Going back to XP. Has anyone else??

Craig321 · 30 Jul 2008 at 01:13

C64 said:
Yea that is the thing xp with sp2 does everything well so it's like buying a brand new pair of shoes when you just bought a pair they look nice but aren't really needed.

People just like the idea of using 4gig + of ram it extends the old epeen don't ya know.

4GB RAM isn't about 'epeen' at all, Vista uses it properly - mainly to pre-load your commonly used programs. Makes it a lot faster than XP, especially launching programs such as Photoshop and Firefox.

C64 · 30 Jul 2008 at 01:16

But firefox & my other apps launch almost instantly on xp I don't get it ?
So vista is only good for photoshop ? I have tried it I do understand it cache's the ram.
Come on you know you want 8gb really ?

JimAroo · 30 Jul 2008 at 01:20

Had Ultimate x64 installed for a while now, had my fair share of problems.. but with a bit of patience they can be sorted one way or another.

I can't see myself going back to XP.

Mattus · 30 Jul 2008 at 01:21

C64 said:
People just like the idea of using 4gig + of ram it extends the old epeen don't ya know.

Why would using 4GB of RAM give me a big 'epeen'? It costs £50. It's not 'leet' any more - just a value-for-money upgrade.

You know when you start up your XP system, and the first time you run an app it's slow to load because it has to load from your hard drive? Not so with Vista. I turn on my system and open Thunderbird to read my email - whilst I'm doing that, Vista is loading all the applications I use into RAM in the background. By the time I've got through my inbox, I can open any app which I commonly use and it'll load instantly without accessing the hard drive. I'd like to see XP do that.

Not the only advantage of Vista, but one of the cool ones. Also, why are people so quick to mock the 'shiny new interface'? XP to me looks nasty on high-resolution screens - Vista is much nicer.

C64 · 30 Jul 2008 at 01:29

So vista offers a few nanoseconds of loading apps over xp not a big enough reason to swap for me.
There's plenty you can do to xp's interface I like msstyles myself lunar element 5.

Craig321 · 30 Jul 2008 at 01:33

C64 said:
But firefox & my other apps launch almost instantly on xp I don't get it ?
So vista is only good for photoshop ? I have tried it I do understand it cache's the ram.
Come on you know you want 8gb really ?

Photoshop was an example. If Firefox starts for you near on instantly, just think how fast it'd start under Vista

And yes, I do want 8GB as I know Vista'd use it, with 8GB pretty much every single program on my PC would get pre-loaded over time

- shame I have 4x 1GB

C64 said:
So vista offers a few nanoseconds of loading apps over xp not a big enough reason to swap for me.
There's plenty you can do to xp's interface I like msstyles myself lunar element 5.

Not a few nanoseconds, a few seconds... which is a lot in loading times. A program loading from RAM is A LOT quicker than it having to load from hard drive which is why, in XP, most programs start slower first time round.

I'm not trying to start any arguments here, just saying that 4GB RAM isn't anything to do with 'epeen', especially when used under Vista.

Indy500 · 30 Jul 2008 at 01:35

Craig321 said:
Not a few nanoseconds, a few seconds... which is a lot in loading times. A program loading from RAM is A LOT quicker than it having to load from hard drive which is why, in XP, most programs start slower first time round.

You can prefetch them, or have them boot up with Windows, IIRC...

Craig321 · 30 Jul 2008 at 01:39

sr4470 said:
You can prefetch them, or have them boot up with Windows, IIRC...

Can you imagine the amount of time XP would take to start if it had every single program I often use in the start-up list, it'd be ridiculous. Vista's superfetch does it quietly in the background without hindering your performance, so as Mattus mentioned after you've, for example, checked your emails or browsed the internet for a bit (or anything else) everything else will open pretty much instantly as Vista will have been pre-loading it.

Indy500 · 30 Jul 2008 at 01:47

Craig321 said:
Vista's superfetch does it quietly in the background without hindering your performance, so as Mattus mentioned after you've, for example, checked your emails everything else will open pretty much instantly as Vista will have been pre-loading it.

I can wait a few seconds (if that, I don't time silly little things) if it means I don't spend £50-100 on a new OS which prevents half the applications I use from working. I have tried Vista on several other machines I set up for clients and frankly I'm unimpressed so far.

Edit: I've found a registry tweak for the XP Prefetching system that suits me fine..

platinum87 · 30 Jul 2008 at 01:55

going to try vista for the 2nd time, but thats only because its free, spending 100 on ultimate is not worth it

SpAceD · 30 Jul 2008 at 02:21

Back?

andyp · 30 Jul 2008 at 12:24

I went back to XP purely because Vista doesn't support dual-monitor spanning.

No other reason.

Amnesia · 31 Jul 2008 at 04:25

Olibubble said:
Some games are faster on Vista, some are slower. Swings and roundabouts. Exactly how many FPS are we talking about?

cannot remember from the top of my head, 1 of the games was about 30% slower last time i tested.
maybe you can name a few where vista is faster as i havent came across any...btw im not talking 1 or 2 fps difference as thats neither here or there

Olibubble said:
Why are you deliberately trying to misquote me? I never stated it 'suddenly' went slower or that it happens after 3 apps. Maybe you should read what I wrote.

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.

you want me to make that bold for you ?...i did quote it the first time too

Olibubble said:
I guess that depends how superficial you want to be or just how much you are prepared to explorer the depths. Things don't always jump out at you in life.

There is plenty of literature on the Internet about the additional features of Vista and the benefits it provides over XP. Now, you can either google for them as there is quite a lot of literature on it and I am not really prepared to spend too much time trying to educate you as you don't seem a rather willing learner. Or, if you use Vista on a day to day basis then over time you will find them out for yourself. If you are prepared to do this then you will be well aware of what Vista offers over XP.

plenty of empty words

Olibubble said:
How long have you actually used Vista for?

not long enough to find the benefits

Olibubble said:
It doesn't change the facts that Vista is a lot more secure on launch than XP was. I don't understand why you feel the need to say this. I never expected anyone to be booting into the launch version of XP in 2008.

if i remember correctly xp didnt even have a firewall enabled at launch......so it wouldnt take much beating.
but thats irrelevant to me....i want to know why i would want to chose vista over xp yet you seem to be discussing plenty but that.

Olibubble said:
Ok, let me ask that question again;

what are you doing so often that brings up the prompt?

does it even matter ? if your trying to tell me im the only 1 it happens to then thats a different story as maybe my secure vista has managed to get a virus straight after installtion.

Olibubble said:
The point I was making was that when people moved to XP there was Windows 98 applications that didn't work with XP. Likewise with Vista.

lol seriously.....look if i havent said it already then i'll repeat myself.
im talking present time. im not going to argue about what was the best OS at launch as i dont really care.
i want to discuss vista vs xp.....im not slating vista im just stating that i find xp to be better and ive found nothing so far in vista apart from a pretty interface.

Olibubble said:
Out of curiosity, what applications are you talking about and maybe your defination of 'current apps'. I have quite an extensive suite of applications that are running fine on Vista.

I know that Cubase SX3 doesn't work properly in Vista. But then, that has been superceded by Cubase SX4. In fact, cubase SX3 not working in Vista is one of the reasons why I am still using XP.

I am quite sure that they could make SX3 100% compatible with Vista, however that is not really an issue for Microsoft.

xs3 cubase xs4 ........????? where is this going ?
what were we talking about ?
what are you talking about even ?
i dont even know what cubase is....sure i could google it but im not going to.

Olibubble said:
To be honest, I could type lists out all day but you would be far better off with actual hands on experience. Trying looking past the 'pretty' interface. Most of the benefits with Vista become apparent over time. Something that no amount of list reading is going to offer you.

tbh you could have just gave some examples rather than type so much again.
the biggest problem i find with vista is even if the fps keep up with xp it still isnt as reponsive or as smooth....im not talking about vista64 as ive not tried that and that probably does run a lot better since it can use more ram.
vista64 the way i see it is the way forward....sure it maybe a bit slower in some of the games but it would make up for it since more ram can be used so it can do more for you.
i just dont see that with vista32.
its the same with more overheads and a pretty interface = slower

MikeHunt79 · 31 Jul 2008 at 04:41

Linken said:
Haven't even switched. XP does everything I want it to

+1 recently got xp x64 tho

DavidQ · 31 Jul 2008 at 10:44

I've previously gone back to XP on a couple of occasions however realised that it's not at all faster than vista and gone back immediately. Just a day ago I had xp installed on my Dell inspiron laptop, I reinstalled vista on it again. Once you've been using it for a while and get used to the way it works and performs I honestly can't see how someone could go back to XP. Unless you're using old hardware of course then you wouldn't have much choice.

Amnesia · 31 Jul 2008 at 11:56

DavidQ said:
I've previously gone back to XP on a couple of occasions however realised that it's not at all faster than vista and gone back immediately. Just a day ago I had xp installed on my Dell inspiron laptop, I reinstalled vista on it again. Once you've been using it for a while and get used to the way it works and performs I honestly can't see how someone could go back to XP. Unless you're using old hardware of course then you wouldn't have much choice.

i dont have old hardware...its a 4850 and before that it was a 8800gts(640).
in your sig it says you have 4gb ram so either your using vista64 to make the most of it or your in the minority of users who are on a 32bit OS with 4gb ram.

FatRakoon · 31 Jul 2008 at 12:04

Lets all make sure we know something but there are 32Bit and 64Bit versions of both XP and VISTA

In both cases, the 64Bit version is superior to the 32Bit version.

So, when people say that Vista is better than XP then they really need to state whether its 32 or 64 bit versions of each.

I myself have not used a 32Bit O/S for some years now, and quite frankly I would rather do without than suffer XP32

I have been using Vista64 for the last few weeks, but certain issues that I should not be getting have forced me back to XP64, but I would rather be running a knackered vista64 O/S than put up with a perfect XP32 install, and my past 3+ years avoiding XP32 only strengthens that fact.

If anyone would care to put this one to the test, but XP64 is the fastest O/S of all 4. ANyone who has truly used XP64 properly ( Not just installed it for 10 minutes and whined when their obsolete TV Card / Video Cam / Modem wont install ) but those who have relly run it, and compared it will know that XP64 is faster than any others and by a fair margin too... Vista64 a close second and Vista32 a third place with XP32 almost always dragging its heels at the back. ( Not all caes but most for sure )

DavidQ · 31 Jul 2008 at 12:09

memory said:
i dont have old hardware...its a 4850 and before that it was a 8800gts(640).
in your sig it says you have 4gb ram so either your using vista64 to make the most of it or your in the minority of users who are on a 32bit OS with 4gb ram.

I wasn't speaking about you, I was just talking in general. I'm running 64bit Vista btw.

Burnsy2023 · 31 Jul 2008 at 12:38

andyp said:
I went back to XP purely because Vista doesn't support dual-monitor spanning.

No other reason.

That's a stupid reason then considering I am spanning my desktop across three monitors.

Burnsy

Burnsy2023 · 31 Jul 2008 at 12:45

memory said:
its the same with more overheads and a pretty interface = slower

This shows how misinformed you can be. What overheads are you talking about? What about the fact that all the desktop composition is now taken off the CPU and given to the GPU as they've gotton rid of GDI? Funny enough that actually speeds things up. The bulk of your assumptions don't hold any water.

Burnsy