Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46
  1. #1
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Is Windows Vista better than Windows XP Professional?

    Is windows vista is better than wndows XP professional?
    Last edited by Just Plain Fred; 2011-09-08 at 18:08.

  2. #2
    Gold Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Johnson City, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    3,203
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 215 Times in 202 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sumitseoleaderindia View Post
    Is windows vista is better than wndows XP professional?
    Hello...
    I have used Vista Home premium for several years, and within the last few weeks or so installed XP-Pro... Other than "eye candy" ( installed Vista sidebar on XP and some other tweaks) not a whole lot that would make it worthwhile to switch. (for basic home users) Just my observation ... Regards Fred
    PlainFred

    None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free (J. W. Von Goethe)

  3. #3
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    10,410
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 1,167 Times in 1,071 Posts
    I wonder if this is a legitimate post...

    Anyway, here goes. I believe the security improvements in Vista by themselves are worth the migration. Another security related advantage is the possibility of running IE 9, which is not available for XP. IE 9 has some features where it is the best, security wise - for exemple, evaluating the risk of downloaded files, of one the most common attack vectors today...

    So, I do no agree with Fred, that Vista is only eye-candy . It's actually a case where you can say that there is more than meets the eye .

  4. #4
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,625
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 933 Times in 853 Posts
    This OP does not seem legitimate to me either. I agree with Rui that Vista is more secure than XP. I do like Win 7 even better. I will not be going back to XP.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  5. #5
    Super Moderator jwitalka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    5,007
    Thanks
    71
    Thanked 576 Times in 521 Posts
    With the right set of security apps and browsing practices, all three OS's are secure enough. Xp's main advantage is it needs far fewer resources Than either Vista or Windows 7. It boils down to user personal preference. i'm running XP on my laptop and Windows 7 on my desktop. Don't have any security issues with either OS.

    Jerry

  6. #6
    Gold Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Johnson City, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    3,203
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 215 Times in 202 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by jwitalka View Post
    With the right set of security apps and browsing practices, all three OS's are secure enough. Xp's main advantage is it needs far fewer resources Than either Vista or Windows 7. It boils down to user personal preference. i'm running XP on my laptop and Windows 7 on my desktop. Don't have any security issues with either OS.

    Jerry
    Jerry,
    Hello... OK, i would agree with your observations. To start off ...I now have and run XP-Pro, Vista Home, and "7" with a mix of 32 and 64 bit OS's. The VIsta and "7" have no patches or security updates from MS... Zero! I run with Norton Internet Security 2011 and Malwarebytes PRO,and FireFox on all systems. The XP i have all updates installed ..just for a control ...As i progress and gain more experience i will re-do the OS and start afresh with none ( Updates and Patches) The point that i was trying to make was this .... Security is a personal choice for each.. some say this or that is the best... no "one size fits none" real answer...That said ...for the average home user who uses the PC for research , E Mail , and internet blah blah ...there is not a "Dimes Worth of difference" between the whole lot... (security aside) Just "Eye candy"... OK XP and VIsta loadup slower... but big deal. As of now you can make XP look just like "7" or Vista...or even add Vista stuff to "7" Just added the Vista Sidebar to "7" and XP... XP didn't have it and in "7" some gadgets didn't work. XP is like you said ..i find it (once loaded) to be about the same as the others speed wise... So the bottom line for me is that i stick by my statement.If you have XP-Pro there is no need (other than you want to) to switch to Vista or "7" they all work and i would be willing to bet after you configure them to look the same you would be hard pressed to tell them apart ( unless you looked under the hood) Regards Fred
    Last edited by Just Plain Fred; 2011-09-09 at 14:33.
    PlainFred

    None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free (J. W. Von Goethe)

  7. #7
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    10,410
    Thanks
    131
    Thanked 1,167 Times in 1,071 Posts
    The issue is not really whether a knowledgeable user can keep its computer free from malware or not. I haven't add a malware issue since I started using computers and DOS was the OS. The issue is what the OS offers to the average user.

    I must say I think reducing 10 years of evolution in operating systems to eye candy, is really a totally off the mark statement. Security aside, we could talk about better memory management or the support of 4 GB+ of RAM, or better support of the capabilities offered by current multicore CPUs. C'mon, one thing is saying that you can use XP and for many things, but XP is surely not 7 or even Vista less the eye candy.

    It's also important not to forget that in the last 10 years, a lot of people who wouldn't dream of using a computer, have started using them. For those, eye-candy can actually mean better designed interfaces, which just makes using computers for such users easier to use.

    Anyone can use whatever they want. Pretending Vista or 7 are just XP with eye-candy is basically wrong.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to ruirib For This Useful Post:

    TribalSkyes (2011-10-02)

  9. #8
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,625
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 933 Times in 853 Posts
    Most of us that read and post in the Lounge are the minority of the masses that use PCs as Rui states. MS has to make their OSes work well for millions of people, most of whom will never even realize the security problems they can encounter is their PC use. We in the Lounge are the much more knowledgable users that do take our security seriously, and help all our family and friends do the same, but we are still talking about the vast minority of users. The other problem is that these vast masses that do not take, or even think of their PC security seriously are the people that propogate the viruses and Spam. These are the people that need a higher level of security by default from the OS.

    Vista is more secure than XP and Win 7 is more secure than Vista, in addition to the other things Rui states. We all have to put up with the mistakes these others make.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  10. #9
    Super Moderator jwitalka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    5,007
    Thanks
    71
    Thanked 576 Times in 521 Posts
    I work with and fix the PCs of several users that don't know any more about windows than how to boot it and start Email and browsers. They run the gamut from XP to Windows 7 and make the same number of unknowlegeable mistakes that lead to infections and OS screwups as far as I can see. They couldn't begin to understand how to create backup images on a regular basis. All I can do is fix their boxes and try to educate them. User Account Control just confuses them and they always just click through regardless of the situation. The only tool that really helps in spite of all its shortcomings is System restore. It has the huge advantage of being present on all systems and needs no user control to make it work.

    Jerry

  11. #10
    Gold Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Johnson City, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    3,203
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 215 Times in 202 Posts
    rui, Ted,

    Hello... Sorry ... but having all three OS's and actually running them everyday ...giving me the opportunity to run them and actually compare them .... It's just "Eye Candy" Keep in mind that companies are in business to make $money$... not to be your "mysterious benefactor" ... so like many others (companies) are driven to release a new offering every year ,or so to generate revenue ... That's a fact . The fact is with Tweaking tools you can interchange programs from XP to Vista and "7" and the other way ... means that there is not that much difference between them ... This is my experience and my last word on the subject... Best to you all Regards Fred
    PlainFred

    None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free (J. W. Von Goethe)

  12. #11
    Bronze Lounger DrWho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    1,240
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 166 Times in 129 Posts
    Just to add a little Garlic to the stew that is already this thread.

    Whether you already know it as fact, or think I'm some kind of crackpot, let me make this observation.

    Every OS I've run since the Commodore 64, Except DOS, comes out of the box with so many SAFE DEFAULTS, that
    it only runs at a fraction of the capability of the hardware it's being run on.

    Windows, for instance, is written to be able to run on PC's with very little RAM, so a lot of it's work is done from the
    hard drive rather than from RAM. (for instance, the well-known Pagefile)
    The Kernel for instance, is accessed many times per minute on the average, but
    every time the OS needs something from the Kernel, it has to access the hard drive to get it. Putting the Kernel into
    RAM on bootup, GREATLY improves the performance of the OS. But who does that? Well, I DO!

    Since Windows XP, an ever growing number of 'Services' have been added, again to support every operation that
    any person would ever want to do with that OS. (another DEFAULT)
    The whole mass of them loads up on every boot, even things you'll never need in a thousand years.

    Again, as a SAFE DEFAULT, the Windows OS is programed to use just one core, even if you have 4 of them.
    But, the MS programmers gave you the ability to tell the OS how many cores you want it to use.
    ( MSCONFIG > Boot.INI > Advanced Options > check 'NUMPROC=' and set the number of cores to what you
    actually have.)
    While you're on the first page of the Boot.INI tab, you can also set the Default boot timeout from 30 seconds,
    to a much nicer 3 sec's. Don't forget to click "Apply" before you leave that window.

    I've worked with these GUI based MS OS's since Windows 3.0 and they all do about the same thing for the average (Home)
    user, but they just get more Massive with every Upgrade.

    To this old Tech, it's sickening what MS has done to the Operating System that so much of the world depends on.
    I once saw a version of Windows XP, called "Stripped to the Bone". I wonder if anyone has done that with Win-7. ???
    If they have, I'd sure love to see it.

    To just install a new PC with Win-7, removing all the Spyware and Bloatware, and then tweaking and tuning it for
    best performance, takes me over two hours. Rediculous!

    Ok, let me EXIT stage left, before this becomes another RANT.

    Y'all have a great day now, Y'hea?

    The Doctor
    Experience is truly the best teacher.

    Backup! Backup! Backup! GHOST Rocks!

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to DrWho For This Useful Post:

    njl100 (2011-09-23)

  14. #12
    Super Moderator jwitalka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    5,007
    Thanks
    71
    Thanked 576 Times in 521 Posts
    Again, changing the number of CPUs setting in Boot.ini has noeffect on boot time. Its an old tweaking myth. See http://www.withinwindows.com/2008/08...with-msconfig/.

    A Windows 7 install for me with minimal tweaking is very responsive. As with all Windows versions, having enough RAM installed is critical. By the way, if you want to play with a stripped down version of Windows 7, see http://techie-buzz.com/softwares/rt-...s-7-setup.html.

    Jerry

  15. #13
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    20,656
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 635 Times in 568 Posts
    The Windows 7 kernel is smaller than both the Vista & XP kernels. Microsoft have invested much time and effort to shrink what is required to load to run Windows. In addition, there have been architectural changes made to Windows in memory management and kernel dispatching such that if you are running a modern system with sufficient ram there is no reason to worry about locking the kernel in RAM. A system with 4GB RAM is more than sufficient for the vast majority of users. There are probably specific workloads that could benefit from this setting.

    It is NOT true that Windows uses only one core. When a PC is first powered up there is only one core active but as soon as possible all the cores are initialized and used. The boot setting for the number of cores is intended to LIMIT the number of cores used for debugging purposes NOT enable more cores.

    Other changes to enable or disable services may be useful under some circumstances but the average user will never notice. If you choose to change your system that is fine.

    Joe

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to JoeP517 For This Useful Post:

    ruosChalet (2011-09-26)

  17. #14
    Super Moderator CLiNT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California & Arizona
    Posts
    5,530
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 500 Times in 460 Posts
    I bipassed Vista altogether and waited for Windows 7, which puts them both to shame imo (64 bit).
    I don't have a very favorable opinion of Vista irregardless of security.

  18. #15
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,625
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 933 Times in 853 Posts
    I had Vista only because it came with my wife and my laptops. They were clean installed with Win 7 64 Bit as soon as it came out. In fact I did have the RC before the RTM.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •