Simply Windows XP is better than Vista

[guruparan]

+1

+2

[Circaflex]

Are you guys forgetting this all happened with Windows XP? The operating system you guys are now in love with went through the same problems when it was first released, performance was bad, stuff didnt work correctly, and there was an outcry of windows 2000/98 > xp. You guys are acting like XP was perfect from the start. I have been running Vista for over a year, not one problem. You guys fail to see that it isnt Microsofts fault that 3rd party companies arent writing drivers for Vista that work, and its been over a year since it was released. My gaming fps is the same if not better on Vista compared to XP. Benchmarks are the same on Vista compared to XP. I can play DX10 games on Vista and use DX10, where as XP cannot. You guys bashing vista must either not have any idea what you're doing, or have an ancient machine and well face the fact that you need to upgrade.

[ShaneSparky_YYZ]

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

And yes same issues happened with XP, I remember device support was horrid with RTM XP, SP1 fixed that.

Hopefully SP1 does for Vista, but in terms of performance XP is still better and many studies show that, even on the best hardware.

I have a Core 2 Duo 6750, 4GB of DDR2 @ 800mhz, an a 8800GTS 640mb vid card and I find XP better.

I benched in both OS versions (XP 64 and Vista 64) and XP 64 did better by 4000 marks! Vista is not for me, and I could careless about DX10 right now.

[Cloud Geek]

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...

I have never liked asus boards intel and gigabyte boards seemed to perform better but theres no reason you machine cannot handle vista it works fine on pentium d 2.6 ghz with less ram and less video.....

[Shadrack]

For me, I think Vista has been an upgrade. The little touches throughout the OS are all appreciated.

For instance:

Windows Explorer - Actually has a useful sidebar. The one in XP "Common Tasks" had a list of the most uncommon tasks thought of. No XP machine is usable until the useless sidebar in Explorer is turned off.

Task Manager - Huge improvement. Can actually see what tasks are using what network resources which is essential for troubleshooting network problems.

Windows Firewall - Port ranges anyone?

Control Panel - New look is well organized. No need to revert back to "Classic View" to get things done. XP failed miserably at redesigning the Control Panel.

So a bunch of minor improvements here and there means an overall better user experience for me. As for the performance issues, I have a pretty sub-par system to todays standards and I don't have any complaints as far as the performance goes. All the games I've tried to run work flawlessly. I've never had an upset "stupid vista!" moment when running anything to be honest.

Currently have my computer setup to dual boot Vista and XP. I can't remember the last time I've booted XP though...

[Cloud Geek]

-1

And yes same issues happened with XP, I remember device support was horrid with RTM XP, SP1 fixed that.

Hopefully SP1 does for Vista, but in terms of performance XP is still better and many studies show that, even on the best hardware.

I have a Core 2 Duo 6750, 4GB of DDR2 @ 800mhz, an a 8800GTS 640mb vid card and I find XP better.

I benched in both OS versions (XP 64 and Vista 64) and XP 64 did better by 4000 marks! Vista is not for me, and I could careless about DX10 right now.

I agree xp was bad untill sp1 now that I have vista I think of xp as junk just as everyone thinks 95 is junk

[+dave164 Subscriber¹]

If you did know how to use a computer, you wouldn't have a load of crap installed with or without Vista. I guess UAC helps you?

I know how to use a computer hence i turn off UAC because its an annoying piece of rubbish..

I know that if you know how to use a computer you wouldnt have a load of rubbish installed, that goes without saying but seriouslly...

Eat a cookie, none of them comments were neccasary

David.

[Athernar]

Are you guys forgetting this all happened with Windows XP? The operating system you guys are now in love with went through the same problems when it was first released, performance was bad, stuff didnt work correctly, and there was an outcry of windows 2000/98 > xp. You guys are acting like XP was perfect from the start. I have been running Vista for over a year, not one problem. You guys fail to see that it isnt Microsofts fault that 3rd party companies arent writing drivers for Vista that work, and its been over a year since it was released. My gaming fps is the same if not better on Vista compared to XP. Benchmarks are the same on Vista compared to XP. I can play DX10 games on Vista and use DX10, where as XP cannot. You guys bashing vista must either not have any idea what you're doing, or have an ancient machine and well face the fact that you need to upgrade.

They did forget, and even when presented with an article from 01/02 which could pretty much be a copypaste of the the Vista article with Vista replaced with XP.

And when Windows 7 is out, they'll forget again and bring in the bandwagon.

[.kvn]

Nice review Borimol.

[hagjohn]

It's embarrassing for a tech site like Neowin to have people who can't seem to figure out how to make vista run smoothly on their hardware. :$

[bigmehdi]

It's embarrassing for a tech site like Neowin to have people who can't seem to figure out how to make vista run smoothly on their hardware.

The hardware costs to run Vista smoothly are embarrassing.

I've seen your signature , and not everyone will bother to get 4Gb of RAM &a 8800 GTS,

just to run Vista "smoothly".

BTW XP already run smoothly, for the "average" user.

[Litespeed]

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

[-=Outlaw=-]

making vista run smoothly is not a problem at all and it does not cost alot of money.

i had a 3200+ AMD and 1GB of ram and it ran smoothly now i got E6750 and 2GB of ram and its runnin smoothly also. no problems at all with vista or any hardware. all my old hardware works along with all software even from year 2000 lol. also my VISTA has never crashed since i got it and i had it since launch. my wireless card does not have a vista driver so i downloaded the xp driver and it works like a charm.

i just dont understand how some people dont understand vista or can make it work fine

[+dave164 Subscriber¹]

The hardware costs to run Vista smoothly are embarrassing.

I've seen your signature , and not everyone will bother to get 4Gb of RAM &a 8800 GTS,

just to run Vista "smoothly".

BTW XP already run smoothly, for the "average" user.

FYI 4gb of RAM = 70 quid now of the RAM in my sig.

Hardly a stretch, 2GB is 35 quid. For most users on 1gb / 2gb this is barely difficult.

Graphics cards are much more reasonable then what they were to, e.g. brand new 512mb hd 3870 xt or a 8800gt for 170 max is not that hard when your making a new system either.

David.

[Litespeed]

The hardware costs to run Vista smoothly are embarrassing.

I've seen your signature , and not everyone will bother to get 4Gb of RAM &a 8800 GTS,

just to run Vista "smoothly".

BTW XP already run smoothly, for the "average" user.

If you have the money to splash out on Vista, then you can afford to upgrade your hardware to match.

BTW, I run it very smoothly on a Sempron 2800 with 1.5GB Ram and a GF6200 AGP. Not exactly high-end.

[*RedBull*]

Honestly, there is many features about Vista that XP doesn't have. One important one for me is the language support. With Vista Ultimate edition you can have two users who have different language settings. The level of support in Vista vastly out strips XP. Where I had to buy both a Japanese XP and English, I only need one Vista UE. The MUI downloads are amazingly supportive, that you need not buy two OS to accomplish your needs.

[NEVER85]

I seriously had to laugh at this thread. XP is a serious DOWNGRADE from Vista. Hell, XP is a downgrade from 2000.

[Litespeed]

-1

And yes same issues happened with XP, I remember device support was horrid with RTM XP, SP1 fixed that.

Hopefully SP1 does for Vista, but in terms of performance XP is still better and many studies show that, even on the best hardware.

I have a Core 2 Duo 6750, 4GB of DDR2 @ 800mhz, an a 8800GTS 640mb vid card and I find XP better.

I benched in both OS versions (XP 64 and Vista 64) and XP 64 did better by 4000 marks! Vista is not for me, and I could careless about DX10 right now.

To be honest, I think benchmarking is a pointless exercise. All it tells you is how fast your PC benchmarks.

[1Frothy]

Good write up. (Y) Some things are a bit blown out of proportion but otherwise mostly right on.

I haven't been totally Wow'ed by Vista at all, but I'm hoping that when I put Windows Vista SP1 on my PC this will change, if not then seriously I'm upgrading to Windows XP.

[Prince Charming]

Really, saw that blog post yesterday, and it's just pathetic. Its unoriginal, not amusing despite best attempts, and just wrong. Vista is not a downgrade from XP, its a superior operating system. I could care less if it scores less in synthetic office benchmarks that bare zero resemblance to how I actually use my PC; I find Vista a fast OS that works great. Getting pretty sick and tired of seeing pathetic blog posts bashing Vista. Especially uninformed stupid ones.

[Neoauld]

I been runnin vista 2 weeks now

not a single crash or error

perfectly stable

it wasnt meant for your outdated piece of crap computers..it was meant for todays computers

get over it, move on, if u dont like vista..dont use it stick with your xp

Xp got the same criticism on its release that vista is getting now..and ppl were whiney over XP till SP2..and until vista..then they decided to whine about something else

Edited December 18, 2007 by bmaher
don't attack other members

[+vlsi0n Subscriber¹]

I like Vista much more than XP

:yes:

[topsecret]

vista is a much easier pill to swallow, XP is outperformed in every catagory worth mention. UAC is annoying, butt 7.1 ubuntu i beleive has something similar, my only complaint is the vista boot manager doesnt want to load on my hdd (wd 2500aaks) after i punched it.i am useing ubuntu until i get my seagate drive tommorrow.

Windows XP is both faster and far more responsive

[ViperAFK]

+1

+2

[xinary]

The hardware costs to run Vista smoothly are embarrassing.

I've seen your signature , and not everyone will bother to get 4Gb of RAM &a 8800 GTS,

just to run Vista "smoothly".

BTW XP already run smoothly, for the "average" user.

Yea because 4 gigs of DDR2 for 100 bucks is awfully expensive, and clearly not worth it. Give it a break.