Windows XP or Vista on your Z

Just a fun poll to see what your running, and why you are running that O/S.

 

We need to be able to select all that apply, no?

 

XP Pro here. For compatibility reasons. Will upgrade to Windows 7 when it's compatible with everything I need. For the moment, XP is the way to go for me. Love the Vista looks though, but fortunately I have my XP looking exactly like Vista, so best of both worlds

 

I'm not using a Z but on my main computer(s) I use Vista. Love it

 

I use Vista .. it's nightmare ..


Xp is way better .. getting better perfomance .

 

See my sig. Not a Z, obviously.

 

both xp and vist were installed on my z, why do you guys want to make the hard choice between xp or vista?

here is my reason why I install the dual os, which i posted it in other thread, I just quote it here.

 

I had Vista, its just so heavy on my system. I installed XP and it seems so much more responsive. I have switched back to XP on all my machines. I really like vista, just a little too buggy. Can't wait til windows 7, sounds like it's going to be light like xp, with the features and more of vista. It's funny that I am saying XP is light, it seems like yesterday that XP came out and my computer couldn't handle it becuase it was to heavy...times change quickly.

 

vista business.

I hope to received it 64 Bit instead of 32

 

ERh. how is Vista heeavy on your system?

My Z is more responsive than my XP desktop (c2d at 2.4ghz, 4GB ram, 8400GS, 500 GB 7200 drive).

Not that the desktop is slow at all, the Z is just as fast.

--
(actually - i think the correct queston is - *when* is it heavy on your system? It can't be general responsiveness, given your setup. Unless that 128SSD is self installed and an MLC.)

 

Of course it is self installed and MLC. Its a 2nd version and it has much better firmware and speed than what sony supplies. I have had a 5400rpm, 7200rpm, and the SSD installed in the Z. The SSD is way faster. When I say heavy, I mean Vista uses up 1.5gb ram just to get me to a desktop. In xp, I am at 512mb of ram...That is a lot heavier. I am a software developer/web designer and I use software that needs lots of Ram (creative suite, visual studio). In my desktop that has 8gb of ram, Vista using 1.5 of it to load is fine, I got lots to spare, but with the Z I can only run Vista 32 with 3.0gb showing (4gb installed). Just to get to the desktop I have used half my ram. This is not acceptable. Maybe when sony releases supported drivers for 64bit I will switch back, but I don't think so. And please, only talk about what you have used not what you have read...MLC SSD's are really good if they have the correct firmware installed. All SSD's are MLC unless you are willing to spend thousands of dollars for a SLC 128gb drive or a 16gb slc for $150.

 

XP Pro FTW! So much faster and better IMO.

 

Sony used to supply 2 SLC drives in raid to make a 128GB SSD.

And - why do you care about RAM usage at all? Isn't the question whether or not there is any app/windows responsiveness slowdown (i.e. how fast an application responds)?

You're saying that the ton of articles about the jmicron controller causing issues are wrong?

 

Are you sure you are interpreting the usage correctly? Remember Vista ram usage doesn't work or count the same way as it does in previous Windows operating systems.

My laptop uses nowhere near 1.5Gb for just Vista. If that were the case imagine how my home PC with 2Gb of ram would run.

 

64bit is the way to go!

 

Actually you're right. Superfetch will fill the memory even if it isn't being "used".

 

I care about the ram because when I have photoshop, dreamweaver, and visual studio open and I have 3 projects on the go, I need all the ram I can get. Are you sure that sony supplied SLC? I am reading ram usage correct. I do have a few things running in the background as well (anti-virus, desktop spaces, and all the sony crap). Don't get me wrong, I like vista, I just think XP is a better fit for me and what I am doing. It seems better for multiple tasks. I also do some computer repair on the side and it seems like all I ever work on is XP....maybe I am just use to it and I know how to make it run better

 

Is your computer slower running photoshop/dreamweaver/visual studio on vista, as compared to XP? (ignore ram usage. It's not like having free RAM means the computer will be faster).

I mean, it's fine - very subjective choice. Just trying to figure out what exactly it is that you find "heavy".

On the SLC - I didn't buy one and open it up, but that seems to have been generally the case.

 

When I was running multiple programs, the system would slow down and disk usage would sky rocket. Anytime I would try and copy large files from one folder or drive to another, it would take forever. Those are some of the reason I found it "heavy". I don't get those same issues in xp (as bad)

 

Thanks for the help chong67

 

First one - interesting. I guess my usge pattern (admittedly probably far less strenuous) just doesn't make the same demands of the system.

On the large files - that's actually a known vista issue which was improved in SP1. Nowadays I use something like syncback to copy files (works on XP too - if it fits what you're doing the copying for).

 

I tried terracopy and it helped...pisses me off that something as simple as moving files around doesn't work properly and we have to use 3rd party software to fix it.

 

I am not being an a$$ here but all those things you mentioned run fine on my home PC (2Gb) as well as the laptop which has 4gb ram.

I have all those apps open plus the usual torrent apps, msn etc. Visual Studio itself has some large projects open.

The slow copy/paste problem was fixed with SP1.
At one stage I had NOD32 slow down my copy/paste, maybe something to look into?

 

But the questions is do you use them...I can have them all open and only use 2gb or ram as well, but when I start using them, building websites, designing logo's and programming, my ram gets used up. I don't want to get in to debate here, obviously there is a need for more than 2 gb of ram otherwise there wouldn't be 64 bit os's and people would never run more than 4gb of ram.