Windows XP vs. Vista

pputer · Post by **pputer** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:06 am

jaganath wrote:isn't comparing OpenOffice unfavourably with MSOffice rather disingenuous considering OO is basically free and MSO rather expensive? it's not apples to apples. you pays your money and takes your choice (or not, as the case may be).

Exactly. I wouldn't pay hundreds of dollars because MS Office okays the spelling of 'ipod' and Open Office doesn't.

Aris · Post by **Aris** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:41 am

i always wait at least 3 years after a new OS release to get it. That gives plenty of time for all the other gueini pigs out there to "beta test" microsofts products for them before i get it. That and it gives hardware time to catch up to the new software. New software always makes your hardware seem slower, thats why it appears an old system slows down. It didnt actually get slower, you just tried using newer software on it. If you kept only the old software, it would stay just as fast as the day you bought it. Plus its a lot easier to find a "free" copy of an OS a few years after its been out.

Matija · Post by **Matija** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:06 am

jaganath wrote:isn't comparing OpenOffice unfavourably with MSOffice rather disingenuous considering OO is basically free and MSO rather expensive?

It depends. If you have an older PC, you might find that MS Office is cheaper than a hardware upgrade needed to run OO.o.

pputer · Post by **pputer** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 6:36 am

OO doesn't need fancy hardware. I had it installed before on an Athlon XP 2500 (Barton) computer and my current computer, Asus Socket 939 variety. It's MS that has the bloat.

I think the main difference is cost. Like what was said previously. Sure, get all the bells and whistles with MS if you want but you will have to pay for it. OO is similar enough and does everything MS Office does but for free.

zistu · Post by **zistu** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 7:28 am

I'm running OpenOffice on an XP 2000+ with 512MB - XP Pro and it's running just fine. The last MS office I used was version 97 with Clippy, Einstein and the cute kitty. I looked at buying an additional language and grammar pack for it - I use English software only, but needed a Dutch language/grammar pack - and back in those days I had to pay about 400 bucks for it. I decided it wasn't worth it, nor was upgrading to a newer version of MS Office. So I stuck with that until I ran into OpenOffice. I now have access to any language I want, and so far OpenOffice has not let me down in terms of functionality and features.

The only trouble I have is when clients send me Word files to process, but they're always willing to send me both a .doc (for the content) and a .pdf (for the layout and such), so I mostly manage to find my way around the incompatibilities between the two.

Sorry to go off topic, just couldn't resist.

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:16 am

Max Slowik wrote: To wit: Word is NOT a text editor. Word is a word processor.

Fine, Mr. Semantics: there hasn't been any substantial innovation in word processors in the last decade. You seem to have some beef with the spell-check feature in OO (which is fine--people are entitled to have their personal preferences). I've never had a problem with it. Go figure.

And worth noting, while we're talking about spell-checking: one of the big reasons I've been using FireFox for the last few months is that it has a built-in spell checker. The spell check add-ins for IE7 are atrocious. And recently I found that either MSDN has changed, or FireFox has changed, because msdn.microsoft.com pages now render correctly. So I trashed IE7. Firefox has always been my preferred browser, for obvious reasons (note: security has never been one of those reasons), but work restrictions have made it difficult to live with.

VIM and Emacs are text editors, and actually do a much better job of it than Word.

VIM and Emacs are trashy usability nightmares, unless of course you've been using them for the last twenty five years and are too lazy/curmudgeonly/stupid to try something new. Try notepad++.

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:25 am

I think that if your passionate defense of Vista needs that kind of argument, then I will no longer post here.

Allow me to re-phrase myself: anyone who has set his or her opinion based off an experience with the beta release of Vista, and refuses to acknowledge any other opinions, is being self-righteous (and a jerk).

Why do you think that Microsoft has a monopoly? Is that even realistic since they only make software and that alternatives for every product they make exist? Not everything they make is the be-all-end-all; far from it. If you think I'm using IE you're nuts.

isn't comparing OpenOffice unfavourably with MSOffice rather disingenuous...?

No, but I didn't fully articulate the argument, which was that I like using Windows over Ubuntu (itself a departure from the topic) because I want to use Windows software; some of it which is probably the best out there.

That itself was (a bad) example of software that is operating-system dependent. (It'll run on XP, too.) But there is software that only runs or runs fully-featured on Vista, like anything that uses DX 10. And I have all these DX 10 cards, I'm sure as Hell going to take advantage of them.

Again, I'm not beholden to Vista. I use various operating systems at different times to do different things. Each has its strengths and shortcomings, and each has some functions or features that are exclusive to it.

All I'm arguing here is that Vista is superior to XP.

It's easy to lose track of my own freaking position when I'm trying to benchmark junk at the same time.

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:37 am

It depends. If you have an older PC, you might find that MS Office is cheaper than a hardware upgrade needed to run OO.

He means really old. Pentium II old. You can run Office XP, the whole thing, even big huge spreadsheets, and garish PowerPoint presentations, with a 233MHz processor and 128MBs of RAM. OpenOffice will blaze on that machine. I mean, like literally go up in flames.

Max Slowik · Post by **Max Slowik** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:57 am

Fine, Mr. Semantics: there hasn't been any substantial innovation in word processors in the last decade. You seem to have some beef with the spell-check feature in OO (which is fine--people are entitled to have their personal preferences). I've never had a problem with it. Go figure.

I admit, I agree with that sentiment. Hell, if I use VIM (and I do) to compose things, I'm all-too-aware that some things don't improve with revision. But Word did something different in 2007. It added a huge number of collaborative features, stuff taken from the likes of Writeboard and other web-based tools. Again, this is stuff that a lot of people won't use, but I do, therefor I need Windows, etc. I also need a lot of the layout/ publishing software...

Also, I think it's a lot easier to use than 2003. People can hate the ribbons and shit, I say it's about time someone addressed the crappy UI.

So I'm intrigued by Notepad++. I'm a VIM user, but I've only been using it intermittently, so I tend to forget all kinds of stuff. What I keep going back to it for is the keyboard navigation. It's so much faster than arrow keys and mousing. I don't need syntax highlighting or the section roll-ups. I edit text in the most literal sense, not code. But I'll give NP++ a shot.

klankymen · Post by **klankymen** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:54 pm

sorry to interrupt your zealotry and flaming with some questions, but thats the way it is....

with max so happy about vista I figured I'd try it out. but before I dive in headfirst, I wanted to try it in a vm.

so my questions are:
1. can I install vista in a virtual machine (with vmware?)?
2. vms dont usually support much in the way of 3d right, can I use aero in a vm?

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:24 am

klankymen wrote: with max so happy about vista I figured I'd try it out. but before I dive in headfirst, I wanted to try it in a vm.

so my questions are:
1. can I install vista in a virtual machine (with vmware?)?

Yes.

2. vms dont usually support much in the way of 3d right, can I use aero in a vm?

I'm about 90% sure aero doesn't work in vm. In any event, Aero is just cosmetic eye candy. There are other (better) reasons to use Vista.

Michael Sandstrom · Post by **Michael Sandstrom** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:49 pm

The gamers on Steam are a pretty tech savvy bunch and only 3% are using Vista. The OEMs hate it. The game developers hate it. The people have spoken. The Vista launch has been a monumental disaster! The facts will not change no matter how many shills Microsoft employs to extol the supposed virtues of Vista.

Das_Saunamies · Post by **Das_Saunamies** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:13 pm

I'm a satisfied Vista customer. Vista Business with its nice UI improved by work efficiency, and since I only need a browser, MS Office and some job-specific applications, I have no trouble with incompatibility. Even my hardware has been playing nice. Little things like thumbnail previews, proper highlights, transparency effects and improved intuitiveness add up. Ubuntu has something even better via add-ons, but there are no Linux versions of the translation software I need to use.

I still keep XP Pro installed for games, just in case. Haven't tried 2142 on Vista yet.

The worst thing so far has been our antivirus company, as they haven't been able to code a version of their software for 64bit Vistas despite being a "Release Partner". It's F-Secure, in case you're wondering.

Just my two cents. Vista isn't worth the whole bill, but it does improve on XP - even if with just lip gloss and weight loss.