XP or Vista?

QE wrote on 4/13/2007, 11:00 AM
For those running Vegas 6 or 7 on Windows Vista, how do you like Vista? Is it better? Slower or faster? Compatabilty or incompatabilty? Any problems with DVD Archietect? I'm purchasing a new editing system and the system provider is pushing me towards Vista, but I wanted to ask the vegas experts/gurus their opinion? Should I switch to Vista or stay with XP?

Comments

Coursedesign wrote on 4/13/2007, 11:15 AM
Unless you are a glutton for punishment, wait at least for Vista SP1, scheduled to be released in December.

Vista is totally new and there are new major goofs being discovered on a regular basis. On top of that, there are frequent driver problems, because manufacturers have been slow in adapting to Vista.

Aero, the spiffy user interface that's a very poor copy of the look of OS X per many independent reviewers, typically uses 22% of your CPU performance per recent reviews. XP's UI doesn't.

Every professional user I've talked to who has gotten a new machine with Vista factory-installed is angry over all the troubles they've had with drivers, security, the very poorly designed and blood pressure increasing UAC, and more.

A properly configured XP system is a more secure bet today.

If you still decide to get Vista, make sure to immediately get a 3rd party firewall to replace Microsoft's ditto. Why? Because Microsoft put in a User Level API call that allows any virus, worm, or scummy e-mail attachment to command the firewall to be opened without any privileges at all. They probably did this for the convenience of their testers, and two months after being publicly flogged for it, they still haven't fixed it.

Coursedesign wrote on 4/13/2007, 1:03 PM
From Mary Jo Foley, ZDNet:

(at http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=378)

Sigh.

Stuart Robinson wrote on 4/13/2007, 2:40 PM
As an alternative to Vista, try x64, the 64-bit version of XP that is based upon their server OS.

Stable (very), you can use vast amounts of RAM and 64-bit CPUs. There are fewer drivers than there are for XP, but vastly more than there are for Vista.
riredale wrote on 4/13/2007, 2:48 PM
I'm not a Vista user and have never tried it so you might want to take my comments with a grain of salt, but so far my conclusion is that it's a technical and PR disaster for Microsoft.

In the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago, Mossberg's column decried that his brand-new powerful Vista system took over 2 minutes to boot up, while his Mac did it in 30 seconds.

I'll leave XP when a program I absolutely need absolutely demands Vista. Until then I'm perfectly happy with XP, and it's a fine, stable, robust OS. If I want a whizzy interface I'll buy WindowBlinds and install the Vista lookalike.
eyethoughtso wrote on 4/14/2007, 12:07 PM
this is insane!!!
I am using my wife's brand new dell with Vista loaded on it. It reminds me of the old days of a 286 at 8 Mhz. I am seriously looking at loading XP on this and replacing Vista. i don't want to mess up the warranty that came with the computer so I'll wait until the warranty has expired. I, excuse me, SHE has the Home basic OEM on the unit with 512MB of Ram. Maybe if i put in another 512 I will move through pages quicker. So... What do you think. add ram or switch to XP. I already have an old XP license not in use.

Jeff
johnmeyer wrote on 4/14/2007, 2:00 PM
I am seriously looking at loading XP on this and replacing Vista.

As you may know, Microsoft allows you to do this for free:

Microsoft Downgrade Information

I have yet to hear even ONE REASON to purchase Vista. What's in it for me? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
MPM wrote on 4/14/2007, 2:11 PM
My 2 cents worth is if the system builder is pushing Vista, find out why. Could be nothing other than it's a bit more trouble to ask for something special rather than the box on the shelf, or it could be no one has tested the box on XP to see if there are any problems. Might also see if you could find an XP box lying around at fire sale pricing, though it's a bit late in the year for that. If all else fails [i.e. Vista can't be removed from the sticker price etc.], ~$175 should get XP Pro installed on an addt'l hdd for dual boot with extra drive space thrown in.
riredale wrote on 4/14/2007, 3:21 PM
John, as for "downgrade" rights, I am confused. After looking at the linked chart and reading up a bit on some Googled references, it appears that one can buy a Vista box and then load XP software on it. So this is a big deal? If I understand the fine print correctly, the user still has to buy the XP OS to go on it, so exactly what "permission" is Microsoft granting to the buyer?

It seems to me that I have always had the "right" to take my brand-new Vista box and run XP or Linux on that box if I so choose. It would be one thing if MS offered to swap XP for Vista at no charge, but that's not how I'm reading the policy.
munkee wrote on 4/14/2007, 3:48 PM
I have a Core Duo 2.4 with 2gb of ram, My machine is dual boot(XP Pro/ Vista Ultimate) I rarely boot to my XP partition. Vista works with all my hardware and my software(except for Media Manager). I'm still trying to put it through all the tests, but so far it's great!
RNLVideo wrote on 4/14/2007, 4:31 PM
I'm 20 hours into my first Vista experience and so far have no complaints. I'm on a MacBook Pro, 2.16 GHZ with 1GB of RAM. I was thinking that it would be dicey (Boot Camp + low RAM + Vista), but overall I'm impressed. Vegas & Media Manager installed just fine & seems to work fine (although I really haven't had a chance to put it through it's paces yet).

That said, I wouldn't have spent the $400 on Vista Ultimate - I would have put XP Pro on this thing, but MS was at a Photoshop conference I went to and they gave out free copies of Vista Ultimate (just in time I might add!).

Rick
dat5150 wrote on 4/14/2007, 4:34 PM
Vista working great here. Some programs have to be set to XP compatibility mode....startup got slower so I unchecked a bloated startup list also use disk cleanup on a regular basis(ccleaner helpful also).

Voice recognition is a great tool and a lot of fun also.
johnmeyer wrote on 4/14/2007, 4:39 PM
John, as for "downgrade" rights, I am confused. After looking at the linked chart and reading up a bit on some Googled references, it appears that one can buy a Vista box and then load XP software on it. So this is a big deal?

Either I didn't link to the correct page (I just did a quick Google) or I misunderstood what I thought I learned a month ago when shopping for a new computer. I was told by Dell, who now only sells Vista, that I could downgrade. I thought (and still think) that this is either a zero charge or nominal charge (<$30) option. But, perhaps I am wrong.

BTW, I bought a Fujitsu laptop. They still sell them with XP. Great computer!
Patryk Rebisz wrote on 4/14/2007, 10:50 PM
Most software of other vendors has issues!!! Stay away until it gets more popular.



Harold Brown wrote on 4/15/2007, 9:29 AM
I am looking at getting a new computer in the fall. By then I hope to see less issues with my software and the new Vegas with full Vista support. Other than that I never plan to upgrade my current computer (3.5 years old).
johnmeyer wrote on 4/15/2007, 9:37 AM
The issue with Vista has nothing to do with "teething pains." The issue is that it has no useful features. Why does it exists? Can I do something useful that I couldn't do before? Can I do it faster? Better?

Harold Brown wrote on 4/15/2007, 9:53 AM
I agree with John. I am not excited about it at all. XP was a great jump over ME. I was hoping for better performance as a result of loading it. So, right now I look at Vista as more of a problem than a benefit. My main thing is that when I buy I would prefer to have the latest software but I prefer that I have something that works rather than fight through incompatibilities issues. I just want to create not troubleshoot.
Wes C. Attle wrote on 4/16/2007, 6:57 AM
I am a Vista user and I can tell you that drivers and software are quite buggy. I have to unplug and replug in my USB mouse about 3 times per day, usually when I am working in Photoshop.

Vista is quirky with media content. It garbles EOS 1D TIFF files. It causes photoshop errors/hangs, it requires you to reboot every few days so you can open .jpg files.

I'm in to whips and chains and pain, so I'll probably stick with Vista (even though I can dual boot to XP).

However, there really is nothing in Vista that I prefer over XP. It is quite dramatically exactly the same from my perspective. Control panel, Computer Management, no tangible difference beyond a pretty default desktop photos. I'm just too lazy to boot back to XP because I know that I have 2 months of security patches and Adobe and iTunes updates to catch up on. :-)

PS - Windows XP renders about 15 to 20% faster MPEG output than Vista does on my dual Opteron 285 system.
Chienworks wrote on 4/16/2007, 7:21 AM
"XP was a great jump over ME"

Heck, i still say that 98SE was a great jump over ME. ;)

Thanks for mentioning ME though. Believe it or not i had almost forgotten about it. Could Microsoft be repeating their ME history with Vista?
goodtimej wrote on 4/16/2007, 8:30 AM
I recently upgraded to Vista and I think I am going back to XP. Things are definitely a little more sluggish, enough so that it makes me long for my finely tuned XP.
I have 2 gig ram, 2 dual core 3 gig proc machine, so its def not that. I just think with all the cool visual things this OS does (and they are VERY cool) it drags the performance down a little. Just enough to where its irritating to me. Choppiness more than anything.
johnmeyer wrote on 4/16/2007, 12:20 PM
So, am I right that there is absolutely, positively not one end-user reason (other than some nebulous "better security") reason why anyone would ever want to use Vista instead of XP? Wow, amazing.
Zion wrote on 4/16/2007, 3:43 PM
You are absolutely Right! I went back to XP64. Everything runs fine here.
Harold Brown wrote on 4/16/2007, 8:38 PM
"Heck, i still say that 98SE was a great jump over ME. ;)"

Perfect example. I actually had 98SE and my brother had ME and he had nothing but problems. A great leap backwards. History repeats itself!
bigcreek wrote on 4/17/2007, 7:06 PM
XP all the way. Many large companies are holding off on Vista. This is typical of any new release, but it looks like the adoption will be more prolonged than usual. No real benefit (yet)
Coursedesign wrote on 4/18/2007, 12:21 PM
Like Windows XP before it, all versions of Windows Vista include System Restore to undo changes to system files and settings but leave user data files untouched. The Previous Versions feature is like System Restore for your own files, but you get to choose the particular files that are restored. [...]

From http://pcpitstop.com/news/dave/2007-04.asp#d9