What vista do that XP can not do

[dAbReAkA]

yeah Spooky, 40% of the time (or even more) my hard drive is reading something.. it never stops..

when i close firefox, it frees 100-200 megs and vista gobbles ram another 10 minutes.. my PC usage is pretty active, closing/opening stuff all the time, so it looks like it never stops..

[MGadAllah]

hehe its funny.if u people hate MS products too much why u use windows? and if u dont mind me to ask,what are u doing on this forum?

For me it is a compitability issue...I'd love to use Unix or Linux OS but what about another applications I want to use that is not working under lunix.

That is why I'm still using MS OS

[Spooky]

Ahhhh...100 - 200 MB just by closing Firefox? That seems a bit excessive. Something might be wrong there.

Ya know what i'd suggest for you to isolate the problem, a fresh clean install then look at the performance and see where the problems are with the core OS first before adding stuff, and don't disable anything especially any services (windows services is another story that the rest of the world is not willing to accept for Vista just because the common preception from previous windows OS's is that services are bad, not so for Vista). There are just too many variables and you need to start somewhere. If the adverse activity continues with just the core OS then the problem is between the OS and your system. If that doesn't point out any problems then start adding stuff and watch the activity of each item and its effects on your system. It may be something you installed that loads up something thats not needed all the time, like adobe products for example and adobe reader or pro - they load that acroread thing all the time in the run key in your registry regardless if the adobe reader or pro is active or not and its not needed but it consumes resources. Anything that consumes resources when its not needed thats not part of the core OS operation will cause activity like this in Vista. Another problem becoming an issue for Vista is OEM drivers, a lot of these drivers right now don't add anything that the Vista in-box drivers don't already have for more common items, and some of the OEM drivers appearing now are really designed just for XP and not Vista even tho the OEM's say they are for Vista. There is a big difference between 'will work with Vista' and 'designed for Vista'. Some of these OEM drivers the OEM's say are for Vista are just re-branded XP drivers that appear to work, and they do, but also consume resources because they don't fully support Vista. Also take a look in the performance monitor and see where the hard faults are occuring (BTW, its normal for some native Vista components to show some hard faults) and whts using the most memory while using the most CPU resources.

yeah Spooky, 40% of the time (or even more) my hard drive is reading something.. it never stops..

when i close firefox, it frees 100-200 megs and vista gobbles ram another 10 minutes.. my PC usage is pretty active, closing/opening stuff all the time, so it looks like it never stops..

Edited December 18, 2006 by Spooky

[usasma]

So, in other words, you use Microsoft OS's because it gives you what you want. And that's why you don't use other OS's - because they don't give you what you want.

And that folks is the key to Microsoft's success - they give the customer what they want.

[Spooky]

Yes, MS does give what people want...but stop to consider for a second, if Apple or Linux had the forsight to act just a couple of years earlier then MS did with its first version of windows then most of the world would be using one of those systems now. As it was Apple was not flexible enough in the earlier days and unix was restricted to the rhelm of business and techie/hobby types. Neither one were willing to cede their dominance in their own niches to reach out to the rest of the world until too late as both were founded on providing for the business world in the beginning and us common folk came later, where as Microsoft captured the common person market from the beginning and concentrated more on business later. And that is why MS is the most common OS system used today, simply because it captured minds and hearts first.

Edited December 18, 2006 by Spooky

[Link21]

So, in other words, you use Microsoft OS's because it gives you what you want. And that's why you don't use other OS's - because they don't give you what you want.

And that folks is the key to Microsoft's success - they give the customer what they want.

That's only because applications many people use are only written for Windows. So if you like any of those applications, you are forced to use Windows or be without them. There are lots of people who would dump Windows in a flash if they could have native OS binaries of all the games and applications they use for MAC OS X or Linux.

People don't use Microsoft operating systems because they are the best. They use them because I would guess 98% of all software is written for only for Microsoft operating systems.

Edited December 18, 2006 by Link21

[fizban2]

People don't use Microsoft operating systems because they are the best. They use them because I would guess 98% of all software is written for only for Microsoft operating systems.

Now the big question would be why haven't these software developers released things for Linux and Mac? because they either can't (cause it won't work right on that platform) or because they don't see the benefit. unless software developers see a large enough user base where their product can be profitable they are not going to write software for that OS. Since linux for the most part is open source, software vendors have problems writing and selling software for linux so that is a risky venture. An Macs are still a rare and exotic breed in the corperate world, so writing software for them is limited as well.

but enough of my rant,

this thread is about what Vista can that XP can't. it would only be fair to start with things that each can natively do and work from their (XP has so many add-ons out that had to be made to make-up for everything is hasn't been capable of doing for the last 5 years that anything you want to do with it has been made) give vista enough time and gadgets will be found far and wide with interesting things that it can do. Lets try and stay on topic people

things vista can do

better wireless management and profile creation. i was on a road trip this weekend and stopped at no less then 5 places that had wireless hotspots. i saved all the hotspots with vista, including usernames and passwords for each place (some having to be entered into a web browser to connect) on the way back up, stopping at all the same places i was able to boot up from sleep, and automatically connect to all but one of the hotspots. something that would not have been possible on XP

[vinodh]

If I just wanted to poke around and try to find stuff to keep myself busy, I'd use Linux. If I want to get stuff done, I use Windows.

Also, when Windows 95 was released, most of my friends refused to upgrade because they said Windows 3.1 was better.

Then, they upgraded anyway and said the same thing about Windows 98 and Millenium. Then, they upgraded anyway, again, and fussed about how crappy Windows XP is. Now, everyones running XP and most of them are complaining about Vista being too heavy on resources, blah blah blah.

Just admit that you are wrong, is what I say. No OS is perfect, but we all know, deep down, that we are going to all move over to Vista. Vista is still new, and has faults. We will find ways around them and it will be a better OS. If i'm wrong, then go ahead and install MS DOS 6.22 and get it over and done with!

P.S. While you're there, switch on the Nintendo and have a quick game of Mario Brothers, just for old times sake. ;-)

[Spooky]

What can Vista do that XP can not do? Hmmm...let me think...uhhhh...OK, I got it...be better than XP.

Edited December 18, 2006 by Spooky

[Camarade_Tux]

People don't use Microsoft operating systems because they are the best. They use them because I would guess 98% of all software is written for only for Microsoft operating systems.

Now the big question would be why haven't these software developers released things for Linux and Mac? because they either can't (cause it won't work right on that platform) or because they don't see the benefit. unless software developers see a large enough user base where their product can be profitable they are not going to write software for that OS. Since linux for the most part is open source, software vendors have problems writing and selling software for linux so that is a risky venture. An Macs are still a rare and exotic breed in the corperate world, so writing software for them is limited as well.

but enough of my rant,

Write for a specific OS ? Of course, I'm not a professional dev but I avoid to use platform-specific API as much as possible (i.e. performance drop, ease). And if graphical interfaces matter, why not use gtk/Qt/the_other_one_whom_name_I_forgot; they are cross-platform, performant.

And just a quick poll : maong those who prefer Vista over XP, how many were using an nlited XP ?

I'm asking because I could run 3 nlited XP, having the same memory usage as with one vista.

[CoffeeFiend]

And if graphical interfaces matter, why not use gtk/Qt/the_other_one_whom_name_I_forgot; they are cross-platform, performant.

There are many widget toolkits (not all cross-platform though), but they all have significant downsides (not to mention many require people to download the thing and install it besides your app), namely a lot of 'em don't have the native look and feel of some OS'es they can run onto (and that's ignoring the programming language support/bindings/limitations):

GTK+: Sucks under windows. 'nuff said.

Qt: not too bad, but at $3300 per developper license, I'll definitely skip! Ridiculously overpriced.

wxWidgets (formerly wxWindows): doesn't suck nearly as bad as many others (lesser evil?)

AWT: old stuff (dead)... mainly replaced by Swing (Swing is built on top of AWT)

Swing: tends to be slow and memory intensive

SWT: not really standard, somewhat of a tie with Swing (different pains)

winforms: windows/.NET tech, also runs on mono (my current favorite, disregarding portability)

WPF: windows only, but is by far the best IMO (slowly getting into it) More like revolutionary (there's nothing else quite like it on any platform)

Thing is, there's basically no demand for most apps to run on linux. I couldn't care less if any of my apps don't run on it, and I'm far from being the only one who thinks that way. Targeting the majority platform isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Deman]

Have fun restricting yourself to MS-only software. Firewall wise, Vista changed nothing (I still didn't use 3rd party firewalls on 2k/XP).

Actually Vista's firewall does differ from XP's. It now blocks both outgoing and incoming traffic whereas XP's only blocked incoming. Granted it's not user friendly (and probably built for enterprise users familiar with Group Policy) but it has changed

[Camarade_Tux]

There are many widget toolkits (not all cross-platform though), but they all have significant downsides (not to mention many require people to download the thing and install it besides your app)

Just like for Real, Quicktime, Flash, word documents, .iso files... And as usual such softwares can be preinstalled.

, namely a lot of 'em don't have the native look and feel of some OS'es they can run onto (and that's ignoring the programming language support/bindings/limitations):

GTK+: Sucks under windows. 'nuff said.

Qt: not too bad, but at $3300 per developper license, I'll definitely skip! Ridiculously overpriced.

wxWidgets (formerly wxWindows): doesn't suck nearly as bad as many others (lesser evil?)

AWT: old stuff (dead)... mainly replaced by Swing (Swing is built on top of AWT)

Swing: tends to be slow and memory intensive

SWT: not really standard, somewhat of a tie with Swing (different pains)

winforms: windows/.NET tech, also runs on mono (my current favorite, disregarding portability)

WPF: windows only, but is by far the best IMO (slowly getting into it) More like revolutionary (there's nothing else quite like it on any platform)

GTK+ : I've used several GTK+ apps under win and they didn't suck. Although I've never been on the programmer side.

Qt : Indeed, forgot their favorable licence was only for open-source apps but it still leaves room for OS apps.

wxWidgets : that's the one I was thinking of

Swing : agree

SWT : same

winforms : requires .net framework but as you wrote, mono is there

WPF : windows only, and uses DirectX. That's not having apps that are not cross-platform, that's having apps that are completely tied to a specific OS

Thing is, there's basically no demand for most apps to run on linux. I couldn't care less if any of my apps don't run on it, and I'm far from being the only one who thinks that way. Targeting the majority platform isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Preferring to have an app that will run on different platforms is not something I don't care of.

In fact, it is getting more and more important for me.

And the last thing I'd like to see is a complete split between win32 and other platforms apps.

Also, I can predict an increase in linux systems; installing OpenSuSe is as easy as installing XP (in fact, there are even more drivers under OpenSuSe) and then there is no problem to use the system.

[DonDamm]

Hmmm. Time will better answer this one, but it seems to me that there are some noticable improvements with Vista as has been mentioned, but there are a couple of things that seem pretty clear to me. First, I've been using 2k3 Server for years now and I've noticed that it seems much more stable than the XP machines I use as secondaries or testbeds. They use different kernels and the Vista development was slowed down a while back when they decided to completely scrap the builds based on the XP kernel and went back to the drawing board with the 2003 Server kernel. So, I would venture that Vista will prove to be a more robust and stable platform than XP.

Secondly, I do have grave concerns that most people will ignore or not care about the ever closer implementation of DRM and TCP, the Trusted Computing Platform which is the renamed Palladium of old which everybody yelled about. With the hardware chips in place and this software you won't need any AV software anymore because you'll be monitored and so will your software. If it's not licensed it won't run, Period. If you haven't paid for it, good luck! I think this is mostly aimed at the Russian and Chinese markets, but I'm not sure. lol

Anyway, it will prove to be quite a PIA sooner or later, and I've already started working on all-in-one solutions using ubuntu on a stick for small businesses.

The ability to use virtual machines very neatly circumvents the need to run any particular OS and you could easily run a linux server and any Win apps in a VM if needed. At home this may not make much sense, but it might in a business. One of the very nice thing about VMs is their portability. As long as it's licensed you can move it to another machine and run it there.

In time I think we'll find a way around the parts of Vista we don't like and will find that it offers a nice upgrade to our current XP installations.

[CoffeeFiend]

Just like for Real, Quicktime, Flash, word documents, .iso files... And as usual such softwares can be preinstalled.

Not the same type of dependancy. Yes, there are ways to preinstall, but it's still a PITA to deal with it regardless.

GTK+ apps don't look very much like native apps under windows, that's what sucks.

WPF : windows only indeed. Not being cross-platform is perfectly fine with most people (just like I had mentionned underneath). Right now developing cross-platform apps for most companies/devs means higher dev costs and time, and practically no extra sales/profit. The day it's profitable I'll consider it. The demand for our apps to be ported to linux is non-existant (hardly anyone makes commercial software for it unsurprisingly). Meanwhile WPF can deliver truly amazing apps for ~95% of the market (soon people will even expect this).