Going back to XP. Has anyone else??

Defiance_co · 22 Jul 2008 at 22:03

I myself think many people try vista with mediocre rigs which puts them off it altogether

Then they see the ram usage and think damn this sucks ram bad (which is wrong)

They then seem to forget about tweaks you can do

Then go back to xp after really not giving vista the time/resources it needs to shine

I am looking forward to the next generation and i really do love vista, That said i jumped right onto xp when it came out when others i knew were anti-xp (and yep some i know still rave about xp but i can remember the days they wouldn't even try it he he)

Vista to me really needs 4gig of ram, A few tweaks right from the git-go and a knowledge about the benefits of it's memory management

Craig321 · 22 Jul 2008 at 22:05

Johnnytoxic said:
The only thing I wish I could take with me is the search feature in the top right of windows explorer.

Vista is just slow and unresponsive. I have a E6400 @ 3.2ghz and 4gb ram.

Never, especially not with this PC I currently have (see sig). It utilizes my RAM properly, it's fast, secure, everything works perfectly

If I had a P4 with 1-2GB RAM still I'd probably stick with XP.

SinaiSound · 22 Jul 2008 at 23:35

Was using vista, but now I'm using xp64bit

Olibubble · 26 Jul 2008 at 23:43

I have discovered that

XP is Faster than Vista on a fresh install.

However

The more applications you put on XP the slower it becomes. I have found this not to be the case with Vista.

So sure, XP is faster than Vista if all you install is the one application. Good luck.

Sgt_Pepper · 27 Jul 2008 at 00:12

i'm going the other way, have been dual booting for a while now, but decided its time to dump XP. apart from the odd little niggle Vista runs great for me.

Final8y · 27 Jul 2008 at 00:27

Olibubble said:
I have discovered that

XP is Faster than Vista on a fresh install.

However

The more applications you put on XP the slower it becomes. I have found this not to be the case with Vista.

So sure, XP is faster than Vista if all you install is the one application. Good luck.

I agree & i notice the same my self that a fresh install of XP is very snappy but slows down very quickly indeed by the end of the day when i got all my basic apps/games installed.
Also vista is doing allot more from a fresh install & can take the load & keep on going strong no matter how much you have installed.

Fire Wizard · 27 Jul 2008 at 00:30

Olibubble said:
snip

I have found that regardless of the amount of applications you install using Windows XP, it seems to degrade quite rapidly as opposed to Windows Vista where it seems to keep its integrity extremely well.

Craig321 · 27 Jul 2008 at 00:41

I noticed that as well, XP degraded extremely quickly. For me Vista hasn't slowed down in the slightest between a new build and now.

My Dad's PC is also running A LOT better in Vista than it was in XP. Yes, his new PC is probably more than 3 times more powerful than his old one, but I can just see Vista handles all his applications a lot better.

He's a hardcore multi tasker - over 100 processes and over 80% RAM usage constantly (he has 4GB).

His build so far hasn't degraded at all even with all his stuff running in the background.

Margaret · 27 Jul 2008 at 06:57

I've had Vista since early 2007 and never looked back, it's much better than XP, been on the same installation for nearly a year.

If it's running slow it's probably your fault.

EffBee · 27 Jul 2008 at 16:52

Just bought two oem licences for XP from Overclockers to tide me over the next few years while they are still available.

Microsoft are clever aren't they - release a new OS to improve sales and loyalty to their older one

When the next post-vista OS comes out in 2009/2010 (not very far away actually) then Vista will a venerable old OS worthy of my attention.

tdream · 27 Jul 2008 at 17:56

Back to Vista again, this time it's working out better. Going to install xp on VM for a few essential apps that just won't run on x64.

Ozzie Dave · 27 Jul 2008 at 20:13

On my dual boot PC I hardly touch XP anymore, save for some really old apps/games I occasionaly use....Vista64 is so much faster/zippier and reliable. Mind you, I've tweaked it a lot though and always keep it up to date.

Amnesia · 27 Jul 2008 at 20:54

ive still got dual boot and all my gaming is still done in xp.
i find xp to be more responsive than vista(32).
now i wouldnt mind sacrificing a few fps to use a better os but apart from being prettier i havent seen what vista offers.

xp is very reliable for me already so vista isnt needed there

it takes more mouse clicks to do the same task which is safer but slower ...so its good and bad.

all applications work on xp...not all do on vista

so apart from the interface what else is there ? now if your used to installing 7368434 programs on xp and 3833 startup in the tray icon then maybe xp isnt for you as it does get bogged down..... but i dont really allow anything extra on startup apart from drivers so its always very quick.

Olibubble · 27 Jul 2008 at 21:28

memory said:
ive still got dual boot and all my gaming is still done in xp.

Why? Gaming is just as fast on Vista as it is on XP

memory said:
i find xp to be more responsive than vista(32).

I actually find XP to be slower than Vista once you have a few applications installed, or after 5-6 months, whichever comes quicker.

memory said:
now i wouldnt mind sacrificing a few fps to use a better os but apart from being prettier i havent seen what vista offers.

How hard of you looked? How long have you been using Vista for?

memory said:
xp is very reliable for me already so vista isnt needed there

XP wasn't reliable at all at one point. In fact, when XP came out it was awful. Vista is a lot more reliable at launch than XP ever was. In fact, Vista SP1 is considerably more reliable than XP ever was in the whole time I have owned it.

memory said:
it takes more mouse clicks to do the same task which is safer but slower ...so its good and bad.

What are you constantly doing that keeps prompting the UAC (I assume this what you are talking about)

memory said:
all applications work on xp...not all do on vista

I can give you a few windows 98 applications that don't work on XP if you like. And a lot of games too!

memory said:
so apart from the interface what else is there ? now if your used to installing 7368434 programs on xp and 3833 startup in the tray icon then maybe xp isnt for you as it does get bogged down..... but i dont really allow anything extra on startup apart from drivers so its always very quick.

What? Not even AV software? And why the need to be glib. How long have you actually used Vista for? Maybe around 36 hours in total accumulated when you visit your friends house?

Seriously dude, we have been here before. I hated going from 3.1 to 95. As I have got older I have become a little more pragmatic. The longer you use Vista the less likely you are to ever want to go back to XP.

I wouldn't want to bore you with a long list of reasons why Vista is better than XP. That would be taking them out of context, as on their own they seem quite trivial. And in fact, they actually are. But if you add them all together they become more than the sum of their parts. But as you asked, I shall pick one at random.

*XP's GDI CPU based 2D windows rendering... Cannot stand it anymore.

Slashiem · 27 Jul 2008 at 21:37

I like XP due to that on my crappy 2-3 year old laptops they run smooth and quickish.
But on my main comp vista is good, quick and all but recently been having problems it is just so slow and unstable sometimes. Really it is a reformat time but havnt really got the energy to do it but should do soon as i have free time and then some.

~Slash

Amnesia · 27 Jul 2008 at 22:27

Olibubble said:
Why? Gaming is just as fast on Vista as it is on XP

no its not...some games are but not all.

Olibubble said:
I actually find XP to be slower than Vista once you have a few applications installed, or after 5-6 months, whichever comes quicker.

common sense would tell u that uve installed something dodgy if all of a sudden your xp installation has gone from being faster than vista to slower just by 3 apps.

Olibubble said:
How hard of you looked? How long have you been using Vista for?

how hard should someone have to look ? if there are things there then why not just point them out rather than trying to sound clever about it ?
im not saying vista doesnt have anything more ...im simply stating i havent found it so maybe im missing out and someone can fill in the details.

Olibubble said:
XP wasn't reliable at all at one point. In fact, when XP came out it was awful. Vista is a lot more reliable at launch than XP ever was. In fact, Vista SP1 is considerably more reliable than XP ever was in the whole time I have owned it.

but i dont dual boot between vista and a launch version of xp.
its vista with sp1 and xp with sp2.

Olibubble said:
What are you constantly doing that keeps prompting the UAC (I assume this what you are talking about)

constantly ? no just once would be enough to bring up the promt

Olibubble said:
I can give you a few windows 98 applications that don't work on XP if you like. And a lot of games too!

you could probably name a few linux ones too but they are neither here or there....im talking present apps which are used with windows.

Olibubble said:
What? Not even AV software? And why the need to be glib. How long have you actually used Vista for? Maybe around 36 hours in total accumulated when you visit your friends house?

Seriously dude, we have been here before. I hated going from 3.1 to 95. As I have got older I have become a little more pragmatic. The longer you use Vista the less likely you are to ever want to go back to XP.

I wouldn't want to bore you with a long list of reasons why Vista is better than XP. That would be taking them out of context, as on their own they seem quite trivial. And in fact, they actually are. But if you add them all together they become more than the sum of their parts. But as you asked, I shall pick one at random.

*XP's GDI CPU based 2D windows rendering... Cannot stand it anymore.

you could have made that list since you typed so much anyway....would have been a lot nicer and more helpful but i guess thats not you.

none of my friends use vista...a few have tried it but same as me they found it offers little more than a pretty interface.

KatanaDV20 · 27 Jul 2008 at 22:32

My gf was having endless problems with Vista on her Dell XPS laptop. Crahses, blue screens you name it. The worst crash came after downloading a service pack. It demoslished the Windows installation and we had to reinstall.

After the reinstall I disabled all eye-candy. No Aero at all. I aslo disabled Indexing and some other silly background services. If you boot up her laptop you would think its Windows 2000 lol.

The thing is...it now runs like a dream & just screams along now. No issues. I've told her "No Aero!" and so far so good. Not a very "technical" solution but heck...it works

nikebee · 28 Jul 2008 at 01:51

DavieCramb01 said:
i just do not like vista. the saying if something aint broke dont fix it and thats all they did when vista came out after xp. am i right in saying either 2009 or 2010 a new operating system is due from microsoft anyway?

The "If it ain't broke don't fix it" rule simply doesn't apply in computing, or technology in general.

What the heck was so wrong with Windows 98 or 98SE ? The switch from 98 to XP was quite harsh when that happened, it's just that all over again.

I think Vista edges it if I had to choose one though, and if I had a copy of XP and a copy of Vista in front of me for a fresh install, I'd probably choose Vista 99% of the time.

I whole heartedly agree, and I'm completely in the "Vista is the most stable Windows OS I've ever used" camp

Even at just SP1, I've found it to be generally more stable than XP at SP3.

nikebee · 28 Jul 2008 at 01:53

KatanaDV20 said:
My gf was having endless problems with Vista on her Dell XPS laptop. Crahses, blue screens you name it. The worst crash came after downloading a service pack. It demoslished the Windows installation and we had to reinstall.

After the reinstall I disabled all eye-candy. No Aero at all. I aslo disabled Indexing and some other silly background services. If you boot up her laptop you would think its Windows 2000 lol.

The thing is...it now runs like a dream & just screams along now. No issues. I've told her "No Aero!" and so far so good. Not a very "technical" solution but heck...it works

I would have shipped that back to Dell straight away mate, as that just shouldn't be happening whether that is using Vista, XP, Linux etc... An out of box laptop does come bloated with all kinds of crap on them though, so a fresh install of your chosen OS, or a major Uninstall session is always a good thing the first day you get it. But it shouldn't be that unstable.

FatRakoon · 28 Jul 2008 at 01:55

For the past year, I have been in a kind of limbo with Vista.

I have installed Premium 32 and business 32 onto 2 of my PCs and its rock solid.

On my Master PC, I kept trying ultimate 64 and there has always been somehtign that has never quite been there, I think the third time I had it, I went through with absolutely no issues and when I got the hints to activate I decided that it was so good, that I will activate it and then by the end of the day it had gone so bad, that I wan unable to use it... Then, rather than go back to XP64 for a bit, Idecided to redo Vista64 but activate it straight away and that time I got 2 weeks before I kicked it off.

I pretty much gave up and a few weeks ago I got myself a new Mobo and decided to try Vista64 again, and so far it has been good to me...That said, I just checked and its only been 3 weeks and 2 days, and if this fails on me now, I iwll be selling off my Ultimate Disks

This is really irritating because as I said, I have it running sweet as honey pie on 2 of my other PCs but not my main one???

In truth though, I have to say, that I feel that XP64 is slightly quicker in almost everything to Vista, and so for me, I feel that XP64 ( Not XP32 - I stopped wasting my life with 32Bit O/Ses over 3 years ago ) is the better choice.