|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
Quote:
|
Vista certainly doesn't seem more stable to me. So educate me, what are the top three features that Vista has, that are not available in XP? Do they justify the typical problems in an operating system switch?
|
If Vista isn't more stable for you than XP, I'd say you either have an unstable install of Vista (home brewed hardware perhaps?) or you had the mother of all stable XP installations - I see less problems, overall, with Vista than with XP (it's not perfect, but it's better - the way Vista handles video driver crashes alone is vastly superior to XP). |
The Vista system that I have is an expensive ($2500) Sony that comes only with Vista. That's why it has Vista. You seem to be of the opinion that a custom made computer, i.e. "home brewed hardware" is necessarily less stable than a system made by a major manufacturer. Perhaps you are thinking of overclocked computers which do trade off stability for speed. My main system is one I made myself with a design goal of stability, then speed. It's more stable than anything I could get for the same price from Dell or HP, etc. and B"IH it's never had a video driver crash. Major manufacturers tend to skimp on the quality of any parts not mentioned by name in their sales blurb. For example, I'm using much higher quality RAM than you would get from HP.
I have a Vista license as well as an XP license for my main system and XP is undoubtedly faster for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
So for me, Vista is more stable. And faster - I feel like I can do much more, much quicker, on Vista than I could on XP. If you don't see the differences between XP and Vista (having both) then we're looking at very different sorts of things.
|
Obviously, which is why I asked my question. You are a knowledgeable person whose opinion I've listened to before and you seem to be very happy with Vista. I was wondering if there was some advantage to Vista that I have been overlooking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
It sounds like you're perfectly happy with XP, so trying to convince you otherwise is a waste of time. I can only tell you that I'd never, ever go back to XP. You seem to be looking for some sort of a "silver bullet", a killer feature that Vista has that will blow your mind...there isn't one. There are just 100's of small things that are better than XP (like being able to edit my Media Center TV shows easily in Movie Maker), and those small things add up to a better computer experience.
|
If the biggest feature advantage of Vista over XP that you can think of is easier editing of Media Center TV shows in Movie Maker, then Vista's public perception problem is easily explained. Why should anyone go through the typical pain and expense of an operating system switch just for that? More expensive hardware, upgrading all your software, lower overall system performance, working through driver problems just so you can do that?
Of course Microsoft didn't help itself with the whole Vista Compatible/ Vista Ready thing when Vista launched. Most consumers are not going to spend alot of time examining the nuance of such distinctions. They would expect that if a computer has a sticker on it from Microsoft saying it's good for Vista then it will work well with Vista. At Vista launch, most of the advertised computers with Vista I saw coming from HP and other major manufacturers had 512MB of RAM or even less and many had video cards that were less capable than you really want to see with Vista. This, combined with not giving hardware manufacturers enough time write drivers led IMHO to the public perception that Vista is even more slow, unstable and buggy than it really is.
|
Threaded Mode