11ryanc

Windows 2000 is probably the only old OS I'd ever touch, it doesn't look pretty but it's performance, raw speed, and stability make it seem to be the best of the NT series. Here we have Vista and 7 which NEED a gig or more of RAM just to perform basic tasks at a usable speed, where as Win2k will function fully with just 256 MB of memory. Using proper mods it will be almost as compatible as any new OS, so even to this day it's pretty awesome. What does it lack? In all honesty just no eyecandy, it doesn't look pretty but it will blast through anything you throw at it. Though Vista+, the NT 6+ kernel does feature a more simplified desktop shell with the seaching options within folders, Start Menu, Explorer, security especially etc. I personally like Vista the best, but it has it's flaws big time! Stable OS, really hates older computers though. Same with 7, just not quite as bad. 7 is bit more stripped down

^Agreed with An on that

True, and it is much more stable than the original XP. But it has compatibility issues with certain software and hardware from what I've heard. btw XP x64 even brands itself as Server 2003 in some areas

In all honesty of all NT based OSs, Windows 2000 proabbaly lands the best performance even compared on level to XP. It functions flawlessly with well under a gig of RAM, and with proper mods will be almost as compatible as the latest NT 6+ OSs. As for Vista, sorry but a lot was removed from 7. When I want to force a search, even Windows 98 does a better job than 7. Vista had a very well organized searching filter, almost like XP's but with integration throughout Windows Explorer. Explorer on 7 was also a wreck considering you can't even bypass auto arrange without a registry mod. Yes of course NT 5 was quciker, and I miss the daylights out of XP's and 2k's raw, snappy performance. But the issue with XP is it can't even read more than 4 GB of memory, unless of course you go with XP x64 which is awesome. But has terrible support and sadly cannot even install SP3. I use Vista because it feels like an advanced Windows 7, a little higher on memory but at the same time you do get more functions with it. I think MS tried to strip Windows 7 down as much as possible to feel less bloated, and did have some semi cool new ideas. Like the UI of search seemed like a rushed re-rash in attampt to look nicer, while at the same time stripping it down to the bone! I Not talking about the little Photo Gallery and MM6, but REAL functionality within the OS. Like for example on Vista I can customize my Control Panel views and orders, tweak my Explorer some, easily add the WMP11 toolbar etc. Much was narrowed down in Windows 7, it drove me crazy. I spend hours and hours at a time using my pc, and it's safe to say I use nearly every feature that comes on Vista. I use the built in Photo Gallery for adjusting photo's color and red eye, I use the Windows Calendar for school related things, I countlessly am browsing within Explorer and use the customization options available to it, I use the Advanced Search for seeking docs and what not, I mean the list goes on. I use these tools and features on a daily basis, and I can safely say this is a stable system even on my slow computer. Now how would 2k or XP perform in here? It would be like a rocket ship! But have to ask yourself something; Do I really want an operating system from the beginning of the millenium? Sure it was fast but XP can barely even run on a modern pc. 2k probably could though ftw. Ask BlackWingCat, even he uses it still thanks to his mods. All in all the choice is up to you on what you really want, you can go with Windows 7 and get a tad more support but massively loose certain features. Or you can stick with what your used to and hang onto XP. All depends on what you need and what your personal taste is. I'm going Vista for now, maybe even dualboot with Linux Mint when I get a new pc. Unix ANYTHING kills Windows EVERYTHING. Exception for Win2k, because that system was bloody awesome and rock solid. Well long post, but that's just my experience and thoughts on the matter. No I'm not a Windows 7 or XP hater btw, in fact the complete opposite! Just like what I can do with Vista that's all.

@Jody I really don't know why it's faster, almost all of the same features. But it uses significantly less RAM on my somewhat slow Compaq. Something to do with less services I believe.

Why take it over XP? 1. Search is integrated throughout the GUI 2. It is an easier OS to use and navigate 3. Security has greatly been improved under the hood, and due to it having such low marketshare it is less targered with viruses and attacks etc. (This is Windows still, it will never be that safe) 4. More compatible with new hardware, although Vista is starting to loose hardware support as well. But if you use AMD, it works fine despite maybe some missing hotfixes. 5. It looks very polished imo, more so than Windows 7. So up to you, but I'd definately go for it. Just watch out with editions though. Ultimate is a little heavy if you have anything under 4 GB of RAM, but Business handles memory just fine. Ultimate is awesome if you can run it though, it has the most features and because of that it's also somewhat heavier.

I'm still using Vista and I like it a lot, nothing at all a mess with Service Pack 2. Now the same can't be said before that, but performance is about on par with Windows 7 now. Fact is Windows 7 removed a lot of features and functionalities from Vista in attempt to be more light weight, but many nice functions where torne out. Windows Explorer is more locked down in terms of customizing the arrangement of items, the classic control panel is replaced with a less configurable "Large Icons" view, WMP12 is a mess, Photo Gallery is replaced with Photo Viewer and no longers has the gallery nor the editing features etc. I personally would take it over Windows 7 in a heart beat, but switching from XP is up to you. I'd go for it though if you wanted a more updated system, I've had no issues with stability. Using Vista Business x64 SP2 on an HP Compaq 6005 Pro

That is true, plus compatibility modified or not won't get that bad because of the fact of Windows Server 2008 being supported until 2020. Windows Server 2008 updates would probably work on Vista as well, being that both use the exact same NT 6.0 core. Only thing that can cause it not to work is Server 2008 has changes at it's core that make it a server, these changes are very little but never the less there. A Server 2008 update could probably install on Vista, but there is a chance it would have to be modified first. It would be much easier to use Server 2008 updates than it would to use Win7/Win8 updates. Server 2008 has the same core as Vista, only slightly modified to be used as a server. But regardless I think Vista will be ok 3 years beyond the end of support date, it just won't have any new updates from Windows Update. But as long as Server 2008 is getting compatibility, so is Vista. Plus it has the same driver model as Windows 7 for the most part, runs DX11 etc.

I see, and yes that has come across my mind that the updates for Windows Server 2008 may work under Vista. Is it possible to set Windows Update up to search for Server 2008 updates?

Well there is one advantage for Vista, that is Windows Server 2008. I used that OS in the past and pretty much had all the features turned on, but because of a few missing fearures I went back to Vista Ultimate. But both Server 2008 and Server2k8 R2 will be supported until 2020. WinServer 2008 v.1 is based exactly from Vista, they both use the NT 6002 core. So as long as MS supports that OS, Vista should have decent compatibility beyond 2017, despite not having updates. Both OS's are exactly the same, Server 2008 is just the server edition. So either way compatibility will be the same on those 2 systems, Vista and Windows Server 2008. So if MS is still supporting Vista's server OS, I would assume a decent majority of software developers will continue building their stuff on the Windows NT 6002 plattform, and that both Vista and Server 2008 would have the same compatibility?

I am currently running Windows Vista Ultimate SP2 x64 as my main OS, and along with some others I prefer it over Windows 7. But as most of us already know, extended support for Vista is scheduled to end in 2017. So that's only 3 more years until MS kiils off Vista completely In the past I have seen the UUR updates made for Windows 2000 which places XP dll's into the system giving it great compatibility improvements. I was wondering if the same could be done on Windows Vista? Now to clerify, I am NOT attempting to modify the OS source code as that is highly illegal and against Microsoft's terms of service policy. I am just curious if it is possible to use Windows 7 dll's on Vista for compatibility. I own fully legal OEM keys of both Windows Vista Ultimate and Windows 7 Ultimate. So again, not trying to pirate anything or do any sort of illegal activity. I am just wondering if it is possible to use Windows 7 dll's on Vista to help with compatibility. And if so, is it legal to do so? ~Thanks

Yep, I too prefer Windows Vista over Windows 7. I love Vista's visual appearnce, the features, and overall the way the OS works. Windows 7 was a fine OS as well, but as much as it tried be the supercharhed Vista. In my opinion it's just more stripped down, missing features, and looks awkward. I will always use Vista Ultimate SP2 as my main OS.