Simply Windows XP is better than Vista

[luv2rip]

This article is non-sense ..... stone-age XP looks better than Vista ??

Adapt changes to the technology ... and wait for SP1 ... Many things will improve and regarding the applications, it is the issue of original vendor who are still sleeping and not providing Vista support ...

- luv2rip

[Krome]

Dear New Member,

Don't sign up just to post. Make sure you read first.

[ObiWanToby]

Well, I for one am not stuck in the past, I love Vista, I game on Vista, I have no more problems with Vista than I did with XP.

[npe]

Vista Business (32-bit) run great on my desktop (X6800, 4 GB RAM, 6600 GT), but quite slow on my laptop (Thinkpad X60s, 2 GB RAM). I prefer Vista over XP though because it's much easier to do things on Vista and the interface is much nicer. I don't play game so I haven't exprienced many of the "issues" that people tend to quote on articles. All the program I use run fine on Vista, no driver issues with any hardwares.

What I would like to try is the 64-bit version and Vista Ultimate. 64-bit because I haven't use it and would like to know how it's compare to its 32-bit version. Ultimate because I want media center on top of the current features on Business. The only problem is they cost money...and more than I want to spend.

I would prefer if Microsoft sells the Windows OS as a collection of modular features rather than a solid version, or at least have this option to some degree (we pick the features we want, when we want it, and no other extra features should be included). They don't have to sell it for cheap. Sell the bare OS for a little less than their regular version, but on the bare OS allow user to buy and add the features they want from Microsoft. We can customize our own pc for the features that we want, so we should also be able to customize the OS to only the features we want. I want media center with Business but don't want to pay for an Ultimate license.

Back to topic: for my usage Vista is better than XP. Happy New Year!!!

[cbosdell]

Windows Vista Business x64 runs great here, as good or better than XP. Sometimes shutting down takes longer than I'd like but besides that it's great!

[The_Observer]

YES WINXP MAY BE BETTER THE VISTA and in 5 years time VISTA MAYBE BE BETTER then WHAT ever come out, get over it. its done to death. VISTA works great for me and i have a half ass system, and SP1 RC1 makes things run alot better. In my option, vista will turn out to work great in a year and better after that.

[PGHammer]

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

So let's address your quibbles one at a time:

1. SoundStorm = NForce2 = dead (nVidia no longer writes proper drivers for the chipset).

2. You can *specify* the refresh rate in most games, and in Vista itself. I, too, have a 19" CRT (in fact, a recent acquisition) and have it set for 75 Hz at that resolution (at 1280x1024, my usual gaming resolution, I have it set for 85 Hz when there's an in-game setting for it). This particular bug dates back to Windows 2000, and is not news. Vista, in fact, deals with it better than XP.

3. What mouse are you using? (Could this be, in fact, a mouse driver issue?)

4. I play Guild Wars, and on Vista Ultimate x86 SP1RC, no less. I have noticed little to no slowdown compared to XP. In fact, I can run more background apps/processes in Vista compared to XP on the same hardware.

5. Indexing. NTFS *fragments*; I learned starting with Windows 2000. I use Diskeeper 2008 on my pair of Vista hard drives (not partitions), which pretty much eliminates all *except* swap-related thrashing (because I have less than 2 GB of RAM and do a *lot* of multittasking in Vista, I'm simply not going to get rid of swap-related thrashing entirely without a RAM upgrade).

Hardware configuration:

ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe

1.5 GB DDR266 (1 GB DDR400/512 MB DDR333)

P4 2.6C @ 2.86 GHz

ATI Radeon X1650PRO AGP 512 MB

Creative Audigy 2 ZS

Microsoft Internet Keyboard

Microsoft PS/2 IntelliMouse

200 GB Maxtor DiamondMax SATA HDD

80 GB WD Caviar SE PATA HDD

Dynex 16x DL DVD burner (primary)

Lite-ON LDW411S DVD burner (secondary)

Antec SmartPower 400 PSU

Vista Ultimate x86 + hotfixes + SP1RC

As you can see, lots of *dead hardware* on that list.

[Innuendo]

I wish the original poster would re-visit the thread. Then he could see this post letting him know that visual artifacts on the desktop in any version of Windows is not a normal thing, not even in Vista. There were serious problems with the video driver he was using. His statement of being able to install Windows XP and have all his hardware recognized & drivers installed for it tells the tale as to how old his hardware is as well.

Vista, more than any version of Windows before it, depends heavily on the graphics card for its overall performance. While a lot of people know that the good news about Vista is that now the desktop benefits from 3D graphics acceleration most people do not know is that Microsoft totally removed all 2D graphics acceleration from the desktop.

What this means is without a good graphics card your overall Vista experience is going to suffer. The better your video card the better your overall experience with Vista is going to be performance-wise. Gone are the days when if you were just going to set up a computer for apps you could throw in a bottom-of-the-line video card and let it ride. Doing so on the Vista platform would be performance suicide.

There are so many other points on both sides of the discussion that are very good, but the only one I am going to address is the one about printers and how someone's printer would not work with Vista. Quit buying "WinPrinters", people! You know what I am talking about...those 'dumb' printers that have no CPU in them at all and rely on your PC's CPU processor in order to process everything they are going to print.

My vintage HP LaserJet 5MP has worked with every operating system I have interfaced with it. Vista even instantly recognized it on my network & installed drivers for it quickly and transparently. Not bad at all for a printer that rolled off the assembly line 15 years before Vista was released.

A good rule of thumb when buying a printer is if the cost of the printer is less than the price it will cost you to replace the consumables (toner or ink) then that should be a huge red flag to you.

[mluu510]

best review ever!

[(Spork)]

yawn i run both xp and vista and i prefer vista over xp

[Unimatrix Xero]

i prever vista over XP, esp with Sp1

[Internet]

vista blows

[zhangm Supervisor]

vista blows

Whoopie. Yet another award-winning comment from the Vista-hater camp. :rolleyes:

[bibutteryboy]

I'm sticking to Xp simply for the fact that I don't feel like paying for a new OS when the one I use works just fine.

I'll get Vista when I feel the need to purchase a new computer but until then, XP works just the way I need it to.

[TEX4S]

+2

+ uhh... 1more

It isn't. Vista is much more advanced and much more stable. You might getting higher FPS for low demanded games. But DX9 simply is not able to perform very good on high demanded games. DX9 is naturally too slow. Vista has DX10, which is aimed to able to perform on high demanded games. While XP's core and driver subsystem does not support it. An only reason why DX9 is slower on Vista is that Vista does not support it natively, as it's useless and outdated. If your explorer hangs oftenly it doesn't mean that it is Vista's fault. Tones of people has hanging explorer with 100% CPU usage on XP. Just check you buggy third party programs or upgrade your computer. With poor CPU this problem is very often even on XP or Linux. Vista has much more advanced interface and more enabled useful services, so, of course, it eats more resources. Device database is larger than in XP. And unlike in XP it has support of many latest and modern devices. MPAA? DRM? Never heard of such. Vista is not changed since XP in anything related to antipirating.

Well It has some bugs of course, like hanging explorer when copying from network after connection is getting broken which you noticed. But in overall Vista is more stable, reliable, more optimized and more advanced.

Uhh..... what are you smoking, and can I have some ?

Dx9 is useless and outdated ?? Uhh... have you seen Crysis through XP with high settings ?? I cant tell a difference , most other people cant either --

your opinons are just that -- opinions - but dont try to push them off as mere facts -

Vista more optimized ? the only thing that seems to be written well in Vista in Dreamscene - which hardly uses any resources...other than that its pretty bloated -

Still, I dual boot, use Vista most of the time and have NO problems with it

Im wonder if mac users complain about Jaguar and talk about how its so much crappier than OS-X 10.3

[sMiK]

everybody should already agree that VISTA is Windows ME second edition. I use a mac and i boot with xp if i need windows apps. thanks for a laugh :D

[+Warwagon MVC]

everybody should already agree that VISTA is Windows ME second edition. I use a mac and i boot with xp if i need windows apps. thanks for a laugh :D

Only in the sense that it feels like a filler before the next big thing. But I will agree with it as a filler.

Edited January 11, 2008 by bmaher

[*RedBull*]

It's funny, I would have agreed with this article when I first installed Vista. Now that I have a more updated hardware, I have increasingly less problems with Vista. In fact I now find more and more reasons why Vista is better than or on par with XP SP2.

[ScottKin]

Of course you do, your avatar is point enough.

The amount of people that feel the need to come in here and bash the post starter one after the other in defense of a piece of software is utterly pathetic, especially considering he actually provided screenshots indicating the proof of his claims, something which none of you seem to be capable of in support of your own purported statements. Ah, but he obviously knows not how to work his own damn computer (despite the fact he seems to be able to find the reliability and performance monitor just fine).

The Microsoft fanclub everyone.

Most or all of you have probably forgotten about Palladium; or how about the many names it was changed to. But no, DRM doesn't exist and the little that does takes absolutely no resources to check, encode and decode every frame of a video right? How about checking and rechecking for audio and the scanning of files to see if they have DRM. Newer software is supposed to be slower right?

And which fanclub do you belong to? Are you a card-carrying Apple-zealot? A Penguin-hugger? Fess-up!

:woot:

As for "Palladium" - if you would do some research before you make such comments. TPM support is built-in to Vista...just blame the motherboard manufacturers for not including TPM modules in the majority of their motherboards. Don't go off on something over a hardware company's choice not to include or support. Frankly, with the current climate on content rights I'd be suprised if any hardware company balked on including TPMs on their boards in order to NOT end-up trashing said boards.

--ScottKin

[Chazwazza]

Vista is fine, I run Vista x64 and I've had absolutely no problems with it, I think it's far superior to XP. Most of the people I find who say it's "slow" or "freezes" or that it's "unreliable" are running PCs designed for XP, of course XP is going to run better that Vista on older hardware. Do you expect Crysis to still work with a graphics card from 5 years ago? No. You should be running hardware that can give Vista a fair chance rather than saying it's "slow" just because your computer isn't up to scratch.

For those that are interested these are my specs:

Intel Q6600 OC 3.6Ghz

8GB DDR2 800Mhz RAM

8800GT OC

2 x WD Raptor 74GB (Raid 1)

2 x WD 250GB (Raid 1)

20.1" WS LCD

I realise that my specs are a lot higher than what's necessarly to run Vista, but my point is, XP is a fairly old OS, Vista is brand new, you can't expect a brand new os to run on your old hardware with the same speed that your old software did.

I find Vista a lot more stable than XP, it looks a lot nicer, and it has a lot of great new features. You need to give Vista a chance, if XP seems more responsive and stable to you then great, feel free to disagree, but just make sure your computer is up to scratch before you start calling it "slow" and "unstable".

[bobbba]

Vista is fine, I run Vista x64 and I've had absolutely no problems with it, I think it's far superior to XP. Most of the people I find who say it's "slow" or "freezes" or that it's "unreliable" are running PCs designed for XP, of course XP is going to run better that Vista on older hardware. Do you expect Crysis to still work with a graphics card from 5 years ago? No. You should be running hardware that can give Vista a fair chance rather than saying it's "slow" just because your computer isn't up to scratch.

For those that are interested these are my specs:

Intel Q6600 OC 3.6Ghz

8GB DDR2 800Mhz RAM

8800GT OC

2 x WD Raptor 74GB (Raid 1)

2 x WD 250GB (Raid 1)

20.1" WS LCD

I realise that my specs are a lot higher than what's necessarly to run Vista, but my point is, XP is a fairly old OS, Vista is brand new, you can't expect a brand new os to run on your old hardware with the same speed that your old software did.

I find Vista a lot more stable than XP, it looks a lot nicer, and it has a lot of great new features. You need to give Vista a chance, if XP seems more responsive and stable to you then great, feel free to disagree, but just make sure your computer is up to scratch before you start calling it "slow" and "unstable".

Thanks for resurrecting a pointless topic...

[Chazwazza]

Thanks for resurrecting a pointless topic...

Oops, didn't see the date. Thanks for bumping the resurrection of a pointless topic.

[Olemus]

i havent read all the posts in this thread but top the original OP i suggest you uninstall all the crap on your vista install and get a computer that can actually run vista.

Woops just noticed that it was a really old thread sorry.

[TheTempestSonata]

virtually this entire thread is founded on opinions only.

[SVG Veteran]

Well this person must have a @#$$ computer as mine loads vista really fast and can use programs as soon as I log on. Hell, I can type in my password as the vista orb shows and have desktop loaded like *Snap* that.

+1

Couldn't agree more.. Haven't had unresponsive programs, driver incompatibility, slow performance, etc since I upgraded last year and I'm running it on a decent enough "Vista-ready" computer :rolleyes: