FA+
Shop
Honest Opinions: Windows XP, XP 64, and Vista
19 years ago
General
Forenote
While I do have a high degree of technical training, I am not going to sit here and berrate you (as if you have to read this anyway, lol) with the /overtly/ technical aspects of this subject. While I have tested and weighed all three incarnations of windows on their technical aspects, I do not believe the majority of computer users should EVER care about them, because whether you know what they are or not there is a minimal chance you honestly understand what effect they have on the actual behavior of the operating system, and developers have a bad habbit of exaggerating, or flat out mis-explaining these things.
This is written from, and intended as, a user-friendly opinion, for people who wonder which windows they should be using, and whether they're worth using. Nothing more.
Windows XP
Most people already use XP. Contrary to a long list of critics and linux-fanboys who'll say anything to make their precious "ideal" alternative look better, THERE. IS. NOTHING. WRONG. WITH. XP.
It is not the -perfect- operating system, NOTHING IS, but it is NOT inherently FLAWED either. XP works JUST FINE, if handled correctly. First and foremost, Windows XP should always be upgraded to SP2, as support for vanilla XP ended long ago, and SP1 doesn't perform quite as well and doesn't support the same range of enhanced software, especially security software.
The BIGGEST mistakes people make with XP are failing to install adequet security software IMMEDIATELY after installing XP (permafying it before anything later installed), and NOT using Windows Update (dont be stupid; it's there for a reason - Windows Update consistantly improves Windows' security and removes vulnerabilities as quickly as they're found, no other software on earth is kept this up to date sparing anti-virus sollutions.
And last but not least; DO NOT USE SYSTEM RESTORE. Keep it turned off until you have finished setting up the system, then turn it off (keeping only that restore point of the clean, finished install), OR YOU WILL HAVE PROBLEMS LATER. System Restore (the feature, not the operating system of which it is a part), is a flawed concept. It was a good idea, but badly realized, because it WILL restore viruses and spyware that were present on the system when the restore point was generated.
The ideal sollution for Windows XP comes down to a very simple formula;
* Install Windows XP, SP2
* Immediately install reputable anti-virus, spyware, and enhanced firewall software
* Run windows update REPEATEDLY, using the "Custom Install" option to ensure you have obtained all the updates possible on your machine, and remember to keep it turned on
* Manually a set a restore point NOW, and turn the feature off immediately afterward (this will secure a clean, last-resort point in the case of system failure)
ONLY once you have done this, THEN install your drivers, chat programs, games, and whatever else.
I guarentee you, following these simple, common sense steps when setting up a Windows XP system will ensure a stable, long-lasting install.
Windows XP 64
Do you have a 64 bit processor? If not, don't bother reading this.
For those who didn't understand, Windows XP 64 is -literally-, Windows XP SP2 -optimized- for 64 bit processors. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the exact same operating system, optimized for 64 bit processors.
However, this does NOT mean it is BETTER for 64 bit processors. XP 64 bit will run exactly the same on a low-end 64 bit processor as XP would.
-BUT-
If you have a HIGH END 64 bit processor, XP 64 -WILL- run faster and more effeciently on your machine than XP can.
Is XP 64 worth it? Yes and no. It's worth using if you have a high-end 64 bit processor. But it is NOT worth paying for. Find a friend or contact who already has it, or take your chances on a torrent, and get a faked copy of it. The fact is, XP 64 is an over-glorified XP with a 64 bit optimization service pack. It should have been shipped as a free service pack to begin with.
Windows Vista
Linux fanboys and windows-haters; fuck off right now. You wont like what you hear beyond this point. And I dont want your arrogant, dumbass bullshit spreading on my journal. If you want an honest opinion of Vista, however, read on.
Windows Vista is; DEFINETELY, worth getting, if you have a system that can handle it. Ignore the bullshit drivelling from the mouths of opiniated morons and linux-lovers. It is NOT just a new kind of Microsoft evil.
What people (especially the people who fill their empty lives by bashing windows) fail to comprehend, is that Vista is an entirely new system. The vast majority of system services and processes have been replaced and rebuilt from scratch. Vista looks varyingly similar to XP -only- for the sake of familiarity, and so the average person wouldn't need a learning curve to use it. All of the 'mechanics' of the system have changed.
And if you're a gamer or 3D modeller/renderer, I /strongly/ advise you secure a copy of Vista all the more, as soon as you can. Vista supports remarkable amounts of memory compared to XP, not only which, Vista is capable of dedicating massively more memory to single programs than XP could, an unprecidented level of resource allowance that VASTLY improves performance and responsiveness of games and 3D construction/rendering applications.
The short, simple, and clean of it is this;
No operating system (Vista included) is worth the MONEY they're going to charge for Vista, BUT;
Vista is DEFINETELY worth switching to.
On a closing note I'd just like to clear up a bit of misconception regarding Vista, and the kind of system you need to run. THere seems to be a running fiction that Vista wont run; or wont run very well, without high end hardware. This is horrible incorrect.
The facts are that Vista's new mechanics are far more effecient than XP, you DO NOT need more than a 1GHZ processor, you DO NOT need more than 512MB of ram (though you shouldn't run so little these days anyway), the only thing you will need, is atleast a 30 to 40 gigabyte hard-drive, because Vista takes up to 10GB of space fully installed.
And that's the whole shebang folks. Hope it helps some people.
-Devon
While I do have a high degree of technical training, I am not going to sit here and berrate you (as if you have to read this anyway, lol) with the /overtly/ technical aspects of this subject. While I have tested and weighed all three incarnations of windows on their technical aspects, I do not believe the majority of computer users should EVER care about them, because whether you know what they are or not there is a minimal chance you honestly understand what effect they have on the actual behavior of the operating system, and developers have a bad habbit of exaggerating, or flat out mis-explaining these things.
This is written from, and intended as, a user-friendly opinion, for people who wonder which windows they should be using, and whether they're worth using. Nothing more.
Windows XP
Most people already use XP. Contrary to a long list of critics and linux-fanboys who'll say anything to make their precious "ideal" alternative look better, THERE. IS. NOTHING. WRONG. WITH. XP.
It is not the -perfect- operating system, NOTHING IS, but it is NOT inherently FLAWED either. XP works JUST FINE, if handled correctly. First and foremost, Windows XP should always be upgraded to SP2, as support for vanilla XP ended long ago, and SP1 doesn't perform quite as well and doesn't support the same range of enhanced software, especially security software.
The BIGGEST mistakes people make with XP are failing to install adequet security software IMMEDIATELY after installing XP (permafying it before anything later installed), and NOT using Windows Update (dont be stupid; it's there for a reason - Windows Update consistantly improves Windows' security and removes vulnerabilities as quickly as they're found, no other software on earth is kept this up to date sparing anti-virus sollutions.
And last but not least; DO NOT USE SYSTEM RESTORE. Keep it turned off until you have finished setting up the system, then turn it off (keeping only that restore point of the clean, finished install), OR YOU WILL HAVE PROBLEMS LATER. System Restore (the feature, not the operating system of which it is a part), is a flawed concept. It was a good idea, but badly realized, because it WILL restore viruses and spyware that were present on the system when the restore point was generated.
The ideal sollution for Windows XP comes down to a very simple formula;
* Install Windows XP, SP2
* Immediately install reputable anti-virus, spyware, and enhanced firewall software
* Run windows update REPEATEDLY, using the "Custom Install" option to ensure you have obtained all the updates possible on your machine, and remember to keep it turned on
* Manually a set a restore point NOW, and turn the feature off immediately afterward (this will secure a clean, last-resort point in the case of system failure)
ONLY once you have done this, THEN install your drivers, chat programs, games, and whatever else.
I guarentee you, following these simple, common sense steps when setting up a Windows XP system will ensure a stable, long-lasting install.
Windows XP 64
Do you have a 64 bit processor? If not, don't bother reading this.
For those who didn't understand, Windows XP 64 is -literally-, Windows XP SP2 -optimized- for 64 bit processors. Nothing more, nothing less. It is the exact same operating system, optimized for 64 bit processors.
However, this does NOT mean it is BETTER for 64 bit processors. XP 64 bit will run exactly the same on a low-end 64 bit processor as XP would.
-BUT-
If you have a HIGH END 64 bit processor, XP 64 -WILL- run faster and more effeciently on your machine than XP can.
Is XP 64 worth it? Yes and no. It's worth using if you have a high-end 64 bit processor. But it is NOT worth paying for. Find a friend or contact who already has it, or take your chances on a torrent, and get a faked copy of it. The fact is, XP 64 is an over-glorified XP with a 64 bit optimization service pack. It should have been shipped as a free service pack to begin with.
Windows Vista
Linux fanboys and windows-haters; fuck off right now. You wont like what you hear beyond this point. And I dont want your arrogant, dumbass bullshit spreading on my journal. If you want an honest opinion of Vista, however, read on.
Windows Vista is; DEFINETELY, worth getting, if you have a system that can handle it. Ignore the bullshit drivelling from the mouths of opiniated morons and linux-lovers. It is NOT just a new kind of Microsoft evil.
What people (especially the people who fill their empty lives by bashing windows) fail to comprehend, is that Vista is an entirely new system. The vast majority of system services and processes have been replaced and rebuilt from scratch. Vista looks varyingly similar to XP -only- for the sake of familiarity, and so the average person wouldn't need a learning curve to use it. All of the 'mechanics' of the system have changed.
And if you're a gamer or 3D modeller/renderer, I /strongly/ advise you secure a copy of Vista all the more, as soon as you can. Vista supports remarkable amounts of memory compared to XP, not only which, Vista is capable of dedicating massively more memory to single programs than XP could, an unprecidented level of resource allowance that VASTLY improves performance and responsiveness of games and 3D construction/rendering applications.
The short, simple, and clean of it is this;
No operating system (Vista included) is worth the MONEY they're going to charge for Vista, BUT;
Vista is DEFINETELY worth switching to.
On a closing note I'd just like to clear up a bit of misconception regarding Vista, and the kind of system you need to run. THere seems to be a running fiction that Vista wont run; or wont run very well, without high end hardware. This is horrible incorrect.
The facts are that Vista's new mechanics are far more effecient than XP, you DO NOT need more than a 1GHZ processor, you DO NOT need more than 512MB of ram (though you shouldn't run so little these days anyway), the only thing you will need, is atleast a 30 to 40 gigabyte hard-drive, because Vista takes up to 10GB of space fully installed.
And that's the whole shebang folks. Hope it helps some people.
-Devon
Okay, that should be enough ranting for now.
The other side of the coin is presented by my dad. Not an IT guy, but arguably the smartest person I know on most any technical subject I can bring up, says that XP does the exact same thing. He says all it means is that it will have support for Microsoft Certified hardware and software that was specifically tested for the systems, and will do the Plug and Play driver stuff that XP does, while "non-certified' hardware/software will have to have the drivers manually installed, but that they SHOULD still run if they are compatible hardware or software.
Another gripe that people have brought up (which I always mock) is the "OHNOES! VISTA WILL NOT LET YOU RUN NON LISCENCED MEDIA SO I CANNOT PIRATE MOOSACS ANYMORE!" Some people are ignorant and assume that this means that CDs ripped to the hard drive with WMP won't work, and the same for iTunes as well. I would just like to say that that is false. However, Vista will stop you from using unliscenced media to help prevent piracy, which I think it laudable, even if there will be a crack for it about a month or so after release.
We got to play with Vista a bit in my A+ Software Essentials class at college. Looks cool, but I doubt I got to see half of what it is simply because there are no apps made for it at this point. Also, I know many people beleive building you own PC is the best way to go about computing, and it IS a good way to do so, but Dell (and I assume other companies) are offering free upgrades to Vista if you buy a PC from them right now, and they have really cut prices on base bundles (I can get a budget computer for like 400 dollars through Dell, and it will run better than the one I paid 1500 for in 2001).
But Vista will be so cool when it comes out, just make sure you wait a few months after it hits shelves so they can find flaws and fix them.
It's a myth being spread to discredit Vista before it even releases. A stupid one, at that.
The 32-bit versions of Windows Vista will work just fine with unsigned (not certified) drivers. But the 64-bit version of Vista will not allow unsigned drivers to be installed, which means that beta and custom drivers (Omega graphics card drivers, for example), and possibly drivers for older, more obscure devices won't function.
Of course, this won't apply to most future Vista users out there, but for anyone wanting to run the 64-bit version will be effected by it if their devices are slow to release new drivers.
I think Vista looks cool and runs cool. The two reasons I won't buy it are A) The ridiculous price and B) The license agreement, which isn't really much of an agreement, but more of a "I'm turning all control of my computers' software and my privacy over to Microsoft, and if MS messes up then I'm screwed whether I like it or not."
I really like Vista. I really hate WGA.
:D
I have a totally legitimate product key which I purchased as part and package with my laptop. This therefore should surely give me a God- and Bill-given right to run a copy of XP, right?
Not according to Microsoft - I've actually had to do the technically illegal just so I can run a legal copy of XP on my legal laptop, because they refused to allow me to authenticate my product key, saying I'd used it too many times.
So I say fuck 'em. I'll run their OS; I know I have the right to and it's their problem if to do so I have to subvert their precious Windows Genuine bullshit. (You may now begin berating me for effectively disabling Windows Update - I'm not an idiot; I don't get spyware, and I reinstall regularly so even if I did it would be no big deal. I'll upgrade to Vista upon its availability on MSDN; having a father with access has benefits.)
The OS itself looks as nice compared to my buggy as hell XP install as my first beta-CD install of XP looked from my old Windows ME install. Microsoft's slow torture of unauthenticated users (internet randomly going on and off, access to certain features being blocked, etc.) will be hilarious to watch and hear about on forums.
But then again, I heard a rumor flying around that Microsoft will start charging people who have Vista whenever they use the Internet.
Windows XP 64 is not an optimized Windows XP 32, it's a little more than just that. Windows XP 64 is a modified Windows XP 32 with native support for 64-bit processors. Microsoft recompiled Windows from source to support 64-bits of precision. While you can run regular Windows XP 32 on a 64-bit processor, the 64-bit processor is simply providing a familiar 32-bit instruction set architecture to Windows. AMD was smart in extending the IA-32 (x86) architecture while still providing backwards compatibility. A 32-bit operating system software will see the AMD64 and Intel EMT-64 processors as 32-bit processors. You lose the features of 64-bit computing, but it will work with little to no side effects.
One of the biggest features of a 64-bit processor is being able to address more system memory. Windows XP 32 can only address 4 GB of system memory (RAM). With 32-bits, you can address 2^32 - 1 locations in memory, which is roughly 4 GB. When you use Windows XP 64 on a 64-bit processor, you are able to address a shit load more than the 4 GB of system memory.
For example, in many programming languages including C++...
On 32 bit machines: pointers, "int" variables, and "long" variables, are all 32 bits long.
On 64-bit machines: "int" variables are still 32 bits wide, but "long" and pointers are 64 bits wide.
If you made your program (or device driver) in such a way that you do any bit shifting (<< and >> operator), or casting, or some other funky thing, you now have a wonderful headache on your hands. This is why it's a bitch to get 64-bit device drivers. You can't just take a 32-bit driver, recompile it into a 64-bit version, and have it work. You have to scour through your source code looking for any instance where you assumed that a pointer was only 32-bits. It's a bitch. And many device drivers are not coded very well.
At the end of the day, someone needs to portray the good and bad points of the choices, without making the person feel like a dummy. And what's what I'm trying to do here.
From what I've heard, drivers are hard to find for XP 64 bit. My friend recently got it, and he's having a pain in the butt finding anything, specificially for his CAD tablet.
I haven't heard much about Vista, so I'm not at liberty to comment on it.
For me the only issue for Vista - other than the VLK 2.0 stuff which makes owning a VLK copy kind of only marginally better than a regular retail copy - is that some of my more critial apps don't work right in it yet. Similarly, my TV tuner isn't supported yet in Media Center for Vista.
But that's temporary and I'll jumping to it once these get sorted out.
I plan to get Windows Vista. It really does look like an interesting OS.
*huggles*
Linux is free. ^_^
Been planning on switching from windows to Linux Ubuntu or Gentoo or something, though Im curoius how well this Vista runs on my own system.
Tough I run WinXPSP2 with 256MB of ram with a pretty un organized setup, so I'll really need to upgrade alot for Vista.
Why does ram have to be a hundred for a gig? >.< Makes it kinda hard to get :/
As for Vista's features, what about the 3D windows features and all those other intergrated junk you can get on anything else with some work and some cost of extra resources.
Ive heard of alot of poeple saying good things about vista but not saying a thing about the extra features that was supposed to revolutionize how the system works.
Though Ive heard that that 3D window system is rather pointless now and isnt really usefull and a waste of resources. So in the end all you get is that nifty side bar thats been done before.
Though Its great that Vista is a rewrite from scratch. WinXP is just Windows NT 2000 upgraded and made fancy.
I'll end up switching to Vista eventually, but I have my fingers crossed for someone to make a Linux distro that meets the same level. Cuase Vista is gonna need some compitition xD
Oh, and what does the blue screen of death look like? And have you had it yet?
XP doesnt have em as much as the earlier systems did, but eh, I find em fun.
Linux as well.
I just use what works and thats fine for me. ^^
*is a happy furry dragon because of it*
Also, given Microsoft's constant abuse of their monopoly, I cannot help but point out: Every dollar you spend on Vista and not elsewhere takes two dollars of freedom away.
Use it, but don't pay for it, please.
I must use Windows because I haven't found Linux drivers for my WLAN card yet but when I find them, I'll remove Windows permanently. I recommend to get Linux instead of supporting the evil monopoly of Micro$oft.
Doom 3 was the biggest joke, the expansion pack won't install without a hack! And my modem card is totally unsupported. Just use 64 bit for playing newer games and that's all it's good for right now.
About Windows Vista: *Not* worth it even at the turn of 2007, though I may be able to get by with only 2 liscence keys as hard disks are only supposed to seriously crash every 3 years, I think.. Barring how pristine you keep your installation (Again, I heart Linux). Hardly anyone using XP even knew that XP had 5 (or 8?) liscence renewals, Vista just tightened them. Oh! And there's hardly any antivirus support for X64 (Panda in particular is lacking, and Panda is sadly the awesomenest to me..) At least for my (genericish) NForce chipset I have a filter working in X64, and X64 idiotically complains on every boot.
Paint Shop I can get working with Wine in Linux, and my scanner too so I definitely don't have to boot windows for my artwork.