Vista VS XP

[Marthax]

Hi Everybody!

I've been looking for a thread like this to see what everybody thinks of these to competitors, but I didn't find one so I thought that creating one could be useful to everyone that are considering whether or not to get Vista and at the same time share some experiences.

Let me start with what annoys the crap out of me in Vista and makes me wanna go back to XP:

1.Some XP programs don't work in Vista

2.No RAID support during setup

3.SuperFetch

4.Crappy folder management

5.Driver Signature Enforcement

6.Windows Resource Protection

7. No BOOT logo

1. I know that this will get better in time, but right now it's just not how I want it. Programs you're used to are all of a sudden not working.

2. This is got be some kind of joke. I mean seriously MS.. you've had 5 years to develop a OS and for what? For a Windows Setup that doesn't even support RAID? I had to kill my RAID just to get Vista installed.

3. SuperFetch. It sounds nice on the paper, but in reality I just don't see what it's good for because when my comp. is stressed I still get the same performance problems as before, if not worse.

4. This is something that they didn't fully think through either. I guess that the saying "Think before you act" is something they haven't heard of because this just doesn't make any sense. First, in XP they create folders which all start with "My ...", but apperently that didn't do it so they ditch the "My" and stick with the name itself. The strange thing is that when you look into the registry, you find that MS haven't really changed a lot of things because it's all the same there. You see "My" everywhere you look.

The worst part is that because all old programs rely on the "Documents and Settings" structure, they had to create junctions to make the programs Vista compatible. What happened to the simple solution back in Win98 when you simply had all of your folders where you wanted them to be without any freakin' "My Music" or "My Documents"?

5. Driver Signature Enforcement. Why force people into using only certified drivers? I'm pretty sure that people who temper with their drivers know what they are doing so that can't be it. The worst part? No other way to disable the enforcement then by choosing it from the boot option.

6. Windows Resource Protection. If you don't even supply your own boot logo by default, then atleast let people do their own logos!

Pure and simple, I miss the simplicity where you actually got "Network Connections" when you pressed the Network button inside Control Panel and not a bunch of options. Instead, all you have is load of options which just make you go

What do you guys think of Vista?

Marthax

[tap52384]

No offense, but you seem a bit bitter. I'll admit, the missing boot logo annoyed me and no raid support does seem a bit silly. However, just like with the introduction of Windows 2000 and Windows XP, there were lots of programs that required updates or patches to work in the new operating systems. Driver signature enforcement should be able to be circumvented by tweaking settings in the MMC, just like disabling UAC (user account control) can be done from the control panel. UAC is a bit annoying, but it does alert any time a change to the system is about to happen to ensure that it is something desired.

Additionally, XP is definitely faster on my machine than Vista, and I'm not even using glass (I can't on my Thinkpad R51). As far as the folder naming convention of dropping the "My," that's not a flaw, just a weak change.

Unfortunately, it seems that weaker systems have been left high and dry with this release, even systems like mine that are just 3 years old. In terms of buying new hardware to buy a new operating system, that doesn't seem smart at all. I have a pentium M processor 1.5 Ghz but it doesn't seem to matter so much. It moves, but you can tell the difference (I'm dual-booting, recommended for those who want to try before completely switching).

There are negatives, but there are positives, like the Aero interface and the new volume stack which allows per-application volume management native to the operating system. The search ability is a rip from Mac's spotlight and I keep my files organized enough to not need it, but it's still nice to have just in case.

This is an issue similar to the XP/98 issue; you're going to have advocators and dissenters regardless of the OS. The facts say that 98 is less stable simply because of the way it handles all programs in the same memory space. However, in terms of the Vista/XP battle, Vista's kernel is just an improvement of the W2K3 kernel, and some of the features previously promised like WinFS are missing, and over all it seems to surpass XP in almost everyway, IF you have the hardware for it. If not, then you lose more than it's worth, honestly. At first glance, it looks like a pretty XP and it works like a pretty XP with barely audible system sounds. My XP looks a lot like it now, especially since i'm using an official Vista desktop background.

My synopsis: who knows, who cares, but hardware and application compatibility will make or break the deal for whoever is questioning (I'm using Vista Enterprise)

[Marthax]

UAC is a bit annoying, but it does alert any time a change to the system is about to happen to ensure that it is something desired.

Oh come on! I couldn't bare with it for more than 10 minues! It should atleast be a little more intelligent than to alarm everytime you initiate the setup.

As far as the folder naming convention of dropping the "My," that's not a flaw, just a weak change.

My point is that they are forcing people to a certain folder management. Perhaps I don't like to use "My Music" or "My Pictures"? Perhaps I don't appreciate the fact that WMP creates a "My Music" folder everytime it starts up? So long time has passed that they should've improved this. I mean, that's what Vista is, right? An Improvment.

There are negatives, but there are positives, like the Aero interface and the new volume stack which allows per-application volume management native to the operating system. The search ability is a rip from Mac's spotlight and I keep my files organized enough to not need it, but it's still nice to have just in case.

Now there's a reason to buy a new OS! Seriously..

As far as the Win98 thing goes I'm with you because I agree on the fact that it's less stable. I wouldn't want to go back to it either. What I'm talking about is that MS has created a few OS's by now and they should've learned from their mistakes. The pros and the cons. Win98 doesn't stand performance wise, but it's simple folder management rocks.

and some of the features previously promised like WinFS are missing

Exactly! Five years and for what? They started out with the XP base and developed it for three years only to realize that it wasn't that good so they ditched it and started over. You've gotta be kidding me? Mistakes like that are done my some small companies perhaps, but by MS?

[Spooky]

OK, strictly on topic:

Your areas of consideration were:

1.Some XP programs don't work in Vista

2.No RAID support during setup

3.SuperFetch

4.Crappy folder management

5.Driver Signature Enforcement

6.Windows Resource Protection

7. No BOOT logo

1. Thats true, but when Win95 came out there were some win 3 programs that didn;t work any more, when winME came out there were some win95 programs that didn't work, when winXP came out...yada yada yada, you get the picture. One of the reasons some programs don't work is because of the way they were coded to begin with. But your right, Vista is a radical departure from previous MS OS's.

2. Yeah, I agree for some, but myself i'm not seeing any problem with it.

3. I like it myself, I see the effects of it in long sessions.

4. Not so crappy, just different. You can make them anything you want and use what you want, you just have to do it the right way.

5. Personally I like it because it helps set a standard for drivers. But i also tend to side with you a little, it does get in the way sometimes.

6. Ya got to start somewhere and what better place to start then at the first place people want to hack. How easy would it be to distribute a hostile package in something everyone wants and you can get for free only it just 'tweaks' the rersources a little to get there?

7. Not a consideration for me, I don't really care about this one...sorry.

Vista gave people, not all people but the ones who spoke up, what they wanted. And...the people who told MS what they wanted in an OS said they wanted a 'My Music' folder for example. MS listened to the years of complaints about their OS security, so they finally did something about it.

Overall, I like Vista, there are a few things that bug me about it, for example...why can't you set the 'Advanced Search' as the default view for search? But overall i like it, takes some getting used to.

Edited December 12, 2006 by Spooky

[tap52384]

You can always disable UAC, but for the most part, you're right...since they are releasing a version of DirectX 10 for XP and my XP even has the official vista sounds, background, xpized icons (my desktop icons are 48 x 48), vistacg visual style, ubericon, lclock, vista fonts, and yahoo widgets, I don't need Vista. I only have it installed for comparative purposes and I have not had the chance to use ultimate, but how much is there that is not in Enterprise?

There is a website, http://www.fromvistatoxp.com that some programmers are taking Vista API and porting actual applications from Vista to XP. One day an "XPize"-type pack may come out with high-resolution Vista icons, if one isn't out already. Like with 98, people are working to make XP the best possible. With the cost of Vista Ultimate (the only version woth buying), you could definitely upgrade your desktops or put a down payment towards a more powerful laptop and get XP cheaper.

Vista is a disappointment (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/01/1610244) in many areas and deserves very little credit, but again, if you have the hardware to support it and the patience to wait for application updates, then go for it.

Edited December 11, 2006 by tap52384

[Marthax]

I think that MS is gonna have a hard time converting people from XP to Vista because of the fact that XP does it for most people. Sure if they want all of that Anti-phishing and Windows defender crap then perhaps they'll upgrade, but I just don't see a reason why Vista would be better then XP. The fact that XP has been around for a while makes it possible to slim it down (thanks to nlite) to just the size you want, with just the features you want.

Sure, just give it some time and Vista is gonna have allt that too, but until then I'm sticking with XP because this just isn't working out.

It's all the little things that make out the entirety and I think that these things are just to many right now.

It seems like XP's got it all thanks to enthusiasts so why upgrade?

As for the "Vista only" programs, that's just stupid MS because people are gonna find different ways..

Edited December 11, 2006 by Marthax

[prx984]

You can enable the boot screen, but that one feature won't cause me to convert to Vista. I'm a die hard XP fan to be honest, I just prefer the look, speed and usability.

Trust me, I will be sticking with XP for a long time to come.

[nuhi]

Marthax,

#2, what do you mean no RAID support? Are you referring to the built-in software controller which Windows Server has, dynamic drives from Storage Management or the real motherboard - PCI controller support?

I ask because I have Intel P965 chipset which is SATA-only and I use RAID-0 without any additional drivers on Vista (and setup) without any issues which is not what I can say for XP out of the box.

I admit I had issues with VIA Raid controller and Vista on older motherboard during restart (had to use the restart button every time).

#1, which is mainly UAC issue I agree.

And amen to the Network Connections remark, I get lost at this new one...well we will get used to it eventually then we'll see which is more productive.

#3, SuperCache would be more appropriate name. Probably one of the reasons why Vista seems like it needs so much memory. But at the same time I like it because it gives the more faster feeling to the Windows usage. I just hope it knows how to clear that fast when mem is needed.

tap52384, where did you hear about DX10 for XP please? I'm pretty sure it's not true, do you mean on that false DX9L interpretations?

[Marthax]

No, I mean regular RAID support. I had no trouble running RAID0 during XP Setup with the proper drivers integrated, but I just couldn't get it to work with Vista. I downloaded all the x64 drivers I could find, but it didn't help at all. My RAID was nowhere to be found.

I absolutely DON'T agree with you on this point because ever since I switched to Vista I've been feeling the opposite of faster Windows usage. I'm running on 1GB right now and it seems like it's just not enough. It honestly seems as if XP handled the memory better than Vista does.

And amen to the Network Connections remark, I get lost at this new one...well we will get used to it eventually then we'll see which is more productive.

That's on of the reasons I'm switching back. I'm so freakin' tired of all the shortcut and GUI mumbo jumbo. Let's cut to the chase and do what we are supposed to. You ask for your Network adapters, but all you get is a bunch of network options. What's that all about? Edited December 12, 2006 by Marthax

[kartel]

[Stead]

i agree with the folders, whats wrong with the documents and settings? why change it, theres no need!

unless of course you need to access the initial folder using a dos program and its annoying to type docume~! and typing users is much easier, but it does seem silly

overall i much prefer vista, but i really hate the way the folders are organised, has anyone unchecked the hide system files and folders ? you can't even click on the picture folder from your documents folder, it comes up saying you don't have access you have to click on the correct folder as the other was just a junction to it, at least from what i can tell

hrmm, if i click on my documents folder in explorer, expand it, clicking on My Music, My Pictures, My Videos causes this error 'Acces is Denied'

same when i click on the documents and settings folder

Honestly, I can see no reason for this at all whatsoever with vista, unless they want to confuse us

sorry for my rant! but the folder thing really bugs me, overall i find vista is much faster and much smoother, but really, whats with the folders?

[LLXX]

5.Driver Signature Enforcement

6.Windows Resource Protection

Actually these two are the easiest problems to fix. Which then solves

7. No BOOT logo

...although I really don't care about a boot logo (the less time you spend having to look at it the better), customising other parts of the OS is what I should be able to do.

In other words, just figure out where the signature check and the file integrity checks are, and patch the code to go around it. Of course, this will have to be done outside of the OS.

XP's WFP has been disabled in a similar method (so has the "unsigned drivers" warning on my machine) so why not this.

Basically M$ wants to maintain a monopoly over who can / cannot write drivers for their OS. I wouldn't be surprised if the same restriction applied to applications in their next version (Vienna?)

I could probably fix these two problems, but at the moment I'm not too interested in Vista to bother installing it.

Edited December 12, 2006 by LLXX

[Stoic Joker]

Hm... Well I've never had a problem with Vista suporting my RAID controller (even back when it was LongHorn), but I have seen a lot of complaints in that area...I don't recall any of them being about mainstream hardware (Adaptec, Intel, etc.) however. *shrug*

There are reasons for the folder structure changes, Scripting mentioned above being one, another being Backup strategy. Frankly I'm tired of telling people they can either shell out $2,000+ for a tape drive big enough to backup everybody in the offices mp3 collection ... or waste tons of time running around deleting them. Folders separated == problem solved. ...Well folks the Company Data is safe, but you music collections that had no business on the network in the first place are gone. Take some time to look into why the changes were made and (I gota hunch...) they'll start making sense.

If I show all the "Super Hidden" System files, I get a bunch of weird links that don't work. Gee that's odd, they seem to work just fine for the system...Think maybe that's why they are hidden?!?

90% of the Windows security issues were caused by heavy emphasis on backwards compatibility. Hence the line drawn in the sand at XP SP2, when 70% of the Windows API was depricated (That means S***Caned for those with out time to look it up). Vista is just another step forward and that means some backward has Got-to-Go.

Sloppy Code is Sloppy Code, I've been working on an old GPL project trying to get it to work on XP x64. Half way through the rewrite it ran fine on XP x64, but Vista wouldn't touch it. Wanna guess why? ...Some of the older (Backwards Compatible) stuff had to go, and some of my code was sloppy. Now it runs just dandy on Vista.

MS had left a hole on the HAL so Creative could continue to directly access the hardware in XP. That's been closed in Vista which is why Creative is siting around with [guess what] in there hand, nad no working drivers.

It's called progress. the Edsel was a fine car...

Edited December 12, 2006 by Stoic Joker

[cluberti]

Basically M$ wants to maintain a monopoly over who can / cannot write drivers for their OS. I wouldn't be surprised if the same restriction applied to applications in their next version (Vienna?)

Or it could be that over 50% of support incidents are generated due to buggy/bad/misbehaving drivers, and that's a large support cost (no, we make no money on support - it's a cost center by far) that can be reduced by trying to eliminate the biggest supportability problem? It's not like we're out to "get" everyone when we make a change, guys.

[Thunderbolt 2864]

I agree with some of the points to the person who started with this thread. And the Network Connections is just horrible, I don't even know how to configure it, I just went back to XP because there is a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo which isn't necessary. And the whole folder layout looks weird and crap.

And some XP applications that isn't compatible with Vista is a joke too. Seriously, it took Microsoft 5 years just to create this OS and a whole bunch of stuff doesn't even work, just like IE7, I don't see any improvement at all.