The OP is not a comparison to W2K, W98, Me, MS-DOS, Linux, or any other operating system. It is a comparison of WinXP to Vista and Vista-SP1 only. /*tom*/
I will wait for Vista Service Pack 2 to replace XP with Vista just like what I did when upgraded to XP . MS rush to release new OS versions to collect the money but when people scream for what they have paid for, MS starts to do its REAL work.
Exactly, this 'debate' rages everytime a new OS comes out. Hardware gets faster as it gets more powerful, software gets slower as it gets more powerful.
Third it. When XP came out i continued using 2000. Mostly because i hated the bloody placement of everything. but EVERYTIME i new os is released. The minimum hardware requirements are increased.... its nothing new.
i think we need a new operating system, something new...that will beat all of it, untill now i think linux beats all...
There's one just around the corner. And it's from who? Yes . . . Microsoft. It's dubbed Win7 and I think it's due for release in 2010, just 2 years. That starts a whole other battle though with many asking "is Vista another Windows ME?" /*tom*/
I personally stick with Vista, even if xp is faster or whatever, but vista is a better OS due to its security systems.
XP looks far more user friendly (even if is lacks some of the latest tech such as ease of using plug-ins etc). I have removed Vista and installed XP. Call me daft
Yes, the only advantage of XP (i mean really the only) is the speed. Vista is much more improved at security, it's much more stable, and so on.
For some reason Vista seems faster then XP. It could be because i'm running a Quadcore Q6600. Xp may not be as optimized for quadcore than Vista.
I hope Xp never disappears. I tried Vista and indeed it is bloody slower compared to any other operating system in the market, past or present.