Going back to XP. Has anyone else??

Hello FatRakoon, I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you there. The below is just a few features that Windows XP hasn't got by default:

DirectX 10
User Account Control - Internet Explorer 7 Protected Mode
Parental Controls
SuperFetch
Readyboost
Windows Aero
Windows Search

The above is simply of the top of my head. Then you also have the significant changes under the hood of Windows Vista. Now, admittedly, some of the things I have mentioned are pretty small. However, they do improve the overall user experience of using Windows Vista which in my opinion, is very important.

Those you mentioned are not exactly stunning anyone yet, not even DX10, which I have to accept can be much more than it is, but delivers nothing truly outstanding. There is also talk that DX10 will be coming to XP anyway, but as I can point to links that both agree and disagree on taht one, I wont say anymore.
Superfetch can be useful and certainy is to a point, but only if you are running the same old junk day in day out, if you run a mixture of things at random stages then its not.
IE7? - I use FireFox, but then I do notice how much like Firefox, IE has suddenly become with IE7?
Windows areo? - WTF?
Windows search? - Ok, this is one function that is massively underestimated and sure, you pay at the start, but once its setup, its a god send. I will accept that one.

Yes, the overall experience when using Vista and XP are different, no one can truthfully argue that one, but for most people, there is absolutely no reason for them to move from XP, if XP is doing what they need it to! - Its no good spouting off that Vista does this or it does that, because in most cases they are gimmicks that are not actually needed for a PC to run.

Would you care to link me to something that confirms what you have just said please? Windows Vista is far from a flop and is actually a very important release; the changes within Windows Vista are very significant. Now, the changes may not be so immediately prominent to the user in Windows Vista. However, this does not mean that it's effectively a pointless release and not needed.

I cannot be bothered to link to anything... I just went to google and I typed in Windows Vista flop and I got pages of the stuff.

It does not take much, to see that with MS bringing the release of Windows 7 forward so many years that they themselves are accepting that Vista really has been a flop compared to what they had hoped.
 
i think il probably install vista64 though...at least that way even if i do have a small drop in fps it wont be as bad as there will be more gains than a pretty interface. i do quite like the thought of 4gb of memory:D.

The 4GB Limit is there for Vista 32 and XP32, but it is NOT there is Vista64 or XP64.

Its a 32Bit Limit but not a 64Bit one.

So, XP64 also gives you access to 4GB or more... However much you have!

Although I have to be honest, but I feel that any more than 4GB is just silly, and in fact there is nothing I have that requires more than 2GB other than VM's and when Im running multiple VM's I could do with more than 4GB at times, but if I wasnt doing that, then 2GB would be more than Id need.
All my LAN PCs are on 1GB and my main PC is on 4 and my no2 PC on 2GB and none of them struggle in any way. ( They are all on XP64 but 2 are on Vista32 and 1GB and runs just fine )
 
I'm going back to XP because certain retarded admins kick for Vista in the only remaining populated SOF2 servers. :( PB and Vista don't get along in SOF2 :(
 
Sorry FatRakoon but you need to take of your tinted glasses, they way you post and constantly bash Vista is narrow minded there are thousands of people and hundreds on here running Vista 100% perfectly, just because you are having better performance with XP then Vista it’s the same for everyone? No my machines are much quicker ruining Vista than XP.
 
There is also talk that DX10 will be coming to XP anyway, but as I can point to links that both agree and disagree on that one, I wont say anymore.

This will never happen. The amount of development time and cost to bodge DX10 to XP would be astronomical and would also undermine the overall MS strategy.

Burnsy
 
Those you mentioned are not exactly stunning anyone yet...

Hello FatRakoon, sorry for snipping your post but I did read it all. Now, I can only really give you my opinions of Windows Vista from using it and I have personally noticed that the things I have mentioned, overall, my user experience is a lot better compared to Windows XP. However, I can also understand this may not be the case for everyone that has used Windows Vista.

It does not take much, to see that with MS bringing the release of Windows 7 forward so many years that they themselves are accepting that Vista really has been a flop compared to what they had hoped.

The above doesn't actually suggest that was Microsoft's line of thinking at all. The release times from previous Windows operating system have always been within a couple of years of each other and Windows 7 will be no different. The gap between Windows XP and Windows Vista was abnormal and it's development time was much larger which obviously relates to releasing the operating system a fair bit later because of the amount of changes within Windows Vista and in such, being a technology based release. :)
 
Sorry FatRakoon but you need to take of your tinted glasses, they way you post and constantly bash Vista is narrow minded there are thousands of people and hundreds on here running Vista 100% perfectly, just because you are having better performance with XP then Vista it’s the same for everyone? No my machines are much quicker ruining Vista than XP.

Sorry, I dont mean to be.
I have Vista running on 2 PCs on my LAN and its running brilliantly. I am however, wanting to run Vista64 and yet every time I try it, there is always something that just wont go right, and I need my main PC to run 100% and XP64 does this for me.
Im not narrow minded, sure I post as if I am, but check out some other posts, I do often backup Vista, it depends on the why for's - some things vista deserves to be applauded and other things Im sorry, but vista should be taken to the back of the shed and shot... Swings and round-abouts.

However... I am iun a very lucky position of having more PCs than anyone could really need to have ( 14 so far ) and they are all fairly well spec'ed and up to date ( although none are high end, all will play Crisis / Quake 4 etc just fine ) and in all cases, XP64 is faster at gaming than Vista64 is.

This will never happen. The amount of development time and cost to bodge DX10 to XP would be astronomical and would also undermine the overall MS strategy.

Yes it would undermine everythign about MS' strategy, thats a given, but there is also too much talk about it to completely ignore the possibility...

USELESS RANT = ON
I feel that at this time, DX10 does not offer us THAT much more benefit and DX9 is still more than capable of getting more features... I have compared DX9 and 10 on UT3, and COH and in COH the differences are cool ( if a little useless ) , in UT3 the differences are... Erm... Water looks a bit choppier maybe? so for me, DX10 is not at this time a worry or a threat to XP.
USELESS RANT = OFF


Hello FatRakoon, sorry for snipping your post but I did read it all. Now, I can only really give you my opinions of Windows Vista from using it and I have personally noticed that the things I have mentioned, overall, my user experience is a lot better compared to Windows XP. However, I can also understand this may not be the case for everyone that has used Windows Vista.

Very neutral post and I agree with you.

When Vista runs nice its unbeatable ,just the same with XP and hell, with 98/Me too ( I put 2K in line with XP here as I also love 2K ).
I want to go with Vista I really do, but it just hasnt been right for me, so a couple of days ago, I went back to XP64 and all *** problems I had with Vista, have once again, all gone.... In another month or so, I will have yet another go wit hVista, this is what I have been doing for almost a year now.

What I did do just the other day however, is slipstreamed SP1 into a Disk using vlite and I burned the disk ready to install... However... Vista seees my HDs differently to the Mobo and Windows XP does.

My Mobo and XP sees them like this :-
C: D: E: F: G:and so on right!

Well, Vista sees them like this :-
D: E: F: C: G:

Last time I had to physically disconnecty the drives because using the BIOS to disable them, Vista re-enables them, plus, withotu physically disconnecting them, it wont let me use the raptor ( my C: ) to boot from, and I was not bothered to take the case out and go in to physically disconnect everythign just to install Vista and so I went with XP64 again.

The case is a TT Armour, and I have 5 HDs, 4DVDs and a LiveDrive and it weighs a ton!

The above doesn't actually suggest that was Microsoft's line of thinking at all. The release times from previous Windows operating system have always been within a couple of years of each other and Windows 7 will be no different. The gap between Windows XP and Windows Vista was abnormal and it's development time was much larger which obviously relates to releasing the operating system a fair bit later because of the amount of changes within Windows Vista and in such, being a technology based release. :)

No, but MS are hardly going to admit that they messed up with Vista, are they.

AS for the time frame, this is crud...

WPreviously, the gap has been small due to the fact that the OS/s and the changes have been small... NT4 to 2K was a big jump, but XP was nto a big jump... People assume it was when they went from 98 to XP, but those of use who went through 2000 saw that XP was pretty much only 2K with eye candy, but Vista was a big jump. it took longer to develop and the sheer size of it should take years and it has done... Windows 7 is going to look and feel suspiciously like vista and that only means one thing... They are tarting Vista up to repair all the problems they caused with Vista and giving it a new name.

( Dont worry, Im not serious but I also recon its close to the truth in many ways )
 
Actually the reason that Vista took so long was that all the tier one developers that were working on XP's sucessor were pulled into releasing SP2 for XP. I class XP SP2 as a new release, only free of charge. A few others are inclined to think the same way about XP SP2 as well.

The reason why this is rumoured to happen is interesting as well. It has to do with the US government kind of demanding it.
 
No, the US Govt did NOT demand SP2 at all, where did you hear that?

They did step in and forced MS to release security updates so even the corp edition users had up to date security, but they needed their systems to pass the WGA in order to get the option extras, but the security updates, MS were forced by the US to let everyone have those, but this has nothing at all to do with SP2.
 
Have stuck with XP, I used Vista on and off for some testing at work and I just dislike it on the whole. Bring on the next iteration of Windows :)
 
If anyone is dual booting, could they test the performance of Hitman Blood Money on each?

I tried it on Vista (everything full at 1680x1050 apart from post processing turned off) and it ran at around 35fps average with nothing going on. Very choppy gameplay and not really what you'd play. On the other hand, the same settings with the same ATi drivers (lastest ones) on XP runs at a constant 60fps (vsync).

Some games are fine, and others arent. Like mentioned, its mainly down to drivers, as the Vista features such as superfetch cant possibly have that much of an impact on a 2 year old game and on relatively decent hardware. ( X2 3800 @ 2.6, 2GB RAM, x1950 Pro 512mb)

Since i run at quite a high resolution now i've got a new TFT, i have gone back to XP just to make sure my games run as good as they possibly can. Sounds very geeky to be honest, but my spec is starting to struggle by todays standards and performance has to be top for me if im going to play on my new monitor. :)
 
The 4GB Limit is there for Vista 32 and XP32, but it is NOT there is Vista64 or XP64.

Its a 32Bit Limit but not a 64Bit one.

yes thats why i said ' i think il install vista64' ....il get a couple of extra gb of memory and give vista64 a go.
hopefully il have a better experience with that than what i had with vista32
 
No, the US Govt did NOT demand SP2 at all, where did you hear that?

They did step in and forced MS to release security updates so even the corp edition users had up to date security, but they needed their systems to pass the WGA in order to get the option extras, but the security updates, MS were forced by the US to let everyone have those, but this has nothing at all to do with SP2.

I said it was an intersting 'rumour' and not the absolute truth. ;)

This takes nothing away from the fact that MS pulled its tier 1 developers into producing SP2 and that XP SP2 could be classed as new OS. Of course in doing so this was a major reason why Vista (Longhorn) was delayed.

Interview With Jim Allchin, ex co-president of Microsoft’s platforms and services business and Mary-Jo Folery. Interesting read, and straight from the horses mouth.

ZDnet said:
Q: So what was the deal with Windows XP SP2? I was always curious why you guys didn't call that an operating system release, which it really was.

Allchin: Well, right or wrong, that buck stops with me, because I made that decision. And this was against Steve Ballmer's direction or opinion to me. And here's the reason why I did it. In hindsight I look like an idiot.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=65
 
yes thats why i said ' i think il install vista64' ....il get a couple of extra gb of memory and give vista64 a go.
hopefully il have a better experience with that than what i had with vista32

Sorry, Imisunderstood.

To be fair however, there isnt realyl much difference between 2GB and 4GB, nor is there muc hdifference between Vista32 and Vista64, but there is a difference...

So, going from 2GB XP up to 4GB Vista64, I do think you will see the difference.

Hell, I am sorting out my kids PCs right now and have been doing for a couple of days now on and off ( When I get the time ) and My 8 year sons PC I have now given him my old Opteron 144, and X1800XT and 2x2GB OCZ and I put the wrong sticks in ( 2x256 ) and I gave him a fresh install of Vista Prem 32 and do you know what.... It ran just fine... It was only after I had instaleld the drivers etc and I went to spread the Swap across both HDs that I realised it was running on 512MB!!!!

Funny old world isnt it?

I put the 4GB in and I saw no speed increase at all?? - Ok, once I start installing the games etc I will do for sure, but it just goes to show that even 512MB systems can run Vista!
 
Back
Top Bottom