Windows Vista vs Windows XP

**caravel** · 01-02-2008, 09:45

The biggest factor is the cost, and the number of variants, at the end of the day people want an OS that works and they want to pay something reasonable for it, i.e. less than £90.00. The cost of Vista is nothing short of daylight robbery and it has nothing much to offer over XP apart from DirectX 10 and some fancy eye candy. It clearly isn't what Longhorn was supposed to be. With Vista sales going they way they are it looks increasingly feasible that DX10 may somehow make it into XP possibly as part of SP3.

**Caius** · 01-03-2008, 05:02

I'd prefer Win XP rather than other, there is no need of Vista. Until they force me.

But seriously, I miss Win98. It was different all the way.

**Bijo** · 01-03-2008, 18:22

Nice articles, but sounds like nothing new to me. I don't think DX10 will become a part of SP3, though, even though I'd like it (even if I don't play games). Vista must perish and XP must continue. Instead of making new OSs that don't offer much important new functionality, they should upgrade XP as much as possible and make it more ultimate. If there's to be a next Windows OS, it'll have to be something TRULY significant. Vista is not it. Maybe that one I heard about -- Windows 7 or something -- will be the bomb.

**caravel** · 01-04-2008, 18:12

Originally Posted by Bijo

I don't think DX10 will become a part of SP3, though, even though I'd like it (even if I don't play games).

If Vista carries on selling like it has been then M$ will have to offer DX10 to XP users because the gaming industry is not interested in M$'s selfish goal of forcing gamers on to Vista, they want to sell games.

**sapi** · 01-05-2008, 06:37

Originally Posted by caravel

If Vista carries on selling like it has been then M$ will have to offer DX10 to XP users because the gaming industry is not interested in M$'s selfish goal of forcing gamers on to Vista, they want to sell games.

If what they've been saying about the architecture is correct that shouldn't be possible