Why are some people deleting Vista??

I've seen a couple people start threads that talk about their trials and tribulations over deleting Vista and installing XP on their new machines. Why in the heck would they want to do that? I've been using Vista on my E1505 since last March and it ROCKS!! From what I can tell it beats XP in just about every imaginable way and I can't see ever wanting to go back to XP. So why do some of you want XP so bad??

 

Some people are stuck in their old ways and don't like change. I totally agree with you in that Vista is great.

 

Because a lot of them, like me, are having compatibility issues with Vista and older software. Second, I don't see how Vista is better than XP. I am not opposed to change but some of the things that Microsoft built in to Vista are completely absurd. Granted it looks prettier but I believe it is not better than XP. XP is stable and performs tasks quicker and doesn't use all of your resources up.

 

I will not say Vista sucks, although it does big time

 

Because a company like Creative doesn't provide updated drivers for my old Creatvice Extigy! (frustrating) and I just can't see the benefit of Vista over XP at this time (I used vista for about 2 months).

The one thing that could make me switch would be some dx 10 games, but when you can't really run them in dx 10 mode without crippling performance whats the point ( Much faster hardware needed!!) (Very frustrating)

 

um... bill gates doesn't even like vista...

 

huh.....???

 

program compatibility, and performance
if you have no problem and works great, then keep it, there's no reason to go back if you don't have to

 

lol, really?

 

he's said he's not happy at all with it in numerous Q&A's

Attack of the Show had a video of him nearly saying that it sucks a@$.. he then refrained and said ".. sucks that it's not as good as we would have liked"

 

I have been using Vista on my Vostro 1500 for several months. I recently set it up to dual boot with XP Pro, because I had some software that wouldn't work on Vista.

I've been perfectly happy with Vista, but everything is snappier on XP. Bootup and shutdown times are way faster. My wireless connection takes forever to be recognized and usable in Vista while it's nearly instantaneous in XP. I find myself booting into XP more and more.

For me, there's basically no advantage to using Vista over XP.

 

Vista:
- more features
- more and newer bundled programs
- better security
- nicer visuals

XP:
- better performance
- better compatibility with older programs
- drivers tend to be more stable
- simpler (due to fewer features and maybe better organization)

 

Some of us, myself included, use programs and tools that Vista is not compatible with. Not to mention Vista hogs power and games (from my experience) always perform significantly worse.

 

Even if Vista was perfect, people would still call it bad. (many Mac users come to mind ) BTW, I'm switching back to Vista on Monday.

 

You know, Vista just seemed like an awkward, unwieldy OS to me. I didn't have compatibility problems like a lot of folks, and I'm not a gamer so it didn't hamper my shooting up the bad guys, either. In my case, there wasn't anything wrong with Vista, I just didn't like that OS. My formerly Vista machine is now Linux only with a dual-boot: OpenSuse 10.3/Ubuntu 7.10.

 

Funny thing is I've had more problems with XP thus far on this machine than I had with Vista.

 

will never revert back to XP myself, Vista hardly crashes for me, and if it does... i find it will always resume after a few seconds or minute, while XP would crash and make me restart. Visually looks better than XP, and the sidebar is really useful for me, i have 2GB RAM, regardless of Vista being more resource heavy - i will not go back to XP - it was good at the time, but the time now is for Vista. Gaming is fine for me, no compatibility problems so far.

 

I really do not know why. I'm an AARP member and still am able to change.

 

Vista is only usable for me after I disable UAC and shutdown the following services

-Readyboost
-Superfetch
-Desktop search indexing

I also disable system restore and drive indexing as I also do in XP.

Still I hate it, when it waits close to a minute while estimating the time to copy a small file over the network. When Vista shuts down, the monitor shuts down immediately as if it is quicker but the system shutdown actually takes as long as XP. The same with startup, desktop appears earlier than XP but the system does not become responsive earlier than XP.

Although I have two Vista computers at home, I have never installed it without an absolute obligation. XP is so much faster and easier on system resources. I still prefer XP on my two laptops and desktop.

My nephew bought an Acer 5920G (T7700, 2GB RAM, 8600M-GT) /w Vista for gaming and he had many complaints about performance, stability, compatibility of games etc. I wiped out his laptop and installed XP. When he started using his laptop again with XP, he said that the computer was feeling like upgraded. It was so much smoother and responsive.

Microsoft has its tricks like DX10, Halo2 to force users to upgrade, but I will be waiting as long as I can. I will try SP1 on the two Vista systems I have. One-by-one, some hardware driver or a piece of software will make me do the involuntary switch to Vista but I do not see anything appealing on Vista. I remember the excitement of upgrading to Windows 95 ,98, 98SE, 2000, and XP. Each upgrade brought better user experience, new features, and stability. Even the most drastic switch from Windows 98SE to Windows 2000 was more exciting and rewarding than Vista upgrade. I only feel frustration with Vista that is all

 

The key words being "from what I can tell". Just because your needs are met by Vista doesn't mean that everyone else is in the same boat. As mentioned, some of us have software, drivers and hardware that isn't supported in Vista, so sticking to XP is a completely logical choice.

If your hardware and software is fully supported, then great .. stick to Vista. Just keep in mind that not everyone has the same setup and uses their computer for the same tasks as you.

Ah so naive and self-centred. Can't possibly imagine that people have different opinions than you, huh? It MUST be resistance to change, if that makes you sleep better at night.

(none of this is meant offensively, just some people are narrow-minded)

 

Why so defensive here? I see nothing self-centered about the statements you've quoted.

Some people are resistant to change (like me, for instance). Though I don't like Vista, I do agree with nizzy about many folks' attitudes toward change. Who cares though? As long as both XP and Vista are available, we're all happy, no? If not, Linux and OSX are available. For swarmer and other truly adventurous souls, there's Solaris, too.

 

LOL... It's not like I just decided one day to try Solaris... I worked at a company where all the servers ran it.

But I'll add that if you do feel adventurous, Solaris is now free and open source, and is available for a number of platforms including x86 and x86-64. Linux is probably a better choice for most users though, unless you need compatibility with other Solaris systems.

 

i'm very happy with XP at the moment and after all the bad things i heared, i don't see any reason to change to Vista. Will replace Vista with XP when i receive my XPS M1530

 

I'll be sticking with vista.

XP will probs be quicker, but i got vista with a new xps, so performance is still there.

Vista appears more stable, but then again ive now gone to dual core, which will now allow me to still use windows even if an app has crashed and is using 100% cpu. I doubt it would be that stable on a single core

Also, i got my first BSOD with vista, never had one on xp, maybe did on ME update from 98SE, now that was a bad decision. Windows ME, now theres an OS that sucks!

 

In my system file transfer between partitions was slow (around 2 MB/s).
File transfer to and from the USB stick was something close to a thermodynamically reversible transformation: it took forever, despite I had all the updates installed.
The way Vista is built make it a resource hog: 15-16 GB, getting bigger and bigger. For what? By disabling system restore, shadows copy I managed to keep it around 10 GB, but that's still an absurd amount of space for an OS that just adds some eyecandy to the "XP experience".
Plus, I didn't like the way it was locked down. I am not referring to UAC (which was a good thing, albeit ill implemented) but to simple stuff like changing a skin, and an icon associated with a file type. A 15 GB OS needs a third party tool to change the icon associated with a file type??? That's ridiculous.
Also, there were some incompatibility issues (my Codeblocks IDE won't work properly even after tweaking it - in XP it works like a charm without any tweaking).
Oh, yes: the integrated CD burning capability made a CD-RW of mine unreadable, twice. I had to reformat it with k3b in Linux in order to use it again.
And I really don't need the other integrated software like IE (seems like an exploits black hole), windows mail, WMP (a hog with a big nose), messenger, and so on. That would not be a problem if Microsoft let me get rid of that bloatware, but no! I am not free to choose what components leave on my system. Either I kept them all or I had to uninstall Vista.

I uninstalled Vista.

(I might try to see if it got usable after SP2, though)
-no that's not a typo.

 

Let's face it. People need to switch back to XP must have a reason. Indeed, Dell was forced to put back XP as option twice as people demand XP. It probably isn't the majority, but definitely significant percentage of people prefer XP over Vista that hurt the sales of new system without XP. For regular users (and rich ones that can upgrade all their incompatible apps), Vista may work fine and even great.

 

Exactly, that's all I'm saying.

It's just that many Vista users try to push their views onto others and won't accept that others have different opinions and uses.

 

Windows Vista sucks for gaming my gaming rig(see sig) with XP in Crysis i can get at the highest settings about 26 FPS while with Vista i barely get 14 FPS on a mix of Mid/High settings

 

i'VE HAD vISTA FOR SEVERAL MONTHS NOW AND AM TOTALLY IN LOVE WITH IT.

No crashes, great user interface. Security is upgraded--Just a well rounded operating system.

 

As someone who has used both, I'll tell you my problem is not with Vista's UI, which looks nice and gets the job done.

My issue first and foremost, is that Vista is slower in every way than XP, on current hardware. This includes my ThinkPad T61, with a T8300 CPU and 4GB of RAM. Slower to boot, slower to shut down, far slower to copy files across a network, even with Vista SP1 installed. There is also an issue (admitted by Microsoft as well) that causes contention between audio and network processes when used simultaneously, which can either cause network slowdowns, or stuttering audio, especially if you are streaming audio/video from another source; I have experienced this issue firsthand, and XP does not have this issue.

My second issue is that there is really nothing Vista can do that XP cannot, either on its own, or with a few tweaks using free, open-source software. I could justify losing a little speed if there was something amazing Vista could do that XP couldn't, but there isn't. In fact, there are some application compatibility issues where network management apps, etc. that I have will run just fine on XP, but experience problems on Vista. Note also that one cannot slipstream a service pack into a Vista install at this point, something that has been easily doable with XP, and will be of great help when SP3 is released.

Vista "rocking out" over XP is your opinion. I have nothing wrong with you having your opinion, but it is myopinion that with XP installed on my machine, I am a more productive user. People like the second poster, thinking I am "stuck in my old ways" have a right to that opinion too, just like I have a right to my opinion that they are easily swayed by a new candy-like GUI, since the old one has been out for so long.

At some point, I'll revisit Vista again when I've had a chance to test Server 2008 thoroughly (which, when linked with Vista, has additional Group Policies that may make it useful, although I'll need to turn off the Aero UI to gain some speed). Until then, I'll stick with XP. I've run Vista long enough (and tested it from beta 2 to its final RC as well prior to release) to decide that its merits aren't worth the speed decrease.

 

Performance is my biggest concern, that with not liking how some options I liked and been buried deeper, or changed.

Also, compatability with older games/programs. These are my main reasons for sticking with XP.

I have heard about this windows server 2008 though, which when configured properly is quite decent. Interesting, might have to look into that.

 

This is a very interesting discussion as I was all set on nuking Vista on my system and installing XP as soon as I got it. I run XP on all on my other machines at home and have always liked it's speed.

When I got my 1330 last week I immediately noticed the poor performance of Vista home.. Slow windows, sluggish response etc.. Now maybe some of that is down to Dell installing crap but on a dual core T7500 I expected more..

Now, saying that I spent yesterday installing Vista Ultimate SP1 x64 and I have to say it's a *massive* improvement. The system now feels like XP - fast responses to everything, no slow down. Granted I don't have all the Aero stuff on at the moment (think it's the default Ultimate setting) but it's great so far.

Also, I like having the full 4GB available to the system. I'm not sure how much of this is down to SP1 but it certainly feels 'right' now. I was always set on getting rid of it after seeing my Dad's Vista install. Now, though, I think I'm going to give x64 a go.

In terms of Vista functionality I get the feeling that a lot of things are easier to do now than they were in XP, or at least abit more comprehensive. Microsoft have made stuff like wireless networking and networking in general quite abit better - at least that's how it seems..

Going to give this a go for a while as I havent installed any of my core applications yet which of course will be the ultimate test..

 

I did the same except left superfetch and system restore enabled. System restore has saved my butt a few times and is worth keeping IMO. Superfetch is annoying on full boots since it goes into disk thrashing mode for several minutes loading everything into the cache. But turning it off has a penalty where I notice applications loading noticeably slower. I have experimented with the superfetch on and off and finally caved in to MS intentions to leaving it enabled.

Vistas default settings on installation are however pathetic. Indexing, UAC and a ton of other services really slow things down. It takes a ton of tweaking to make vista acceptable. The worst thing is the sloooow copy/transfer files over networks. And still, we are waiting for SP1 to fix this.

The point is, with a fast system and tweaking one can get decent performance on vista but the OS is far from being lean and mean. Its bloated and the core is monstrous. A OS should not take a gig to load now. Thats insane. I think the point is Vista could have been much better and huge bugs in the networking are totally unacceptable. Vista has and is a failure for business deployment because of its weak networking performance over networks. Yes, this OS could have been much better.

As for somebody mentioning the wizards and wireless networking being easier to use.. hmmm... Well when I tried to install my msn email with windows mail using a pop3, smtp the wizard told me that windows mail can't do http mail.. huh? I was trying to configure with pop3 smtp. So I had to trick the wizard and put a bogus msn email.. [email protected] Once the wizard let in into the settings I put the real email [email protected] and put the pop3 and smtp settings in and it works!! I am sure others can share in other experiences in vista where the OS takes over and makes things difficult or impossible to set up. In this case, Vista on default does not allow users to move forward in the setup wizard on msn accounts to set them up with pop3/smtp. Isn't msn a MS product? You mean MS does not even know that these can be set up in windows mail? Or are they trying to make everyone use http accounts with msn or upgrade to outlook that can manage http? There are many disadvantages to using http in outlook and you loose features when doing this.

The point is, an OS should never control the user like this and I should not have to spend freaking 3 hours figuring out how to trick a wizard to set up a freaking email account that has normally taking me 5 minutes to do going all the back with win 95. I feel sorry for those that can't or don't know how to tweak vista to turn off UAC and all the other very annoying things it installs on default.

And for home users that are saying vista is so great etc.... just remember that the networking core on vista is really bad for businesses and has many bugs.. SP1 may or may not fix these issues but the point is it takes MS 1.5 years to fix things that were totally unacceptable in the first place like the slow copy/transferring of files over networks. Yes this bug was unacceptable in the first place but for us to be still waiting for a fix after 1.5 years shows where MS support has gone.. to the toilet.

 

hmm... yeah i was thinking about trashing vista when i got my xps 1530 too... sounds horrible, what some of you have to go through... and then i hear some ppl say they like it..... I wonder who's right and who's wrong.... I think it's a matter of what you do..... and ppl with alot of computer experience tend to use alot of different features of an OS or lack there of. I think vista just like some of microsoft's software put too much emphasis on novice users so that it makes it easier for them but too little emphasis on expert users... therefore regulating too much of what the user does and not allowing freedom for the end user. Anyways i will give vista a try and if i don't like it... out the door it goes... maybe ill install a mac osX lol...... it is unix based and you are capable of installing it with the core 2 duo chips =).

 

I think the reason people go back to XP is that Vista in all its eye candy does not make anything more productive.. In many areas it benchmarks slower... like networking and gaming. And it takes 3X more resources. XP loads up in about 250 megs. Vista pushes 1 gig to load. Many, including myself have a hard time excepting that an OS should require that much in resources. No doubt a XP notebook with 1 gig of ram will most likely be more responsive then a vista notebook with 2. Theres something wrong here.

I still recommend vista as long as you have the horsepower to run it. I think most people deal with it ok unless it breaks some crucial application or game you want to run. In businesses, vista breaks allot more and is why so many companies have already said they will never migrate to vista no matter what. The bottom line is I would not worry about it unless it breaks software then you have a productive reason to ditch it for XP.

I'm certain that MS is getting the message as well.. Especially from their big corporate customers. The rollout to companies is not where they want it. And SP1 is already not looking like the fix that companies were hoping for. Already companies are thinking towards the next SP. At which point MS will release windows seven in 2010. I am thinking MS will do better next go around. After all, Apples market share on the notebook market is screaming upwards.. MS knows they can't just not listen to its customers anymore.. In developing vista, they pretty much had closed their ears. Now they have a slow rollout to their corporate base and they had to cut prices at retail. Most vista machines are being shipped to residential customers while business machines still have the XP options. It will be interesting to see if MS once again extends XP licensing after this summer. If they pull the plug on XP you can bet the OEM manufactures and allot of companies will start looking seriously into non MS OS's.

 

Prob cause ur running Crysis in DX10 mode

 

While true, it begs the point --if DX10 hurts performance to the point where one has to run in DirectX 9 mode, then DirectX 10 is worth little. And DirectX 10 was one of the couple of touted features of Windows Vista, though personally, I think the new DirectX 10 audio subsystem serves as a negative that negates some of the claimed graphical advantages, many of which can be managed in DirectX 9.0c or 9.1(assuming Microsoft was willing to port 9.1 to XP), even if they involve a little trickery.

Microsoft claims their new audio setup is to improve driver stability. While I'd say their claim is likely true, I never had a lot of instability with my audio in DirectX 9 under Windows XP. I also think they are solving a problem by avoiding an issue --strip the feature (DirectSound3D) and then you don't have to worry about the feature, do you? Microsoft could have coded a new, more stable (optionally even hardware-accelerated) 3D positional audio subsystem for DirectX, and made it available to all sound card manufacturers to interface their drivers with. Even if this required new audio hardware, I don't think gamers would complain too much if it was improved, and broke the lock of one major player's (cough*Creative Labs*cough) control of the market. But they didn't choose that route, so you'll have to wait while games are retooled to support OpenAL, while many current games lose their 3D audio entirely under Vista.

Since the best games use heavy amounts of system resources, my take tends to be that Vista is a poorer choice for gamers, since it takes away from those, leaving less available. While patches have tried to address this to a a point, I don't feel that they can make them go far enough, due to fundamental limitations in the OS itself. It's just my opinion, of course --but it's why XP is the choice for my gaming machine at this time.

 

You do bring up a good point. I can't run DX10 mode games very well on my computer. Of course, the 8600m gt isn't a powerhouse graphics card anyway. Shouldn't a 8800 series card get decent framerates, even in Vista? Most true gaming machines out there usually have hardware good enough to run Vista and it's DX10 games. Of course this is my opinion, and since I don't own a beast gaming rig atm, I have no idea how well they run DX10 games.

 

Vista is alright but i really miss XP, i think i will set up a dual boot

 

Currently, there is no good graphics solution to run the most demanding games in DirectX 10 mode, at least not if you want to run both at a high resolution and with all the features on at the same time.

This includes the 8800 series. Don't get me wrong, they have a lot more horsepower than the 8600 series (I have an 8800GTS myself in my desktop system). But at this point (with a few exceptions) you usually find one of two scenarios:

a)Graphical quality in DirectX 10 mode isn't all that better than DirectX 9 mode, or

b)With DirectX 10 mode on, most graphics cards can't hack it.

You can go SLI, which will help some in a number of cases, but Crysis won't even run at playable framerates with its best settings in triple-SLI mode with three Geforce 8800 Ultras. One possibility though is that Crysis is just too far ahead of its time, or just not coded that well to scale with hardware.

It's hard to say whether DirectX 10 is botched, or whether game programming just hasn't caught up to it, or whether hardware just doesn't do DirectX 10 as well as it should, but the end result is the same. At any rate, there are only a few games that show a noticeable improvement in graphical quality with DirectX 10 over 9. I'm sure some would disagree with me, but I personally don't believe that Vista is the best gaming solution at this time; you'll likely get cooler audio effects in most cases if you're running with XP, and your graphics experience won't suffer much.

 

No in DX9 mode, i get even worse than that in DX10

 

Well for all over the last 2 years when i had to format my laptop i had being giving a try for vista since from the beta 2... and ive always facing problems like softwares and mainly PERFORMANCE and really this last one kills me...

however with this new laptop i got, i gave a try for my first 64 bits OS and its blazing fast... i didn't try this system running XP though and i really doubt XP would be worst, but still really good. i have a vista ultimate 64 bits, i did many changes disabling some fancying things that i don't give a damn.
one thing i had a big problem using XP is that all my flat mates use vista and i have a 1tb external with many music and stuffs so sharing with then was a pain on the.... i know i could do it works but was taking so long to set it up since i barely know how to google my problems and follow coordinates from forums telling my how that would supposed to fix that particular issue... then that was another why changing for vista. and now the network issue was sorted and its working fine.

i had no drive issue... im basic gamer like warcraft 3 FT, and i use it mainly to watch some videos (including HD over my external display), internet, mp3, and lectures things like MS office, that's all i need so i would be surprised if i had any downside here.

I dont like the new way to do things on vista or how the thing are placed like the all programs menu, control panel, system, those "internals" set ups sux now, i fell so lost on that ...or to install things/run i have you have to run as admin sometimes, or i have to agree 20x to make the OS run what i want... looks like my pc doesn't work if im not here to press "I agree" its so annoying!!! lol i hate it...

from the last year im changing the way i use my pc... before i had many things to protect it installed and then once or twice a week i was doing the maintenance every week... one or even twice. that things take long like, defrag, virus, blablabla...so i started to make it doing by itself, so my time increased so much, now used to have all maintenance done by the morning DAILY, things as spyware search, anti-virus, defrag, tunne, register cleaner, updatesss, and using vista it doesn't really works so smooth as with xp and i dont like it, its bugging me. btw nod32 64x ROX. vista should make my life easier but it doesn't, it need my interaction far more then xp. they say thats for security but the thing is... they should had done the things right for the first time then i wouldn't need to interact with it all the time and i would need an anti-virus, spyware, and many other programs that just slow down my pc... i know there's also linux but i've tried many times, many distros including ubuntu and the things are not that easy for me YET unfortunately. i know there are a great forum to support but i have no much time for looking a way to sort out my problems since i wanna have no problems from the beginnings.( sorry going out of the topic). I dont really plain to dual boot with xp/vista 64 either, because i will just stick with the best one, that one that fills my needs... if the xp are doing better then my vista i will not back to fix the vista issue or vice versa.

concluding now with vista i have no flatmates pissing me off with my shared media that are not "showing up", better and faster network search, up to date os, on the other hand XP would provides a far faster and reliable os with and my great autonomous OS which i didnt even need to turns it on/off!! just sit and use it... no surprises

MS already announced the possible date release for the next windows called for now windows 7, it may be in 2010... so i really hope this next become the next "XP" for me