DJ Hero 
RRP: $179.00
RRP: $179.00
Death match: Windows Vista versus XP
Page:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- < previous
- next >
Round 6: Hardware compatibility
There's no question that hardware compatibility was initially a sore spot with Vista. This was particularly true for mobile users who had to suffer through a variety of functional and operational problems as they waited for updated device drivers. And some of us are still waiting: I, for one, have yet to find a feature-complete video driver for my Dell XPS M1710, and I consider myself to be a fairly resourceful fellow.
But beyond scarcity, there is the issue of revalidation. Most sane IT shops have implemented strict rules regarding what is and is not an accepted hardware configuration. Departments with names like "PC Engineering" spend copious time testing and certifying specific component combinations, isolating problem configurations, and feeding the necessary troubleshooting guidelines to their help desks. A migration to Vista means repeating these steps, and then some, while the immaturity of the Vista driver base will have IT racing against a moving target.
Windows XP, by contrast, has a mature and well-vetted compatibility base, with broad support from virtually every manufacturer. And while Vista will almost certainly catch up in time, as things stand right now, every new device insertion is a bit of a crapshoot. Just the other day I was puzzled when my Vista-equipped notebook wouldn't recognize a generic HP LaserJet 1200 printer.
Decision: When's the last time you worried about driver support under Windows XP? With an installed base into the hundreds of millions, chances are you'll still be finding XP drivers long after Vista's grandchildren are being put out to pasture.
Round 7: Microsoft software compatibility
It's a truism in Windows circles: The Microsoft Office team charts its own course. As the drivers behind the company's longest-lived cash cow, the Office folks have the luxury of being able to ignore the hemming and hawing of the Windows team and to choose to support whatever platforms make business sense. In the case of Office 2007, this meant eschewing any exclusive tie-ins to the perennially delayed Vista. As a result, the latest version of this bovine ATM works equally well under both Windows XP and Vista, much to the chagrin of the guys on the other side of the OS Chinese wall.
It's a similar story with Microsoft's BackOffice product line. There are few, if any, advantages to deploying Vista as a client to Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft SQL Server, or Microsoft SharePoint. As the gatekeeper to many of these resources, Microsoft Office often serves to level the playing field. And as I just noted, the current version of Office -- Microsoft Office System 2007 -- runs great on Windows XP.
What about future versions? There's no doubt that, eventually, Microsoft may try to target Vista exclusively. However, finding features and functions that Vista supports and XP doesn't is not as easy as it sounds. Remember, much of Vista's "newness" is only skin deep. In fact, outside of DirectX 10 -- which is exclusively a Vista technology -- there's no valid reason for excluding XP from the supported platforms list of any new application.
Of course, this may change come Windows 7, the feature set of which is still very much in flux. However, nobody's arguing that you should stick with XP forever -- just that you can stick with it for now and potentially skip a Windows generation without incurring any real pain.
Decision: Windows XP is still, and likely will remain for some time, the compatibility bar for new Microsoft applications. If and when Microsoft attempts to create an exclusive Vista tie-in, the company will need to articulate some valid technical reason -- one that stands up to scrutiny from the IT community -- for not supporting Windows XP.
Round 8: Third-party software compatibility
When Microsoft first started marketing its next-generation desktop OS project (Vista), it trumpeted a number of foundational technologies that were destined to usher in the next wave of killer applications. Some, including WinFS, fell by the wayside. Others, including Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) -- which was quickly back-ported to Windows XP when developers balked at the idea of Vista exclusivity -- have proven to be nothing more than the extensions to the .Net Framework. In fact, when Microsoft made these pronouncements, those of us "in the know" (software developers and programmers familiar with the intricacies of .Net coding) had a good laugh. Nobody in their right minds would produce any complex piece of traditional, fat client software using the sluggish, bug-ridden .Net Framework, let alone a set of even buggier and less proven extensions.
A year later and you'd be hard-pressed to name a single commercial WPF application. In fact, I can't think of any third-party applications, outside of a few DirectX 10-specific games, that run better on Vista, never mind requiring it. Whenever Vista-specific development work has been done, it's usually been to fix problems created by the introduction of UAC. I personally spent several hours in Microsoft's compatibility lab at last year's TechEd conference working out UAC kinks that were affecting my own applications. In such a climate, where Vista is the outsider and represents a tiny fraction of the installed base, targeting it exclusively is tantamount to committing commercial suicide.
New applications that do ship are still typically native Win32 applications, written in C++ using tried and true technologies such as Microsoft Foundation Classes (MFC) or Application Template Library (ATL). This, for better or worse, is the state of third-party development for the foreseeable future. And, of course, these applications all run great on Windows XP, and will continue to do so for a long time to come.
Decision: ISVs go where the money is, and right now that's still the generic Win32 API (plus MFC/ATL) running on the range of Windows platforms. The only exceptions to this rule are tools or utilities that target Vista-specific functions such as the new boot loader and sidebar widgets. The risk of missing out on important third-party application functionality by sticking with Windows XP is next to nil.
Page:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- < previous
- next >
References
18%
9%
Comments
iphone ringtone maker
iPhone Ringtone Maker,As iPhone user, have your ever thought that put a lot of ringtones which are made by yourself on your iPhone? Now, it is possible to do this, 4Media iPhone Ringtone Maker is the right choice as a iPhone Ringtone software!Make iPhone ringtone,Creating iPhone ringtones
iphone ringtone maker
iPhone Ringtone Maker,As iPhone user, have your ever thought that put a lot of ringtones which are made by yourself on your iPhone? Now, it is possible to do this, 4Media iPhone Ringtone Maker is the right choice as a iPhone Ringtone software!Make iPhone ringtone,Creating iPhone ringtones
Vista x64 is the best
I couldn't be happier with Vista Ultimate x64 SP1. It boots up faster than XP SP2, and is the fastest OS I have ever used. It runs all my x32 programs, games and speed, stability, security are amazing. I use sleep and haven't needed a reboot in weeks. I run a Q6600, 4gb pc6400 ram, and a en8800gt video card. I have thrown all my XP install CD's in the bin and will never go back to XP, yuck phooey. I have no idea what all the fuss is about with Vista ? All you guys do yourselves a big favour, upgrade to a quad core and 4gb ram install Vista x64 Ultimate SP1 and stop your belly aching !
Biased author yields biased article
It is quite clear that the author does not like Vista and therefore saying the comparison is not biased is garbage. It is also clear that the author has spent little time with Vista given that the only features they can mention are those that everybody knows about. To be clear I ran XP for years and I'm running Vista now. In some cases it is a good choice, in others it isn't. The author tries to say Vista is a bad idea all around.
Let's cover the things the author conveniently skipped over.
1) BitLocker. If your computer gets stolen the information on it is safe even with an OS reformat. Not available without going to a third-party.
2) Parental controls. I have kids who don't need to be playing certain games or viewing certain web sites. XP's implementation was poor at best and didn't allow for limiting programs. Vista allows me to not only configure controls per user (so my wife can browse CNN without getting prompted for a password) but also control what games each can play. Again, not available without going to a third-party. Sure there is GP but what home user's can do that?
3) RunAs. Please, XP's implementation was half-baked. Unless you set the right options in Explorer you couldn't even start up a different Explorer instance. And then there was the whole command line thing. Sure IT departments might have a tool to do it but shouldn't it work out of the box?
4) Window Switching. You have to admit that the Win3.0 way of tabbing through open windows was pretty poor. If you had more than one instance of an app open you couldn't tell which one you were using.
5) Sidebar. While not critical it is really convenient. Sort of like a tray icon but with more information. Since most people have either multiple monitors or 10 billion pixel resolutions the space doesn't matter that much.
6) Reliability Monitor. A great tool for tracking reliability of your machine to try and find patterns in apps or the OS.
7) ETW. Available for a while but not really accessible until now. This gives IT and technical folks a lot more information on things happening inside Windows and apps.
8) Task Scheduler. The latest version gives you a lot more control over how and when things start and how they handle errors. It also works around issues with Windows Defender and startup apps. More importantly it allows you to run admin tools from non-admin accounts without requiring a password.
There are a lot of things I don't like about Vista. Here's just a small list:
1) Slow. Hopefully post-SP1 fixes will resolve this. I have the fastest PC you can buy and it takes forever to start up.
2) Drivers. Poor driver support. This is partially MS'es fault and partly third-party. Still XP and all other OS releases go through the same thing.
3) Services. There are way too many services that run by default. Why exactly do I need a service to support the F1 key? Why do I need a service for communicating with wMP when I don't even have an MP3 player? Why do I need a MCE service when I don't use Media Center? How about the various versions of audio support, performance enhancement and networking components? Too many services => bloat and performance issues.
4) DirectSound. MS removed direct hardward support. While I agree with the idea I think it came too quickly as most games will simply fail because of it. Makes your $300 sound card behave like a $10 one. Fortunately companies like Creative have Alchemy or OpenAL to resolve the issue.
5) Memory. Vista is bloated and it wears out the HDD while running. MS needs to fix this and adding new features isn't it. I think the OS still needs to go through another feature-cut phase to remove features that not everybody needs, or at least expose simplified controls to do it. Something like how W2K3 works would be good.
So is Vista the right choice for everyone? No. For IT groups, maybe. For devs and techies, probably. For home users with kids and newer games, yes. For novices and those who want to play Where is Carmen Sandiego, no.
Way too much bias
When writing articles like this, please don't start with a bias.
You start out saying you're going against the grain when you don't upgrade to vista? Actually it seems to be the other way around. I've heard many people who have NEVER used Vista complaining about it saying they'll never use it.
Think back to Windows 2000, when XP came out couldn't you have said the same thing? It was basically 2000 with a new GUI and a few things changed here and there. Everyone LOVES XP now. It's just the internet wasn't at quite the same stage for everyone to complain ;)
I don't take the article seriously as I could because it's obvious you have a complete bias against Vista, everything good about it you dismiss rather rapidly.
You talk about Vista not being better than XP on some aspects because of some THIRD party software? That is truely not a comparison of operating systems, I'm sure these applications can be ported and there are probably versions of them for Vista also.
I personally think it is more productive once you get used to the initial shock of changing. I like the breadcrumb system, it makes a lot more sense and is much easier than pressing UP, UP, UP..instead it's just clicking one or two times. Also you can still use Backspace to go up a level in vista.
Moving files/renaming them is also a lot quicker in Vista and it seems to do intelligent things more often (eg when you click or press F2 to rename a file it selects it without the extention if you have extensions turned on).
Also the windows desktop search on XP is really horrid compared to on Vista, it works much better on Vista. Searching is an absolute breeze.
I think this article does have some points of merit, it sounds like something I would've written when I very first installed Vista and one of my hardware drivers was preventing Vista to load though! Much too much bias.
Vista Whining
I bought a laptop a year ago. I was FORCED to take it with Vista. I am a developer (and coder). The UI is "purdy" but it's so non-productive I won't even use the machine for development. It's now a dedicated iPod server. I also use it as a cup coaster. In another year I will probably test it's flight capabilities as a frisbee.
12 gb for an OS? OS stands for operating system, not Overlord System. My XP machine will literally run circles around this Vista machine even with the bells and whistles turned off. What's worse, my XP machine has a slower processor core and slower memory. Did anyone at MS actually have to use this thing before they released it?
My advice to anyone that actually uses their computer for productive purposes: stick with XP until Windows 7 SP2. That's probably August 2012, less than 4 months from the end of the world according to the Mayan calendar. :-)
just saying FUD is a weak man's arguement
This article has good points that can be counterpointed if somebody had the desire and intelligence to do so. It doesn't mean they'd be right, but to say it is just FUD implies you didn't even read or understand any of it.
It's obvious the author knows how to look up and try drivers, and has a point on the benchmarking. I admit, there is some FUD re: Vista, but it is based on reality and the numbers.
RE: Pure FUD - What a Useless Comment
Comparing the content of your comment to the content of the article I would have to say yours lacks substance. If you think it's FUD, why don't you back it up with some proof.
To add additional FUD as you call it:
MS has been using tactics to coerce users to use Vista because, as the article states, there is no legitimate reason for most people to upgrade from XP.
MS normally supports their current OS and the previous OS. Why are they sun setting XP and leaving only Vista?
Normally an older generation of software is cheaper than the newer version. Pricewatch.com currently shows windows XP selling for 10-50% more than comparable Vista versions. Perhaps to compel people to buy Vista.
MS Finally released Halo 2 for the PC after two years as an Xbox only game. This was probably done to boost Xbox sales as the original Halo was released for multiple platforms. Originally the game would only play on Vista (are you seeing a trend) but after a hack came out to allow it to be played on XP, the software vendor promised to release an official patch for XP compatibility. There are other MS PC games being released as "Vista" only and I hope they get back-ported so that I can play them.
I am very happy with XP and look forward to the next OS version. I hope MS has learned something from the release of Vista.
Reply will not post against correct post
Please remove
Please remove
Please remove
Vista needs improvement
I agree with your article, as I don't find anything absolutely compelling in Vista. I'm running Vista on my year old Sony Vaio laptop, only because Sony has not written XP drivers for it... So, I cannot downgrade to a fresh install of XP (I've tried).
It's not that Vista is really bad, b/c its actually OK. The issue is: it's just not compelling; at least that's how I feel.
I really hope MS get's their Consumer Operating System act together on their next OS and ships a: smaller, faster, more reliable, and more usable OS. Then, I'll be excited to upgrade. Until then, I'll stick with XP on my desktop, and unexcitedly use Vista on Laptop.
I'm looking forward to a couple years from now when MS ships Windows 7. But if it turns out to just be Windows ME 3.0.... then I'm becoming more enamored with Apple OS-X.
-- Jared
-- http://dataland.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/vista-usability-drivers-ii/
Vista 64 vs. XP 64
If you compare Windows 2000 professional with the latest service packs at the time of the XP release to the original version of XP you could of written the same article.
My advise would be,if you have a PC that is more then a 3 years old and you do not have a good video card then Vista is not for you.
If you have a newer machine, especially one with a dual core processor then you should consider moving to Visa.
Vista 64 is the real future. If you compare Vista 64 to XP 64 vista blows it away. I have a PC at home set up as dual boot Win XP Pro 32 and Vista 64 and I have to say I never use my XP install anymore. In fact, performance wise my Vista install is an order of magnitude faster then XP. Vista 64 takes full advantage of my Video card and Dual core processor.
XP is a better choice
As one that has tried Vista and has been bitterly disappointed, I agree with the points made in this article. I don't advise anyone to use Vista unless they have a very compelling reason as well as a lot of money and time to waste.
this article is pure FUD
this article is pure FUD
Post new comment