digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at lifehacker.com

Get Vista's Best Features in Windows XP

lifehacker.com — Despite the fact that most of you prefer XP to Vista and would rather Microsoft extended XP's shelf-life, several new and improved features available in Vista would be great to have in XP. This new functionality may not be enough to get you to switch to Vista, but that doesn't mean you're out of luck.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Disco1Stu, on 05/14/2008, -62/+23Awesome...just about to remove Vista from my laptop and get XP.
    • alwaysmc2, on 05/14/2008, -5/+26Awesome! Does this comment being dugg down mean that it isn't cool to poke fun at Vista anymore?
      • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -4/+28I think digg is either growing up or just got bored with the "Vista Sux0rrs!!11!!!" mentality.
        • Theli, on 05/14/2008, -3/+10And they are moving over to the "Vista r000ls!!!!" mentality. The level of maturity stays the same.
          • ShrimpCrackers, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3I'm sorry but that is honestly the first "Vista rocks" statement I've ever seen on Digg, even though it isn't.
        • ayeroxor, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Well, Higginbotham's constant states that as world population grows, the sum of all IQ's remains the same. I would bet that goes for maturity too, so, no, nobody's growing up around here.
      • Planets, on 05/14/2008, -10/+2It was cool to beat on Vista? Hmm...
      • Aitese, on 05/14/2008, -4/+10No, it's probably the fact that there isn't a real compelling reason to go from XP to Vista if you don't really need to, but if you're already on Vista, it's dumb to decide to go back to XP.
    • seltaeb4, on 05/14/2008, -27/+8If you want to get Vista's best features in XP, you need to purchase a computer from around, say, oh, 1991, 1992.

      Any Mac System 7.5.1 or better should be more than adequate.
    • chrisdancy, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4Are you 15?
      • ayeroxor, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Why don't you have a seat over there?
  • handstrongpimp, on 05/14/2008, -84/+32Windows Vista = Windows Me
    • cquinnd, on 05/14/2008, -9/+54Not.
      • Renegade89, on 05/14/2008, -24/+1Me wasn't half as bad compared to Vista lol, instead of blue screens you get lag in Vista and compatibility issues.

        XP SP3 FTW
        • x2wenty4x, on 05/14/2008, -2/+16Perhaps its your ***** ass hardware.
          • GawtMilk, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4I'm expecting to hear...

            Argument : "Yeah, but if it was Linux, what works would work well"
            Argument : "Yeah, but with Macs you don't have to choose your own hardware"
    • BlitzInferno, on 05/14/2008, -6/+12'=' must be a typo: !=
    • vkzawa, on 05/14/2008, -8/+22Far, far from it. Even at launch Vista only crashed about once every couple days based on driver problems. Windows ME used to crash every few hours. :-P
      • aussieNickuss, on 05/14/2008, -4/+29ME crashed halfway through the installation for me back in 2001......back to 98 for me at that point. Vista on the other hand, I have never experienced a crash, or a "not responding" app yet.
        • jb0nd38372, on 05/14/2008, -13/+1I'm not a psychic but i'd be willing to bet the people digging you down are true vista lovers.

          /sarcasm

          So I dugg you back up
      • Nougat, on 05/14/2008, -11/+6Not the point. WinME was the 9x kernel; Vista is the NT kernel. The two are completely different.
        • evilesttoast, on 05/14/2008, -5/+7But they are being compared here...
    • joeydoo, on 05/14/2008, -2/+17They missed the important feature I like in Vista.. the fact that the UI and video frames are always in sync with the monitor. I hated that on XP, some applications and flash video would always tear..nasty.
      That's one of the many reasons I won't go back to XP... which I could at any time. The main reason is that my Vista machine can run for weeks on end and is just as stable as XP... more stable actually. I had a dodgy graphics driver which crashes once every couple of days.. that would be a blue screen on XP, vista just shrugs it off and reloads it like nothing happened.
      • sfcaptainrob, on 05/14/2008, -6/+3What? A graphics driver for Vista?
      • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -1/+21Isn't having a 3d-composed desktop nice? I can't understand why people insist on using XP....
        • theaceoffire, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6The closest thing I could find for XP was SphereXP, which gave you a 3D sphere as a desktop without live updating windows. It was fun to play with, but compared to Ubuntu, Vista, etc, it just doesn't live up.
        • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6The important thing about having the desktop the way it is is how it handles drawing windows, not the effects. All windows basically have their contents stored in a bitmap offscreen, which the DWM them composites into the window. The end result is a significantly smoother user experience with no window tearing, less repainting, better responsiveness, etc.
  • UltramegaOK, on 05/14/2008, -36/+9Talk about an Oxymoron.
  • Incidents, on 05/14/2008, -68/+214Why not just get Vista? After SP1 it stopped being horrible.
    • JupiterSSJ4, on 05/14/2008, -43/+24after SP1 it got so bad that I upgraded back to XP (sound driver completely messed up, no sound or stuttering...), SP3 is far better, and my fast laptop runs much faster now
      • ozid, on 05/14/2008, -21/+12you used all the Vista hater keywords. congrats. if you had a truly fast laptop, it wouldn't be very slow on Vista. I had a Vista laptop with intel graphics and it was just as fast as XP.

        obviously you either forced your windows update to update to SP1, or you didn't have the right sound drivers.
        • digsuxx, on 05/14/2008, -6/+3i'm sorry but you're wrong. vista has a lot of quirky behavior. removing or moving folders for instance will sometimes leave an empty folder, or vista will think there are still items to be moved after they've been moved, locking issues arise as well with similar operations. then there is the stuttering on heavier use and multitasking or video playing. this is sp1 i'm talking about. i even tried using vlite to trim down ***** i don't use like the indexer, but vista remains buggy. it's a piece of ***** and it looks like windows 7 is going to be even *****, asta la vista Windows.
          • ozid, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Assuming you built your computer, using Microsoft' HCL or even the Vista upgrade assistant will prevent you from running into these strange problems, for the most part. I've had issues with Vista. I've had issues with every OS, though. None were big, except for one time I installed ubuntu onto a desktop without researching hardware compatibility.

            Even on my Mac Mini I sometimes run into trouble with OS X. Nothing huge, but with Vista (as with XP), a lot of older pieces of hardware became unsupported by Microsoft. The problem with Vista is that a small hardware problem can seem like a large one, because Vista manages it differently than XP/NT does.

            I admit Vista wasn't ready. But problems can be prevented if you take the time to ensure your hardware is supported.

            That said, I can't speak for OEM's who are giving out computers that don't function properly. I've never really messed with Vista on an OEM, come to think about it.
        • int19h, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2He never said his laptop was slow on Vista.
      • ChristineM206, on 05/14/2008, -6/+30How is a crappy sound driver (made by someone other than microsoft) the fault of vista?
        • Tenoq, on 05/14/2008, -14/+5So why not use Linux? I mean, it's free, and clearly it's the manufacturer's fault you have no driver. Right?
          Stupid logic. If you don't have a working solution, it doesn't matter who's ***** fault it is - you go find a working solution. If that happens to XP, how can you begrudge him ditching Vista if his hardware doesn't support it?
          I can identify with that - my first Vista driver for my professional soundcard was released a month ago. Spending $400 on a retail or $200 on an OEM Vista seems pretty retarded when I know it won't work as well as XP (ie, I'll have no sound).
        • estvir, on 05/14/2008, -2/+7Tenoq, lie more about those prices, really, it does wonders for your complexion.
        • HonoredMule, on 05/14/2008, -4/+3Who cares who's fault it if using XP alleviates the problem?
        • gn0stik, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2Becaue PEBKAC problems persist across platforms honoredmule.
    • moo113, on 05/14/2008, -21/+69I'm quite used to Windows XP. I've been using it for 6 years, run custom modes and it's flawless. Why upgrade when it does everything I need?
      • Jerky1312, on 05/14/2008, -3/+32Same reason why I still use Windows 2000.
      • over900000, on 05/14/2008, -5/+44Same reason why I still use Windows 98SE.
        • danomagnum, on 05/14/2008, -0/+21Seriously?
          Edit:Damn... curse you alcohol and making me not realize sarcasm...
          • estvir, on 05/14/2008, -1/+13Friends don't let friends drink and surf the Internet.
          • howzitgoin88, on 05/14/2008, -1/+13@estvir: Yes they do. Its ***** hilarious!
          • RyomaNagare, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Except windows 98 was never a good OS 2000/XP was a giant leap, using the NT kernel, for starters it introduced a new file system, and ended the BSOD problems that plagued 95-ME
            also it introduced a working version of "plug & Pray", it introduced a working version of DirectX, vs the horrible mess that was DX5-7 sure xp was flawed but it was a significant better experience than what 98 was.

            People want to make believe that the same people that hate vista, were around hating xp when it came out, when the truth is that most of those people migrated to linux, people on the other hand that liked xp are still using it.
      • PleaseJustDie, on 05/14/2008, -4/+51Same reason I still use dos 3.1 and the Automenu.
      • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -1/+32Same reason why I don't use these stupid "operating systems". They just get in the way.
      • hello2usir, on 05/14/2008, -2/+48Same reason I still use an abacus.
      • colasrtney, on 05/14/2008, -1/+41Same reason I'm using hand-written correspondence to post this.
      • karolisonline, on 05/14/2008, -26/+4Same reason why I still use {* insert oldest operating system You know *}
        • CarzorStelatis, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5The incompetent filtering messed this comment up, bury please.
      • tnoy, on 05/14/2008, -2/+55Same reason I just keep beating the monolith with a bone until something productive happens.
      • EvilCan, on 05/14/2008, -19/+3First of all: combo breaker....second of all: I think Incidents was talking about the people who are trying to squeeze a ton of Vista features into XP. People like you who don't need any of the features shouldn't upgrade if you're happy with XP.
      • stephbeaudet, on 05/14/2008, -1/+22same reason why i use a butterfly :)
      • steelmaverick, on 05/14/2008, -2/+9Same reason I'm digging down the above poster.
      • anchorman, on 05/14/2008, -4/+22saim reazin...Ug! wuy... Me tuke rok and writ wurd hear on wull uv caive.
      • Tenoq, on 05/14/2008, -15/+4DX10?
        Gimme DX10 and I'll probably never upgrade/sidegrade/downgrade to Vista. I mean, it offers no other advantages to me personally, and a world of hurt to boot. Seems like a no-brainer. That and it costs money. That's a pretty big reason to not get it unless you absolutely have to.
        Out of interest - can any of the Vista fanboys suggest why Vista would be a better choice over XP, other than DX10? I've got a huge list of why it's worse, but don't really know why people actually like it.
        • Lith25, on 05/14/2008, -2/+15boots faster, searches through files faster, more stable than XP, better support for older games.
          • cannarymburns, on 05/14/2008, -4/+2doesn't look like crap without having to install transformation packs which are near impossible to uninstall afterwards, brings the installation environment out of the 1980s with support for loading drivers from usb and disk drives, support for efi whenever our mobo overlords deem the bios ready to be discarded, great backup tool, media center, and i really have to emphasize more stable because this os, unlike xp, does not gum up with crap, in fact it runs faster the more you use it... but really, vista sucks.
          • cannarymburns, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1great that i posted the exact same thing as lith and got dugg down... did anyone read anything besides my last 4 words?
        • gn0stik, on 05/14/2008, -4/+1...and most of your huge list is FUD.
      • Frost9999, on 05/14/2008, -7/+1ook ook?
      • disabled4diggin, on 05/14/2008, -4/+2Same reason I'm furiously masturbating.
      • Licurgo, on 05/14/2008, -3/+0same reason im still a unicellular organism
      • cruzlee, on 05/14/2008, -4/+2Then maybe you don't need so much. Vista runs games and various other applications _slower_ than XP. XP never did that for W2K. True, XP needed more resources than 2K, but it would run applications faster, thereby justifying an upgrade.
      • monkeytennis, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2I love digg. You can find some absolute comic gems by digging around these comment threads a bit.
      • NJank, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1best thread ever
      • jerrycan, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5I adore my 64.
    • alexonix, on 05/14/2008, -11/+67after decent drivers came out like 2 months after launch it stopped being horrible...
      • theaceoffire, on 05/14/2008, -19/+5God that is sad... Since when have we been happy with "It doesn't suck anymore, lets buy it!"
        Anyone remember when we looked FORWARD to the new OS, waited in line, and eagerly installed it?
      • digginamish, on 05/14/2008, -3/+24I love how people like to hold Microsoft responsible for drivers! All the manufacturers had Vista more than a year before it was released - even Adobe, who lied and said you would need to BUY a Vista-specific version.
        In the history of operating systems it has never been the responsibility of the maker of the OS to ensure software and hardware vendors keep up. All of you remember the same stories with other releases, so why all the bashing this time?
        • TheG2, on 05/14/2008, -4/+14Linux does the same thing, but no one blames Linux...noooo
        • TheWindBlows, on 05/14/2008, -11/+5Didn't Microsoft break the drivers a few months before initial release though?

          They do blame linux except its pointed out more though.
          • grumpyrain, on 05/14/2008, -0/+12Microsoft significantly improved the driver model. The graphic drivers were removed from kernel mode and put into user mode so that a crash of a video driver does not BSOD, rather a gentle balloon hint in the system tray informs you the drivers crashed and were restarted.

            In fact the same thing happened for audio, printer, USB and most other subsystems. In this way, dodgy drivers are far less likely to cause major instability. The sound drivers were changed hugely to allow per application volume leveling and high definition audio.

            So no-one doubts that hardware manufacturers had some work to do to make sure they were compatible. But they did have over 9 months before RTM to preview beta builds, and there is absolutely no excuse now.
      • 0o0Moylan0o0, on 05/14/2008, -7/+3I stopped using Vista, not anything to do with it being hrrible or slow or anything like that. becaues i know it is much faster, especially with decent RAM. I just like using XP because im so used to it, you cant deny there being still some issues with some hardware (soudblaster x-fi) that cause annoyances, mainly i just like the feel of xp better than Vista still. im glad this page got brought up though, because i think the start menu search was one of the smartest things they've done. I just wish there was another app that would allow the adjustment of volume of individual apps like vista too though...

        edit: although just noticed this start menu app is basically useless cos it -only- searches the start menu, whereas the vista one has the control panel commands and everything too.. oh well :(
        • CarzorStelatis, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7The Soundblaster thing isn't Microsoft's fault - Creative have stated that they will not improve the Vista drivers for old cards in order to force people to buy new ones. Asus (etc.) discrete soundcards work just fine in Vista.
      • sirber, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5Unless you have a Creative Labs soundcard :(
        They didn't manage to have working drivers after 2 years...
        • gn0stik, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4creative sucks. they've always been slow on drivers. I remember similar problems with xp. it doesn't effect me however, since I no longer purchase their products. There are better soundcards out there now anyway.
    • ExRe, on 05/14/2008, -7/+30I'd argue that it wasn't horrible before SP1. The only real problem I've ever had was back in the Beta/RC's with my Creative sound card (and some versions of gpu drivers from nVidia).

      Thankfully I don't have to deal with that BS from creative anymore since I got another computer (the old one has XP and is only for gaming).
      • alwaysmc2, on 05/14/2008, -1/+9seconded.
      • iofthestorm, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4Indeed. SP1 changed almost nothing for me, except file transfers, and I don't copy huge files on a daily basis.
      • BlackKnight6, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Creative still hasn't issued a new Vista driver for Audigy owners (me) since march of 07, I ***** hate creative...

        P S. Daniel K is the man for getting it to work like it should in Vista!
    • doshindude, on 05/14/2008, -22/+30XP suits everyone's needs better. Don't pointlessly upgrade unless you need to.
      • SLockhart, on 05/14/2008, -12/+6Do you mean that to upgrade when you don't need to is pointless or that you should pointlessly upgrade if you have to?
      • kineticarl, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3I agree about the needless upgrade part. I built a new machine and anticipated putting xp on it, but tried vista first because I had a free license for the 64-bit business edition. I wanted to see how abysmal it was, then revert to xp. Turned out I liked it and kept it, and even later upgraded my laptop from xp to vista, with absolutely no problems. However, both of my copies of Vista were complimentary. I like Vista, and won't go back to xp, but to me it doesn't make a big enough difference to justify actually paying to upgrade an existing xp install. If I were to be buying a computer right now and had the choice between xp and vista, I'd definitely get vista.
    • ElBeh, on 05/14/2008, -8/+23Because that takes money. XP is fine. :)
      • kevinisnthere, on 05/14/2008, -17/+5You've obviously never heard of the Pirate Bay then...
        • ElBeh, on 05/14/2008, -3/+4I've heard of it and use it. But, since I use a laptop that was provided by my school, I have certain restrictions. It's easy to get around, but not to hide.
        • NJank, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1The first rule of Pirate Bay...
    • alwaysmc2, on 05/14/2008, -14/+59Actually, Vista was basically always good. SP1 is a good excuse to start liking Vista without admitting to being wrong, though.
      • petard, on 05/14/2008, -4/+17Spot on! For the most part at least.
        Actually, some people decided to give it another go once SP1 came out, and downloaded newer drivers then when they tried it on launch/pre-launch. This time though, the drivers went't crappy and the computer ran fine. If you tried it right before and right after SP1, it wouldn't make a huge difference.
        The only thing I really have noticed about SP1 is the UAC dialogue comes up a little faster.
    • sfacets, on 05/14/2008, -27/+8Well I'm a Mac user (wait! don't bury me!) and seriously, XP (sp2+) isn't a bad Os. Vista on the other hand needs more than a service pack to get right. This is where I would make a snide comment about "where is your WOW now, biatch" - but I will refrain.
      • dig1x, on 05/14/2008, -6/+16There was nothing wrong with Vista prior to SP1. Sorry, and fortunatley the hysteria seems to have finally given way to that reality.
    • AmnioticEntity, on 05/14/2008, -14/+9cut paste in home basic (my version) = broken. you sir, are a liar. dig me down if you must, but its the truth. ;)
      • DarkShroud, on 05/14/2008, -4/+7Cut/Copy & paste is only broken in Linux.
        • TheWindBlows, on 05/14/2008, -3/+1Because of how memory is handled. Work around is simply install a Clipper Program or something similar.

          Also in Linux i can select text and paste with a middle click. (I like that feature and didn't have it in windows)
      • iofthestorm, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5Home basic? Get a real computer, Home Basic should only be on systems with 512MB of RAM, and my parents' computer from 5 years ago that was the cheapest at the store has 512MB RAM.
    • Rikkochet, on 05/14/2008, -14/+13That's what I thought. It's been a month - I need to go back to XP this weekend when I have some time to reinstall. Windows Explorer is just unusably stupid with large files, lots of files, or network locations. I have lots of time to spare, but I don't want to spend it waiting for Windows to prepare to pop up a window estimating how long it'll take to copy the files when XP will have already started copying those files and probably be done.
      I will redact my original feelings on Vista: it's not that Vista isn't ready, it's that it's a bad OS. I might have to suck it up and learn Linux, because the future is MS is looking mighty depressing.
      • serpentor, on 05/14/2008, -7/+8It's a sad day when the pro-Vista digg brigade diggs down a completely relevant comment with no counterclaim to back them up..
        • ExRe, on 05/14/2008, -4/+7So, we should pull up some article trying to counter his/her claim?

          It works fine for the rest of us, if somebody is having a problem which very few, if any others have, they are doing something wrong.
      • sexybobo, on 05/14/2008, -1/+9Try SP1 it removed most in not all copying problems people were having.
    • SLockhart, on 05/14/2008, -16/+9Vista has always been great. Some people just love to hate Microsoft. Socialists probably.
    • themastersb, on 05/14/2008, -6/+14Now I need some of XPs good features in vista. For example defraging that shows how much there is to defrag rather than just a progress bar, an image viewer that will display animated gifs and not try to play video, and just be generally more convenient and fast.
      • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+29XP's defrag visual was actually a very poor representation of what your hard disk actually looked like. It was an inaccurate 'feel-good' meter. It became more blue, and you felt better.
      • SLockhart, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7If you like visual output use Auslogics defragger. I love Vista but I use Auslogics for defragging.
      • alwaysmc2, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2I prefer the way Vista does it, which is automatically.
    • Alias12, on 05/14/2008, -4/+8I've liked Vista all along and never really had an issue with it, it feels (and always has felt) faster an XP on my old desktop and this laptop. My one gripe that still isnt fixed with SP1 is large file transfers still take forever and are a drain on a system entirely.
    • DyceFreak, on 05/14/2008, -14/+15there is absolutely no excuse for the piss poor framerates in games on vista... Sure its all shiny and new, and got some nice features to boot, and with that I will gladly pony up the extra rescources. But then comes CS:S, HALF THE FRAMES OF XP, I went from 120 all the time to 40-80... absolutely inexcusable with a high end machine.
      • petard, on 05/14/2008, -2/+18How long ago was this test? Back at launch? Nvidia had bad drivers back then. The latest drivers are REALLY good and finally added in advanced options like setting custom refresh rate, blanking, etc.
      • PueSi, on 05/14/2008, -2/+15There must be something wrong with your computer, there's some loss but it's like 10% at most.
        Update your drivers.
        • Tenoq, on 05/14/2008, -9/+4But if you're PAYING for an 'upgrade' to Vista - why should you LOSE frames? Surely it should be faster? That's what people keep trying to say about Vista anyway: faster than XP on good hardware.
      • DarkShroud, on 05/14/2008, -2/+15There isn't a performance hit anymore unless you still have older drivers or additional video software.

        http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302495 ...
        • iofthestorm, on 05/14/2008, -1/+9Hear hear, every time someone talks about framerate loss I'm going to point them to this and tell them to shut the ***** up. I saw this yesterday, and hopefully it'll be all over the internet soon.
          Oh, seems like it's been submitted to digg- digg it up if you're tired of idiots spouting off about how Vista sucks. http://digg.com/microsoft/Gaming_Performance_Windo ...
    • estvir, on 05/14/2008, -6/+9And it's an incredibly irresponsible article, mostly this part:

      "There are surely some under-the-hood changes in Vista that you won't get from these simple upgrades, but let's be honest: You care about the features, not the underlying code. And since you can get most of Vista's new features from the comfort of XP .."

      Oh, and they kind of lie too. Microsoft has made a [more] secure OS that has held up for ~ < 2 years so far, you should be switching over, if not, you're a burden on the [IT] world.
      • NJank, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3wait... upgrading everyone is a larger burden than staying with what works... hmmm...
        • alwaysmc2, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1NJank, that kind of mentality is why half of all IE users are still on IE 6.
    • Duggan360, on 05/14/2008, -3/+5Well vista also does everything you need, But better!
    • orangePenguin92, on 05/14/2008, -4/+3There's nothing wrong with Vista, nor is there anything "right" about it that warrants a $100 (+) purchase.
    • Viriatus2, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5Vista is not bad, the real problem lies in drivers. My ATI card performs very poorly in Vista.
      • alwaysmc2, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Works poorly now, or two years ago when you tried a free Vista beta?
    • pingwax, on 05/14/2008, -1/+8Meh, I'm an IT professional with vista SP1 running on a Lenovo T60P with 4GB of memory. I still have problems with blue screens, lock ups and extremely poor performance in managing large numbers of files over the network. I use Vista in order to gain familiarity with it, but I certainly would not recommend it as an upgrade path to anyone right now, with or without SP1.

      edit: I also have to say that Vista + Office 2007 uses a STAGGERING amout of disk space for a clean install. 30+GB for just the OS, an office package, drivers and patches. That is inexplicable.
      • NJank, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1no, that is bloat.
      • franl, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Frequent blue screens and lock ups indicate a hardware problem. Bad RAM is a possibility. Get a tool like memtest86+ (http://www.memtest.org/) and test your RAM.
        • pingwax, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Blue screens can be caused by a vast array of problems; memory issues are only one tiny posibility and with established hardware, an unlikely problem (this system ran XP exclusively for over a year without an issue). There are specific circumstances under which I can regularly induce a blue screen in vista (pasting large amounts of data into a serial session (and yes, i've used different usb to serial adapters and different terminals including teraterm and putty)). I continue to dual boot with XP and have never experienced a blue screen in XP on this machine. I assure you, the failure here is not hardware.
    • BobOki, on 05/14/2008, -2/+5I disagree. With the entire statement.
      The ENTIRE OS is a hunk of bloated *****.
      The networking stack is twice as slow as the XP stack, and it still tries to take master browser in a network even after SP1was applied.
      DX10 is pretty, yes, but in games that are not programmed to take advantage of the pretty, it is still 10-20 fps slower. Making DX10 only come on Vista when it works just FINE in XP (google it.. yay hacks!) is another stab in the back. More and more programmers are now re-looking at OpenGL and with 3.x coming out soon, lets hope to see some serious improvements in OpenGl code for programmers (this helps the linux guys too btw).
      Memory management took two steps back to NT 4 days when programs with leaks run away with the system. Internal programs such as the horrible wannabe searchlight program often get stuck in a search and the thread never closes, just continues to grow.
      The menuing structure pissed off EVERY SINGLE one of our employees that tested the system (we did a 30 person roll out) and they all are competent users. We hardlocks, errors, and permission issues on things that had full admin privileges. One machine tried to share the internet connection with all when the ICS was disabled.
      All users complained about load times, both in boot up and in application loads, though they did say after the application loaded it seemed to work fast (no menu lag or option skips).
      Lastly, the 30 machines that we purchased had to come with 1 gig more ram just to run this OS so it did not crawl. Now 1 gig ram is not a lot of money for home users, but for a business with over 3000 employees, that is not pocket change.
      All-in-all, I think Microsoft should open DX10 for XP, appologize for this Windows ME clone (IE BAD) and offer refunds for those forced to buy it and extend XP until they release their next OS, which is supposed to be a total rewrite of the kernel..... finally.
    • quakerorts, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3If I go to Vista, I'd have to have a dual boot computer so I could run XP when I need to some of my older software (which I MUST have to do my job) that my vendor has told me they will never make Vista compatible. Also, I'd have to change office suites because the one I use now, won't run under Vista.
      • alwaysmc2, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1It may just be that that company won't support Vista, rather than the program isn't compatible. Since you obviously don't use Office 2007, I highly recommend you give it a try. Also, there's no need to dual boot. As long as the legacy programs you want to run don't require 3D graphics, you can use Virtual PC, which is a free virtualization technology from Microsoft that allows you to run a copy of XP inside Vista.
    • galvo, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3I agree with Moo. Why bother "upgrading" to Vista when I'm completely fine with x64? Dx10 isn't enough to make the switch. Everything works, and fast. My computer, which is a beast, would suffer from a little performance loss if I ran Vista, so why bother if there isn't an even trade-off? And plus, there's mods to get dx10 features to work in XP with a dx9.0c GPU.

      Vista offers nothing that can grab my attention.
    • Banshie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Just install SP1 here, its better but I have a new stack of lovely problems... but my system isn't generic so it might be driver related.
  • uziko, on 05/14/2008, -84/+182I thought vista had no new features?

    Oh wait that was just ***** from virgin linux fanboys who are jealous of pussy getting windows users.
    • chazza125, on 05/14/2008, -22/+12pussy getting? uh huh...
    • stillmilking, on 05/14/2008, -21/+15sounds like a windows fanboy to me
    • Phocion55, on 05/14/2008, -12/+50Clearly somewhere during your childhood you had a freak run-in with a penguin.

      We're here to help you get through these troubling times.
      • AmnioticEntity, on 05/14/2008, -17/+3digg this man up! (thank you, Phocion55)
    • WhereAmI, on 05/14/2008, -17/+17Wow, Digg is full of politics, celebrities and windows defenders (not necessarily a fanboy). Its a shame.
      • AmnioticEntity, on 05/14/2008, -3/+10what ever happened to being non-partial? did it stop being cool when the word/phrase was used in the movie "kinsey" ?
        • WhereAmI, on 05/14/2008, -6/+2***** non-partial. Non-partial would mean a story on Digg about Brittany Spears getting her nails done is more important than a story about nano-solar technology and guess which one is world changing?
        • ghostfaceDX, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1OMG! If she actually gets french tips, that would like totally change my world.
      • Fartag, on 05/14/2008, -7/+5But fortunately it's always easy to spot! Pro-Windows comments at-all-costs collect around every Microsoft related article, and the comment diggs are just ridiculous there. If Vista killed puppies, then protests against killing puppies would be easily drowned out on Digg.
        • Branden, on 05/14/2008, -2/+6I don't really see how it is any different for a Mac or Linux submission. Generally people are going to digg and comment stories that are relevant to them. If you look at some of the Linux stories you dugg in the past I would bet they are Pro-Linux.
          • Fartag, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3Ah, you got me! Yes, I'm heavily pro-Linux, pro-open source, pro-information accessibility as I'm inclined towards rapid-as-possible tech development the world over. As such, I'm _heavily_ anti-Microsoft because they've stood against, and continue to stand against these things on numerous fronts. Abusing monopoly status in countless anticompetitive ways has hurt us all.

            Now if this wasn't the case, and Microsoft hasn't and doesn't continue to do these things then there'd be no reason for pro-Linux people to bother to come in here complaining about it. There'd be nothing in it then for anybody.

            The specific thing I'm getting at here though is when it comes to Microsoft articles, comments that align exactly with what fills Microsoft's coffers are generally dugg up highly and overrepresented, and those against it even when it's beneficial to everybody else does not. I hate misinformation though, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

            Not to mention, pro-Linux articles rarely have comments with invalid presumptions followed by ad homonym like:
            "I thought vista had no new features? Oh wait that was just ***** from virgin linux fanboys who are jealous of pussy getting windows users."
            climbing into the +50s and beyond.

            First, Vista _does_ have new features, it has always been a question of how worthwhile it is to upgrade. And anything that enhances XP to include these is a benefit in general. However, this is _not_ beneficial to Microsoft's maximization of profits for people to cling to their installation of XP, so there is a big push to get people to convert even if there's no reason for them to! Things nerds care about technologically are dugg down in Microsoft submissions when it runs contrary to MS profits, it's just a bizarro world here if pro-Linux people never showed up at all.
    • specialK16, on 05/14/2008, -6/+20What the ***** was that?
    • Phocion55, on 05/14/2008, -15/+14Inferiority Complex:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferiority_complex

      "It is often subconscious, and is thought to drive afflicted individuals to overcompensate, resulting either in spectacular achievement or extreme antisocial behavior, or both."

      I'm going with both.
      • ut2k4king, on 05/14/2008, -4/+10I fail to see the achievement in his comment.
    • tnoy, on 05/14/2008, -8/+44Pft, untrue. With all the money I've saved moving to Linux I was able to buy sex.
      • gabacho2, on 05/14/2008, -1/+23But you were too busy trying to fix her .conf to enjoy it
      • DarkShroud, on 05/14/2008, -8/+4Was it a shock to see your mother on the corner?
      • TweekyD, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Whaaaa! ..... I get free my OS free .... and my GS free (good sex). My apologies to Microsoft and the World's prostitutes.
    • gabacho2, on 05/14/2008, -8/+24All the anti-Microsoft stuff seems to come out during the day, and all the pro Microsoft stuff comes out during the evening, after people get off of WORK.

      Hear that linux guys? WORK
      • TheWindBlows, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3Does it matter if they work or not?

        It's the internetz you don't have to look at their face.
      • DeathfireD, on 05/14/2008, -6/+8It's more like all the Linux and Mac people are out partying in the evening and all the Microsoft people have no place to go after work so they post on digg.
      • Zettabyte, on 05/14/2008, -5/+13You know every doesn't live in the same timezone as you. Even your own country which I assume is the USA, has 3 different timezones.

        Not to mention, people have afternoon shifts and Night shifts, not a ***** 9-5 white collar job.
        • colonelxc, on 05/14/2008, -1/+43? Try 6, 4 in the mainland, and two different ones for each alaska and hawaii
        • sparsely, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I can believe that. I'm a firm believer in that.
        • DeathfireD, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1It's a joke *****, get a sense of humor.
    • sexybobo, on 05/14/2008, -4/+12I am a linux fanboy and have ubuntu or debian installed on every pc i own. My gaming pc i had windows xp installed on and know have vista installed on. I have never understood why people were bashing vista the problems i have with vista are the exact same i have with xp all about the freedom of use not being able to change enough or not being able to delete a file i want to delete.
      As far as windows goes though i think it is a big step above xp. SP1 really did fix any lingering problems i had with vista but there were very few to start with. Alot of people were bitching with the SP1 that it made them get new drivers for there card before they updated. In reality 35% of the time vista crashed it was do to bad drivers that just needed upgraded.
      • FKnight, on 05/14/2008, -2/+5In fact, zero problems with drivers on my Vista machine. I'm pretty sure it's due to the fact that I'm running 64 bit Windows and all the drivers needed to get signed by WHQL.
    • orangePenguin92, on 05/14/2008, -3/+2Because "getting pussy" is the only thing that matters in this world?
  • clak, on 05/14/2008, -36/+12but... but... Vista isn't THAT bad. You only need a supercomputer to run it, man, stop complaining. It works perfectly on my Cray Mark VII.

    /Fanboy
    • KaiUno, on 05/14/2008, -5/+4Well, you're not far off. Once I put in 8Gb and removed the swapfile, vista x64 runs like a dream. It takes a bit for superfetch to cache all the programs I use, but after it's been on for 15 minutes it's the fastest Windows around.
      And it's definately as stable as XP. It's never crashed here. Mind you, I only took the perma-plunge after SP1 arrived. Before that I was constantly trying to make up my mind, switching back and forth between XP64 ans Vista64.
      Don't think I'll be heading back now. Once you get used to the streamlined interface and the weird (but better) way explorer works, it's hard to go back. I've also fallen in love with the sidebar as well. Used to be that was the first thing to go, now I've got all sorts of odds and ends on it for which XP needed the systemtray. Messenger, Sabnzbd, µtorrent... there's a gadget for everything.
      If it turns out Conan dx10 runs like advertised (which is still a mystery as they won't put it in bet), I'm deleting XP.
    • ExRe, on 05/14/2008, -6/+5Meanwhile...over here...running perfectly on a 4 year old dell.
    • DarkShroud, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302495 ...
    • staxofmax, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Vista runs horribly on my abacus.
  • KanosWRX, on 05/14/2008, -39/+125I have been nothing but happy with Vista, no more problems then any other OS, its more stable for me then my OSX and XP computer and easier to use. Simple as that.
    • uziko, on 05/14/2008, -13/+30you and me both buddy
      • tacofarts, on 05/14/2008, -10/+4I'm not your buddy, frie....nvm
      • herrshuster, on 05/14/2008, -3/+3Same here and I would say for my mom as well, but freakin intel video drivers have bluescreened all over a 50 foot projected screen
        • sexybobo, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4Try updating to the latest drivers.
    • aspec, on 05/14/2008, -31/+16Really? Easier to use than OSX? Less crashing than X and XP? I think you need to get your hardware checked. OSX has locked only 2 times since I bought this macbook: once for a bad hard drive, and once for bad memory.
      • evilesttoast, on 05/14/2008, -5/+21Vista has never locked up for me
      • waynechng, on 05/14/2008, -3/+35Funny how Mac fanboys are okay with bad hard drives and bad memory from Apple which they're not allowed to change themselves, but will sh*t all over Windows cause it doesn't have their Launcher.
      • sab0tage, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5Did you get the faulty HDD and RAM replaced then?
      • solidsnake1298, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6Nah, he just bought a new laptop after each failure. You can't replace parts in a Mac. Didn't you hear?

        /sarcasm

        But seriously though, it is a bitch to get to any of the parts in a Mac. Even something as simple as memory and a hard drive (which require two screws to be taken off for my Vaio for both the HDD and memory).
      • tenchiws, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4I've had OS X corrupt my hard drive...6 times in the past few weeks? Granted, I was trying to partition with the Boot Camp Utility and double click on apps, two very uncommon activities.
      • 11oops, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3Vista = Never locked up or bluescreened once in over a year.

        Leopard = OS periodically freezes up anytime a torrent download exceeds 200kbs
        Leopard = OS crashes 16 seconds into any Quicktime video playback
        Leopard = OS crashes about one in every ten times I try to sync my iPod with iTunes.
    • bradleyland, on 05/14/2008, -14/+14Interesting. Considering Windows XP is an almost seven-year mature product based on an NT kernel that is remarkably similar to what Windows Vista uses. I guess it may not be all that surprising to hear that you had a better experience with Vista than XP, but as far as stability goes, XP is based on the NT kernel, and driver writers have had a very, very long time to get things right. If you can't maintain a stable system with Windows XP, then you're not going to have much better luck with Vista.

      Then again, everyone who likes Vista is going to digg you up, just because they want to feel better about owning an OS that everyone is constantly bitching about. Personally, I have no general gripes with Vista. I like it, and I really like the many changes they've made to a more sane environment.
      • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -2/+23>If you can't maintain a stable system with Windows XP, then you're not going to have much better luck with Vista.

        I disagree. Since my friends and family have switched to Vista, the amount of maintenance work that I have to do for them has dropped dramatically. Vista seems to be capable of maintaining itself in the face of idiot users much better than XP ever could.
        • grumpyrain, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3Reason: UAC gives those with other things to do in their lives than to follow the latest exploit the opportunity to know when something isn't doing what it should be. You simply need to tell them that the UAC popup means something wants to make permanent systemwide changes on their computer, so to apply some common sense and click Cancel unless you trust the application.
      • estvir, on 05/14/2008, -3/+11Vista has a more stable, more secure and more reliable base, it's known as Windows Server 2003.
        • sexybobo, on 05/14/2008, -5/+4UMMM Windows Server 2008 but close though. Don't know if you ever used xp64 it is based off of 2003 and it is horrible.
          • estvir, on 05/14/2008, -2/+8No, it's not based on Server 2008, it's based on the 2003 codebase. Server 2008 and Vista share the same [new] base and a lot of the development done on both is interchangeable, hence why Vista SP1 brought it 'up to date' with the kernel, binaries and other things in Server 2008 thanks to the extended development time it had.

            And XP 64 isn't a 'normal' release of Windows and isn't comparable.
        • DarkShroud, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Correct, SP1 updated it to the Server 2008 code base & kernel thus making it even better.
      • alwaysmc2, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1That made no sense. XP's kernel is older than Vista's, but that's a BAD thing. Vista's kernel has obviously being actively developed, while XP's just got zipped up with SP3. Also, Vista's kernel is based off of Windows Server 2003, which is an evolved kernel from XP, so I really don't understand how XP's kernel could be more mature than Vista's, since Vista's kernel is clearly more matured. By definition, however mature XP's kernel is, Vista's has to be more mature, since one is based off of the other.
    • sassip, on 05/14/2008, -10/+5I have OSX for video editing. I push that machine very hard. I have XP for bookkeeping and business email. The XP machine is a dog by comparison.
    • waynechng, on 05/14/2008, -4/+16I expected to hate Vista when I got my new laptop but I'm really really surprised at how much I like it. Other than tweaks to drivers to play games, which I don't attribute to Vista as a whole, I really like this OS.
    • KMartSheriff, on 05/14/2008, -2/+4Leopard + Vista x64 on my MacBook Pro = heaven
    • Falldog, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5So the OSX commercials are all lies?!
  • dr3d, on 05/14/2008, -17/+24Previous Versions ! .. no !?? .. sorry, I'll keep my Vista
  • smoothmann, on 05/14/2008, -11/+5Dugg for Better Rename Utility
  • antiorblkflag9, on 05/14/2008, -22/+29I'm just gonna stick with XP and keep my fingers crossed for 7
  • Emachine, on 05/14/2008, -21/+24Dugg for "Integrated Start Menu Search and Launch", the only Vista feature which increases productivity, and the only thing I like about Vista. All that other ***** like Aero Flip 3D just slows you down and, and kills battery faster...
    • ut2k4king, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2That feature drove me crazy. Mostly because I was used to pressing "Start" then "P" for programs and navigating the menus through my keyboard. Now, months after upgrading, I'm still stuck pressing in the XP mentality...
    • grumpyrain, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3Er, you do know you can turn that off if you want a classic theme?
      • NJank, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3you can customize a lot of stuff. but why if you don't have to? by not paying to upgrade and then turn off everything you bought with the upgrade...
    • fyrehart, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1Why doesn't anyone mention the Audio Control Panel that lets you change the volume of individual programs? That's my favorite feature o.o
  • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/14/2008, -7/+35You really have to try this sort of stuff for yourself before you make a fair judgement. People claim that the same features are or can be available, but usually when you actually use them, they turn out being ***** knockoffs. A lot of times they don't work as well, are missing things, aren't as stable or fast, etc.

    A big example is using Google Desktop's sidebar instead of Vista's. They both have some good widgets, but if you are going to use the Google Desktop as a replacement you quickly see it's a generation behind in terms of "look and feel".
    (GDS Search can't be beat however)
    • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -3/+4>(GDS Search can't be beat however)

      Install the Windows Search 4 Beta. I've never had a problem with it, and it's much better than the previous version (Which I feel was better than Google's anyway)
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1Google search results are much better than other search engines.
        That's just my opinion, and obviously it's different for everyone.
        • DarkShroud, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1We're talking about desktop searches you tard.
    • danomagnum, on 05/14/2008, -5/+5What's the point of desktop search anyway?
      • iofthestorm, on 05/14/2008, -0/+8So you can find files easily without going through directory trees. Even if you know where everything is, typing the name of the file is faster than going through all the directories looking for it, or looking through your huge unorganized directory, whichever you use.
      • KMartSheriff, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1You have clearly never used desktop search (e.i., Spotlight, etc.)
      • grumpyrain, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Because my "All Programs" menu on my XP laptop is 4 columns wide. On my Vista box, you just type the first few letters until the program you want comes up. I also have documents that relate to two or more things. Does my car insurance receipt go under insurance or under car? It is much easier and faster to start typing in some pertinent information and have it automatically return documents of interest.
    • DarkShroud, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3The 3.0 desktop search update blows GDS out of the water.
  • johanrocks, on 05/14/2008, -3/+48I've tried all of this software. If you're running all of this, don't you think your computer would be using more RAM, perhaps even up to par with Vista? It would certainly be slower than Vista if you're running all of this stuff and have a computer that can do that smoothly, because Vista is excellent on higher-end computers.
    In the end, I just went over to Vista, and I don't regret it at all. I dual-boot XP just in case I really need to use it (problems, etc.), but I'm having to use it less and less.
    • iofthestorm, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3Yeah, I'm pretty sure most of this software sucks more RAM than Vista and is a lot slower. If your computer can handle it you might as well upgrade to Vista and enjoy the "eXPerience..."
  • aussieNickuss, on 05/14/2008, -8/+57I was a hater of Vista at first....but that was only due to trying it out on a computer that just wasn't capable enough and the whole "following the crowd" stigma of digg. I've been using Vista full-on for the last week on a P4 and it's been smooth as silk. Aero is a breath of fresh air from the boringness and inconsistency of XP's UI and you don't get any of that "breaking & tearing" either.

    I don't know why there has been so much hate.....especially the Vista == ME comparison. ME was a slow, unstable piece of *****. Vista is just a operating system that has come out a little before its time in terms of system requirements, but it is VERY stable and a lot more enjoyable to use than XP IMHO.
    • iofthestorm, on 05/14/2008, -2/+6P4? Wow, what kind of computer were you running it on before that?
    • Auryn, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Before it's time in terms of system requirements. Reminds me of all crybabys about there being no floppy disk drive in the first generation iMacs...

    • legendxx, on 05/14/2008, -4/+2So you spent $400+ for a shiny new theme - gj dumbass. I bet you bought up all the MS PLUS! packs too when they came out with those.

      Don't encourage microsoft to release products that offer nothing new. And for gods sake the community modded XP to look like and have all the features Vista has in around a month when it took MS 7 years to develop it. There are absolutely no features in vista that would attract anyone with a brain.
  • lucutus, on 05/14/2008, -4/+40What about the fact that error reporting and on-line troubleshooting in Vista actually works sometimes?
    • grumpyrain, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Absolutely one of the better features. I nearly fell off my chair the first time it told me some new drivers for my old mobile had become available, and they would solve the problems I had encountered a week earlier when I tried to sync it.
  • heathuff23, on 05/14/2008, -2/+10I actually run both, but my favorite Vista feature is snippet-its fast and convenient
    • sparsely, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I didn't even notice that feature until reading this article :S
  • batmanz, on 05/14/2008, -11/+91Good lord, why is everyone so defensive of XP? Everyone hated it, now that Vista is out, everyone hates Vista and suddenly XP is the best thing ever.
    • doshindude, on 05/14/2008, -10/+66 years of making an impression helps too. not only that most people come to appreciate things they never appreciated before when something new and terrible comes out (Vista)
      • estvir, on 05/14/2008, -0/+106 years of making a HORRIBLE impression. From the beginning it wasn't particularly stable, security wise it was a complete joke, etc and guess what, from the beginning Vista is stable, secure, etc.
        • doshindude, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1are you retarded? XP has been the most optimal windows experience since 3.1, it was known for its stability becuase it was based on the NT kernel and not the the Win9x system.
    • MScrip, on 05/14/2008, -1/+7I guess it takes 7 years for a Microsoft OS to mature and get full support for drivers and stuff.

      I just reinstalled XP on my tired old machine... but I will certainly get Vista 64bit on my new build this summer. I'm ready for a new OS and more than 4GB RAM. The time is now.
      • Jibberwalk, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5What is the maximum amount Vista supports, RAM-wise?
        • estvir, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3128GB + if I remember correctly. I think there are some limitations on the Home Basic version though.
        • repick3, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1I'm not sure if its the same, but XP 64 bit can support 16TB of RAM... in theory :P
        • DarkShroud, on 05/14/2008, -0/+332bit versions are limited to 4gb by default, this includes memory on the video card(s); but there is a tweak to unlock the limit.
          64bit is limited to 128GB total as estvir said.
        • iofthestorm, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Actually, I think the RAM limit for Home editions is 8GB/16GB for Basic and Premium respectively. Business and Ultimate do 128GB I think, although I'm fairly certain there isn't a motherboard with 32 DIMM slots (I'm pretty sure the largest DIMMs available are 4GB ones, but that might be 2x2GB actually).
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_edition ... , says Business can use 128+? That's interesting.
    • apophenic, on 05/14/2008, -5/+12What are you talking about? XP is our ally. It always has been. We are at war with Vista, and we always have been.
      • thylacine222, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5I applaud you for your 1984 reference. Unfortunately, no one else seems to get it.
    • dig1x, on 05/14/2008, -9/+14Because at the launch of Vista, there was a very emotionally invested effort to "Destroy MS" by a gaggle of zealots. Those zealots are now vastly outnumbered by people who've adopted Vista.

      The reality of Vista (that it is a supreme OS) is finally understood by enough people that when crazy zealots scream "oh! vista crashes! its crap!!1! blah blah blah!1!" well, even a casual computer user knows they are talking *****.
      • arcticblue, on 05/14/2008, -9/+5You sound like an emotionally vested zealot to me. Albeit from the other side, but a zealot nonetheless.
      • getbusyliving, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Except for when it ***** crashes.
    • Duggan360, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1I want to be cool, Everyone else is doing it
  • JK1150, on 05/14/2008, -6/+38if you install all of these, your system will probably be slower/less stable than a fresh vista install...
  • Okari, on 05/14/2008, -3/+54Doesn't give you the volume mixer. That's my favorite feature from any OS.
    • zach382, on 05/14/2008, -7/+3Hmm, hate to sound like a linux zealot, but check almost any of the newest big distros. They've all migrated to pulse audio which gives you individual audio streams control. IIRC the first big distro to implement it fully was Fedora 8. Fedora 9 was just released today so its the second version with pulse audio so it's pretty darn stable by now. Ubuntu really dropped the ball with pulse audio in their latest version. While pulse audio is installed and running by default, they failed to include a preinstalled tool for allowing controlling of individual audio streams, and its kinda buggy. Hopefully in Intrepid Ibex they'll get pulse audio nice and stable.
    • iofthestorm, on 05/14/2008, -3/+5Seriously, when I first read about the volume mixer I was like, no wai? And then when I first got Vista I was like, ya wai! It's really helpful when some apps are really quiet and others are really obnoxiously loud, like IM apps. IM apps should be quieter than other apps anyway, but unfortunately for other OSes, most apps don't come with volume controls.
      • estvir, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4And for muting those rare sites that still have the incessant need to play horrible music.
  • hmunkey, on 05/14/2008, -8/+15Vista is not that bad. Give it some credit. Especially since SP1 came out, it can hold it's own against Linux and OSX. Speaking as a Mac owner too, Vista isn't that bad.
  • WickEd101, on 05/14/2008, -14/+11the comments on Digg appear to be getting worse and worse.
  • username484767, on 05/14/2008, -27/+11vista blows
  • Evildudetx, on 05/14/2008, -6/+40Yeah, great advice - install a bunch of third party applications to make your system 'better'. In reality, you are going to do nothing but give yourself a headache and create a completely unstable machine.
    • goosnargh, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4I was thinking that statement is bit of an exaggeration but I just gave the breadcrumb thing a bash and managed to crash explorer :/
      Although I can't seem to reproduce it.
    • Ademan, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3Because only microsoft makes stable software...
  • Cimlite, on 05/14/2008, -9/+7You can actually download the start menu search feature from Vista right from Microsoft, for use in XP...
    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamil ...

    It's a weird thing to do by Microsoft if you ask me. They make a big splash about this feature being in Vista only to release it for XP. Must have been someone working at MS who also perfers XP. :P
    • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -1/+7WDS for XP is a little different. The Start Menu Search in Vista, for instance, will first query the stuff in your start menu before going to rest of the index, making its first purpose quickly launching apps (I think Spotlight does the same thing). WDS, however, is just for searching. Second, it's not cleanly integrated into Explorer, at all. Vista, on the other hand, uses the indexer for everything, from pulling metadata, to creating some of the more complex file grouping layouts that it's capable of.
    • dig1x, on 05/14/2008, -4/+1While its nice that you provided this link:

      http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamil ...

      Your commentary on its availability is clearly fiction.
  • HPCELarry, on 05/14/2008, -3/+11One of the best features is the search thing on the start menu. Nothing is easier than hitting the windows key, typing what you want in, and it comes up. The vista start menu thing for xp still does a normal search, and isn't nearly as fast or effective. My friend who has xp tried it for a week and then uninstalled it.
  • FuckXboxx, on 05/14/2008, -16/+6The only reason I bought Vista is DirectX10 and it will never be in XP.

    My dual-booted copy of Vista hasn't been booted up in about a year...it's just a waste of resources when XP does everything I want and it does it faster.
  • sab0tage, on 05/14/2008, -5/+3I already have Launchy and find it indispensable. I had considered using the transformation pack, but I have come to realise that I quite like XP as it is, utxpatched with the "Black Mesa" theme found on Deviant Art.

    Aside from changing my desktop wallpaper once every 6 months or so, I've not made any radical changes to XP's configuration since I installed it first time years ago. Even when I built my current computer I patched and installed the same stuff as I had on the old one before I retired the HDD to a life as a USB backup drive.
  • kreatre2007, on 05/14/2008, -17/+10Vista has "best features"???
    • SLockhart, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Yes, it's absolute best feature is it's ability to keep whiny little 12 year olds from using it.
      • kreatre2007, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1Actually, I've been using it since the Summer of 2006 starting with the pre-release versions. It's really not that impressive and it certainly does not live up to the hype that Microsoft tried to surround it with. 12 year olds??? Where in the hell did you get that?
  • mrinsanity, on 05/14/2008, -11/+6Can someone tell me how to get Video thumbnails in XP to be from a RANDOM frame in the video and not the FIRST frame? This is really the ONLY thing I like about vista over XP.
    • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6Write your own preview handler for every different video type?
  • Gndoab, on 05/14/2008, -8/+2My question is, is there any way to have 128*128 thumbnail previews that don't look like garbage? I tried a reg. hack a few weeks ago, but it just took the 48*48 (or whatever the default size is) and stretched them to 128*128, making all the images blocky and ugly. Anyone know of anything?
  • TheAmazingBob, on 05/14/2008, -18/+6Vista's Best Features:
    1) Closing windows
    2) Ctrl+Alt+Delete
    3) Downgradeability to XP

    XP Needs none of these.
    • AppleGeorge, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4Are you retarded? You don't have to do that many steps to downgrade. You reboot with disk in drive, and format.
      • TheAmazingBob, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1I was just listing them as features, not steps.
  • petebert, on 05/14/2008, -3/+7is there a way to get vistas user account control? its great with a family household
    • luchid, on 05/14/2008, -1/+7Create non-administrator accounts for them?
      • estvir, on 05/14/2008, -2/+4Which in XP is horrible and half done. I'm being generous too.

        Vista also has Parenal Controls which is incredibly useful.
        • FKnight, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2The Parental Controls even honor game ratings like "M for Mature" etc
    • aussieNickuss, on 05/14/2008, -5/+12Haha....that's the first thing most Vista users turn OFF.
      • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -2/+10Actually, I recall reading that Microsoft's CEIP data shows that most users don't turn it off, and furthermore, most users don't encounter UAC prompts regularly (that is to say, the vast majority of user sessions go by without a single prompt)
        • jakem1, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2That's right. From memory roughly 80% of users were leaving UAC switched on although that may be because the majority of users don't know how to turn it off.
      • SLockhart, on 05/14/2008, -1/+12Why would you want to turn of UAC? That's what makes Vista so much more secure than XP and it's way less annoying than the haters want you to believe. I love the thinking behind UAC, unless I tell you otherwise deny all programs from running.
        • aussieNickuss, on 05/14/2008, -5/+5It's more secure for those who haven't got a friggin clue about using computers. I, as a proficient computer user, know not to try installing dodgy software, or clicking suspicious links (or use IE for that matter). I also know what settings can be changed without effectively destroying my computer. For me UAC is an annoyance....for most general users though....it is a good form of security. (I also can't physically use UAC because XAMMP has a whinge about it).
          • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -2/+11If you, as you so elegantly put it, had "a friggin clue about using computers", then you'd realize that absolutely nothing you can do and no third party software you tack on to the system can provide the same kind of LUA based security benefit that a system such as UAC provides, especially when it comes to 0-day exploits that do not require you to do anything outside of normal activities, like browsing the web (Maybe a javascript exploit or an image handler bug?) or reading your email.

            Also, IE on Vista is actually more secure than other browsers from a "What can a hijacked browser instance do to my system?" standpoint. Even if the IE browsing process is hijacked, it runs by default (Provided you weren't stupid enough to shut off UAC) as a Low IL process. It has even less access than "User" to your system. That means it can't even delete a file from your documents folder or put a shortcut in your startup folder, whereas a hijacked copy of say, Firefox, could.
          • iofthestorm, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2Well, for me it conflicts with folding@home SMP client, so I turned it off, but otherwise I'd leave it on.
        • Cimlite, on 05/14/2008, -4/+1Read this:
          http://www.crn.com/software/207100934

          Basically it's main purpose is to force-educate stupid people. That's why you want to turn it off, if you know what your doing it's only an annoyance.
        • DarkShroud, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5UAC really helps stop malware from silently installing on your system. It's a stop all that keeps the user in charge of what installs on their PC.
        • KMartSheriff, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4UAC is "kind of" annoying, but that's only when you're first installing all your software. After that, you hardly ever see (and when you do, you're glad because it's probably preventing something that was potentially bad from happening).
    • kbsuperstar, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Shut up and let your children watch porn
  • newdigger, on 05/14/2008, -8/+17Im pretty sure the the only people who have problems with Vista have slightly older machines. I just built a machine with a Q6600 OC'ed to 3.0GHz, Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L, 4GB of DDR2-800, 8800GT 512 and Vista Ultimate 64-bit. This machine is stupid fast and does everything i want with no crashing. Its just rock solid. Upgrade you're hardware before you bitch.
    • aussieNickuss, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Yeah....I'm running Vista on a 3.5 year old Pentium 4.....just by upping the memory to 2GB has made the machine fully capable of running Vista at VERY reasonable speeds. RAM is the key to a good Vista machine (and a half decent video card if you want the prettiness of Aero, which my ancient Radeon 9600 runs silky smooth).
    • Gizza, on 05/14/2008, -2/+9I run Vista perfectly on an Athlon 4200+, 7900GT and only 1Gb RAM. Anyone who can't run Vista must have a computer 5 years old.
      • jakem1, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1Ha ha, I have a 5 year old PC that runs Vista just as well as it runs XP. It's not super fast but it certainly doesn't leave me waiting for it to respond. By the way, it's not a particularly powerful machine: Athlon XP, 1.5 Gb of RAM, NVidia 5200 graphics.
    • htan, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2carbon copy of my system and vista64 home premium is on its way
    • DeathfireD, on 05/14/2008, -3/+5It's sad when an OS needs to depend on insane amounts of Ram just to run it's UI. Vista has some nice features but then again it uses more ram then its worth. I'll stick with Linux and WinXP for now.
      • KMartSheriff, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2Not everyone wants to run on ***** little EeePCs. I still don't understand the popularity behind those things.
      • aussieNickuss, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2What's it matter? RAM is cheap as chips these days.
      • DeathfireD, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Why should your OS use the RAM thats ment for programs and games? That kind of defeats the purpose.
    • DemonWasp, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2Strange, my experience differs substantially. Received new laptop (C2D T5400, 2GB DDR2, 8400GS) with Vista on it. Performance was sluggish even off of the fresh install, with bloatware removed. XP install moves noticeably faster.

      What am I missing? I'd like to use Vista for some of the features, but having a machine that responds and doesn't chew my 5-hour battery life down to 3 hours would be super.
  • kermithefrogand, on 05/14/2008, -12/+5there is no best when it comes to vista
  • scotticus, on 05/14/2008, -6/+24No audio mixer? I'll keep my Vista, thanks.
  • ElBeh, on 05/14/2008, -6/+4A better explorer - I use ExplorerXP, it's great. http://www.explorerxp.com/
    Screenshots - I use Gadwin Printscreen, pretty good. I also have the Fireshot addon for Firefox. http://www.download.com/Gadwin-PrintScreen/3000-20 ... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/564 ...
  • diggerachi, on 05/14/2008, -7/+5He forgot the main feature on why I use Vista. Direct X 10. If it wasn't for gaming and Direct X 10 I wouldn't bother.
    • AppleGeorge, on 05/14/2008, -4/+5Except DirectX 10 is pretty overrated and not that much better than DirectX 9. Unless of course you really believe your new 9 Series GeForce is better than an 8 Series, just because it's a higher number. Also, I'd rather have an extra gigabyte of RAM free for my gaming instead of using almost a gigabyte just for Vista's UI.
      • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5It'll still be a while. They didn't just slap on two or three new shiny features and call it a new version, they did a fair bit of rearchitecturing.
    • WaruiKoohii, on 05/14/2008, -4/+7Wine might have DX10 support in four or five years!

      Wait, then DX12 will be out. Nevermind.
  • sfacets, on 05/14/2008, -13/+5Doesn't XP already have all of Vista's best features?
    • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3Security, Shell Improvements, Several rearchictured subsystems (networking, video, audio, bootloader, credential manager, etc.), etc.?
    • estvir, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1Only if you're a complete and utter idiot.
  • RG13, on 05/14/2008, -3/+3Why are you guys all haters? I'm a fan of both XP and Vista. I run XP on my home system, and it would be too messy to install a new OS. It's nice to have a couple of these features (like the start menu search) available. Just because I want to make XP more like Vista without actually switching to Vista doesn't mean I hate it.
  • specialK16, on 05/14/2008, -10/+5This is the new retarded flame war, Vista lovers vs XP lovers, but hell, some Vista lovers in this thread are just a bunch of ***** assholes.

    People, get over your dicks! It's only an OS.
  • blackdude, on 05/14/2008, -5/+9If you want a vista that runs as fast as, if not faster than vista, create a new boot cd using vlite, and reboot your system. But don't waste your time booting xp + all this other crap. Vista works well, too bad all the bloatware that comes with the consumer versions renders it useless. Its no worse than any other OS out on the market to be honest.
  • PCDestroyer, on 05/14/2008, -6/+5When someone finds a way to bring the new and greatly improved 3D desktop to XP I'll be happy. I want to be able to watch videos on my secondary monitor and have my windows rendered on the video card.
  • AmnioticEntity, on 05/14/2008, -5/+6"PrtScrn has been around forever, but it's never been the most user-friendly way to get a screenshot"

    ok...srsly...WTF?! 1 button on the keyboard vs. X amount of clicks on my mouse....maybe i'm just too old for windows and i need to switch to linux....
    • huymq85, on 05/14/2008, -5/+0sorry for spamming, i want to test,sorry
    • neko, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5Well,.. with PrintScreen on winxp, you push 1 button on the keyboard and... no feedback, then you need to open mspaint, paste, anchor the selection to the canvas, and finally save.

      It would be easier if PrintScreen opened a little dialogue with a preview image and a filename selection to save it as a .png image to the desktop. If you used Alt-PrintScreen it could even suggest the filename based on the window title. That'd be convenient.
      • Echomote, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Not everyone wants their screenshot to save though.You can paste into Microsoft Office (and probably a lot of other stuff) straight after pressing printscreen.
  • ronaldmonster, on 05/14/2008, -7/+11Honestly I run vista on a POS machine 99% of all Mac, Linux and yes even Windows users say couldn't run it properly.

    A processor running at 1.2 ghz, a onboard 128mb graphics chip and a gig of ram, even runs on 512 minus aero effects. Vista runs so much better than XP for me.

    I get the occasional hiccup now and then with Firefox's memory leak that eats up all my available ram but unlike XP I can force quit it without hard reseting my machine, probably my favorite thing about Vista is when it isolates a program so I don't end up reseting my entire comp.

    Vista outshines XP in my opinion, more stable, search is so helpful, programs run a lot better, everything program runs faster and I can get things done quicker and find & find things alot faster with the new GUI (take an hour to learn it instead of complaining about it, I guarantee you'll never complain about it again.) and aero is a bonus.

    I think most people get bad ideas from Vista when it comes preinstalled with 40 different programs running in the background that came preinstaled running in the background.
    • TheWindBlows, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4Upgrade to firefox 3 to get rid of those memory leaks.
    • DeathfireD, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3or just use the kill -f command in Windows XP to kill the process without restarting your computer.
  • kaffein, on 05/14/2008, -2/+28Article should be renamed how to triple your OS's memory usage!
    • unixalan, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1Exactally, why would you install a bunch of programs and clutter up your computer when u can just get vista and have those features work the way they're supose to, and PROPERLY i might add. Im a mac user, but you don't see me adding expose to OS9
    • Sm0k1R, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0Tripple, ***** quadruple the memory usage for all I care. Vista 64bit home premium can take up to 16gb of RAM and recognize and utiliize all of it, unlike 32 bit windows OS's that are stuck at 3.75GB max. And with the price of RAM almost cheaper than gas these days, why wouldnt you drop four 2gb sticks in a machine, other than maybe the heat factor :P
  • nihilistism, on 05/14/2008, -13/+14Too late already switched to Ubuntu.
  • karolisonline, on 05/14/2008, -7/+5i think what we should really do is to build open-source like windows, but better. if you could run everything you have on windows in open-source os. and this time real designers would be needed. because kde and gnome UI is total fail. I think nowaday community is mature enough to develop OS from scratch and not some high-school project linux...
    • TheWindBlows, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3actually i wish Windows had GNOME or at least KDE ( and i know KDE 4 is getting ported to windows though i don't know the memory usage that will come with that.).

      Reason being is that I'd be able to enjoy GNU/Linux's looks while still having a nice arrangement of programs still available until more actually good software is ported or made.
  • ortucis, on 05/14/2008, -4/+9They forgot the desktop search integration with excellent indexing feature of the whole damn OS..

    Well, those who want it on XP, DO NOT install the ***** Google desktop search. I recommend Desktop Search from MS itself. The latest version is even better and no more a resource hog, plus it doesn't go around opening your browser just to show search results or configure the damn app you installed on your PC, it's integrated into OS pretty much like Vista's version (ok, not inside Start menu or Explorer window).

    Desktop Search 4.0 > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=940157
    • MioTheGreat, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4The Windows Search 4 beta is amazing, especially compared to something as subpar as GDS.
    • iofthestorm, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2It is pretty nice, but still moderately resource hogging. But I think the computer I installed it on has a slow hard drive which explains why it was so slow. On Vista it's just amazing though, and of course my newer hard drive helps.
  • pileofstraw, on 05/14/2008, -7/+19I want DX10 on XP. bitches.
  • orirawlings, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1i'm gonna have to disagree with everyone. i used a vista box as my primary machine for a long time. worked great at first, but after 7-8 months everything started to crap out. games wouldn't run, stuff wouldn't open correctly, crashes galore. i decided to start running a linux box again, along with a brand new os x lepoard mackbook. downgraded the vista box back to xp and i'm never going back to vista again. and now i can play my TF2 without troubles anymore.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.