WHY did you choose XP over Vista?

I'm curious. I stuck with Vista personally (so I'm not voting in this poll), but I'm wondering what made people go back or decide not to get Vista on their new machine.

Which were the most important factors for you?

This is just a question for people who tried XP and didn't like it, or who ordered a new machine with XP that they could have gotten with Vista.

Please vote only if you upgraded and then went back, or if you ordered a machine with XP after Vista became available.

 

I used xp since its release, and now i have used vista since its release. theres no going back

 

LOL... I feel the same way as you, nizzy... but I see so many people who have gone back... so I created this poll for them.

 

Just from personal experience, +20 for "I heard bad things".

I can recite the dialog by heart.

-What's the computer going to be used for?
-Oh, my 10 year old daughter will be using it for school work, internet, the basic stuff.
-Cool, cool, I think this machine will be nice for you.
-*Looks at computer* Is that Vista?
-Yes.
-Oh, I heard bad things about that. Do you have any without Vista?
-No. But for what she's using it for, you won't run into any trouble.
-Really? I heard from (insert some random person here) that Vista isn't that good. (Said in a manner that you would be made to think that Vista will eat your children).
-Oh, well, I don't know about that, but for your daughter, she shouldn't run into any trouble.

Rinse and Repeat.

 

Ahaha that's all true. I wouldn't go back to XP either

 

Well it is to be expected that after XP pretty much ingrained itself into systems for so many years that vista would have to be really impressive to force a switch. It seems that an OS that's been around for a while causes people to be reluctant to switch - I remember my family loving the 95/98 series and dreaded the move to ME...for very good reasons as we later found out. But think about 2000 - it was only really aorund for what? 2 years or so? It's successor was ME and neither were really that much of a leap forward over 98. Enter XP - it can do it. Awesome internet and USB compaitbility. Support for the latest and greatest with ease. Stability to spare (for the most part). ANd it has had about a 4/5 year run now as king of the OS hill? Now here comes vista. DX10, shiny, leaning towards 64-bit support. Problems and compatibility issues galore at launch, too many versions to decide between, and the massive computer power it takes to run create a gigantic push...back to XP!

So I don't know how I went off on such an epic tangent there but what I was trying to say was that the familiarity with such a great OS that has been around for so long will inevitably cause people to stick with it even if it is technically "outdated"

 

I have to use Nero 6 for burning CDs to DJ out with (need reliable CD-Text). If not for that, I'd be on Vista.

 

I've switched between the two several times, but for me these were the big reasons I keep going back:

1) Many programs I need are not compatible with Vista (rather, Vista isn't backwards compatible enough to meet my needs)...and running a VM on my laptop isn't really a good idea.
2) Constant networking issues with WiFi, to the point 25-50% of Vista equipped PCs @ Purdue have major issues getting on the network without a lot of tweaking... each time you connect.
3) Random crashes with drivers, but I'd say that MS shares responsibility with product vendors to fix that one.
4) Battery life, even with all optimizations I can find online, just sucks with Vista on my D430. My XPS 420 ran it okay, but then again look at the specs...
5) File transfer speeds, which made backing up my system painfully slow compared to XP. When I do nightly backups, that bothers me a lot. SP1 still supposedly did not truly fix this issue from what I understand, though I have yet to try it myself.

 

I removed Vista on my Vostro 1700 and went back to XP due to performance issues. I find the OS is annoying as hell once you get past the Aero look which I can duplicate with freeware.

I have been using Microsoft OS's since the late 80's and this one takes the cake. The built in bloatware of the OS like indexing, searching, Aero, UAC etc, etc needs to be compensated with hardware that really doesn't improve things a whole hell of a lot. ACHI Mode, Turbo Boost, SATA drives, DX10 cards are just a smoke screen for a bloated out of control OS. Thank you MS.

With Windows Vista my CPU fan would mostly stay on albeit in low rpm modem with XP it rarely if ever comes on.

edit: I forgot to mention Superfetch and Ready Boost just to try and put some life into this fat bloated OS.

 

Honestly, Vista is a much nicer and smoother version of XP which I found to be a piece of crap.

I have yet to have any problems with Vista on my desktop XPS 420 or my new M1330.

People afraid to move to Vista are just fooling themselves into thinking XP is still better. It's not. Vista IS XP only streamlined and improved.

 

I would never downgrade my OS, even if the new OS is buggy. It will get better in time. Plus, its the future OS anyways.

 

I'd have to say I have a different view on that. Use an OS that actually works for you, and don't count on future improvements until they are delivered.

Just because Vista might be the OS two years from now doesn't mean I'm going to use it today, that doesn't make sense.

 

I agree with your viewpoint. I haven't bumped into most of the issues you said you have... but if you do have all those issues and you can't find solutions in Vista, then I'd say it makes a lot of sense to go back to XP.

 

What can I say...? I attract PC problems.

 

Well, yeah I can see it from your p.o.v but I really never have pc problems that cause me to downgrade my OS. So maybe that's why I have a different stand.

 

I get you...if you have no problems, then great to be honest. One more case where Vista works for its customers. Either that or you aren't a problem magnet .

 

Personally, I have a lot of old software that Vista hates, and I'm reluctant to change without a very good reason. I have no use for fancy graphics in my OS. The first thing I do with a new XP install is turn off all the animated menus and such, then switch the look to the 95/98 one. I had a cable installer ask me the other day if my laptop was running Windows 98 because he didn't even recognize it as XP.

 

I know I'm nitpicking, but since people who are less knowledgeable might read this I wanted to offer up some corrections...

Windows 2000 was never intended as a successor to Windows 98 nor was it succeeded by Windows ME!

Windows 2000 is apart of the Windows NT line of MS OSs that were for businesses and "networked" environments. Windows 2000 was the over 5 years in the making (like Vista) successor to Windows NT 4. It offered a slew of new and exciting features over its predecessor. It was also a complete, from the ground up, re-write of Windows NT. As a result, you can still see businesses today using Windows 2000 who were reluctant to make the change to even XP.

Windows XP got its shine because it was the first OS where MS converged its business line with its consumer line. Which means it is the first CONSUMER level MS OS to have a rock solid core. The core in Windows 2000 was a complete re-write and was extremely stable. XP benefited from all of that.

Compared to Windows 2000 XP offered little advantages (it offers more now thanks to its many service pack feature additions). So many organization stuck with 2000 until MS stopped shipping new licenses.

The problem for Vista is simple... By moving the consumer OS to a solid core MS created tougher competition. Consumers now have a solid OS! As a result, MS has to innovate in other areas as consumers will no longer flock to the newest release expecting stability.

What I suspect will occur is (which is occurring) a slow adoption rate for new Windows OSs here on out. Simply because people will prefer to stay with what they are comfortable with. The only way MS can keep the adoption rates relatively stable is to have quick End of Life targets (on shelves) for previous versions.

For me, I'm onto Vista. Mainly because I'm a tech enthusiast and also because my company pays for it all. So I can use whatever MS OS I choose without any extra costs. In that sense it would be silly for me to use an outdated OS (unless my hardware couldn't handle the newer one).

I can get more detailed if needed, but for now sleep is a must!

 

Everyone has different experiences with Vista... XP has been on for so long that its hard for some people to part from it. The moment they run into trouble with Vista, they will say its crap and switch back to XP.

XP had issues aswell when it first came out, i didnt bother moving to XP till SP1 came out to avoid issues

Also +20 x10 with Lithus. He said, She said...

 

I'm new to the laptop but when buying I decided to get Vista because it is the newest (being crammed down our throats) and needs to be learned, if I don't want to be left behind. I don't see anything in Vista that begs for the move from XP but I will eventually have to move on, the M$ gods need to make money and they can't do that if they don't have another OS to sell! Vista is a fat bloated resource hog and takes three times the computer to run it compared to XP. For what?

I still have the original Vista Premium that came with the laptop, now with the SP1 update, but have since added XP Pro and Vista Ultimate SP1, triple booting, single HD. Ultimate SP1 is a clean install. XP Pro out performs both Vista's.

Maybe my thinking needs to change so I'm asking others tell me what they are doing on Vista that can't be done on XP?

 

Thank you ! I can get the Aero look in Windows XP without the performance hit and none of the bloat.

 

SPEED... on a cheap POS like this (see sig) Vista was just too slow before the CPU upgrade, and Vista has little new to offer, i've got a few PCs still running 98SE and have thought about just loading up on this for S&Gs....
but running a 10+ Yr OS limits software, and if i wanted limited software i'd go out and buy a copy of OS X and well you get the picture.

I look forward to the NEXT version of windows and will probably even play with beta testing it. But to me Vista just seems to be a revisited Mellinum--- a whole lotta hype and not enough follow thru. just my oppinion.

maybe windows 7 won't be the resource hog vista seems to be, maybe Intel can find a way to get the Theory of Moore's Law back on track and get back to doubling processor speed while halving costs every 18 months... Thats got just as good a chance of happening as my loading Vista back onto my HDD. Just lastnight i had to do a quick restore of someone else's Aspire which is Vista of course,,, and after waiting on the laptop to do a full shutdown... and then a full boot... all i can think is just maybe Win98 is the way to go.

 

I don't think many people here are afraid to move to Vista--it is more a matter of compatibility issues that have been a part of every Windows release I have seen since 3.1. My next computer will run Vista, but I will get the hardware to support it. Ironically, it was not my 2 year old laptop that was a problem (it ran Vista well, just without Aero), but my six-month old print server that would not work under Vista.

Most user are also not fooling ourselves that XP is better in absolute terms, only that it is better in specific situations, especially where there are issues of hardware or software compatibility. I think that Vista is like XP in that it has some good features that will be worth having once the bugs are ironed out. I hated pre-SP1 XP with a passion, and with good reason.

Vista may be improved (I think it is, and will soon be stable), but I would not call it streamlined. Look at the massively increased hardware requirements and system resource usage of Vista over XP.

I think that the "Premium" versus "Basic" issue did add to people's frustration with the Vista roll out, especially with MS heavily advertising the Aero interface. They would have been better off doing what they eventually settled into: creating a two-tiered system, with XP filling the low end (it has just been announced that XP will get a longer life to cover the ulrtamobile market where MS has seen its first real commercial Linux threat) and Vista sold midlle-to-upper range systems that can run Aero (would anyone really miss Home Basic?).

 

I believe that an OS should be damn near gold when it gets released, one of the reasons I took the Vista BETA serious, but then what we got was embarrassing. I tried to go with Vista a couple of times after I got my copies from MS, but ended up going back to XP every time right up until about November of last year when I really ended up shifting more and more towards Vista because of bug fixes. Vista still isn't 100% compatible X-Fi sound card in my desktop and that bugs the crap out of me, I spend good money for good excellent sound and now this. I am happy with Vista, works very well on my Notebook and my desktop now, but I was really disappointed with the release standard. On a side note, I have more copies of Vista then I know what to do with, lol and I found Business Edition the perfect fit for me. I do admire what MS did with 64bit standards and requiring device makers to support both.

Home Premium = Home
Business = Professional

Home Basic...someone really cheap or low end machines.

Ultimate...for someone with way to much money and can't make up there mind.

 

Vista needs two versions - a home and business version. Home needs to have all the features and basically be ultimate and capable of doing everything, even having all the options of the cheaper business version. Oh that's right, business is the second version. It would be stripped down to just the bare essentials of what a business needs to run. It would probably be lacking aero and a few of the entertainment options. It would be a lot cheaper to buy and quicker and smaller to install on machines though so for businesses, it's what they want at a price they want.

But you know, 4 versions to completely confuse and frustrate people seemed like a much better idea at the time.

 

Haven't read the hole thread yet , but im using Nero 8 without any problem on Vista

 

I use both XP and Vista and am happy with both of them. I actually prefer Vista over XP at this point, but I really couldn't tell you why. Maybe it's because Vista is newer and has a prettier interface. I don't know for sure, though. I plan on continuing to use both of them until Windows 7 comes out. As I mentioned in another thread, I really think Windows 7 will be different from M$ releases in years past. I don't know why I feel this way, but I do. I think it will be a huge step forward for them and the consumers. We'll see, though. I just really hope they don't release a million different versions of Windows 7 like they did with Vista. Of course, M$ being who they are won't see it my way, but I think that's one of the things Apple got way right. They released one OS across the board. I digress. I like both XP and Vista and I use both consistently.

 

"M$"?

People still refer to Microsoft that way? It's so 1990's.

Anyway, I've been using Vista for about 7 months altogether now. Despite a few growing pains as fars video drivers were concerned Vista has been pretty rock solid. I've now got Vista on two machines, 64-bit Ultimate on my self-built Quadcore desktop and my laptop in sig. Absolutely no issues whatsoever except for the DX10 debacle. I just play my games in DX9 mode if the option is available.

 

I couldn't agree more. I think that's the way it should be every time. F--- service packs and all that nonsense. Just take the time to get it right and you won't need a bunch of service packs and random bug fixes. How realistic is that? I have no idea. Apple does come to mind, though. I may be comparing apples to oranges here, but I've not heard one thing about service packs and bug fixes with OS X. Of course, I don't spend any time researching their product, as I don't think I'll be buying any Mac computers or software in the near future, but I just don't hear people who use it complaining about some of the issues you run across with Windows. I know they have ownership over all of their hardware and whatnot, but it would be nice to know that I could purchase a MS OS and not have to worry about compatibility this or bugs that or clean install this or fix that. As it is now, I may just decide to wait about six months before even trying Windows 7 just to make sure a lot of the kinks get worked out. I wish I could just have the confidence to buy it right out of the gates and know that I could install it and just work. At the end of the day, that's what consumers want: a product that works as advertised and promised.

 

You do realize that security is a rolling issue right? You make something, someone else will break it, and you fix it. Rinse and Repeat.

Apple does security packs and updates in a special manner. Windows has Tuesdays where they release a handful of patches. Apple conglomerates everything, adds a few doodads, and sells it as a new OS.

What I want are games to not have patch 1.1 come out 5 hours after it's released since 1.0 doesn't actually run. I'm tired of patching games being a de facto expectation. Unlike an OS, there should be no reason that your game should work like crap out of the box and require a 200 Mb patch.

 

I've used a Mac since 2001 and Apple does update their OS during the year but they don't call it service packs. Their service packs as we refer to them are usually reserved for the newer version of the same OS. i.e. Mac OSX 10.0x, 10.1x, 10.2x, 10.3x, 10.4x etc.

 

You were so busy rolling your eyes that you missed the topic of this thread. You should keep your eyes more steady so that you can read better.

M$ = Vista

 

I use both XP and Vista side by side on many flavors of machines, some old and some not. I would not consider a contemporary patched XP install a "piece of crap" on even current hardware, as Vista can still be a bit flakey with networking and file transfers (where XP retains superiority in most cases I've run across). It is just a matter of intended use on this point.

Having said that, I am quite pleased with the effects of SP1 in Vista (contrary to my earlier misgivings about it). It now boots faster, IE responds more quickly and I've experienced no BSODs in some time (which tells me that driver support thru WU is getting better). It has come a long way since the unoptimized cantankerous behemoth that was Beta 2.

Does all software work in Vista? No, but neither did some Windows 98/ME apps when trying to run on XP. Does all hardware work with Vista? No, I still can't get Conexant audio working properly in my "Vista-Capable" V5201. My solution? Reinstall XP on the affected machine and all is well.

The moral of the story: Your results will vary, but at least you have a choice.

 

I thought that for awhile too when I had Vista, but it wouldn't install properly on my laptop.

I guess I'm one of the ones "fooling" themselves by thinking XP is absolutely better than Vista. Though I must ask if you would say people who thought 98 was absolutely better than ME were fooling themselves? I'd say it'll take a few years (i.e. until a few years after Windows 7) to know if XP or Vista was better, or if they both were about the same. In the case of 98 or ME, I think the former is almost universally thought of as superior.

And yeah, the Basic/Premium was somewhat frusterating. Mainly because I bought Home Premium but incompatibilities caused Aero to be off 90% of the time - hence I would've preferred to save some money and have gotten Basic.

Incompatibilities with programs was the major problem though. They were unfixable (at least at the time - maybe now they are with SP1), and worked in XP. Graphics problems, likely at least partially due to drivers, also were a major source of frusteration, and again were not fixable at the time. Plus Vista bluescreened/crashed a lot. And it locked me out of my own account when I set a password - and, having just seen that password-related stuff is one of the top Vista topics on Dell's support site, I think that problem may have been more widespread than I first thought.

Had all my programs worked and there been no graphical glitches and had Vista not locked me out, I probably would've kept with it despite stability resembling 98 more than XP and Aero not working (Home Basic interface is good enough). But as it was XP was necessary, and I won't be going back.

And I've noticed even amongst my less-techy friends a very anti-Vista sentiment. Somehow abhorrence of Vista came up at dinner the other night, at a club meeting last week, when a friend mentioned he was going to dual-boot Windows on his Mac, but no way Vista. And that doesn't even count the people who have mentioned how bad Vista is but don't bother to replace it. Vista has a reputation at colleges, and it's not at all a positive one.