Vista or XP

I much prefer Vista.

As someone who doesn't really know a lot about software and OSs I just find it more user friendly.

Also, I tend to need a lot of windows open at once when I'm working, upwards of 15, so having the 3D Flip for changing window is an absolute godsend.
 
I prefer Vista..

but I'm going to reinstall XP.

Getting 12MB/s over gigabit Lan is just a joke, and graphics performance is still nowhere near XP's.

I'll miss you, Vista - see you in SP1!
 
XP.
I always revert back to Windows 2000 start menu, I find the default XP/Vista start menu slow, also have to click more to get to the section you want. Disable fade in and fade out too.
 
I am using Vista without any problesm. It has the good point that if you install it, it will find and install drivers for motherboard components and so on so the machine in fully working when the instal is over. This seems a lot better that XP sitting with various components to install afterwards - like the network part of the motherboard.

on the other hand XOP might be faster. The latest 3DMark shows the fastest machine with XP not Vista.

I'm not moving back to XP, though as it is clearly the way forward and drivers seem to have been better thought through. I wonder what we will get with SP1 - nothing we haven't got I suspect!
 
UKDTweak said:
XP and Vista is Such a resource hog, the start menu is a mess, so is the control panel!
Click to expand...

Vista is NOT a resource hog, read up on how it uses memory. It's much more effecient at memory useage than xp.

How can you say start button and control panel as a downside?
One click and it's back to classic style.

I still use the classic type start menu.
 
I prefer XP, just easier to use and I'm used to it, not to mention there are lots of programs i encounter on a daily basis which just don't seem to be supported in vista yet, admitadly they are turnkey applications but still.

I would say Vista is a memory hog, i have a 3ghz P4 with 512mb memory and it runs like an absolute dog, runs pretty nicely with 1gb of ram though just seems a shame as XP runs fine with 512.
 
Acid, if i do a clean XP install i get 35 -40 processes running, on vista ultimate there was over 50, take a look a dual booting your rig, then check your task manager, you will find XP uses less ram... thats what i mean by resource hog, it needs a faster machine with more ram to even come close to running as fast as XP. Just look at gaming (DX9) XP will beat a Vista rig of the same spec, hands down!
 
UKDTweak said:
Acid, if i do a clean XP install i get 35 -40 processes running, on vista ultimate there was over 50, take a look a dual booting your rig, then check your task manager, you will find XP uses less ram... thats what i mean by resource hog, it needs a faster machine with more ram to even come close to running as fast as XP. Just look at gaming (DX9) XP will beat a Vista rig of the same spec, hands down!
Click to expand...


no vista use more processes and more ram as it cashes unused programs for faster start up, it then releases these when you start up any app that requires it. For me gaming is identical on my dual boot. down to around 2fps.

Vista is more efficient, unused ram is wasted ram. But when another app needs it like a game, it frees it up instantly, as any extra stuff does not need to be saved, so it's just overwritten rather than cached.
 
Well that maybe on paper but in reallity Vista just seams slow and bloated to me, its ok on my main rig i guess, but on my laptop its even more noticable, i upgrade the laptop to 2gb of ram and changed the HDD from a 5400 rpm to a 7200 rpm, but it still seams slow, were as XP flies happily along on it, no compatability problems and as im more used to XP i find it much easier to navigate and find what i want without having to use a Search function or dig through other sections that i would on vista.
I know its down to preference and also what each person is used to, but i think XP is far easier to work with, the Vista start menu is a mess to me, i can never find what i want straight away, but with XP, i open the menu and there are my apps.... (the ones i want).
 
I've got Vista on my PC and XP on my notebook, and I've been using both quite a lot lately (PC when I'm at home, notebook when I'm working at Uni). Suffice it to say, I wish I had Vista on my notebook too, because XP feels very basic in comparison, both in terms of interface and general features. Having to actually navigate the Start menu instead of just being able to type in what you want is annoying enough as it is.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Graphics is identical to xp know.
Click to expand...

tell that to my benchmarks ;)

even superpi 1M is 2 seconds slower.

I'm not dissing on Vista, I really like it.. it's just not exactly a benching OS - it's like someone applied a go-slow to everything. And this is on a 3.3 c2d, 2 gigs, x1950pro. Not the best machine in the world, but Vista makes it cry in comparison to XP.
 
Last edited:
Interesting discussion.

Just upgraded the wife's PC downstairs to Vista Ultimate and she loves the way its running now, really likes Vista having being used to XP at home on our systems here and also at her work.

Mind you, she doesnt use the rig for much more than the usual stuff like Word, Excel,SageLine, PowerPoint and browsing the web.

I'm still running XP on my more powerful system in the spare room upstairs.

I use it for web browsing and gaming occasionaly. However, I also use it for business as well.

I'm running Adobe CS3 Master Suite on it and was wondering if switching over to Vista and running CS3 had any drawbacks compared to running under XP?. Anyone know?.

I'm thinking it wont matter or indeed, run better.

Also, I'm running an E6300 on this system I use, should I go for 32 bit or 64 bit Vista?.

I've read the other thread kicking about here on the forums as far as the 32/64 debate goes and there seems to be conflicting opinions on the whole issue.
 
If you have a processor that is capable of handling 64-bit instructions then their is no reason to go for the 32-bit edition. You won't see a massive performance increase going from a 32-bit to a 64-bit operating system as of yet since many programs have been written for 32-bit architectures. However this will be changing in the future because with 64bit being more recognized, more and more programs will be written under 64-bit architectures. When programs are released that are written specifically for 64-bit, you will then start to see a performance increase from 32-bit programs.

This article may be of some interest to you.

Now you may be concerned with regards to support for the 64-bit version of Windows Vista and Vista as a whole. The support for Windows Vista is now excellent. The majority of the manufacturers out their have now released 64-bit drivers for their hardware and as regards to software, once again, the majority of software now work perfectly fine under Windows Vista. Their have also been a few problems within Windows Vista but the majority of these are now fixed thanks to the Performance and Reliability packs that Microsoft have been releasing along with other updates. Now their are still a few problems around for example, slow transfer rates across networks, from one folder to another but this seems to be only affecting a few people and not the whole user base that is using Windows Vista. Though I believe this is set to be fully fixed in Service Pack 1 (Fiji) which is due out in the first quarter of next year. This certainly isn't affecting me and I think the same goes for a lot of people as well.

64-bit is without a doubt the way to go. :)
 
Last edited:
uvmain said:
tell that to my benchmarks ;)

even superpi 1M is 2 seconds slower.

I'm dissing on Vista, I really like it.. it's just not exactly a benching OS - it's like someone applied a go-slow to everything. And this is on a 3.3 c2d, 2 gigs, x1950pro. Not the best machine in the world, but Vista makes it cry in comparison to XP.
Click to expand...


I find it a lot speedier than xp and running a far lower spec than you x2 4200+ 6600GT 2GB extremely cheap ram, which is also the bottleneck for the system.


I wonder is your's 32bit Vista?
TheVoice said:
Having to actually navigate the Start menu instead of just being able to type in what you want is annoying enough as it is.
Click to expand...
How is that a problem?

right click properties > classic start menu. It's not hard and gives you the classic start menu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom