I prefer XP, but most of that is due to Vista not having any feature I'm interested in. The drawbacks of Vista (including the performance of Aero) don't really justify an upgrade for me.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is XP better to use than Vista
- Thread starter donald17
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was mainly referring to the fact that you said it could only see 2g while in reality it can see 2.9~3.1.
to tell you the truth I'd just use XP.... like everyone else has said... Its been out for a long time. Its already on SP2 its about to get SP3 (says PC Magazine) It has alot more compatability to variouse hardware and applications... other than that Vista is XP just not as matured, with a few more bells and whistles, and a nagging permisions system (UAC) thats gonna haunt you until you turn it off.
XP= Basic functionality and a more stable enviornment.
Vista= Pretty, oh oh look at me GUI, and a not quite up to date library of drivers as XP.
XP= Basic functionality and a more stable enviornment.
Vista= Pretty, oh oh look at me GUI, and a not quite up to date library of drivers as XP.
I've been using Vista since RC1 and it's perfectly fine and great improvement over XP IMO.
Many of the initial problems have been ironed out (I'm currently running SP1 on my Mac and SP1 RC1 on my desktop, which I need to install SP1 on... someday).
Vista's memory management is far superior to that of XP. Anyone who claims Vista is a memory hog either has an outdated computer, or they have no clue as to how Superfetch works.
Many of the issues with Vista aren't with the OS itself. Many manufacturers like HP, Dell, IBM load their computers up with a ton of bloatware crap that loads up at startup. Out of all the manufacturer's, I'd say IBM is the worst when it comes to bloatware (they make awsome laptops though). A lot of the bloatware may also inadvertently crash as well.
My desktop was built, by me in July of 2006, and it runs Vista like butter. I'm going to need to RMA my 7900GT since Nvidia never got their act together with the 7 series and Windows Vista, but once again, it's an issue with Nvidia, not Vista. The key is to install a non-bloatware version of Vista. My Macbook Pro also run Vista like butter and I haven't had any issues with drivers, ect.
Many of the software problems people complain about is with software designed for XP. Don't complain to MS when your program doesn't work. Go write adobe, or whoever made the program a nasty letter urging them to patch their program, and if you're running old software, upgrade.
I also take IT people complaints with a grain of salt. They complain about anything if it means more work for them. Windows Vista means they have to learn something new, and with XP the standard for 6 years, they got soft.
Also, MS recently changed the licensing of Vista, and now you can virtualize any version of Vista.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1122
Many of the initial problems have been ironed out (I'm currently running SP1 on my Mac and SP1 RC1 on my desktop, which I need to install SP1 on... someday).
Vista's memory management is far superior to that of XP. Anyone who claims Vista is a memory hog either has an outdated computer, or they have no clue as to how Superfetch works.
Many of the issues with Vista aren't with the OS itself. Many manufacturers like HP, Dell, IBM load their computers up with a ton of bloatware crap that loads up at startup. Out of all the manufacturer's, I'd say IBM is the worst when it comes to bloatware (they make awsome laptops though). A lot of the bloatware may also inadvertently crash as well.
My desktop was built, by me in July of 2006, and it runs Vista like butter. I'm going to need to RMA my 7900GT since Nvidia never got their act together with the 7 series and Windows Vista, but once again, it's an issue with Nvidia, not Vista. The key is to install a non-bloatware version of Vista. My Macbook Pro also run Vista like butter and I haven't had any issues with drivers, ect.
Many of the software problems people complain about is with software designed for XP. Don't complain to MS when your program doesn't work. Go write adobe, or whoever made the program a nasty letter urging them to patch their program, and if you're running old software, upgrade.
I also take IT people complaints with a grain of salt. They complain about anything if it means more work for them. Windows Vista means they have to learn something new, and with XP the standard for 6 years, they got soft.
Also, MS recently changed the licensing of Vista, and now you can virtualize any version of Vista.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1122
I don't have any problems with Vista on my Mac. I do like it's GUI better than XP but besides there really isn't a big difference between the two except for DX10.
As for virtualization someone here recommended Fusion. I have Fusion and have only had problems with it. Half the time it can't find the correct drive to boot from, other times it will boot but Vista senses a change and won't allow Vista to work properly. (And yes... I know Vista isn't covered by the license agreement.)
But for what it sounds like you need XP is the safest, easiest bet.
As for virtualization someone here recommended Fusion. I have Fusion and have only had problems with it. Half the time it can't find the correct drive to boot from, other times it will boot but Vista senses a change and won't allow Vista to work properly. (And yes... I know Vista isn't covered by the license agreement.)
But for what it sounds like you need XP is the safest, easiest bet.
There are a lot of users who make it a point to stick with the previous version of any software/OS because it's always more stable than the "newest and greatest". I would use XP over Vista for the simple fact that it's been patched and tested more than Vista, which is still being patched and updated for security issues, etc.
XP is still being patched and updated for security issues.
I personally try and stick with the latest OS. While the previous OS may be more "tested," it will be replaced. I find that the latest OS is able take advantage of system resources better than older OS's. At some point in time, you have to upgrade. If we all never upgraded, we'd be running MS-DOS and the old Mac System OS's
Does Fusion allow access to more RAM and microprocessor resource than Parallels? I can run a stripped-down XP or Vista OS VM with Parallels, but as soon as I start adding needy apps (e.g., Creative Suite 3), the VM won't load.
you can get xp sp3 now if you go to the microsoft site and search for it - there was a link from another thread but i cant find it...
sp3 apparently fixes the 2.0 gig (or whatever you all are getting) limit on XP. I am getting XP installed this week - COD4 is waiting.