What does Vista bring to the table?

I have a new Sony Vaio SZ6 and have configured it to dual boot XP/Vista (what a biotch that was.)

XP's not quite fully functional due to Sony's refusal to support it, but it's pretty close. Vista is a clean install and it seems everything works.

Vista takes 3 times longer to boot.
Vista shut downs take far longer than XP, times vary from 2 to 10 times as long.
Vista is not compatible with much of my engineering software.
Vista 'thinks' for a good 20 seconds when interrogating the network.
Vista is much slower on any benchmark I've run. ex 3Dmark05 XP=2713, Vista=2015 (same version nVidia driver)
Vista using 650mb to boot, XP using 220mb to boot.
The whole 'are you sure' dialogs are nothing but annoying and I'm thankful that I was able to turn them off.
Vista has some odd screen flash that goes on that I'm still trying to solve.


I see lots of glitz and glitter changed in Vista, but I can't really see any functional and usable changes. Yea, the clock is cool, but BFD.

I have a Thinkpad coming someday (if Lenovo ever gets around to shipping it.) It's config'd with Vista64 and obviously I'll have to do a clean install to get rid of the bloatware, but at this point, I haven't seen anything that I want/need in Vista and am considering not even bothering. Install XP and get to work.

So, what I'm asking you all, is: What's in Vista that I need and is usable? Why would I want it?
Set aside the fact that it's M$'s new gee haa and the 'future of OS' and put this on a true functional level.

My usage is Office apps, Firefox & IE, Mapping apps, Financial apps and a whole host of Engineering applications which are unsupported on Vista (Solidworks, Cosmos, Dynamic Designer, etc.) Yes, I know there's Vista beta's out there for these, but these apps are very buggy even in full release until many service packs have been done. I don't have time to be a beta tester and need to get my work done.

Is Vista a novelty toy? or is there new functionality that I really need and can use?

 

Honestly? Besides some enterprise-level security functionality like BitLocker, I've seen no practical business application for Vista that could not be served infinitely better by XP. As you say, Vista is much slower than XP, and the attempts at security become so annoying that most users turn them off.

From what I've seen, the only demographic that can benefit very much from Vista is the gamer demographic with DX10, and even they would do well to maintain a dual-boot environment for those games not supported by Vista. If your functionality relies so much on programs that either don't run or barely run in Vista, I'd see about contacting Lenovo and changing your OS option. Surely they wouldn't be dropping support for Windows XP just yet, with Vista still being so bloated and unstable.

 

u might want to review ur configuration. even on my old beat up emachines, vista is much faster than xp at start up

see above

i m not surprised, it will take time before all software houses get on the same airwave as vista. have u tried to run these in xp comnpatible mode in the mean time?

might want to review ur whole network set up for ur station (laptop),

vista is not made for being benchmarked,

non.use ram = dead ram; vista is a much better system resource manager than xp in this aspect

cool

do share these in more details for us all to benefit when u come around

u tell us; this need/usable stuff differs from one user to another

nah, not unless u want it

cheers ...

 

I think I've solved your screen flashing problem.

 

What do you mean 'not made to be benchmarked?'
These bench apps simply record the time it takes to do something or the frames per second the system is capable of. XP's not made to be benchmarked either, it's made to run programs. It runs the same programs faster w/ better FPS.

Nothing wrong with my domain. All other comps (granted they are SP and Server 2003) run just fine. Only one with an issue is Vista = slow.


I'd say if your comp is booting Vista faster than XP, your XP install is Fubar. I've yet to see one other person report that Vista boots faster than XP.
In my case, both are brand new clean installs. XP gets it done three times faster.

Do tell. (if it's the scheduler fix, I've already done that - no help.)

As for the Thinkpad. Yes, XP is still supported. Changes in an order that are already a month old are cancel and redo. I really don't want to add another frickin month to the backorder by redoing the order. I have a license of XP I can use and VistaBiz64 is the same price so there's no real advantage to a change.

Bitlocker looks interesting, but there are loads of apps which will do it in XP (some probably better than bitlocker does) if I decide I really want it.

What I'm looking for is features in Vista which are worth the trade off in stability and performance.

 

Looks...that's about it. I've ran WPrime in both vista and XP and gotten identical times. If Vista doesn't improve the performance why switch? Win XP is pretty stable O/S, unless Vista can top it there isn't a reason to switch.

 

Well, my laptop boots and shuts down much faster with Vista installed. It crashed several times with XP Pro installed. But with Vista, it works just fine. You probably might want to modify your configurations: turn off useless services, auto startup programs, and so on. If you have programs that can not run on Vista, then stay with XP.

 

Read the full content of this Article: http://www.dev.notebookreview.com/news/titanfall-coming-to-pc-along-with-xbox-platforms-in-2014/

 

I can see your point on supported programs, but it kind of makes my point too. As of today, there just isn't very many apps that actually run on Vista. As such, we experience a performance/stability issue.

All I can tell you is that XP fully boots in under 30 seconds. Vista is well over a minute (close to 1.5min.) Both are fresh clean installs w/ no bloatware.
Now, this Sony does not have 'turbo memory' which allegedly speeds the performance of Vista's boot. Are you coparing apples to apples?

 

qhn scratching head and searching forum for help in this area

FOUND IT! thx Toucan

cheers ...

 

The standby and Hibernate modes on Vista are far superior to the XP's modes.

Vista wasn't made to be turned off and on over and over again. That's why by default on laptops, the shutdown option reverts to standby. Plus you get better battery life if you use your laptop often. next to the screen and processor, the harddrive eats up the most power.

 

I think I fixed the flashing. Downgraded from nVidia driver 165.1 to 162.5

 

*raises hand*

Vista boots much faster than XP for me.

The only suggestion I would have is if, the install is brand spanking new, give Vista some time to finish indexing your files. Give it a couple of days, you may see a significant increase in boot/shut down times.

 

Are you restoring from hibernation or booting from scratch?

Compare apples to apples.

Reboot from XP and Reboot from Vista, Vista is way slower according to my stopwatch.

 

Vista is definitely slower. It's the inevitable result of two similarly-built operating systems where the first requires more memory, hard drive space, and processor cycles than the second.

 

I get so tired of waiting for Vista to do anything. I'm sick of it already. It's slow, not compatable with lots of software and XP just blows it away in performance.

When the thinkpad gets here I doubt I'll even waste the drive space on a Novelty Toy like Vista. Just not worth it.
Since Sony refuses to support XP on the SZ6 I'm probably going to return it. I've got 95% of it running XP, but features like screen brightness don't work and clearly I'm going to get no support form Sony. Not to mention the bad light leakage and 6 hour recharge time.

 

Vista runs just fine for me with an Intel X3100 and 2GB of RAM on a 2.0GHz processor.

After my BIOS password is entered it takes just shy of a minute to start using the computer and after I press the power button the machine is off in roughly 20 seconds.

 

Yes, booting from scratch, apples to apples (or as close as can be). My NB, an ASUS A8JP, came preinstalled with XP, which I clean reinstalled. When I got my Vista upgrade I clean-installed Vista and put the same apps on (with the exception of games and a couple of smaller utilities that were Vista incompatible). I haven't actually timed it but my desktop in Vista shows up almost instantaneously and I can start working pretty much right away. I was tied down to waiting for a few things to finish loading before I can start working in XP.

It's completely unscientific, of course, but ultimately it proves a point -- no one can say with 100% certainty and across the board that XP is faster than Vista, or Vista is faster than XP. Sure you'll probably see somewhere someone benching the same hardware with a Vista/XP install and show you that XP/Vista loads faster. But benches are exactly that - benches. They do not reflect real-world use, or take into account the infinite number of configs people out there use.

I will say this much, though - XP is probably a better choice for you on a few fronts. One, software and driver compatibility is still an issue wth Vista being a new OS. Two, you don't seem to be willing to explore Vista beyond anything more than it's new interface and how MS has "somehow managed to screw up where everything used to be" and "forces you to click yes on an extra dialog box", instead relying on a forum thread to try to have other people convince you. There is a lot of information out there on the WWW, I strongly suggest you do some research on the matter on your own, because quite frankly you will have at least 4 different posters telling you it's a waste of time without giving you any more than speckles of information. I also suggest that before you delete Vista, you give it some time to get acclimated to where everything is and let the indexing feature do it's thing. Three, the bottom line is that Vista is not some revolutionary OS that will change the way you view personal computing. It is an evolutionary step -- the way the file system is managed, the breadcrumb explorer setup, small features like Mobility Center, features like bitlocker, superfetch, etc, do not add up to an absolute warranted purchase or use over XP.

Ultimately if you're looking for something guaranteed to work the way you want it, then XP is your OS of choice due to compatibility and ease of use. If you're unwilling to give Vista a fair shake then don't even bother. I personally have run Vista on a daily basis for the past four months and, having been exclusively a Vista user, I have no major complaints to speak of.

BTW I see a lot of people here trying to convince others that Vista is a massive resource hog with no redeeming features. My experience is vastly different, but unlike other posters I am not fanatical about taking down other people's OS of choice at every turn. All I can do is provide my experience, and perhaps provide a different view than what seems to be all the rage nowadays (Vista bashing).

Good luck with whatever you do!

 

I'm not all that bothered by M$ moving things around.
What bothers me is the performance. It's WAY slower than XP. I don't even need a stopwatch to measure it (though I have used one.)

I'm not purging it from the drive, but I just don't see the point in spending a lot of time getting Vista configured with all my apps.

 

perfectly said, and rep point for you!

 

IMHO, it does not seem to make much sense to insist that Vista has to be slower than XP. Three of us already have oberved faster startup and shut down with Vista. On my laptop, Vista startup takes less than half a minute, and it shuts down immediately if I click on the menu (or button).
On the same laptop with XP Pro installed, it took much longer to boot and shut down. Yes, apple to apple, booting from scratch. Vista makes better use of the resources, and it should run faster. Yes, there might be some software compatibility problems. But that's more the fault of companies developing those softwares instead of Vista itself.

Well, everyone has different computer with different drivers and applications installed. It is quite possible that some of those drivers or applications are not developed for vista and may take longer time to load, although they are capable of running on Vista at the end. Maybe that can affect the overall performance too.

 

Good points. I would also like to add that it's possibly the "newness" of Vista that's creating this uncertainty. XP wasn't the optimized, widely accepted OS it now is without the test of time, and software/hardware developers supporting it over the years. As the hardware/software support comes, so will the acceptance. Who knows, though, maybe we'll all be running OSX in a few years

 

I don't disagree at all. In fact, I think XP was out for 18months before I ever installed it.

I just hate like hell that M$ is forcing the comp mfgrs to abandon XP. Here I have this nice little Sony machine and can't get the stupid thing to be fully functional because M$ forced Vista down my throat.

I would never touch Vista willingly for another year at least. I make my living with a computer, I do not have the time to beta test for M$ and all these hardware mfgrs who are trying to learn how to write drivers for Vista.
I need a solid foundation just like I'd want with a house. Build a house on a shaky foundation and you'll have nothing but trouble.

As to speed, compatability, etc. All I can do is install what Sony has offered. If they have F'd up the drivers, not much I can do about it.
I have timed it several times. XP fully loaded ready is 28 from boot loader go. Vista is 1-2 seconds shy of a minute and a half.

Sort of proves my point though, some of you get good results, some don't.
Seems to me this proves with out any doubt that Vista is in it's infancy and is not ready to be used in a Business enviornment (were we make our living on a computer running right and right quick.)

Another year from now, it'll be a different ball game, but today, it's no better than a novelty toy for kids playing games (IMHO anyway.)


I have 30 days from middle of last week to return the Sony. If they don't release XP downgrade drivers it's going back.