Is Windows Vista better than Windows XP Professional?

Topic

New Reply

Is windows vista is better than wndows XP professional?

Reply | Quote

Replies

Is windows vista is better than wndows XP professional?

Hello…
I have used Vista Home premium for several years, and within the last few weeks or so installed XP-Pro… Other than “eye candy” ( installed Vista sidebar on XP and some other tweaks) not a whole lot that would make it worthwhile to switch. (for basic home users) Just my observation …:cheers: Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

I wonder if this is a legitimate post…

Anyway, here goes. I believe the security improvements in Vista by themselves are worth the migration. Another security related advantage is the possibility of running IE 9, which is not available for XP. IE 9 has some features where it is the best, security wise – for exemple, evaluating the risk of downloaded files, of one the most common attack vectors today…

So, I do no agree with Fred, that Vista is only eye-candy ;). It’s actually a case where you can say that there is more than meets the eye :).

Reply | Quote

This OP does not seem legitimate to me either. I agree with Rui that Vista is more secure than XP. I do like Win 7 even better. I will not be going back to XP.

Reply | Quote

With the right set of security apps and browsing practices, all three OS’s are secure enough. Xp’s main advantage is it needs far fewer resources Than either Vista or Windows 7. It boils down to user personal preference. i’m running XP on my laptop and Windows 7 on my desktop. Don’t have any security issues with either OS.

Jerry

Reply | Quote

With the right set of security apps and browsing practices, all three OS’s are secure enough. Xp’s main advantage is it needs far fewer resources Than either Vista or Windows 7. It boils down to user personal preference. i’m running XP on my laptop and Windows 7 on my desktop. Don’t have any security issues with either OS.

Jerry

Jerry,
Hello… OK, i would agree with your observations. To start off …I now have and run XP-Pro, Vista Home, and “7” with a mix of 32 and 64 bit OS’s. The VIsta and “7” have no patches or security updates from MS… Zero! I run with Norton Internet Security 2011 and Malwarebytes PRO,and FireFox on all systems. The XP i have all updates installed ..just for a control …As i progress and gain more experience i will re-do the OS and start afresh with none ( Updates and Patches) The point that i was trying to make was this …. Security is a personal choice for each.. some say this or that is the best… no “one size fits none” real answer…That said …for the average home user who uses the PC for research , E Mail , and internet blah blah …there is not a “Dimes Worth of difference” between the whole lot… (security aside) Just “Eye candy”… OK XP and VIsta loadup slower… but big deal. As of now you can make XP look just like “7” or Vista…or even add Vista stuff to “7” Just added the Vista Sidebar to “7” and XP… XP didn’t have it and in “7” some gadgets didn’t work. XP is like you said ..i find it (once loaded) to be about the same as the others speed wise… So the bottom line for me is that i stick by my statement.If you have XP-Pro there is no need (other than you want to) to switch to Vista or “7” they all work and i would be willing to bet after you configure them to look the same you would be hard pressed to tell them apart ( unless you looked under the hood) :cheers: Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

The issue is not really whether a knowledgeable user can keep its computer free from malware or not. I haven’t add a malware issue since I started using computers and DOS was the OS. The issue is what the OS offers to the average user.

I must say I think reducing 10 years of evolution in operating systems to eye candy, is really a totally off the mark statement. Security aside, we could talk about better memory management or the support of 4 GB+ of RAM, or better support of the capabilities offered by current multicore CPUs. C’mon, one thing is saying that you can use XP and for many things, but XP is surely not 7 or even Vista less the eye candy.

It’s also important not to forget that in the last 10 years, a lot of people who wouldn’t dream of using a computer, have started using them. For those, eye-candy can actually mean better designed interfaces, which just makes using computers for such users easier to use.

Anyone can use whatever they want. Pretending Vista or 7 are just XP with eye-candy is basically wrong.

Reply | Quote

Most of us that read and post in the Lounge are the minority of the masses that use PCs as Rui states. MS has to make their OSes work well for millions of people, most of whom will never even realize the security problems they can encounter is their PC use. We in the Lounge are the much more knowledgable users that do take our security seriously, and help all our family and friends do the same, but we are still talking about the vast minority of users. The other problem is that these vast masses that do not take, or even think of their PC security seriously are the people that propogate the viruses and Spam. These are the people that need a higher level of security by default from the OS.

Vista is more secure than XP and Win 7 is more secure than Vista, in addition to the other things Rui states. We all have to put up with the mistakes these others make.

Reply | Quote

rui, Ted,

Hello… Sorry … but having all three OS’s and actually running them everyday …giving me the opportunity to run them and actually compare them …. It’s just “Eye Candy” Keep in mind that companies are in business to make $money$… not to be your “mysterious benefactor” … so like many others (companies) are driven to release a new offering every year ,or so to generate revenue … That’s a fact . The fact is with Tweaking tools you can interchange programs from XP to Vista and “7” and the other way … means that there is not that much difference between them … This is my experience and my last word on the subject… Best to you all:cheers: Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

I work with and fix the PCs of several users that don’t know any more about windows than how to boot it and start Email and browsers. They run the gamut from XP to Windows 7 and make the same number of unknowlegeable mistakes that lead to infections and OS screwups as far as I can see. They couldn’t begin to understand how to create backup images on a regular basis. All I can do is fix their boxes and try to educate them. User Account Control just confuses them and they always just click through regardless of the situation. The only tool that really helps in spite of all its shortcomings is System restore. It has the huge advantage of being present on all systems and needs no user control to make it work.

Jerry

Reply | Quote

Just to add a little Garlic to the stew that is already this thread.

Whether you already know it as fact, or think I’m some kind of crackpot, let me make this observation.

Every OS I’ve run since the Commodore 64, Except DOS, comes out of the box with so many SAFE DEFAULTS, that
it only runs at a fraction of the capability of the hardware it’s being run on.

Windows, for instance, is written to be able to run on PC’s with very little RAM, so a lot of it’s work is done from the
hard drive rather than from RAM. (for instance, the well-known Pagefile)
The Kernel for instance, is accessed many times per minute on the average, but
every time the OS needs something from the Kernel, it has to access the hard drive to get it. Putting the Kernel into
RAM on bootup, GREATLY improves the performance of the OS. But who does that? Well, I DO!

Since Windows XP, an ever growing number of ‘Services’ have been added, again to support every operation that
any person would ever want to do with that OS. (another DEFAULT)
The whole mass of them loads up on every boot, even things you’ll never need in a thousand years.

Again, as a SAFE DEFAULT, the Windows OS is programed to use just one core, even if you have 4 of them.
But, the MS programmers gave you the ability to tell the OS how many cores you want it to use.
( MSCONFIG > Boot.INI > Advanced Options > check ‘NUMPROC=’ and set the number of cores to what you
actually have.)
While you’re on the first page of the Boot.INI tab, you can also set the Default boot timeout from 30 seconds,
to a much nicer 3 sec’s. Don’t forget to click “Apply” before you leave that window.

I’ve worked with these GUI based MS OS’s since Windows 3.0 and they all do about the same thing for the average (Home)
user, but they just get more Massive with every Upgrade.

To this old Tech, it’s sickening what MS has done to the Operating System that so much of the world depends on.
I once saw a version of Windows XP, called “Stripped to the Bone”. I wonder if anyone has done that with Win-7. ???
If they have, I’d sure love to see it.

To just install a new PC with Win-7, removing all the Spyware and Bloatware, and then tweaking and tuning it for
best performance, takes me over two hours. Rediculous!

Ok, let me EXIT stage left, before this becomes another RANT.

Y’all have a great day now, Y’hea?

The Doctor

Reply | Quote

I’ve used everything from Apple ][ and DOS 5 to Windows7, and what I use now is Linux.

I’m having a hard time right now deciding between Ubuntu Unity and Gnome, Mint Debian, Puppy and Bodhi Enlightenment. But at least I’ve crossed Microsoft off my list. Oh, and Symantec and their ilk.

Reply | Quote

Again, changing the number of CPUs setting in Boot.ini has noeffect on boot time. Its an old tweaking myth. See http://www.withinwindows.com/2008/08/09/tweaking-myth-increase-boot-performance-for-multi-core-users-with-msconfig/.

A Windows 7 install for me with minimal tweaking is very responsive. As with all Windows versions, having enough RAM installed is critical. By the way, if you want to play with a stripped down version of Windows 7, see http://techie-buzz.com/softwares/rt-seven-lite-windows-7-setup.html.

Jerry

Reply | Quote

The Windows 7 kernel is smaller than both the Vista & XP kernels. Microsoft have invested much time and effort to shrink what is required to load to run Windows. In addition, there have been architectural changes made to Windows in memory management and kernel dispatching such that if you are running a modern system with sufficient ram there is no reason to worry about locking the kernel in RAM. A system with 4GB RAM is more than sufficient for the vast majority of users. There are probably specific workloads that could benefit from this setting.

It is NOT true that Windows uses only one core. When a PC is first powered up there is only one core active but as soon as possible all the cores are initialized and used. The boot setting for the number of cores is intended to LIMIT the number of cores used for debugging purposes NOT enable more cores.

Other changes to enable or disable services may be useful under some circumstances but the average user will never notice. If you choose to change your system that is fine.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

I bipassed Vista altogether and waited for Windows 7, which puts them both to shame imo (64 bit).
I don’t have a very favorable opinion of Vista irregardless of security.

Reply | Quote

I had Vista only because it came with my wife and my laptops. They were clean installed with Win 7 64 Bit as soon as it came out. In fact I did have the RC before the RTM.

Reply | Quote

I don’t know what I’ll do when my support for XP Pro becomes untenable. All my Vista systems went dodo bird in about 9 month’s time, I feel a bit boxed in by W7, not as much flexibility, variability or transparency and I’m pretty sure I won’t swing toward the hybrid mobile/desktop/touchpad type of OS that W8 seems to be headed for. LINUX is getting glacially cooler and easier to use on a daily basis but its still a much bigger time investment than I care to tackle on a widespread basis.
Currently my favorite, favorite, FAVORITE configuration is XP Pro host running W7 VM on a SSD (so it runs at host speed). I found the only way to really put 6 cores to work is run two OSes at the same time, and its W7 that goes into VM because as I said, I feel a bit restricted by W7 so I don’t want it as host but it brings certain options such as Microsoft Mesh with it that have been excluded from running on XP.
So in my small army of computers, both XP and W7 are better than Vista…it would be a closer call between LINUX desktop and Vista but for different reasons.

Reply | Quote

I don’t know what I’ll do when my support for XP Pro becomes untenable. All my Vista systems went dodo bird in about 9 month’s time, I feel a bit boxed in by W7, not as much flexibility, variability or transparency and I’m pretty sure I won’t swing toward the hybrid mobile/desktop/touchpad type of OS that W8 seems to be headed for. LINUX is getting glacially cooler and easier to use on a daily basis but its still a much bigger time investment than I care to tackle on a widespread basis.
Currently my favorite, favorite, FAVORITE configuration is XP Pro host running W7 VM on a SSD (so it runs at host speed). I found the only way to really put 6 cores to work is run two OSes at the same time, and its W7 that goes into VM because as I said, I feel a bit restricted by W7 so I don’t want it as host but it brings certain options such as Microsoft Mesh with it that have been excluded from running on XP.
So in my small army of computers, both XP and W7 are better than Vista…it would be a closer call between LINUX desktop and Vista but for different reasons.

If you feel restricted by Windows 7 you should start a thread to discuss the particulars.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

I don’t think that would be useful, Microsoft isn’t going to change anything at this point, for instance one thing is Aero glass and peek does not work in remote desktop unless the remote is running Enterprise or Ultimate and the client is W7. Ok, who can afford to have all server systems running Ultimate? Right now I have 8 systems running by remote desktop and I get the full visual environment with peek (only Vista style though) with my XP systems, monotonous crappy basic theme with no peek on the W7 systems…I know, should be the other way around right?

So it may be a bit more than a feeling….I actually AM restricted by W7 or the funds to purchase the expensive versions, take your pick.

Reply | Quote

As I said, start a thread of your own. This thread was about Vista & XP not Windows 7.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

IMHO Vista was much better than XP: security, stability (no BSODs), GUI, tools (like Snip) and others I have forgotten (being on 7 for > a year). Only problem with Vista was the invaluable User Account Control, which was too intrusive, but could be managed with Norton UAC. Windows 7 UAC is also too demanding, and unfortunately Mr Norton hasn’t yet written a program to keep it under control

Reply | Quote

IMHO Vista was much better than XP: security, stability (no BSODs), GUI, tools (like Snip) and others I have forgotten (being on 7 for > a year). Only problem with Vista was the invaluable User Account Control, which was too intrusive, but could be managed with Norton UAC. Windows 7 UAC is also too demanding, and unfortunately Mr Norton hasn’t yet written a program to keep it under control

Mr. (Peter) Norton hasn’t written for Norton since he sold out to Symantec at the end of the 1990’s.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

Mr. (Peter) Norton hasn’t written for Norton since he sold out to Symantec at the end of the 1990’s.

That was a metaphorical Peter Norton.

Reply | Quote

That was a metaphorical Peter Norton.

I wish we could make that a real Peter Norton. He did things right.

I’ll have to admit, as much as I despise Vista, it has gone a very long way in terms of creating what is now a superior Windows 7.
64 bit really started to take off with Windows 7, not with Windows Vista. Nobody wanted to touch Vista.
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. MS was forced, vis-à-vis the marketplace, to go back to the drafting board.

One should also keep in mind that most if not all OEM manufactured systems with Vista installed are largely garbaged bloatware.
Your always gona get better ferformance and stability from a fresh [guenuine os disk] clean install and carful setup configuration, than some corporation’s OEM setup.

What I meant by 64-bit support taking off with Vista was that this was the first MS Operating System for general use which shipped with 64-bit versions on 64-bit hardware. I meant nothing about the quality (or lack) of the OS itself.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

You can tame the UAC in Win 7 fairly easily. How To Geekshows how.

Reply | Quote

You can tame the UAC in Win 7 fairly easily. How To Geekshows how.

Not really – unless you set it to “Never notify” it remains annoying. It would be much better if it would remember the programs I have run (and where I have run them from) and not ask me yet again if I want to run them – even programs like Winamp and Revo to name a couple. This happens with half the programs I use regularly and is a waste of time. Or you can elevate the privilege level for administrators without prompting, but this loses the security most people including me need. I hope Norton will dream up a version of UAC management for 7, but probably too late in 7’s life. Hopefully for 8!

Reply | Quote

Having used PC’s since IBM DOS and MS DOS, and struggled with all of them,I find the user interface so much better in 7. Call it Eye Candy if you like, but its a matter of getting what you want quickly and conveniently. I hated Vista and its ***UAC, and give 7 an unqualified OK

Reply | Quote

In my opinion, Vista got a bad rap for two main reasons:

1) Yes, it was hardware-hungry, but this was not much of an issue on new systems. The problem arises when someone who has been running XP for some years tries to upgrade to Vista. OS upgrades are always dicey (a fresh install is preferable), and that coupled with the older hardware people were trying to use made for a very poor Vista experience.

2) The hardware manufacturers, curse their souls, just can’t resist loading up their computers with tons of poorly written crapware. Many of these programs barely ran on XP; on Vista, it killed it.

As a proof of concept, I built my own computer and installed a clean, OEM copy of Vista Business on it, and used that as my main production computer. It ran fast and smooth for over three months without fail, without crashing or rebooting once.

As an OS, Vista works. Apples to apples (ha!), it’s better than XP. But once people and vendors start tossing other fruit into the mix, it can become a gooey mess.

Of course, this discussion is moot, since Windows 7 trumps them all. I would never recommend Vista to anyone today.

Reply | Quote

If you have an older pc it’s unquestioningly XP pro. But if you have the horsepower use Windows 7. Even after all the service packs, fixes, etc from Microsoft, Vista is still buggy as all get out save yourself the headache and go to Windows 7 instead.

Reply | Quote

Just as a word of background, I stuck with Windows Millennium on my home computer until Windows XP was in SP2 because Windows XP was so unstable, would not run older applications, was so resource hogging, etc. These are the same things that Vista was accused of. I bought a new big box store computer with Vista Home pre-installed and it truly was so “buggy” as to be un-serviceable. I just had to take the computer out of service and set it over in the corner (Eventually, I installed a pair of large harddrives and installed Windows Home Server on it and it has been performing admirably as a home server for 3-4 (?) years now. This proves to me that the Vista problem was Vista and not the hardware.) After “discarding” the Vista machine, I returned the XP machine to primary computer status. I later purchased another big box store computer with Vista Home Premium pre-installed and my experience with that computer was similar to the experience with the original Vista machine. Frequent screen freezes, programs that mysteriously refused to run when called on to open and run, many error messages which I forget the content of now, – just unacceptable “buggy” operation. This time I remained with XP as my primary OS and gave the Vista computer to a friend who soon took it out of service and “parted it out”. Strictly between XP and Vista – XP is the hands down winner. Windows 7, by the way, is nothing but Vista with lots of make-up smeared on in a much revised GUI and displays many of the same characteristics of Vista, albeit not as severely or as frequently. Now, if you want a rock solid, stable, dependable OS in spite of its alleged security flaws, you have to go back to Windows 2000. I continue to use a Windows 2000 machine for certain chores (flatbed scanner for example) because it just works and works better.

That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it!

Reply | Quote

C’mon, the best two reasons for sticking with XP are that you already have it so no additional cost is involved, and it works great on your not-so-new computer that probably has a single-core cpu, 1024MB of RAM or less, and a modest little power supply. If you don’t have either of those constraints then Vista and 7 can both make better use of improved hardware and be, potentially at least, more productive.

As a sidebar, I’ve noticed in many businesses, including retailers, they are still using software packages that are either DOS-based or DOS-like in their interface, and it drives the employees crazy trying to navigate through them especially as they all seem slow and unresponsive at any time of day. Other businesses continue to use Win2K and are reluctant to change because the permissions and policies are very elaborately set up and not easy to reproduce on a brand new system. And, again, to update the operating system would require all new computers ………… and so it goes!

Reply | Quote

Has anybody else noticed yet that the OP hasn’t commented on the thread at all since it started? Asking people to compare XP to Vista is like asking people what their favorite brand of toothpaste is – emotions will run high, and you will get all sorts of different opinions. This is just the sort of provocative question that starts a forum flame war. No doubt the OP was trolling, so do us all a favor, and don’t feed the troll!

Reply | Quote

Has anybody else noticed yet that the OP hasn’t commented on the thread at all since it started? Asking people to compare XP to Vista is like asking people what their favorite brand of toothpaste is – emotions will run high, and you will get all sorts of different opinions. This is just the sort of provocative question that starts a forum flame war. No doubt the OP was trolling, so do us all a favor, and don’t feed the troll!

I didn’t see the post before Fred changed it, but I could almost bet he was spamming and Fred removed some of the spam links.

Reply | Quote

Has anybody else noticed yet that the OP hasn’t commented on the thread at all since it started? Asking people to compare XP to Vista is like asking people what their favorite brand of toothpaste is – emotions will run high, and you will get all sorts of different opinions. This is just the sort of provocative question that starts a forum flame war. No doubt the OP was trolling, so do us all a favor, and don’t feed the troll!

You know, there’s something to be said for trolling, I hear they’re quite a delacacy when cooked over an open flame and served in a Heinz 57 sauce laced with cilantro.

Reply | Quote

@JustPlainFred — I noticed you are credited with editing the OP. Did you alter the message?

I noticed that the OP has never posted back in response to this thread. That in The Lounge is unusual.
I don’t know whether the OP was baiting a Flame War, but I wonder —

@summitseolleaderindia — Is there some reason you cannot install Windows 7 instead of Windows Vista? Please post back with hardware information. Would this be an upgrade over Windows XP, or a new, clean (reformat) installation?

Windows Vista in North America (and worldwide) still has Microsoft support, and I understand that Windows 7 may be slow in reaching the Asian market (at least in a legitimate, genuine form). Compared with Windows XP Professional, there were significant security improvements. Also, 64-bit hardware support didn’t really take off until Vista was introduced. 64-bit software runs better on Vista, if you use any of that. But a lot of 32-bit software actually runs SLOWER on Vista (64-bit) than on Windows XP (32-bit). Handling of hard drives larger than 2TB is exclusively 64-bit territory. (Yes, there are 32-bit fixes, but don’t even bother with them.) And moving forward, Vista will continue to receive security updates (but no further Service Packs) for a couple of years after the end of Microsoft support for Windows XP in 2014.

So my answer is this — Vista was better than Windows XP in these regards, in spite of some seriously annoying flaws in Vista. SP-1 and SP-2 helped a lot with these flaws, but compared with Windows 7, Vista is history IMHO. If you can install Vista on a computer, you can almost certainly install Windows 7 on the same computer. Windows 7 actually has LESS hardware demands than Vista. At least if you trim out the fancy AeroGlass Effects. And it launches faster, has some stability and speed improvements, runs 32-bit software a bit better, and has better security. And don’t be discouraged if s few devices you own have Vista drivers and not Windows 7 drivers — most Vista drivers do run successfully on Windows 7. Most, but not all.

If you are upgrading and can install Vista, why not go all the way up to Windows 7 instead? You can probably do it from a technical standpoint. And Windows 7 is available worldwide, with the same licensing and activation terms as Vista. Only the price may differ.

And follks, don’t worry about the Windows 8 demos on the Web. As all but one or two demonstrate, the Desktop and Mouse are not going away in Windows 8. They are just moving into another interface, which will be available in at least some editions of Win 8. Metro is the default, but the Desktop is still there. What is NOT there is IE 10 Metro support for browser plug-ins, not even Flash Player ( Look HERE ). THAT could be a deal-breaker, until you trade in IE for Chrome or Firefox.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

@JustPlainFred — I noticed you are credited with editing the OP. Did you alter the message?

That’s why there was so much questioning of the validity of the OP in the early posts…but its a tried and true subject for divergence…so it didn’t matter.

What I’ll always remember is that here in 2011, XP only recently slipped below the 50% mark for all OSes installed on what we identify as traditional computers, ten years almost since its introduction, three years since it became increasingly difficult to get it OEM installed, and how long since they stopped selling it altogether?
Meanwhile, Paul Thurrott on one of his visits to the Redmond campus said all the copies of Vista you could possible want were available in the sale bin at the store for $5 a copy shortly after W7 was released. Might have been nice to add to the AOL coaster collection but way to expensive even for that! :p

Reply | Quote

Yes, that is what happened. By the time Fred edited the post there were already several useful replies. So, it was decided to leave the thread be and keep an eye out for the OP.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

I’ll have to admit, as much as I despise Vista, it has gone a very long way in terms of creating what is now a superior Windows 7.
64 bit really started to take off with Windows 7, not with Windows Vista. Nobody wanted to touch Vista.
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. MS was forced, vis-à-vis the marketplace, to go back to the drafting board.

One should also keep in mind that most if not all OEM manufactured systems with Vista installed are largely garbaged bloatware.
Your always gona get better ferformance and stability from a fresh [guenuine os disk] clean install and carful setup configuration, than some corporation’s OEM setup.

Reply | Quote

As Joe indicated in Post 34, by the time we started looking into the OP, the thread had become established and was interesting to read.

The OP turned out to have a history of spam, and was banned permanently. This was the OP’s first and only post.

Reply | Quote

You know, there’s something to be said for trolling, I hear they’re quite a delacacy when cooked over an open flame and served in a Heinz 57 sauce laced with cilantro.

Sounds tasty, ab4qqy2!

Reply | Quote

When Vista was released it was truly awful. All those service packs and updates have made it passable, but with Windows 7 out I cannot understand why anyone would be considering either XP or Vista. Windows 7 appears to be a reasonably solid OS.

As for the various versions, get the Pro version or higher. The Home versions always seem to leave out something you later wished you had. Like Remote Desktop or the ability to use the XP emulator. (See recent Windows Secrets newsletter on that.) Even my 76 year old mother wishes she had the Pro version and not the Home.

Reply | Quote

XP because it runs better in emulation than W7, that’s one place where the resource management differences become clear and W7 seems a little more like Vista. And why emulation you ask. Well, did you know that you can run a Windows emulation from LINUX? And further, did you know that Paragon has a neat free utilitarian program called Go Virtual, that can turn many installations into a VM? And thanks to multi core processors and SSDs, I’m starting to stuff 2 or three computers into one box…they have the power to run more than one system now. And XP still does everything needed especially when one considers third party utility applications…for example, does any serious user try to get by on Windows 7 built in partition/disk management software? Of course not. So if one tries to get by on just Win7, they’ll have an inferior system compared to the capabilities of XP and its armada of useful software, and can only bring it up to par by using said same useful software. When software vendors stop supporting XP (not Microsoft) for the most part, like they have WinME and prior, then it will become an increasingly moot question.

Reply | Quote

We call these things personal computers because we all decide what apps including the OS to use. I have said this before and I will repeat it here, ” I will NEVER go back to XP or Vista, period”. I used XP for many years at home and work, then updated temporarily to Vista (bought new PC’s with Vista) the quickly switched to Win 7. Love it! I love the increased security (I do use a multi-layer approach to security, etc. with H/W and S/W firewalls, AV and AM running in real time, all apps updated) I just like the feel of Win 7. I like the updated apps. I do use Virtual Box and have installed the Win 8 Dev Preview in VB. This may be the OS that convinces me to give up Win 7. Like I said PC. Just my 2 cents.

Edit (rather than add yet another post) Security Report Win XP versus Win 7

Reply | Quote

I love the increased security (I do use a multi-layer approach to security, etc. with H/W and S/W firewalls, AV and AM running in real time, all apps updated)

Another good example, increased security in W7, yet one doesn’t run without any other protection…and where does that protection come from and is it not equally available to XP? Also increasing security is diametrically opposed to access and ease of use…most need it, some don’t, but its always a bit of extra hassle. Of course I date back to the day when O.J. Simpson was dashing through an airport in a Hertz rental car commercial (if I remember right)…might get gunned down if someone tried that today, tackled and tazzed for sure.

Reply | Quote

Another good example, increased security in W7, yet one doesn’t run without any other protection…and where does that protection come from and is it not equally available to XP? Also increasing security is diametrically opposed to access and ease of use…most need it, some don’t, but its always a bit of extra hassle. Of course I date back to the day when O.J. Simpson was dashing through an airport in a Hertz rental car commercial (if I remember right)…might get gunned down if someone tried that today, tackled and tazzed for sure.

Windows 7 does have built-in security improvements over Windows XP, including Patch Guard for the OS kernel. And on the right hardware, it runs as fast as Windows XP or faster. What happens in emulation situations is beyond my level of tech knowledge.

-- rc primak

Reply | Quote

True but that misses the point, which is there is no one recommending we (as a whole) run XP with third party security measures and run W7 without any. Super cool it would be if such was the case but right now they’re still in the same boat. I think its possible with a form of virtualized front end or sandbox approach built in but then one wonders how to incorporate the commit/no commit changes on the backside and the confidence to commit…I’m trying to think of something other than more security to check that assumption on the backside…still that wouldn’t be as bad as checking every inch of the way, per my recent experiences with Ubuntu; I think it even asked me for a password when I was getting up to go to the bathroom!! :p

XP is faster than W7 but you’d need to run on antiquated hardware test benches (I did single core 2.1 GHz, 1.6 GHz and 800 MHz) to really determine that, or run them virtually on a standard magnetic drive. There may be a difference on more adequate hardware but I don’t notice it if there is.

Reply | Quote