Any reason NOT to go back to Windows XP?
- Thread starter broona
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
I don't see how it is "fanboy" to point out good things in a program or application ? (or indeed anything in general).
I find it rather annoying when people throw the terms about randomly - especially when someone hasn't even mentioned anything yet.
As for if XP can do everything I need, well not really.
I use Vista 64, which is - by all accounts better than XP 64 (I have 4GB of ram).
Gaming now on VIsta 64 SP1 is just as fast (maybe 1FPS difference) as XP SP3. (I have the link stored at home so will post it when I get back unless someone has it and can do it for me).
I don't see a reason to not keep Vista ? Its more secure, just as stable, and as mentioned pretty
than XP. I actually very much disliked Vista for the first few days I used it (I didn't like the new start menu for example) but it has now grown on me.Finally, I like the fact the GPU helps with Windows Dsktop drawing a lot more, because the programs I use actually do seem a bit snappier (photoshop for example when I am scrolling).
By the way, your posts come across as a little hostile - relax a little ?
*EDIT*
To clarify my point about "pointing out good things" I don't mean to a fault, where you overlook the bad things, but to point out good things in a balanced way is not fan boy like, and to my mind Vista is a great step in the right direction for MS.
Actually this is probably related to the capture method, Vista doesn't support the VNC hooks graphical capture method so resorts to the much slower polling method, install the vnc mirror driver and it'll provide a huge performance increase.
The fact that the Vista viewer > XP Server works fine backs this up, if it was the IPv6 issue this would also be slow
Have they at least fixed the ' amount of time left to copy files ' issue yet or does it still think all the files are the same size and wobbels the time from 5 sec to 90mins as it see's fit.
I still use XP Pro, dont see why i need to move to Vista yet, everythign i use works good and nothign i have seen on my mates PC's impresses me enough to go out and buy it.
Still, each to their own, at least now they have fixed most of the vista issues over the past 12 months...
Colin
I still use XP Pro, dont see why i need to move to Vista yet, everythign i use works good and nothign i have seen on my mates PC's impresses me enough to go out and buy it.
Still, each to their own, at least now they have fixed most of the vista issues over the past 12 months...
Colin
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,108
- Location
- Manchester
It seems, like me, you have no good reason to use Vista over XP. But also no good reason to use XP over Vista if they both do what you need.
So it's personal preference.
So it's personal preference.
ALmost all of those were fixed months ago. Keep with the times man
Believe it or not, some people find "legacy" software does things just fine for them. Some folk I supported still use DOS, fair play to them...
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
The time to copy thing has been reduced (in other words its quicker).
The reason that it appears though that Vista's copy takes longer is because it actually is more accurate in terms of how long it is to XP's, I believe XP's finishes after it has finished reading the drive and not when it has finished writting data, which Vista does not and takes in to account the entire job (I could b wrong on that though).
Creative are being very slow with their drivers, but apparently they are a little better than what they used to be.
ATI and NV drivers are pretty damn nice now, with very little FPS difference.
Most software works under Vista I think, at least all of my programs do. Perhaps some old games don't.
Up until recently I still had XP32 on another hard drive just in case I ever had issues with something not working, but because I changed my hard drives around and moved them I have lost this, I might well install XP again just in case I ever get the urge to play through an old game, or just in case a bit of software doesn't work - but so far Vista has been rather well behaved.
The only thing that does seem to give me issues are BioShock on the PC, there seems to be some serious sound / driver problems with certain built in sound cards an vista, where basically you just do not get any sound after the Intro. All the fixes did not work for me, so I ended up just using the 360 version I borrowed from a friend :/
Thats not what i meant. I meant as in keep with the times by knowing things work now, not using latest software.
I was always weary of the FPS difference in games but I hear that is a none issue these days. I'm currently using XP and its been fine for me. Vista does have that added bit of gloss to it though i suppose. I dont want to format my hard drive just to install Vista though so I wait until I actually need to format before i get vista on there
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2005
- Posts
- 12,631
If you have 2 hard drives or something you could always add it as a seperate partion. Thats what I did to start off with
I used to hate vista, but I see no reason to stay with XP anymore. I'm due for a system upgrade and it will involve having 4GB ram, so for sure I'm going to be using Vista 64Bit on my new build I'm also running 64bit vista now.
There are a few silly things that are annoying, such as folder views changing randomly although this can be fixed by patching the registry. But I find Vista just as XP these days, plus SP1 made such a difference to Vistas performance copying files to other hard drives is way faster than it was.
I also find that Vista has very good hardware support, on my friends which is a few years old. Nearly every piece of hardware works out the box with vista, the only driver he needed was for his sound.
We all know that we cant stay on XP for ever, basically because 32bit only supports 3GB ram and it wont be soon till games will want 4GB ram and so on. You can use 64bit XP but that sucks compared to the speed of 64bit vista.
All of this is coming from a EX vista hater. Dont knock it till you try it, seriously.
There are a few silly things that are annoying, such as folder views changing randomly although this can be fixed by patching the registry. But I find Vista just as XP these days, plus SP1 made such a difference to Vistas performance copying files to other hard drives is way faster than it was.
I also find that Vista has very good hardware support, on my friends which is a few years old. Nearly every piece of hardware works out the box with vista, the only driver he needed was for his sound.
We all know that we cant stay on XP for ever, basically because 32bit only supports 3GB ram and it wont be soon till games will want 4GB ram and so on. You can use 64bit XP but that sucks compared to the speed of 64bit vista.
All of this is coming from a EX vista hater. Dont knock it till you try it, seriously.
If you have 2 hard drives or something you could always add it as a seperate partion. Thats what I did to start off with
I have 3 hard drives but they all have a lot of important stuff on. I would have to format any hard drive before installing vista first wouldn't I? I've never tried to install an OS on a slave before
Compared with XP, what sort of speed differences are we talking about when it comes to transferring files across networks? Thats with SP1.
Last edited:
Ah, so somebody actually knows something...damn they MUST be a fanboy!!!
