osnews.com — After my previous short first impressions 'review' of Windows Vista Build 6000, the final build, I promised you a full review which would look a bit deeper into the system, focusing on less obvious matters than appearance alone. Since there are so many new features in Windows Vista, it is very easy to lose track of them.
Dec 3, 2006 View in Crawl 4
kethraalDec 4, 2006
"who cares about all this, vista is better so use it. xp is old s**t now. get with the times man"I am soooo glad that people like you don't make the IT decisions in my company.I bet you're probably one of the kids who chucks out his perfectly good [insert expensive electronic device] and spends another $500 on whatever the latest, greatest, ZOMG TEH BEST [expensive gadget] is.
spyrochaeteDec 4, 2006
Wowie! My company is a Microsoft Gold Partner and I don't even think we get discounted software purchases anymore! Volume is thicker than blood, eh Billy Gates?
nofxjunkeeDec 4, 2006
In Germany this summer I was using Windows and often it was in German. I'm used to looking at the top of the control panel (classic view, that other new view sucks) for Add & Remove Programs, and couldn't find it for a few seconds once. Someone quickly pointed out that it's just under Software in German. It should have been Software in English too, so if they re-did the naming scheme and it's actually better than I'm all for it.
uownedgeDec 4, 2006
I do agree with WeBDaEMoN on this, but the problem here is, it's really hard to compare the two systems in the area of stability because of how they work under the hood. The problem lies in the fact that so much of Windows really needs retooled to fix stability issues. While a lot has been fixed in Vista, it's probably still not as stable as it could be. That's a really tough area for Microsoft though, especially in terms of hardware, because there are so many different configurations out there. Apple already knows exactly what motherboards are going to be used with OS X, only have one brand of CPU to support, etc. With Windows, there are a ton of different makes/models of motherboards, at least two brands of popular CPUs, etc. This is one area where I can somewhat argue in Microsoft's favor, simply because it's impossible to test every possible configuration.
tenebrousxDec 4, 2006
"I want to know how efficient and fast it runs compared to XP. Anyone know?"on my core 2 machine 32-bit Vista Ultimate RC2 seems much more responsive and snappy. Although I've heard it runs slower than xp on less capable machines. Vista idles at about 2% CPU usage
posureDec 5, 2006
Windows XP has never crashed for me in the entirety it has been out aside from hard drive failures and World of Warcraft-induced blue screens. So yes, I'd say that it is easily as stable as OS X. The only time XP crashed for me outside of those situations was back in the betas.As MioTheGreat said though, it might be less true for morons that click yes on everything. In which case, OS X will protect you better. (...and there are VERY many people that are that stupid)
posureDec 5, 2006
@HorseshoeRequiring permissions or entering an administration password in order to install software is fairly standard in secure operating systems (OS X and Linux are the same way).
badtzDec 5, 2006
completely agree. Regardless of WHY ...... OS X "IS" more stable than XP.I extensively use both, and no way in heck is XP more stable than X.
driversplazaJan 8, 2009
that was a nice review i got one at <a class="user" href="http://www.techlookz.com/windows-vista-errors-tweaks/">http://www.techlookz.com/windows-vista-errors-twea ...</a>