Just can't get over XP! I LOVE IT

I have tried many many times, I keep going back and forth between XP PRO 32 bit and Vista Home Premium 64 BIT. I even installed SP2 on Vista hoping it will be more responsive....

but then I went back to XP, and now I know, I am never going back! XP is a REAL operating system, no bloatware, no extras you won't need, no stupid visual effects that hog your system down, I mean really, do u want a PC? or do u want a show? and don't tell me that if I turn al the visual effects of Vista down it will become as fast! Bull! XP is 3-4 times faster than Vista when it comes to responsiveness, and guess what?? There is nothing that will work on Vista that won't work on XP. I do own many legal licenses for Vista, I own Vista Business and Vista Home Premmium as I have more thatn one PC! but they are just a waste of time....

XP beats everything! (PS: this includes Windows 7, which is better than Vista, but not comparable to the magical XP)


Repeat after meh: XP FTW

 

Its like comparing Super Mario World to Crysis. I've been using XP and 2000 for years. I think I might find the "complete" transition to vista/windows 7 when I get the new laptop a bit challenging. Dual Boot ftw!

 

I was sort of a fanboy of XP a while ago, but since I got my new E6400 I really like Vista. It supports modern hardware very well and I think it is very responsive. The fact that it does a lot of stuff on the background (ordering boot files, defragmenting, etc etc) is a plus for me, although it is a minus for other people.

Sorry... but I'll say Vista FTW. After switching off Aero naturally.

 

From what I've read in this thread, I think you just like XP because you don't yet have a PC that can handle Vista. Extras and Visual Effects have no disadvantages if you get a laptop with 2gb ram, 2+ghz CPU, and a run-of the mill GPU.

besides, you can disable the extra and visual effects.

 

i'm sorry but i do not agree with what you're saying.

the visual effect actually is usefull for me, it is much smoother, and there is no visual artifacts like in xp, it evens runs fine on my low power 1.2ghz cpu with x3100 igp 1440x900 screen res.

on computer with switchable graphic card, you dont need to restart your computer when switching graphic like you would in xp, in vista; the screen just went black for a momment then you have switched the graphic card.

can you give an example where xp is 3-4x faster than vista?

i prefer vista over xp. if you are getting your computer with vista installed at this point, there is no reason to go back to xp.

 

Sure, XP was great back in the day but Vista is what I'll be sticking with. I actually like Vista's visual effects, and I get no slowdowns.

The only instance where XP beats out Vista is the bootup and shutdown times after a fresh reinstall. On an old desktop, I could boot in 20 seconds, where as with Vista it's hard to beat 40 seconds or so on a modern system.

 

there are my laptop specs:

HP Pavilion DV5-1155

• Intel Mobile Core2 Duo T9400 2.53 GHz. (Montevina 6 MB L2 Cache)
• 4 GB DDR2 RAM
• 15.4” WXGA Screen
• nVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT 512 MB
• 320 GB HDD
• Integrated Webcam, Wireless, Bluetooth, Bluray
• Windows Vista Home Premium 32 Bit

So I do have a laptop that is able to handle Vista! But still, XP is much more responsive in EVERYTHING! starting from clicking on a folder or file, to installing programs, to boot times and restart times, etc. etc. etc.

 

XP is a pretty snappy OS, but I personally think Vista's improvements are worth the slightly reduced performance.

I still use XP on my old Inspiron 8600, and it runs great.

 

I agree with both sides...XP is very responsive and works good on older hardware but soon it won´t be supported anymore by both hardware manufacturers and MS themselves. Also if you do a lot of large file transfers on your computer you will find XP to be quite a bit slower than Vista. Stability and security is very important for me and that´s where Vista also scores a few points over XP. Even though. It´s always been obvious since Vista was released that MS hung on to XP waaaay too long. People are comfortable with XP, I hear it all the time, "Vista is slow, I don´t get Vista" etc. Some people don´t want to put any effort into something when they´re already content with what they have....

 

Just Dual Boot, each has its own distinctive strengths, (Vista or Windows 7 x64 and XP 32)

 

another vista basher.. get a life

 

Congratulations, be happy with XP and hopefully it'll still work in the future. EOL (end of life) is coming soon for XP.

 

Sorry guys but I am on the other side of the river. I loved Vista from Day 1 (2 years ago). It had the problems in the beginning like XP had (if you can remember) but it is getting better and better and it is much more stable than XP now. (I have experience in both systems in current PCs). True, the games run slower in Vista but that's a couple or a bit more fps and true, you need a more powerful machine and more RAM to run Vista as smooth as XP but since I've got that machine (most of us do, I think) that's not an issue. Let's be honest you don't need a top of the range machine, just a dual core or a fast single core (not Atom), 2GB RAM, 128MB Graphic Card (intergrated or dedicated).
I don't like working in XP any more (I personally find it sometimes slow, buggy and not as pretty as Vista).

 

I do not understand why people are saying that vista is not snappy or responsive. I have a 1.66 Ghz Merom-2M with an integrate video card and 3 gigs of ram and vista is snappy and responsive. Albeit I had removed tons and tons of bloatware and tweaked and modified the IU.

Aside from the boot up time vista is comparable to XP.
When i click on a folder it starts up in less than a few ms.
When i open a program it opens up in a few seconds
(games i dont have say in, but all the ones I do play run just fine)

When i had XP on my older laptop, after a year, everything became sluggish (probably due to disk fragmentation). Vista has yet to.

Technologically,
I had a laptop with a pentium 4 3.0Ghz processor. XP came out when single cores were the mainstay. Boot up times were about 5 minutes. No bloat.

 

/thread

 

I was in the XP FTW camp. I had installed Vista U/32 on my T60 and it was slow so I went back to XP. I recently tried Vista U/32 on the same machine and I don't know what MS did to the OS but it's blistering fast on the same laptop and I have weaker specs than the OP.

It's true Vista will dog a lower spec machine but it's right up there with XP. About the lack of visuals on XP, well that's not true. I can slap third party apps that will make XP look just like Vista in all it's 3D glory without the performance drain.

 

Now, let's not start lying.

 

It's no lie but you'll never know since you moved past the time of Jesus.

 

Hmmm....you must be a very old man who is afraid of change.

 

There is a performance drain if you use 3rd party tools to modify how Windows XP looks. Little, maybe. None, nope.

 

Who cares?

Gary

 

If you want a real operating system, get a UNIX command line.

Vista is much more user-friendly, manages resources much better, thinks for itself and is stabler than XP.

XP is old, outdated. I really dislike having to use it nowadays.

 

Just reloaded Vista Ultimate on my notebook, partitioned and installed Windows 7. XD XP is dead... Rest In Pieces XP...

 

Switched back to XP as main ages ago on my desktop, still dual boot tho.
Old OS on new hardware does it for me. lol
Guess I'm just paranoid but whenever Vista keep accessing my HDD for 1 min everytime after a program loaded I feel my HDD life is getting shorter for no reason.
Plus I missed my 2 sec shutdowns lol
I still use Vista when theres something I need on it. Like, eye candy? No wait I use Linux and OSX for that... Hmm duno why I have Vista tbh.

Whatever! Pick a side and enjoy the ride!

 

I can't really say anything about Vista or 7, because my 8 year old computer had trouble running it . When I get my new laptop I shall see how it's like, then give a better answer.

I love XP, have never had any crashes, and it's easy to use. I've tried Linux, but never had the time to go through it thoroughly.

 

I hate default Vista myself. That's why i do vLite.. Makes Vista almost have the size of XP which means all the bloat and junk is gone.. I've just vLited Vista with SP2 intelgrated and it works like a charm .

I do think that Vista/7 is better, and it is certainly better for laptops at all points.

 

Times XP BSOD'd on me while doing Nvidia driver benchmarks a while ago: 3
Times Vista BSOD'd on me over the entire 11-month period I've owned this laptop: 1

And that one was because I was trying to use Badaboom and watch a Blu-ray at the same time, overloading my poor Nvidia GPU.
I'll take the rock-solid stability of Vista over that of an eight-year-old OS like XP any day, and over the (minor) performance gains too.

But hey, if you like XP and decide to stick with it, be my guest. All the more power to you.
Some people are still running Windows 98 SE.

 

Oh god...98SE.....don't remind me...even worse...Windows ME...AHH THE BSOD's! My brother had it...quickly changed it XD

 

Sounds just like me - I think my 6 y.o., 1.3GHz centrino would blow itself up if I tried to run _Vista on it as anything other than a console OS. I still run XP not because I won't run _Vista, but because I cannot run _Vista! (trust me, I tried with that little applet you could download from MS to see if your system was up to snuff, and I seriously think that thing laughed at me before it said "fuggedaboudit":laugh .

 

You like XP good for you, who cares. It's now an old OS which will soon not be supported, it feels and looks dated, glad I don't have to use it on a daily basis.

 

These discussions about XP vs Vista are so lame! It's always the same crap.

For those who prefer XP thats great. For you it's in no way out dated because it's giving you exactly what you need and want. Who cares if Redmond will be ending support. Third party protection works fine and I suspect if you're using XP you've got a pretty good handle on this. I've got XP sp3 on my families main internet machine and get no BSOD's, viruses, or any form malware. It's doing everything I expect of it. BTW, XP can look every bit as good as Vista aero with window blinds so the point really is mute. Window blinds uses less system resources than Aero anyway.

For those of you that use Vista, wonderful. I'm acyually in the Vista camp. It works great since sp1 came out. It really did suck before that. I have Vista 64bit sp1 on my gaming rigs and I prefer Vista for myself. I like Vista 2 (W7) even more. For me, all my future machines will have Vista 2 or higher on them because it suits my expectations.

Point is, nobody is right or wrong here. Both OS are capable of providing the user with the computing experience they need or want. There ARE flaws in both OS and there ARE strengths in both OS. The individuals needs and expectations will determine which trade offs are most acceptable to the end user.

 

He's right. =p

 

Except the part where he calls it "Vista 2."

 

So you think W7 is something more than an improved upon Vista?

If so why?

I've used both and see no real substantive difference between the two. I see subtle enhancements and changes. I hear that the retail version of Vista 2 (W7 if you must) will also include the option to use XP. Interesting to say the least.

 

That's right, I am using both now, they are nearly identical, I suspect that Vista SP2 will make it even more so.

 

I suggest reading up, perhaps, one some under-the-hood improvements that make it so that 7 really is a next Windows...

 

I'm not complaining that W7 is just a slightly improved version of Vista. I grown to like Vista and Vista 2 is the same thing except better.

I'm all for that.

I just hope all of us who want the "upgrade" won't have to pay an arm and a leg for it. I'd maybe pay $75 to get W7 and I think that's generous on my part for what is essentially another service pack.

 

I know what you mean, after installing XP on my new desktop (see sig). Two gripes with it after using Vista-- image viewer doesn't automatically update based on folder contents, and Windows Update in Vista is much better.

 

What he said >.>

Having used both, I'd say each has their pros and cons. If you're more inclined to one, good for you >.>

 

No rumors about upgrade prices, but these are the leaked retail prices so far:

http://windows7center.com/news/windows-7-pricing-details-leaked/

Keep in mind Windows 7 starter (Netbook edition) is limited to three apps open at one time.

http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49302159,00.htm

 

Thanks for the info Darkness62,

Looks like it might be a bit more than I want to pay.

Pretty neat the way Redmond is kicking out another so-called "new" OS so fast.

Maybe it will only be a year for the next OS (Vista3). MS must need to install new latte machines at HQ.

 

Screw you I do love change! but not change that drains down performance drastically!

 

Windows update is much better? u must be kidding right? whats there to compare about windows update?!? u just run it once and get over with it!

 

That's so stupid (the three apps open at a time thing).
What are we using, OLPCs with several megabytes of RAM?

This netbook I'm typing on right now has Rocketdock, WindowsFX, IconFX, Cursor FX, a custom visual style, 12 google chrome tabs open + iDeaS Emulator running. With, uhh, 1.5GB RAM free and no lag at all.

Vista is the my preferred OS (until my x64 Win7 torrent finishes) but XP is pretty fast.

 

Looks like you have no idea about how it's different. Perhaps refrain from critiscising Vista in multiple threads if you don't have any actual knowledge, only hearsay.

 

With Windows 7 they are getting back into the regular cycle of OS development. The time is took to go from Windows XP -> Vista was a fluke. Up until XP came out, MS had an OS out every 3 years. It's been nearly three years since Vista. They are right on schedule for a new release.

Also, I have a question. Did you react in this way to XP when it first released while Windows 2000 was the "the OS to have?" XP sure was no bread winner when it was released, and it wasn't much different from 2000.

 

If it was a new release. But then again you didn't have to reach so far into your pocket to get the new product.

Ms has far exceeded the rate of inflation and is overpriced.

Their "streamlined version for netbooks has to be very scaled down. Not because the netbooks can't handle it. Because their OS costs almost as much as the whole netbook. They want to get money for that market as well so they sell a stripped down version for less.

MS is doing the opposite of what they should be doing. Apples market share is on the rise and Linux is gaining a great deal more popularity.

Cheap computers in many emerging nations have ditched MS in favor of Ubuntu or another Linux distro. The Linux market share grows every day.
Every day it becomes more polished, more functional, and includes more features. Many people use open source programs and don't even know it. Open source is the future and it's free.

The days of paying hundereds of dollars for an OS will come to an end. MS sales were on the decline even before the economic downturn. In time, MS will either do some serious rethinking or they will go the way of the dodo.

Especially when they are presenting what is essentially a service pack as a new OS. This isn't just an opinion I'm guessing about, I have been a W7 beta tester since the beginning.

 

The emperor has no clothes. I am a developer, and want to ask YOU a question. Are you willing to work for free? Mark my words, the day will come when the folks who are developing this "free" software will wake up and realize that millions of dollars are being made and they are not sharing in any of the wealth. Where will the "free" software market be then? The open source part, I have no quibble with, the free part is in question.

Gary

 

Quite agreed, with some modification. Anyone who thinks open-source is free, for anything other than a really trivial little app (think "Hello World!" trivial) has either (a) never tried to get linux up and running well, or (b) has forgotten how hard it was the first couple of times to get linux up and running well.

It takes a lot of effort and patience to get linux up and running well the first time or two, and the learning curve can be viciously steep, particularly if you're on a tight time-schedule. The amount of time and effort one has to devote to "learning" linux is not free (unless you happen to be independently wealthy and have someone else manage your financial affairs, or you happen to be retired or disabled and get enough in pension/disability to cover all of your living expenses); and so neither is linux nor any other open-source product (except for the aforementioned trivialities).

That this is so is evidenced by the number of for-profit businesses that have sprung up that offer a linux-based system as their primary product - in accordance with the linux licensing terms - and then make their money (and their profit) off of the service contracts that go along with that product. In fact, if you are a busy IT manager and you need to keep several hundred or more systems, from desktop workstations to servers and proxies of various flavors, all up in the air and running 24/7, such a service contract becomes an absolute necessity if you're working with linux-based systems.

For example, just with the enterprise version of Redhat linux, there are at least nine major commercial products (that is, products containing a proprietary element for which a license must be purchased before the product can be used, and with respect to which the source-code is not open-source).

So, open-source ain't so hot, until someone figures out how to pair it with closed-source or with proprietary services, and then it makes money - but at that point, you're not qualitatively different from Microsoft, just quantitatively different. In other words, we've already decided that you're a prostitute, and now we're merely arguing over price.

 

Another thread about this?
Ok, XP ftw
(dual boot 7 that is).