Windows XP vs Windows Vista

India
December 24, 2008 9:38am CST
On comparing both the operating systems of Microsoft, Windows XP proves to be more user friendly than Windows Vista. The reason I think is though Vista supports more advanced Graphics and less prone to virus, it does not support some of the softwares enhanced by Windows XP. For example, nero, and some of the other audio softwares are not supported in Windows Vista. Also we have to use separate antivirus software too... Moreover, XP is more user friendly and fast but it is not virus free!!! Suggest your points also...
1 person likes this
5 responses
• India
24 Dec 08
Vista is the best OS from MS. MS did a very good job by developing their Windows range of products from ground up from Vista. This has added very good features to the OS like better graphics, more security, etc. But this has resulted in poor backward compatibility with some softwares and hardwares. But this doesn't mean that Vista is any bad. I have been using Vista for more than one year on both old(Pentium 4 with 512 MB RAM) and new computer(Intel Quad Core & 2GB RAM). Vista is way better than XP on both my computers. Now when I use XP on friend's machines I feel like I am using some old technology, same way as a guy regularly using XP would feel when he is using 98.
• Indonesia
26 Dec 08
No offence Vishnu, but even Microsoft already made a "replacement" for Windows Vista. What I mean here is, if Vista is this any good - at least from marketing side, but a bad sales from Vista means there is something wrong with Vista technically - then Microsoft would not made a immediate replacement for Vista, just the way like XP do. I don't really agree with your statement that Vista is the best OS from Microsoft. I have used Vista also (I use all Windows series since Windows 3.1! (2000, NT, Server, etc)). I agree that Vista has better graphics and more core security at initial stage, but please make note that XP now have reached SP3, and the patch are updated regulary so it has better security also. No hard feeling here brother. Question: Did you really use Vista on P4 with 512MB RAM? Didn't it lagged a lot? What Vista version did you use?
• India
26 Dec 08
What MS has agreed to is that their OS was having some hardware and software compatibility issues. They did not admit that Vista was any bad than any previous OS. They also said "they learned their lessons from their experience with vista". And yes, Windows 7 is in no way a replacement for Vista(anyways, a newer version is always a replacement for the older one) because Windows Longhorn(Windows 7)'s work was started even before the release of Vista. Answer: Yes I did install and I was very happy to see the performance of the so called bad OS. I was not willing to install Vista at first because everyone said it was not good. But I thought I will try it out when I got my hands on Vista DVD(without SP1). I installed it on my then computer(old one). The same machine took almost 40 minutes to install Windows XP while Vista was installed in a bit more than 20 minutes!!!. It took a minute to startup the computer but after it was all up, it worked so well. My motherboard didn't support Aero interface so it was automatically turned off. I am an avid user of Graphics s/ws like 3D Max, Photoshop and flash. Everything worked great and while I used these softwares(no all at once, ofcourse), I felt that system is giving me better response than while using XP. Only some places like copying files was when it took a bit more time than normal but after SP1 was installed, that issue was also sorted out. MS also said that many computers faced a problem while playing music because Vista(without SP1) did not reserve processor for multimedia threads that has to be executed in real time. But I never faced that problem.
• India
26 Dec 08
While responding to your comment. I was looking for the URL of a site that I visited some months ago. Visit this site: http://www.mojaveexperiment.com. MS claims that It was an experiment done by the MS. In the experiment MS guys changed the look of Vista and showcased it in front of some 140 people saying that it was a new OS from MS. Go to the website to see the story in detail. Now you know what Vista actually is. Its all there in people's mind. More than half of the population say Vista is no good just because others say this. Some website guys might have given the review that Vista is not good after evaluating the beta/pre-beta releases. Other websites and other people might have spread this word and so this news spread that Vista is not good. And to top it up, when Vista was released, it had some compatibility issues. This is what I feel why people have ill feeling about Vista. One more thing... I have never faced a hardware compatibility issue. I have worked with variety of hardware in vista but till today I didn't face any major hardware compatibility problems... But I did face some software problems but that was rectified by those software developers soon after the release of Vista. Like Nero came up with Nero 7 enhanced for Vista.
@EliteUser (3971)
• Australia
6 Jan 09
Hey, Windows Vista came with my Laptop so I couldn't do anything about it. Seriously, windows Vista is SO slow that my Core 2 Duo notebook with 1GB RAM kinda struggles to pass those resource intensive tasks such as doing full system scan while trying to surf the Internet at the same time. But the main difference I have noticed between Windows XP and Windows Vista is that Vista hogs your RAM! I tried it, I started up the Task Manager and checked to see how much RAM was being wasted while my computer had no applications opened. And guess what? Vista alone was using a massive 599MB of RAM whilst having NO other applications opened. Before I bought the computer, I thought that I would be able to play Age of Empires 3 with at least medium graphics, but nope. With Vista using over half of my 1GB of RAM I can only run Age of Empires 3 on low :(
@blablablu (222)
• Indonesia
24 Dec 08
I think every OS in this world is not virus free. Vista have less virus, true! But it was because only a few people use Vista compared to XP. That's why virus development for XP is faster than Vista. I personally prefer XP. There are some reasons. 1. Cheaper license than Vista. 2. System requirement is not as high as Vista which means cheaper in hardware cost. 3. A lot of developer are still developing their software for XP, even they originally developed it for Vista. 4. More user means we can get more information easily whenever we got trouble (more discussion, Q&A board, etc) 5. We can make our XP looked like Vista with some Vista themes available on internet. 6. You can make your XP more secure by updating regularly. (install new Service Pack, install new patch, etc). In fact, Microsoft even considered Vista as a fail product and ready to replace it with newer Windows (Windows 7).
• India
24 Dec 08
Windows XP is more user friendly than Vista.There is lot of bugs in Vista and many application get hanged,if it is running under Vista.I tried vista,but uninstalled it due to its slow performance.
@kellys3ps (3726)
• United States
24 Dec 08
I agree, Windows XP is definately more user friendly.