Get Vista? Or stick with XP?

[ravenvii]

University is gonna offer Vista in the bookstore next week for incredibly cheap.

I'm wondering, should I get Vista to put on my MBP 2.2 GHz? Or should I stick with XP? (I already have XP on here)

I'm mainly concerned about older games, like Starcraft and Diablo II, Half-Life and Far Cry, and the such. Is there any known issues with older games and Vista?

 

[72930]

I don't know about issues, but remember that Vista allows you to play some Vista-only games such as Halo 3

Framerates are known to be slower in Vista than XP, due to heavier system drainage by the OS...

 

[rdowns]

I tried Vista and upgraded back to XP after a few weeks.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

* OS: Windows XP with SP2 or Windows Vista
* Processor: 1 .8GHz or faster (2.4GHz for Vista)
* RAM: 1GB or more (2GB for Vista)

Maybe if Vista has all those cool Linux effects it would be worth it... otherwise

 

[webgoat]

whatever you do purchase vista while you can with your university discount and you can hold on to it till you decide to upgrade from xp... i graduated in may and missed out at my school even if i had vista at the moment i wouldn't be upgrading

 

[synth3tik]

If you want to do anything stick with XP

 

[0007776]

stick with XP unless there is somthing you want/need to run that only will work on Vista.

 

[PuppyLuv]

Well it all depends on what you want, I have Vista Home Premium and have no problems with it. It you want something really graphical I'd say get Vista. I play games on it and I have The Sims 2 with all expansions and it's a pretty demanding game, runs fine on my pc, but again it all depends on what you need to use it for. What version are they selling? Is it Vista Home Basic? If so it's not really worth it.. you should at least get Home Premium or above.

 

[chewietobbacca]

Vista definitely requires a beefier system (2GB of RAM is key) to make it smooth, though 1GB works too.

Vista really grew on me and now my computers all have it.

Granted, my PC is a beast of a computer (overclocked quad core to over 3GHz, 4GB RAM, 8800 Ultra, etc.) but it runs Vista and DX10 games smooth as butter, even at 2560 x 1600 resolution on a 30" monitor.

A few pointers to make the Vista experience smoother:

If you know computers okay and can make good decisions on what to and not to install, disable UAC. Also, disable notifications that UAC is disabled.

Force all updates to be manually downloaded and installed (that way you never install a update that is considered crucial, but may hurt compatibility with previous programs) - though nowadays, I tend to install all the updates anyways since I've had no compatibility issues.

In fact, with those things disabled, the overall experience is similar to XP in that it isn't very intrusive but the GUI is very much improved. The search function is also excellent. Honestly, I can't go back to XP anymore, and this is even with me using 64-bit Vista which has a lot more issues than 32-bit!

 

[flyinmac]

I'm using Vista Ultimate and Office 2007 Ultimate on my Mac. And, it runs flawlessly and very fast.

It is much faster than XP was on my PC. But, then my PC (while otherwise comparable) only had one processor core instead of 4.

There have been no issues to complain about, and I find that I really like Vista. As much as I would like to complain about Microsoft, I think they finally got it right with Vista. It's the best Windows I've ever seen or used, and it works without issue.

I find that complaints of the security alert box are a bit exaggerated. I see that box less than I see the box in OS X that requires me to enter my password to continue. And, it's just a simple click. No big deal.

Anyway, to me, the deciding factor when choosing Vista over XP for the Mac, was looking at which one would continue to be supported for the greatest length of time. Vista is obviously the supported environment going forward.

If you only intend to continue using software that is available now, then sure, go with XP. But, if you want to know that programs you buy for the next several years will run, then get Vista.

Of course, Vista costs a lot more than XP. But, weigh that in perspective. Which OS are you going to get the greatest useful life out of?

If you don't intend to make serious use of Windows, then it's not worth messing with anyway. But, if you intend to use it regularly and for a good number of years, then buy the one that will be around for the next several years with active support.

Of course, it helps that I took advantage of a buddy's discount to get Vista Ultimate full retail at a significant discount (as in so cheap I couldn't say no). But, even if it were full price (as it was when I first decided to buy it), I would still lean towards Vista.

If you are only going to use a few programs, and you will never need newer programs, then go the cheap route. But, if you are making an investment for future usage, then get the most current product.

 

[Dustman]

Trust me, Vista is STILL crap. Wait for a SP1 ATLEAST, preferably SP2. For now, XP just does everything a lot easier than Vista, plus you dont have 90% of your resources supporting a gimicky user interface.

 

[flyinmac]

Trust me, Vista is STILL crap. Wait for a SP1 ATLEAST, preferably SP2. For now, XP just does everything a lot easier than Vista, plus you dont have 90% of your resources supporting a gimicky user interface.

That's a bit of an overstatement. I find Vista in it's current form is still more stable and reliable than XP is in it's current and latest form. I've yet to have a single crash or lock-up, and I am no-where near using even a minor percentage of my system's resources (and I have all the eye-candy turned-on).

Seriously, this is the first time ever that I've been impressed with a first revision Microsoft Operating System. It really is very good.

If you already have XP, then sure use it.

But, it's a bit wasteful to spend money on XP and then later spend money on Vista.

You might as well just buy Vista and save the money you would have spent on XP.

 

[Dustman]

That's a bit of an overstatement. I find Vista in it's current form is still more stable and reliable than XP is in it's current and latest form. I've yet to have a single crash or lock-up, and I am no-where near using even a minor percentage of my system's resources (and I have all the eye-candy turned-on).

Seriously, this is the first time ever that I've been impressed with a first revision Microsoft Operating System. It really is very good.

If you already have XP, then sure use it.

But, it's a bit wasteful to spend money on XP and then later spend money on Vista.

You might as well just buy Vista and save the money you would have spent on XP.

I may have exhadurated a bit, but i guess it all comes down to opinion. I have integrated graphics, so Vista's eye candy lags a LOT for me, and i find the whole experience kind of bloated. I think we'll have to agree to disagree though for the stability. I have had so many driver issues with Vista that it has made me go slightly, insane. But not everyone has the same bad luck I suppose.

 

[flyinmac]

I may have exhadurated a bit, but i guess it all comes down to opinion. I have integrated graphics, so Vista's eye candy lags a LOT for me, and i find the whole experience kind of bloated. I think we'll have to agree to disagree though for the stability. I have had so many driver issues with Vista that it has made me go slightly, insane. But not everyone has the same bad luck I suppose.

Yes, integrated graphics pretty much suck when it comes to graphical stuff. I know, my last PC had integrated graphics. And, I had to turn off all the eye-candy stuff in XP just to get decent performance.

With a dedicated graphics card, the story is much different. For the first time in a long time, I've got eye-candy enabled, and I see no perceivable slow-down.

The absolute only driver issue I have had is with a Lexmark all-in-one that I can't get to work in the Intel version of OS X 10.4.x either. So, that's kind of a draw.

The Lexmark will work in XP and in the PowerPC versions of OS X though.

 

[SkyBell]

Yes, integrated graphics pretty much suck when it comes to graphical stuff. I know, my last PC had integrated graphics. And, I had to turn off all the eye-candy stuff in XP just to get decent performance.

With a dedicated graphics card, the story is much different. For the first time in a long time, I've got eye-candy enabled, and I see no perceivable slow-down.

The absolute only driver issue I have had is with a Lexmark all-in-one that I can't get to work in the Intel version of OS X 10.4.x either. So, that's kind of a draw.

The Lexmark will work in XP and in the PowerPC versions of OS X though.

XP had eye candy?

 

[flyinmac]

XP had eye candy?

It had some. Fancy looking task bar, candy colored title bars and buttons. And so on. But, I turned it all off. It kind of resembled Windows 95 in appearance with all the stuff turned-off.

 

[contoursvt]

None of that eye candy is GPU driven though. Its just 2D functions so I dont think there is anything in XP to be gained by reverting to 'classic' mode. Maybe if a 2MB PCI video card is used, stepping down to 16-bit colour depth and classic might help redraws a bit but thats about it.

It had some. Fancy looking task bar, candy colored title bars and buttons. And so on. But, I turned it all off. It kind of resembled Windows 95 in appearance with all the stuff turned-off.