I'm missing a gigabyte of memory.

[Zelig]

Only marginally at best. An absolute waste for someone who is already tight on cash.

It's too late for it now, but that money could've gone into a faster cpu + gpu for a faster XP rig.

What? There's about a $5 price difference between XP and Vista.

In actual use, other than for CPU intensive tasks, my home desktop with a 2.8 GHz Athlon X2/4GB RAM with Vista performs better than my work desktop with a 3.0 GHz Core 2 Duo/4 GB RAM with XP.

 

[Macha]

What? There's about a $5 price difference between XP and Vista.

In actual use, other than for CPU intensive tasks, my home desktop with a 2.8 GHz Athlon X2/4GB RAM with Vista performs better than my work desktop with a 3.0 GHz Core 2 Duo/4 GB RAM with XP.

Unless you're prebuilding, the price is in Vista's favour, as all major suppliers include Vista by default, and if you want XP, you'll have to be that in addition, instead of as an alternative.

 

[Jazzmail]

What? There's about a $5 price difference between XP and Vista.

In actual use, other than for CPU intensive tasks, my home desktop with a 2.8 GHz Athlon X2/4GB RAM with Vista performs better than my work desktop with a 3.0 GHz Core 2 Duo/4 GB RAM with XP.

XP would cost her zero. The TS already had it.

And that last bit is bloody unlikely unless you messed up your core2 rig.

 

[Zelig]

XP would cost her zero. The TS already had it.

Vista would cost her zero. The TS already had it.

And that last bit is bloody unlikely unless you messed up your core2 rig.

The Core2 rig, has a standard XP image that's deployed to hundreds of computers. XP is awful at handling multitasking compared to modern operating systems, and the better UI of Vista further improves its performance.

 

[Dandenoth]

I'm going to offer my opinion in here, since I have experience with both XP and Vista. XP is better.

I own a decent computer, all new hardware bought within the last year, brand new, of which I also purchased 32bit Vista Home Premium. Vista worked great for about... a week? After that, I continually had problems with corrupted files, registry entries, drivers, etc. I had problems from being logged into temporary profiles to my DVD-RW drive not working. I had issues with playing games, with running any kind of software, it was really just a nightmare. Not to mention it took forever to load.

After a couple months of torture, and hoping updates and SP1 would make it better, neither of which turned out to be true, and even trying to reformat and reinstall, I wiped my drives completely one more time, and put XP on with SP3. Since then, which has been another couple of months, I have had no problems at all, it loads so much faster, and I couldn't be happier.

Vista sucks. Microsoft admitted it, it's okay.

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Sounds like your decent computer has some compatibility problems. Not necessarily Vista sucking ( although I will agree that in general it does)

 

[Aramazd]

I'm going to offer my opinion in here, since I have experience with both XP and Vista. XP is better.

I own a decent computer, all new hardware bought within the last year, brand new, of which I also purchased 32bit Vista Home Premium. Vista worked great for about... a week? After that, I continually had problems with corrupted files, registry entries, drivers, etc. I had problems from being logged into temporary profiles to my DVD-RW drive not working. I had issues with playing games, with running any kind of software, it was really just a nightmare. Not to mention it took forever to load.

After a couple months of torture, and hoping updates and SP1 would make it better, neither of which turned out to be true, and even trying to reformat and reinstall, I wiped my drives completely one more time, and put XP on with SP3. Since then, which has been another couple of months, I have had no problems at all, it loads so much faster, and I couldn't be happier.

Vista sucks. Microsoft admitted it, it's okay.

Really? I'm using Vista Home Premium right now and it runs fine. It ran fine on RTM as well. You couldn't pay me to go back to XP.

 

[Zelig]

I own a decent computer, all new hardware bought within the last year, brand new, of which I also purchased 32bit Vista Home Premium. Vista worked great for about... a week? After that, I continually had problems with corrupted files, registry entries, drivers, etc. I had problems from being logged into temporary profiles to my DVD-RW drive not working. I had issues with playing games, with running any kind of software, it was really just a nightmare. Not to mention it took forever to load.

None of those are problems with Vista.

Vista sucks.

XP sucks.

Microsoft admitted it, it's okay.

MS admitted that the launch and media/public perception of Vista didn't go well, citation needed for anything more than that.

 

[Dandenoth]

...You couldn't pay me to go back to XP.

I'm the same way, only oppisite. I've ran Win7 RC, and will definitely switch to that once my order comes in (I've pre-ordered the professional version).

I did like Vista when it was working, and if it works for you, great, but I had waaay too many problems with it.

 

[Dandenoth]

None of those are problems with Vista.



XP sucks.



MS admitted that the launch and media/public perception of Vista didn't go well, citation needed for anything more than that.

Fanboy much?

 

[Genocidicbunny]

Well, he's right on the fact thats its not Vista's fault. I had Vista installed and it worked fine. Whatever problems you had werent directly caused by Vista.
He's also right that MS only said that the public reception wasnt great. I dont think MS is stupid enough to admit they made a crappy OS, or to even allege as much.

Oh, Im no fanboy of Windows or Vista, but Zelig makes valid points here.

 

[Jazzmail]

Vista would cost her zero. The TS already had it.

What ever gave you that idea? XP was installed on the old rig. The TS did not already have Vista.

The Core2 rig, has a standard XP image that's deployed to hundreds of computers. XP is awful at handling multitasking compared to modern operating systems, and the better UI of Vista further improves its performance.

It's obvious you messed up somehow. I don't know which mistake you made, but when a core2 is outpeformed by an athlon x2, you're doing something horribly wrong.

 

[Zelig]

The TS did not already have Vista.

I installed Vista

That sort of implies she had Vista.

It's obvious you messed up somehow. I don't know which mistake you made, but when a core2 is outpeformed by an athlon x2, you're doing something horribly wrong.

No, XP just sucks.

Like I said, it's a standard XP image deployed to hundreds of computers, there's no room for me to mess up, and in any case, I don't mess up stuff like this.

CPU intensive tasks (encoding, applying grahpics filters etc.) go just as fast as you'd expect them to, but heavy multitasking results in the hitching and poor performance that's present on every XP computer.

(And FWIW, even CPU intensive tasks aren't that much faster on the Core 2, benchmarks show about a 25% difference)

 

[Jazzmail]

That sort of implies she had Vista.

Chonological order isn't exactly your strong point is it?
TS has 32 bit vista now, but did not have 32 bit Vista before her upgrade.
A waste of money to upgrade to 32 bit vista if you already have XP. Too late to change that now ofcourse.

No, XP just sucks.

Like I said, it's a standard XP image deployed to hundreds of computers, there's no room for me to mess up, and in any case, I don't mess up stuff like this.

There is more than plenty of room for you to mess up.

You don't install just XP. It's about the whole configuration of OS + drivers + VMM + services.

Then there is the rig itself. Trash components can kill performance.

The performace difference from XP to Vista 32 on the same rig, should be just a few percent that may go either way depending on which task you're benchmarking.

 

[Zelig]

Chonological order isn't exactly your strong point is it?
TS has 32 bit vista now, but did not have 32 bit Vista before her upgrade.
A waste of money to upgrade to 32 bit vista if you already have XP. Too late to change that now ofcourse.

I wasn't really concerned with stuff that happened chronologically before this thread was started.

There is more than plenty of room for you to mess up.

You don't install just XP. It's about the whole configuration of OS + drivers + VMM + services.

Then there is the rig itself. Trash components can kill performance.

The performace difference from XP to Vista 32 on the same rig, should be just a few percent that may go either way depending on which task you're benchmarking.

I clearly implied I wasn't talking about benchmarks, but about XP sucking in general.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I used to have XP, but the computer that it was on sorta died. Then it got repaired so they sold it again.

I upgraded to my newer Vista computer, which had 32-bit Vista Home Basic. If it was 64-bit, how on earth did I get SimAnt, a 16-bit program, running?

I keep all my drivers and software installers on a portable HDD.

Haven't gotten a BSOD in a week -- so I guess I'm right in that it was just teenage angst.

 

[Jazzmail]

I wasn't really concerned with stuff that happened chronologically before this thread was started.

That explains how you had everything mixed up.

I clearly implied I wasn't talking about benchmarks, but about XP sucking in general.

Well you wouldn't, because if you had, there would be plenty of benchmarks for you to google proving just how close XP and Vista are performance-wise.

Much safer for you to stick with unverifiable claims about your personal experiences with it.

Pointless claims too, because most consumers don't use their PCs for more than internet, games and 2% of the functionality in MS office.
That means the only apps that will stress the PC of the average consumer, will be games anyway and we all know which one games run better on.

 

[Zelig]

That explains how you had everything mixed up.

I didn't mix anything up, the thread starter's computer came with Vista, read the post directly above yours.

Much safer for you to stick with unverifiable claims about your personal experiences with it.

Yeah, but I'm still right about XP sucking compared to Vista, Windows 7, any recent Linux distro, Mac OS 10.5, etc.

That means the only apps that will stress the PC of the average consumer, will be games anyway and we all know which one games run better on.

Well, old games run over 60 fps, so identical on either system, new games run better on Vista.

 

[Jazzmail]

I didn't mix anything up, the thread starter's computer came with Vista, read the post directly above yours.

Well, you aren't the only who is mixing things up atleast.
This is what the TS wrote in this thread on the first page:

Plus I can't afford a 64-bit OS. I was lucky as-is to find the Vista CD at a yard sale for $20. I'm on a very strict budget most of the time.

Yeah, but I'm still right about XP sucking compared to Vista, Windows 7, any recent Linux distro, Mac OS 10.5, etc.

At least you want it to be.

Well, old games run over 60 fps, so identical on either system, new games run better on Vista.

That is one mindbogglingly stupid claim. Should I even explain why?

Well I'm feeling charitable today:

1. older games don't run over 60 fps
2. it would depend on your RIG, wouldn't you think?
3. minimum frames per second
4. you need a huge rig and low detail settings to get a 2 yr old game to never drop below 60 fps
5. 60 fps unequals more than 60 fps, so not identical
6. newer games generally don't run better on Vista (rare exception to the rule: Farcry2).
7. learn to use google
8. learn to understand benchmarks

 

[Zelig]

1. older games don't run over 60 fps
2. it would depend on your RIG, wouldn't you think?
3. minimum frames per second
4. you need a huge rig and low detail settings to get a 2 yr old game to never drop below 60 fps
5. 60 fps unequals more than 60 fps, so not identical
6. newer games generally don't run better on Vista (rare exception to the rule: Farcry2).
7. learn to use google
8. learn to understand benchmarks

1. What? Quake 3 runs at like 500 fps on modern pcs.
2. Sure.
3. Min fps on old games are going to be way over 60 with decent video cards. Left 4 Dead has a min fps of over 60 with the GTX 260 at 1920x1200 with 4x AA and maximum settings otherwise.
4. Answered in #2.
5. Differences in fps over 60 are totally irrelavent, as LCDs only show 60 frames per second. If your min fps is over 60, you should be running vsync to lock the fps at 60 and eliminate tearing anyway.
6. Supreme Commander, GTAIV, The Witcher, Stalker all run better on Vista or 64-bit, off the top of my head.
7. Thanks, I'll get on that.
8. Perhaps you could provide a detailed explanation.