Windows XP SP3. Much better than Vista SP1

[frbubba]

Recently, my IT guy let me install Vista on my laptop without activating it to see if I want to use it (you have 30 days before you have to activate). Well, I can say that at first the eye candy of Vista is nice and I do like the fact that there are more options, etc. But in the end I decided to stick with XP. I came to the conclusion that Vista is basically a supercharged version of XP (they use the same kernel) and that I wasn't willing to trade off the speed and ease of use of XP for the eyecandy (which, other than security, is about all it amounts to) of Vista. I admit, I like Vista, but after using it a while, I came to the conclusion it was just easier to stay with XP and there wasn't anything in Vista that couldn't be gained in XP (thanks to transformation packs) with the exception of a few things I didn't really want or need.

I am with BlueGiberOptics, I am looking forward to Win7. I am hoping Win7 is to Vista what XP was to ME. :yes:

[Vortex566]

The more I see about the performance of Vista the more it makes me think if I should go back to XP. I use Ubuntu as my main OS but to game I have been using Vista. I am thinking that now maybe it is time to switch back to XP ?

[Dysphoria]

Well I'm running an Intel Centrino 1.8Ghz processor, 1.5 GB RAM, 7200 RPM 100 GB Harddrive, and the 855GME graphics chipset, and I've found that Vista is faster than XP :/

Hard to believe. I had it installed on my laptop just to try it out and I was greatly disappointed \I formated my HD two days later and installed the dual boot Linux and XP. Do some research on google and you'll find the same findings. I dont think that your extra 500MB could help that much more in performance... BTW I am using the DELL Inspiron 700m with 12'1 Widescreen display.

I was able to notice big slow downs in MS Outlook, just browsing through folders and emails, it takes much longer to load.

Oh yeah and forget about running the glass effect... Is not supported the the Intell GPU you need a GPU with 3d Acceleration. The problem here is that MS is pushing DirectX and leaving out OpenGL which is much less hardware demanding.

One of the interesting things I find is that Office 2007 actually loads faster and runs a bit better for me on Vista than it does XP. But I have 2 gigs and a 2.17GHz Core Duo, so I've got a pretty good machine.

Yeah I've found that you need a min of 2GB RAM in order to have Office working better on Vista. Apparently the office agent is loaded in the RAM and is running in background so every time you issue a request for Excel or Word, a window pops out immediately.

[andy2004]

Im not bashing VISTA but theres just something about it which to me feels as though vista isnt ready for the spotlight. Part of the problem is XP was getting to the point of excelling what it did best and Vista felt like a step back. Vista meant new software, new hardware, new peripherals etc etc and people dont want to have to deal with that, they want something that they can just drop in place instead of xp and just expect it to work. Vista at the moment is at a usable stage, i still feel beginning of 2007 was too early to release it. Thing is though i dual boot between vista and xp and ok first few weeks i was in vista alot, but now im mostly in xp. One thing Vista has been very disappointing on is game performance. Why is it I can run ut2004 in xp alot faster than vista ? and yes i installed the compatible dx9 extensions for vista and it made no differance. I dunno ive still not made my mind up on vista, but i dont exactly feel the urge to recommend it to freinds and family. ;)

[Mordkanin]

Yeah I've found that you need a min of 2GB RAM in order to have Office working better on Vista. Apparently the office agent is loaded in the RAM and is running in background so every time you issue a request for Excel or Word, a window pops out immediately.

Even the cold start I find is better than on XP (Though you are right, the warm start blows XP out of the water.) So at the very least, Vista obviously has superior precaching and caching skills.

[The Right Guy]

Vista is basically a supercharged version of XP (they use the same kernel)

Hum.. its totally NOT true Vista have a new kernel version. XP use the version 5.2, Vista use 6.0... make a search before saying something you really dont know...

[Shane2]

Incorrect. XP uses version 5.1, Server 2003 5.2, and all 3 versions (5.1, 5.2, and 6.0) are derived from the same codebase. The version is not an indicator as it only tells you which revision you are using. Technically Vista is still NT just a modified kernel in comparison

[BoDEAN]

Vista and Vista SP1 work fine for office, games, every day use.

If it doesn't work well on your system, or you have poor performance a) buy a new pc or b) stick with an aged xp.

[Son of Hook]

Hang on, you're the same people who claim that Linux is 'too complex' for Joe average, and yet, you expect that very same Joe to acquire all the same knowledge you have to run Windows Vista 'properly'. Interesting double standards.

Black kettles, glass houses and all that jazz I guess.

The average Joe doesn't go out and buy new operating systems. They acquire it by buying a new computer; a computer that has the appropriate hardware and drivers already.

[Dysphoria]

The average Joe doesn't go out and buy new operating systems. They acquire it by buying a new computer; a computer that has the appropriate hardware and drivers already.

Well I dont know how exactly you define average Joe but I dont think that an average person has money to buy a new PC every year. They try to save their money and upgrade OS if they can.

You see, not everyone will go and shell out some cash on a new PC so they can get a flashy glass effect on their desktop when their current XP PC is performing quite well.

That is why most of the bigger corporations have not switched to Vista. They see absolutely no reason for spending funds on something that will not increase efficiency nor productivity.

[Son of Hook]

Well I dont know how exactly you define average Joe but I dont think that an average person has money to buy a new PC every year. They try to save their money and upgrade OS if they can.

You see, not everyone will go and shell out some cash on a new PC so they can get a flashy glass effect on their desktop when their current XP PC is performing quite well.

That is why most of the bigger corporations have not switched to Vista. They see absolutely no reason for spending funds on something that will not increase efficiency nor productivity.

I didn't say, nor did I imply, people buy a computer every year. Generally, people use their computer until there is a need to buy another one. The majority of people using Vista right now acquired the OS because they bought a new computer.

I work in IT, and I have for over seven years. IT departments, at least the three that I've worked in, don't purchase OSs separately; they, too, also acquire an OS through purchasing new computers.

As for Vista, I have Vista Business on my laptop. Core 2 Duo, 2GB of RAM, 100g HDD, and a nVidia mobile chip. I have no complaints.

[Dysphoria]

As for Vista, I have Vista Business on my laptop. Core 2 Duo, 2GB of RAM, 100g HDD, and a nVidia mobile chip. I have no complaints.

I hear ya... Nice laptop!

Mine is working fine though with XP and OpenSuse. I have a Desktop PC for my Gaming / Multimedia experience's :)

[Setnom]

So, when is SP3 final coming out??

[Evolution]

Probably around the same time that SP1 and 2008 are coming out.

[d3nuo]

3) People who know how to use/maintain their computers and with up to date current hardware...

++

[Chode]

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS

2) buyer's remorse

**** off you god damn troll, no-one gives a crap about your askew view of the world.

[strotee]

**** off you god damn troll, no-one gives a crap about your askew view of the world.

Nor does anyone care about your inability to read the whole thread before making rash, immature comments. My initial comment was said in jest, followed up with a better explanation. You would know this if you read the whole thread. :yes:

[semifamous]

For me, the speed difference indicated in the image in the first post is a good indication of why I will never spend money on Windows Vista or a computer that includes it. I'm also in the IT field boat with the other guy who recommends that average users stay away from Vista for now. I'm just glad that computer manufacturers are offering the option to upgrade to XP or to buy it with XP instead.

Vista has efficiency problems.

[revvo]

A copy everything is kept in both system and video RAM since they must be transfered between the two in the event a game or other 3D app needs access to the video card. That's why it always eats RAM.

Ohhhh right, I'm forgetting my hardware knowledge :|

It's a hell of a lot better than everything freezing up for a few seconds while data is moved around.

As for the 2GB requirement, neither OS has a cache quite like SuperFetch. And lets be honest, Vista does have a lot of services like shadow copy and media center running in the background that are probably eating up RAM, maybe even more than they should. It's not perfect but it ain't ME, and it's certainly better than pre-SP1 XP.

I know I agree that it's better than an unpatched XP. All I was pointing out is that Microsoft reccomends 1GB for the best experience on Vista and judging from the reactions that people are getting here, Vista is smooth as silk on 2GB, not 1.

[khalsa]

3) People who know how to use/maintain their computers and with up to date current hardware...

I agree, Vista has been running great on all 3 of my systems (2 desktops, 1 laptop)

[Fugi]

There's no way you can convince Vista users that this OS is ****, and they can't convince you that it's not.

So why keep playing the same old song? it's getting ridiculous.

There's alot of people that have zero problems with the OS and actually enjoy using it.

Your assumptions just makes you sound uninformed.

+1

I use vista and it's alright, my biggest gripe is it just seems like the same stuff moved around in a different format at first. Although when im working on an xp machine here and there I find myself looking for tools that aren't there. Whatever floats your boat, use what works for you and don't complain about what others decide to use.

[revvo]

There's no way you can convince Vista users that this OS is ****, and they can't convince you that it's not.

So why keep playing the same old song? it's getting ridiculous.

There's alot of people that have zero problems with the OS and actually enjoy using it.

Your assumptions just makes you sound uninformed.

Why is there no way? Because they don't care about technicalities? You're right, the average joe doesn't know or care about the details and basically they'll think Vista's better than any older Windows because

1) It looks pretty

2) It's new

So it must be good!

And besides, it's not a question of "are the problems?", it's a question of "do I need it?"

I've convinced a few people to not upgrade their current desktop to Vista by simply telling them what feature they need from Vista. They had no clue, and I told them the advantages, and they for themselves took the decision to stay on XP. So in that sense, I convinced them that XP's better than Vista for them? And by better I don't mean technically better but a better choice. I only told people to get Vista for those who built a new computer, they got Vista as it's a better and more secure XP but if they already had XP, they aren't dumb to decide when you present them the pros and cons of upgrading.

It's not that hard to convince people what they need or don't need. Just don't shoot crazy technical terms at them or they'll decide.

[TEX4S]

iM RUNNING BOTH - dualboot config and switch back and forth -

Vista Ultimate & XP SP3 hack -

I spend most (95%) of the time in Vista - since most computer time is on internet - and I like Dreamscene

I still have an XP image active because there are still a couple of progs that I need every once in a while that dont play well w/ Vista

XP is now a solid OS - maybe not as solid as Win 2K Pro, or 98SE - but those are pretty seasoned - Vista would be "decent" by SP2 - then it will be time to bash how crappy Venice is !

[chrispinto]

Hardly, i got by on 256 of RAM which came with the old computer, 2GB for decent performance in Vista is a joke

Cast your mind to way-back-when

256meg of ram was once the same price that 2gig is now, i bought 4gig just 3 months ago for ?80...

next arguement please

I've had an install of XP running for 4 years with no problems. I'm sure others have had longer.

invalid arguement there though, Vista has only been RTM since November 06, or purchaseable since January:pp

[quote name='franzon' post='589014613' date='Nov 24 2007, 18:17':blink::

I use Vista since 30 January and on my PC the dwm.exe has always used about 14-16MB only (I have a Geforce 6200 with 256MB).

512meg GF7600 here, and dwm.exe is using roughly 24meg

as an IT guy i tell people to get the hell away from vista, it has protential... but not yet way to slow and buggy. like honestly, it can even do networking or file transfers prooperly. SO SLOW!!!

Uhm..

But in the end I decided to stick with XP. I came to the conclusion that Vista is basically a supercharged version of XP (they use the same kernel) [/b]>

XP = NT 5.1

Vista = NT 6

Not same kernal...

Edited November 25, 2007 by chrispinto

[Jock Horror]

too many vista fanboys here... bring on sp3 and xp ftw