Are you using XPS with VIsta?

Guys, I currently have XP on my Inspiron 6000. I am buying a XPS 5130 and it comes with Vista. Apparently we can ask Dell to send also windows xp, how does it work?

And is it worth installing XP and removing Vista?

Or, if it's better to keep Vista,what kind to get, 34bit, 64bit, home, premium, mega, ultimate, super, hyper, duper????

Thanks so much for helping!

 

first its M1530 second its 32 bit.... and LOL... would be nice to have a super, hyper, duper Vista OS...

But seriously, I would suggest going for Vista.. I have Vista Ult., and moved on to this after working with XP for over 8 years and I must say I love Vista Ultimate this is my opinion.

 

Vista is fine on up-to date hardware.... IMO vista > xp

just keep vista.... havent seen a BSOD in like 10 months... and that BSOd was due to some flaky TV Tuner driver

 

Personally I'd go XP... but I don't know if its worth the extra cost... def worth if if you already have a copy lying around.
Even with sp1, vista will run slower, and get less FPS in virtually all games.

 

Erm, proof please?
This is NOT true.
It has been proven by others and Microsoft that Vista runs on par with XP in terms of performance and sometimes even better when copying files etc.

 

A Big No for the bold part Vista is fast (I dont know about the games that are slower in Vista, probably the next post by Shakey is better reference for that).. and for me, Vista in general is really fast If you get a Vista machine and follow some tips n guides here, you will know For me I never have a lag in my system, never had a crash or blue screen.. and whatever issues I had was because of *me messing around*, and not because of Vista..

 

I dual-boot Vista 64-bit and XP 64-bit. I installed XP 64-bit purely to play old games that don't work well in Vista like MGS2, and always intended to keep Vista as my main OS. However, game performance has been much better in XP64 without exception, so now I always boot into XP64.

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html
^^

In pretty much all their tests, vista did slightly worse, and in some, there was a HUGE decrease in performace...
Not to mention it uses more than twice the ram in XP..
Plus my 3dmark score went up by 400 when I installed XP over vista on my M1730, though that can be partly due to new drivers/no dell bloatware.

~Itomix

 

Guys, thanks. But I am not a gamer. How much difference would I see when working with a bunch of documents on dreamweaver, or a bunch of files on photoshop, or several firefox windows, or watching a video stream on Hulu?

And how do I know if it's 32 or 64 bits the one coming from Dell. it's the Premium Edition SP1.



Thanks so much

 

I would guess / say that you would see quiet some difference between XP and Vista.. I haven't used dreamweaver.. But I work simultaneously with electrical recordings using clampex/clampfit (highly resource consuming, btw, for those who don't know this neuroscience research tool), acrobat professional, excel, sigmaplot/sigmastat and coreldraw X3, with a firefox window and a chat window, and I see no lag with my system as of now.. everything responds in real time and no problems for me.

 

Vista will run "fast"... just XP will run faster on the same exact machine:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=4

^^ these benchmarks are with vista sp1 and xp sp2... so sp1 did make vista a bit faster, but its still slower the XP...

Skuba... how much will XP cost you to add? If its cheap, get it... else vista should be fast enough, especially for what your planning on doing.

 

Er, unless the the date on that article is wrong, those test results were from January 2007. I think Vista driver support (especially video drivers) have come quite a long way since then. And of course SP1. Can't see that those old numbers mean anything today.

 

well, with all due respects, I dont know about those benchmarks and unless I see it for real, I am not inclined to believe them either, IMHO because for example, I dont wait for 148 seconds to "extract from compressed folder - multiple files" or wait for 45 seconds for boot up (I stand currently around 30-32 seconds) or wait for 64 seconds for drive to drive copy (it does faster for me, and I do lot of this while sharing work files between work n home)... just to name a few..

So there.. Anyways, may be in another 1 year of use, I would be something like this but I guess by then I would have completely cleaned up my system so many times and I always make sure it stays clean.

 

Yes.

Go with Vista, then see if you can put 64-bit Vista on there. I've seen more tests where Vista outperforms XP. So what if it hogs memory? That's GOOD, because then it doesn't use as much pagefile - not to mention, if you get a halfway decent machine, you'll have atleast 3gb of RAM, so you don't even have to worry about it.

 

First of all... I searched "vista sp1 vs xp sp2" and the first page said otherwise...
Nobody here has provided any benchmarks showing vista to be faster overall in a group of tests... Can anyone provide this?

This thread has kinda transformed into a vista vs xp war, instead of trying to figure out if the cost of xp is worth it

~Itomix

 

For me it's not a matter of cost. I still have my XP license from my current computer. It's a matter or removing vista, adding xp, etc..
I don't want to have to install all my software again, and then decide to change to xp, and then install it all again, and so on.

I heard of certain programs or accessories not working on vista. Not sure which ones.

Will all my current software run on vista 34bit ot 64 bit? A lpt of the program are freeware that I download, or open source programs. But I also use a lot the standard Dreamweaver, Outlook, Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, etc..

 

Most of the programs these days, including freeware (I get lots of them too) run on vista.. I haven't had any problem with any of the freeware prog' I'd got.. and your list of prog' for sure will run on Vista.. there are supports for vista already there.

 

You'd be hard-pressed to find a current version of any mainstream app that won't run under Vista. If you're running a bunch of oddball apps, then you'll need to check with the Mfr to see if they'll run properly.

Ditto any hardware. I think a lot of manufacturers purposely orphaned some of their stuff (some that wasn't even that old) in order to force people to buy new hardware. So if you've got a 4 year old scanner or whatever, check with the mfr first.

 

honestly its such a bad idea to still go with XP. Vista SP1 fixed alot of the old complaints people had with its initial release. Its running faster and smoother than b4 and thats just the beginning since Microsoft will likely release 2 more Vista packages. Plus with Vista you get directx 10 which is more future proof as soon as more game developers learn to utilize it properly.

Anyways, I say that you should stay for the long haul in which you'll inevitably get the better end product.

 

i, too, was one of the skeptical people when it came to makin the vista switch. my desktop came with vista home basic and 1GB of RAM. i hated vista at first cuz 1GB is nowhere near the amount of RAM u need to run vista smoothly. i upgraded my desktop to 3GB RAM and it felt like a whole different (better) computer. it is a resource hogger, but most machines today come with 3-4GB from the manufacturer. also, SP1 fixed alot of bugs and has been very stable so far. data transfer speeds were really improved.

there are also alot of vista tweaks where u can change alot of things like: what programs u want to start at startup and alot of options where u can disable some security (annoying) features.

vista has come a VERY long way since the pre-SP1 days. i highly recommend it. XP is out dated now. u'll have to go thru all that trouble just to install the XP OS. then have to go find drivers and all that junk.

 

if you are worried about performance decrease, follow the tweaks guide on this forum ( on the OS part)

vista is really fast if you know how to configure it, i prefer it ten times to boring old xp.

 

Part of XP's rumored fast performance is the result of a placebo effect - people know that it runs on any hardware, right down to an old 333 Mhz Gateway with a whole 64 MB of RAM. The assumption is simply that since it runs fine on older hardware while Vista doesn't, then it must be lighter on system resources.

While Vista's hardware requirements are much higher than those of XP, the newer OS also uses available resources much more efficiently. XP and pre XP users were bred to watch their RAM usage, since older versions of Windows were much worse and slower at swapping out used RAM when needed. Vista uses more RAM in order to speed up loading of commonly used programs (yes, it is adaptive to your habits), and is able to free the cached data instantly when required.

I've got my XPS 1530 loaded with Vista x64, and it is a much nicer, smoother experience compared to the horrible days of XP. There isn't much to worry about - the XPS series is more than capable of handling Vista.

 

I know that the OP doesn't care about gaming, but let's set the record straight...

How convenient that you posted an article from January of '07 as "proof". How about we take a look at Vista SP1 vs XP SP3? Vista gets just as many (or more) FPS as XP. This reminds me of people who say "Vista sucks" without actually using it...

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp