WinXP or WinVista

By xMetian
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

amon91

Posted
Posted

Amazing how so many people didn't even bother reading the thread.

You seem to have the specs, I say go for Vista. SP2 is fine stability-wise and compared to XP, it's shock full of new features. You can always drop some cash on an upgrade to 7 later down the line once you're willing to. That too is worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

TCA

Posted
Posted

Will all of you people suggesting Windows 7 please go back and actually ****ing READ the first post?

I know I'm not suggesting it, only if the posters gets the money or if not then I'm sure OP will be happy with Vista (not saying you were inclining i did suggest) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

neo158

Posted
Posted

That's a software API, it has nothing to do with hardware capability.

It has better support than Vista/7 64bit. More users = Better support from manufacturers.

XP has more than 50% share. More than Vista and 7 combined. Developers go where the users are fact. Your dreams of abandonment are just that dreams. I repeat again, please name one game/app that is exclusive to vista/7. Not including those made by Microsoft, for we all know that is just a ploy to force people to upgrade.

Cool story bro.

Actually to use the full feature set of DirectX 11 your hardware has to support those features as well, so, simply put it's not just about a software API it's hardware as well.

You have got to be joking, XP x64 has BETTER hardware support than Vista/7 x64. What planet are you on? XP x64 has and always will have THE MOST pathetic hardware support for a commercially available OS. More users won't help this situation as all device manufacturers only support Vista/7 x64

XP might have slightly more than a 50% share, i'm not sure of exact numbers, but that number is rapidly dwindling. More than Vista and 7 combined, i'll ask this again What planet are you on? Windows 7 is the fastest selling OS in history and what OS were most of those people using, that's right, XP.

Developers will go where the highest market share is, but those developers are also developing for Vista and 7 at the same time. A good example here is Paint.NET, the developer has stated that he is dropping support for XP so he can fully leverage the features of modern OSs. Not only that but as time goes on more and more developers will drop support for XP, here's another example, Adobe CS5 has dropped support for XP 32 and 64-bit, so there you go, that's your app.

If you want to be a luddite and stick with XP then go for it, no one's stopping you.

But cool story bro, next time get your facts straight BEFORE posting otherwise it makes you look like an a**.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Udedenkz

Posted
Posted (edited)

(snipped)

You and I are talking about different OS I believe.

I am talking about W7's Windows Explorer which -performance wise- is at a horrible disadvantage to XP's Windows Explorer.

As Brandon pointed out this performance-negative change (if I can still recall) is to save memory.

This can be really easily replicated,

0. CPU of equivalent to Atom N270

1. Open Explorer

2. Folder with massive amount of images (otherwise there will be nothing to scroll)

3. Use arrow keys for navigation

4. Press the down key, while NOT having to scroll new thumbs into the view this will be fast, but when explorer would need to load new images into the view - this will slow down - that is, the scrolling will continue after (couldn't keep up) you let go of the down key. This behavior is W7 only and can be reproduced with any folder, any content and any view.

Edited by GreyWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Experienced

Lazure

Posted
Posted

You and I are talking about different OS I believe.

I am talking about W7's Windows Explorer which -performance wise- is at a horrible disadvantage to XP's Windows Explorer.

As Brandon pointed out this performance-negative change (if I can still recall) is to save memory.

This can be really easily replicated,

0. CPU of equivalent to Atom N270

1. Open Explorer

2. Folder with massive amount of images (otherwise there will be nothing to scroll)

3. Use arrow keys for navigation

4. Press the down key, while NOT having to scroll new thumbs into the view this will be fast, but when explorer would need to load new images into the view - this will slow down - that is, the scrolling will continue after (couldn't keep up) you let go of the down key. This behavior is W7 only and can be reproduced with any folder, any content and any view.

So wait, you're complaining that a CPU that's equivalent to performance of a pentium 4 from ~8 years ago is showing signs of being slow in a modern 2009 OS where it's trying to generate a lot of thumbnails from large images pretty much all at once?

Also, do you have Aero disabled? If so, that's probably part of your problem. Enable Aero and it actually speeds up UI drawing using your GPU. This is ESPECIALLY important when your system has a weak CPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

AnotherITguy

Posted
Posted

Here's to the die hard xp Users, i know of a better operating system that has even better application support, you won't need an anti virus program, which o/s did you guess? APPLE OSX? Well you're wrong i recommend Windows 3.1.1 for workgroups!

But seriously, even in games developers are starting to move to DIRECTX 10.1 which um XP doesn't support. And i hate to break it to you but a PENTIUM 4 2.8GHZ with an onboard INTEL I865 Graphics card will run Vista so there are no excuses really. Besides, theres a family pack for $150 nowadays

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

PreKe

Posted
Posted
I've got a question for you all. When I bought this PC it had Windows XP on it, but I also got an upgrade to Windows Vista. Now I have been using Windows XP for like always, but now I'm started to wonder if it isn't better to go to Windows Vista. (Don't know why I think this, but it just came up in my mind).

This is my personal opinion:

If I had to choose between Vista and XP, I would choose XP. I wouldn't even consider XP.

Now, if the alternatives were Windows 7 or XP, I would choose Windows 7.

Whatever you do: Skip Vista.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

NEVER85

Posted
Posted

Neowin, you are disappointing me. So many flawed and incorrect statements in this one thread alone.

"Vista's bad, go with XP"

"XP x64 has more support than Vista/7 x64" <----- this one was awesome. Whoever said this needs shock therapy.

"7 is slower than XP" <----- more Udedenkz drivel. His statements have been debunked so many times it's best if the entire forum puts him on ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

PreKe

Posted
Posted
"Vista's bad, go with XP"

I have used both XP, Vista and Windows 7 at the same time on different computers. I can definitely say that I would choose both XP and Windows 7 over Vista. And Windows 7 over XP, although XP isn't a bad OS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Udedenkz

Posted
Posted

So wait, you're complaining that a CPU that's equivalent to performance of a pentium 4 from ~8 years ago is showing signs of being slow in a modern 2009 OS where it's trying to generate a lot of thumbnails from large images pretty much all at once?

Also, do you have Aero disabled? If so, that's probably part of your problem. Enable Aero and it actually speeds up UI drawing using your GPU. This is ESPECIALLY important when your system has a weak CPU.

Please reread, detail view, list view, and any other non-thumbnail AND thumbnail view.

No one disables Aero - Windows 7 is quite ugly without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

Frylock86

Posted
Posted

So unless someone follows the Microsoft mantra unquestioningly, he is an idiot? I think you need to quit drinking the MS koolade.

No, but the OP asked which OS to go for, he had access to Vista or XP, considering the system specs he posted and that it is also 2010 and not 2005 anymore, Vista would be the better choice. By installing Vista, he has the benefit of a more stable OS, a more secure OS, AND an upgrade path to 7, should he obtain a copy in the near future. It's time to leave XP in the dust.

Eitherway, this thread has served it's purpose, and the OP has already decided to go with Vista. I think it is time to lock this thread up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rising Star

MadDoggyca

Posted
Posted

AMD Athlon X2 64 3800+, 4GB ram, 8800GTS 320mb )

( oh and if this is in the wrong section. Please do hate me and correct me ).

Stick with XP

some people seem to forget what hardware your running

Althon x2 64 3800+ = 2.0GHz(Core) / 512KB l2 Per core = 1MB l2. Im going to assume its a socket 939, Possible a Am2 Socket. Possible only 400-800MHZ FSB depending on your cpu socket?

Im going to assume thast DDR1 at 400MhZ

Runing DX10 on a 8800GTS would not give you much of a improvment over DX 9.c (your video card is geting blottled necked by your CPU FSB for the most part)

having said that. your system hardware isn't all that high and I would not run that vista or windows 7.

-----------------------------

on that note I had the following

AMD FX-60 X2 (2.8 GHZ) 2MB L2

4GIG DDR 400 Mhz

SLI 8600 GT

and it choked on vista.

-------------------

on a final note.. Windows vista/7 is way better then xp but lets face it

Windows XP sucks and so dose your hardware. but atlest they run the best together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.