XP vs. Vista
- Thread starter GTghost
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,181
I say no.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 859
If you have enough HDD space, why not just dual boot?
If there are applications you must run that simply won't work on Vista, even with compatibility mode, then you might as well go back to XP. If you're switching because of a few brain-dead idiots who bad mouth and spread false information about Vista, stop listening to them and just use Vista.
If there are applications you must run that simply won't work on Vista, even with compatibility mode, then you might as well go back to XP. If you're switching because of a few brain-dead idiots who bad mouth and spread false information about Vista, stop listening to them and just use Vista.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,315
Exactly what Hardhat said.
I've been using Vista for err.. 8 months at least now, and I really can't complain. Our computers at school are still running XP and I have trouble using them because the XP-look is just downright horrible and modding it may cause something to.. break. Nothing bad I can say about Vista, and way too many good things to say so I'll leave it at this.
I've been using Vista for err.. 8 months at least now, and I really can't complain. Our computers at school are still running XP and I have trouble using them because the XP-look is just downright horrible and modding it may cause something to.. break. Nothing bad I can say about Vista, and way too many good things to say so I'll leave it at this.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,626
Why not keep Vista, install XP and download the latest Windows 7 beta and tri-boot? This way you could test out the new OS, keep XP for games, and Vista for all your data.
Keep vista. Believe it or not, it has gotten waaay better after SP1 and after video card drivers have matured.
Is Vista a hog? Only in comparison to XP. Is XP a hog? Yes, if you compare it to win2k or 98SE... Hell if you want light weight right now (notwithstanding win7) load up Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and DOS 6.22.
Is Vista a hog? Only in comparison to XP. Is XP a hog? Yes, if you compare it to win2k or 98SE... Hell if you want light weight right now (notwithstanding win7) load up Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and DOS 6.22.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 2,454
Hmmmm......
(Am I the only that finds the above... ironic?)
Anyway, to answer your question GTghost, I'd say stay with Vista, unless your having problems running it, and if thats the case, fall back on xp, its always a failsafe.
Last edited:
Buying Vista was probably the worst software purchase I have ever made. I think XP is a much better OS and much more stable. I used to work for Geek Squad and have multiple certifications, such as A+ and CCNA so I'm not a "brain-dead idiot", I just know from experience I'd much rather be on a 64 bit machine using XP than Vista.
Just my two cents, but it's really a personal preference. If you have a reason to switch back, then do it. Or just wait out for Windows 7...
Just my two cents, but it's really a personal preference. If you have a reason to switch back, then do it. Or just wait out for Windows 7...
Yes, This explains it.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,181
Wait what? a 5 year old OS is more stable than a 2 year old OS? No way!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Last edited:
I was referring in that statement to a previous post suggesting that Vista was much more stable after SP1, which may be the case, but of course it's obvious that an older OS has has far more bug fixes/less bugs than a younger one.
Regardless, Vista was a complete failure, and even Microsoft officials have acknowledged this. From a technical standpoint, there is nothing that anyone can say that will make me think otherwise.
I can get REALLY technical about why Vista will never be a quality OS, but it seems like many of us already know why, we just don't want to admit it.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,181
I was referring in that statement to a previous post suggesting that Vista was much more stable after SP1, which may be the case, but of course it's obvious that an older OS has has far more bug fixes/less bugs than a younger one.
Regardless, Vista was a complete failure, and even Microsoft officials have acknowledged this. From a technical standpoint, there is nothing that anyone can say that will make me think otherwise.
I can get REALLY technical about why Vista will never be a quality OS, but it seems like many of us already know why, we just don't want to admit it.
Admitting Vista is a complete failure is a marketing ploy for Windows 7. Vista is perfectly fine if you have 2 GB's of RAM. I had only a couple issues with it pre SP1, and none after SP1.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 859
www.hardforum.com
Scroll down to to the Operating Systems sub-forum. Make a thread there and state objectively your reasons for 'why Vista will never be a quality OS.'
If you're not prepared to give an actual reasoning behind your answer, then your answer is worthless. I'm actually interested in what your reasons are.
Scroll down to to the Operating Systems sub-forum. Make a thread there and state objectively your reasons for 'why Vista will never be a quality OS.'
If you're not prepared to give an actual reasoning behind your answer, then your answer is worthless. I'm actually interested in what your reasons are.
Last edited:
I just didn't want to turn this into a big debate, but I guess I will. :drool:
1. UAC (User Account Control). Enough said.
2. Attempting to play high-performance games with Vista: Even with 4 or 8GB of RAM, it is a known fact that you can't achieve as high of FPS on Vista as you can on XP. I would supply links but you can find it easily by Google search. If you don't believe me, try searching for benchmarks, probably even on the site you linked me to.
3. Driver issues among vendors. I can't tell you how many people came in for driver help when the only thing I could tell them was "this won't work because this driver has not been updated for vista...sorry." Vendors had plenty of time to update their drivers, so I wouldn't say it's Vista's fault, but the problem is still there. I'm sure driver compatibility is less of a problem now since Vista has been out for a good amount of time.
4. How Microsoft implemented new hard drive/memory management models or "paradigms" completely different and didn't tell the users about it, which explains why many people think Vista "hogs" the memory when it really just utilizes as much of it as possible, and when Vista continually accesses the hard drive and auto defrags, etc. This actually isn't that bad of a thing, but the way Microsoft handled it was, and it hurt the OS's reputation because even IT professionals thought it was "hogging" memory.
5. How it's a pain to revert from Vista back to XP if the PC was bought with Vista loaded on it, especially if it's a laptop. This goes back to the driver issues obviously.
6. I got used to XP and I hate/fear change. There, I said it.
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 859
1. Fair enough, it does get a bit intrusive sometimes. Fortunately, Win 7's UAC is 'supposedly' less intrusive.
2. This was certainly true on Vista's initial release, but now, at least according to a January 2009 article, the difference in frames per second in games between the two OS's is a lot smaller.
3. You said it yourself, 'I wouldn't say it's Vista's fault.' What you said is also true for the first few months after Vista's release. It's now been over 2 years, just about all the major vendors have Vista compatible drivers.
4. Again, you said 'this actually isn't that bad of a thing.' They've learned, and now they're improving and reducing the memory footprint on Win 7.
5. Old laptop had Vista, didn't like it at first, performance was erratic. Reinstalled XP SP2, took less than an hour. In less than two hours, i had all the drivers installed and XP updated. After Vista SP1 came out, bought an OEM Vista HP SP1 x64 disc, wiped XP off, and reinstalled Vista. Again, it took less than two hours, and everything was updated and working a lot more smoothly than the initial Vista install.
No problems in switching back and forth, so i can't imagine what 'pain' you're talking about.
6. You're not being forced at gunpoint to use Vista, you don't like it, fine, stick with XP. But for a new PC, with modern hardware, there's no reason not to use Vista. Or at least dual boot with XP. Or triple boot with the Win 7 RC.
2. This was certainly true on Vista's initial release, but now, at least according to a January 2009 article, the difference in frames per second in games between the two OS's is a lot smaller.
3. You said it yourself, 'I wouldn't say it's Vista's fault.' What you said is also true for the first few months after Vista's release. It's now been over 2 years, just about all the major vendors have Vista compatible drivers.
4. Again, you said 'this actually isn't that bad of a thing.' They've learned, and now they're improving and reducing the memory footprint on Win 7.
5. Old laptop had Vista, didn't like it at first, performance was erratic. Reinstalled XP SP2, took less than an hour. In less than two hours, i had all the drivers installed and XP updated. After Vista SP1 came out, bought an OEM Vista HP SP1 x64 disc, wiped XP off, and reinstalled Vista. Again, it took less than two hours, and everything was updated and working a lot more smoothly than the initial Vista install.
No problems in switching back and forth, so i can't imagine what 'pain' you're talking about.
6. You're not being forced at gunpoint to use Vista, you don't like it, fine, stick with XP. But for a new PC, with modern hardware, there's no reason not to use Vista. Or at least dual boot with XP. Or triple boot with the Win 7 RC.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 5
Vista has a bad reputation for good reason.
It works fine in a home environment, so if you're already running it and you experience no issues, stick with it.
However, in a mixed OS network environment it simply is inferior to XP. There are compatibility issues with some aspects of XP (such as remote assistance). I, and others in my department, have ended up having to keep both a Vista box and an XP box for troubleshooting. We made the decision some months back to simply keep our enterprise running XP from here out until 7 comes out, completely skipping the conversion of the network client base to Vista.
It works fine in a home environment, so if you're already running it and you experience no issues, stick with it.
However, in a mixed OS network environment it simply is inferior to XP. There are compatibility issues with some aspects of XP (such as remote assistance). I, and others in my department, have ended up having to keep both a Vista box and an XP box for troubleshooting. We made the decision some months back to simply keep our enterprise running XP from here out until 7 comes out, completely skipping the conversion of the network client base to Vista.
I really Don't like either, MAC OSX FTW.....but, when i had a pc, it came with vista and i had quite a few problems with games and with some hardware. The Specs For my PC was pretty much the same specs as my mac, but the pc had a slower processor and some few other miner details. Vista slowly started up and it took about an average time of 5-7 minutes to be "usable" even when i disabled all the start up programs and features. I disabled vista's UAC as soon as i figured out how, and vistas security when from a Maximum Security prison to a holding cell at a mall...... it was either be annoyed every time i open something or have no security. I got about 80 frames on css with everything fairly high and on FSX i got 20-25 with everything maxed out. I started Dual booting windows xp which was a pain to install because hp did not release the drivers so i had to go to each company and find the drivers...even then the quick play buttons and webcam as well as the microphone did not work and it took a solid 3-4 hours with everything. When running xp i got about 180 fps on css and 60-70 on FSX. I also could run crisis with everything pretty much maxed out and i got 20-30 fps vs. vista at 2-5 fps. So in conclusion buy a mac, and if you don't want to do that, I agree with J-wall downgrade to xp i think its a lot better than vista seeing how as soon as windows 7 comes out Microsoft will abandon vista, plus the other reasons stated above. Btw i also have windows xp running on my mac too and it works pretty good. i had vista ultimate 64bit installed vs XP pro. 64 bit if anyone's wondering. I would like to point out that i do technical work for my schools network and have A+, and Network + Certifications we have both macs and pcs so i know a bit about both, so like J-wall im not a "brain-dead" idiot. Thats my 2 cents feel free to rebuttal hardhat or anyone else but i probably will not respond because i don't want to debate this. J-wall has his opinion, I have mine(which is mac btw), and you have yours.... In the end i am sure your minds are made up and there is nothing i can do or say to make you think other wise, same for me you can say all you want about how windows is better than mac, or Linux is better than both, or how vista is better than xp and vise-verse, mine mind is also set, so feel free to try to convince me other wise.
Correction My PC had 3gb of DDR2 Ram and a 8600m Video card...not that big of a difference but thought i would state it.
Correction My PC had 3gb of DDR2 Ram and a 8600m Video card...not that big of a difference but thought i would state it.
Last edited:
Similar threads
