My computer is fast with it and probably all of Syphers PC's are fast with it.

My IE always freezes up... The reason is like.. APPCRASH or some shit like that..

Who uses IE anymore? Dude get firefox.

Sebbes, this thread is XP vs. Vista, not Windows vs. every other OS.

My bad. I thought it was the Linux vs Vista thread.. D:

I'm using firefox right now.

Disk clean your computer.

Firefox doesn't mess up as much. I was just saying that IE always freezes up.

Ive never used vista ultimate, only home premium. That being said, it was such a fucking memory hog. My laptop only has a gig of ram, and vista was usually holding 70% of it for ransom. That's one of the reasons I migrated back to XP. Also, I know exactly where everything in XP is, apposed to vista where many things have been rearranged. That's not to say Vista is a wreck, I fuckin loved the sidebar and color-customizeability of the windows.

It sucks having to figure out where some things were moved to but in general, I found Vista as easy if not easier to navigate the control panel. The RAM issue is a big one, I'm not sure what they did there to be honest, server 2008 is fucking amazing on memory, so it's not like they are capable of making that work properly.

I still think there is a lot more good in Vista than bad, and I didn't find the bad (except the memory issue, and UAC) all that major.

As for being bloated. You can blame corportations who refuse to migrate forward for that. The same dipshits who wanna run 16-bit apps because they can't be bothered re-writing the processes. I understand not wanting to recode a program, but you'd think a lot of this programs have started to show limitation. And those which haven't would be too basic to be considered a major rewrite in most cases.

There's a difference between feature richness and bloat. IMO Vista doesn't do enough to justify its bloat. It's slow and big for no apparent reason. While other systems manage to be much more agile and offer the same set of features. Mac OS X is perhaps the best example of this. Mac OS X 10.5 runs FASTER than Mac OS X 10.4 on an old machine, while still adding countless features and other functionality. Newer doesn't have to mean slower.

Agreed. As I said, the bloat is mainly an after effect of not being in a position (business-wise) to undergo a complete rewrite. While the core of the OS is changed to reflect the changes, too many layers of abstraction and software processes have to be added to ensure compatibility with apps dating back far longer than should be necessary.

In the end, MS would be doing themselves a BIG favor to remove the bulk of this for versions recognized as home use, like Media Centres, Home Premium, and Ultimate. The only version that should suffer these issues, should be Business. Then if these licensee coporations refuse to change, they only have themselves to blame for bloated software.

Not to say it's entirely their fault. Sure, with people's drive getting bigger and bigger, actual size of the OS (in MBs) is becoming less of a factor. It's these services/processes, and underlying code in protected services that are slowing down the overall system. That and an admittedly poor memory management process in Vista.

Hello!! But not as my main OS, you see my brothers always want on the pc too, plus im still a nub at it(hopefully not for long, as I plan to learn customize my own this year with alot of the learning bit lol.
but im looking for a cheap, old (windows 95?) pc, so I can put some distro's of Linux on it. And have it in my room just for music, typing, coding and mostly surfing the interweb.

But anyway
I prefer XP, every problem I've had with peoples machines have been made worse with vista, plus it kills old(and new) machines with its hogging of resources.

But boy does it look nice!!

I love Vista sooo much. Screw your little precious XP.

Vista is good if you have a really good spec pc, and don't mind losing some performance. And if you're installing a printer!!