Windows XP x64 vs Vista x64

[NEVER85]

Umm...Did you read the benchmarks I pointed to? Latest hardware out tested a week ago, VISTA SUCKS compared to XP. You don't call a GTX280 or ATI 4870x2's modern? GTX260? All tests show Vista loses to XP on the same machines. Sorry, check the tweaktown articles (any with vid card tests, all this year...All the same...Vista loses badly).

Nuff said.

Point me to benchmarks showing both, and a vista victory. I'm waiting...You won't find one. Vista is SLOWER. SP1 didn't help it either...LOL.

Your argument is pointless. I have no interest in your 3rd party benchmarks. I'm more interested in what I see firsthand, and on my machine, Vista outperforms XP by a large margin, and judging by many of the responses in this thread, I'm not alone, so take your interwebz benchmarks and your 7 year old Windows eXPired OS and go away.

[Darrian]

XP x64 is a great OS. I don't know what everybody is whining about driver-wise, I had drivers for all my hardware. However, I did have to generally download them and install them myself. It ran just as fine as XP 32-bit, and the only software incompatibility I had that inconvenienced me at all was Styler toolbar. However, just like XP 32-bit, after I'd been using it for a while and had installed a zillion applications it started to slow down a bit. Generally a positive experience.

I've been running Vista 64-bit since it was released, and betas of it before then. It is an outstanding OS. I've had no driver issues at all (all of my hardware has always just worked out of the box, no need to download anything) except that I have installed nVidia's video drivers to ensure the best performance in my games. All of my software works, except Styler toolbar :) (I don't know if it even runs on Vista 32-bit, either, but why would you want it to; there is no longer a need). I do have issues running some extremely antiquated games, but they didn't run on XP, either. Personally, if you have the hardware to support it, I'd use Vista.

[TheJian]

Ok so to sum up your post for those that don't need to read all that text: You have no dea what you're talking about.

I think you should find some real facts and not listen to every "Vista sucks" internet rumour and "tests" by users who've never even seen a vista disk.

So the evidence from a known hardware site (tweaktown) with a LOT of benchmarks showing XP beating Vista is pointless, and they've never seen a vista disc?

Steve Gibson from GRC.com (he's a genius, or did you miss that part? Never heard of shieldsup, or spinrite eh? FANTASTIC CODING!) is an idiot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gibson_...ter_programmer)

Leo Laporte hasn't seen a Vista disc? You're aware of who he is right? ZDnet mean anything to you? Call For Help TV show must have passed you by (it's still on isn't it?)? These people aren't spouting internet rumors. They are all knowledgeable, well known PC people in this industry.

Peter Guttman doesn't know what a vista disc looks like?...ROFL. Look at his wiki bio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gutmann...uter_scientist)

He knows a thing or two about vista since he wrote a famed article about it...He's got a PHD in Computer science...ROFL. Yeah, all these people are idiots and just spread rumors. Guttman's nothing but a computer security genius, he's stupid...WTF? I hope people take a look at the data/examples I've given, and ignore your BS one liners with nothing supporting your comments.

I give you 3 computer experts, hardware review sites, a dozen+ links to countries, schools, govt's BANNING Vista etc...

You give us "I think you should find some real facts and not listen to every "Vista sucks" internet rumour and "tests" by users who've never even seen a vista disk."...LOL.

Umm...I thought I gave about a thousand facts, and all VERY REAL. Where is your proof it's better than XP? Your opinions are useless. How about giving us some "real facts" as you call them, to back up your BS statement?

PC World magazine gave Vista the top tech disappointment of the year award for 2007:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/140583-5/th...ts_of_2007.html

Yeah, they don't know what a vista disc is either...Just more rumor crap...LOL. It's pretty bad when a windows magazine rates you as the worst product of the year...LOL.

You got anything to back up what you say? You only have to be able to read English to know that I do. Read this thread, there's a ton all in here...LOL.

[AlexMagik]

benchmarks are done on 1 kind of hardware only, i notice this too: on my acer aspire 5170 Vista (32 bits in this case) is faster than XP, and it's easily visible: boot, shutdown, startup applications, etc... (i don't play games so i won't compare to gaming speed but professional usage only)

But on another computer i've (desktop), vista is actually slower. So i guess it's caused by 2 things:

1. Drivers - probably the most important thing, stable and optimized drivers get vista fast

2. Benchmarks are generally fine, but they never work on the single, as each person has different hardware and it can cause problems (or slowdown) on each system

[HawkMan]

So the evidence from a known hardware site (tweaktown) with a LOT of benchmarks showing XP beating Vista is pointless, and they've never seen a vista disc?

Steve Gibson from GRC.com (he's a genius, or did you miss that part? Never heard of shieldsup, or spinrite eh? FANTASTIC CODING!) is an idiot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gibson_...ter_programmer)

Leo Laporte hasn't seen a Vista disc? You're aware of who he is right? ZDnet mean anything to you? Call For Help TV show must have passed you by (it's still on isn't it?)? These people aren't spouting internet rumors. They are all knowledgeable, well known PC people in this industry.

Peter Guttman doesn't know what a vista disc looks like?...ROFL. Look at his wiki bio:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gutmann...uter_scientist)

He knows a thing or two about vista since he wrote a famed article about it...He's got a PHD in Computer science...ROFL. Yeah, all these people are idiots and just spread rumors. Guttman's nothing but a computer security genius, he's stupid...WTF? I hope people take a look at the data/examples I've given, and ignore your BS one liners with nothing supporting your comments.

I give you 3 computer experts, hardware review sites, a dozen+ links to countries, schools, govt's BANNING Vista etc...

You give us "I think you should find some real facts and not listen to every "Vista sucks" internet rumour and "tests" by users who've never even seen a vista disk."...LOL.

Umm...I thought I gave about a thousand facts, and all VERY REAL. Where is your proof it's better than XP? Your opinions are useless. How about giving us some "real facts" as you call them, to back up your BS statement?

PC World magazine gave Vista the top tech disappointment of the year award for 2007:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/140583-5/th...ts_of_2007.html

Yeah, they don't know what a vista disc is either...Just more rumor crap...LOL. It's pretty bad when a windows magazine rates you as the worst product of the year...LOL.

You got anything to back up what you say? You only have to be able to read English to know that I do. Read this thread, there's a ton all in here...LOL.

Some random self important programmers.. well I'm sure they're opinios ae worth more than the thousands of other at least as good developers who says otherwise, and tweaktown... yeah riiight. whatever...

oh somone with a PHD.... wow he can't be full of opinionated BS. As for ZDNet, it's in the same league as PWorld. sensationalists BS sites/magazines that get more visitors and thus ad money from negative news, false or not. Mostly false.

Fact is your ignorant and uniformed as well as very very wrong rambling about Vista DRM, and drm in Vista drivers quite obviusly show that wherever you get your information are not very trustworthy sources.

Get bak to us when you actually know what you're talking about. Read up on DRM, Read up on Vista, Read up on DRM in vista, then install Vista and compare it real performance on your computer. Then read up on driver developement on Vista and how it's better and on the new Audio system as well as graphics system.

and maybe even learn to make up your own opinion, and no rely on the opinion of "famous" internet people. Especially when you seem oblivius to the agenda of the people and sites you look up to.

[TheJian]

Your argument is pointless. I have no interest in your 3rd party benchmarks. I'm more interested in what I see firsthand, and on my machine, Vista outperforms XP by a large margin, and judging by many of the responses in this thread, I'm not alone, so take your interwebz benchmarks and your 7 year old Windows eXPired OS and go away.

Spoken like someone lacking evidence. Ignorance is bliss they say...

FYI Microsoft will "expire" Vista Ultimate BEFORE XP64. XP64 will get support until 2014. Vista Ultimate will...NOT. :) 2012...sorry..

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifeselectindex

Vista and XP are at the bottom. Note XP Pro is a business OS, so it's there until 2014. Vista Ultimate is NOT. However, if you're a person wanting vista, I'd suggest BUSINESS edition, as you have a right to downgrade to XP (yippie), and you get longer support.

XP SUPPORT:

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=8599

Vista Ulti:

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN...15&p1=11922

Bummer dude. 2012. :)

My OS won't expire until 2014...How about yours?

Well, I can't say you're ignorant now...You've been informed...LOL. What now braniac?

Sorry if you find informing potential buyers they should think twice about Vista so offensive...Tough luck. When Vista gets better (I mean IF) I'll stop telling people about evidence against it. Which currently, is still mounting! Including this months benchmarking by tweaktown.com.

I fail to see how an overbloated DRM infested OS could possibly run faster than XP on your machine (any machine). It's just not possible. Do you do anything with your pc besides browse the web? Games are slower. Office is slower (you can google this too...office2007 on vista vs. xp shows xp/2007 runs a lot faster), etc. Color me amazed. You've got the only pc on the planet that runs XP slower than Vista, and buy a "LARGE MARGIN". Wow...I digress...

[TheJian]

Some random self important programmers.. well I'm sure they're opinios ae worth more than the thousands of other at least as good developers who says otherwise, and tweaktown... yeah riiight. whatever...

oh somone with a PHD.... wow he can't be full of opinionated BS. As for ZDNet, it's in the same league as PWorld. sensationalists BS sites/magazines that get more visitors and thus ad money from negative news, false or not. Mostly false.

Fact is your ignorant and uniformed as well as very very wrong rambling about Vista DRM, and drm in Vista drivers quite obviusly show that wherever you get your information are not very trustworthy sources.

Get bak to us when you actually know what you're talking about. Read up on DRM, Read up on Vista, Read up on DRM in vista, then install Vista and compare it real performance on your computer. Then read up on driver developement on Vista and how it's better and on the new Audio system as well as graphics system.

and maybe even learn to make up your own opinion, and no rely on the opinion of "famous" internet people. Especially when you seem oblivius to the agenda of the people and sites you look up to.

Please, by all means...Point me to these developer comments. Please, point me to how great DRM is in Vista. Umm...I've owned a PC business for 8yrs, I think I've installed vista a few times. I'm a PC technician who now has to support Vista. I think I know a bit about it. The entire point of pointing to others is to show that it isn't JUST MY OPINION. It's PROOF, or do you have no concept of what proof is? All of the govt's, organizations, schools etc I pointed out are BANNING the use of Vista isn't enough evidence for you??...LOL.

The links I gave in the other post show multiple PRO AUDIO people saying BAG VISTA, it's not good for audio development. With thousands in audio equipment, using it daily for their living, they probably don't know what they're talking about either...LOL.

So point me to the people saying driver development for Video/Audio hardware is great on Vista. I also await the links to people high on DRM in Vista and just loving having to work with it.

I'm waiting....Links to both please. No links to Microsoft employees either...ROFL. They don't count. No links to RIAA/MPAA related people either. Obviously they don't count, they paid to get DRM INTO Vista. You got anything even resembling support for your opinion (yeah, YOUR opinion)? Links please.

[zhangm Supervisor]

Wow, same tired arguments, over and over, with "LOL" and "ROFL" interspersed between. I wonder if we can get him to do other tricks, like argue that black is white.

[ozulus]

I'm currently running Vista x64 on my new machine and so far so good. I haven't had any problems with it. It's fast and reliable. I think it hasn't crashed, at least I don't remember it having, only been 3 weeks since I got it. As for reboots, so far only when I get asked to after an update.

[Prince Charming]

Wow, same tired arguments, over and over, with "LOL" and "ROFL" interspersed between. I wonder if we can get him to do other tricks, like argue that black is white.

That made me smile.

[TheJian]

Wow, same tired arguments, over and over, with "LOL" and "ROFL" interspersed between. I wonder if we can get him to do other tricks, like argue that black is white.

I guess when buried by the mountain of evidence against vista, the best a supporter can come up with is comments about acronyms eh?

You got anything better than that? How about some evidence to argue against my mountain of evidence? Is that too much to ask?

You can attack me all you want. Unfortunately it doesn't change ANY of the data I presented.

Unfortunately for you, those arguments you call "tired" are still completely true. Sorry. MS should have just slapped DX10 and Aero on XP and called it a day (hackers have proved you can do this already). Maybe a few other "enhancements" could have been added (some like the search - though you can add the same function without vista via 3rd party): but the rest of vista was just a waste of time in order to make media mafia happy and take away more of our digital rights. So which media company do you work for... :)

Here's a trick I'd like to see you do: Point to evidence supporting your opinions. :devil:

Pandya you still smiling? How about something from you?... :)

[TheJian]

benchmarks are done on 1 kind of hardware only, i notice this too: on my acer aspire 5170 Vista (32 bits in this case) is faster than XP, and it's easily visible: boot, shutdown, startup applications, etc... (i don't play games so i won't compare to gaming speed but professional usage only)

But on another computer i've (desktop), vista is actually slower. So i guess it's caused by 2 things:

1. Drivers - probably the most important thing, stable and optimized drivers get vista fast

2. Benchmarks are generally fine, but they never work on the single, as each person has different hardware and it can cause problems (or slowdown) on each system

The visible stuff you're referring to is nothing more than optimizing for system/os files to be in the best locations on the drive (outside edge of your hard drive), also the most used apps. That's all that's needed for what you're seeing and it can be had by many programs that do exactly what Vista does in this regard. PERFECT DISK being one of them (Raxco software makes it). Note the cost of a PerfectDisk license is a LOT cheaper than buying Vista, and will get the same improvements for XP. You tell it what you want to open etc the fastest and it optimizes the layout of the drive with OS/Sys files and most used apps in the best places. Perfect Disk will even protect these files from ever being moved in the future if desired. A nice touch. Anyway, the point is, XP version 2 could have had the same thing easily (same with DX10 and Aero) as noted with apps like perfectdisk.

This is NOT going to improve the performance of anything REAL in usage speed. Your game or app will still run slow after it loads unfortunately. How fast the OS boots or shuts down is not improving my USAGE of the OS one bit. Good drivers are good for any OS. That's a no brainer. I don't understand your 2nd point. Personally I only boot my PC once a month or so, and usually when forced by updates to any of my OS's.

I'll end saying there's a reason Microsoft is spending 300 MILLION to put lipstick on this pig. Heck, they're even hiring Jerry Seinfeld to help...LOL. A good product SELLS IT'S SELF. A bad one needs 300 Million worth of lipstick to help it sell even a year and a half after it's been out. That's just sad. Worse, Windows7 is Vista SP2.

[tsupersonic]

I'd go with Vista x64, considering the driver support for Vista 64 seems to be much better than XP 64.

[ozulus]

The visible stuff you're referring to is nothing more than optimizing for system/os files to be in the best locations on the drive (outside edge of your hard drive), also the most used apps. That's all that's needed for what you're seeing and it can be had by many programs that do exactly what Vista does in this regard. PERFECT DISK being one of them (Raxco software makes it). Note the cost of a PerfectDisk license is a LOT cheaper than buying Vista, and will get the same improvements for XP. You tell it what you want to open etc the fastest and it optimizes the layout of the drive with OS/Sys files and most used apps in the best places. Perfect Disk will even protect these files from ever being moved in the future if desired. A nice touch. Anyway, the point is, XP version 2 could have had the same thing easily (same with DX10 and Aero) as noted with apps like perfectdisk.

This is NOT going to improve the performance of anything REAL in usage speed. Your game or app will still run slow after it loads unfortunately. How fast the OS boots or shuts down is not improving my USAGE of the OS one bit. Good drivers are good for any OS. That's a no brainer. I don't understand your 2nd point. Personally I only boot my PC once a month or so, and usually when forced by updates to any of my OS's.

I'll end saying there's a reason Microsoft is spending 300 MILLION to put lipstick on this pig. Heck, they're even hiring Jerry Seinfeld to help...LOL. A good product SELLS IT'S SELF. A bad one needs 300 Million worth of lipstick to help it sell even a year and a half after it's been out. That's just sad. Worse, Windows7 is Vista SP2.

I use, and I think most of us here use Vista because we like it, it seems (to most ppl that actually tried) more stable, more responsive than xp during everyday usage as long as you meet the minimum requirements. Gamewise so far I haven't had any problem with it, everything has worked so far even rly old games and I haven't noticed any slowdown compared to XP.

I tried Vista on a PIII-1GHz and it worked flawlessly (yes Aero was disabled obviously I couldn't expect it to run smoothly with it) and it was as fast as XP. Yes Vista sure needs some more work, but it isn't the horrid thing as ppl say. 99% of ppl base their talk on what others say and twist it and make it sound worse.

I never listen to what so called computer experts say, they can have 100 PhDs for all I care. It's an OS, I gotta try it for myself and decide on my own afterwards. I may like certain features they don't, my hardware configuration might actually mix up better than theirs with Vista, I don't know, that's why I have to try it.

Try it, give it a chance, if you don't like it after a while then go back, that's my suggestion.

[TheJian]

I'd go with Vista x64, considering the driver support for Vista 64 seems to be much better than XP 64.

What gives you the idea that support is better for Vista64? How did you form your opinion? What product is better supported in Vista64 than XP64? Please provide links. I always see this kind of comment with NOTHING to back it up. So please, enlighten me. My previous posts showed there are drivers for every current part on the market for XP64. You can check for yourself on Nvidia, AMD (ATI), Intel, Via, HP, any NIC producer (dlink, linksys, Edimax etc). So what are you referring to?

[TheJian]

I use, and I think most of us here use Vista because we like it, it seems (to most ppl that actually tried) more stable, more responsive than xp during everyday usage as long as you meet the minimum requirements. Gamewise so far I haven't had any problem with it, everything has worked so far even rly old games and I haven't noticed any slowdown compared to XP.

I tried Vista on a PIII-1GHz and it worked flawlessly (yes Aero was disabled obviously I couldn't expect it to run smoothly with it) and it was as fast as XP. Yes Vista sure needs some more work, but it isn't the horrid thing as ppl say. 99% of ppl base their talk on what others say and twist it and make it sound worse.

I never listen to what so called computer experts say, they can have 100 PhDs for all I care. It's an OS, I gotta try it for myself and decide on my own afterwards. I may like certain features they don't, my hardware configuration might actually mix up better than theirs with Vista, I don't know, that's why I have to try it.

Try it, give it a chance, if you don't like it after a while then go back, that's my suggestion.

Most of the users out there couldn't re-install an OS even if we gave them step by step instructions, let alone trying it by themselves. It's just a fact. On top of that, new PC buyers won't have an XP disc to toss in to accomplish this task, among other problems with this idea. For some people money doesn't grow on trees, and trying vista isn't cheap. If you have no idea how to install an OS your idea is problematic.

By your reasoning I guess we should all just skip school, college professors are idiots etc. Hardware review sites don't know squat about pc's. Millions of unsatisfied users of Vista are complaining about nothing etc. People with exploding laptop batteries must not know how to work their laptops. I can build a better cpu than Intel, so they should just quit the cpu business...I'm taking up open heart surgery tomorrow because I can do it better than doctors etc...You're thought process doesn't make sense. Ignoring a 100 PHD's? If a guy actually had that many, I wouldn't bother to question his intelligence on many things. That's a heck of an accomplishment...LOL. Surely he's smarter than I, especially when he comes backed with data.

At some point mountains of evidence must be paid some attention. If you can install an OS without problems and are more than capable of fixing your pc after a Vista snafu, sure try it. In all other cases, XP does everything Vista does, and usually faster, so why bother? A pretty face doesn't make it any better. Having said that, I have tried it (as have many that complain) and see nothing worth paying for. I don't see how you can surmise the majority of users here use Vista either. Numbers in surveys show otherwise. Numbers from Gartner, HP, Steampowered.com etc show otherwise. Based on numbers, XP is the dominant OS on the market by a LARGE margin. I find it humorous that you can so easily dismiss 99% of people's complaints as just twisting what others say and they've never tried the OS. Is that your professional opinion?...ROFL.

[ViperAFK]

Yes....It's slower...Look at the benchmarks I provided (and linked to, go read them yourself). I suppose you think WinME was great too eh? How about MS BOB...ROFL. Some things are duds. It happens in hardware too. Take a look at the intro to Barcy from AMD...Slower than the last chips at launch and still today...LOL. Or how about the first P4, beaten to a pulp by P3's until it past a few revs to 1.7ghz or so. You must work for MS, you sound like an ad for them...LOL. "I have no proof it's not a turd, and despite all evidence pointing to it being a turd, I'll just ask you if you actually think we could make a turd after 5 years of development?"...ROFL. Dear god man...Mistakes happen.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302498,00.asp

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...ate/default.asp

How bout you use some recent benchmarks buddy?

An a modern machine with at least 2 gb of ram vista is just as fast if not faster than xp and especially with recent drivers most problems have been resolved, now stop trolling kthx.

If you compare vista to ME you are an idiot.

[alisalem]

Vista x64 works flawlessly here as well.

[mrp04]

Wow was just browsing this section (hadn't been here in years) and noticed this. Well I have been using Vista since it came out RTM and it is working great. No major issues at all! If it was XP installed, it would've slowed down so much that I would have had to format it. With XP I needed to format AT LEAST once a year, now one of my computers that is running Vista hasn't been formatted since it came out. The other one I formatted because I had 2GB of RAM and upgraded to 4GB but 32 bit version didn't see more then 3GB. With Vista, the same serial works for both versions, so I just downloaded the 64bit CD and installed it using my old serial.

Worse, Windows7 is Vista SP2.

How the **** would you know anything like that? Even though you are totally wrong about Vista, I am positive you have never used the retail build of Windows 7 to be able to judge it.

Also, why does everyone complain so much about RAM usage? 2GB of RAM is only $40! That is 4 times Vista's required and twice its recommended.

4 years ago, I paid 40GB for 256MB of RAM, and that is also 4 times the required. But be serious, is XP going to run well with 256MB? NO. It needs 512MB to run well, that would have been $80 4 years ago.

Edited September 1, 2008 by mrp04

[Flash]

The only reason I hadn't stayed with vista is because of X-fi creative alchemy crap that doesn't work with every game. I'm with XP because my X-Fi works flawlessly in every single game.

[D_Trace]

LOL

Thank you TheJian. It's nice to see that some people still have a brain and do some research before opening their mouths.

I've used all desktop versions of Windows that were released to date, and Vista is the worst Windows NT ever released. One just has to look at the adoption rates or the way Microsoft is desperately promoting Windows 7 already (not to mention the "Mojave experiment").

A Mac with a 350Mhz G4 and a Geforce2 could do the transparency and all other "effects" which require a higher-end PC to be done (but worse) on Vista. Not to mention DRM and its implications throughout the OS.

If Bill Gates himself says that Vista sucks, the case is closed:

http://gizmodo.com/342920/holy-crap-did-bi...y-windows-sucks

[HawkMan]

you don't even know what mojave was do you... :rolleyes: not to mention any of the rest.

[D_Trace]

you don't even know what mojave was do you... :rolleyes: not to mention any of the rest.

Mojave was a desperate attempt (in a controlled environment of course, LOL) to show how Vista doesn't suck.

The kind of thing that a company would resort to only if the product was a failure.

I give you Bill Gates saying that Vista sucks, but you give me an empty one liner. LOL!!!

[White Cuban]

the mojave experience they called it :ike: more like teh suckage. they do it in a controlled environment , and picked the about 2 people out of 1000 that said: "it Doesn't suck THAT BAD", but they were 75 year olds with Alzheimer

[NEVER85]

Mojave was a desperate attempt (in a controlled environment of course, LOL) to show how Vista doesn't suck.

The kind of thing that a company would resort to only if the product was a failure.

I give you Bill Gates saying that Vista sucks, but you give me an empty one liner. LOL!!!

*yawn* Go away, kid. You don't know how to use a computer obviously. Use XP if you want, but the rest of us who don't want to use Windows eXPired with its Explorer hangs and susceptibility to Windows rot and malware infestations will be here in 2008.