Can i still get XP on a Dell?

[linktoinsanity]

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.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1772

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830,00.asp

Top one shows difference between sp2 + 3, whilst second shows sp3 vs vista.

 

[Dolph]

This could be fun....

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1772

This link shows that if you want performance, you should be using Vista 64. Vista 32 loses out by about 3% in the benchmark to XP SP3, or two thirds of nothing in the real world.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830,00.asp

Top one shows difference between sp2 + 3, whilst second shows sp3 vs vista.

Bottom link shows Vista beating XP SP3 by around 1000 marks in PCmark (approx 14% faster). XP SP3 just beating vista in 3dmark06 by 88 marks (less than 1%), World in conflict they are directly equal, Surpreme commander vista was faster (by 2 FPS peak, just under 1 FPS average), crysis they were equal.

So for gaming, there is absolutely no difference. In the corporate market, where PC mark is far more relevant as a measure of general app performance, you should be using Vista for performance.

Is there something with the current trend on these forums (across all areas) with people posting sources they either haven't read, don't understand or they are blatantly misrepresenting?

 

[linktoinsanity]

This could be fun....



This link shows that if you want performance, you should be using Vista 64. Vista 32 loses out by about 3% in the benchmark to XP SP3, or two thirds of nothing in the real world.



Bottom link shows Vista beating XP SP3 by around 1000 marks in PCmark (approx 14% faster). XP SP3 just beating vista in 3dmark06 by 88 marks (less than 1%), World in conflict they are directly equal, Surpreme commander vista was faster (by 2 FPS peak, just under 1 FPS average), crysis they were equal.

So for gaming, there is absolutely no difference. In the corporate market, where PC mark is far more relevant as a measure of general app performance, you should be using Vista for performance.

Is there something with the current trend on these forums (across all areas) with people posting sources they either haven't read, don't understand or they are blatantly misrepresenting?

Yeh ok, you win I had read it, but unlike people wanting to post anything from anywhere to support their views, I wanted to post a reasonable review. The main point is not much difference. With regards to vista 64 bit, blatently, but then 64 bit is another arguement, the same article does not show xp 64 bit, which would be interesting to see. I'd recommend any new user (unless they personally prefer xp) to go to vista 64 bit by all means, but not 32 bit.

 

[Dolph]

I think the key issue, certainly in corporate rollouts, is not performance, it's a lot of other considerations that occur with any new rollout, not just vista. As I said, I remember all the reasons given for not rolling out XP until it had been out for several years, and that was with having ignored W2k anyway.

I doubt most businesses will actually ignore vista in the next couple of years, even though Win 7 is coming out. Businesses don't early adopt as a general rule, and Win 7 is basically vista with a few tweaks and a varied UI, it's not going to magically fix the compatibility concerns as if the software isn't compatible with Vista, it's not compatible with Win 7 either.

 

[Ross1234]

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.

LOL noob

You just fitted right into the stereotype of someone who bashes vista.

 

[R.O.S.S.I]

Have to say Vista 64 is far from stable for what I want to run, Ableton is forever crashing. For that reason i'm going to have to go back over to XP32, until Windows 7 is up and released at least.

 

[Flukester]

this thread is funny, it's the same when people wouldn't upgrade from 95 to 98, or 98 to xp...

my way of looking at it, just use the very latest OS and be happy, it all runs so dam fast these days.

been using w7 64 for some time now and it does feel a whole lot faster than vista.. no doubt even when w7 is out people will still be using xp and saying they aint gonna budge.

but.......... you'll have no choice once support is pulled, and it WILL happen, your just prolonging the inevitable.

I prefer to use the very latest MS OS, that way I stay a 'expert', and if your a 'expert' there will always be work for you

your average XP die hard would be lost on W7 and basically use the machine like a noob as they havn't changed with the times.

 

[linktoinsanity]

LOL noob

You just fitted right into the stereotype of someone who bashes vista.

Actually, he gave a good reason as to why he doesn't like vista. His experience hasn't been good with Vista whilst xp works fine for him so why not use xp as most applications still work with xp.

 

[Flukester]

Actually, he gave a good reason as to why he doesn't like vista. His experience hasn't been good with Vista whilst xp works fine for him so why not use xp as most applications still work with xp.

a lot of people on forums like ocuk blame their OS for crashes etc, generally it's overclocked to much or just poorly put together

vista / w7 are super stable IF the hardware is stable... xp is mature and very stable also, but it's old hat tech that will soon be gone forever (OEMs cant even order it any more AFAIK for normal PCs)

 

[Ross1234]

Actually, he gave a good reason as to why he doesn't like vista. His experience hasn't been good with Vista whilst xp works fine for him so why not use xp as most applications still work with xp.

Because hes bashing it because of an error not caused by the OS.

 

[Dolph]

Actually, he gave a good reason as to why he doesn't like vista. His experience hasn't been good with Vista whilst xp works fine for him so why not use xp as most applications still work with xp.

But the key flaw in his position came when he stated that the stability issues started when he'd finished installing all his programs, which in turn suggests it's not a vista issue (the issue not appearing on XP does not make it a vista issue), but a third party program issue.

Vista is a lot more stubborn when it comes to correctly written programs than XP was, but that's a plus point for vista, not a negative, and that's the part many people don't seem willing to accept, that vista won't run badly written programs that always worked fine before. The problem is not vista, it's the program itself.

 

[Django x2]

OMG, can't belive this thread is now at 3 pages long!

I'm absolutely no Vista fanboy. I just recognise a sensible upgrade when I see one and can often justify it to corporate clients who have EAs about to expire. However, I do clearly understand that the business needs to be able to adopt it too.

I also know common sense when I see it and I can assure you I loved XP when it was stable and in its stride (2003 onwards). It is now however, almost 10 years old, which is why it is pretty much a legacy OS.

If I was presented with the same machine with either XP or Vista on, I'd choose Vista.

 

[eXor]

you'll have no choice once support is pulled

Irrelevant, for a competent home user.

 

[Dolph]

Irrelevant, for a competent home user.

So you don't need future security holes fixed then?

 

[eXor]

So you don't need future security holes fixed then?

Judging by amount of people turning UAC off on this forum alone, security does not seem to be high up on the average home user's list of priorities.

I upgraded to Vista from Win2KPro... last year. I ran 2K as a standard user, security updates have been released as recently as this year, and I don't recall reading about any glaring security holes that went unpatched and would have caused me concern.

 

[Matteysan]

Have to say Vista 64 is far from stable for what I want to run, Ableton is forever crashing. For that reason i'm going to have to go back over to XP32, until Windows 7 is up and released at least.

My mate runs Ableton perfectly fine on Vista x64, no crashing or anything. Are you using the newest version? Also why do you think Windows 7 will run it any better? when they are essentially the same OS bar some tweaks.

 

[Yas786]

Actually, he gave a good reason as to why he doesn't like vista. His experience hasn't been good with Vista whilst xp works fine for him so why not use xp as most applications still work with xp.

Thank ****ing lord someone sees it like i do.

Look i dont bash things for the sake of bashing...theres a reason why i bashed Vista and ive given them in my previous posts...it just makes me laugh when people take it so personally...i mean come on whats the matter with you people??.

I think Vista is good...it looks nice but to me it doesnt offer much over WinXP...

Also how do you overclock a laptop exactly eh??..especially one that is from Dell??...makes me laugh when people assume that im having prob because ive overclocked...i havent overclocked anything for a good few yrs now.

 

[Yas786]

Because hes bashing it because of an error not caused by the OS.

And you know this how???..if anyones the noob its you.

Like ive said ive got the latest updated drivers from Dell for Vista and yet i still have the 100% cpu idle problem...its now got to the stage that Dell are now coming over tommorrow to see if they can resolve the issue and if not they will replace the laptop or whatever needs to be replaced.

 

[Neodite]

And you know this how???..if anyones the noob its you.

Like ive said ive got the latest updated drivers from Dell for Vista and yet i still have the 100% cpu idle problem...its now got to the stage that Dell are now coming over tommorrow to see if they can resolve the issue and if not they will replace the laptop or whatever needs to be replaced.

lol how can you call somone a noob? It is NOT the OS that is crashing your system, as you stated, you install Vista, THEN install all your software and drivers, and you then get system crashes....

So there Vista is fine, learn how to trouble shoot and find out what is causing your system errors.... There should be a PC test before noobs like yourself are aloud an internet connection.

So in short, you have not even givin vista a chance to find out

 

[Flukester]

Irrelevant, for a competent home user.

I hate to say by saying you'll be fine using a OS with no support, you've proved yourself a incompetent user