Vista of XP - Do you really like it more?

onemanblend · October 13, 2008, 10:46am

Rad,
until your reply (quoted above) i assumed that “an accordion player with a beeper” was an optimist. But that is no longer the case … now.

As far as Vista goes … it’s a sad thing. The other day I was tutoring someone and because the student had a hard time setting paths in blender i agreed to go there and do it for him. During that session, additional maintainance needed to be performed including updating the gfx driver.
I felt bad because there i was sitting not knowing what exactly to do because i have become a Linux user and only do a little bit of flash work in XP running in virtualbox.
Speaking of, with the ability of running Adobe apps under virtualbox or wine, the Windows OS is not really needed anymore for freelance gfx and web design.

Aloyr · October 13, 2008, 10:49am

hey, cub! how are you running photoshop? under xp? I run photoshop cs2 on wine pretty well…

kbot · October 13, 2008, 1:27pm

I’ll just stick with what I have. I’m from the win 3.11 era so anything above that is still flashy and futuristic to me. And yes, I have started on dos . . . so win 3.11 is a leap.

egan · October 13, 2008, 3:06pm

Yippee:

OK, everyone. Here’s my view. Anyone who says Vista is worse than XP either installed Vista on their system that’s made for XP, doesn’t have enough RAM, or is too lazy to learn their way around a new computer.

I have Vista Home Premium with 3 gig of RAM, and it’s over 10x faster than my XP with 1 gig. And, yeah, I’m a computer geek who knows all about how to enhance speed and all that good stuff. Vista looks way better than XP does. Vista is way easier to use than XP is, once you get used to it. The wizards for Vista are not a bad thing, they make everything way easier. And if the wizard can’t do something, you can do almost everything manually with the Vista that you can with XP. Vista can recognize almost anything with a USB cord, and automatically install drivers for it in seconds. XP does this to a certain extent, but doesn’t have nearly as big a database.

The only, and I mean ONLY downside to Vista that I can think of is it asks with pretty much everything whether you want to run it or not. At least for the first time you run that program. Oh, yeah, and I haven’t found any compatibility wizard on Vista either. Pretty annoying when trying to use some old Win 98 stuff.

But wouldn’t it be nicer if you had the same computer with a better, more efficient operating system? I’d love to have a really powerful system, and I wouldn’t waste it with Vista. I’d probably install Gentoo or Arch or maybe even FreeBSD, with a nice, light WM like XFCE or wmii. Just because computers keep getting better doesn’t mean that operating systems have to get worse. Seriously.

cekuhnen · October 14, 2008, 3:43pm

Well MS was never known for good interface design.

I have to say that some aspects in VISTA seem more organized
but at the same more clustered or hard to reach because of the
security approach.

I had the chance to use it on some other machines and at least with
default installations it seems slower than XP.

J09 · October 16, 2008, 10:07am

The way I see it, is that vista took the bad stuff from XP, and put it together with the bad stuff from OSX (ie it taking a lot of menus to do simple things).

I’m a real stickler about keeping things clean and organized, not having unneeded stuff (some people say my favorite key is delete!), so I’ve gotten vista to work well on an end-user day to day basis.

CubOfJudahsLion · October 16, 2008, 10:56am

Good for you, but I don’t feel like reinstalling or mucking about with registries, and Bioshock still does horribly in WINE. Thank you, but I’m keeping my dual-boot.