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.

Comments

Well then,

[megrims]

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.

Re:Well then,

[Osty]

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.

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.

Re:Well then,

[Hal_Porter]

You should install the lord_pwnalot toolbar, that protects you against spyware and adware too.

Re:Well then,

[Osty]

You should install the lord_pwnalot toolbar, that protects you against spyware and adware too.

I agree with the sentiment -- toolbars are evil. However, there are some toolbars that are trustworthy. Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo are the immediate examples that come to mind, and you only need one of those. I wouldn't install any others unless I was intimately familiar with them (either written by me, or open source so that I can inspect the code and make my own changes if I so desire).

The thing I don't really get is why toolbars are so pervasive. IE has an extensibility model just like Firefox and you can add quite a few nice features without having to expose a toolbar. For example, I wrote myself a pop-up blocker for IE as a non-toolbar BHO something like 6 years ago. Now you can't get a pop-up blocker without also getting a space-consuming toolbar in the process, and the pop-up blocking functionality on the toolbar is disabled if the toolbar isn't visible -- that's just dumb. Firefox has a rich add-on community that doesn't revolve around toolbars. IE could have the same type of community, but unfortunately everything useful seems to be a toolbar these days even if there's no reason to implement it that way.

It better.

[Somatic]

It better be better. That's what upgrades and new releases are for.

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.

Re:It better.

[westyvw]

I am really surprised by the requirements too. I have a laptop, about 5 years old, P3 1st gen Nvidia Go, and I have no problem running GLX and Beryl with KDE. So I have all the eye candy of vista (more actually, and more configurable) with more features and functions on the desktop and I am running on 5 year old hardware, why cant vista? Something just isn't right......

Re:It better.

[techno-vampire]

There is no earthly reason an OS should bloat so massively in versions that are only a few years apart.

It wasn't that many years ago people were saying the same thing about XP as compared to Win98. Every new version of Windows is considered bloated compared to the previous one.

Re:It better.

[Antique Geekmeister]

Stapling security on after product release always means a lot less efficient code, and a lot of hand-written checks to fix what should never have been done without breaking advertised features. Couple this with the corporate desire for integral DRM, to authorize software and hardware access against Microsoft's Trusted Computing initiative, and you need considerably faster hardware to support streaming access to video and audio media with the computationally expensive DRMware in the way.

All other feature reasons aside, that's a compelling reason for Microsoft to demand more CPU and bandwidth in your hardware to run Vista.

Re:It better.

[Nightspirit]

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).

Alternative Comparison: Minimal HW Configuration

[reporter]

All the comparisons that I have seen involve installing Windows Vista and XP on a hardware configuration that is recommended for Vista.

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 agree

[redi99]

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.

Re:i agree

[werewolf1031]

Wow, that all sounds pretty great. No, really, it does. But just one more thing: Try installing a new motherboard, and see what happens. G'head, humor us... we'll wait.

Re:i agree

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to troll, but I see no compelling arguments for upgrading in what you've listed. You've said:

xp does seem speedier, but other than that, vista rocks. it's stable, great to look at, and easy to use
Stable is good; I find XP pretty stable too. But if "great to looks at means" it's slower than XP, I'm not interested. I either use my comptuer for work, in which case I want it fast, or for games, in which case I want an OS that takes as few system resources as possib.e

the administrator account is turned off by default
I'd count this as a non-issue. It's perfectly possible to make a non-admin account for most stuf under Windows XP too.

defrags are set up on a weekly schedule by default
Of course, this totally ignores the argument that defrags should rarely be necessary - certainly not once a week! - on "modern" filesystems (which appears to include just about every filesystem not invented by Microsoft).

searching is blazing on indexed drives
Ditto for Windows XP if you actually turn on the indexing service.

Just about everything else is "spit 'n polish". It's true, this important for end users, and it's something that a lot of open source projects are often criticized for. But to me, this is far from a compelling reason to upgrade. If that were it, I'd say it tips the scales slightly in favour of upgrading. But then you have to balance these few nicities (most of which are possible with XP - the previous generation OS - with a little bit of configuration effort) against the massive increase in hardware requirements and draconian DRM. What it boils down to is that the "message" in every review I've seen of Windows Vista is basically that it does everything that Windows XP does, looks nicer, has higher hardware requirements, and imposes more restrictions on what you can do with your media. Is that it? Honestly, have I missed something? What's with all the hype?

Re:i agree

[lukas84]

In my opinion, the most useful enhancements made to vista are "under the hood".

* Much improved group policy support (Including MUCH better 802.1x and Wireless provisioning)
* Improved networking support (Locations), Firewall settings based on location (XP had Domain/Not Domain, Vista has Domain/Home/Public)
* UAC/Virtual Folders allow even businesses without IT support staff to run as non-admin
* I18N. It sucked in XP. It sucked HARD in XP MUI. It works fine, and they have done a lot of work on it in Vista
* Local Shadow Copies. I love it. Had them on servers since 2003 was out, always missed it locally
* The search interface/new start menu. A good gradual improvement, no revolution
* The new system control, a good gradual improvement

I've been using Vista on my Desktop machine (3Ghz PIV, 2048MB, some DirectX 9 Nvidia Card) at work since early Betas (We're a microsoft partner), and switched i switched my laptop (P-M 1.7Ghz, 1024MB, some DirectX 8 ATI Card) to RTM as soon as it hit MSDN.

It works okay on my laptop, albeit a bit slower. This was expected, and will probably buy a new laptop soon anyway (as the machine is already 2 years old).

I can't say im impressed with vista. There are several, very good enhancements. They would've been impressing 2 years ago. Now? Not so much. Vista is a good step in the right direction, especially for companies and enterprises (I18N!). For home consumers? Not so much. The forced obsolecence with DirectX 10, meh. Most people will switch their OS at home when they buy a new machine. Hardcore gamers will earlier because of DX10.

Re:Alternative Comparison: Minimal HW Configuratio

[redi99]

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.

Yes Friends, Microsoft Fails Again

[mpapet]

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!

WTF? Is this an OS or a joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Please, add more crud to my OS!

[badfrog]

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.

Re:Please, add more crud to my OS!

[DavidD_CA]

When I want to change my IP address ... I want a wizard to make sure I'm doing everything correctly. You can change almost every network setting through command line or script if you learn the NETSH command from the shell.

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! You can turn of nearly every feature of the new interface. In fact, when I booted Vista using my Active Directory profile, nearly all the eye candy was already turned off.

Not to take up 4 gig of hard drive space because Grandma wants to print pictures of her grandchildren. That might be true for you, but for Grandma (and the rest of the world who doesn't read Slashdot) they DO want to print pictures of grandchildren and a wizard to help set them up with a network.

... let me choose my preferred programs to look at pictures, play MP3s, and watch videos- none of which come with your OS. When has Windows ever stopped you from running a preferred program via filetype? In fact, that feature has become easier to do with every new version of Windows. Not only did XP introduce the "Set Program Access and Defaults" menu, but to change the association of a filetype is as easy as right clicking on the document, choosing "Open With", and checking the box that says "Make this my Default".

You assume that the way YOU want a computer is the way the rest of the world wants a computer. Likewise, you haven't even taken a moment to learn what XP or Vista can do for a power user, as demonstrated by your rant against features that can be turned off, easily changed, or accessed via command line.

Re:Randomization?

[Atlantis-Rising]

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.

Not surprising?!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

it's a brand new o/s, so it's not surprising that it requires fairly current hardware to run well.

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.

Re:Not surprising?!

[kjart]

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.

That doesn't make any sense. The more bells and whistles you throw in, the more power you will need to run the OS - by definition. Look at games for example. Modern games look a hell of a lot better than games that were made 5-10 years ago. Do they require the same minimum hardware? Hell no. Should they? Of course not.

Of course, it's another argument entirely if all the bells and whistles are worth it. The graphical improvements made in games have still resulted in some pretty terrible games. So, it's not a question of whether Vista should run with all the bells and whistles on 10 year old hardware (I'm not arguing that Vista is optimized by the way) - it's whether the hardware to run Vista with all the bells and whistles is worth it.

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know...

[Meatloaf Surprise]

Here's the whole paragraph--to put it in more context:

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.

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.

Re:Alternative Comparison: Minimal HW Configuratio

[netcrusher88]

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?

Re:Randomization?

[Dhalka226]

*sighs* This is becoming my slashdot pet peeve.

I usually like your posts, and I agree with you even right now -- but my god, why did you have to be such an asshole about it? You used 62 words to make your point (and hell, that's including the 17 words in your semi-insult opening sentence) and 162 words to berate the poster, the moderators and fellow slashdotters. Something is very wrong with that picture.

You're right about one thing: If I had mod points, you would absolutely have gotten a flamebait mod--and it would have had nothing to do with saying that not all security flaws can be prevented. If you're upset about how many flamebait mods you get, perhaps you should try not coming off as a smug prick when you post. If 3/4ths of your post is a flame you deserve a flame mod. It doesn't matter what the hell the other quarter is.

Re:Randomization?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you exist for mine. Now dance, monkey!

Is Vista $751 better than XP?

[tehanu]

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

Re:Inquiring Minds Want To Know...

[thejynxed]

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.

Do I want those bells & whistles?

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Did anyone actually *READ* the comparison?

[qazwart]

I read it and it pretty much says "Windows XP offers this feature, Windows Vista offers this feature in a bit better way".

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 /. crowd.