How is Vista? better than XP pro?

Anybody using the beta vista. How does it compare to XP pro. Is it way better? Is an immediate upgrade gonna be well worth it?

 

The only thing i like about vista is its visual improvements especially the glass effects. Aside from that i like XP pro. i don't know maybe i'm just more comfortable with it. LOL

 

Well based on the plans, Vista will support DX10, which, they say, will have about a 60 fps increase on 3d applications compared to an application running with DX9. Also, Vista will be entirely 3d, which will allow again, for better gaming. XP has a 2d system running your desktop and such, and when you switch to a 3d application (like a game), it takes a greater toll on your system than If the desktop was built and running in 3d, allowing for a better transition into 3d intensive games. There are also the fluff improvements like the much heard of "Aero Glass" design. Also, Vista analyzes your system much better (atleast than it's supposed to) than the auto-detect functions in games today. Microsoft is hoping that this will allow for a better performance/quality experience. There are also much smaller improvements, but those listed are the biggest. FYI, the DX10 API is going to be completely rewritten (never done in the history of directx), which should allow for more shaders, such as the geometry shader. Anyway, look at me, babbling away. One more thing, a program will be released at the time of the Vista release, which I do not know if it will work with older OS's but it will allow for multi-platforming gaming. Meaning xboxers and pcers will be able to play together. The program is called "Live Anywhere," and already at E3 this year, a xbox version of "Huxley" connected to a pc server. Good stuff to look forward to. Hope I answered your question.

 

I think I'll wait for like a year after Vista is officially released, so that they have some of the bugs worked out.

 

Doesnt visa have support for 64 bit processors or something ? The eyecandy is nice, but I hear it will be unrunnable with less than 1GB of ram - thats insane, I would not upgrade my current 1 month old system.
Any performace/security benefits ?

M1CH43L so the benifits are only for gaming ? For better performace in general XP is better ?

 

I'm not a gamer, so maybe I'll wait with positivebalance for a year or so.

'N minus one' has worked for me and computers/software for 15 years.

 

Don't read too much into the system requirements. Microsoft wouldn't cut off the huge mass of average computer users. If you want the ultimate edition with all the bells and whistles, then you might want a machine that can handle it.

It is supposed to be more secure than XP. Hopefully, by release they'll have a good product. They've been delaying so long to make sure there are few (if any) foreseeable bugs. By the time this comes out (probably by March next year) it should be a pretty good OS. I HIGHLY doubt you'll see any "Service Packs" before 2-3 years unless there are MAJOR problems...especially considering how long this has taken to release (already 8 months longer than originally anticipated).

 

Vista was originally supposed to be released in late 2003. It is nearly 3 years late and will likely be pushing 4 when it hits shelves.

I think Vista will be a nice OS, after MS can work out the bugs. I definitely would not buy the first run if I could help it.

 

Vista has a cool UI and is noticeably faster than XP, the price for this: it hogs the PC's resources. You will need 1GB of RAM tun Vista Ultimate and if you wanna do some intensive gaming then you will need 2GB of RAM!!!

 

How original are you talking? I was referring to the first "real" projected release after it was named Vista (Q2 2006, I believe). SP2 for XP didn't even arrive until 04, but maybe that's the reason they released it rather than a whole new OS.

But you're right, the point is that MS is outrageously slow at releasing products and updates. Unless it is a major security fix they are pretty cautious.

 

Hmm..it won't. I think you could run Vista with 512MB RAM, but your computer would be sluggish.

 

It depends on whether you have Aero on, and which version you have. MS is not going to cut out the budget users with this OS....but they will offer the "Ultimate" edition for those who have the power for eye candy.

 

Vista was originally meant to be an incremental release in between XP and Blackcomb (now called Vienna). MS then decided to make Vista bigger and include many of Vienna's features in Vista. Then they needed to push SP2 for XP, and took many of the developers working on Vista and moved them to making XP more secure. In mid 2004, they decided to pretty much start from scratch. Since then most of the major features they pulled from Vienna have been taken out and Vista in many ways will turn out to be an incremental release between XP and Vienna. It is actually kinda funny! Oh and now that they won't commit to a release anymore most think it is due for another delay.

What has killed Vista and its timeline is securtiy. XP was VERY insecure until SP2 came out. One would assume that Vista was just as insecure since it would use most of XP's code. Since SP2 did help alot, but still leaves XP pretty insecure they decided to rewrite alot of the code and base it off Windows Server 2003.

 

Not really, Vista isn't dead. Sure this isn't the best PR, and Mac fanboys may be milking this, but at the end of the day eventually 'most' XP users will go to Vista, whether immediately or later after a service pack or two.

DX10 and games being the main/only reason that I can come up with That's one thing that will probably prevent Mac reaching the magical 10% (I don't care if they already reached double figures, just go along for arguments sake) market share

 

I did not mean to imply that I thought Vista was dead, I meant killing as in hamper, holding back. Sorry for the confusion.

You are right though gaming does look like it will be killer. In fact, I have heard that DX 9 games even play better in Vista, that would be great!

As for DX 10 keeping Apple down, there aren't enough hardcore gamers for that. Businesses will be what keeps Apple in the minority.

FWIW, the first week of the Vista public beta there was a virus in the wild apparantly. I question it's security improvements.

 

Nice research Cash! I was under the impression that Longhorn was based on a re-written kernel, not XP's. Maybe I had the wrong info.

When you see a Beta come out there's bound to be bugs...otherwise it wouldn't be a Beta (in philosophy). Guarenteed there are hackers out there salivating at the thought of infecting a Vista-based computer. This is similar to the themers who have been using Vista/Longhorn themes for 2 years. MS is basically 90% penetrated into the computer world. Anytime you have that level of penetration you have a LOT to think about with new products.

 

Well, I've been using Beta 2 for a while and it's actually pretty solid in a lot of respects. There's still quite a few bugs, as to be expected with a beta release, but it does a lot to forward Windows... finally. Let's face it, Windows 95, 98, and ME were basically just updates of the same basic OS, and 2000 wasn't much better IMO. XP is the first Windows release I've been truly happy with, but it still has its quirks. There are a lot more crashes than with Linux, but you give and take when it comes to Microsoft products. The Aero Glass UI is very nice, and it's not just about windows border; it's about the animations, the new flip feature (though Flip3d is pretty useless), and the live thumbnails. These are things that Vista has to offer that XP certainly falls behind in. As for the other features, it is DX10 capable, 64-bit ready with both 32 and 64 bit versions of the OS included with every purchase, and appears to be much more secure. Beta 2 is actually pretty stable, so expect RC1 and the final version to be quite stable, pretty much XP quality. But Beta 2 is not ready to be used as a daily OS.

As for the first service pack, I expect it to arrive much sooner than most people realize. While Vista isn't slated to ship to consumers like you and I until January 2007, right now MS is planning on shipping it to businesses by October or September this year. Therefore, I would expect them to start working on a large number of fixes and patches between then and the time it's released to consumers and a few months later. If Vista does indeed ship by January 2k7, I would expect SP1 by summer. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it. As for gaming, DX10 is the best reason to switch to Vista. Despite the fact that it is a 3D OS, getting games to install in Vista isn't really fun right now, and actually run slower from the tests that I've seen. Google 'Vista gaming' and see what comes up. Granted, it's not much slower, but it's a noticeable 5-10 fps drop. But expect that to go away by the time it's released.

Personally, I have high hopes for Vista and can't wait for RC1. I think I may switch over to using it most of the time when RC1 arrives. While Vista takes a large number of strides forward, some things are VERY different from XP and will take people a while to get used to. File structure and organization has pretty much stayed the same since Win95; there's always been file trees, a My Documents, Control Panel, etc, and they've always contained pretty much the same things. But that's a little different in Vista. Things have been moved around, and it doesn't always make sense. Also, virtual folders have been pretty much eliminated now, but they still make an appearance here and there and will likely throw people for a loop. Still, I think Vista will be a good step forward for Windows, and hopefully it will not become another ME. It is certainly much better when compared to XP than ME was over 98. Just my 2cents though. For good info on Vista from the inside, visit www.winsupersite.com. It's a great site.

 

Oh also, Vista will run on 512MB of RAM, but it's pretty slow. I'm using 1GB right now, and Beta 2 runs pretty well on it, but as with every Windows, the more you have the better. Vista does use a LOT more resources than XP. A clean install will usually run over 50 processes and a memory commit charge of over 500MB. So yeah, a lot more of a hog than XP. But that's Beta 2. Apparently the two subsequent interim builds are much better about using system resources.

 

I would say that at this point - if Microsoft is going to just patch up the holes and release the final (RC1) you are better off sticking to XP. Vista has a vasty inferior performance, regardless of how much memory you have. I suggest testing out the beta on a second computer (I am using it primarily, though) to get a feel for it. With UAC turned off, the only thing really different is that a lot of commands are streamlined.

I have a full review of vista on the TabletPC site. IT's kind of all over the place.

http://forum.tabletpcreviewspot.com/showthread.php?t=1909

 

In fairness it was not until the last build that they started to optimize it. So it is a little premature to judge it's performance and resource useage.

 

Hey, notebook_ftw, try Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop 10 on the M90 - mine installed flawlessly on the system, it even went and download Nvidia drivers for the graphics card, real binary drivers.
I will post a note on this in the linux forum soon.

 

Ugh.......

 

I'll think about it. I'm not really big on doing Linux on this machine. I reformatted my old Latitude C640 to Ubuntu and haven't really used it as much as I was planning on. But then again, there's not much I can do on that old machine. If I could get my USB wireless card to work, I would use it a lot more. But I lost the CD and the drivers that Dell has on their website are for the built-in mobile version, not the USB version. And since the C640s built in card is 802.11b, it's pretty slow and doesn't have very good signal.