Back to XP, and loving it. [props to Vista haters]

I was using Windows Vista 32bit for 2 months and then switched to 64 bit for the next 2 months.

Things were slow, startup, shutdown, normal working etc.

Some games ran slow (Halflife 2:Episode One, Company of Heroes), some games ran perfect (Oblivion Elder Scrols, Splinter Cell Chaos Theory).

Then I switched back to XP........guys, we have really degraded our thinking level. We guys used to complain about the slow startup and shut down speeds of XP.

After experienceing Vista, I found start-up and shut down speeds of XP extremely fast......I hope you get what Im trying to say here.

Yeah yeah Vists uses stuff like superfetch and bla bla bla, ok I get it, but where can I see the difference when I actually use it???????

And yeah, for gaming I need a minimum of 2 GB RAM, man are you kiddin me??!?!?!

These guys spent 5 years and 1 billion dollars and this is what we get????

Vista is just showbiz with a big mouth, form inside, it sucks hardcore.

 

Switch to Mac

 

XP beats Vista on any given computer - in overall speed, in boot times, in shutdown times, in temperature regulation, in battery life, in gaming performance - in everything. That's why I use it.

 

Whilst I did tell you to come back into the light, I thought you found a compromise of using a flash drive for readyboost? fyi if you still haven't, I do think your system needs more ram

btw 'Vista hater' makes an "still using XP" user like myself sound so... unreasonable. I repeat, nothing wrong with Vista... if they sold it for a quarter of the price. Apart from flashy looking UI and the cool way windows open, I didn't see any real difference on my mate's laptop... apart from it having niggles and more frustrations

Those smug Mac users may be looking on D I love them really), but I love XP. Got it configured to my exacting standards. Lean and mean

 

Vista sucks, sorry. The driver sucks, its slow, and I wouldn't even give it another try until SP1 but still not optimistic.

 

So it is a hardware problem and not a software problem.

 

ok wait......they how come my temperatures are always 5-10 degress more higher in Vista
and yes one more thing, say if I did upgrade the RAM to 2 GB, i will only get smoother, the startup and bootup times would still almost remain the same

well......ok.....it might even be better, but still the hype and price and advertising and bla bla bla aint justified

 

If your computer runs cooler under OS 1 than it does under OS 2 under a given hardware configuration, OS 2 stresses your computer more, and will likely drain your battery faster. If you can play games well with a certain amount of RAM on OS 1, but require MORE RAM to play the game at a similar level of quality on OS 2, OS 2 consumes more RAM than OS 1, and leaves less for you to play that game with. It's simple. XP is OS 1. Vista is OS 2. If you want a decrease in performance on a given hardware configuration, use OS 2. If you want an increase, use OS 1.

 

It might be that it is a software problem if the software demands high spec hardware in order to run on the same level as XP. Who would need such an 'upgrade'? Maybe people who like aero and UAC. But those who don't, what is the reason for them to spend money on high spec hardware and tweaking the OS to get the productivity of XP?

 

as much as we all hate vista it will be standard and i have noticed the same complaints with xp in its youth

 

I hate UAC.......its so annoying
and when i disable it, everytime i get the notification that Vista is under threat.......
god damn they're screwed up the whole OS

 

Welcome back! Can't say we didn't tell you so.

Signed,
The people who never left

 

XP had simular annoying notifications and warnings(antivirus, firewall etc) vista's are the same however you need to learn to control the OS don't let it control you. I disabled UAC first thing after install and vista tells me nothing, why because I am in full control of vista, I even control how much space it uses for system restore (this isn't as easy as it was in XP).
As for the higher temps issue I don't notice any difference between XP and vista and yeah I meticulously monitor my temps . The driver situation has definitely improved somewhat from when I last tried vista a few months back; now every component in my notebook has a fully functioning up-to-date driver. Vista does have a few random annoyances like the inexplicably slow copy speeds but I have gotten used to it over the last few weeks.
I will admit that vista's boot is slower than XP's but then again I hardly ever shutdown I prefer to use sleep or hibernate (I did the same thing in XP for years). Vista's shutdown time IMO isn't any slower than XP's alteast on my notebook it isn't.

I can agree with you on 1 point however I cannot see why microsoft has been working for so long and spent so much $ to produce vista hopefully SP1 will help. But at the end of the day as hunterc said as much as we hate vista you have to get used to it, after december if you buy a new computer it will only come with vista and you will have no choice, and when vista disappears from retail shelves at the end of this year as well what other choice will windows users have except to switch to linux or accept vista.

 

i just don't get why so many people think vista is superior to xp. Having a flashy interface and finally getting barely working drivers doesn't mean "VISTA OWNZ LOL". There was even a poll about which is better and vista won by a significant amount. It has the potential to be a great operating system, but it's still far from there...

 

Well, to be fair, whenever people measure startup times of their new system, they're always doing it relative to their old, bogged-down and bloated one.
When people upgrade to Vista, they go "oo, it starts so much faster", because... they're comparing it to their 18 month old XP installation, which is obviously a lot slower.
And the same way, if you go from, say, a 2 month old Vista installation, to a fresh blank XP one, the XP one will probably be faster too.

That's my main issue as well. Yes, there are all the buzzwords, and yes, there are cool shader effects on my notepad window or the start menu, and yes they do some things under the hood to improve performance, but.... why doesn't it perform faster, why don't I become more productive with it, why do I have to jump through more hoops to get anything done, and why isn't it any easier to work with? In short, where do these differences actually show up and make it a better product?

Is it a hardware problem when you upgrade some software that suddenly, despite not offering much of an improvement, require twice as high system specs? I don't think so. Hardware problems tend to be universal, across all software. If you have a crappy graphics card, it affects everything you do that relies on the GPU. If your sound card doesn't work, you'll be unable to play sound no matter what. If Vista runs sluggish, but XP or Linux runs smoothly, it is a software problem.

You did?
I didn't. However, I've noticed a lot of people come out *now* and say "It was the same when XP came out, and look how much people love that now".

Well, point me to a source where people came out with the same complaints in 2001 when XP came out. I don't think you can, because they didn't. Sure, there were complaints, as there always is with new software, but the same ones?
As I recall, the only serious complaint there was about XP was that 1) It didn't offer much new over 2k, and 2) The FisherPrice look.

No, you need to use an OS that is made to make the user's life easier.
Disabling half of Vista and then going "yay, Vista is so nice to use" is rather pointless. If I have to disable everything that makes it different from XP, I might as well use XP, which is much more robust.

You say that like it's some big advantage. It isn't. It's just one disadvantage that's slowly shrinking away. That still doesn't make it a selling point. "Vista: Now with working drivers, just like XP"

So what you're saying is:
- You're irritated by the slow copying speed
- You have to disable core features
- It boots slower
- It's harder to disable or control features you want to get rid of (system restore)

And because of this, Vista is a good product?

Anyway, looks like XP isn't going away any time soon. Looks like even MS is accepting that XP isn't giving way to Vista as fast as they'd hoped.
Saying "we have to get used to it" is rubbish. We don't. I use the OS that best helps me do what I want to do on my computer. If that's XP, I use XP. One day, about 2-3 years from now, that may be Vista (partly because Vista improves, and partly because XP may no longer support things I want, such as DX10 games). And then I'll move to Vista. When it gives me more of what I want than XP does.
And I see absolutely no reason to upgrade earlier than that, in order to "get used to it", or "because you have to do so sooner or later anyway".

 

I think Vista is Superior for browsing and security, but that about it IMO.

 

What I find frustrating is Micr$oft arm-twisting computer manufacturers to put Vista on all of their machines (just look around and its hard to find an XP-preloaded laptop). What's worse is that XP will be phazed out by 2008, because MS will provide licenses only for Vista

 

Paying to go from XP to Vista isn't worth it. I followed it from the beginning when it was Longhorn to Gold. While Longhorn was amazing and what Vista should have been Vista now is frankly a mistake. You can make XP do what Vista does without having to get 2Gigs of RAM or take the slow down in games and lack of driver support.

My opinion is to Skip Vista entirely and wait for Longhorn/7 what ever MS has renamed the next OS. It's going to have WFS and all the goodies Longhorn had.

 

I don't understand why people berate Vista. It's a fine OS and like any startup OS it's still evolving. The problem does not lay with Microsoft but with the software/hardware makers who didn't produce the proper drivers for their products to work with Vista. All you guys complain regarding Microsoft's failure of Vista not operating like XP but not long ago people complain about Microsoft not producing any "new" OS. What makes you think that Longhorn would be any better? The rumors of the "next" OS (Longhorn) would be better than Vista is the same rhetoric people said about Vista being better than XP.

IMHO, a new OS should get rid of x86 excess baggage. Why produce a x86 compatible software/driver when it doesn't take advantage of the new CPUs? Hopefully more x64 softwares/hardwares come out to take advantage of the quadcores that are just coming out. Or in my dreams a x128 OS.

All these whining are getting stale. I like Vista and it's getting better. Quicktime and iTunes are now compatible with it which it wasn't awhile back. Enjoy XP now 'cause next year most of you will be using VISTA and praising it's improvement. And when Longhorn comes out we'll hear the same comments. People are never satisfied. Maybe go OSX or Linux

 

Now who told you I disabled half of vista The only thing in vista that I disable that XP doesn't have is UAC, the services etc that I disabled in vista are the SAME ones I usually turn off in XP (the vole has alot of spyware built into windows ). So tell me if I disable the same services in XP am I then also saying "yah its nice to use" as well? You have to admit that vista and XP have the same security holes in them; so IMO it really doesn't matter which one you use because at the end of the day at the core it is the same "constant security issue/buggy windows", and this simple fact escapes so many of the initial post starters of the XP vs Vista threads. For instance take a look at this trick that exists in windows XP (alot of users don't know about this) the vole claims it isn't a flaw but the securtiy experts say it is and I agree with them, this same trick/issue is in vista as well so tell me which windows do I use to eliminate this from happening. I use firebadger so this doesn't apply to me but what about the people out there that are using internet exploder.

Disabling and controlling the above said services isn't anymore difficult than in XP it is only system restore that is different from XP; in that you no longer have the "slider" therefore if you want to control the amount of drive space used you have to issue a command at the CMD prompt. As long as you knew how to turn something off in XP it is the same procedure in vista.

I only said this to say my previous driver issues are sorted I never meant for this to sound like it is "some kind of advantage"

Note: I am not defending vista or XP here I am just reporting my experiences.

 

Look..........why should I go through all of this.....enabling, disabling etc, when I can do everything out of the box in XP
Im still admiring the difference Im experiencing in XP
Even games like Virtua Tennis 3, which ran well on Vista, but when I played them on XP, I feel that the way it ran in Vista was the low-class.

THIS IS WHAT VISTA HAS DONE TO US, REDUCED OUR STANDARDS
Come on people, think high, we were people with higher computing standards an year ago, what now????

We were expecting on the spot start up speeds in Vista, but no, we've degraded to a longer 2-3 minute startup
We were expecting better and smoother performance, what do we get??

And yes by the way, we guys in this forum know how to enable and disable features and work around in Vista
What about those kind of users who just wanna use their PC for fun, if they install Vista, its a disaster.......
same goes for Linux.........I belive its an excellent OS, but it cant make the cut because normal people cant use it.....
This is where XP wins, and, by a great margin.

 

Exactly. Out of the box, XP will do everything more quickly than Vista. The only initial tweaks I make to XP upon an installation are turning off Automatic Updates, and firewall/avg notifications.

That's it. From there, I just install programs as normal. This is *not* possible with Vista, from the descriptions its defenders are giving. You're supposed to turn this off, turn that off, wait for this to finish loading, ignore the increased temperature of your computer, dismiss the slowdown in file transfer, pretend half of your ram missing is a good thing, not ask why a confirm/deny box pops up every minute...

No thank you. I'll stick with the WinOS that just works out of the box - the one that doesn't need a dozen excuses a second to justify its shortcomings.

 

I find out of the box vista is better than xp!!

I dont have to go install my extra languages and also every piece of hardware I have is plug and play with vista, on xp some of it requried me to find or download drivers.

I have not noticed a slow startup or shutdown time with vista vs xp, however I cant say I really compared, but they definitly cant be more than a few seconds different. However my applicaiton load times and web browsing and things are definitly faster on vista, even my non techy wife noticed the same thing.

I think maybe you have hardware that is not ready for vista 100% because both my notebook and desktop have 2gb of ram and a strong cpu.

Everybody is making everything so far blow out of porpotion. To each his own tho. I hate XP now and only use it when I have too, I prefer vista by a long shot. Its only going to get even better as things get optimised for vista and DX10 catches on.

 

my desktop has vista home premimum and it loads and shuts down faster than my laptop with XP pro on it....but i would pick xp over vista anyday

 

See, this is what Im trying to say. You have 2 GB RAM.....which is really high. Vista need 2GB to work effeciently. Why such high requirements?

And by the way, my Vista Experience Index Score was 4.6, which means I can use Vista efficiently.

I had this image in my mind that Vista is better. And I kept saying to myself "Vista is better, Vista is better"

But eventually I realized that Im lying to myself. I thought a 100 hundred times before switching back to XP, but when I did, I loved it. This is what Im talking about.

 

Well I have a dual boot (well triple actually) and use them both on a daily basis so I cant be biased one way or another and in real time get to feel and compare them and for sure vista is running faster for me, xp is just there so I can have compatibility for older software.

 

Meh, when Vienna is released everyone's gonna be loving Vista and hating on that too. Kinda like a Dynastic Cycle.

 

um I know for a fact I'll be sticking with Vista when the next Microsoft OS comes out.. I just don't like the idea of "live services", I would feel less in control of my pc with that than I ever have done with any other OS.

To quote Mr Gates... "We can use Live Services to know what you're interested in. So even if you drop by a [public] kiosk or somebody else's PC, we can bring down your home page, your files, your fonts, your favorites and those things."

erm we bring them down from where exactly? and what's with the we bit? if you're out and about why would you want to leave your home computer up and running? (<-- rhetorical question leading on to my next question -->) so does that mean your files, fonts, favourites, homepage details etc are on a Microsoft server? If that's the case I hope things have improved since I last emailed them as within 2 days of me using the Microsoft @ mydomain.co.uk email address, I set up to email them with, I was getting spam so security wasn't one of their strong points at that time.
"We can use Live Services to know what you're interested in.." er why would I want them to know what I'm interested in and why would they want to know? I'm sorry but it's all a bit too Orwellian for my liking.. I'll stick to a self contained OS thanks!

Sorry that was a tad off topic but a lot of people are saying they'll skip Vista, but in my opinion it could be the last standalone OS they produce. If this is the case its Linux from then on for me!

oh yeah and just for the record I do like Vista 64bit HP, I don't know about the rest (eek now runs away and hides). XP was ok, did the job, with no need for a big song and dance about it and to be fair I liked that too ... but ... it did suck big time when it was first released, and, I did for a time go back to 2k til XP SP1 came out.

 

So there is a problem?

That's the point. Some of us go "there is a problem with Vista, a problem that XP doesn't have. That means XP has an advantage."
It doesn't matter[/i] "whose fault it is". It makes Vista less attractive to use.

When I decide to use an OS, it is because it works[/], it does what I need, and is easy and efficient to use. If Vista has driver problems, regardless of who you prefer to blame for it, then it is not easy and efficient to use, and it doesn't work.

(Apart from that, I certainly think you can put your fair share of blame on Microsoft for the driver situation. They changed the driver model with RC2, which was a nasty thing to do. It takes a long time to develop good drivers, and forcing everyone to start over after Vista had left beta doesn't exactly make the task easier, does it?
Apart from that, it is also up to Microsoft to make it easier to develop drivers, both through support, documentation of the new api's and by having the new api's actually work, and make sense.
Now we hear that the reason there's no SLI/Crossfire is... a Microsoft bug. How many man hours do you think NVidia has pumped into getting their driver working on Vista, only to find out that Vista itself is at blame?
But that's a different discussion.

You are mixing several different issues.
Before Vista came out, some people complained that it was about time we got a new OS (and it was. XP is really starting to get old) ,and some people complained that it was ridiculous how much Vista was delayed, and how many of its supposed improvements were cut.
Those are two separate complaints, and not necessarily made by the same people.
And now some people complain that Vista, the new OS we finally got, sucks. I don't see how these complaints are exclusive, even if they were all made by the same people. And I don't see how the question of people's complaints make Vista more worth using.

I fail to see the relevance.

A 128 bit CPU would suck horribly, and serve no meaningful purpose. Not now, not ever.

Perhaps you didn't read the thread title, but this thread was started by someone who IS satisified. Someone who tried Vista and found it was not an improvement. I've tried Vista too, I lasted for a week or so. I do not think it is an improvement. And I too am satisfied with XP.
Which kinda shoots down your argument, doesn't it?

Which is about half of the improvements in Vista. How many other differences can you mention, that you still have running?

I do? Why would I "admit" that?
Vista has UAC, which fixes some security issues. XP has had 5 years to get patched, which fixes other issues. Vista has a new networking stack, which opens up new issues. They obviously have a lot of different security holes.

Whaitwhat?
So from your (false) premise that "the security issues are the same", you now conclude that "both are equally buggy", and use that to prove that "both are equally worth using".
What about all the Vista bugs that are not security issues? What about all the Vista features that are not bugs, but just make it more frustrating to use?

First, is there any chance I could persuade you to use human language that makes you seem like a normal person with more than 8 brain cells, in stead of that Inquirer nonsense? It is not cool ,and it does not make you sound clever.
Second, you are right, there are issues that exist in both XP and Vista, which just means that they aren't very relevant in choosing which of these two OS'es is preferable. How you use this to conclude that "hey, Vista is great" is beyond me.

Which was my point. I didn't say all services were more difficult to disable[/quote]

Is it blowing everything out of proportion when I say that 1) Vista wouldn't let me set up my computer like I wanted (run Hamachi at boot), and 2) it thought my legal copy was pirated?
Which of sa_ill's complaints are "out of proportion", do you think?

You mean the same way people loved ME and hated 2k back when 2k came out?
Yeah, right...

 

Hmm, big argument for XP (for now) but I wonder how many of you guys will be using Vista next year when Microsoft cuts off it's support. Will people cry foul then? Will you truly stay with XP forever? You're only kidding yourself if you think so. Win95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2K, XP. And you don't seriously believe that 1gb of RAM is sufficiently needed for an OS and heavens forbid, for gaming? If you remember, Win95 needed only 256mb RAM and each subsequent OS increased it's requirement for better performance. XP needed 1gb RAM for max performance when it came out. Memories are so cheap now that you can buy a 2gb stick RAM for $130 or less compared to eons ago for $1K... and that's for a DDR2!

Well, that's my 2cents worth. Enjoy XP for now and don't mind me chuckle next year when some of you Vista haters become what you hated the most to be the year before. Die hards never die, they just fade away.

 

Hmmm.. that's exactly what windows want.
one world... one OS.
Linux..?

 

I just don't see a need to switch to Vista. I'll wait for a SP to be released. Then I might consider it. But even then, that better be some patch. XP is a much more mature OS. Vista is just a baby. Why get it now??? I don't want to use 2gb just to run an OS smoothly. That's just dumb. 1GB just became the norm for computers and it's not b/c XP desperately needs 1GB to run smoothly. My friend has 512mb on his computer and it runs just fine for day to day activities that most people use the computer for.

Until DX10 games become mainstream there's really no point for me to switch over. And I think that's going to be a while.

One of you Vista lovers needs to explain to me why I should switch over or why exactly you love it so much

And check this out please http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=145602
looks like XP or Vista may be my LAST Microsoft OS then its Linux or OSX

 

I have never gone to Microsoft for support with *any* operating system. This will have no effect on my decision to stick with XP.

Until it fails to run the programs I run, why not?

Really? I seem to miss why I'd need a new OS simply because Microsoft and their fanboys tell me so. If the old OS does what I need it to do, why buy the newer, slower, more expensive one?

I use XP.

Windows XP doesn't need 1gb to run well. Vista does - just to achieve similar performance to XP. That's a step backwards.

Vista doesn't give better performance than XP. It's actually the other way round.

I shouldn't have to buy more and more memory to achieve the same level of performance from the new OS. That's like buying a new car that gets half the gas mileage of the old car, and calling the new car an improvement over the old one.

I've tried Vista. It runs fine on my computer, but I prefer XP. It's not a matter of hating or loving anything. Learn to dis-attach yourself from operating system fanboyism.

You've really lowered the bar if your definition of a "die hard" is someone who recognizes the inherent failures of Vista as an operating system.

 

See, exactly........thats just what Im trying to say.

Vista ran fine with me too, but the definition of "fine" is just redefined.
And by the way, Windows 95 ran fine with 32 MB RAM

man 256 MB RAM with windows 95 was like a dream.......I still remember, at those times, I had 64 MB RAM on my PC and people were in awe of it.

 

everything is gonna be complained over xpsp1 was the same as 2000 sp2 was alot better with little complaints

 

so you mean you've downloaded zero security patches or updates to the OS?

 

Nope. I use SP2 WinXP, and from there, Microsoft stays out of my way. If you're a power user - av, firewall, firefox, adblock, smart surfing habits, router - you don't need MS patches or updates.

 

Yes, people will have to switch to vista for continued support. A lot of people know that. The main point that's being made is that it's not worth it to switch to Vista right now. When the time comes (probably SP1 release) then people will feel that it's a good time to switch to vista. So, I don't know why you are ranting about people who prefer XP staying with it forever.

 

Jalf there was no call for insulting or talking down to people here(we all have more than 8 brain cells), if I call microsoft the "vole" so be it; (they sometimes act like a vole) some call them ms or m$ so what does it matter hardly anyone ever writes out "microsoft". Second firebadger and internet exploder sounds like human language to me (otherwise you wouldn't have known that I said anything). Also in your post what does "Whaitwhat?" mean did you mean "wait what?" see how I understood that without talking down to you .

I can call these products whatever I want to. Do you know that on some other forums that I am a member of they call windows "windoze" whats the difference you know what they mean I am not trying to sound clever here either.


As I said in my previous post windows users are making XP sound like it is the best OS known to mankind and it isn't and guess what vista isn't either, and this simple fact is escaping alot of posters here. You are essentially arguing over the same thing! Now if this thread was about say linux vs windows or mac vs windows then we would have a discussion. I am not a "fanboy" of any windows and I am not supporting vista either no one seems to have caught that in my previous post either, all that is happening here is people are taking what others have said and are picking it to pieces.

 

Ubuntu!!!!

 

Exactly! I'm doubt anyone will stay with XP forever. Gamers definintely won't cause they need that DX10. There's just absolutely NO POINT switching to it right now. And I feel bad for people for those people who buy notebooks from these companies and have no choice but to use this young OS instead of XP.

And in a few years we won't have to worry about MS anymore b/c Linux and OSX are going to take over

 

^ Hopefully. Ubuntu just needs to become more user-friendly, and I'll be more than happy to switch...

 

I just switched back to XP on my laptop, it's way better works fine with 512 MB of memory. Even when I upgrade to 2gigs, I think I'll stick with XP.

edit: i wrote vista instead of xp

 

Did you switch back to Vista or XP?

 

Oops, switched to XP, sorry.

 

I have no problem with moving to vista, eventually me and every windows user will. But in the meantime, I just don't see what the rush is. I just bought a new notebook, and configured it with xp instead. Only downside I can see with it vs vista at this time is it doesn't look as pretty. And I'm pretty sure vista will still be around when I buy again in a few years. And I'll hang on to it when the rest of you are working through the bugs of whatever replaces vista.

lol

 

No they don't. They can use OpenGL to get the same features on XP.
They might still switch to Vista and DX10, but they don't need it. There is a perfectly good alternative.

Oh, there was a perfectly good call for it. If you choose to use the braindead-baby language invented by the Inquirer, then I'll assume you're as braindead as they are. Unfair? I don't see how.

And if I call you braindead, so be it (You act braindead when you use that language).

Sorry if it offended you, but if you want to be taken seriously, try to speak like a human being.

Certainly. Hopefully, you can also accept the consequences.
I'm sorry, but when people behave stupid, I assume they're stupid, until given reason to do otherwise. If you don't want people to assume you're stupid, then you could try not using stupid language.
Just like if you start saying jews ought to be killed, I'll assume you're a nazi. If you say all communists ought to be killed, I'll assume you're American.
And if you start using the same nonsensical names the Inq does, I'll assume you're on the same level as the Inq.

And no, I don't think M$ or Windoze are much better.

 

Interesting, but what about general service and/or compatibility updates? If you are using SP2 right out of the box, the Windows Installer version is obsolete. Frankly, I'm surprised it is even working correctly with many current program installations. Are you having any problems here?

 

well i think Jaif got a great argument here..

 

Yeah I don't even know what the inquirer is, or that they invented "vole", but wow was that a beat-down.