xp or vista

Hi i am an average computer user that just knows what he is doing i am looking at buying a new system and am getting different views from shops about sticking with xp or going to vista. i am a microsof tboy an duse ms office programs a lot. i want the computer for general internetting and household use photos, videos and want to do a lot of dvds from video dv tapes can you guys please help me out.

 

that's pretty much your call. vista uses alot more resources than xp, so you need to make sure you have enough ram (see how much you can upgrade too), etc. do you have alot of software or hardware already (like from an old computer)? alot of programs, won't work with vista (same with hardware). if so, this could be a determining (sp) factor. vista is ok, it just takes getting used to. alot of things aren't in the same spot where they were in xp, etc. i think (and i'm sure i'll be corrected) if you are going to do alot of video stuff, you might need a more powerfull processor with vista than xp?

can you post some specs (ie - process, ram, m/b, etc, etc) of the comps that you were looking at, and maybe how much. - sos

 

With a question like this there is no definative answer.
Since your not a power user Vista may be fine. Some issues I've read about (and seen) are the lack of support for old software & hardware.
XP is being phased out soon so M$ will be dumping support (or trying to, look how long 98 hung on).
So everyone will be forced to Vista eventually...maybe.

food for thought.

I was thinking about that this morning, the Co I work for still has a few leased laptop with W2k, and they just went to XP a year or year and a half ago. Based on the new Vista push / XP death, we will have just about skipped the XP OS. We are getting systems loaded with XP, that should of been Vista. Who knows.

 

Vista is a good OS.
It does take a lot of RAM, which isn't expensive nowadays.
Things are moved a bit but fairly easy to learn. (I learned the main ins and outs in two days.)
It is a steadier OS. I have never had a lock up or had to re-boot to get something to work right.
My wife still has XP on her machine and when I use it, it seems like it is unfamiliar now.
As far as apps go, the way you say you are going to use it, you should have no problems with finding just the right apps.

 

You can get all the graphics features from Vista with a 128mb card. Just dont expect to be gaming.

 

Im thinking it has to do with the way Vista handles video. Even if you have discreet video, Vista can take system ram and use it as video ram if needed.

I've never seen it do it, but its available to.

Of course, I dont game on my laptop so...

 

the two systems i am looking at at the moment are

AMD athalon 64 x2 dual core 6000+socket AM2 3Ghz 1MB
Gigabyte M57Sli-S4 Skam2 ddr2 raid, g-lan
2 of RAM 1GB 240PINS DDR2, 667Mhz
Asus 256MB radeon 2400pro PCI express or 8600GT ($130 more)
LG 20x dual layer DVD-RW oem black
seagate 500GB SATA 7200rpm 32MB cache
Superflower SF706BK Leather Black Panel (450w)

or

INTEL CORE 2 DUOE8200
ASUS P5KC P35 1333FSB INTEL
2 OF KINGSTON 1024MB DDR-2 667MHZ
WESTERN DIGITAL 500GB SATA 2
ATX-8033L-C43 USB
LG 18X-DL BLACK DVR/RW SATA

THE SECOND UNIT IS $200 AUS DOLLARS DEARER BUT FROM A DIFFERENT CLASS OF SHOP TO THE FIRST

 

Both them systems would easily be able to handle vista and most things you throw at them ( although a good graphics card is recommend for gaming )

They are also roughly the same, the AMD being cheaper and Intel dear as always, but that is a whole different argument to go AMD or Intel

Personally, ( current vista ultimate user for 3 months ) i would go with XP, vista uses up a insain amount of RAM, also, program compatibility is a issue for me, i have a lot of programs that worked with XP, that no longer work ( though some are due to x64 problems )
But, XP is harder to get hold of now, if buying a stock computer

But at end of day, its up to you, i think you should try a trial of VISTA to see if you like it then decide

 

so is that another thread i need to ask amd or intel
i presumed the intel was better as i looked up as much as possible but i am flying blind because i really dont know i just always presume dearer is better??

thanks keeping xp always comes to mind beacause thast is what we know and have programs for but if you the geeks community thought otherwise i would be listening very strongly


Do you think one of the systems is much better than the other or are they roughly the same??
thanks

 

the general consensus is that intel is better but AMD is cheaper and runs cooler

but there are lots of things that go against that

and lots of people who would disagree with that

( dont want to start a flame thread )

Yes, its a very big debate, but currently id say go for the intel, i myself have a e6750 which is one model down from the E8200 and it is a very good CPU

also, i have 2gb of RAM, nearly the same speeds
but for $200 less the AMD system might be better, meaning you can buy a better graphics card if you plan to play games

but the systems are pretty much the same, to be honest

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/07/27/core_2_duo_vs_athlon_64_fx-62/page2.html

there is a interesting article about the two processors ( intel wins on that benchmark )

 

thanks

not to much in the game department just home computing photos and videos basically

still not sure about whether to choose xp or vista i would like to stay the same because that is what we know but if vista is really good i would have to update to that.

 

Think of the future and cost involved.

If this is to be a long term thing, vista is the way to go. XP is on its way out.

 

thanks

long term our last computer is 4.5 years old so hope to get same out of new one

 

There you go.
All new PC's are running Vista. Many of those that are trying to revert back to XP are having difficulties with finding drivers. Some are never going to find all the proper ones (mostly sound) So if you were to try and put XP on a new machine you are going to spend a few hours hunting and installing drivers and may end up not finding all of them.
Vista is not as bad as some are making it out to be. And the longer it is out there the better it will become.

 

thankyou all vista it is

 

I advise you to buy an universal machine mac and run vista there through parallels.

 

having seen vista struggling to run general office apps despite having 2GB ram and a 256MB vid card i would recommend nothing less than
4GB ram,
512MB vid,
and a second HDD for the swap/pagefile (even an old 80GB will do for that)
PERHAPS, seeing you are doing video work a 3rd HDD for the scratch folder (many vid apps want a scratch folder and all recommend a seperate hdd than the system drive)
(i have 2 systems both with 3 drives for that very reason, system, page and scratch)

 

your tone is a tad insulting there marktrent,
honestly there is nothing on the system other than what is part of a standard vista install and the neccessary apps the office manager NEEDS to do his job.
we removed the vista gadgets and the fancy mutli active windows thingy,

Vista on 1GB (which it came with out of the box) you go make a coffee while you wait for it to boot, and it simply will not stay alive more than an hour,

Vista on 2GB you can expect a lockup at least every other hour, especialy if outlook and the despatch/staff tracker both try to notify you of an event at the same time.

on 4GB we finally got it "stable", now it crashes only once per day (around 7 hours after intial boot) - we ALWAYS turn it OFF overnight, there's no point leaving it run, it will crash itself sometime during the night and usually corrupts something when it does.

In our efforts to find the problem we HAVE replaced powersupply, graphic card, ram, hard drive and motherboard - and each time we reinstalled everything fresh - no imaging or backup restores.
there's nothing left to replace/swap-out, except Vista...

and that is my hands on experience with Vista
(I run a stripped down, 550MB installed, copy of XP on a p4 2ghz with 512 MB ram and all the same apps as the office manager with zero trauma's)
vive' le XP

 

What are your "general office apps" I wonder, THE Bimbo?

I've had Vista running tolerably in Virtual PC 2K7 w/ 1 GB of RAM, emulated graphics. Apart from your application, I really don't see what I could have done so drastically different. (Nothing if you were using MS Office 2K3/7, as I was)

 

nothing too heavy - hence the annoyance at Vista,

on the bosses machine - general office apps are outlook(full), myob, office2007 (usually 3 or 4 excel books plus 2 access databases open), smart trade, task scheduler (runs nag/reminders) and several instances of a time tracker to keep track of who is on what site and where they actually should be,
plus a copy or two of word and a couple of browser instances open,


on my own XP box i generally have a lot more running at once (i seem to be able to multi-task a little more efficiently than the boss) (plus i gossip more) i'll also have utorrent (shhhh) and live messenger (shhhhhhh..please!) as well as Mozilla (easier to hide where i go from the boss) (they do a security audit every now and then)


now if they'd only let me loose on Vista like they let me loose on XP..
(btw, to install XP ultra-lite follow this guide http://www.i64x.com/eeexp.php,
and IGNORE what it was actually written to be installed on, it will work for everything i've tried it on so far...- i do change a couple of minor things to get it onto the domain here, but you'll get the idea of what YOU need, and dont need anyway)

 

I think you may be looking in the wrong direction. There are too many examples of Vista working well on less than what you claim is necessary, THE Bimbo.

I haven't used it as often as some members here, but none of the 3 or 4 installations I've played with had half the difficulties, and none of them had more than 1 GB of RAM. (Can't recall the specs of the graphics cards, I'm afraid)

I notice that myob is a POS software, correct? Does that include drivers for receipt printers, or card scanners, etc?

If so, I might begin looking there. Vista has implemented a a stricter driver development model that will result in more mature, more stable drivers in the long run, but are causing quite a few headaches currently.

This is a good step on Microsoft's part, but many developers haven't got around to updating drivers. I'd speculate that there's also more incentive for them to simply release a new product that will support Vista, and then cleanup their legacy products later.

I'd also imagine this POS system was deployed at your company BEFORE Vista was released......??? (ie. a new one hasn't been purchased to simply revolve around the host OS)

The same argument might apply to the time tracker software, if it installs any drivers. (I know our web monitoring software integrates with our router, for example)

Have you run Vista without these apps installed?

 

Mirroring what Mada said, start looking at your third party apps. What brand of machine is it? If its a run of the mill OEM machine off the shelf, its full of crapware.

Unless your IT guy re-imaged it. In which case, the IT guy should be looking into why there are Vista problems.

FYI--Vista is slower performing with Aero disabled.

 

Mada_Milty and Adrynalyne that all sounds reasonable,
myob has been in the office for years, as has much of the accounting and tracking software.
you can see why we so very unfond of Vista at my works ?
Makes selling/recommending Vista a bit of an ask too

I'm not yet totally convinced that turning Aero off slows the system down, turning it off did speed up the office managers box - but maybe that resolved a driver conflict??

and it is an oem box, but crapware was not reinstalled - unless he's done something silly since.

Still it is very hard for me not to recommend going for broke on ram and videoram, besides who knows what the next game you pick up is going to want in specs?

 

The point is that it ISN'T Vista's fault, but rather the manufacturer/developers of the products you use with it. They had TONS of time to produce drivers before Vista was released to the public. If they don't have drivers for Vista, that speaks to the quality of THEIR support, not Microsoft's. Windows can't include drivers for EVERYTHING.

Also, upgrades to business critical systems should be made with the utmost of caution. Microsoft will tell you that, I'm certain.

We use Windows NT to serve programs to our CNC machines, for example, and that is no longer even supported by Microsoft!! We won't be moving that until we are darn sure it will work on the potential future system.

 

wow i havent been on for a couple of days looks like lots of differen thtoughts
i did say i was going to go with vista then spoke to my bro in law who is one of you guys that knows lots about computers he said for what i am doing the programs i have the gear i have stick with xp

i did and have just got a new system with 3gb ram and a 512mb graphics card

i am in love

 

thanks for the advice
too late for a second hdd i got a wd 500gb drive and cannot touch for 12 months for warranty wish i had known about the better use of a second drive for videoing i have a maxtor external drive thta i can connect with firewire cable would that do the same job?

 

Please, oh please do not move your pagefile to a different hard drive. It causes more grief if there are errors to be debugged, and it doesn't help performance one iota.

Especially an older, slower HDD.

 

What is better about Vista over XP?
I am not talking about flashy resource waster features.
I refer to functionality, effectiveness and efficiency.

 

thanks for your help it is amazing all the different advice peolpe give and the different ways they do things

i didnt do it with the old computer and had no trouble

 

what i was convinced with was not that xp is better but i might have trouble with some of my older programs and thta some manufacturers hadnt updated there programs to go with vista yet

so it wasnt so much a vista problem more other companys problem so it was easier for me to stcik with the old

i was told vista is MUCH slicker to look and has extra features but i couldnt risk having to buy more new stuff.

 

i dont think that Harrison is tech enought to even care about a debug file,
i never bother, so it matters not what happens to it

as for moving the page file i am going to stand firm that it does improve performance in any system, and especially for people with drives 200GB and over.

Harrison is going to be working on video files, massive amounts of data being read and written, How can reducing thrash on the main drive and sharing the load between multiple drives not improve performance?

putting the lot on one drive?
the system will be wrtiing to and from the page file, the scratch file and the output file all at (practically) the same time, the drive head is going to screaming back and forth across the drive...

my personal drives die more often from corrosion, than wear, because i never have a system with only one drive and always share the workload as much as i can.
(my work system is another matter, i have only what came "in the box")


It's not that i like/love XP, it's that is what i have and use at work,and the peoples around me at work who went to Vista have nothing but grief.

 

The page file will get used regardless...please show me where putting it on another drive, FURTHER away from the current OS and applications (Especially on a slower drive) would increase anything (other than load time)? No perceptible performance increase will ever be noticed, even if that drive you moved it to is faster. Its a placebo, and lists right in there with other performance urban legends. If your disk is thrashing, you don't have enough ram, and that is all there is to it. Having it thrash on a second hard disk instead of one...well, whats the point? The hard disk won't fragment appreciably faster for being on the same drive as the OS and apps. If frgamentation is an issue, set a fixed size and be done with it. Problem solved.



As for not being able to debug..perhaps you are right. Of course, it those times you call MS or talk to your IT when you have a problem, and its not there, you sure wish you had it. Its kind of like driving around without a spare tire. You may never ned it, but the day you do, and don't have it....oh boy.

I don't see any theoretical advantages outweighing that one definate disadvantage.

 

i dont even know what a debug file is?

 

When you have a blue screen error, stop error, BOSD, whatever you want to call it, it dumps a small portion of your ram, and error information to a file for troubleshooting. That file can tell you what the error is, so that someone can fix it.

Its completely worthless, until the errors start happening to you, and you need it with the tech fixing your machine.

I have a tutorial sticky on it at the top of this forum.

http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=35246

The 6 pages of hits in Google linking to my tutorial goes to show you that people do find they need this information in times of need.

http://www.google.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.majorgeeks.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Ft%3D35246&rls=com.microsoft:*&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1