Vista VS XP

[nuhi]

Since it's same as XP vs 2k there is no reason to get hostile towards it, eventually majority will use Vista same as they did with XP because new pcs will have it built-in and can handle it.

p.s. if someone said the same in this thread since it's too obvious i apologize for not reading it in detail

[TheTOM_SK]

So do you think i should get it, or continue to stick with XP.

ITsShowtime - choose language - Vista. Those videos might give you some ideas.

Edited December 13, 2006 by TheTOM_SK

[Marthax]

So do you think i should get it, or continue to stick with XP..

That's one of the reasons we're discussing it, so people like you can have a chance of figuring out whether Vista is for you or not.

but overall from a home users perspective, it is friendly, easy on the eyes and doesn't contain any threatingly large amounts of numbers or cryptic computer information that scare most home users.

You've gotta be kidding me? Just look at the picture and tell me what's easier for the "home user" if he/she determines that they wanna access their network connections. Searching through all the options you have on the screen or right clicking your connection, which by the way is something that we have been doing for ages by now. Look up "easy on the eyes" in the dictionary and I'm sure it's not gonna be Vista's version of it.

XP Local Area Connections:

1. Right Click My Network Places off the Start Panel & Select Properties.

And you're there.

Vista Local Area Connections:

1. Right Click Network off the Start Panel & Select Properties.

2. Click Manage Network Connections on the left Tasks Menu.

And You're there.

So you people are having a freaking Hissy Fit over one extra Click?!?

It still gets me everytime. Call me stupid, but Network and Sharing Center overloads your head with information in comparison with the good ol' Network Connections. Look how nice and clean the old version is compared to the new one.

Since it's same as XP vs 2k there is no reason to get hostile towards it, eventually majority will use Vista same as they did with XP because new pcs will have it built-in and can handle it.

Of course. If you get forced into eating dirt, it's gonna turn out real good eventually because that's all you can taste. I guess that's how it is. You get used to your surroundings, but you struggle for as long as you can. Edited December 13, 2006 by Marthax

[Spooky]

Well, see its things like this that are not definative. They aren't so because Network Connections, in your pics on the left, was intended for those that may be less techncally adept with windows. Its difficult to design a GUI that has a little of something for the majority, and the technophobe is not in the majority. MS is trying to appeal to different groups, ages, levels of ability, etc...and the GUI is an outgrowth from that appeal effort. What you see in Vista is what the majority wanted, unfortunately the majority doesn't include everyone for MS, but just includes a sampling of all ranges. The range with the most votes for a feature wins and thats whats in Vista. It isn't like MS set out to deliberately say "hey, Marthax doesn't like this feature so lets leave it in to p*** him off" (j/k ) They did what any company does when its developing a new product, they cross section sample the public to determine what the public wants and the product will finally look like or be, its called market research. they do the same thing for cars, detergent, toothpaste, no matter what it is companies do market research to determine what the majority of people want. MS just simply did the same thing. This is why also that there are so many different products available, to the point that its just about difficult not to find something you can use or like. OS's are no different, theres XP, the linux/unix flavors, etc...it just so happens that windows is the most used so of course its always going to be a target for critique, or someone is always not going to be happy with it for some reason. So, you balance functionality with eye candy with simple plain language things with what the majority wants with something thats usable with new stuff and technology built in and package it up into what we see as Vista (in your pics with the Aero theme), and then again someone might view it differently and from a different perspective if they for example have the classic theme going instead of Aero.

You will notice how on the Vista side the whole basic status of a persons network is layed right out in front of them, where in the XP side you still have to dig to get the same information. So its nothing upon which to base a definative decision just by reading someone elses interpetation of how they think it should be, because someone else might look at it and think "Hey, I like how they put the basic information in front of me in context with the connection so I can tell at a glance from the basic indicators if stuff is working".

It would be different if there wasn't anything useful showing that could give a person a clue as to what to do if they had never done it before, but that isn't the case here as the information is right there in front of anyone who wants to look. It goes back to what I said earlier, if Vista is right for a person then do it, if XP is right for a person then stay with XP.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Spooky

[Marthax]

I agree with you, everything is based on what the people wants. The thing is when it comes to what you said, when you want to customize something based on your own liking. That's when Vista sucks, because if MS really cared about this they'd create the possibility for people to adjust it to whatever they like. Just like everyone doesn't appreciate Aero Glass and prefer Windows Classic, some don't enjoy Network Sharing Center or something else for that matter. They should have the possibility to adjust it if they want. I mean seriously, it wouldn't be that hard for MS to make it possible for users to choose whether they want the Network Sharing Center or the standard Network Connections. That'd be enough the get me satisfied on that point and there'd be one person less nagging.

I know I know, I'm nagging about the Network Sharing Center, but I'm just trying to make a point and this happends to be a good thing to compare.

Then again, they could've customized the different Windows versions to match the users. For example, if you choose to use the "Home edition", MS assumes you are a newbie and bundles all those user friendly features to make you grow accustomed to Vista. If you instead choose to use the "Ultimate Edition", they could assume that you know better and want to get rid of all those user friendly things and cut to the chase.

I'm sure there'd still be plenty of people nagging about the interface, but that'd atleast give us some sort of choice to pick what suits our needs. It may perhaps not be the best way to do it, but it's a thought.

[kartel]

I went from 98se to Vista, skipped over XP, thankfully.

[jaclaz]

For future (read past ) memory:

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/3076

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/0...029tcwinxp.html

More recent articles:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34915

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35084

It seems like it is not possible to add features without adding complexity:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_05c.asp

but we luckily have Moore's Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

that helps a lot! B)

So that hardware will soon catch up with the gap.

jaclaz

[dAbReAkA]

his law is about to expire in 2010 or so i heard.. i may be wrong about the year though

[buzzebee]

Will XP support DX10. MS have said DX10 will only be available for Vista. I have heard that there may be a DX9c which may provide dx10 game support. What's the word on this? For me the only reason to migrate to Vista is DX10 support.

[123321]

Will XP support DX10. MS have said DX10 will only be available for Vista. I have heard that there may be a DX9c which may provide dx10 game support. What's the word on this? For me the only reason to migrate to Vista is DX10 support.

No XP will not support DX10. It's only available in Vista.

Besides if you migrate to Vista and still have a DX 9 gpu then

you are not using DX 10. In order to take advantage you

must have a DX 10 video card. Although I've not seen

yet as to how well a DX 10 cards runs on Vista, but

if you really want to find out, you'll have to wait until

DX 10 games comes available.

Back to topic: I've got a 945p chipset and set my hard drive to RAID 0

when installing Vista, it did not asked me for RAID drivers, it finds it automatically.

No drivers are needed.

[Spooky]

I really got a kick out of reading those articles again, the ones about XP at the top are especially funny because those are the exact same articles that were posted about Vista by the same places on the net with of course a few wording changes, when you look at the idea or theme of the article. Its almost like they just copy and pasted for the new Vista articles. They are also the same complaints people are posing now about Vista, especially in relation to the article about XP being slower then Win2K.

For future (read past ) memory:

http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/3076

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/0...029tcwinxp.html

More recent articles:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34915

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35084

It seems like it is not possible to add features without adding complexity:

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_05c.asp

but we luckily have Moore's Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

that helps a lot! B)

So that hardware will soon catch up with the gap.

jaclaz

[jaclaz]

.....those are the exact same articles that were posted about Vista by the same places on the net with of course a few wording changes, when you look at the idea or theme of the article. Its almost like they just copy and pasted for the new Vista articles. They are also the same complaints people are posing now about Vista, especially in relation to the article about XP being slower then Win2K.

Well, EITHER that

OR

Microsoft doesn't listen to Customers.....

jaclaz

[Spooky]

Yes, you are exactly correct. However, consider something else if moving to a DX10 vid card...the current, lets say cards made prior to 2006, that are DX9 cards and install in and work fine in Vista (for my post purposes meaning that Vista has in-box WDDM drivers for the card and detects and installs the card using those drivers initially)...what to consider is DRM. Newer DX10 cards will more likely be DRM 'compliant' (which is not really a standard, its a quasi-standard developed for and controlled by the media companies to protect media rights, its poorly conceived, the plans to implement it are poorly planned, and it seeks to violate a persons privacy and legal rights to ownership, and its being forced upon the computer industry, but thats another story). Anyway, cards made prior to 2006 have less of a chance of having DRM compliant electronics, in fact any computer electronics made prior to 2006 (sound cards for example) have less of a chance of having DRM electronics included. This is the reason why DRM is not an issue in Vista right now for using stuff a person has for the vast majority of people. But...consider that when people move to DX10 cards there will be a good chance they will be getting a card with DRM attributes, at which time all the stuff having to do with DRM will kick in for their media including games (with DRM code). Regardless of the advantages of DX10 for graphics, when DRM kicks in the advantages are going to be over-shadowed by DRM with the down sampling and all the other stuff DRM does so the media rights can be protected in compliance with this quasi-standard, yes its going to affect games too (those that have DRM code, and they will have it in the very near future, in fact some of the newer ones already do but the hardware that doesn't have DRM capability will not see any effect of DRM on graphics and video playback in games)...so consider the move to DX10 cards carefully and the DRM capabilities of DX10 cards vs. current DX9 cards that work fine in Vista. After all, for a game does it really matter if you can see a character blink their eyes several times in a game with DX10 and only a few times in a game with a DX9 card? So...if DRM will be an issue for you then consider the move to something like a DX10 video card carefully and weigh the advantages against the dis-advantages.

(yes I know this is a simplistic view, anything else takes an entirely new forum)

Will XP support DX10. MS have said DX10 will only be available for Vista. I have heard that there may be a DX9c which may provide dx10 game support. What's the word on this? For me the only reason to migrate to Vista is DX10 support.

No XP will not support DX10. It's only available in Vista.

Besides if you migrate to Vista and still have a DX 9 gpu then

you are not using DX 10. In order to take advantage you

must have a DX 10 video card. Although I've not seen

yet as to how well a DX 10 cards runs on Vista, but

if you really want to find out, you'll have to wait until

DX 10 games comes available.

Back to topic: I've got a 945p chipset and set my hard drive to RAID 0

when installing Vista, it did not asked me for RAID drivers, it finds it automatically.

No drivers are needed.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Spooky

[Spooky]

Well, they did listen, they just didn't ask everyone.

.....those are the exact same articles that were posted about Vista by the same places on the net with of course a few wording changes, when you look at the idea or theme of the article. Its almost like they just copy and pasted for the new Vista articles. They are also the same complaints people are posing now about Vista, especially in relation to the article about XP being slower then Win2K.

Well, EITHER that

OR

Microsoft doesn't listen to Customers.....

jaclaz

Edited January 7, 2007 by Spooky

[Marthax]

Well, that's what I'm trying to say, but in a more general way. The newer OS, the crapier it gets because the user now has lesser and lesser influance over their systems. Instead, the OS is making all the choices for you. Or in this case, MS.

I honestly don't think that DRM or any other integrated annoying features will last in the end, because there'll always be struggle between the "bad" and the "good". MS starts using DRM = People find a way to disable it.