Simply Windows XP is better than Vista

[zhangm Supervisor]

you thought you farted but in reality is poop, check your pants :shiftyninja:

Nah, only poo I see is floating around at the top of this thread. ;)

[dwarhya]

I've not yet posted in one of these threads but after seeing hundreds of them all over the internet, it's time for me to vent...

NO ONE gives a toss if you think XP is better than Vista, if it is, use XP, I DON'T care ...

Why are you even reading the thread then ?

[heslo]

Cos it makes me laugh the same crap recycled over and over

[darkz]

This is just poor... you just don't know how to use your computer or you've got a load of crap installed if your getting system locks and crashes.

NO problems with Vista..

David.

+3

[+Nik Louch Subscriber²]

I have a "relatively" fast system (4.2 for the performance index in Vista) and I still prefer XP.

Well there you go guys. Because this one person has a rating of 4.2 but still prefers Vista - we can safely say that Vista is the clear winner.

[Turge]

I find it kind of interesting that your Reliability Monitor screenshot is of October, when you are posting an article in December and not post any details about it. Let's see what's been happening in November and December. And since I'm sure your list of app failures will be much smaller, please include a description of each of these "failures" so that we can see how much of a half-ass review this actually is. If XP actually had a Reliability Monitor, you would probably see the same thing since apps crash on every OS.

I can honestly say that I have had the occasional Explorer crash, but I would definately attribute this to a faulty or missing codec. I have also noticed delays when copying/deleting files and emptying the recycle bin. Would this cause be to go back to XP? Not a chance. There are too many advantages to running Vista. The System Protection, for example, is a great feature which will enable you to restore ANY file on your system if you delete it or make a modification to it. The Windows Recovery Environment (granted, you have to know what you're doing to install it), will automatically resolve any boot issue within seconds, whether it be due to a corrupt registry hive, faulty driver or some other system change.

I think your attempt to be taken seriously came up short.

D-

:p

[Athernar]

Wow! Let's upgrade to Windows 3.1, then!

3.1? Why would anyone want to use that bloated PoS?

I mean it totally uses all of that 2GB of RAM in my system, and even though i don't have a clue what it's using it for, it HAS to be slowing my system down by like 1 billion%.

I'm upgrading to DOS. :whistle:

[sjgore]

Oh dear. This is one of those "I can't afford Vista / I haven't got the hardware for Vista / I'm not capable of running Vista*" (*delete as appropriate) threads where people try and justify to themselves why they have stayed with XP. Freud would have a field day. Sad.

Edited December 17, 2007 by sjgore

[Cloud Geek]

I remember people saying they would not switch from 98 to xp and look around who is on 98?

I think its those same people holding everyone back again how sad the old people cannot keep up or upgrade

and the end users are to stupid to manage there computers

really great thread here....

why not post your specs so we can have a good laugh

[devHead]

You know what, I have to agree with almost all your points. I'm presently running Vista Business x64 and it's working pretty good, but admittedly it's not as fast and responsive as XP on this same machine. I found the biggest annoyance is canceling a file transfer or copy. How can you break something that worked perfectly in your last OS? Plus, the Reliability report is quite depressing for me also. I'm glad I'm not the only one whose score is plummeting almost every day!

[Cloud Geek]

You know what, I have to agree with almost all your points. I'm presently running Vista Business x64 and it's working pretty good, but admittedly it's not as fast and responsive as XP on this same machine. I found the biggest annoyance is canceling a file transfer or copy. How can you break something that worked perfectly in your last OS? Plus, the Reliability report is quite depressing for me also. I'm glad I'm not the only one whose score is plummeting almost every day!

same hardware = old hardware

the reliability report is there to tell you whats messing up so you can upgrade replace or remove that application your fault that you are not using it :rolleyes:

and there is an update and service pack rc to take care of the file transfers/copying

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vis...eshoot-crashes/

[abcdefg]

why not post your specs so we can have a good laugh

Why not tell us why Vista sucks more resources? I told my point now what is yours?

[Rudy]

hi,

I've never seen as much microsoft fans as in this forum.

Vista suffer from the comparison with XP, full point.

I have a "relatively" fast system (4.2 for the performance index in Vista)

and I still prefer XP.

Moreover, nothing in the new Vista system justify the big decrease of performance.

my computer that i built in August gets a 5.5 yet i still use XP.... the "index" doesn't tell you what OS you'll use lol

[Eric Veteran]

I bet $100 this thread will get out of control :laugh:

The mods need to start slapping people down that post OS flame-bait. :)

[seta-san]

i'm just sick of hearing people bitch about vista. please for the love of god stop it.

[Athernar]

Why not tell us why Vista sucks more resources? I told my point now what is yours?

Define "resources".

As if you're referring to what i think you are, there is a simple explanation.

i'm just sick of hearing people bitch about vista. please for the love of god stop it.

I suppose this isen't the best time to tell you we're in for exactly the same thing when Windows 7 is released? :p

[Punio4]

Hm. I tried Vista and loved it (got it over msdnaa), however, I had to go back to XP for a few reasons:

1) no drivers for my soundstorm = bad asio lag, no EAX, only ac97'

2) no programs or options forcing the max refresh rate. I have a 19' crt, and gaming in 60Hz is a pain.

3) no possibility of removing mouse acceleration and forcing a polling rate of 500Hz = no UT

4) ~20 fps less in Guild Wars compared to XP - probably nvidia's fault, however the pain is mine to bear.

5) the indexing... Arg. Even tho I disabled it, my HDD was working all the time...

I will not mention boot times, which are a laugh compared to XP (vista: 1:40, xp: 30 sec)

However, with newer hardware and better drivers, and updates/service packs, I'm sure Vista will end up a great OS.

Just... For now... I really have no reason to switch.

Oh, by the way, my config:

Barton 3200+

GF 7600GT

1 gig DDR400

[Boeing 787]

Vista will rock when everyone has a quad core, 8 gigs of memory and the latest video card. That will be in 2009 or 2010.

Windows XP will begin to age rapidly then and like Windows 98 vs Windows XP debate will become a sad relic of history.

[FlibbyFlobby]

Right now I'm running Windows Vista (see my sig for specs), but I've been considering moving back to XP. I don't have any major problems with Vista per se, it runs pretty smooth and does what I need (gaming/programming). My main gripes are in some areas it feels a bit clunky and heavy and a little resource hungry, and I really don't use many of the new features in it (other than the obvious under-the-hood ones). I guess the negative of moving back to XP is no DirectX10. Gah, choices choices...

[SacrificialSoldier]

*Oh! look mom! Another Vixta is better then xp thread*

:rolleyes:

yes, I run XP but these threads are just making everyone classify all XP users as uber-fanboys like you n00bs. I for one, am not willing to be classified with you people.

Just quit making these kinds of threads.

[t_r_nelson]

Interesting how the OP hasn't come back to this post to defend himself/herself.

[duntkno]

windows xp!! woooott

[monacelli]

Oh dear. This is one of those "I can't afford Vista / I haven't got the hardware for Vista / I'm not capable of running Vista*" (*delete as appropriate) threads where people try and justify to themselves why they have stayed with XP. Freud would have a field day. Sad.

Actually these threads are usually filled with people trying to justify why they're running Vista. Personally I can afford Vista, have the hardware, and am more than capable of running Vista. My impressions of Vista were that I didn't like the way they redesigned Windows Explorer, UAC was annoying, the sidebar was basically useless, and I didn't like that Vista was giving me 'access denied' error messages when accessing certain directories (junctions). Aero is nice but is nothing better than Compiz is offering on the Linux side of things. Really what it comes down to is Vista just felt very half-assed to me.

I was planning on giving it another shot once SP1 was released but when I think about it, the things that annoyed me are design decisions by Microsoft and aren't going to be any different or better.

Edited December 17, 2007 by monacelli

[bigmehdi]

@hardgiant

Vista will rock when everyone has a quad core, 8 gigs of memory and the latest video card. That will be in 2009 or 2010.

I disagree. What about a proper handling of resources available ?

Ubuntu, or whatever system, doesn't need as much big hardware requirements as Vista, to work at their best.

If Vista would rock, then Ubuntu would dance & fly high.

I have the strong feeling that Microsoft is just fooling us with

the new hardware requirements.

If at least the 2Gb of RAM could be justified !

Is that the effect of DRM ?

[Tamilboy86]

This is just poor... you just don't know how to use your computer or you've got a load of crap installed if your getting system locks and crashes.

NO problems with Vista..

David.

+1