Need to replace my home computer (running Windows Me!!). All of my work computers and my laptop run XP, which I am happy with. Most of the new desktops I am looking at run Vista, of which I have heard bad things. So, what's you recommendation? I can still get XP but how long will it be supported? Is it safe to go with Vista now? Thanks.
Just built a new PC myself, and I too was pondering on this. I ended up going with Vista Ultimate 64. I heard XP was only going to be supported for another year. Most bad things I've heard are due to people trying to run Vista on a system that is not built for it. I did a duo core AMD 64 bit 3.0 GHz with 4Gig of RAM. So far it has been running fine with no problems. Sure does ask to confirm downloading alot though. I have a good friend who does a lot of video editing and has Vista also. He says he has tried to crash it purposely and can't. Not sure why the hell he would want to do that, but whatever. There's my .02 for what its worth.
It's a tough call. I have one of each.. All my old software won't run on vista, and most I see in stores still does not support vista. Vista uses a lot of resources and you have to have a fairly bad ass computer just to keep vista running. Vista is also complicated and has so many "for your protection" security things it will drive you crazy till you disable them. BUT.. eventually vista will be the mainstream, unless it flops like windows 2000.
heh....I just upgraded from 2000 to XP two weeks ago! and we're still running 2000 on most of the computers here (half a dozen) My experience with windows going back 17 years is that you should wait to get the new version...wait until there are some things that you just can't do with the old version. Right now XP still does everything you need it to do, and I doubt that will change in two years. By two or three years from now, computer hardware will be fast enough that you will be able to run vista and have it act as fast as XP is on todays hardware. And giving them a couple years to work the bugs out is always a good idea....think about the service packs for 2000 (four of them, the latest released four years later, XP is on sp2 and it took a couple years for them to catch all those bugs) I'm planning on switching to linux when XP won't work for me any more...but that should be a few years down the road, and by then I'll have a significantly faster computer to put it on. Linux is too slow to run on my current computer.
In my opinion, Microsoft doesn't 'support' anything in any sense, so there's no point in letting that determine which OS you wanna run. I use XP...
If you own any expensive XP software or have some software you currently "absolutely cannot live without", check it for vista compatibility and/or issues (both in running and licensing).
They do support their products, in the sense that they eventually provide patches to fix many of the well documented "undocumented features" (bugs). The problem is they want $200 or more for an OS that's worth about $20.
looks like you already got a lot of good feedback , im using xp for the simple reasons already stated above , i tried using vista and it just has to many bugs at this time and its not very user friendly maybe one day vista will be the shit , for now its just crap.. my 2cts
Vista sucks. Stick with XP as long as you can. Get hardware that's ready for Vista, but configure the machine with XP Professional. Upgrade to Vista Business when you're sure all of your apps will play nice. Of course, my wife loves her Mac. Then again, you could become a Linux guru. Either way, it's not Microsoft.
just make sure if you run vista you get at least 2 gigs of RAM. I have two similar pc's one with xp (1gig) one with vista (1gig) and the older XP machine runs better/faster. Microsoft recommend 2 gig RAM for Vista Premium....I'll be adding some more soon.
on the RAM thing....my computer running XP pro only uses 250mb when I'm encoding video...normally it uses less than 150mb. That's about 1/8th what vista seems to need. then again, I don't have a bunch of crap running all the time like most people do (because most computers come that way and they don't care or know how to get rid of it)
XP. Vista sucks donkey balls. I just got a new laptop that came with Vista, and blew it away and installed XP.
I am a computer technician. My experience is if you are buying a new computer with vista already installed you will be ok. Most people have problems with Vista when they are upgrading. Again if you are running expensive programs, check for compatibility with vista. Get as much memory as you can get when you buy though. Hope that helps Ryan
that makes perfect sense.....the way Windows works, is that you want to have hardware that's newer than the version of Windows you want to run. In other words, it would be smart to put XP on a newer computer, but it would be foolish to put Vista on an older computer. I figure it takes about 3 years for the hardware (and bug fix process) to catch up to any new version of Windows.
I would say stick with XP. In my experience is that even if you are buying a new computer, get XP. I have run into a number of computers that come with vista / say they are designed for vista, but run so slow and unstable its painful. Also there are a number of compatability problems with older software. All in all stick with XP or run OSX.
hunhh? Linux takes far less to run than any version of windows. You can run it on just about anything... Usually I see huge performance improvements when moving a machine from Windows to linux (or BSD)
Been upgrading the desktops here to Leopard (10.5) and it's been going very smoothly (knocking on wood now)... I standardized on the desktops with OSX and all our servers run Red Hat Linux.
I just went thru an interesting discussion like this about windows/linux with a linux true believer on another forum. So, I did some tests, which clearly show that linux is about 2-3 times slower than 2000/xp at doing the simple things I do with my computer. I think there are several reasons for this, and (to be fair) several reasons that you think otherwise. Mainly, I don't use apps that linux is fast at, and I set up windows so it runs really damn fast, without all the usual crap that most people have on their systems. Suffice it to say, you may be right for the systems you've played with, but there's someting mysterious about the air at my house that makes linux plod along, and windows runs like greased lightning. My kid runs linux on his computer (which has better hardware than mine) and it's just incredibly slow. I have a (dual boot windows/linux) older laptop, and linux is very slow on it compared to win2k. We've tried a bunch of different linux distros. So I'll be happy to let you go on saying what you want about linux being faster than windows, but I'll stand by my statement that linux is too slow for ME to run on MY computer. How about if we call it a draw?
To put it in car show terms... Win 2K is that steel body deuce with a reliable 350 in it. Not the flashiest jalopy. But dependable and fun. XP is similar to the "2K deuce" except it's 'glass with a few billet trinkets. Everything is a little safer, newer, slicker- but the fun factor is still there. This is Vista: OS X is the Ferrari in the back of the show- great experience if you can afford it!
didnt read all of the replies but go with windows xp 32bit. dont go with vista 64bit. vista is packed with useless stuff and hardly anything is compatible still. and windows xp 64bit is not going to run 64 bit as a lot of applications arent 64bit compatible either. 32bit win xp is the way to go.
lol linux too slow for your computer? haha thats funny. did you set it up right? and what apps were you testing? what are your computer specs? try running anything other than windows 2k for 2 months straight and try to run any decent app. be ready to wait about 2 minutes. turn back to linux and after 1 year uptime it'll run like it did the first day.
i got vd from an fng behind micky d's when i was 13. now i just stay home and eat blt's to avoid the std's..u c?????
Well I just got a new home workstation to do my work off of, and it has Vista. I'm not happy about it though. I run Pro/E wildfire with add-ons and with the resource hog that Vista is I am not necessarily looking forward to installing and working on it. In fact I am considering partitioning and running BSD for engineering work. But I will say this - Vista is designed for the newbies, non-techies, and gadget goodie googlie-eyed. 85%of the little bits Vista runs is useless to anyone with some computer know-how. And to those newbies, non-techies and such - me thinks it would be more confusing. And as it has been said - it does run fairly good with the right components - 3 gigs and 4 gigs ram. BUT consider this - YOU shouldn't need to have 3 and 4 to run your OPERATING SYSTEM. Its a waste. Personally I think XP Pro is the only OS microsoft has put out that was decent (relatively speaking, and hate to see it being phased out (in the next two years) for this. So to answer your question - Settle for half your computer usage going out the window and confusion, or an OS that will be rendered useless in 2-3 years. I think MS made the choice for you. Nice thing about BSD - its based off the tried and true Unix module, its got a fair amount of apps, and since its source code is shared with OSX its easy to find a competent emualtor to run most Mac programs, and some Linux.
I guess you didn't read my post carefully. I don't often have any reason to run a computer for more than a few hours at a stretch, so I don't care that linux will run forever. I'm not running a web server here! Most of my computer use is just web surfing. As an example....my desktop that I just put XP on is a few years old, it has a 2.4g P4 and half a gig of ram. My son's computer was built earlier this year, it has an athlon 3800+ and a gig of ram. He's running the latest version of ubuntu. I don't know if he's set it up right? Both computers plugged into the same internet connection. Anyways, without having visited the site recently (so it's not in the browser cache), it takes my computer less than two seconds to open yahoo.com in firefox. It takes his computer over ten seconds to open the same page with firefox. Openoffice takes a long time to open on his...Word pops up on my screen almost instantly. As I told zman, linux is too slow for ME. It might be faster for you, if so, that's great! have at it. I'll wait for the hardware to catch up with it.
I've got Vista on my home and laptop, works well. My father's Macbook Pro will outperform either one. If I had the funds I'd have an Apple - until that time comes I will put up with Microsoft's BS
FWIW, I have had major email problems due to Vista. I have made money is no option just fix it requests to the geeks, etc, and I still get "You are over quota" and bs like that. I am not a techie. And the techies can't fix it. It sucks. It's like my back, no one can fix it.
The Jalopy Journal
