end in itself, although Microsoft marketing
people might have you believe otherwise. I expect the OS to be unobtrusive,
intuitive, and not a burden to the computer. On all three of these points, I
have to give Vista low marks.

UAC gets in the way. Existing functions (Add/Remove Programs, for example)
being renamed to something else just wreaks of Change for the sake of Change.
I still don't have my network shares working, and I'm running a trial
version of Microsoft Windows Live OneCare, because my antivirus won't run
under Vista. And so on. I'm usually a fan of NEW and IMPROVED, but I have
to admit I am hard pressed to find much in Vista that is truly improved--at
least from my point of view (see above). Too much form and not enough
substance, is my conclusion.

The real killer for me--and the reason I will shortly format my system drive
and reinstall Windows XP Pro--is the way hardware manufacturers and software
publishers have responded to Vista. My list (so far) of unsupported programs
and gear that are not supported for Vista, and for which the provider has
announced that they will not patch or update accordingly, totals nearly
$1,200 in replacement cost--to replace working programs and devices! Intuit
QuickBooks 2005, HP 2000c printer, Monaco/XRite monitor calibration program
and device, VCOM System Suite 7, Promise RAID controller, and others. Other
cases, like Adobe Photoshop CS2 (released less than 1.5 yrs ago) are just
ignored by the publisher who says, their new CS3 will support all functions
in Vista.

In most instances, it is simply a matter of greed--Intuit, Adobe and HP have
chosen to not support their products, but rather to force their past
customers to buy again. I can't afford the extra outlay to replace working
programs and devices, and I can't abide that kind of waste, so I'm cutting my
losses. I no longer care whose fault it is that these things don't work
under Vista. Whoever's fault it is, it is still me who is being asked to pay
for it. It's time to just say no.

BTW, Office 2007 is nothing to brag about either.
--
Bill


"Eric" wrote:

>
> "Tom Porterfield" <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:%23cVJJdoWHHA.1636@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> >
> > The fact that you are currently running ME indicates to me that once you
> > get a system you like, you stick with it for a long time. Based on that
> > it makes sense to me for you to go with Vista so that your support period
> > more closely aligns with the period that you will be using the PC and OS.
> > SP1 for Vista is scheduled to be released by the end of this year, so
> > you'll soon be able to take advantage of any fixes/enhancements that will
> > be included in that.
> > --
> > Tom Porterfield
> I'm currently running ME because it was the OS my wife picked out when I
> bought the PC about 5 years ago and I haven't had a need to switch to XP
> that would justify the $99 upgrade. The budget has been tight the past few
> years. I don't necessarily stick with it for a long time, just as long as I
> can't justify spending money to switch... I expect to switch to the latest
> 64 bit OS in a couple years, if or when it has decent driver support and
> some new worthwhile apps.
>
>
>