Slashdot Mirror
Windows Vista and XP Head To Head
thefickler sends in an article comparing Windows Vista and Windows XP in the areas of security, home entertainment, GUI, parental controls, and networking. The author clearly believes that Vista wins across these categories.
i've been using vista for about 3 weeks now. under heavy usage (i.e. running a bunch of apps, nntp downloading, unzipping some archives etc..) xp does seem speedier, but other than that, vista rocks. it's stable, great to look at, and easy to use. using ribbons in the address bar so that any folder along your path can be browsed is very handy. they've addressed little nagging issues , for example hitting f2 to rename a file highlights the filename but not the extension. the administrator account is turned off by default, defender runs automatically, defrags are set up on a weekly schedule by default, and the searching is blazing on indexed drives. games seem to run well, and all my devices were installed automatically during installation. the resource monitor is excellent, and running services are listed in the task manager along with processes and apps. i've managed to muck it up a few times installing software, but in all cases i was installing versions meant for xp, not vista, and each time booting the last known good config has gotten me right back. they've done a great job with this o/s.
While I'm sure you're being facetious, you do realize that IE7 is available for XP and has the anti-phishing feature, right? If you still want to stick with IE6 (or have to, like if you're running Win2k), you can get the same anti-phishing protection from the Windows Live Toolbar. It's all the same technology, backed by the same store of anti-phishing data.
I was at a Microsoft Vista technical review where they explained this as being an anti-buffer overflow attack; since the locations of the specific items within an assigned memory space are randomized, the chances of targeting a buffer overflow to a specific chunk of the program's assigned memory is drastically reduced.
Wiki has it here, as Address Space Layout Radomization.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Stop taking the statement out of context. This is an article about Vista and the paragraph in which this statement lies discusses Windows XP and the fact the interface looks old compared to OSX and Vista. Since the article is about Vista, of course it's going to define other things in terms of Vista. That in no way suggests that OSX had stolen or copied Vista in any way, simply, he is comparing the two interfaces using the one the article is about as the source for the comparison. Hopefully, this explanation is enough. If you would like further reasons as to why I'm right, please see your sixth grade English teacher.
Vista works fine on that config .. about the same as XP. Some things are a bit faster, some a bit slower, overall it's about the same.
;)
This must be the shortest review I've ever written
--I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
You can still change the windows theme to classic and it will run as fast as 2000 or xp. Only in aero mode does it require for some reason tons of ram and cpu power. Turning off the widgets helps too. Basically anything from the past 4 years should be able to run vista at least classic mode.
The one benefit of Vista will be to stop manufacturers from putting crappy integrated graphics into laptops (even apple does this on the non-pro line).
> Every new version of Windows is considered bloated compared to the previous one
With one exception: MS DOS 5 (which was leaner than DOS 4) and Windows 2000 Server. Win2k, with the exception of Internet Explorer, was quite lean.
In fact, ~is~ quite lean. You can still use it for every application that runs on XP. The only deficiencies (from my point of view) is the slower boot and hibernation, lack of Cleartype no software network bridges.