I have Vista on my Notebook PC, and I have to be honest, I love it a LOT more than XP. Vista comes packed with style and it is super easy to use. Installing printers and such is a snap, and I didn't even have to have the software CD, as the computer readily spoke to the internet to get the needed files downloaded. It was so easy.
I loved it so much, I decided to upgrade my desktop to Vista... I purchased my upgrade for $129.99... I learned the hard way that installing a new operating system takes TIME... I mean lots of time. After four hours of waiting and updating I came to realize that my Vista experience was lacking. Windows Aero is disabled. Come to find out I needed a new graphics card, as my current one did not support Direct X9.
I went out and purchased a Readon S9250 (As the seller's website stated it was Vista compatible). The cost was $79.99 + tax.
The installation was crazy easy, and so I turned my PC back on and still no Aero...
Come to find out the ATI Readon S9250 series is not compatible with all of Vista's features. My mom needed a new graphics card, and she still uses XP, so I gave it to her.
I researched some GeForce graphics card and found a really nice cheap one for $99.99 of which was made as a low end Vista graphics card. It also came with an extra 512MB of RAM. The process was easy enough. I installed the card. Vista updated the drivers... But still no Aero...
Come to find out my PC's Power Supply wasn't compatible with the card. My PC, for whatever reason, came with a 240mhz Power Supply, and the card needed at least a 300mhz.
I'm back to Best Buy, this time with a Geek Squad rep. I have to purchase a new power supply for $79.99 and I get charged an extra $40 for installation, because I had NO idea as to how to install the power supply.
My computer is finally very happy with its fully functioning Vista operating system, nice graphics card (of which the Geek Squad guy stated was an extremely impressive deal) and another 512mb of DDR RAM...
However:
$129.99 - Vista Upgrade
$79.99 - Useless (for me) ATI Readon S9250 PCI Graphics Card
$99.99 - GeForce 6200 PCI Graphics Card
$79.99 - 400mhz Power Supply
$69.99 - DVI-I (D compatible) male to male data link cable
$40.00 - Installation...
Realizing that I spent a kagillion dollars for transparent windows... priceless...
And i thought i had problems with memory and Norton Internet Security...
That sucks... and i'm guessing you used Master Card?
Or what ever the (bleep) that credit card company was...
No what you have are bullets in the hope that when your guns are empty I'm no longer standing. Because if I am, you'll all be before you've reloaded.
V, from V for Vendetta.
What a strange creature is man, that he cages himself so willingly?
-Athena from Appleseed (2004)
Oh oh! And be sure to also upgrade to Windows 7, which is supposed to be an expedite release that's going to not have the problems that Vista has which is coming out in about 2 years already (hint: this is why I'm not wasting money on Vista since I'm just waiting for Windows 7).
My current computer has:
3GHz dual-core processor
2GB of RAM (since it's all I've needed so far)
An EVGA eGeForce 8800 GT graphics card
335 GB of storage
Card reader for practically every card
10 USB ports, 3 eSATA, 3 Firewire
DVD burner with Lightscribe
And a nifty case
All for $820.
Avatar original image by "sometimesong" of Flickr, released under the Creative Commons license (share-alike, attribution, non-commercial, no-derivatives)
if you upgrade from XP to Vista now, though, I believe it would be easier (AND cheaper in the grand scheme of things) if you then want to get Windows 7 in 2 years. Not sure though, I'm just pretty sure upgrading to Vista NOW from XP if it's supported is a deal enough that they might offer a similar deal on upgrading from Vista to Windows 7... as opposed to upgrading up 2 operating systems and probably paying full price.
I've had good results overall, but some gripes when installing it on an older computer. It's not like I wasn't warned, though, and I knew the risks. All in all, I'm surprised it went as smoothly as it did, especially considering all the other horror stories.
On a brand new laptop, a Fujitsu Lifebook T4215 (convertable tablet PC, 2GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 Gig RAM, initially 100 Gig HD, subsequently upgraded to 250 GB, Intel 950 native graphics), Vista Business, 32 bit version, has operated without a hitch since day one. Granted, Fujitsu did all the work for me. It's been stable without crashes or driver problems, with the sole exception of Bluetooth compatibility with my smart phone, which has to sync by USB. Fujitsu is using a driver by Toshiba, and its ability to interact with the Palm Treo is a known issue. The same issue also happens in XP, so it does not appear to be related to Vista, though Vista lacks the ability to solve the issue.
My desktop is a home build Athlon 64 3000 setup, with an ATI 1600 graphics card, 1.5 Gigs of RAM, and multiple hard drives and partitions--the XP partition is about 160 Gigs, and the total about one terabite. The install was Vista Ultimate, 64 bit. Since this system is less "mission critical" as my laptop is my main day-to-day system, I'm more willing to take risks, hence my going 64 bit the day Vista hit the shelves. I did a clean install on a new partition and set up to dual boot to the existing XP partition, in case things went wrong. Since it was an upgrade package rather than an OEM or full, I had to create a "sacrificial lamb" install of XP, and then delete and overwrite in the install process; Vista wasn't happy enough that I simply owned an XP install CD. (Since the "sacrificial lamb" XP install was on the same computer using the same disc as the original, working XP partition, I did not have to go through product activation for that XP install, and there's nothing in the EULA that seems to preclude doing this, since it's fully within the spirit of the law regarding OS licenses.)
In the early days, the 64 bit version had support issues and driver compatability problems. iTunes' CD burning utility required finding and installing an obscure driver that became available about six months later. The partitioning utility I bought to create the Vista partition only worked with XP. And, even Microsoft's own One Care only supported Vista's 32 bit version, so I had to go back to Symantec's Norton programs. Additionally, the CPU had a tough time keeping up with the constant demands of the OS, with a hard drive activity monitor showing frequent 99-100% usage, even with the indexing service turned off. Performance was prone to frequent "hiccups" in which things would process, freeze for a second, process, freeze for a second, process, etc. This hiccuping improved with finding and removing performance-hogging background processes--my BOINC / Seti@home screensaver in particular, which just begs for CPU cycles--but it did not really stop until Vista SP1 came out. SP1 saw dramatic performance improvements, but at the sacrifice of my Soundblaster Extigy external sound card. It was already aging, but nothing was wrong with it, and it worked, until Vista SP1 put it into forced retirement.
My recommendations based on these experiences is that Vista is a good OS for a computer new enough to come with it, but it should not be installed on anything less than a computer made in the last year or two. To their credit, Microsoft openly said something to the same effect. XP is a proven and stable OS, and it does nearly everything Vista does. Vista's main advantages are cosmetic, and to get these advantages, it demands a lot, though Moore's Law and the rapid evolution of processing power is already making that less meaningful an issue. The fact that an integrated graphics chip on my laptop (granted it's a high end laptop when I got it a year ago) actually supported the Aero themed glass-bordered windows surprised me, and support for Vista's 64 bit versions is substantially better today.
Taking a Gestalt approach, since it's the "in" thing...
Otherwise I heard that there was the whole hardware incompatibility and stability issue case when Windows XP originally came out as well. Otherwise the reason why XP is more stable currently is because XP has gone through 7 years of bug fixes whereas Vista has only been out for a year. But also, I've heard that Vista was released too early since it was rather incomplete and they just decided to release another system to fill in those gaps which is currently codenamed Windows 7.
[Edit] One ironic thing is that my brother's laptop was pre-installed with Vista, thus it supposedly was built with sufficient hardware. But the ironic aspect of it is that he's just been using it normally with a proper anti-virus (or at least for all I know) and has just been using it for general use, yet sometimes I've seen it take up to practically 7 minutes to JUST boot up. I'm not sure if he stupidly isn't upgrading it though, but that's a little insane, especially when very few things are set to initialize at startup yet it takes 7 minutes sometimes.
Avatar original image by "sometimesong" of Flickr, released under the Creative Commons license (share-alike, attribution, non-commercial, no-derivatives)
Like everything else, Vista has its good parts and its bad ones.
Vista is made for new computers, not older ones. It needs a lot of processor space, so everything else will run more slowly in older machines. Boot ups are partly the OS and partly the Boot protocols in the machine itself, so you take a chance in how long it takes to start up with Vista...even if it comes installed.
Basically, if you run xd and it works; there is no reason to install Vista. Your machine may be optimized for xd, and not like Vista in the least.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
RedEye: The Wulf and writer who might really be a Kitsune...
