So, I now have both installed on the same machine. Had XP for many years, but installed 32-bit Vista Home Premium recently. I got a Compaq laptop computer a while ago, which came pre-installed with this OS in addition to 25GB of uncecessary bloatware. I trashed that, failed to install XP after a few hours of trying, installed Kubuntu Linux, then grabbed a real copy of Vista and used the key on my laptop to install Vista on my desktop. Here is my rundown of how Vista compares to XP.

-Cannot install until I remove all but 2GB of system memory. Cannot add that until I spend an hour downloading/installing updates. If you want to install Vista, remember to remove all system memory except 2GB.
-Installation was slightly frustratin; even after uninstalling all but 2GB of memory. There were several times when I would click the "next" button and nothing would happen for a minute or so. The HD was doing nothing and the DVD wasn't even spinning. Then, after a minute or so, the CD would rev up, the HD light would come on solid, and things worked again. Have a good book to read or another computer nearby for gaming while you wait.
-Vista has its own sidebar program, which is very similar to Google Gadgets or Yahoo Widgets, but I havn't dug too deeply into that.
-Vista seems to be much more network-savvy than XP. It automatically detected and connected to the LAN at my house. However, the main thing that gets me excited is that Vista doesn't freeze for a minute if I type in the wrong network address or computer name in the "run" field, like XP did.
-DX10 vs. DX9 in Assassins Creed and UT3: "So there really is a difference? If you say so...", unless I have to configure/enable it, somehow.
-Yes, Aero Glass, glowing buttons, and subtle window effects are kinda cool if you have the processor to spare, but I still like the Linux Compix effects, such as Desktop Cube (or other regular polygonal prism), wobbly windows, open/close/minimize animations, paint fire/water on screen, ring switcher etc.
-Lower FPS in games, but nothing I would notice with my shiny new GeForce 8800GT (with a picture of some random asian chick for some reaason), except in Crysis.
-Protection software sucks! Every time you want to install a program or run an executable, you have to confirm that you really want to do that. i would call it spam.
-Interface and navigation seems to be the same, except that sceensavers, desktops, power management, and such are in "customize personal settings" in the desktop right-click menu.
-Since I don't have the Ultra version, I don't have this "Dream" or whatever it is called, where you can have an animated desktop. However, I would never notice it, since I like to use my entire screen for everything, whenever I can. Besides, Kubuntu Linux can automatically change the desktop image every x minutes, which is just as good as a dizzy shark swiming in circles, if you ask me.
-Speech recignition doesn't recognize speech, unless I just have to train it more.
-Can't say much about Vista's start menu "find" field. I just use Launchy.
-"My Computer" now has a bar under each drive, which shows how full it is. Kinda nifty, but nothing the "properties" window couldn't tell me in XP.

More to come if I discover more. Linux rules, Mac drools, and Windows drank a bottle too much.

XP...

Ok now I'll go read it.

EDIT:After reading I have come to the evaluation,XP.
Still keep vista around,some day you WILL need it.

Vista seems like a good OS to me. It just needs more time to mature, XP has been doing that since 2001 so naturally it is solid in almost every way.

As for the protection software issue, all of the nanny features in Vista can be disabled as far as I know. Look around the internet, surely someone must have made a guide by now. Who likes a nanny OS, seriously?

Vista's not too bad, but like Bjossi said, it's a nanny OS, which means if you want to install something, it'll ask you stuff.

XP is better because it doesn't ask you like a nanny, and can play almost every new game that comes out.

It can play every new game that comes out, to my knowledge. But Microsoft will be dropping XP support soon though, June this year.

I wish i could run XP on this laptop. Vista asks every minor little thing like i wouldn't be aware of what i am doing. Next to that, incompatibility makes me want to bang my head through the glass of my windows.

What incompatibility?

Some programs i use suffer incompatibility, regardless of the compatibility mode.

Like i said before in a comment to a youtube video (featuring a guy molesting a Vista DVD, that was funny):

"Vista works perfect on some machines, and doesnt work at all on other's. There's a grey area between this which stands for incompatibility, errors, etc. I believe that there's people that don't have trouble with Vista, and i also believe that there's people with nothing but problems (as i am one), though in general i still have to say Vista isn't that much of a success. You see, Vista is expensive, and considering that you have an increased chance of it not working, i wouldn't even consider buying it in it's current state."

I will do my best to skip Vista and get Windows 7 straight after.

Ok, another Vista Gripe. So, I'm installing Vista updates (yay?) and have to reboot. Upon reboot, I am instructed to reboot again. Ummm..... k....

Oh, and about XP support... I would imagine that there would be hackers who would figure out a way to keep it working forever. Besides, I heard (unconfirmed runor) that Microsoft mught continue XP support longer than they plan, due to the resistance in the switch to Vista.

something I like in Vista is the search, that is much more simple. in XP it asks a lot of things.

Vista looks prettier than XP, so I like it.

The only gripe I've had with it is the fact that there seems to be no super-admin mode like in Linux. If windows labels your files as 'core' accidentally, you'll never be able to touch them. My computer classified S.T.A.L.K.E.R. as core and now modding it is 10 times harder.

For what we know Windows 7 might end up being no less of a trainwreck than Vista's earlier days were. I am also going to skip Vista for a while longer like you, but seeing how XP evolved from a piece of shit to a stable and fast OS, Vista might very well go the same direction.

Microsoft's history of OSs is so colorful that it is impossible to tell what the future will have in store for us, hehe.

This is a hardware issue. It is to do with memory addressing issues, not the OS. Most new hardware compensates for it, then the OS will see it.

There are also limits imposed by the Edition of Vista you get, but they are all above that.

Check these for some info:
4Gb Memory Limit
Vista Editions


That can be switched off. Look in the control panel->User Accounts-> "Turn User Account Control on or off"

I've been using Vista for well over a year now. We had the RTM (Release to manufacture) version of the Enterprise edition (only available to Multi Volume License customers) long before public release. We have quite a few machines running between Enterprise, Business and Ultimate editions with little or no problems.

In the begining it was a pain, due to sofwtare compatibilities and driver issues. Those have all long been sorted out, and it's been a smooth ride since.

I must say, it does want RAM, and anything less than 2Gb is not advisable.

ServicePack 1 does fix quite a bit as well

I can't comment on the gaming side, as I'm quite happy with my XP at home (but then again I don't have as strong PC at home as I do at work).

My bro had Vista on his laptop, every day he complained how slow and buggy it is, and after few months he had to reinstall OS because of fatal error.
I kind of agree with him, vista may have some good things but in overall it sux.

I read through those links a little, and there's something there i can't really see the meaning of. The 'better' Vista editions seem to support up to 128GB of RAM. Why in the name of god would someone have 128GB of RAM in his computer? Sure you wouldn't run Vista on a server, right?

This 128GB of RAM limit is due to the fact that the OS is 64-bit, I think. 32-bit operating systems could support only 4GB of memory, but any 64-bit operating systems can support up to 128GB, jus t becasue it is 64-bit.

Edit: However, looking at that 1st link, I don't see why some versions of Vista is capped at 8GB. Perhaps this is a cap put in by Microsoft to encourage people to upgrade to a more expensive version of Vista. Oh, and how would a person justify spending $100 to upgrade from Vista home to Vista home premium? It's just a little more eye candy, right?

Incorrect. The limit of 64-bit is 16.8 million terabytes. After all we are talking about increasing the possible width of each integer register to 64 bits, and there are a whole lot of registers a 64-bit processor can keep track of. The equation is simply 2^64.

(if you are curious, these registers store address to a location in virtual memory where data is waiting for processing)


So the 128 GB limit is therefore artificial. I never understood why software developers always put these limits to their software, especially engines and operating systems. They are of no use to anyone and just constraint the users in the long run, especially in the field of modding.

And we all wish our 16.8 million terabyte RAM cards could be put to their full potential.

I can Run Vista 64 bit on my basement computer without any hitches, ok, there is one hitch.

I have Rivatuner (which controls the CPU fans) Vista won't automatically turn it on because it blocks it, so i have to turn it on manually.

yeah, who knows...Some highly specialised people might want to, e.g. CAD users etc.
As for Vista as a server, Server 2008's code is based on Vista, just as Server 2003 based on XP. It just has the extra bells and whistle's. The server editions are a lot more stable, but then again they are running on proper hardware most of the time.


yeah, go figure...I think it is marketing...
Ultimate does a few more "nice" things, but whether they are worth the price difference is another matter...

So, since we're talking about "we", I assume that the company you where you work has decided to convert from XP to Vista. Any chance you'd know what reasons went behind the decision? Did it make people more productive by giving better tools, or some other reason?

I work for a Microsoft Platinum partner (who is a worldwide service provider in the IT industry, providing Microsoft solutions to it's clients) It has it's benefits

But I am based at one of our clients sites (as Enterprise Engineer/Admin), who has a MVL, thus they get released products before the retail channels.
The client is evaulating whether the move to Vista for all client machines (around 1500+) is worthwhile. This means someone has to test it in the working environment, with the applications/solutions the company uses. So most of the IT guys get to run it first and give it a workout.

But, a rollout like that takes time. So far, hardware is the biggest problem. They just don't have the machines to run it. Whilst all new machines are capable (but we still order them with XP loaded and Vista licenses), the client has roughly a 3 year replacement rotation for hardware replacement, thus I think we are still about a year away from seeing it taking over in this particular setup. It should start going out sooner, but it's going to take time to "take over".

The biggest reason for change in an enterprise is very simple: support. If you want things to all work smoothly then things also have to be up to date. With XP's official support ending, the move to Vista is going to happen...

There are benefits for the enterprise to move to Vista, the biggest being security. E.g. with Server 2008 and Vista clients (and the current Cisco routers/switches), we can "isolate" (done automaicaly) any machine plugged in to the network, until the systems have (automaticaly) made sure the machine has an updated anti-virus installed, and all it's windows patches, only then will it be able to connect to any resources (file servers/mail etc. etc.). Now that's a damn good reason to change (but not the only one) !

before Vista was released to the public, I used the beta and release candidate versions on my computer and I have to say I am not pleased with Vista. I would take XP over Vista anyday. @cyberax. they may be extending XP's stay again.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/04/25 ... -want-it/1

check it out

Beta's and release candidates are never good. There's always a major difference between them and the final released product. They're nice to try out and see what's cooking,but not to use properly.

Yeah, that news has been out for a while, but its sales, not support. Support still ends next year. MS's extended support is pay-per-incident, as per usual.

Problem is, you already can't get a lot of the new notebooks with XP as an option, it's all Vista. There are still some OEM's selling units with XP, but the range is getting very limited.

Face it, you will enventualy move to Vista

We had this whole debate for years after XP was released...but XP is one of the most stable Windows OS's ever...I think Vista will be better in the long run...it's just a problem with hardware requirements to get it to run nicely.

There is also another side to this story...it's called the people factor. Sadly most (not all, just most) people don't like change (especialy when it involves giving out hard earned money)

Fortunately for me, 5 copies of XP and 2 copies of Vista are free. I'm definately tempted to say that my experience with Vista has been better than XP, so far. There is one exception, which is that my laptop could most likely be getting a better framerate in games if I could actually get XP drivers installed, but aside from that Vista is better than XP in every way, once you get rid of all the hand-holding and babysitting. On more powerful computers, you can hardly even notice the difference in performance, except to a small degree in Crysis.

Newer games will run better on Vista than XP, so the performance lead of XP will be limited to pre-Vista games and modern ones that still attempt to fully support both OSs. When Microsoft's XP supports ends the coming June, I bet software providers will do the same in babysteps.

Yup, but most decent companies have already started.

The whole games intergration with OS features is also very nice in Vista, but it will be a while before we see it in common use. e.g. you can set certain parental controls in Vista, and if you run a game that is "aware" of these features, if filters through to the games. This is pretty much like on a console. There are a whole bunch of "nice" features, but they need people (software manufactures) to take advantage of them.

A MAJOR difference in the Vista to XP, is the whole kernal and devices system. They talk very differently now, which is why DX10 is not released on XP. It simply doesn't work on XP, due to the way it talks to the devices and thus kernel. The guys who release hacks to get DX10 working on XP, are just simply fooling themselves. DX10 has some good improvements (and I'm not talking just about graphics capabilities) which I think will kick-ass once it stablises and game makers find their way around it.

But all these things take time, which is why in 2 years we will laugh about this and wonder why we ever wanted to stay with XP

DX10 is not only graphics update, but also a highly optimized API. The D3D10 renderer basically ditched all outdated features, hence the reason you can't play older games with that renderer.

But Microsoft was nice to include 2 other renderers in the DX10 package, D3D9 and D3D9Ex. Those are the ones powering older games on Vista.

So, Cybrax, ot one more ? for you, since you're the Vista tech, if you don't mind. Have you ever seen a Vista machine refuse to shut down for a few minutes? I'm fully updated. When I press the power button or do start->shutDown, a few processes are killed, then nothing happens for a while. Low HD activity, no CPU usage... then 3 minutes later, VIsta decides to grace me be going away. I guess 4 GB isn't enough or dual cores running at 3.25GHz aren't fast enough? Thanks.

Ok, gotta put in one more gripe. Whenever I try to do something, this This User Account Control (UAC) says "Hey, stupid, whetever you're gonna do may be a bad idea. Not that I know anything, I just wanted to let you know that anything you do might be a stupid idea." So, I turned it off (thanks, Cybrax, for the tut), but now, every time I boot up, I get a balloon in the task bar telling me that my UAC is turned off *GASP*. So, Vista is telling me that I shouldn' have turned off a program that warns me tha I probably shouldn't be doing anything. I think little kids act like this, too. Allow me to explain.

Person: "Please be quiet. If you have nothing productive to say, don't talk at all."
Kid: "Ok, I'll stop talking. Yessiree, I'm gonna stop talking any moment. Soon, you will not be hearing me talk. Nosiree, I will not be talking in just a moment. Any moment, now... (continues for 5 minutes).

Granted, this balloon informing me that I turned off UAC is nowhere near as annoying as UAC, but I still take insult to Microsoft telling me that I shouldn't turn off something that tells me that I shouldn't be doing something every time I try to do something.

Wow, that was a lot. Thanks, Runestorm and fans, for tolerating me.

I have different symptons. When i want to shut down, i am simply forced to do a hard reboot most of the times. My start menu is empty except for Windows Update. I can't start programs or anything, i can only left click things to select it. My drives are not visiable, and from that moment i am pretty much locked into Vista till i just hold the power button. My Vista is legit and came from the shop.

Oh it's not a virus or trojan btw. I'm very familiar with those things.