Vista or XP?

[Man_Beach]

It's getting near time for me to put together a new computer and unfortunately I have to have a dual boot system with version of Windows - my wife's work requires it. It's time I pensioned off my old copy of Windows 98 - so should I go for XP or Vista to replace it? They're both about the same price (for a basic Home version). I'm familiar with XP through my work (not that I like it, but at least I know it).Software requirements are minimal - Internet Explorer and Excel, mainly.
Microsoft say that they will support XP until 2014, which is way past the expected life of my proposed new computer anyway.
Suggestions, please?

[lanr01]

It's getting near time for me to put together a new computer and unfortunately I have to have a dual boot system with version of Windows - my wife's work requires it. It's time I pensioned off my old copy of Windows 98 - so should I go for XP or Vista to replace it? They're both about the same price (for a basic Home version). I'm familiar with XP through my work (not that I like it, but at least I know it).Software requirements are minimal - Internet Explorer and Excel, mainly.
Microsoft say that they will support XP until 2014, which is way past the expected life of my proposed new computer anyway.
Suggestions, please?

My personal experience and opinion is to go with XP. I beta tested Vista for some time for Microsoft and ended up hating it. Even with the full release of it, I didn't like it.. Too many bugs and XP was just a better platform of the 2. If you have any dos programs that you will need to run, don't count on them running well if at all under vista. XP I would go back to if I had to, but not back to vista..

Just my .02 cents..

Rick

[kokkus]

It depends.
Vista takes lot more RAM then XP.
XP is also less buggy then Vista and goes faster.
But Vista would be better if you have much RAM.
I would recommand at least 2GB.
Vista has some of the functions that Ubuntu and other OS has like the update manager and stuff.
I wouldn't use vista too much on the PC when you already have Ubuntu.
Let your wife use vista for the work stuff and use ubuntu to everything else.
Windows means spyware, virus etc. which has no effect on Linux.

So use XP since it takes less space on your PC.

Plus, your wifes work programs are maybe not built for Vista yet.

EDIT: You should post which programs your wife needs that ubuntu doesn't have.
Maybe someone can help you out or you can give the ubuntu team and other people an idea on new software creations.

More and more windows programs can be used also in ubuntu now thanks to Wine.

[mrtomcef]

If it were my computer I would go with Windows XP. Vista still seems buggy, I once tried to install service pack 1 on Vista and the whole system crashed.

[stinger30au]

XP is definitely the one to go with

[Cyberponcho]

Well, i still use win xp, mostly to play some games that i cant get going under wine, i did try vista at a friend's brand new laptop before he got fed up with it and begged me to 'downgrade' it and install win xp (which i still consider an upgrade)
If i had to choose, i would stick to xp, most people i know are fed up with vista and are 'upgrading' back to xp, just my 2 cents.

[Kernel Sanders]

Well, I'd go with Vista for the following reasons:

1) Security - seriously, XP is a joke. Malware is pretty much INVITED onto that system. Vista is such a step up that it survived until the last day of that well known hacker competition that I now can't remember the name of! D'oh!

2) Stability - Unlike XP, with vista a misbehaving program can't bring down your whole system, it just brings down the program, which you can then restart if necessary. Secondly, the way drivers work has been re-designed so that it's not so deep that a bad driver can cause a system instability (Unless it's a key driver, like your graphics card that is, yes i'm looking at you nVidia! Grrrrr!)

Overall, think of Vista as XP 2008. It's not perfect, but it's much much much more secure than XP, and much much much more stable.

YMMV, but XP is an 8 year old OS. Given how much computing has moved on, do you really want to use an 8 year old OS on todays systems?

With regard to RAM usage, Vista needs at least a gig really. It's use isn't a problem. I have 2 gigs of RAM, and XP used about 600 meg. Which means I had 1400 meg of RAM just sitting on it's *** doing nothing. What a waste! Vista uses it all except 6 mb, and just releases it when needed. It works great and I don't have wasted RAM!

[Old_Gray_Wolf]

If your wife's work requires Windows, then I would ask if her employer is going to upgrade to Vista any time soon. Also, my employer either supplies the OS and applications or has a discount for them.

[cprofitt]

Vista hands down.

If you are buying a new box you will have the drivers you need and not have to worry about problems that upgrade folks had.

It is more secure and the eye candy is actually nice -- not as functional as parts of compiz-fusion, but nice.

[Bios Element]

As opposed to everyone else, XP Hands down. Much more secure all patching said and a good 50% faster with all the Service Packs installed.

[BGrigg]

Find out if your wife's company requires the ability to join a domain. XP Pro or Vista Business may be required.

Personally I'm not touching Vista. Had too many difficulties while beta testing, and have experienced too many problems with the two Vista systems at work. If it were me, I'd go XP Pro.

[smoker]

if it is a choice of xp or vista, i'd go for xp :-)

[rolnics]

As someone else has already mentioned, ask if your wife's work place is moving to Vista any time soon. If they are like my work place, I'm replying to this thread on a Windows 2000 machine, admittedly I'm one of the last, but it's still running! lol And they way our IT department is at the moment they won't be upgrading me soon, even though they stuck that extra memory in! oooh the speed!! lol

But as for my choice, well, I find Vista annoying, but usable, so I'd go with XP!

[karellen]

Xp

[lisati]

Haven't tried Vista, and see no immediate need to upgrade from XP.....so my vote is for XP

I'm sure there are one or two who would consider one of the flavours of Ubuntu....

Having said that, I concur with those who have suggested checking with the people who will be paying about what they're likely to want/do.

[Kernel Sanders]

XP Hands down. Much more secure

Um, that's actually not even close to being true.... :/

[cprofitt]

As opposed to everyone else, XP Hands down. Much more secure all patching said and a good 50% faster with all the Service Packs installed.

Not from my personal experience as a Windows Sytems Administrator.

I watched a trojan go right through an fully patched XP install with Symantec Endpoint protection...

The same trojan got stonewalled by UAC on an unpatched Vista machine with no 3rd party protection...

[comandrei]

Why dual boot? When you can use VirtualBox and seamlessy use XP while running Ubuntu?
Anyway XP. Vista is too unstable.

[Battie]

I would go with Vista, IFF the new computer exceeds the hardware requirements and you can verify that the required applications do not have compatibility issues.

I would choose Vista because in my experience a well-maintained Vista machine is as stable as or more stable than a well-maintained XP machine. Perhaps more importantly, Vista is more secure thanks to UAC. Properly configured, it's a godsend to those of us who are trying to keep users off administrator accounts. Unlike in XP, even an administrator is running as a standard user until privileges are explicitly elevated. You can run almost anything as an administrator from a standard account with far less headache than in XP. And don't underestimate the benefit of Protected Mode in IE7, which AFAIK is not available in XP's IE7.

[SunnyRabbiera]

XP with modifications.
XP is a pain to set up and make secure, but if you have a computer with low specs then XP is better.
Higher specs I will still say XP, there is not a lot in vista that is of any value, and can be made up for in XP.

[rockface]

XP with modifications.
XP is a pain to set up and make secure, but if you have a computer with low specs then XP is better.
Higher specs I will still say XP, there is not a lot in vista that is of any value, and can be made up for in XP.

True words, good advice.

Vista is a can of worms that should not come with the benefit of a can opener. The security is superior to XP (would not take much), but the resource overhead should be taken into consideration.

Maybe most home users should break the mold of familiarity and go with the better security of Vista, maybe. But in an office environment the admins have (or should have) already nailed down the security of individual machines to such a degree as to negate the need for Vista.

Vista needs, at the very least, 1gb of RAM to boot and do simple things such as web browsing and media playing. Windows 2000/XP or even Windows 2003 Server (when used as a standard desktop OS, my latest project) when combined with all the necessary anti-everything are perfectly happy with 512mb of RAM. Linux and the *BSDs shine here too.

'Buy more RAM, it's so cheap. You have no excuse, FEED ME!'

When you try and force feed me the entire Mojave Desert, don't blame me when my mouth tends to get a little dry.

[Old_Gray_Wolf]

I replied earlier to check with your wife's employer about their plans to migrate to Vista. I talked to one of the IT guys at work today. Our company is still evaluating Vista before rolling it out to all employees. Some people use VPN to access their email from home or report the hours worked for the week. The IT guy said they were working on some problems people with Vista were having. One example he gave was people being able to read their email but not being able to reply. lol. So, if you wife uses her computer for work, ask the company's IT person/department.

[teknnoid]

I replied earlier to check with your wife's employer about their plans to migrate to Vista. I talked to one of the IT guys at work today. Our company is still evaluating Vista before rolling it out to all employees. Some people use VPN to access their email from home or report the hours worked for the week. The IT guy said they were working on some problems people with Vista were having. One example he gave was people being able to read their email but not being able to reply. lol. So, if you wife uses her computer for work, ask the company's IT person/department.

I ran into the outlook webmail bug after I started using a Vista laptop. Oddly enough, mail worked fine with Firefox, but not in Explorer. There's a patch our IT guys installed that eventually fixed it. I only found that out by accident, as I don't use explorer.

I'd go with Vista. I've got a XP pro box, and a Vista. The laptop with Vista is more secure and stable. Check compatibility of programs though. My office 2003 pro wouldn't run on Vista.

[Man_Beach]

Why dual boot? When you can use VirtualBox and seamlessy use XP while running Ubuntu?
Anyway XP. Vista is too unstable.

So far, XP is looking my best bet. If Vista doesn't work with Office 2003, I'd probably have to buy some new office software as well as the operating system. But I really must check out VirtualBox.

A lot of my wife's work is done online - when you've filled in a 20 page report in Firefox and pressed the 'send' button on the last page and nothing happens - that's when you realise that you need Internet Explorer. And it explains why she dual boots too, and is reluctant to fill in some online forms in Firefox with Ubuntu again. Maybe I can persuade her to try a small form using IE with VirtualBox.

[Kernel Sanders]

Vista most certainly DOES work with Office 2003.

Vista would have imploded with the rage of the consumers if that was true. I use Office 2007 myself, but 2 of my friends use Office 2003 on Vista.

Seriously, I really can't recommend Vista enough. Please don't use XP, it's far far far too insecure for an Operating System. You will need to spend on Anti-Virus, anti-spyware, firewall etc software just to give yourself a chance of avoiding infection. Vista doesn't have any of those problems. I use Vista without any 3rd party security software without any problems :KS

[smoker]

. You will need to spend on Anti-Virus, anti-spyware, firewall etc software just to give yourself a chance of avoiding infection.

there are plenty of good free applications such as these available, often superior to any you'd have to pay for. :-)

[LookTJ]

XP Professional SP3 hands down.

[LookTJ]

Please don't use XP, it's far far far too insecure for an Operating System. You will need to spend on Anti-Virus, anti-spyware, firewall etc software just to give yourself a chance of avoiding infection.Anti-malware/anti-spyware: Spybot S&D or MalwareBytes Anti-Malware, cost? Free.
Anti-virus: either clamwin or avast, cost? Free.
Firewall: Windows firewall is good enough if behind a router, A free Zonealarm firewall software otherwise, cost? Free.

:) free is less hog resource than the paid and is better in my opinion.

[crazyfuturamanoob]

XP because vista is a memory hog.

[RheaHS]

Virtualbox FTW. If it has to be between XP and vista, I'd go for XP, but i personally have 2000 pro sp4 on my VM

[Keymaster]

IF she just needs Microsoft Office, then I'd recommend Ubuntu 8.04 with CrossOver Proffesional (codeweavers.com) It costs a little bit of moneyt, but no where near the cost of Vista or XP. I personally have just Vista right now as I'm waiting for Ubuntu 8.10 (Hoping it makes getting drivers on the ASUS G50V easier) On my work laptop I have dual boot XP/Ubuntu 8.04. The only thing I like about XP is even with Crossover I still can't get the Adobe CS3 Suite working yet. Everything else I use Ubuntu for. Including Microsoft Office (even though I have Windows, I still use Ubuntu for that. Keeps all the files in one place ;)) In the end it's between you, and your wife.

[Jaxco]

XP by a longshot. I have only had malware a handful of times since I was an XP beta tester. XP is fast, stable and provides a lot of hardware support. Vista is bogged to the core with DRM and other garbage. I used vista during all beta and release candidates and have one machine that has SP1 installed. I have had many hours using a lot of operating systems and quite frankly, XP has every one of them beat when you factor in stability and hardware support.

[smuki]

How long is M$ going to do updates for XP? I had no issues when I ran it, but then I got a new comp and it came with nothing so I just threw Vista up to see how it was. On a well built machine it worked fine for me, never had any issues (yet).

[AlphaMack]

Anti-malware/anti-spyware: Spybot S&D or MalwareBytes Anti-Malware, cost? Free.
Anti-virus: either clamwin or avast, cost? Free.
Firewall: Windows firewall is good enough if behind a router, A free Zonealarm firewall software otherwise, cost? Free.

:) free is less hog resource than the paid and is better in my opinion.


AV: AVG, Avast, or Clamwin are good choices.
Firewall: Windows Firewall does not monitor or stop unwanted outbound connections. I use Comodo Firewall Pro. It's free, highly configurable, and light on resources.
Anti-spyware: Windows Defender works well although I use it in conjunction with Ad-Aware.

The biggest point is not running as admin for day-to-day use. Use a limited user account, and consider using SuRun (http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fkay-bruns.de%2Fwp%2Fsoftware%2Fsurun%2F&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=de&safe=active&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools) to do admin tasks while logged in a LUA.

[Jaxco]

How long is M$ going to do updates for XP? I had no issues when I ran it, but then I got a new comp and it came with nothing so I just threw Vista up to see how it was. On a well built machine it worked fine for me, never had any issues (yet).

July 13, 2010

Support for SP2 and SP2c will end

April 8, 2014

"Extended Support" for Windows XP SP3 will end, assuming that SP4 is not released

That is still quite a ways... if you need a new copy of XP, you can still get it until June 09, i THINK.

[CrazyArcher]

From my experience, XP SP3 is secure enough. I have 2 machines running 24/7 (desktop/laptop), and never had any serious problems with either. A few months ago I got a spyware infection, but completely fixed it in an hour. Never reinstalled XP on either computer.

[Keymaster]

Even though you may still be able to get a copy of XP legally, or illegally (I don't condone software piracy BTW) driver support will be an issue. Most manufacturers will start to only produce Vista drivers. We are also going to see the move to 64-bit computing in a few years, so even though XP has a 64-bit edition, software designed for XP 32-bit will be gone. I loved XP, and in some ways it is better than Vista, and in some ways Vista is better. I can't stand the built in DRM, but we all know that someone will patch it so you can watch HD content on Vista without that DRM crap getting in the way. Microsoft products are made to be cracked. ;)