Windows XP SP3 Vs. Windows Vista SP1

[intenex]

Just installed a new PC with vista today - only problem I see is the bright intensity of the screen (makes it almost impossible to read this page)

___

BlackQuantum

 

[CoolFinalFan]

XP SP3 is supposed to have more security...!

 

[stunna]

Will there be any graphical differences with SP3?

 

[intenex]

A little off topic, but does anyone know how to stop my screen from flickering so much in Vista?

______

BlackQuantum

 

[afroxav]

Well microsoft annouced somewhere (don't remember where, i think it's bbc) that some software will stop working with vista's SP1...

 

[frankfriend]

Vista Ultimate isn't that bad! I've used it without problems for 11 months. I'll probably go for SP1, just to keep up, but it is just a 'holding' release, and ain't going to increase speed much if at all. There's a good review in the UK PC Pro No.163, May 2008 issue.
I'll also go for XP SP3 on my XP machine!
I don't see them as rivals - but as different.

There's a new 'experimental' MS operating system out. That is not a full blown operating system, but looks at OS from the bottom up, without the baggage from the pastr systems.
Best regards

 

[satheesh]

I have Windows Xp SP2.

 

[stunna]

Kool.

 

[port5900]

So I built 3 computers this week and was using MSI motherboards, 2 with Intel and one with AMD chips. SP3 gave me problems updating the bios on one AMD and one Intel cpu, so I defaulted to SP2 how ever I have SP3 running on my home cpu with no problems. Right now I only install Vista on computers for people who ask for it. Vista sucks on laptops and on desktops with average hardware configurations or so i find. Personally when I get my new cpu this summer even if i go with 4Gigs of ram i'm still installing SP2 or 3. I'm not a fan of Vista.

 

[IonCannon218]

I would pick neither!
I rather use Kubuntu as my primary OS.

 

[port5900]

Thanks fanboy your input was very helpful.

 

[Sharky]

I don't see what the big fuss is over service packs. Just a collection of updates to save hours downloading, installing, restarting, a few times when installing a fresh copy of Windows. Sure, in SP2 for XP there were a LOT of changes, but could you imagine how long that'd take installing each of the updates over Windows Update? And of course, you'd get users saying "Hey, I don't want no Windows firewall, innit, or any of these other updates".

I don't remember so much fuss over service packs prior to xp's SP2. Just a collection of updates, people!

 

[Sohail]

I would still stay with Windows XP as Vista is a RAM eater ...

 

[naodwalk]

I prefer XP if I must chose a windows OS. I upgraded from Vista to XP on my Mac and it works sooo much better. I do, however, know what i'm judging before I actually judge, so I know most compatibility issues with Vista can be overcome by right-clicking it going to options and advace. Run it as administrator and under windows xp compatibility. I just hate the excessive requirements and unessissary protection.
Edit:
If I must chose a windows OS, I'd go with XP. I recently upgraded from Vista to XP on my Mac and was much happier. I do, however, know about and use things before I judge them. So I know that most compatibility issues with vista can be solved by right-clicking the icon, going to options, go to advanced tab and check off run as administrator and run in compatibility mode for: windows XP. I just hate Vista's ridiculos requirements and excessive prompts to attempt to provide more security.

:thefinger You Vista, Bill Gates and Microsoft

 

[oyster.admin]

same here, prefer vista sp1.
because my laptop is running vista.. :biggrin: