# Windows Vista Basic or Windows XP Home



## Becca (12 Jul 2007)

When ordering a Dell pc, the pc can cost the same if the purchaser chooses either 

Windows XP Home, or,
Windows Vista *Basic*.

Which would you choose?

I don't use the pc for anything too complicated, just word processing, web browsing, e-mail.


----------



## ClubMan (12 Jul 2007)

Personally I would choose _XP_.


----------



## Sn@kebite (12 Jul 2007)

Becca said:


> Windows XP Home, or,
> Windows Vista *Basic*.



XP probably cheaper and faster, due to Vista being new & having (garbage) services running in the background.

So i would 200% agree with ClubMan.

Although you can download any OS for yourself to try out.

EDIT: on re-reading you post i realise that the "cheaper" part of my post would only refer to buying it somewhere else.


----------



## Becca (12 Jul 2007)

Sn@kebite said:


> XP probably _[-]_ faster, due to Vista being new & having (garbage) services running in the background.


Would you say the same, about XP being faster, if comparing it to Vista *Premium*?


----------



## HughDenman (12 Jul 2007)

I would also certainly go for XP.

Vista Premium won't be any faster than Vista basic, as it's the same underlying kernel. The premium edition comes with extra stuff that might even slow it down further.

Vista definitely feels slower than XP to me, but I don't the think the difference in speed is too bad if you have 2GB of RAM or more. That said, there are other disadvantages to Vista, including problems with software not working on it and a very annoying 'security' feature that interrupts what you're doing quite frequently to confirm that you really want to do it.

Where I work, no-one ever wants to get stuck using our Vista laptop. I don't know of any big companies or third-level institutions that are ready to go near it.


----------



## Becca (12 Jul 2007)

Thanks very much for the info _Hugh_


----------



## Sn@kebite (12 Jul 2007)

Yeah, just stay away from Vista, it's not that up to date is it? I'ts only new.
XP is alot more stable and more hardware will work with it that vista.


----------



## ClubMan (12 Jul 2007)

Sn@kebite said:


> Although you can download any OS for yourself to try out.


Huh?! Not legally surely?


----------



## MonsieurBond (12 Jul 2007)

Just to add a contra(ry) opinion, I would go with Vista Basic as Vista is better for multimedia, photos, video, including HD DVD or Blu-ray playback, if you think that might be of interest to you.

Plus, if you are going to keep the PC for several years, you might be better off getting Vista now as it will be the only option in a year's time and you might as well get used to it now!


----------



## aircobra19 (12 Jul 2007)

MonsieurBond said:


> ....Vista is better for multimedia, photos, video, including HD DVD or Blu-ray playback,....



Can you be specific? Why is it better for those things?

I'm using Vista and have no real issue except its slower and offers nothing new thats of any value as far as I can see.


----------



## Becca (13 Jul 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> I'm using Vista and have no real issue except its slower and offers nothing new thats of any value as far as I can see.


Are you using Vista _Basic_ or _Premium_?


----------



## Sn@kebite (13 Jul 2007)

ClubMan said:


> Huh?! Not legally surely?


No sorry That'dbe highly illegal, but imeaned for her to just try. You'd be sure to stir up problems if you encountered an error and left the pc into a repair guy. You'd have the FBI/Bill Gates kicking your front door down.



MonsieurBond said:


> Plus, if you are going to keep the PC for several years, you might be better off getting Vista now as it will be the only option in a year's time and you might as well get used to it now!


If that ever happened I might find myself _finally_ going to the _Linux_ Platform As i've been trying to lately but can't find time to.


----------



## Becca (13 Jul 2007)

Sn@kebite said:


> If that ever happened I might find myself _finally_ going to the _Linux_ Platform As i've been trying to lately but can't find time to.


I've heard there are free OS, in the same way there are free web browsers such as FireFox.

Is _Linux_ a free OS?  Are there other free OS?


----------



## Sn@kebite (13 Jul 2007)

_AFAIK_, Linux is free to download, althought you may need to pay for professional (commercial) advice/diagnostics, otherwise it's all open-source. I think fedora is a good one for n00bs.

Don't think there's any other free _OS_.


----------



## ClubMan (13 Jul 2007)

If you want Linux (or more likely - and more accurately - GNU/Linux) then start with www.distrowatch.com. Although you would just go straight to www.ubuntu.com which, I believe, promises the best experience for first time _GNU/Linux_ users.

There are lots of free operating systems other than _Linux-GNU/Linux_. However they are unlikely to be of any interest or use to the casual or average user.


----------



## aircobra19 (13 Jul 2007)

Becca said:


> Are you using Vista _Basic_ or _Premium_?



Premium.


----------



## Becca (14 Jul 2007)

HughDenman said:


> I would also certainly go for XP.
> 
> Vista definitely feels slower than XP to me, but I don't the think the difference in speed is too bad if you have 2GB of RAM or more. That said, there are other disadvantages to Vista, including problems with software not working on it and a very annoying 'security' feature that interrupts what you're doing quite frequently to confirm that you really want to do it.
> 
> Where I work, no-one ever wants to get stuck using our Vista laptop. I don't know of any big companies or third-level institutions that are ready to go near it.


Do you think Vista will eventually become faster than xp as don't Microsoft do updates for their OSs and you download their improvements?

Or is there some fundamental reason why Vista will remain slower than XP, maybe because there is so much info contained in Vista compared to XP which slows it down?


----------



## aircobra19 (14 Jul 2007)

HughDenman said:


> ....there are other disadvantages to Vista, ... a very annoying 'security' feature that interrupts what you're doing quite frequently to confirm that you really want to do it....



You can turn that off btw.


----------



## aircobra19 (14 Jul 2007)

Becca said:


> Do you think Vista will eventually become faster than xp as don't Microsoft do updates for their OSs and you download their improvements?
> 
> Or is there some fundamental reason why Vista will remain slower than XP, maybe because there is so much info contained in Vista compared to XP which slows it down?



Don't know what you mean by "info". But generally more features and more bloat makes an OS slower. As almost every new OS has done. Hardware gets faster inline with the OS usually. Typically people find the new features useful, or more enjoyable to use.


----------



## Becca (14 Jul 2007)

Yeah, meant features.

So it won't be the Microsoft patches/downloads that will speed Vista up, but better hardware?


----------



## ClubMan (14 Jul 2007)

The base hardware requirements for _Vista _are generally higher than for previous versions of _Windows_. In _Vista's _case with the fancy _GUI _stuff enabled the graphics card in particular should be fairly beefy. Apart from that a modern/high spec processor, lots of memory help and a fast/large hard disk help. I don't think that as time passes _Vista _will become faster on the same hardware of capable of being run on older hardware if that's what you mean.

I've just been installing _XP Pro _on an old _PIII _500MHz, 384MB _RAM_, 20GB hard disk machine today and am surprised by how fast it seems to run. On the other hand I haven't yet installed all the add-ons such as anti-virus/malware etc. However I doubt that this _PC _could run _Vista _and yet it's more than enough to satisfy the computing needs of the owner.


----------



## aircobra19 (14 Jul 2007)

Becca said:


> Yeah, meant features.
> 
> So it won't be the Microsoft patches/downloads that will speed Vista up, but better hardware?



Better hardware will obviously speed it up. As strapping a rocket to slow car speeds it up. 

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/440819/top_gear_shuttle_launch_aka_the_new_car_bomb/

They may also find fixes and patches that speed it up.


----------



## Sn@kebite (14 Jul 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> Better hardware will obviously speed it up.



Do you mean RAM/CPU? Or special hardware cards Microsoft might issue to _Vista_ users?


----------



## aircobra19 (14 Jul 2007)

ClubMan said:


> The base hardware requirements for _Vista _are generally higher than for previous versions of _Windows_. In _Vista's _case with the fancy _GUI _stuff enabled the graphics card in particular should be fairly beefy. Apart from that a modern/high spec processor, lots of memory help and a fast/large hard disk help. I don't think that as time passes _Vista _will become faster on the same hardware of capable of being run on older hardware if that's what you mean.
> 
> I've just been installing _XP Pro _on an old _PIII _500MHz, 384MB _RAM_, 20GB hard disk machine today and am surprised by how fast it seems to run. On the other hand I haven't yet installed all the add-ons such as anti-virus/malware etc. However I doubt that this _PC _could run _Vista _and yet it's more than enough to satisfy the computing needs of the owner.



I've stripped XP down (turned off all the graphics crud) and run it on machines as low as PII 400mhz laptop with 192mb of ram and it ran fine, even with AV and Firewalls. Theres also Win 98 lite and Nano98. 
[broken link removed]

I'm running Vista Premium and it was very slow until I turned off a lot of stuff like disk indexing, UAC and other features. I've left the graphics crud on as I'm playing with it. But I've no dount in time people will find out ways of turning all the stuff off and speeding it up. 

At the moment Vista is very imature. As any OS is when its released. A big problem for Vista is that it was stripped of a lot of new features to get it out the door and shipped. So at the moment it doesn't really offer much over XP. Except its slower.


----------



## aircobra19 (14 Jul 2007)

Sn@kebite said:


> Do you mean RAM/CPU? Or special hardware cards Microsoft might issue to _Vista_ users?



RAM, CPU, GPU, I/O (Hard drives), FSB etc. Anything thats not software.

What do you mean by "Special Hardware Cards"? Do you have an example?


----------



## Sn@kebite (15 Jul 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> RAM, CPU, GPU, I/O (Hard drives), FSB etc. Anything thats not software.
> 
> What do you mean by "Special Hardware Cards"? Do you have an example?



No i just wasn't sure what hardware you meant. I thought MS were talking about hardware that speeds up _Vista_. But now i know you meant cpu, ram etc..


----------



## aircobra19 (15 Jul 2007)

Sn@kebite said:


> No i just wasn't sure what hardware you meant. I thought MS were talking about hardware that speeds up _Vista_. But now i know you meant cpu, ram etc..



What other kinda hardware is there?

I don't think there'll be any magic bullets. aka SLI, AEGIA PhysX cards if thats what you are thinking.


----------



## Becca (15 Jul 2007)

Sorry if it's a silly question, but can I ask what you mean by Vista running slower than XP?

Do you mean that programs that are running on a pc with Vista as the OS will run slower than programs running on the same pc with XP as the OS?

Or do you means when you switch the pc on and have to wait on the OS loading it takes longer to wait for Vista to load compared to XP?


----------



## aircobra19 (15 Jul 2007)

Becca said:


> Sorry if it's a silly question, but can I ask what you mean by Vista running slower than XP?
> 
> Do you mean that programs that are running on a pc with Vista as the OS will run slower than programs running on the same pc with XP as the OS?
> 
> Or do you means when you switch the pc on and have to wait on the OS loading it takes longer to wait for Vista to load compared to XP?



No idea about load times. Vista is meant to be faster, I haven't really noticed any improvement to be honest. I generally turn a machine on then come back to it. I don't sit waiting for it to start. Or sit there timing it. 

Most benchmarks show that Games and Applications generally run up to 40% slower. Thats not in doubt. But thats not really what I meant. I mean doing simple things like copying files from one location to another takes longer. it checks disk space which takes ages, only then copies it. Often taking many times longer than XP would. Last night I copy a 2MB file and it took vista about a minute to decide it had enough space to copy it then copied it in seconds. Often Vista seems to freeze an application when its doing something very simple. Other applications run fine, and eventually the original application come back to life. What its doing I have no idea, theres processes or tasks obviously taking up cycles. Doesn't do it all the time, just sometimes. Its a known issue and I'm sure it will be fixed with service packs in the future. Anyway stuff like that is slower.


----------



## Becca (15 Jul 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> Its a known issue and I'm sure it will be fixed with service packs in the future. Anyway stuff like that is slower.


If I purchase a new Dell pc now with Vista, will these service packs be free to download from Microsoft?


----------



## aircobra19 (15 Jul 2007)

Becca said:


> If I purchase a new Dell pc now with Vista, will these service packs be free to download from Microsoft?



In the past thats how its worked.


----------



## ClubMan (16 Jul 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> I've stripped XP down (turned off all the graphics crud) and run it on machines as low as PII 400mhz laptop with 192mb of ram and it ran fine, even with AV and Firewalls. Theres also Win 98 lite and Nano98.


What specific stuff do you switch off? Do you mean stuff like displaying window contents when dragging, fading menus in/out and all that stuff or something else? If you have a link to a relevant tweaking site then that'll do nicely.


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Jul 2007)

For a minute there I thought you meant Vista. For XP, yeah turn off all the graphics glitz stuff, shadows, menu animations, etc. Turn of disk indexing and and auto scanning and any indexing tools and auto updating utilities. 
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=499870


----------



## ClubMan (16 Jul 2007)

Thanks - must try it and see what difference it makes.


----------



## Becca (26 Jul 2007)

I noticed in Zone Alarm here, when you click on  *Attention: Win98SE/Me support discontinued *
http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/updates/znalm/zaAEN1023.html



> *Support Discontinued*
> On July 11, 2006, Microsoft will end support for Windows 98, 98SE and Me, which will have the resulting effect of making these operating systems less secure.
> 
> Windows 98/Me are older operating systems, and are therefore inherently more vulnerable to attacks than newer operating systems. Now that Microsoft will no longer provide security updates to these operating systems any PC running them will become increasingly prone to security vulnerabilities.


Also, Zone Alarm are now not supplying updates for those using Windows XP.

So even though XP is faster than Vista, I'm wondering which to choose.

Will XP really now be more inherently vulnerable to attacks than if I had Vista?


----------



## aircobra19 (26 Jul 2007)

I don't believe theres fundamentally much of a difference between Vista and XP, expecially as most people will end turning off UAC in Vista as its too annoying. From my experience one you are behind a firewall, hardware and/or software. Don't use IE but firefox or similar, and are careful on the web, and don't run with admin rights you are going to avoid 99% of all nasties on the web, regardless of OS. I end up looking after a good number of PC's and once they are set up like that, you almost never have problems. 

If you are really concerned about it, run a Unix/Linux/OSX.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jul 2007)

Becca said:


> Also, Zone Alarm are now not supplying updates for those using Windows XP.


I used _Comodo Pro_ free edition on my home PCs these days.

[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]



> Will XP really now be more inherently vulnerable to attacks than if I had Vista?


 Not if you take some steps to secure it - for example....

 [broken link removed]

This link might also be of interest to you:

[broken link removed]

As you can see I'm a great fan of _Gizmo Richards' _newsletters and reviews!


----------



## efm (26 Jul 2007)

Becca said:


> Also, Zone Alarm are now not supplying updates for those using Windows XP.


 
I think you might be a little mixed up with the different windows versions. Microsft stoped updating Windows 98 in 2006 and so zone alarm are not supplying updates to Win98. It is still supporting XP and will continue to do so for the foreseable future.

My choice of OS would be XP - I would stay away from Vista until an SP1 release at least. Unless there is some specific functionality in Vista that you need then I don't see the point of getting it.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Jul 2007)

efm said:


> My choice of OS would be XP - I would stay away from Vista until an SP1 release at least. Unless there is some specific functionality in Vista that you need then I don't see the point of getting it.


I'd agree with that. And would avoid _Vista _indefinitely if the  reported that my _PC _was not ready and could not be made so through affordable upgrades of the hardware (which is most likely the case with all hardware that I own).


----------



## Becca (26 Jul 2007)

efm said:


> I think you might be a little mixed up with the different windows versions. Microsft stoped updating Windows 98 in 2006 and so zone alarm are not supplying updates to Win98. It is still supporting XP and will continue to do so for the foreseable future.


Ah, yes I see what you mean.  The reason I was confused there was because I went to this ZoneAlarm page to download the update.
http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/updates/znalm/zaAEN1023.html

You'll see slightly down the page there is a button marked *Windows 2000/XP*.

I clicked on this button which is where I got the message.


----------



## Becca (26 Jul 2007)

ClubMan said:


> I used _Comodo Pro_ free edition on my home PCs these days.


Thanks for that ClubMan.  I've just uninstalled ZoneAlarm and installed _Comodo Pro_ free edition instead.


----------



## Becca (18 Aug 2007)

Windows Vista _Home Premium_ has _Media Centre_ which regular XP doesn't have (there is a special XP edition with it); any thoughts on whether it might be worth having Vista Home Premium, instead of XP Home in order to get Media Centre?

Anyone here tried the _Media Centre_ software on Vista Home Premium?


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Aug 2007)

Only if you'll use the features of the media center. Only you can answer that.


----------



## Becca (18 Aug 2007)

and although XP is currently faster than Vista, if I was going to keep the PC for four or five years, would the consensus be that I should still opt for XP rather than Vista?

Since presumably in a year or so Vista will be as quick as XP and I'll be able to download the updates which may iron out the current problems.

If keeping the PC for this length of time, maybe I should opt for Vista? Any thoughts?


----------



## Ger (18 Aug 2007)

I would be reluctant to buy computer with XP as chances are it may have older hardware spec & could have been left on shelf where it can wear away quicker due to metal migration & capacitor corresion than if it had been in use. 
I bought computer lately 530 euro (incl vat & del) with duo core processor & 1024 memory & seem to handle vista ( Home Basic) OK.  I think most complaints with vista are from people with older hardware or coperate customers who may have special software. 
I did note some compatibility probs with mobile phone drivers & CDs not compatible but vista found updated drivers.(I have children & friends & computer gets a lot of iPod & mobile phone program use). Also Xp computer will look & feel old in a year or 2 time.
Incidently Vista basic will work on lower spec than vista home premium as AERO uses resources.


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Aug 2007)

Becca said:


> and although XP is currently faster than Vista, if I was going to keep the PC for four or five years, would the consensus be that I should still opt for XP rather than Vista?...



If you find someone who can predict the future let us know. 

I doubt you will keep the computer that lot, but my best guess is XP won't be supported in patches and sceurity fixes that long. Theres nothing wrong with running Windows 98 or 3.11 if it does all you need.


----------



## Becca (18 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> If you find someone who can predict the future let us know.


Wasn't looking for someone to "predict the future". 



aircobra19 said:


> I doubt you will keep the computer that lot


I kept my last computer that long, so I believe it to be a reasonable estimate.


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Aug 2007)

I checked and MS said they will support XP till 2014. 

Only you will know if theres something you need in the Vista that isn't in XP. I'm been using it for a few months and I havent found anything new I needed in it.


----------



## anseo (19 Aug 2007)

MS will release SP3 for XP early next year, so I think you're safe with xp for a good while yet.

link Info on Vista updates there as well.

I recommend the Royale theme for XP, much nicer look than the normal theme.


----------

