The debate goes on here endlessly about how slow Vista is when compared to XP and then others come back saying that you just need to tweak it. Well, PC World magazine test identical desktop machines with Vista, Vista SP1, and XP. They did the same for notebooks. Their conclusion and I quote.... "We found that Windows XP still outperforms Vista--with SP1 or without--by a wide margin. SP1 finished second in many cases and third in others. Given those results--and in view of the bug fixes SP1 delivers--current Vista users should take the free service-pack upgrade. But if you still use XP, you may want to stick with it for now. " And another... "XP Wins Convincingly As the composite scores indicate, XP outperformed both Vista and Vista SP1 on our automated WorldBench 6 tests by a significant margin, on the desktop and again on the notebook. Vista SP1 finished slightly ahead of plain Vista on the desktop test bed, but managed only a tie with it on the laptop. In the areas where Service Pack 1 improved on pre-SP1 Vista's performance, the gains were far from dazzling." Here's the full article: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/143608-1/test_results_does_sp1_fix_vista.html /*tom*/
Yeah...I don't think we have a choice. XP is being phased out. Someday, sooner or later, I'll be forced to upgrade to Vista.
I think we all knew this before the debate, I will continue to use XP until Microsoft comes out with a better os.
Although it may seem that XP is performing much better than Vista, there is a picture that is to be seen here. If Microsoft decides to extent XP's expiration to 2010 (Which I think they did), XP will help them to make more and better updates to Vista and even Windows 7 for better future of Microsoft. Think of the big picture everyone. I was talking to one of the Manager, who works for Microsoft, and is my friend's, father's friend. Think about it.
Well, it wont be on store shelves after June. So if you need a new machine, now's the time to buy it. XP will be supported for the next couple of years. By then Vista will either be ready, or replaced with Win7. /*tom*/
the architectures are different and lots of new functionalities are built in, so , apparently, which one is faster?
Well, I am sure Windows 3.1 will run much faster than Vista does on my machine but it does not mean it will provide the same functionality, compatibility, etc. Sooner or later XP will have to become unsupported and all who wait until the last minute will have to spend more to catch up. This debate is completely unnecessary.
Who cares about the protester? Will they pay Microsoft the additional cost of continuing support of Windows XP? You did not buy the software with the agreement that it would be supported forever. No software company can promise or provide that. I work for a consulting company, one of our major solutions is a Financial ERP application which implements from $1 million to well over $50 million. When one of our versions go unsupported, it goes unsupported, period! Should a client insist on using it, any fixes, etc. we develop for them afterwards they have to pay for. You can not pay $70 for an OS once and expect to have support for it forever unless the provider changes its business model completely. That would mean paying more up-front, paying on a yearly basis or having ads built-in to your desktop sessions, etc.
To all those who say windows XP will end. I dont think that there is any chance in this world that Microsoft will end Windows XP. The main reason i have to back up this statement is a point which is "Low cost notebooks market is booming and Windows Vista is not an option as a operating system in these low cost machines. Windows XP is the only operating system from microsoft which can be used on majority of these low-cost machines and if Microsoft discontinue Windows XP and as Vista is not an option in this category then Microsoft will be completely out of this category which will result in billion of dollars in loss which Microsoft will not allow." So i dont think that there is any chance that Microsoft is going to make its way harder itself. Thus, I believe that Microsoft is going to extend the end date for Windows XP.
Microsoft has special/stripped versions of their OS available in some countries to enable the user base there to purchase their software legally. They can come up with a similar scenario here to serve the low-end laptop users. There is no need to maintain XP and Vista in parallel for a reason such as this. You also seem to forget that software and hardware companies "collaborate" in order to have users "upgrade" on a regular basis. The idea is not to create a low-end laptop user basis and maintain it, but the idea is to create the base and have them move-up. Enabling that user basis to stay as low-end users, by providing them the best solution for the lowest dollar, is not going to serve a software or hardware company.
This post and the referenced article are both about speed, not functionality, capability, architecture, product life span, or anything else. My point is that whenever someone here says that their new Vista machine is slower than their old XP machine, they are ridiculed. If you read the article, it is proof positive that with most applications and file operations, XP is faster. It does of course depend upon the specific task, but overall, it is proven to be faster. Some of us may be very willing to give up some speed for a pretty face. When it comes to women, I'll gladly give up intelligence for eye-candy. That's each person's decision. There may be many reasons that some prefer Vista over XP, but arguing that Vista is "just as fast" or that SP1 is "even faster" is simply untrue as proven by the PC World test lab. /*tom*/
It is quite obvious, just that we had to have Vista because when you buy new laptops or computers, it comes with Vista, no stock when you ask for XP. Just that for my old computers I never upgrade them to Vista, prefer the old and sturdy XP.