• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Windows XP x64 vs Vista x64

Recommended Posts

ViperAFK    797
This is completely untrue. Nvidia/AMD(ATI)/Intel all have updated drivers for both XP64/XP32 on the same date. This includes any video card released in the last few years and all chipsets too. You can even see in the readme for the Nvidia video card drivers that they addressed a good 5-6 games fixing bugs and even stating they improved performance! My Edimax wireless card is also supported. So that's all vid cards (does anyone buy anything but these 3, either discreet or onboard?), all chipsets/motherboards (anything since XP I imagine...some really old cards might not work, but heck those suck in vista anyway). Note in the video cards Nvidia's 32/64bit drivers are the latest from Dec07. In ATI/AMD's case it was just last month. Doesn't get more up to date than that.

Also note Vista Ultimate will be abandoned (as you say it) BEFORE xp64. WHY? Because no home OS (XP or vista) or vista Ultimate is BUSINESS related. Ultimate will die in 2012. XP Pro however will live to 5yrs past the next OS. Which happens to be 2009 (supposedly) with Windows 7. That means 2014, and if some are to be believed 2010 because MS might be late making XP Pro live even longer until 2015. This is a dirty little secret but it's on MS website.

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3223

http://www.crn.com/software/197000329

http://www.intelligententerprise.com/chann...cleID=197000371

Take at look at the drivers for your products before you say this stuff. Do your homework. XP Pro is sold to businesses and as such MUST be fully supported. Don't forget 2003 server is also based on its kernal so that forces even more support for a lot of hardware. Microsoft would like you to BELIEVE it's abandoned but thats just BS. Wake up people quit acting like sheep. If you can prove XP is left behind in benchmarks go for it. You're wrong, and XP SP3 is going to widen the margin between it and Vista another 8-10%. SP1 for Vista meanwhile does NOTHING for performance. Bummer dude. Post your benchmarks, better yet, why are all the hardware sites afraid of benchmarking XP64 vs Vista64? Advertising dollars threatened? They've already made benchmarking SP3 illegal in their eula...LOL. What does that tell you? SP3 came out so fast they don't want it published...ROFLMAO. Think about that. Google this "XP sp3 can't publish benchmarks" without quotes of course. Might add eula to that and get better results but they're there.

To check all MS products go here: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselect

Vista: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=11734

Sorry, toast in 2012 unless you have the business edition...Bring on the benchmarks...LOL

Can you list some stuff NOT supported that IS in vista? No ancient stuff please. I mean if you haven't upgraded your part in the last 4 years tough luck. That's ancient in pc time. MS should just stop forcing FISTA and bring out another XP. Hackers have already proven you can get DX10 to work so it has nothing to do with the OS, and the same can be said for Aero (even apps have been released though I haven' t bothered to do it...I kind of like Topdesk, but the all seem to slow me down...Alt tab is all I need or a taskbar...heh). Yeah, I created my account just to address this...ROFL. Misinformation hurts us all. Oops...XP home and MCE have now been added...LOL. I didn't realize the link I gave shows that.

There is no way to really get dx10 working in xp, and by 2014, xp will be ANCIENT and windows 7 will be out anyway. maybe still supported by ms but not my software makers ect.. Xp x64 was abandoned when it started, there is very few compatible drivers for it (besides really mainstream drivers like nvidia/ati). Many 64 bit compatible apps and games only work on vista x64, using xp 64 over it would just be dumb. Your post is very misinformed, you cannot get aero or directx10 working in xp... And sp3 benchmarking illegal in the EULA, what?

I'm off to go install windows 98 because it's faster than xp.

BTW misinformation hurts us all LOL...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hurmoth    518

I've had a few driver issues with Vista x64, but other than that, I'd recommend going the Vista route. Personally though, I'm still sticking with XP on my gaming box (Vista x64 on my notebook, Ubuntu on my main box (and my file server) and Mac OS X Leopard on my iMac).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waruikoohii    1
Personal Opinion of the OS with some comparison truths:

Vista is a facemask of XP. XP SP3 is the bug and security enhancements that Vista is without the Eyecandy. Microsoft is pushing for the SP1 of Vista before the release of XP SP3 to try and drive the consumer base to Vista. Vista was a launch to implicate and produce the effects that Apple and Linux has. Vista in my opinion is a major memory hog, beyond the fact that you have a much capable computer to handle it. If you said XP x86 or Vista x64, I would have said the Vista version... primarily because the 64 bit models take advantage of the 3G+ memory. I think that you sacrifice alot by switching to an OS which I think all you REALLY see is the visual aspects of.

Too true.

Vista is XP SP3....with a new TCP/IP stack, new audio stack, upgraded kernel, huge security improvements, performance improvements, stability improvements (primarily in the improved driver infrastructure), etc.

So yeah, totally the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
]SK[    109

I just installed Windows Vista 64 on spare PC in the office. Wish I installed the 64bit version at home now. Seems to be a lot quicker than the 32bit version. This is running on slower hardware too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom Gru    5

Vista x64 is fully supported, XP x64 was never fully endorsed by anyone.

Hardware vendors that put a Vista sticker HAVE to have both 32 and 64bit drivers available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KPark214    0
Personal Opinion of the OS with some comparison truths:

Vista is a facemask of XP. XP SP3 is the bug and security enhancements that Vista is without the Eyecandy. Microsoft is pushing for the SP1 of Vista before the release of XP SP3 to try and drive the consumer base to Vista. Vista was a launch to implicate and produce the effects that Apple and Linux has. Vista in my opinion is a major memory hog, beyond the fact that you have a much capable computer to handle it. If you said XP x86 or Vista x64, I would have said the Vista version... primarily because the 64 bit models take advantage of the 3G+ memory. I think that you sacrifice alot by switching to an OS which I think all you REALLY see is the visual aspects of.

I have used the 32 bit of Vista on my laptop for about a year (at least) and noticed major issues. Network printing to a print server is impossible. If I print from a webpage to a networked printer installed on a server, it errors out, every time. My xp desktop will print to this same system flawlessly. I hardly have a problem with Vista in general, but after using Vista for a year and XP since it was in Beta (as well as troubleshooting), XP is the winner in my book. Working in IT, I get users asking all the time.. I got my computer with Vista pre-installed, my wife loves it.. but I hate it... how can I get XP on there???

There will be users out there who love it and users who will hate it... but my opinion is no, stick with XP.

I have used both version of both os's and never had any problems printing to a networked printer. I have a usb networked printer with a dedicated print server and never had any problems with printing from either of the os's mentioned xp x64 x32 or vista x32 x64. Better driver support in vista however but never any problems. You have to have right printer drivers to be able to print correctly to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Volatile    13

shoooooooooooooooot.

...hate mail.. incoming!

Microsoft is desperate to get business interested in their Vista product so they will trot about all of the reasons to buy it, but business's are not biting, unless Vista can make workers type faster or calculate spreadsheets quicker or email faster then there is NO productivity gains unless wowing the coworker with a 3D AIGLX/Beryl like desktop counts as productive.

TCP/IP stack rebuild:

If an Enterprise is worried about client bandwidth of QoS they would already be using a tool dedicated for the job like... say a Router.

Vista isn't bad, my wife likes it.. if she's happy.. im happy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OblivionStalker    0
Vista x64 is fully supported, XP x64 was never fully endorsed by anyone.

Hardware vendors that put a Vista sticker HAVE to have both 32 and 64bit drivers available.

But the reality is a completely different story. They put outdated drivers, and lots of crap software on the people's systems, and then the people blame MS for their Vista slowdowns.

If you don't have any reason not to get Vista 64, I recommend getting it. It is much better than XP 64. (No OS flaming here :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
waruikoohii    1
shoooooooooooooooot.

...hate mail.. incoming!

Microsoft is desperate to get business interested in their Vista product so they will trot about all of the reasons to buy it, but business's are not biting, unless Vista can make workers type faster or calculate spreadsheets quicker or email faster then there is NO productivity gains unless wowing the coworker with a 3D AIGLX/Beryl like desktop counts as productive.

TCP/IP stack rebuild:

If an Enterprise is worried about client bandwidth of QoS they would already be using a tool dedicated for the job like... say a Router.

Vista isn't bad, my wife likes it.. if she's happy.. im happy!

Enterprises don't tend to upgrade their operating systems until a hardware refresh cycle, anyways. People tend to ignore this when shooting statistics.

It's not that businesses are ignoring Vista, rather, they aren't about to do a refresh. Those companies/governments preparing for hardware refreshes tend to get the current operating system. Parts of the United States federal government are preparing for a hardware refresh later this year, and they are upgrading to Vista as part of that.

Vista doesn't add much in terms of QoS. That's a tiny portion of the TCP/IP stack, and yes, your router (depending on the size of the network) will handle the QoS.

Vista does increase the networking performance between SMB 2.0 compliant machines. I get 99.9% bandwidth utilization on my home 100Mbps LAN. With XP, I'd get maybe 80% if I was lucky. The TCP/IP stack rebuild isn't the reason to upgrade, but it is one of the reasons to upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Volatile    13

I work for the government, although not federal, and we are trying our hardest to stay away from Vista as long as we can.

Again, everyone has their own opinion but to keep this nonsense going!!!!... I've used vista for well over a year and have not noticed any differences from XP except for network issues *cough tcp/ip*. I can't print to a networked printer on this OS, but can on XP. >whoh is me< Maybe Vista has problems talking to its own OS now... or we can blame it on XP.

^I wrote this response... on windows vista...^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheJian    0
Enterprises don't tend to upgrade their operating systems until a hardware refresh cycle, anyways. People tend to ignore this when shooting statistics.

It's not that businesses are ignoring Vista, rather, they aren't about to do a refresh. Those companies/governments preparing for hardware refreshes tend to get the current operating system. Parts of the United States federal government are preparing for a hardware refresh later this year, and they are upgrading to Vista as part of that.

Vista doesn't add much in terms of QoS. That's a tiny portion of the TCP/IP stack, and yes, your router (depending on the size of the network) will handle the QoS.

Vista does increase the networking performance between SMB 2.0 compliant machines. I get 99.9% bandwidth utilization on my home 100Mbps LAN. With XP, I'd get maybe 80% if I was lucky. The TCP/IP stack rebuild isn't the reason to upgrade, but it is one of the reasons to upgrade.

First off I was a reseller for 8yrs (still am but only on the side since a stroke in the family caused me to abandon my business and leave the state) and SOLD to a few pretty big businesses. They don't wait years to upgrade as you suggest. They upgrade on a 3-5yr cycle yes. But that is not meaning what you think it does. That means pc's in certain jobs get updated either at 3-5 years in X company. The last place I was working for had 650-700 PC's. Each year they replace 70-140 pc's. Most of the time they ordered 35 at a pop (2-4 times a year depending on company income NOT an OS or desired hardware) and wanted to do more but we couldn't deploy them fast enough with our IT dept. Too much stuff/user problems to fix. The last two years I did 1860 tickets (with 40+ pc builds with 20 of those DEAD drives), and the last was 1650 tickets (60+builds with 35 dead drives). They were always fighting us to get a new pc deployed so they couldn't get more authorizations because the company wouldn't let us sit more than a certain amount on the shelf at once. We couldn't reorder until less than 5 were on the shelf. The point is the date on the PC OR the job position dictated your PC update, not some only buying ever 3-5 years. No we replaced a target amount every year and wanted more it just wasn't possible given our workload. If your PC is only 2 yrs old and you're top brass yours gets bumped to someone else lacking. My PC (replaced every 3yrs) got bumped to someone else on a different schedule but far lower than my PC. We had pc's over 5yrs old out on the manufacturing floor. The company's idea was to kill every PC that was at 5yrs but it didn't always work that way. Most business replace a portion every year and bump them around.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4597

"For corporations, Otellini said Vista upgrades will be slow. "I know of no organization doing an upgrade before SP1," said Otellini. "Intel isn't upgrading either (until SP1)." Did you catch that NONE part? A large portion of companies have seen SP1 didn't speed anything up and have cancelled upgrades saying they will never look at it and will look towards Win7. But you said govt agencies didn't you. OK...Lets delve down that road shall we:

http://www.news.com/Explaining-a-Vista-ban..._3-6169494.html (NIST, yeah that USA)

http://www.news.com/Federal-agencies-ban-W....html?tag=st.nl (Dept of Tranportation BAN Vista/office/IE7)

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/24/south-k...vista-upgrades/ (Korea too...LOL)

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3463 (BECTA, that's the UK Schools says no to VISTA & OFFICE 2007, NOT WORTH IT)

http://www.zer0.net/2008/01/british-govern...nt-says-no.html (another UK govt agency, no to Vista/Office2007)

http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?...B0-C233B91A3A6C (Gartner says Vista only 15% end 08? 28% end 09?)

So Vista will barely be out of the gate for business by the time Win7 is out? pffft....Whatever.

http://campustechnology.com/articles/58623/ (survey, 53% business "no plans to deploy vista"...OMFG! Feb 20 2008!) from http://www.kingres.com/ survey from campus place actually from kingres, oh and 44% looking at WINDOWS ALTERNATIVES! (mac/linux?) just props here I can't get to it, but the facts are all in the college article)

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/new...ps-windows-open (french military, booting MS off PC's)

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showA...cleID=205210375

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showAr...cleID=199201492

30% will NEVER upgrade in CORP! This was April 2007, so things are getting worse if that number is up to 53% as stated above FEB 2008 correct? Oh as stated in that article you can add NASA and the Federal Aviation Assoc.

If there are any corrections, by all means post em. I've got no problem if they have changed. AFAIK they haven't. But everybody is going vista I guess..LOL

Do gamers dig it? We're all switching right. I mean XP sucks. :wacko:

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey_v6.html

Jeez, vista not even hitting 8%. :devil: Guess that means a lot of us bought it and reverted eh? :o

Can you prove anything you said? BTW networking has sucked in vista since it's birth. SP1 is supposed to fix it to some degree.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=369 Vista vs. XP Feb 2008 testing! Finally Vista closing the gap. It only took 14 months. Reported for completeness. I mean hey, at least their getting close to something being right...LOL.

I could go on all day, I'm just getting bored and I have a server to build...I'll be back later to rip a new one for VIPERAFK and his gaming/apps don't work in XP x64... Games and apps don't work...ROFLMAO. If Win7 is coming in 2009 what the heck do I need Vista for. XP will be here until 2014!

Edited by TheJian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jult    0
Post your benchmarks, better yet, why are all the hardware sites afraid of benchmarking XP64 vs Vista64? Advertising dollars threatened?

XP x64 (i.e. kernel Server 2003) blows ALL MicroSoft operating systems straight out. Here are some honest to god trustworthy benchmarks everyone can replicate doing the exact same thing: http://jult.net/images/perfressmall.gif

Windows XP x64 might not be supported by every vendor out there, but they will, no doubt about it. The fancy crap Vista offers is useless. take the winsxs folder. It grows like wildfire, see this thread: http://forums.microsoft.com/technet/showpo...;postid=1173190

Vista x64 is fully supported, XP x64 was never fully endorsed by anyone.
Lies.

It's more likely that hardware vendors support Windows Server 2003 x64 (i.e. XP pro x64 as well) for years to come than the fact that they might support Vista (one of the zillion versions, including the server 2008 releases).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_onion    13

try to ignore the FUD.

xp 64bit is a relatively poorly supported by third party developers. you are MUCH more likely to run into driver issues and software incompatibility with xp 64bit than you are with vista 64bit.

if you need a 64bit Windows OS then Vista is the ONLY way to go imo.

EDIT: i didn't realise this thread had been bumped from march lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
majortom1981    242

I am running Vista 64bit with no problems what so ever. I have a dell xps 410 with a core 2 duo e6600 ,4gigs of ram, and a nvidia 7900gs and not have had a single driver issue with vista 64bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheJian    0
try to ignore the FUD.

xp 64bit is a relatively poorly supported by third party developers. you are MUCH more likely to run into driver issues and software incompatibility with xp 64bit than you are with vista 64bit.

if you need a 64bit Windows OS then Vista is the ONLY way to go imo.

EDIT: i didn't realise this thread had been bumped from march lol.

Another guy that can't prove a thing he's said. Nice opinion (which you have a right to) but it's unsupported by data.

All current chipsets are supported for xp64. All current Vid cards (released same day as 32bit for my 8800GT and all NV cards, info file even includes games fixed specifically on xp64 and directX enhancements for xp64), ethernet (including my Edimax N card), sound (creative too...shocker I know), tv tuner (my dads new ATI650HD), printers etc. Find me something that doesn't work or keep your opinion to yourself. You apparently are unaware of the fact that XP64 is built on Server2003. Which will be supported for years to come. Did you not read the post above at all? All the places banning VISTA is not FUD. It's FACT. Sorry you don't like it, but it is what it is.

FUD is what YOU are spreading. Don't even get me started on driver problems and Vista...LOL. Evidence of that is all over the web.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin    225
You apparently are unaware of the fact that XP64 is built on Server2003. Which will be supported for years to come.

Yes, for server hardware. Consumer peripheral manufacturers, however, have little incentive to support XP/Server '03 x64, as the adoption rate of that operating system is very low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slimy    14
I've installed XP x64 on my Intel Quad Core Q6600 2.4GHz with 4GB DDR2 800 RAM and an ATI HD 3870XT. I've used 64bit drivers for all hardware and have had a few problems which has mainly been the graphics card, but nothing too major. I was wondering if Vista 64bit would be any better than XP 64bit.

I would recommend that you move to Vista x64.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheJian    0
I am running Vista 64bit with no problems what so ever. I have a dell xps 410 with a core 2 duo e6600 ,4gigs of ram, and a nvidia 7900gs and not have had a single driver issue with vista 64bit.

Of course you aren't having driver problems. Dell picked all the parts for you, and made sure they worked with Vista. This SHOULD always work fine when bought from a big vendor (dell, hp etc). I would expect nothing less. The problems come when you add your own stuff (usually). For people waiting for gaming benchmarks check tweaktown for these (reposted from Anandtech forums):

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1332/4/p..._hdr/index.html

Vista HL2 (Q6600 normal/overclocked scores):

1920x1200 178/207

1600x1200 179/233

1280x1024 229/230

XP HL2:

1920x1200 227/272

1600x1200 235/281

1280x1024 251/279

Vista World In Conflict MINIMUMS

1920x1200 28/30

1600x1200 29/35

1280x1024 36/39

XP World In Conflict MINIMUMS:

1920x1200 33/37

1600x1200 34/40

1280x1024 35/39

VISTA WIC AVERAGE

1920x1200 45/53

1600x1200 49/58

1280x1024 56/65

XP WIC AVERAGE:

1920x1200 56/67

1600x1200 58/66

1280x1024 61/66

VISTA UNREAL TOURNEY 3

1920x1200 84/101

1600x1200 86/105

1280x1024 117/125

XP UNREAL TOURNEY 3:

1920x1200 130/130

1600x1200 130/139

1280x1024 134/139

Check out those XP UT3 scores 30% faster than VISTA in 1920x1200 (my Dell 24's native res :)). That's a full 30fps faster people! Check out the minimums in WIC. My fav res hits below 30fps (and even in a lower res <30), where XP TOTALLY playable at any res. The Maximums in that game are even worse, coming in at 20%+ for XP victory! Check out HL2 at 272fps in 1920x1200. What's Vista get? 207...ROFLMAO. Congrats to Tweaktown for doing what others don't seem to have the BALLS to do. Test VISTA VS. XP. Who has the balls to do 64bit XP vs. 64bit Vista? Anantech? I tried to get tweaktown to do it but they completely ignored repeated emails. Guess microsoft pays everyone off. It can't be the drivers. I have them for every part in my house. All current Nvidia/ATI cards, all current chipsets from nvidia/ATI/Intel, All Nics I could find (including my Edimax Wireless N card!), all 3 of my OLD printers (all HP), TV Tuner (ATI) etc...I can't find a driver that isn't supported in XP64. So don't even bother claiming it's orphaned (AT/DT Editors claimed this recently when I posted about this last time...LOL). Nvidia's drivers even say they fixed 5 games for XP64 with their latest readme (any many other DirectX games it says IIRC). PC world says Vista is crapware of the year! Alex St. John (maker of DIRECT X!) says Vista SUCKS and so does DIRECT X 10! He made Dx for christs sake! He says it's a PIG. Extremetech says you should turn off DX10 because it looks no better (they give screenshots galore asking if you can see it) and blows chips in performance. HUGE HIT and they tested MANY DX 10 games vs same DX9.

Sorry I haven't had time to test myself. Just been too busy, so tweaktown will have to do for now. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slimy    14

^ Those are old tests. Find ones that use Vista SP1 and you'll see that it does just as well as XP, if not better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Mystic    10
^ Those are old tests. Find ones that use Vista SP1 and you'll see that it does just as well as XP, if not better.

I laughed when I saw that as well. I started to quote and point out the inaccuracies but it got old quick. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
POWER2112    2

I just want to chime in only because I get sick of all this XP vs Vista crap.

I've been using Vista Ultimate 64-bit since it came out, and I've used it on a home-built machine which has actually been modified and rebuilt roughly 3 times in the last 2 years (since I've been using Vista).

I've used 64-bit Vista with:

Motherboards: Gigabyte, Foxconn, MSI

Video Cards: Geforce 7900 GT, Radeon 1900XTX, Geforce 8800 GTX

Sound Cards: On-board sound for above listed motherboards; Currently using it with Azuntech X-Fi 7.1

Network Cards: Intel as well as on-board from above manufacturers; wireless cards from D-Link and Linksys

Printers: USB Dell black and white Laser; Network HP Color Laser

Network Hub: D-Link Gamer Lounge wired router; Linksys Wireless Access point

Processors: AMD single and dual-core; Intel dual-core

RAM: G-Skill, Crucial, Corsair

I could go into detailed model numbers and video card brands and all that, but that's not the point. The point is that over these past couple of years on WINDOWS VISTA 64-BIT I have used a wide variety of hardware and I have been extremely happy with no driver/hardware issues, with the exception of the Azuntech soundcard which had a gimped Vista driver up until a few months ago, but the card did work and most of the features were supported.

My rant is that I get so sick of people claiming how bad Vista sucks and how either XP or the Mac OS is far superior, and what I've found out is that the vast majority of these "whiners" have NEVER EVEN USED VISTA! I mean, HOLY CRAP!!!?! That's like some fool who eats Burger King's grilled chicken sandwiches, and claims that Wendy's grilled chicken sandwiches are crap in comparison, even though they've actually never tried one. That doesn't make any sense. And trying Vista for 5 minutes on a friends machine, or at a Best Buy store, doesn't qualify. That's like licking the Wendy's grilled chicken sandwich without actually taking a bite and forming an opinion on it - and besides, that's just gross.

I've installed Vista (64-bit and 32-bit versions, Ultimate, Business and Home) on roughly 10 machines for different people and I've had NO PROBLEMS with any of them, using various self-built hardware configurations. I even gambled and installed it on my Dad's Home and Work PC's (he's FAR from computer literate) and he's never complained and has enjoyed the experience and thanked me multiple times for the computer. It's worked at his office on network and local printers, and had no issues with their network (which is really tight).

I have a friend who is a developer for his own company and asked him if he used Vista, which sparked a huge conversation about how he's been using and developing on it for the last year and that he couldn't understand people's fear of it or why it's gotten such a bad rap.

All I know is the XP and Mac fanboy's have been doing a SUPERB advertising job smashing Vista. An important point to make is that when XP came out, I remember seeing these EXACT same complaints. In fact, from personal experience, when XP came out I had MORE problems with driver support on that 32-bit OS than I have had on my Vista 64-bit OS! So many people were hardcore against XP...blah blah blah. It's just ridiculous. The only valid argument I've heard comparing Vista and XP was from my supervisor who simply said "XP does everything I need it to do. I don't have a reason to go to Vista." I can respect that argument and I won't even attempt to debate his viewpoint.

I'll also add this - I use XP (Dell - sp3) at work and Vista at home (my office won't support Vista...imagine that). My XP machine at work drives me crazy! There are so many bizarre little glitches and blips, I find myself rebooting it around 3 times a week - and even if I can run an entire week without a reboot due to glitches, I have to reboot at least once a week to clear out memory, as my system starts running sluggish. I can leave my Vista box at home up for WEEKS without a reboot, hopping in and out of games and apps and all that good stuff. In fact, right now my XP machine at work has some funky problem and won't grab Windows Updates anymore... But wait, I must be wrong. XP is FAR more stable. And as someone before said, it's a Dell, so they hand-picked hardware to be compatible with XP, so I must be crazy.

Vista actually really impressed me. Out of the box, it had more hardware driver support than XP had on it's release (again, I use the 64-bit Vista version at home).

Disclaimer: I'm FAR from a Microsoft supporter and I don't work for Microsoft. In fact, to this day, I hate registering any of my personal information with Microsoft (even with Hotmail or any of that). My sole argument here it to simply ask these anti-Vista people why they have the opinions they have, because, as I said, the vast majority of XP and Mac fanatics out there have never even used Vista.

One last point, regarding Vista performance... My computer is definitely over-powerful in terms of being able to run Vista. But on those other machines I've installed Vista on, the hardware has been far from "top of the line". In fact, one of the PC's I built had a $500 budget (with no monitor), so with a $80 video card, cheap ($79) dual-core Athlon and a cheap $80 motherboard with on-board sound and network, including buying a new case and the Windows Vista software, I put together a machine to run Vista and it works just fine. It's not laggy or crappy or slow to do anything. It leads me to wonder if the people complaining about Vista performance are trying to install it on their old Althon 700 mhz systems with 512 megs of ram. Yeah, sorry. That won't fly. Vista was built to run on "modern hardware", and I don't think that's an outrageous requirement. Heck, even the initial Windows XP hardware requirements were far higher than the Windows98 requirements.

I'll concede that a lot of this is opinion, but at least my opinion is backed by USAGE, and not just 500 articles I've read, or commercials I've watched telling me how crappy Vista is. Everyone I've gotten on Vista has enjoyed it and likes using it more than XP. EVERYONE. Period.

Now, I'm sure there are some of you out there who have really attempted to used Vista and couldn't stand it, and to you I say Kudos! I respect the decision you've come to...that's what it's all about, because at least you have usage to back up your opinions. To everyone else, stop letting the media and other people (including me) dictate whether or not you like or dislike anything. Go try it out for yourself and actually form an intelligent, self-obtained viewpoint. It's a magical feeling.

Sorry for the length of this rant. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nightwind Hawk    72

I use XP x64 and I love it. I couldn't get used to Vista x64 as much, so I came back.

However, Vista x64 definitely has more driver support and stuff (ahem, itunes). For XP x64, you need to use workarounds for a lot of things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LewisBraid    0

I vote Vista x64, the difference between the XP x64 and Vista x64 on my machine is insane, driver support in Vista is far far better in my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheJian    0
Yes, for server hardware. Consumer peripheral manufacturers, however, have little incentive to support XP/Server '03 x64, as the adoption rate of that operating system is very low.

So why are all the drivers updated on the same day as XP32/Vista etc.? Can you prove what you say? NO.

Find me a driver that's a lot older than it's XP32 counterpart or Vista counterpart and I'll agree. You won't find it for any current vid card, nic, printer, chipset (Intel,amd,nvidia), sound card etc. Name something. Make sure you check the driver dates. I DID. Prove there is little incentive, back up your claims. If they weren't updating drivers you should be able to point us to new pc parts that have no XP64 drivers. I'd call all consumer boards, consumer graphics cards, consumer sound cards, consumer nics etc NON SERVER PARTS. Yet, all I can find are updated drivers. :) So where is your proof? Check Nvidia, AMD, Intel, Dlink, Linksys, Edimax (my N based card) Creative etc. They all have XP64 drivers and are in the same month or so of XP32/Vista flavor drivers. Most having the same info file for both on the same day. I'd call that support. Got any data on low adoption rate of XP64 other than your opinion? I gave tons of links in my posts. Where are yours?

I vote Vista x64, the difference between the XP x64 and Vista x64 on my machine is insane, driver support in Vista is far far better in my experience.

So can you be a little more vague please...LOL. What wasn't supported in XP64 that was in Vista? I'd like to "google" it for all the problems others are having with "your" parts. Surely there must be a bunch of data showing they work in Vista and NOT XP. At least some data?... :)

Give us a list of your parts and problems. You gotta do better than "vista is better than xp".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Biotoxic_hazard_835    151
Vista x64 works flawlessly for me.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.