 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsPC HardwareCPUMotherboardsVideo CardsStorageNetworkingPeripheralsBrand Name Systems Related Topics Video GamesWindowsMS Server ProductsMS OfficeMore Topics ... |
Hardware Forum / Brand Name Systems / Dell / March 2008Should I get XP Pro or Vista Business?
The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. Will Vista run reasonably fast on that computer? I'd rather use XP now to avoid any problems Vista will probably cause but I'm thinking that in a few years XP will be obsolete and I'll have to either pay close to $300 for Vista Business or buy another PC because the software I will want to run, won't work with XP. Which one should I get? Is Vista okay enough to use? Thanks. > -----Original Message----- > From: DaveJohnson12@nomail. [mailto:DaveJohnson12@nomail.] [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Thanks. Whether we like it or not, XP is already obsolete. No longer shipping in the retail channel. No more boxes loaded with it as of 1/1/09. Vista's fine. Nothing special. Nothing new. Works OK for a home machine. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: DaveJohnson12@nomail. [mailto:DaveJohnson12@nomail.] [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Vista's fine. Nothing special. Nothing new. Works OK for a home >machine. Provided you can get all the drivers you need !! >> -----Original Message----- >> From: DaveJohnson12@nomail. [mailto:DaveJohnson12@nomail.] [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Vista's fine. Nothing special. Nothing new. Works OK for a home >machine. Thanks. This will be a home machine but running the business version, Vista Business. > Vista's fine. Nothing special. Nothing new. Works OK for a home > machine. I just wish it wouldn't keep moving my Vostro laptop out of my default workgroup and into the WORKGROUP workgroup. Oh, and turning off network discovery. I was hoping SP1 would address the problems but nope......... either work, but with vista you need at least 2gb of ram and it will have problems with many pieces of software, including the software that comes with many multifunction printers. research the application you want to install and see if those are considered to be compatible with vista before you make a costly mistake and end up with an operating system that requires you to purchase all new software. for example a small design firm with 14 workstation all with and previous version of autocad has decided against getting vista as it would require spending thousands per machine for the new vista compatible version of autocad alone (and since there is nothing that vista offers them that xp can't there is no way to justify this expense). don't worry about a few years from now. in a few years from now some other operating system will be out and you can feel good about not having wasted your time learning and troubleshooting vista. > The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks. > either work, but with vista you need at least 2gb of ram and it will have > problems with many pieces of software, including the software that comes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > operating system will be out and you can feel good about not having wasted > your time learning and troubleshooting vista. I already feel good about not using Vista. :) >either work, but with vista you need at least 2gb of ram and it will have >problems with many pieces of software, including the software that comes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >operating system will be out and you can feel good about not having wasted >your time learning and troubleshooting vista. That's a good suggestion. I've already started looking into Vista compatibility for the software I need. I don't really use that much software, mainly Office 2003 (MS says it will work), and a couple of other things that the the software manufacturers claim will work with Vista. I'll make sure I get 2GB of RAM or more if I decide on Vista. The reason I'm thinking ahead is, in a few years from now MS will have a new OS that will be more bloated and resource hungry than any earlier versions and it probably won't run too well on the computer I'm going to buy. :-) Thanks. >> The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Thanks. >The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Thanks. Do you have a copy of XP Pro you could install on the computer? If so, get Vista Business, do a True Image of the drive, install XP, and save Vista Business in case you might want it. >>The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >so, get Vista Business, do a True Image of the drive, install XP, and >save Vista Business in case you might want it. Unfortunately I don't have it though I could ask around. I know someone who has HP's with XP Pro though I think I will have to have the Dell version to avoid the activation process. I have XP Media Center for a Dell. Is it possible to get a low cost upgrade to the Dell version of XP Pro? Thanks. > -----Original Message----- > From: DaveJohnson12@nomail. [mailto:DaveJohnson12@nomail.] [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Thanks. What features of Pro do you need that Media center doesn't have? MCE is just Pro without the ability to connect to a domain. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: DaveJohnson12@nomail. [mailto:DaveJohnson12@nomail.] [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >What features of Pro do you need that Media center doesn't have? MCE is >just Pro without the ability to connect to a domain. I have to use software that lists XP Pro or Vista Business as a system requirement. The software is the Java Enterprise Edition SDK. I'm not sure yet what else I will need. There may be other software I'll need that requires XP Pro or Vista Business. http://java.sun.com/javaee/sdk/features.jsp >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: DaveJohnson12@nomail. [mailto:DaveJohnson12@nomail.] [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >http://java.sun.com/javaee/sdk/features.jsp Media Center might do what you want, or might not. There are a few thigns it can't do compared to Pro. >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: DaveJohnson12@nomail. [mailto:DaveJohnson12@nomail.] [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >Media Center might do what you want, or might not. There are a few >thigns it can't do compared to Pro. I've heard that too. It might actually work according to some people even though XP Pro is a requirement. Thanks. >>>The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Thanks. As Tom said, XP Media Center is basically XP Pro with the Media Center capabilities added. I just Googled for the difference and the only limitation of Media Center vs XP Pro is that with Media Center you can't join a domain. For me, I mainly wanted to be able to connect to my computer using Remote Desktop. You can do that with Media Center. >>>>The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >For me, I mainly wanted to be able to connect to my computer using >Remote Desktop. You can do that with Media Center. I need XP Pro or Vista Business only because it's a system requirement for software I need for software development. >>The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >so, get Vista Business, do a True Image of the drive, install XP, and >save Vista Business in case you might want it. Now *that's* the best advice I've seen in this thread! (Mind you, there is a certain assumption that may not be met. ;-) Cheers, Phred.  SignatureppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID > The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks. My personal opinion is buy the system with XP and a minimum of 2gb RAM (and at least a 128mb PCIexpress video card if possible). Then, 2-3 or more years from now if you require Vista, you're hardware is already intact for the upgrade. FWIW, MS just announced lower prices on some versions of Vista. The upgrade later won't be cost-prohibitive imo. Stew 'S.Lewis[_3_ Wrote: > The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Stew Vista is much slower and it's not mature Signatureanyue > 'S.Lewis[_3_ Wrote: >> The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Vista is much slower and it's not mature You're apparently new to this group. >'S.Lewis[_3_ Wrote: >> The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >Vista is much slower and it's not mature From what I read, it is slower than xp on comparable machines but I never read that it was "much" slower. I guess the word "much" is subjective tho. >> The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Stew Thanks for the opinion. That would make the most sense for me if Vista is as bad as many people say it is. I also read somewere they were lowering prices. I see newegg.com has Vista Business OEM for system builders for the relatively low price of $139.99. The retail version is around $185 to $200 at Pricegrabber. >>> The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > builders for the relatively low price of $139.99. The retail version > is around $185 to $200 at Pricegrabber. Exactly. So since Vista remains broken and with issues (for a lot of people), I've been placing Windows XP systems that are bonafide HW capable for a Vista upgrade if and when needed down the road. Since we can't really know how good/bad or resource intensive the *next* OS is, we can only go by what we know right now. That's the way I see it. I'm also not so sure that XP won't live a lot longer than we would've though prior to the Vista release. Good luck with your choice. Stew >>>> The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >Stew Thank you. I think most software that comes out over the next two years will be XP compatible. Maybe longer. <snip> > Exactly. So since Vista remains broken and with issues (for a lot of > people), I've been placing Windows XP systems that are bonafide HW capable > for a Vista upgrade if and when needed down the road. > > Since we can't really know how good/bad or resource intensive the *next* OS > is, we can only go by what we know right now. I read somewhere the next version of Windows is called "Jabba" because no matter how many cycles or how much memory you have, it'll gobble it all up and want more. ;) Vista will work great with a core 2, just make sure you get at least 2 gigs of ram installed. If you don't want to get a video card with system you can get one that will work great at newegg.com for about 75 dollars shipped. I just put a msi 8500gt OC in my core2 for 55 dollars after rebate. The card will play games if your incline to do so. It would also be a hell of a lot cheaper that what dell wants for a similar card. The 8500 is not a great gaming card but it is dx10 ready and the drivers are setup for Vista. I have been working with it for a few days and no crashes. Right now I have five screens open and a video playing. > The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks. >Vista will work great with a core 2, just make sure you get at least 2 gigs >of ram installed. If you don't want to get a video card with system you can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I have been working with it for a few days and no crashes. Right now I have >five screens open and a video playing. Thanks, I'm still thinking about getting Vista. Good advice about buying a video card from somewhere other than Dell. >> The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Thanks. > The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Thanks. My experience: I bought a 2 Ghz Core2Duo (Inspiron), and I got 2 Gb of RAM (nearly a year ago). Vista does just fine; I mean I don't have any issues (speed included). While I do need to qualify this: I don't use many peripherals, and neither do I use a great variety of different software. (This is not my main work environment; linux is. So this experience may be relevant for, say, light-ish home use? But then again, I did run some serious stuff on it, and it worked great. I mean I do use Vista quite a bit.) As far as basic hardware is concerned, this box is definitely run well by Vista. When I was deciding on the system, I felt pretty much the way you say (and expressed this in this forum too): that Vista would replace the XP (whether we like it or not). Now I don't mean to start a steamy discussion with this, am just saying how I thought. Making this call was easy for me - since I actually use Linux, I was not going to be dependent on Vista. So this was simply an opportunity to get the new system that, I felt, MS was going to make sure does become the main platform. (I've got to give them that: they are *very* good at directing - to put it mildly - the trends in the industry. Again, I don't mean to start wars over this. :) Having said this ... I think that XP is still a safe way to go: it should hold out for at least a few years (without drawbacks). I can't see any major software coming out, or being revised, that won't run on it. And I can't see any new (major) hardware that XP won't run. With Vista you probably *will* have extra expense on software. I'd say: see what you need/use, and check how much of it you need to update. I think that one can put an exact figure on it, and then make an informed decision. Overall, I think you cannot go really wrong either way. In all of this, I'm assuming that you don't need this to be a production machine, but is rather meant for something like light to medium home use. Just my opinion/experience, I hope it may help (a little :). Sorry about the mangled post (my previous one). >> The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >great. I mean I do use Vista quite a bit.) As far as basic hardware >is concerned, this box is definitely run well by Vista. It's good to know you've got enough processing power to run it. >When I was deciding on the system, I felt pretty much the way you >say (and expressed this in this forum too): that Vista would replace [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >start >wars over this. :) :-) Businesses are pretty much stuck with them it seems. I've heard that in Europe, a lot of companies are using Linux instead. >Having said this ... I think that XP is still a safe way to go: it >should >hold out for at least a few years (without drawbacks). I can't see >any >major software coming out, or being revised, that won't run on it. For now that's true. >And >I can't see any new (major) hardware that XP won't run. With Vista you >probably *will* have extra expense on software. I'd say: see what you >need/use, and check how much of it you need to update. I think that >one can put an exact figure on it, and then make an informed decision. It won't be that much. Nero, Agent and I think that's all. $90 worth of software, though I really don't need the new versions for anything other than to have them work with Vista. ;-) Office 2003 should work I hope. >Overall, I think you cannot go really wrong either way. In all of >this, I'm >assuming that you don't need this to be a production machine, but is >rather meant for something like light to medium home use. > >Just my opinion/experience, I hope it may help (a little :). The only other major thing I'll use it for is learning software development (Java). Thanks for your help. :-) It's good to hear different people's experiences with Vista and thoughts. <snip> The problem isn't configuring the hardware in a system that will actually run Vista; several posters here (myself included) have indicated through either luck or trial and error what the general "sweet spot" is to run full-blown Vista with Aero effectively enough. The problem still seems mostly to lie with the unknown quirks/compatibility issues with devices and or needed softwares. Let's face it: it doesn't matter how much that printer, camera, or needed software application cost (although that's at least a secondary consideration), what matters is knowing that it will *actually work* to do what the user needs done. By having an XP system that is hardware ready for Vista, you're in business now and for the forseeable future and allowing even more time for MS and software/hardware vendors to iron out any remaining issues with Vista. Anyway, I'm beating a dead horse here. ><snip> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Anyway, I'm beating a dead horse here. Good points. The more I think about it the more am leaning towards XP for the reasons you stated. Originally I was going to get XP, then I started thinking it might make more sense to get Vista now and avoid the time and expense of switching to Vista when it becomes necessary. Now I think I will play it safe and get XP. I can't afford to risk not being able to use the software that I need. Thanks. >>> The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >>> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] >development (Java). Thanks for your help. :-) It's good to hear >different people's experiences with Vista and thoughts. ----REPOST---- (not sure it went thru the first time)..... After all these posts, what have you decided and briefly why (I promise I won't flame you <g>) ? >>>> The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >After all these posts, what have you decided and briefly why (I >promise I won't flame you <g>) ? I appreciate that. :-) I think I'm going to do as Stew suggested and go with XP Pro. The most important thing to me now is to have a computer that will work without a lot of problems that will waste my time. With Vista there might be software that I have to use that I can't get to work properly. That would be a disaster. If MS doesn't raise the prices for Vista in the future, I should be able to get it when I need it for between $140 and $200 depending on if I get the OEM version or the retail version. I know that Vista runs on the model of the Optiplex that I'll get so installing it shouldn't be a problem. >> The computer will probably be a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo Optiplex. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > great. I mean I do use Vista quite a bit.) As far as basic hardware > is concerned, this box is definitely run well by Vista. I bought a Lenovo R61 last summer with Vista Business, 2GB of memory & a T7500 chip. It was bog slow out of the box with 70+ processes running. I've been running XP Pro from about my 2nd day of ownership (and the R61 is a very nice machine, BTW). > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Harding [mailto:ToHard@nowhere.org] [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > R61 > is a very nice machine, BTW). Vista really only requires one out of the box change to completely change the resource requirements and make it perform well. You HAVE to turn off background search indexing. Just right click on every hard drive, choose properties and uncheck index this drive. Makes a HUGE difference. Yes, but in so doing, one defeats the rationale to sell ever bigger and faster computers with more memory. You are a real killjoy for the name brand manufacturers! C'mon now, think of things to stimulate our flagging economy, like selling more and more and more computers, with more and more of them being recycled greenishly. ;>) ... Ben <SNIP> >Vista really only requires one out of the box change to completely >change the resource requirements and make it perform well. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Makes a HUGE difference. All I know is that Vista is a dog on a Q6600 Quad core if you leave indexing ON > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Myers [mailto:ben_myers_spam_me_not@charter.net] [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > >Makes a HUGE difference. > All I know is that Vista is a dog on a Q6600 Quad core if you leave > indexing ON Fact. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tony Harding [mailto:ToHard@nowhere.org] [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Makes a HUGE difference. How does this allow Vista to run faster? Leigh > -----Original Message----- > From: Leigh [mailto:lgh@cts.org] [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Leigh Vista uses an incredible amount of resources doing background indexing. Completely useless indexing. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Leigh [mailto:lgh@cts.org] [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Vista uses an incredible amount of resources doing background indexing. > Completely useless indexing. Thanks for your insight. Leigh >You HAVE to turn off background search indexing. Just right click on >every hard drive, choose properties and uncheck index this drive. > >Makes a HUGE difference. Yes, makes a huge difference and all indexing on my Vista laptop is turned off. I forget exactly where, but there were 3 places I turned indexing off. I also turn off all "eye candy" to free up some memory but for a 2GB system it probably has a lot less of an effect. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tony Harding [mailto:ToHard@nowhere.org] [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Makes a HUGE difference. IIRC I did turn off indexing - didn't really help. >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Tony Harding [mailto:ToHard@nowhere.org] [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > IIRC I did turn off indexing - didn't really help. There's a difference between the XP "indexing service" (which I understand is disabled by default in Vista - though I haven't verified it) and the "Windows Search Service" found only in Vista. Did you disabled the latter or the former? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.