|
Vista or XP (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| fr0st |
Next year
4gb of ram
Vista
Intel Penryn quad core cpu
dual 500gb drives
and you'll be laughing.......
But then again this is next year, I'm running vista now and while I think its the strongest windows release ever. I dont think its ready for audio. Wait till 3rd parties have time to develope proper drivers. |
|
|
| nutsan |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
Yes, it's crap.
Get nLite and do it yourself, the results are much better. |
which version did u use?
version 2 and 3 are the ones i use cant fault them in anyway
theres also a tiny vista too on topic |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Vista boots faster but performs significantly worse than XP. What, you think you get the "Aero Glass" for nothing?
Vista's got some minor usability improvements and a lot of development which Microsoft claims is "under the hood" (like the SPP, their remote kill switch, just in case XP's goofy activation scheme wasn't irritating enough). The Start menu is also vastly improved. Other than that, there's not much to write home about.
It's alright to get Vista if you're purchasing a new computer and you have to pay for an OS anyway, but don't bother upgrading an existing computer. I'm sure I'll upgrade eventually, but only in several years from now when XP development stops and I'm forced to upgrade because everything requires Vista. |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by djbruuen
thx for the info...i'm not in a rush to get it now anyways, just wanted to see if there was any advantages to getting it. Like many others, i'll need a computer upgrade to make it worthwhile, but that was on my list anyways, vista aside. |
If you buy vista then turn off all the vista improvements, you'r left with xp, only probably slower, because current programs arent optimized for vista. Until new programs come out which are optimized for vista, it would be a disadvantage. vista is a waste of time and space for music. Yes, it's really good for normal people, looks prettier for sure, but we need all the resources we can get. Someone told me you need dual cores just to have the new start menu!Therefore, my next computer will not come with vista, it will come with mac OS. |
|
|
| Fledz |
| Atm XP, but who knows about the results in the future. Vista might (and probably will be better) but we'll be waiting a while for that to happen. |
|
|
| BOOsTER |
well the new sound drivers sound like a nice feature...but myself I'll wait untill XP will be totally off...then think about updating to vista...why actually trying to fix something, what's totally working and is reliable?
or in case changing it for a new system, which is probably full of bugs:? |
|
|
| djbruuen |
| some of the comments are pretty much along what i was thinking. As a producer, i completely strip down all the pretty stuff to get as much resources as possible. So I wasn't really looking at Vista for its visual appeal, but for its stability and efficiency with production programs. I'm sure waiting a year or 2 couldn't hurt when everything is centralized around vista. I'm trying to ride out my current computer as long as i can (which is very much under standards for producers - 1.8gig AMD w/1gb ram) and get a quad core when they're available. |
|
|
| Limit |
funny thing is that I heard the same stuff from people about XP, when it first came out. A lot of people were saying its no good, its a resource hog, dont bother, ect...well look at it now. I dont like Microsoft and I agree with one of the posters that my nest computer will be running Mac OSX.
I'm just considering the possibilities that Vista might just be good for audio too(with the right hardware...lol). |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by nutsan
which version did u use?
version 2 and 3 are the ones i use cant fault them in anyway
theres also a tiny vista too on topic |
Revision 4...
OSs has a thing called dependencies. :p
When you rape the OS and basically just delete files from the core of it, every time a dependent service is needed the computer will cry on the inside. You probably already know that, but when you think about how complex programs actually are, it is easy to see why stripping an install down isn't a good idea.
"Great, lets disable services XYZ, less services = faster!" - No. Every time that service is needed, your computer will loop and itself, you just don't see it.
TinyXP is useful for very specific purposes. If you use your computer for more than one thing, its not a good idea.
My rule; build your drivers into the ISO, and only disable things Windows will allow you to disable. You'll find it will be alot faster and stable... |
|
|
| deceptikon |
| Vista actually DOES run alot of stuff quicker, just fyi troops. If you have the PC to handle it that is. :) |
|
|
| Derivative |
| quote: | Originally posted by Limit
funny thing is that I heard the same stuff from people about XP, when it first came out. A lot of people were saying its no good, its a resource hog, dont bother, ect...well look at it now. I dont like Microsoft and I agree with one of the posters that my nest computer will be running Mac OSX.
I'm just considering the possibilities that Vista might just be good for audio too(with the right hardware...lol). |
When XP first came out it was slow, didn't boot fast and it was so full of security holes that hotfixes are still being released today. And the outlook email filter still doesn't recognise multiple extensions like .exe.scr.
Windows 95 was the same story.
After a while Microsoft irons out the bugs and the glitches and the performance issues and now most of us have got our gear working on windows XP which means theres a 99% chance something will up if you move over to Vista before they fix all the bugs. At least the big ones anyway. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by deceptikon
Vista actually DOES run alot of stuff quicker, just fyi troops. If you have the PC to handle it that is. :) |
You realize how little sense that makes, right? If you need beefier hardware to run it, then ipso facto it's less efficient. |
|
|
|
|
