Can i still get XP on a Dell?

[Mattus]

I do wish people like Sin_Chase would stop confusing 'problems with Vista' with 'problems upgrading to Vista in a corporate environment'.

Lots of the things you've said are true - users hate change, rolling out an OS across an organisation is expensive, plenty of bespoke software that businesses use doesn't work with a new OS.

However, these points:

a) apply to any OS upgrade within a reasonably-sized business, not just Vista;
b) are completely irrelevant to an end user like the OP, who needs an OS for himself or a mate.

For a home user, Vista is a great OS. It will run comfortably on a semi-decent system; it will work with any application the home user is likely to use; it offers significant usability improvements over XP.

I understand that you have to think 'what would a Vista upgrade bring to our business?' because that's your job. But you have to realise that the decision for a home user who is starting from scratch and doesn't have any OS yet is a completely different decision based upon different criteria. Upgrading a thousand systems from XP to Vista so employees' MS Office looks prettier is a waste of money. Installing Vista on a new home PC is not.

 

[linktoinsanity]

All I can say is I'm glad you're not my IT manager. You'd have been made jobless a long time ago.

Basically impressioning the views of one person across multiple user bases is verging on the uneducated. XP is by no means the 'real world' faster alternative to XP. My Vista machine here can boot, shut down and reboot again quicker than the same machine can boot to XP once.

Serioulsy, its time to leave that Legacy OS behind and move on. If everyone thought like you, we would still be running Win2K or 98. In fact, why are you running XP if you're against bloated GUIs and eye candy? Win2K would be a far better choice no??

Actually, you are the one appearing uneducated here. You are sounding like a vista fanboy blindly following the opinions of people on here without making up your own mind.

Vista is a fine OS, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't recommend paying a premium to downgrade to xp, pointless, but at the same time Vista gives no real advantages over xp, except maybe dx10 and maybe superfetch (load up at start anyway as already mentioned).

The differences between xp and it's predecessors such as Win9x are much more beneficial to the avarage user, mainly the stability is much better and it is quicker. Granted if you had 2000 at the time, maybe not worth upgrading, but older ones were definately worthwhile. Also I've had 2000 and xp on the same computer, just to see what 2000 was like and even with updated drivers 2000 was slower and had no program compatability wizard.

XP and Vista x64 dual boot on my machine and xp is nippier and doesn't constantly churn my hard disks to the point of annoyance so I can see why others may prefer xp even if you can't.

In what exactly? And please back it up with some hard evidence.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

Out of date, agreed, what date did sp1 get released again?

http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72298

You'll like that one, it pretty much supports your view. Unfortunately it's not fair either as it's based on xp sp2, whilst I've read somewhere that xp sp3 outperforms vista sp1, but meh, I'll keep looking

Anyway, in conclusion it's down to your own tastes. I don't like Vista personally, but 7 looks promising (yes I've used the beta and I am impressed) due to performance increses, so I am with the times. I still prefer xp overall, so personally, that's what I'll stick with.

 

[Dolph]

All the corporate talk makes me laugh, I look back and remember when we upgraded from NT4 to XP in 2004 (skipping W2K altogther), and that was delayed for exactly the same reasons.

Corporate adoption of Vista is actually better than corporate adoption of XP was at a similar point in it's life cycle.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Actually, you are the one appearing uneducated here. You are sounding like a vista fanboy blindly following the opinions of people on here without making up your own mind.

Using the term 'fanboy' doesn't win you any arguments.

Vista is a fine OS, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't recommend paying a premium to downgrade to xp, pointless, but at the same time Vista gives no real advantages over xp, except maybe dx10 and maybe superfetch (load up at start anyway as already mentioned).

If we're thinking from a business point of view, I'd say the integration between Vista and WDS gives a definite advantage, plus the extra group policy settings like power options to increase a business' green credentials.

The differences between xp and it's predecessors such as Win9x are much more beneficial to the avarage user, mainly the stability is much better and it is quicker. Granted if you had 2000 at the time, maybe not worth upgrading, but older ones were definately worthwhile. Also I've had 2000 and xp on the same computer, just to see what 2000 was like and even with updated drivers 2000 was slower and had no program compatability wizard.

The performance differences are very minimal and the compatibility wizard was an XP feature only.

XP and Vista x64 dual boot on my machine and xp is nippier and doesn't constantly churn my hard disks to the point of annoyance so I can see why others may prefer xp even if you can't.

HDD usage reduces after the initial install. I don't see what the whole issue is with HDD usage.

 

[Sin_Chase]

I do wish people like Sin_Chase would stop confusing 'problems with Vista' with 'problems upgrading to Vista in a corporate environment'.

Actually if you read my initial posts I 1 - informed the OP my experiance of his question and 2 - aired my views on how I did not see using Vista over XP having much if any real tangible benefits.

The business part was a side comment after I would not upgrade to it personally to further air my opinion of its lackluster appeal. At which point a corporate discussion started up which I later said would probably be best to isolate from the discussion at hand.

I have not actually once mentioned a "Problem with Vista" and my argument was more centric around not upgrading to it spurred by comments such as "Why would you not want to? (upgrade)"

Yes, a fresh build on a fresh PC for a home user and having to pay for a downgrade to XP may be questionable to some, but it's not like its some kind of whacky crazy thing to do. Would be more viable if systems actually shipped OSless so that people could buy their own retail copies but hey, such is life with big OEMs.

I'ts rather frustrating to see people go for their guns the second someone enquires about downgrading to XP or not putting Vista on. I for one can very easily see why people want to stick with XP. Probably for many of the same reasons I wont ever put Vista on one of my own machines.

There is countless discussion about Vista and its downfalls or its lack of mass adoption and the very fact MS themselves extend downgrade rights, support etc is pretty indicative of what they think themselves, at least I think so. /shrug

 

[Mattus]

There is countless discussion about Vista and its downfalls or its lack of mass adoption and the very fact MS themselves extend downgrade rights, support etc is pretty indicative of what they think themselves, at least I think so. /shrug

The biggest problem Vista has these days is an image problem. MS is having to extend support because lots of ignorant people heard the initial reports about problems with drivers, etc. and told their mates that Vista was rubbish. The result is lots of people who have now spent too long on the 'Vista sucks' bandwagon to be able to climb off.

 

[Burnsy2023]

The biggest problem Vista has these days is an image problem. MS is having to extend support because lots of ignorant people heard the initial reports about problems with drivers, etc. and told their mates that Vista was rubbish. The result is lots of people who have now spent too long on the 'Vista sucks' bandwagon to be able to climb off.

I totally agree.

 

[peter212693]

Vista.... ive been using x64 ultimate for nearly a year now. I was a little "scared" to go in the 1st place with all the "vista is crap" talk but I went for it. I will never look back. Yes I still work with XP every day and would choose vista anyday. Yes its a resource hog but "move with the times" get a higher spec machine. Also afer testing windows 7 it seems to be Vista with the "performance" of XP.

 

[Yas786]

You may be able to get it on a business machine under the downgrade program, but my advice is don't, Vista is much better.

Diagree...Vista is a POS tbh...XP is much much better...im having major major issues with my laptop that has Vista ultimate...this week i must have re-installed Vista a good 6 times but once ive installed all my programs the stupid machine keeps crashing and stuttering...my cpu useage is idling at 100% when im not doing anything...so im going back to XP this weekend...have had enough of Vista.

 

[Ross1234]

Diagree...Vista is a POS tbh...XP is much much better...im having major major issues with my laptop that has Vista ultimate...this week i must have re-installed Vista a good 6 times but once ive installed all my programs the stupid machine keeps crashing and stuttering...my cpu useage is idling at 100% when im not doing anything...so im going back to XP this weekend...have had enough of Vista.

Your obviously doing something wrong there, and its not vista at fault.

 

[Memphis]

Diagree...Vista is a POS tbh...XP is much much better...im having major major issues with my laptop that has Vista ultimate...this week i must have re-installed Vista a good 6 times but once ive installed all my programs the stupid machine keeps crashing and stuttering...my cpu useage is idling at 100% when im not doing anything...so im going back to XP this weekend...have had enough of Vista.

There is nothing wrong with Vista. You either have **** hardware, or can't build an OS for ****. Personally, I'm banking on the second option.

 

[Sin_Chase]

Yes because its SO hard to build a system with Vista. Its less clicks than XP.

I would bank on a driver/software version issue personally.

 

[Yas786]

There is nothing wrong with Vista. You either have **** hardware, or can't build an OS for ****. Personally, I'm banking on the second option.

Really so you just assumed that i cant build OS for **** eh??, do you realise what an arse you just made yourself look like?...funnily enough son ive been building OS's since Win98 and i know what im doing when im installing new OS's...im sorry it offends you that i said Vista sucks... its not a hardware problem as since ive had this laptop..dual core 2.4ghz with 3gb of ram its always given me hassles with Vista...ive re-installed it so many times that quite simply i just cant trust Vista anymore...sure it looks pretty but otherwise underneath the hood its nothing more than a resource hog OS.

Ive had WinXP on this laptop as well and it works like a bloody dream...no issues, BSODS or 100% cpu idle or other crap like that. So sure i can re-install Vista again but im 110% certain that ill have the same problems im having now...so i dont see the point in having such a crappy OS that cant even work properly....even browsing the internet causes no end of issues.

Anyways Vista sucked from the first day of release and still does even with all the updates.

 

[Yas786]

Yes because its SO hard to build a system with Vista. Its less clicks than XP.

I would bank on a driver/software version issue personally.

Drivers and software that i have installed are all up to date from the manufacturers website...so unless they are putting out shoddy drivers/software then thats their problem and mine as well as it doesnt seem to want to play ball at the best of times.

 

[Mattus]

Anyways Vista sucked from the first day of release and still does even with all the updates.

... for you. It may not be working on your specific combination of hardware and software but for most people it works absolutely fine.

If you know what you're doing building PCs, maybe you should be looking into which process is using 100% of your CPU? If it happens after you install a particular app then that would be a good place to start.

 

[Fire Wizard]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

I'm sorry but it was kind of pointless posting that link because as you said yourself it's out of date. I would just add to the fact that it is completely out of date.

You'll like that one, it pretty much supports your view. Unfortunately it's not fair either as it's based on xp sp2, whilst I've read somewhere that xp sp3 outperforms vista sp1, but meh, I'll keep looking

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Windows XP Service Pack 3 was a massive update that boosted Windows XP performance a significant amount, if at all. I certainly didn't see much about it on these forums.

Diagree...Vista is a POS tbh...XP is much much better...im having major major issues with my laptop that has Vista ultimate...this week i must have re-installed Vista a good 6 times but once ive installed all my programs the stupid machine keeps crashing and stuttering...my cpu useage is idling at 100% when im not doing anything...so im going back to XP this weekend...have had enough of Vista.

This is the exact type of attitude that gives Windows Vista a bad name in the first place. The problems that you are experiencing are clearly not normal and to blame it on the operating system presumably because you have heard everyone else blaming every little thing on Windows Vista is extremely narrow minded. If you were really intent on fixing the problem, instead of just giving up and blaming it on Windows Vista because that it was everyone else does, once you have installed the operating system, you would carefully install your individual applications to see which one is causing this very unusual slow down.

I'm sorry but the problem here seems to be your lack of basic troubleshooting skills, not anything else.

sure it looks pretty but otherwise underneath the hood its nothing more than a resource hog OS.

Why is Windows Vista a resource hog?

Anyways Vista sucked from the first day of release and still does even with all the updates.

There have been two main problems with Windows Vista. One of them being and software incompatibilities. However, these incompatibilities are now mostly solved.

The second problem as Mattus has pointed out is Windows Vista's image which is mainly down to people that have been completely misinformed. These people either cling on to there very last piece of string that they have and still label Windows Vista as the most incompatible operating system ever lived or they rant and rave about things in Windows Vista that aren't even an issue like the memory management and features like User Account Control. Yet, if they had done their research, they would come to the conclusion that these are not issues at all but they actually make the operating system a lot better.

 

[linktoinsanity]

Using the term 'fanboy' doesn't win you any arguments.

When he's posting and putting down xp without any real good reason, sounding like he's just following the say of the majority, I can say what I like. "Fanboy" = blindly following something and dishing other opinions/options as rubbish. Don't get the wrong idea, I wasn't saying everyone who prefers Vista was a fanboy, so trying to use that as a point against doesn't help you much either.

If we're thinking from a business point of view, I'd say the integration between Vista and WDS gives a definite advantage, plus the extra group policy settings like power options to increase a business' green credentials.

You may have that one. The changes in Vista however and compatability doesn't help a lot of business. It was the same with xp and it's predecessors.

The performance differences are very minimal and the compatibility wizard was an XP feature only.

Point is that the differences are there and noticeable and your second point supports my arguement.

HDD usage reduces after the initial install. I don't see what the whole issue is with HDD usage.

Vista has been installed on my computer for months with all the indexing etc turned off and it still does it. If you have any tips I'll be happy to listen, well, read

Basicly your post seems to show you think I hate Vista. I don't, I just much prefer xp and hate Vista's fanboys who rubbish an os that still works well with modern and older computers eight years after it was first launched. If someone prefers the older OS, then repect their descision, don't rubbish them and the os's users for it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Windows XP Service Pack 3 was a massive update that boosted Windows XP performance a significant amount, if at all. I certainly didn't see much about it on these forums.

Actually, service pack three includes optimization for dual cores (or it includes a patch made for sp2, but not included) so it does improve performance on most modern machines.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t545980.html

As said, if you have sp3 it includes the hotfix. These forums aren't the be all and end all of Computer knowledge by the way. They are a good resource, but just because something hasn't been mentioned, it doesn't mean it is not true

 

[Neodite]

Exactly the same as when nobdy wanted to move away from 98se. It was all omgz XP is so slow and crap. XP is very outdated now, if your hardware is outdated and you carnt afford to upgrade your system then yeah sure, it makes sense not to upgrade your OS, same way people dont just upgrade there car and keep the same engine...

If you build your own PC with decent hardware and use XP, why waste your money using XP? Look at updated benchmarks with updated spec PC's for programme loading times, bootups, shutdowns, gaming etc. etc.

I hate people that wont let go, same way as 98se, accept this seems to be dragging out a lot longer, and im sure some people with think the same with "vista is better then 7" upgrade your hardware or dont upgrade, not hard.

Also if you have something old and the driver does not work or its buggy, why do retards blame windows for advancing? blame the hardware company for not providing the support you pay for

 

[Fire Wizard]

These forums aren't the be all and end all of Computer knowledge by the way. They are a good resource, but just because something hasn't been mentioned, it doesn't mean it is not true

Yes and what I should have also added was that a number of other forums that I go on and around the internet in general which I found, there certainly wasn't much conclusive evidence to say that Windows XP Service Pack 3 gave a significant performance boost over Windows Vista Service Pack 1. Though, if you have any articles showing the sort of performance boost Service Pack 3 gives, please post the links.

 

[Witor]

We bypassed Vista at work (650 odd PC's) primarily because of the average spec PC a couple of years ago, and at that point we still had 3 years for a hardware refresh (5yr cycle..ish). P4's with 256/512 ram would not have agreed much with vista (lol), and it was considered too much hassle upgrading endless amounts of PC's with RAM/potentially faster P4 CPU's/etc ad nauseum.

Now we're recieving dual core machines with min 2GB ram, all run XP beautifully, and run Vista Fine, as the IT dept runs Vista (with a few exceptions for legacy apps). Seeing as Win 7 is virtually round the corner, we'll look into that much more seriously than Vista.

For home use though...vista all the Way.