Why isn't Vista loved as much as XP?
Posted by Steven Parker on 16 January 2008 - 21:59 · 143 comments & 74192 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(5 replies)
#1 Posted by EL1TE on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:00
- Oh my god, not again. v_v
I almost see that a war is coming.
Last edited by EL1TE on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:01 -
#1.1 Posted by aStRaLgOd on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:17
- Quote - (EL1TE said @ #1)Oh my god, not again. v_v
I almost see that a war is coming.
So sick of those news post... -
#1.2 Posted by Wiggz on 17 Jan 2008 - 07:41
- +1 Anyone would think this was a Microsoft Viral campaign in order to keep Vista's name "out there". Vista is a decent operating system. There is no getting around it.
Similarly however there is no way of getting around the fact that it's not up to XP's standard in a lot of ways, and provides little or not genuine reason to adopt if people are happy with their office environment now.
Simple as that. You can do the same job on both...just a little slower on Vista currently. -
#1.3 Posted by briangw on 17 Jan 2008 - 22:08
- I seem to recall that XP was hated as much when it first came out and everyone was whining that it was no where as good as Windows 98. The trend goes on and on and on.......
-
#1.4 Posted by ANova on 18 Jan 2008 - 02:05
- Quote - (briangw said @ #1.3)I seem to recall that XP was hated as much when it first came out and everyone was whining that it was no where as good as Windows 98. The trend goes on and on and on.......
This is the same bs argument that people keep claiming ad nauseum. XP was a huge improvement over 95/98/ME and even 2k right when it came out aside from the obvious lack of driver support.
The situation is very different with Vista which suffers from pretty severe performance and compatibility issues as well as bugs and little to offer over XP. -
#1.5 Posted by Captain555 on 18 Jan 2008 - 17:21
- The war will be very short.
Fact: MS has extended their deadline for providing OEM license for XP to computer builder up to January 2009. They will extend it again.
Fact: MS has committed in supporting XP, i.e. produce monthly patches, until 2014.
Fact: XP SP3 is right around the corner. (Beta right now)
Fact: Vienna beta will be release very soon. They already announce possible release for H2 2009 for that next Windows.
IMHO Vista will soon be an after tought. It will be shelved.
Now lets hope that MS will show us that they have learn from the Vista mess.
The problem with Vista is they went too far from XP. You can change stuff, you can add stuff, but it has to stay backward compatible. Yes, there was problem when XP came out, but at least you could connect it to a network and have it communicate with a 2000 or a 98. You can't transfer file from an XP to a Vista. How stupid is that ?
-
(4 replies)
#2 Posted by +Markus-J on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:05
- Never encountered any problems with Vista HP on my Vaio, despite all badmouthing on the internet..
Only thing that could be improved is ofcourse the game support, however that's not a big issue personally. -
#2.1 Posted by toadeater on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:35
- Quote - (Markus-J said @ #2)Never encountered any problems with Vista HP on my Vaio, despite all badmouthing on the internet..
Only thing that could be improved is ofcourse the game support, however that's not a big issue personally.
You must not have run into Vista's continuing networking bugs, which drive IT people crazy. Or had driver problems with professional audio and video/3D hardware, which makes Vista unsuitable for many creative types. Or with Vista deactivating after BIOS or driver updates, which annoys OC types and modders. There's also the applications that don't work as well in Vista as in XP, or work at all, which makes noobs think that Vista is "broken." Lastly, as everyone knows, Vista has on average an extra 200-500MB of overhead for games, which brought up the whole x64 vs. x32 debate because Vista gamers--unlike XP gamers--were running out of RAM.
XP was a mess when it was released, but it was noticeably better than Win9x for stability and some features (not quite as much compared to Win2K though!
. Vista doesn't have any significant improvements that are apparent when using XP-compatible apps. Comparing Vista to XP is like comparing XP to Win2K, not to Win9x. There's very little improvement, and quite a few drawbacks.
For Vista to be a noticeable improvement in something other than eye candy and Microsoft's self-serving "features," apps have to be optimized for Vista. What all this means is that Vista's performance isn't going to noticeably improve this year, no matter what MS does. People in 2008 are going to continue to ask "Why the hell should I bother with Vista when it doesn't improve anything?" -
#2.2 Posted by hewitt s. on 17 Jan 2008 - 14:04
- Quote - (toadeater said @ #2.1)You must not have run into Vista's continuing networking bugs, which drive IT people crazy. Or had driver problems with professional audio and video/3D hardware, which makes Vista unsuitable for many creative types. Or with Vista deactivating after BIOS or driver updates, which annoys OC types and modders. There's also the applications that don't work as well in Vista as in XP, or work at all, which makes noobs think that Vista is "broken." Lastly, as everyone knows, Vista has on average an extra 200-500MB of overhead for games, which brought up the whole x64 vs. x32 debate because Vista gamers--unlike XP gamers--were running out of RAM.
XP was a mess when it was released, but it was noticeably better than Win9x for stability and some features (not quite as much compared to Win2K though!). Vista doesn't have any significant improvements that are apparent when using XP-compatible apps. Comparing Vista to XP is like comparing XP to Win2K, not to Win9x. There's very little improvement, and quite a few drawbacks.
For Vista to be a noticeable improvement in something other than eye candy and Microsoft's self-serving "features," apps have to be optimized for Vista. What all this means is that Vista's performance isn't going to noticeably improve this year, no matter what MS does. People in 2008 are going to continue to ask "Why the hell should I bother with Vista when it doesn't improve anything?"
I'm a creative type and a gamer. I run Vista Home Premium. I've had zero problems. Never seen it crash. I play 3D intensive games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas without issue (plays flawlessly). I use all the Adobe Creative Suite applications without issue. I've updated my PC BIOS and Vista didn't de-activate. I've only had one of my applications not work properly under Vista, and the company has since released an upgrade. There are some performance issues when compared to XP, but those will be addressed in SP1.
Last edited by hewitt s. on 17 Jan 2008 - 14:10 -
#2.3 Posted by Captain555 on 18 Jan 2008 - 17:27
- Think again Hewitt. Test show that SP1 will give a 2% increase in performance which will leave XP still twice as fast as Vista. Not a little bit, twice as fast.
-
#2.4 Posted by mischie on 21 Jan 2008 - 16:14
- (hewitt s. said @ #1)... I play 3D intensive games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas without issue ...
INTENSIVE? Lord... San Andreas was 3D intensive some time from now... Ok, getting real now, let's face that on the best case scenarios Vista 3D Performance is, at best, on par with XP. BTW, Vista performance is 98% XP Performance in ANY case best scenario... Plus the fact that Vista don't give any meaningful feature, why get thru the hurdles of a fresh OS, with all the driver mess and backward compatibility issues if I can keep my 8 years old XP working flawlessly?
I really hope that Windows 7 give us some really exciting new features. I really want that the MinWin make Windows 7 faster than XP - ok, I think I'm getting delirious on that, but I'm a man of faith. Well, frankly, I really want something that make me JUMP Vista at all, and make me happy as XP made me.
-
(2 replies)
#3 Posted by Frank on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:08
- I agree 100%. XP had it's problems and I wouldn't consider XP a good OS without SP2. It will take the application developers and the hardware manufacturers time but they will catch up and Vista will be better then XP.
-
#3.1 Posted by tomasarson on 17 Jan 2008 - 01:57
- +1
-
#4 Posted by thenay on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:08
- "despite the driver being included in all "Whistler" builds right up until about the 24xx releases" I hated that so much, like why did they drop the drivers at 24xx, my etnernet at the time was dropped too then and I agree XP wasn't great until SP2, SP1 helped but after trying many computers with no SP, SP1 and SP2 (which I use) I must say SP2 is better. Can't wait for SP3 for XP
-
(6 replies)
#5 Posted by KeR on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:09
- How dare you compare XP to Vista...besides this article is bait for members to argue.
-
#5.3 Posted by metallithrax on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:42
- 2 articles by Neobond that I've read today, 2 articles by Neobond considered flame bait (not by me, I don't care - bring on the discussion
). Good going, why not try for the hat-trick? -
#5.4 Posted by Neobond on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:50
- The 3rdone could be "Why American girls didn't put out when I was in the states last week" but Tom Warren would probably resign and that wouldn't make me happy
-
#5.5 Posted by metallithrax on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:56
- Quote - (Neobond said @ #5.4)The 3rdone could be "Why American girls didn't put out when I was in the states last week" but Tom Warren would probably resign and that wouldn't make me happy
But if you asked that one, and seeing as we have seen the photos, you may get some answers that you do not want
But then if Froggy had let you loose in his car, who knows what could have happened. -
#5.6 Posted by whocares78 on 17 Jan 2008 - 04:20
- Quote - (Neobond said @ #5.4)The 3rdone could be "Why American girls didn't put out when I was in the states last week" but Tom Warren would probably resign and that wouldn't make me happy
you musn't have an aussie accent, they all put out when they hear our good old aussie accent
-
(2 replies)
#6 Posted by TRC on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:12
- Well I can only give personal opinions but: I think Vista is really ugly, I think the new layout is horrible (replacing tabbed windows with scattered hyperlinks, wtf?), I think it's too slow and I'm not interested in buying more RAM just to run it. Most important of all though is the fact that I simply do not need it. Vista offers absolutely nothing I need that can't be done in XP. That is why I'm not the least bit interested in Vista.
-
#6.1 Posted by sullysnet on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:29
- He has a point
why would anyone that wants performance care anything about how the OS looks? My personal opinion is that the layout of the OS is made for dummies (mostly) I do enjoy a few things from the OS and that is pretty much the only thing that keeps me interested in the product. I felt they should of left a XP like GUI to the system until you felt comfortable to move over. Like they did with XP with Classic look. Now I don't mind the default theme in XP after I've had some time and interest to change over. Still many people use the classic look. Good part it's a matter of taste just like different distro's of Linux. I choose XP but you choose Vista and that is 
-
(2 replies)
#7 Posted by +abulfares on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:21
- God article; finally a decent read to remind those Vista-bashing noobs what their beloved XP went through
and yes, i am running Vista on 3 desktops and 5 laptops = no issues with performance and stability
Last edited by abulfares on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:22 -
#7.1 Posted by Foub on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:54
- With all of its problems XP STILL wasn't nearly as bad as Vista is. XP didn't force me to go back to an older version and to eventually leave Windows altogether either. BTW, SP2 for XP was mostly to do with security matters and a roll up of previous updates as well. And I'm far from being a noob.
-
#7.2 Posted by [X]-bYtE on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:34
- Quote - (Foub said @ #7.1)With all of its problems XP STILL wasn't nearly as bad as Vista is. XP didn't force me to go back to an older version and to eventually leave Windows altogether either. BTW, SP2 for XP was mostly to do with security matters and a roll up of previous updates as well. And I'm far from being a noob.
XP did it for me actually... all because of drivers from Nvidia. It took 3 months to get stable drivers. Sounds simular?
This article is to the point. It's time to end this silly spreading of myths. I still see post in forums asking if this game works in Vista, why does Vista eat my RAM etc. I guess ignorance isn't always bliss...
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by hotdog963al on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:26
- I had to fix a problem with Vista mail for about 10 minutes on a Dell laptop and I wanted to die so bad. I had it on my secondary rig once though and it wasn't *too* bad after a bit of taming. I still prefer XP's lite feel compared to Vista though and I DEFINATELY think Mac OS X is a better OS solution for the noobs who keep the preloaded junk they get from PC World on their machines.
-
#8.1 Posted by hewitt s. on 17 Jan 2008 - 14:12
- Quote - (hotdog963al said @ #
I had to fix a problem with Vista mail for about 10 minutes on a Dell laptop and I wanted to die so bad. I had it on my secondary rig once though and it wasn't *too* bad after a bit of taming. I still prefer XP's lite feel compared to Vista though and I DEFINATELY think Mac OS X is a better OS solution for the noobs who keep the preloaded junk they get from PC World on their machines.
Vista is perfectly fine for a newbie if it's pre-loaded. A newbie should never attempt to upgrade any OS.
-
(1 reply)
#9 Posted by dagamer34 on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:41
- So are you suggesting we wait 3 years for a SP2 to get a decent OS release? Or that Microsoft needs to release a dud like Windows Me for the Windows release AFTER that to eventually be considered good? I'm confused?
-
#9.1 Posted by PricklyPoo on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:43
- Quote - (dagamer34 said @ #9)So are you suggesting we wait 3 years for a SP2 to get a decent OS release? Or that Microsoft needs to release a dud like Windows Me for the Windows release AFTER that to eventually be considered good? I'm confused?
Neobond is suggesting that questioning his authority will get you banned. :p
-
(8 replies)
#11 Posted by xporvista on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:55
- Here is something I posted in another forum, but the performance in Vista compared to XP isn't that different...
Test Setup (Tried to keep the hardware similar to what a typical person would use)
Pentium 4 (not dual core) 2.4Ghz
Intel p865 chipset
2GB DDR 400
80 Gig Maxtor HDD
Nvidia 7800 GS XP/Vista Driver 169.25
XP SP2 w/ current drivers and updates, and the same w/ Vista SP1 RC refresh
Startup time:
XP - 37 sec
Vista - 47 sec
3D Mark 2001:
XP - 9805
Vista - 11122
PC Mark 2005:
XP-3198
Vista - 2665
HDD XP startup: XP - 7.2MB/s Vista - 7.18
Physics: XP - 98fps Vista - 75.53
Transparent Windows: XP - 1040 windows/sec Vista 474
3D: XP - 189fps Vista - 180
Web Page Loading: XP - 1.82/s Vista - .94
File Decryption: XP - 48.27Mb/s Vista - 48.1
Graphics Memory: XP - 1352.59fps Vista - 1165.21
HDD - General usage: XP - 5Mb/s Vista - 4.97
Multi app test:
1 Audio: XP - 785.2kb/s Vista - 739.8
1 Video: XP - 106.14kb/s Vista - 97.75
2 Text: XP - 46.5 Vista - 37
2 Image: XP - 9Mb/s Vista - 8
3 File Compression: XP - 1.62/? Vista - 1.43
3 File Encryption: XP - 13.3Mb/s Vista - 12.14
3 Virus Scan: XP - 26.47Mb/s Vista - 20.48
3 Latency: XP - 6.47 Vista - 6.35 -
#11.1 Posted by nonick on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:58
- Uhh, good job comparing useless things? FPS what matters. XP delivers Vista does not.
the end -
#11.2 Posted by Croquant on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:15
- Did you notice that XP beats Vista in virtually every stat he listed?
-
#11.3 Posted by xporvista on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:16
- Quote - (nonick said @ #11.1)Uhh, good job comparing useless things? FPS what matters. XP delivers Vista does not.
the end
Yes I agree, if you are a gamer. This comparison was to show that the transfer rates are fairly close. If it is fps that is the main issue, then this is nothing to do with Vista, it is the drivers for your graphics card. I run a ton of things on my home pc, ranging from graphic editing programs, to video editing, and I have not found any problems encoding or decoding anything, and everything is just as fast as XP. But of course, this is my PC, and may be different with someones else. -
#11.4 Posted by +Kushan on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:18
- Quote - (nonick said @ #11.1)Uhh, good job comparing useless things? FPS what matters. XP delivers Vista does not.
the end
I'm sorry, but in the real world, outside of your bedroom, most people use their PCs for things other than games, so all of his points are extremely relevant.
I'm a PC gamer myself and I still use my PC for things other than playing games, probably more than I actually PLAY games. -
#11.5 Posted by nonick on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:35
- Quote - (Kushan said @ #11.4)Quote - (nonick said @ #11.1)Uhh, good job comparing useless things? FPS what matters. XP delivers Vista does not.
the end
I'm sorry, but in the real world, outside of your bedroom, most people use their PCs for things other than games, so all of his points are extremely relevant.
I'm a PC gamer myself and I still use my PC for things other than playing games, probably more than I actually PLAY games.
Because all he showed are really important for all those people who purchased laptops with vista and home pcs with vista installed.
So, I'm sorry, but in the real world, where the majority of customers are tech-ignorant don't give a crap about the minimal difference between transferring two files or encoding a music file. They care when they run a game that they play and end up with 10 fps instead of 30 and whine left and right about why the performance is so crappy or when they have a laptop with 512 mb of ram and vista keeps on hanging(YES plenty have those) go on public and say how much vista sucks.
So no, maybe in your world where everyone is so tech savvy they give a rats ass but in real world.. they don't. -
#11.6 Posted by Athernar on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:47
- Quote - (nonick said @ #11.5)Quote - (Kushan said @ #11.4)Quote - (nonick said @ #11.1)Uhh, good job comparing useless things? FPS what matters. XP delivers Vista does not.
the end
I'm sorry, but in the real world, outside of your bedroom, most people use their PCs for things other than games, so all of his points are extremely relevant.
I'm a PC gamer myself and I still use my PC for things other than playing games, probably more than I actually PLAY games.
Because all he showed are really important for all those people who purchased laptops with vista and home pcs with vista installed.
So, I'm sorry, but in the real world, where the majority of customers are tech-ignorant don't give a crap about the minimal difference between transferring two files or encoding a music file. They care when they run a game that they play and end up with 10 fps instead of 30 and whine left and right about why the performance is so crappy or when they have a laptop with 512 mb of ram and vista keeps on hanging(YES plenty have those) go on public and say how much vista sucks.
So no, maybe in your world where everyone is so tech savvy they give a rats ass but in real world.. they don't.
Heheh, "I'm sorry, but" the "Majority of customers" do not play games, they use thier PCs to surf a few websites, send e-mail and use Office.
I'm just going to skip to the point now, if you're going to troll, try to not to make it so blatantly obvious, and do it in a topic where your "arguement" dosen't make you look like a clueless basement-dwelling 13 year-old.
In summary: Lurk Moar.
Last edited by Athernar on 17 Jan 2008 - 01:13 -
#11.7 Posted by franzon on 17 Jan 2008 - 16:49
- This test measures only the performances of a single task at time, once this task is started, but it doesn't measure how the task is loaded, it doesn't measure how the other tasks perform all together.
The most important thing is evaluating the performance of the whole system that's a multitask enviroment: vista improves cpu scheduling, memory managment, I/O managment, I/O scheduling, all things that improve the responsiveness of all daily activities, smoother desktop loading, smoother application loading, smoother application closing, system stability improved after a video crash (driver is automatically restarted, no BSOD), less reboots (SP1 will also enable the hot patching = less less reboots), improved the windows's redraw with desktop composition (aero), etc.
Last edited by franzon on 17 Jan 2008 - 17:02 -
#11.8 Posted by Captain555 on 18 Jan 2008 - 17:41
- Most PCs are not use at home, most PCs are use in a business setting.
Reseachers for Devil Mountain Software using a Dell XPS M1710, ran test using MS Office 2007. The results showed that XP was twice as fast as Vista.
That's real life.
The article ran in late december, google it and find it.
-
(6 replies)
#12 Posted by zoonyx on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:13
- I don't agree with this article at all.
Install a vanilla Windows XP install, and a vanilla Vista install. Without any service packs or updates, XP is far superior.
I used a (Admittedly dodgy - but im legal now) copy of XP RC2 for ages, and it was perfectly stable. Vista is just a bad O/S
The new features are nice, the security is nice, the fact it wont run correctly, hangs, is slow, won't play games correctly and ***AND THIS IS THE BIGGY*** is not as intuative as XP.
I'm not a microsoft basher - an everytime there is a new build of SP1, or a new update, I dig out my copy of Vista Ultimate (Which MS gave me free btw, so I'm unbiased), within a week I'm begging for XP back - and then I format and do just that - put XP back.
I just cant't live with vista, and I originally thought one day I'd have to. Now I'm not so sure I will. -
#12.1 Posted by TRC on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:19
- Quote -***AND THIS IS THE BIGGY*** is not as intuative as XP.
Microsoft marketing calls it a "streamlined user interface" or some such nonsense. I call it cluttered and completely illogical. Getting rid of the tabbed applets and sticking things all over the place using hyperlinks was a huge mistake. -
#12.2 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:05
- I have people calling me over the recycle bin.
They deleted it somehow (sometimes they say it disappeared! and call to know how to put it back on, because it's different from what they did in XP.
I tried to navigate on Vista's Explorer once, and hated it. -
#12.3 Posted by RAINMAN on 17 Jan 2008 - 02:24
- Quote - (tiagosilva29 said @ #12.2)I have people calling me over the recycle bin.
They deleted it somehow (sometimes they say it disappeared! and call to know how to put it back on, because it's different from what they did in XP.
I tried to navigate on Vista's Explorer once, and hated it.
yes, lets go back to windows 3.1 because change is bad. -
#12.4 Posted by TRC on 17 Jan 2008 - 05:53
- No one is saying change is bad, they're saying Vista's changes are bad. Subtle difference.
-
#12.5 Posted by Jugalator on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:43
- Quote - (RAINMAN said @ #12.3)Quote - (tiagosilva29 said @ #12.2)I have people calling me over the recycle bin.
They deleted it somehow (sometimes they say it disappeared!) and call to know how to put it back on, because it's different from what they did in XP.
I tried to navigate on Vista's Explorer once, and hated it.
yes, lets go back to windows 3.1 because change is bad.
Bad change is bad. Wow, that was easy.
Last edited by Jugalator on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:43 -
#12.6 Posted by hewitt s. on 17 Jan 2008 - 13:54
- Quote - (tiagosilva29 said @ #12.2)I have people calling me over the recycle bin.
They deleted it somehow (sometimes they say it disappeared!) and call to know how to put it back on, because it's different from what they did in XP.
I tried to navigate on Vista's Explorer once, and hated it.
As a Vista user I can assure you that they DID NOT remove the recycle bin. It still sits on the desktop, and you still empty it the same way. They did make one really really stupid change though -- the Recycle Bin folder info does not show you how much disk space the files in the bin use.
-
(2 replies)
#13 Posted by +Kushan on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:19
- I think I'm the only person on the planet that's had no driver problems with Vista. I don't understand the problem, it's compatible with XP drivers as well as Vista drivers, so if a Vista certified one doesn't exist, you can still use your hardware. Even graphics cards work fine with standard XP drivers (Although you do lose Aero).
-
#13.1 Posted by hewitt s. on 17 Jan 2008 - 13:59
- Quote - (Kushan said @ #13)I think I'm the only person on the planet that's had no driver problems with Vista. I don't understand the problem, it's compatible with XP drivers as well as Vista drivers, so if a Vista certified one doesn't exist, you can still use your hardware. Even graphics cards work fine with standard XP drivers (Although you do lose Aero).
I must be the 2nd person on the planet that hasn't had problems with Vista. There are a bunch of us on this forum running Vista without issue. Most of the problems stem from users who upgrade to Vista but who haven't taken the time to find out if their existing hardware is supported. People who got a new PC with Vista aren't having problems. -
#13.2 Posted by Captain555 on 18 Jan 2008 - 18:01
- Quote - (hewitt s. said @ #13.1)People who got a new PC with Vista aren't having problems.
Think again. I own a computer store. Not a week goes by where I don't have 2 or 3 people bringing their PC in for a retrofit to XP. I'm doing so many, I'm now an expert at it. I can do one in my sleep.
Just go on the HP (Compaq) or Acer support forum and go look at post. 90% of the request for support are people looking for drivers to retrofit their PCs to XP.
-
(2 replies)
#14 Posted by mikeyjames on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:20
- Yep, I agree that XP was a dog until at least SP1. If I had $100 for every blue screen, repair install, or total reformat and reinstall in the first 12 months of XP I would be living next door to Bill Gates. I have been using Vista since release and have not had to do a single reinstall and could count blue screens on one hand - so I would say much more stable than XP was initially in that regard.
On the other hand, Vista is definitely slower with games (FPS) and boot time.
I have two identical raid 0 setups with Vista and XP running off partition 1 on each.
From the time I choose OS at boot:
XP = useable in under 30 seconds
Vista = about 60-70 seconds
As far as general usage goes, I am finding Vista (latest SP1 RC) is now just as snappy as XP for most stuff.
Mick
Last edited by mikeyjames on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:25 -
#14.1 Posted by random_n on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:11
- Try using hibernate instead of shutdown. It's a ton more reliable than it ever was in Windows 2000-2003, and usually gets you from "press the power button" to "everything loaded except the Superfetch cache" in 30 seconds or less. You can also reassign the power buttons on your hardware and on the start menu to hibernate by default.
Nothing to be done about the framerate, though.
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by Neoauld on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:22
- vista rocks on my system
feels faster thanxp and handles everything w/o an issue
few bugs..but hey..sp1 is comin..and lets not forget the horror xp was upon release
most of the haters seem like they musth ave outdated hardware
my old 4800x2 2gigs of ram 1950pro agp cudnt handle vista
my new system handles it like a dream..and its grown on me
when i had xp on here i just cudnt stand it
stability on vista is not an issue..no crashes yet..the bugs i was havinissues with are gone in sp1 -
#15.1 Posted by RAID 0 on 17 Jan 2008 - 03:59
- I had Vista RC1 on my Shuttle ( Athlon XP 3000, 1.5 GB DDR-333, ATi 9600 A-I-W, and 2x120Gb HDDs in RAID 0 ) and it ran a little slow, but it was still fast enough to use and not be constantly ****ed. Vista x64 Ultimate with all updates, on my friends quad core with 4 gigs RAM and 8800 GTX... that's a different story. It hauls ass on his PC. Like.. really really fast it is.
-
(2 replies)
#16 Posted by ThaCrip on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:24
- me personally, i think main reason 'Vista aint as loved as XP' is cause all the major improvements from OS to OS are now gone as with XP everything was stable... and generally speaking OS's before XP (not counting windows 2000) where generally unstable.
-
#16.1 Posted by TRC on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:32
- Exactly, XP is perfectly stable and does everything most people need. I don't care about eye candy, it's an operating system not a game. I still use the classic theme on XP, to me an OS should be almost transparent. Sitting obediently in the background unseen, not getting in my face with transparent flashy gizmos and goth black themes. I know you can turn on classic in Vista but it seems very unfinished, it definately wasn't meant for Vista's new design.
So I can "upgrade" to a new OS that requires me to upgrade my hardware to run anywhere close to XP's speed, and really offers me nothing that I don't already have aside from a cluttered unintuitive interface or I can just keep using XP. Not really a touch decision.
Last edited by TRC on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:15 -
#16.2 Posted by ThaCrip on 17 Jan 2008 - 03:19
- Quote - (TRC said @ #16.1)Exactly, XP is perfectly stable and does everything most people need. I don't care about eye candy, it's an operating system not a game. I still use the classic theme on XP, to me an OS should be almost transparent. Sitting obediently in the background unseen, not getting in my face with transparent flashy gizmos and goth black themes. I know you can turn on classic in Vista but it seems very unfinished, it definately wasn't meant for Vista's new design.
So I can "upgrade" to a new OS that requires me to upgrade my hardware to run anywhere close to XP's speed, and really offers me nothing that I don't already have aside from a cluttered unintuitive interface or I can just keep using XP. Not really a touch decision.
same here! ... cause i dont like XP's default bloated look. i still prefer the old school menu's etc more myself.
-
#17 Posted by +Shadrack on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:33
- No issues with Vista here. I like all the new features and the new look too
. Vista Aero > XP Luna...but 3rd party Styles > Vista Aero .
Last edited by Shadrack on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:34
-
(1 reply)
#18 Posted by Foub on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:58
- Some people are easily impressed with shiny things rather than with real substance.
-
(5 replies)
#19 Posted by Baked on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:15
- Well Vista Ultimate x64 rocks IMO
Been using it since late 2006 and had no major issues.....a canon scanner didn't work but the scanner was a 2002 model so that was ok i expected that and besides thats Canon's fault not MS Vista.
Been running vista ultimate x64 on my wifes quad core machine for the last 6mths and she think your all idiots....she says what problems....when she reads articles like this.
Today i get my new quad core system with 4gig ddr2 and 8800 GTS 512meg and iwill be installing dual boot only for legacy support....but Vista ultimate x64 will be the deafult OS on it for sure.
XP is OLD......(its almost 8yrs old now, if u think thats not olod why dont u guys run 98 then lmao) -
#19.1 Posted by TRC on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:17
- Quote -XP is OLD......(its almost 8yrs old now, if u think thats not olod why dont u guys run 98 then lmao)
So? XP still works perfectly, and it still being updated. It's not like people are using XP retail with no service packs.
Oh and if you can't tell the difference between XP and 98 then lmao at you. -
#19.2 Posted by Baked on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:25
- Quote - (TRC said @ #19.1)Quote -XP is OLD......(its almost 8yrs old now, if u think thats not olod why dont u guys run 98 then lmao)
So? XP still works perfectly, and it still being updated. It's not like people are using XP retail with no service packs.
Oh and if you can't tell the difference between XP and 98 then lmao at you.
No i can tell how old fashioned, and behind the times 98 is compared to XP.....
And its exactly the same with XP compared to Vista.....XP = old and behind the times on features. -
#19.3 Posted by TRC on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:30
- Quote -And its exactly the same with XP compared to Vista.....XP = old and behind the times on features.
Name some. I've used Vista, I saw very few features worth upgrading to. Many of them were a step backwards. The new defrag, completely dumbed down and useless. At least in SP1 you can finally select drives again, how revolutionary. The scanner and camera wizard, in XP you can choose which pictures you want to download from your camera. With Vista it just downloads them all and if you don't like it tough. The new Windows Explorer is a cluttered mess imo. Ooh, a shiny new version of Solitaire. Nope, sorry I'm not buying it. Having seperate audio controls is nice, too bad they yanked out DirectSound support. From my experience I found Vista to be a very minor update to XP, and in many ways a downgrade. I'm glad you like it, but I'll pass.
Last edited by TRC on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:37 -
#19.4 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 17 Jan 2008 - 01:29
- Quote - (Baked said @ #19.2)And its exactly the same with XP compared to Vista.....XP = old and behind the times on features.
Comparing the 98-XP jump to the XP-Vista jump is like comparing Batman to Orgazmo.
Last edited by tiagosilva29 on 17 Jan 2008 - 01:30 -
#19.5 Posted by Jugalator on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:37
- Quote -Been using it since late 2006 and had no major issues.....a canon scanner didn't work but the scanner was a 2002 model so that was ok i expected that and besides thats Canon's fault not MS Vista.
It would have worked in XP out of the box. This is the point many try to make. You may point fingers at Canon, but does that make the scanner install on Vista? No.Quote - (Baked said @ #19.2)And its exactly the same with XP compared to Vista.....XP = old and behind the times on features.
There aren't too many Vista features that XP users can't get from even open source or freeware and save a lot of money in the process. You'll likely even get better software doing it that way, since many of the new Vista bundles were hastily put together due to their development problems and project reset during Longhorn. Doing it this way, the foundation will then also remain a slimmer OS.
Last edited by Jugalator on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:41
-
(2 replies)
#20 Posted by The Walker on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:20
- "They will say: "Hey it worked on XP! Why not Vista?" and I simply respond, "It will eventually, when those OEM's and hardware manufacturers get off their lazy asses and support it properly."
WTF????????
Isn't it the job of the software (os) to support the hardware rather than the other way about?... THAT'S the problem with Vista.. the hardware has to do it VISTA'S way instead of Vista doing it the hardware's way.... which has caused endless problems for us all.
Last edited by The Walker on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:20 -
#20.1 Posted by Doli on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:37
- The OS needs drivers to communicate with the hardware. If it was the job of the OS then why would we need to download drivers from a company's website (ATI, Nvidia, HP,...).
-
#21 Posted by zeta_immersion on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:24
- dont like vista don't use it, like it, use it and deal with it ... i have dual boot as not all my hardware is supporte (and never will) ... but is fun to use a new os ... not my main os tho ... cant stand the new office ... i just cannot use it
-
(1 reply)
#22 Posted by Shiranui on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:25
- I love Vista.
I wouldn't expect people to install it on their existing Xp computers, but you'd be a fool to buy a new computer and favour Xp over Vista. -
#22.1 Posted by LaXu on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:06
- Agreed. While Vista is far from perfect, I already like it more than XP. A few games run slower, some others run faster. I'm sure that difference will balance itself as new drivers are released.
I do agree that the file browser is still terrible. It's a piece of **** in XP and is very much so in Vista too. I wish they'd just license Directory Opus.
-
#23 Posted by deck on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:35
- here here! reminds me of a post I made a few months back about this very same issue..
Oh.. here's the post I wrote about.
I'm glad, though, somebody who can post on the main page has echoed my (and other's) sentiments.
-
#24 Posted by Andy1369 on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:40
- Ahhh. Enough already.
What's ironic is that I don't like Vista - am sticking with XP.
Still - we've been through millions of similiar posts. Move on already. Let people decide for themselves.
-
(2 replies)
#25 Posted by justlooking on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:42
- Vista's shell seems to crash WAY more than XP.
-
#25.1 Posted by dotf on 17 Jan 2008 - 01:01
- Quote - (justlooking said @ #1)Vista's shell seems to crash WAY more than XP.
sounds like you need a codec pack update.
Something you've installed to integrate with the shell, or a drive you've migrated forward with invalid security permissions is causing a problem.
If you look at your "Problem Reports and Solutions" tool in the control panel, you might be able to diagnose and resolve your issue.
Something I couldn't do on..... XP
Guess which camp I'm in -
#25.2 Posted by MioTheGreat on 17 Jan 2008 - 01:36
- Really? It shouldn't, unless you've got some crappy shell extentions installed. Probably a crappy context menu handler or video codec.
I remember sites cropping up left and right back in 2001 that were dedicated to showing consumers how to get hold of Windows XP drivers and if your hardware was even compatible! At the time Windows XP was completely new, Windows 98/ME drivers didn't work on this new OS - you needed either new hardware or hope that the manufacturer would code (beta) drivers for your devices. In my case I had a very expensive 10/100MBit Ethernet card from HP (the name escapes me, it's 7 years ago!) and I emailed customer service about lack of driver support and they told me they would never release one and it was being discontinued, despite the driver being included in all "Whistler" builds right up until about the 24xx releases.
I had to install the older 24xx build and then "upgrade" to the latest beta releases. I think I did that until the RC's and finally swapped out the card for something else.
In all fairness Windows XP for Windows users was a huge upgrade of an OS compared to Windows 95/98 and that sad excuse for an update Windows Millennium. Multi tasking was simply impossible without risking a blue screen of death and all of a sudden after its initial teething problems, became a very stable and reliable OS incomparable to the Windows 9x platform.
We forget all the ranting that went on here on Neowin when certain bits of hardware suddenly didn't work, or 3D acceleration was simply terrible up until shortly before its release and even then a lot of cards suddenly weren't supported under the new driver model.
I'd go as far as to say that XP really didn't cut it until SP2 was released, that is when Windows XP came of age and was finally something to write home about. There will always be the users (like me) that will use the latest and greatest despite lack of driver support and obvious performance related issues and we will go on complaining, writing and informing about those short comings until the appropriate people fix those issues. it is believe it or not part of my job
The OS costs money, it's my right as a consumer and hey, I am using it at work so it is also tied into my productivity, lets also not forget all those friends I have helped because they simply don't understand why their printer no longer works when they loaded a Vista upgrade over XP.
They will say: "Hey it worked on XP! Why not Vista?" and I simply respond, "It will eventually, when those OEM's and hardware manufacturers get off their lazy asses and support it properly.
So while it may look like a few of those articles on Neowin and around the Internet appear to crucify Vista, please remember that we are not the only ones doing that, real world average Joes are, and even big companies like Dell decided to back pedal by offering XP on their newer business line PC's and laptops (but not for the general consumer) when they are supposed to have some sort of influence on the hardware industry.
Just goes to show that Microsoft may not have much of a say in that sector as we all thought it did. I know first hand by speaking with Microsoft developers how unhappy they are at failed promises by certain hardware vendors to deliver good drivers. Given time Vista will rock as much as XP did and still does for many today.
Hang in there.