What OS do you use ?

I have Vista on my laptop along with XP SP2 and run XP on the other three computers in the house.

I have no problems with Vista and am quite used to it now. It has its good and bad points but Windows XP was HORRID when it first came out - but most people forget!!

If you know how to tweak your system and turn off the "garbage", Vista is fine. If you're a newbie with no clue, Vista is fine. If you're just an average user who wants to work quickly and is used to things, XP is definitely the way to go for now.

 

I hear ya on that vista nonsense! my desktop is a win 2000 and my lappy is a stupid vista. I might just have to get my friend to upgrade it to xp!

 

You didn't allow enough choices

I have XP, Vista, Win2K, and Linux.

Not on the same PC of course.

 

I ordered my new computer with XP Pro, or I wouldn't have ordered one if all they had was Vista. I put my brother's Vista upgrade on his computer for him, it took HOURS! It was so horrible he actually begged me to come back, wipe it all and put XP back onto it. He HATED Vista. This site runs on Linux. So, once I need a new computer again...I'll probably go with a Mac...I LOVE their new OS!

 

I'm not a fan of Vista, by any measure of the stick. I'm currently plodding through 2 versions of it. One on the wifes, the other on the sisters.

It appears to me, your performance will be based on what version you are using, there are many.

My wife has Vista Basic with 1 gig of RAM. Runs smoothly, and boots quickly, with a few minor tweaks applied. She'll never need additional RAM.

My sister has the MultiMedia version, 2 gigs of RAM. It's like watching molasses pour on a cold morning. With MANY tweaks applied (read 2 hours of digging through). She'll next as much RAM as hers will hold, due to her gaming.

 

XP Home on my desktop, XP Media Center on my laptop.

 

WinXp is a very mature and reliable OS, most of the bugs have been worked out. All you really need is 512M run XP, 2G and I don't need to use a swap file.

With Vista, you need 2G to have it run smooth, 3G to run nice. Until MS finds away around the 32bit/4G limit, Vista will always be 5 lbs of #### in a 1 lb bag.

I think what is killing MS the most, is that they keep backwards compatibility with all the OS's back through 95/98. MS just needs to cut bait and design from the ground up a new OS, while keeping support, ie security patches for XP.

Mark

 

Not true. Bill Gates is finally scared. 64 bit tech has been around for years. MicroSoft themselves have been the fly in the ointment. As MS goes, so does the software and hardware. Thankfully, not everyone buys into it.

A simple Google of Linux will reveal how scared. Many of the returns are MS owned websites, deverting you away from Linux (and others). And providing scare tactics as to why you should not move away from Windows.

While MicroSoft has pushed the world toward the new systems, a quick check will show that many, many companies are still using win98 and win2K. It's home users pushing the envelope and paying for the new toys, not business.

By pricing themselves too high, requiring multiple use license, and failing to provide "claimed" security benefits, many companies can not justify the cost of upgrading every 5-7 years just because Bill says it's a good idea.

Besides, I can run the same spreadsheet/database on Vista, as I ran on Win 3.1 And that's the majority of business usage. Very few of the mainstream businesses have use for the horsepower needed to run CAD or high end graphics design tools, or graphic intensive video games.