I'm not going to install it just yet, because I don't know how to remove XP without erasing my stuff.

 

Every Vista version has the ability to install over and upgrade Windows XP. Although I'm not sure why the Ultimate Edition is best for gaming. I thought it added a bunch of business productivity stuff.

In Addition: Getting a Windows OS immediately is a bad reason for exactly what FAST6191 mentioned. Wait until the first Service Pack. Thats usually a safe milestone.

 

FAST6191:

You, sir, are an idiot.

Nvidia and ATI's current drivers support opengl. Nvidia's leaked 100.XX drivers (they are on laptopvideo2go) run perfectly, they are on level with the XP drivers.

All Windows versions have security issues and viruses and similar junk. Be smart or Run AV and you will be fine.

XP is not safe at all. Vista has numerous security features that XP does not. Vista is as stable, if not more so, than xp, I've been running it since RTM and I haven't had it crash yet.

Nice to work with? Sure, if you don't want Aero, desktop image/video previews, and flip 3d, but otherwise, Vista owns XP in that area.

Go away. Never post again.

Thank you!

-MTW

Now, as far as actually running Vista goes, I've had no problems so far. HL2/CSS/DODS all run with no FPS loss in comparison to XP. TDU runs perfectly, Defcon (Opengl game) runs at full speed, along with Prey and Doom 3. WoW runs perfect, GW runs perfect, and even Red Faction and Tribes 2 all run with no issues in Vista.

 

Vista is better than Windows XP. I have been running it for about 6 months including the beta releases. I think alot of the bad press regarding Vista was due to the beta's having issues. Vista is more stable than XP from my experience. It's networking functions are much better. I have been able to fully network it with a laptop running XP Pro without any problems, remote access works too. Vista runs faster than XP if you have a recent vintage pc.

In short it looks like a prettier version of XP but has really been redone from the ground up. You'll notice this when you run it. It is made to run on the most modern PC's so if you have a computer with the specs to run it I'd get it. You can check this by downloading the windows upgrade advisor from microsoft.

That being said there are some negatives:

-The previously mentioned opengl issues. Runs great with directX. I haven't tried an OpenGl program in a while. There were issues with some of the earlier betas rendering OpenGL very slowly but as another user said so eloquently these issues have been worked out in the latest drivers.

-Some peripherals, especially those made by HP, will not be compatible with Vista. Check the manufacturers websites for compatibility.

-It's harder to avoid buying the full version. Windows Authentication is tougher than it was in XP. I've seen very inexpensive OEM copies for sale at newegg though if you want to avoid future issues.

-Some people don't like the User Authenication interface. Those same people don't like viruses so I think there is a give and take....and you can turn off the UAI if you choose to. The UAI is kind of like a super user asking, "Do you really want to do this"? You hardly notice it after a while.


Other than that I have had no problems with the final version of Vista. I'm sold on it even though I was cursing it when I was running the beta 2 version.

 

Ouch.

1. Fair enough I was wrong (any word on intels opengl support?), I am sure many similar arguements could be used for other drivers and apps though (remember the attempt to pull raw sockets from XP).

2. Agreed XP is not safe but it appears to at least have a modicum of safety when used sensibly. Vista is brand new and security just means it hassles the end user that little bit more, I still bet a halfway determined script kiddie could mess it up somewhat chronic.

3. There is a reason I and everyone else I do PCs for wants to use the old 95 style interface (possible exception being the start bar), wants desktop image/video previews disabled (which exist both inbuilt and by 3rd party stuff), 3d desktops also exist for XP but that is a different game.
By nice to work with I mean I can just about pull various power user settings in (although earlier versions made this easier) as well as install stuff I want without issue, "security" does little more than aggrivate.
Feel free to chastise me for this and it might just be me being out of the loop (and I know some of those titles are farily popular) but I have played none of them.

I stand by my remarks though and probably would not even use/suggest someone else use vista in its current state even if it was free. Give it time and it may shape up (although by the but it does there may be some very viable alternatives) right now I can see absolutely no reason whatesoever to upgrade.

I suppose I better throw the whole DRM laced buisness in as well but that is pretty much a moot point.

 

FAST6191:

Intel? What, are you using one of their on-board POS video "cards"?

You are wrong, again. Vista UAC is designed to prevent that. UAC prompts when you run some idiot script-kiddie's app. A few other features prevent access to the files that the app would attempt to delete. The windows firewall has been revamped, and now actually blocks attempts by those apps to send data back to "home".

What you are saying is that XP is more secure because it doesn't have the security measures that Vista has. Oooook.....

Ok, that's your choice. Have fun with no Aero/Flip 3d

Vista is perfect. It needs more Ultimate Extras, and I'd like the final version of Dreamscene. It is so much better than XP SP2 is. More secure, better looking, more features, etc, etc, etc.

 

The funniest thing was that he had a computer rating of 1.0

Otherwise the guy is a crybaby and probably should wait until dos 8.0 comes out

 

i tested out beta 2 of vista on my laptop a month or two ago, it felt a bit clunky but looked pretty cool. Microsoft have made some significant improvements in the security side of things (prompt whenever u try to run a program). Overall i enjoyed using vista, but i think ill stick with my linux box for another year or two until vista matures. I really want to try the live background!

 

This whole argument reminds me of when windows went from 3.1 to windows 95. People didn't like the file finder, and the memory requirements and the security measures..etc. They thought 8 MB of ram was ridiculous.

I like XP and Vista. Both have worked equally well for me....but I have half a clue and sort of expect little glitches at the beginning of an operating system and accept them as the price paid for being an early adopter.

XP and Vista are good. Vista will just take advantage of newer systems power a little bit better...just like windows 95 did.

Edit: The heck with this Vista stuff. My R4 just showed up!

 

Wait so every time you run a program Vista asks you if you really want to?

UGH, that would get annoying and old, fast.