What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Entertainment
Committing a homicide a day keeps the terrorists at bay. view!
funimation.com/gunslingergirl - Watch little girls on a killing spree with machine guns. Gunslinger Girl on Blu-ray now.
804 Comments
- estvir, on 03/10/2008, -136/+359Because near everything is new:
New driver model (Way better than XPs)
New printer stack (Way better than XPs)
New audio stack (Way better than XPs)
New security architecture (Way better than XPs)
New interface (Way better than XPs but this is subjective, but come on, Aero is leaps and bounds ahead of the 'Fisher Price' look you people eloquently labelled XP)
New setup process (Way better than XPs)
New deployment process (Way better than XPs)
New diagnostic, monitoring and reporting program(s) (Way better than XPs)
New Windows Update (Way better than XPs)
New startup process (Way better than XPs)
New memory management (Way better than XPs)
New I/O tech (Way better than XPs)
New Media Centre (Way better than XPs)
New parental controls (Way better than XPs)
New task scheduler (Way better than XPs)
And so on.. - gypsi, on 03/10/2008, -45/+217it's an upgrade because you need more CPU, more memory and more hard drive space to get the same performance you used to have with XP
- alayk, on 03/10/2008, -94/+235My new laptop has vista and I feel like I'm back in 1990s...
so slow. - cocokr1sp, on 03/10/2008, -48/+172I have Vista running fine with 2 gigs of ram, a pentium D OCed to 4ghz, raid0 hard drive configuration, and an 8600 graphics card. Honestly I now prefer Vista over XP.
- rawrzzz, on 03/10/2008, -47/+145Well, windows 98 would be faster than XP on the same machine, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't upgrade.
Is talking jack about Vista cool now? I swear that almost everyone who talks ***** about Vista knows nothing about computers.
And a Vista capable computer doesn't mean it can run Vista perfectly. Oblivion requires 512mb of RAM to run, but you'll get about 15 fps at the most. - Induane, on 03/10/2008, -35/+125New driver model - better support for DRM out of the box.. great...
New printer stack - THERE is an upgrade that gets my juices flowing. Never had problems with the last one...
New audio stack - yes, processor intensive software mixing so cheap cards work great! Screw performance though.
New security architecture CANCELORALLOWCANCELORALLOWCANCELORALLOWCANCELORALLOWCANCELORALLOW.... yes its so secure that a method for overriding that cancel/allow dialog is already available on the net.
New interface (Way better than XPs but this is subjective, but come on, Aero is leaps and bounds ahead of the 'Fisher Price' look you people eloquently labelled XP) - true in some ways, its default config LOOKS better but I can't stand the endless wizards that take you in circles and circles laucnhing more useless wizards, etc. If the network setup works on the first try great, but if not prepare for wizard wizards, wizards to choose what new wizard to launch and SOME PLEASE JUST GIVE ME A CONFIGURATION DIALOG THATS EASY TO GET TO!!!!!!
New setup process - yse they finally caught up to linux and osx methods in use 8 years ago. Good job. I'm really impressed.
New deployment process - no idea what you mean here. No corporate edition means networks have to open themselves up so they can do registration for each machine. Also there are lots of variations, each with different eulas and issues with interoperability (according to some network admins anyways)
New diagnostic, monitoring and reporting program(s) Yes the new logging system is better than the old one. They are a bit annoying and the cpu usage on those services is a bit high for my taste but still, I'll let this one slide ;)
New Windows Update - Just like XP it can't completely be disabled. Go user chocie!
New startup process - looks cleaner to me, don't know much about it though.
New memory management - except that its tested slower for swapping, management, etc. Its only improvement is randomization of kernel memory location. This is a good security feature.
New I/O tech ???? got me here, I have no idea how they compare
New Media Centre - thats like writing an upgrade to MS paint. ANYTHING would have been an improvement.
New parental controls, might be, I've not tried them on either system.
New task scheduler - wrong, the new one is so ***** ***** that it can't manage to have lots of bandwidth coming down the network and at the same time play a ***** MP3!!!! Yes they have to throttle down network speeds just to make mp3's play without skipping. This is really stupid. - cjwhitaker, on 03/10/2008, -52/+136I have Vista on my work computer and it takes forever to start in the morning. Its such a pain.
- sirhomer, on 03/10/2008, -17/+83How else can the OEMs convince you that you need a better computer? Everything working great = bad for business. Remember to buy more RAM and CPU to do the same things you've been doing for the past 10 years.
- inactive, on 03/10/2008, -41/+102except for the part where you actually work for a living and need drivers to work
- sirmasterboy, on 03/10/2008, -11/+60You realize Aero is designed to make the GUI faster. Aero uses your GPU to render the windowing system which takes the load off your CPU. I wouldn't recommended turning Aero off unless you want your CPU to spike up to 50% just from moving a window around. Aero makes the GUI much more snappy for me.
- schoate09, on 03/10/2008, -19/+65Give it time. The first day or two, windows is setting caches that will make the programs you use most start up quicker. I've been using Vista since launch day, and there were a few problems, but after the performance packs, and now SP1 coming out, I'm loving Vista, not only does it look good, it's performance is superior on a machine designed to handle it. I enjoy a slimmed down Xp on my Pentium III Dell Latitude, and Vista on my Core 2 Duo.
- archer75, on 03/10/2008, -7/+51I have had drivers for all my hardware back when Vista was in beta. If you are missing drivers it's not microsoft's fault, talk to the maker of your hardware.
- BioHMMWV, on 03/10/2008, -4/+47Apparently , correcting someone in their use of $ vs. s will get you buried.
- Appox, on 03/10/2008, -36/+78I just got a new hard drive today to downgrade from vista. Slapped on XP pro and it's like a breath of fresh air.
- dnl2ba, on 03/10/2008, -20/+62It's really not that shocking that an operating system written for computers in 2001 (XP) runs faster on the same hardware than an operating system written for computers in 2007 (Vista). That doesn't mean it's "sloppy code," but rather, more is going on under the covers now.
For example, when you copy files in XP, it would stop if it encounters a collision, and would hang until the user responds to a dialog. In Vista, it continues with the other files, and also compares document metadata for you when it finds collisions.
Some parts of Vista are pretty stupid (I'm looking at you, UAC), and game performance will be slower because of increased system overhead. But the computer I had just before my current one had horrific stability issues under XP, but is rock solid under Vista 64-bit as long as I don't install crummy drivers. - zachlac, on 03/10/2008, -17/+55I'm a computer engineer. I have vista. It works great on my 4-year-old laptop, with Aero and everything enabled. There are a lot of nice features. I know that it's not perfect for everyone, and someone with a slow computer should not upgrade. Yes, Microsoft was unclear about how hardware-intensive it was. But I think that the negatives get blown out of proportion. I'm no computer idiot, and if XP was better then I would go back. For my computer, Vista is fine.
And for the "pointless eye candy", unless you're actually writing code all day, I'd rather look at a nice screen with pretty borders. Maybe that's just me, but I don't really care if Futuremark gets a few hundred extra points. - HyperionHK, on 03/10/2008, -30/+66I "upgraded" from XP to Vista on my laptop cause I got access to Vista for free through school. It doesn't run anything any slower, startup time is the same or slightly faster, only thing I turned off is UAC. But it's definitely true that some laptop manufacturers are selling machines that are really not up to par with running vista. it's pretty terrible with only 512mb RAM.
- dijital, on 03/10/2008, -10/+45Because they're trying to entice new customers to not buy into all this nonsense and try it for themselves - on a machine that is made to handle it. I use Vista on several computers and I would NEVER go back to XP. I'm sure that there are some people who have problems with it, but on the right hardware, it's not only faster, but far easier to use.
- frenzy3, on 03/10/2008, -37/+70I got a new compaq 6710b laptop with vista biz.and it ran like a dog.. it froze etc.. I installed xp.. and it is fast.. Why is MS so sloppy with code these days?
- schoate09, on 03/10/2008, -14/+47Funny, Vista, even by the harshest critics, is considered faster for boot, due to the technology involved. Unless you're trolling or using unsupported hardware. Either that or you upgraded from Xp.
- nightmare1228, on 03/10/2008, -4/+37I don't know about you, but my dog is pretty fast.
- inactive, on 03/10/2008, -21/+54There is no reason to upgrade to Vista. The reason I would upgrade OS would be:
1. As a software update to fix bugs on old OS
2. To run hardware/software that does not run on old OS.
3. There is some feature of new OS that I actually need.
It is not clear that Vista actually offers any of these reasons for upgrade over XP. - evilesttoast, on 03/10/2008, -16/+48Vista handles wireless networking way better than XP did. I installed my wireless adapter and never had to mess with it like I had to with XP.
- BlackCow, on 03/10/2008, -4/+35Vista handles memory much better, its called superprefetch. See XP was designed in a time where people had less than a Gig of RAM. Vista is designed for the future, where the minimum people have is a gig. It takes advantage of larger amounts of RAM. Thats why people QQ about Vista being slow when they are running it on some laptop or old computer with 512 MB of RAM.
- slashbot, on 03/10/2008, -5/+31He isn't dead...
- dkoon, on 03/10/2008, -26/+52Sorry HyperionHK, on Digg your opinions don't matter if it involve anything close to "OK, Good, Works Well, No Problem" Microsoft, you think it runs great because you are stupid. We don't care if Vista really run great or your hardware works perfectly for 90% of the people, as long as it's from Microsoft, it's BAD. Oh and don't tell us when you "Upgrade" to Linux some of your hardwares don't work, it's TOTALLY the manufacturers' fault. This is how true democracy works.
- truspect0r, on 03/10/2008, -16/+42Saying "Way better than XPs" doesn't make it way better.
- tcpip4lyfe, on 03/10/2008, -8/+33I play COD 4 with all the graphics pumped up to full and I never dip below 70fps and Supreme Commander on full graphics looks amazing. Vista is fine for gaming if you have a gaming computer.
- HotGore, on 03/10/2008, -19/+44Most people upgrading do not have the systems to power it. Install XP on a Celeron 700mhz and 128mb of ram and see it crawl. That was what most people had when XP came out. This isn't anything new, people just don't know that their current systems are not good enough. I have a very high end system and Vista is as smooth as butter.
- MioTheGreat, on 03/10/2008, -7/+31http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windo ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_ne ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_safety_f ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_network ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_I/O_tec ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_features_n ...
They're quite long, but a good read. - jaxter2010, on 06/17/2009, -10/+34This is an XP vs. Vista article. Please don't drag linux in where its not warranted.
- fli7e, on 03/10/2008, -15/+38I work for a company which provides outsourced, contract-based managed IT services for small and medium business, and these claims are self-evident to me.
However, if you're the IT guy for a business running on 10-year-old copiers and are facing a budget squeeze to upgrade RAM on your Win2K boxes, you probably don't have the resources to realize the clarity that Vista can bring to what is probably an endless cycle of break-fix days for you. - Zarxrax, on 03/10/2008, -28/+51I ran vista for a few months and then switched back to XP x64 edition.
Vista simply offered no killer new features, but it did offer a ton of new annoyances. I see absolutely no reason to 'upgrade'. - thecheatah, on 03/10/2008, -9/+31Code? These days? Have you looked at there console? Have you looked at IE?
- linuxpenguin, on 03/10/2008, -4/+24You overclocked your CPU to 4GHz, and have a RAID array and a 8600 GPU and your computer runs "fine" - and you're happy with that? Your standard of excellence is somewhat confusing to me.
- Jenadae, on 03/10/2008, -10/+30Blah blah blah blah! If you have a reason to upgrade to Vista then do it if your computer runs nicely with it. If it doesn't then stick to XP. I still think it was a douche bag of a move to make DX10 Vista exclusive though.
- scyon, on 03/10/2008, -8/+28Show me a benchmark where Vista beats XP.
- ncgmac, on 03/10/2008, -1/+20I can tell you first hand what's slower, and Microsoft admits this. File copies, moves etc. In other words, a fast amount of I/O. If you are just crusing the internet you probably won't feel it. However, if you edit photos, rip CDs, anything involving more than a meg or 2, you will definintely feel the performance drop.
- Grummond, on 03/10/2008, -7/+25You nailed it.
- beforeIforget, on 03/10/2008, -1/+18I would fee MUCH better about windows 7 if Microsoft came out and said that all pre-Win7 apps will run in a VM-type mode. This would give them the freedom to really develop something innovative and not be held back by backwards-compatibility issues. Windows needs a CLEAN BREAK from all the legacy code that's choking it to death.
- coheedcollapse, on 03/10/2008, -6/+23If you "work for a living" on your computer, you'll be able to find the drivers.One of the only two things that I've plugged into my Vista box and not been able to get working was a 6 year old printer (Lexmark stopped supporting old printers, won't update their drivers to Vista). That was solved by going out and picking up a $20 replacement. The second was a 5 year old scanner. That was also fixed by the $20 replacement because it has a scanner built in. Literally everything else that you'd ever use should be supported, ESPECIALLY business stuff.
The reason these drivers don't work isn't because Microsoft decided to give it's users a big "***** you", but rather, because Microsoft really improved their driver system, thus forcing the companies to update their drivers. The only hardware that won't work on Vista due to a lack of drivers are going to be from companies that decided to stop supporting their older stuff. Most pieces of hardware even have simple workarounds. - noahhoward, on 03/10/2008, -12/+28Yeah you didn't actually read the article, you know, about the MICROSOFT EXECUTIVES who think Vista is *****.
- 11oops, on 03/10/2008, -1/+17Or that his computer is using roaming profiles and group policies, in which case the OS is reading and applying multiple policies as well as transferring his application data, start menu, and desktop items from the server.
Our XP systems take quite a while to shut down and boot up due to the fact that users store gigabytes of music and photos on their desktops rather than their home directories and certain applications (google earth is the worst culprit) caches gigabytes of data in the application data folder which isn't going to ever be cleared out by the average user. IE caches data in the temporary internet files folder which isn't transferred by default, but Firefox has its own cache folder which is transferred daily. - Vodd9, on 03/10/2008, -6/+21new != better
- inactive, on 03/10/2008, -9/+24I don't think you actually have proof that Vista works perfectly for 90% of people, so I'm calling your ***** out.
- Appox, on 03/10/2008, -13/+28yeah. because the massive amount of DX10 games is worth the upgrade to a slower OS.
- estvir, on 03/10/2008, -8/+22I use x64 Vista and am yet to run into a driver issue, just what hardware doesn't have drivers for you to be able to work?
- KnightWhoSaysNi, on 03/10/2008, -4/+18Yes, because we all want to switch machines on Microsoft's schedule.
- xtraa, on 03/10/2008, -3/+16You just wasted 5 minutes of your lifetime
- inactive, on 03/10/2008, -5/+18Show some benchmarks to support your claims or shut up and stop trolling.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 808 discussions
