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 guess it's time for a new PC. I don't know that I can live without IE 7's new 'anti-phishing' filter.
Of course, why the new system requirements are so ridiculously higher than XP is something I'm still waiting on a good answer for. I'm sticking with XP until I'm absolutely forced to upgrade in 5 years or so because nothing has XP support anymore. I mean, give me a break. There is no earthly reason an OS should bloat so massively in versions that are only a few years apart. It's an OS, not Doom 3.
My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
I wish to see a comparison for the benefit of millions of users who do not want to (or who cannot afford to) upgrade to new hardware. This comparison would involve installing Vista and XP on a hardware configuration that is the minimum configuration recommended for XP (yes, XP). To enhance the comparison, we should include RedHat Linux.
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.
From the article:
Huh? What is this, and why would it make any difference whatsoever in preventing exploits?
Um, Mac OS X is copying Vista? What? Whoa. Wait. Lets read it slowly. Yep, "offering Vista like graphics for several years now." Wow. So, Apple saw these graphics years ago in Longhorn, and copied them? Really? Bad Apple. Bad.
Yeah. This is a Definitive Guide alright. Not. I've seen a lot better reviews on the net. Even by *gasp* CNET.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
keep in mind, at the end of installation, vista runs a performance benchmark against the hardware, and adjusts appearance settings accordingly... one can always turn off the aero interface. it's a brand new o/s, so it's not surprising that it requires fairly current hardware to run well. i mean even your average amd system nowadays runs a 3500+ 64 with a gig of ram and a graphics card more than adequate for vista's directx desktop. back when xp was released everyone was saying the same thing about it's requirements.
Okay, besides the fact this looks like some dude skimming marketing spiel, let's hit the high points:
...?!
Marketing Promise: Increased Security
Some Dude's Findings: VISTA: Vista has a similar but improved firewall to Windows XP SP2, but anyone who is serious about their security will still replace it with a third party firewall or Internet security suite.
Marketing Promise: Anti-phishing feature
Some Dude's Findings: Both score 'pretty terrible'
Marketing Promise: File system security
Some Dude's Findings: However pressing the 'ok' button lets you do whatever you want anyway, and experienced users will just be annoyed. What did I do? I turned it off completely and am not bothered by it anymore.
-That's increased security!
Marketing Promise: Easy
Some Dude's Findings: anyone, even without massive computing experience, can easily set up a wired or wireless network.
Utter security failure. Plenty of work fixing broken windows. Forced upgrade with new hardware sales. It's a win-win all around!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
You screwed up your OS installing software and you consider that acceptable? Kernel extensions/drivers, okay, but applications should never mess up your OS to the point that you need to "boot to the last known good config". This is the whole point of an OS. Of course maybe you wrote ironically and I just missed it.
Thanks Microsoft... When I want to change my IP address, burn a DVD, or open Mozilla, I want a wizard to make sure I'm doing everything correctly.
I don't care if my OS has 3D icons or fancy clear windows... I want it to be out of the way, and just RUN THE PROGRAMS I WANT! That's the whole point of the OS. Not to take up 4 gig of hard drive space because Grandma wants to print pictures of her grandchildren. Stop hogging all my system RAM and let me choose my preferred programs to look at pictures, play MP3s, and watch videos- none of which come with your OS.
Erm... Yes, it is.
An operating system is supposed to provide the low-level core of functionality necessary to run (and if necessary co-ordinate) other programs. Such functionality can be and has been written to run on systems with 1/1000th the processing power of today's multicore monsters.
Of course, today the term "operating system" refers, at least in common usage, to some sort of bundle that includes a kernel, various support libraries for networking, GUI, and other such stuff, some sort of shell, a whole bunch of tools of varying degrees of usefulness, and a whole bunch of mostly half-baked and sub-standard applications. (This description applies, to my knowledge, to pretty much every major desktop "OS" currently available, from Windows to Linux distros via MacOS and various other UNIX platforms.)
My current PC is now about four years old, but was a pretty high spec at that time. On this system, I can happily run full-blown applications for everything from editing high-res photos to playing games that do real-time 3D graphics pretty reasonably. Given this information, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that any operating system should not run very comfortably using a tiny fraction of my system's resources, no matter how many bells and whistles it has.
Now, according to Microsoft, my system just about meets the minimum standards to run the low-end versions of Vista, and isn't qualified to run the high-end versions for several reasons. I can only conclude from this that either Vista's code is poorly written and/or poorly organised, or that those higher-end versions of Vista are trying to do yet more things that are not really part of an operating system, and are probably better done by specialist standalone applications anyway. Either way, Vista is suffering from some serious bloat, and bloat means bugs, security flaws, performance problems and all the rest.
So yes, even if it's a brand new OS, it's still of concern that it requires such impressive hardware specs to run well. In fact, it's a pretty damning indictment of the product, and doesn't so much imply as outright prove that it's going in the wrong direction.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Here's the whole paragraph--to put it in more context:
It never states that OS X copied Vista, simply that the graphical user interface used in Vista has a likeness to OS X--which has been around for several years.
Anyway, I think any Vista guide is going to have a certain slant one way or the other. Either some Linux/Mac guru is going to come out bashing Vista for everything that it's "stolen" and the minimum system requirements or some Microsoft fanboy is going to claim how wonderful it is and how justified the upgrade is to run such a purdy OS.
So you've heard all the hype about Windows Vista, but wonder what it means for you. Here's the definitive guide on how Microsoft's Windows Vista stacks up against XP:
SECURITY FEATURES
XP: In the original Windows XP, and with the first service pack or SP1, both versions still in use today, Windows XP has a built-in firewall that gave relatively good protection against hackers breaking into your computer.
The 2nd service pack, or SP2, improved the firewall to protect you from people trying to get it, and bad programs trying to get access out to the Internet, but it is still considered relatively basic compared with commercial offerings. Anyone serious about security should replace it with a good third party firewall or Internet security suite. All versions of Windows XP are also able to be set to download Windows updates automatically.
VISTA: Vista has a similar but improved firewall to Windows XP SP2, but anyone who is serious about their security will still replace it with a third party firewall or Internet security suite. Internet Explorer 7 has an 'anti-phishing' filter, but is known to slow down your surfing experience a little as sites you visit are checked by Microsoft's servers for phishing attack dangers.
However IE7 and Firefox 2.0 have both been rated as only having partial success in detecting phishing sites, and as such have both earned a rating of 'pretty terrible' for anti-phishing prowess by us at Free Access (Tech.Blroge).
A new 'user account control' system tries to protect you from yourself, so you don't accidentally make changes to important system settings without being warned first. However pressing the 'ok' button lets you do whatever you want anyway, and experienced users will just be annoyed. What did I do? I turned it off completely and am not bothered by it anymore. You'll probably do the same, too.
Windows also has a new 'randomization' layer, which slightly changes the memory configuration of every Vista machine to make it harder for co-ordinated attacks to affect scores of machines at the same time.
Vista also has made protections to the 'kernel' or core of the operating system, with a protective measure known as 'PatchGuard', but this only extends to the 64-bit version of Vista, a version which most of us won't be using for at least a couple of years. Most consumers will be using the 32-bit version of Vista which does not have 'PatchGuard' built-in.
HOME ENTERTAINMENT
XP: Windows XP has always been able to play mp3 and video files, CDs, DVDs (with third party software), streaming media files and other forms of digital media with relative ease over the years.
An updated version of Windows XP, known as the Media Center Edition upgraded the digital media experience of Windows, giving it a dedicated interface to watch, record and pause live TV, play photos, videos and music, listen to FM and online radio stations and more.
VISTA: Finally, the Media Center capabilities comes built-into most versions of Windows Vista aside from the basic, entry level version. It has also been enhanced over the previous version, although reviewers claim it has not received as much of an improvement as the rest of Windows has over previous versions.
Vista also plays most other forms of digital media through it's own Windows Media Player software, with a whole host of competing media players available to download, many free of charge, from the Internet.
GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
XP: Ridiculed as being the 'Fischer Price' version of the Windows 2000 interface, Windows XP was still a fresh update upon its release 5 years ago. Today, however, will still perfectly functional, it is starting to look a little long in the tooth, with Apple's Mac OS X offering Vista like graphics for several years already.
VISTA: Very cool looking 3D icons, transparent 'glass' windows and other lovely eye candy such as the 'Flip 3D' way of flipping through open windows. This new graphics system is called 'Aero'. However this will re
I'll take the karma hit for this I'm sure...but...MS has consistently improved on their operating systems. I'm not saying they are the best available, just that they have consistently improved. From my experience every new OS they have released has been an improvement over the previous (ME excepted). Just because they aren't Apple or a Linux flavor doesn't mean they are worthless. Keep in mind they are the major OS in use both for home and business and that they are TRYING to improve. If for nothing else, they should be applauded for their efforts.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
And I personally still say the same thing about XP's requirements. And ESPECIALLY about Vista's. Note that "minimum" requirements mean, in my experience, that sure, you could run it, but could you possibly want to? Sure, any computer less than about four years old probably CAN run Vista (though it may require a memory upgrade - many computers still only came with 256 until maybe a year or two ago). But would you want to? I personally have run Windows 2000 on relatively ancient machines - 400 or so MHz processors, I think 64M of RAM, and so on - and I think they're still running, somehow - but don't wish to repeat the experience. However they could run, was the primary point. Why can't Vista come even close to that? It's not the interface - it can still fall back to classic mode or whatever it is they call it now. There is no excuse for that requiring any more than a simple VGA-capable graphics card, either. Remember "Safe Mode"? Why can't it cut back so that all it's really running is a simple firewall (though without all the frivolous services, that shouldn't be necessary if the few that are system-critical are written properly) and whatever the user has started, let's say Internet Explorer and an old version of Word (again, requirements)? My parents own a computer that has been running Windows 98, with Office 97, for nearly 9 years now. It could use an upgrade to Win2k, certainly, but why not something with some obvious security features that earlier versions of Windows irresponsibly neglected, like the default non-privileged user in Vista?
I don't want to make this thread even more off-topic, but I think that Microsoft should consider how Linux handles this (though it's probably too late to implement it): abstract everything. Got a computer that can't handle the newest version of, say, KDE or Gnome? Fine, try XFCE. Or Fluxbox, or... Same underlying code to draw stuff. With AIGLX and nVidia's AIGLX-type extensions, even Compiz and Beryl (think Aero Glass with more toys) don't need separate code. Can't handle Aero Glass? Fine, try Aero. Can't handle Aero? Try Classic mode. Miracle that your computer still runs at all? Disable some eye candy in Classic. And frankly, if the GUI in its most stripped-down form can't run on the same spec hardware that runs Windows 98 perfectly, maybe the code needs to be cleaned up. I'm not a software engineer, I just yell at bad ones. Look, the OS I run can run a box that acts as a home router on hardware that costs literally $20 US. Vista can't even be bought for that much money. And the hardware it requires (at a minimum) runs probably $80 used. Why bother even including ICS anymore?
There's an old saying that says pretty much whatever you want it to.
>> highlights the filename but not the extension
Another feature stolen from the Mac. Of course a lot of people have never used Macs (pity on them), so they'll never know that a ton of other things that Microsoft has "innovated" in Vista existed (sometimes for decades!) on the Mac.
>> searching is blazing on indexed drives
Compared to what? I find Vista built in search to be utterly lacking compared to, say, Copernic (PC) or Spotlight (on the Mac). I mean, they can't even rip off Spotlight properly. If you're going to offer "search as you type" thing, you better implement it in a way that makes it responsive. The one in Vista chokes immediately after you start typing. And then you sit there and wait for results.
It doesn't imply that at all. It says quite clearly that OS X was there several years before Vista. No matter how it's worded, if you get that fact from it then parsing the rest of the sentence as "Apple copied Microsoft" is at best wilful stupidity. I also disagree with your interpretation of "Vista-like" as "Copied from Vista" - it's merely a shorthand to avoid a length digression on what user interface elements they're actually talking about.
Oh please. No one cares about security, or media conversion. Show me some benchmarks that have frames per second with 16x Anti-Aliasing on Microsoft Flight Simulator X with DirectX 10 on a new Geforce 8800. That's all that really matters.
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.
Even if Vista is better than XP, is it $751 better (Australian dollars, Vista Ultimate edition, US$595)? *That's* the real question. OK, to be generous, Vista Home Premium which is $455 (US$360). Then factor in the costs of upgrading your hardware, time lost reconfiguring things etc. etc.
Prices here: http://www.apcstart.com/node/4035
Um...it could be that it's a major software release 6 years in the making from one of the largest software companies in the world. Maybe.
Exactly. The de facto minimum RAM is really 1GB. And considering that most older machines with 512 are really 2x256, you're talking $100 per computer just to upgrade the RAM. While I did like using Vista, it's just not a usable OS for computers that are more than a couple years old.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
>>> "Shut your mouth and don't read it."
You usually shut your eyes when you don't want to read something....
GUI: Vista loses hands down. A GUI shouldn't take 250+ MB of RAM while just sitting there doing nothing. Not to mention that it is a poor imitation of Gnome/Aqua/KDE. XP's GUI can be customized. Patched Uxtheme.dll, WindowBlinds, etc. using alot less resources.
Network: XP can use IPv6 as well. Vista just comes with it enabled by default. Not that anyone actually uses IPv6 yet anyhow. Improved network stack? Only if you like being crippled to 10 half-open TCP connections without a way to change it. Good luck with your torrents.
Gaming/Entertainment: Gotta love that DRM thing. No Hi-Def movies unless you have a compatible DRM compliant monitor. Yee-haw. DX10? If it's that great of a dev package, why did MS drop sound support? Not to mention forcing DX9 apps to run in emulation mode after DX10 is installed. WTF. That's going to go over great with gamers...upgrade to DX10 to play a few of the latest games now and toss all of your old DX9 or earlier games. Wonderful. Not to mention that MS has already stated that gaming is slower by 15%-25% in Vista compared to XP SP2, and that is before you take into account that fugly transparent Fisher-Price GUI.
Frankly, you'd have better results gaming in Linux Distro Dujour.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
What's amazing to me is that I've read many articles about Vista in the past weeks and I still haven't figured out if I want any of the "bells and whistles" it offers.
I'm gonna lay out that kind of dough for translucent screens? I don't give a fig about translucent screens.
The bottom line for me is that head to head on a given bit of hardware, it sounds like Vista performs WORSE than XP overall.
For the first time in memory, I won't be upgrading my OS for a good long while. I know the University I work for won't be upgrading either.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I read it and it pretty much says "Windows XP offers this feature, Windows Vista offers this feature in a bit better way".
/. crowd.
Security
=====
Windows XP offers basic firewall. Commercial software is better.
Windows Vista an improved firewall. Commercial software is still better. IE 7 offers a phishing filter which slows down browsing and is only partially successful in catching phishing attacks. New user control access is annoying, so author (and probably you will turn in off).
Home Entertainment
=============
Windows XP has basic capabilities, and Windows Media Center upgrade expanded those.
Windows Vista has improved media center included in most versions of Vista. An improved version over XP's Windows Media Center (it should be because XP's version is now 2 years old), but not by much.
Graphical Interface
============
Windows XP looks like crap -- especially compared to Mac OS X which has been offering features that Windows Vista will now finally offer.
Windows Vista looks very nice, but many computers won't be able to run it in its full glory. System wide desktop search is nice, but XP actually had similar feature that few people knew about. And, finally, a "sidebar" which will allow you to run widgets*.
(*Ask any Mac OS X user how often they actually use "widgets" provided by Dashboard, and you'll see how useful that feature actually is. It also ends up being one of Apple's bigger security headaches, and probably will be a big security headache in Vista too)
Parental Controls
===========
Windows XP had no parental controls. Vista has excellent parental controls. (Now all the parent needs is for their kid to help set it up for them.)
Networking
=======
Windows XP network's automatic setup sucks. Vista's automatic network setup wizard actually works.
No where did it claim that Apple stole anything from Vista. No where did it give Vista such glowing reviews that it makes people want to immediately upgrade from XP to Vista. The two biggest areas: Protecting you from porn, and a wizard that can help you setup a network if you're a n00b means nothing to the
Is anybody else worried about the effect that Aero might have on laptop battery life? When I buy a laptop, the two things I look for (other than form factor) are a decent videocard and good battery life. Nearly all of these videocards have had some firmware option to underclock such and such when they're not working very hard; i.e. when I am not playing a game. What's going to happen with Aero?
That really depends on how you define average doesn't. Your average gamer has a 3500+ 64. Your average grandparent has a PIII with 256MB. Your average housewife might have a P4 2.4 with 512MB. I agree with the original point. The benchmark of Vista was with the really high end hardware. Not high end compared to new hardware but high end compared to what most people run. To run Vista and get the features, people will have some serious upgrading to do or they will have to replace their computer. Even then, they cannot get the basic model. They will have to up for a higher end model.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Are you kidding? I have a 4 year old laptop with 40GB hard drive. You know, it is kinda difficult to dedicate 15GB to an operating system only on a 40GB hard disk.
First, understand rule 1: If it's not visible, then the user won't even know they have it.
Rule 2: If it's not a toolbar, the user won't be able to operate it.
Now, mostly those rules are facetious... but they both hold a grain of truth. Users look at the toolbar at the top when they want to do things. Most don't click menus. Most don't realize that buttons in the status bar can be clickable. The only active part of the screen as far as they're concerned are the buttons in the toolbar.
And most users really don't know the software they have on their computer unless their computer tells them, very visibly, over and over. I'd say the percentage of adult users that can use an application that's not in the toolbar, without assistance or training, is under 20%. There are a LOT of clueless adult Internet users out there, they're the majority now, and they're a HUGE market.
That's why software makers do Toolbars, they want that market.
Raven
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
"The author clearly believes that Vista wins across these categories." Wow, a sock puppet article.
Actually, around here, yes, we do complain about physical keys. I go to a small tech school, where trust is key (no pun intended, originally). Facilities and Maintenance, in their immense stupidity, tried to force autolocking doors on us, and we complained - many of us do, in fact, keep our doors unlocked most of the time.
But that's a side-issue - the main point is that DRM quite frequently stops not only illegal uses of media, but also legal uses - and it certainly allows for companies to dictate what legal uses are, in ways that I really don't think they should be allowed to.