# Vista or XP?



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

My family has just switched to all Vista in the past week. Just wondering what people think about switching now that we're 1 year into the upgrade cycle ..


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

I started making the switch back in March 2007 and finished about 6 months. 

I personally like Vista much better. I had a few programs at first that did not work with Vista but with updates the work fine now.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

At least until Service Pack 1 comes out in the next few days, XP is the least annoying option. The service pack might tip the balance, but if and when they release the XP service pack, the balance may tip back.

If you're a long-time Windows user, Vista is frustrating at best. If you don't know services from My Documents, Vista should be fine.


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

I have XP at home, but I use Vista Business at work. After I turned off UAC, it got a less annoying. I'm finding things here and there that don't work in Vista.


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

VISTA won't run a couple of programs important to me - my communication program for logging into the work network and the Buffalo bridge setup program (I have to disconnect the damn thing to get it over to the desktop). I'm sure there's more for me to find.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

I personally think Vista was more viable then XP when it was first released. Everything "annoying" about Vista can be turned off if you don't care for it. 

Without getting into background upgrades that are in Vista, I pretty much would say its XP with more options.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

None of the above. I do have 98SE on one PC, dual booting with Linux, but some new software will probably lead to another computer purchase (probably a laptop, as the laptops I have are REALLY old, 386 and P100). If I do, it will probably be Vista. I have VirtualPC running XP on my PPC Mac Mini, but the emulation is too slow to be of any practical use.


----------



## ccr1958 (Aug 29, 2007)

i like both.....
have xp pro sp 2 on one pc....vista ultimate(sp1beta) on another
& yes the beta sp is very solid....& vista home premium on the
laptop...


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

I've got Vista on 1 PC at home, with the other 2 still running XP. But we switched over everything at work to Vista Business, simply because our estimating/accounting software would no longer run on XP (Also had to upgrade the server to 2003 because it would no longer run on a 2000 server machine).

I really like Vista at home.

At work, it has a few programs that we run which aren't completely happy. Adobe's CS3 suite can be unhappy from time to time on Vista, which is unfortunate, because those are the applications which get the most use. But they're not so bad that it's unusable... just some minor little glitches we run into that can be nuisances....

All in all, I like Vista.


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

All of our big iron at home runs on Vista. Only a puny (512MB) old laptop remains on XP. Have had zero problems with one exception. The Media Center extensions in Vista are a lot nicer than XP. Unfortunately (and no real surprise) some drivers, particularly audio drivers and associated audio application s/w, are lagging. This aspect is frustrating.

John


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

This is a difficult thing to debate - XP is a very seasoned OS that had a lot of issues in its infancy but has grown in to a very stable and reliable OS.

I personally feel that Microsoft learned a lot from XP and applied as much as possible in to Vista. Personally I have tried Vista on 2 different occasions and went back to XP when I had countless issues with old as well as new hardware. 

I have no doubt that Vista will get there it is only a matter of time. Until then I am perfectly happy running XP and I have never run in to an application that is Vista only but I am sure that it also only a matter of time.


----------



## blackcat77 (Dec 26, 2007)

Vista X 3. Two desktops and a laptop.


----------



## Pinion413 (Oct 21, 2007)

I didn't see a result for both.  

The rig I run (also dubbed as our media "server") is dual booted to both XP Professional x86 and Vista Ultimate x64.

Since I can't vote for both, I guess I can't vote at all. :grin:

As for my situation, I'm forcing myself to get used to Vista finally after having it installed on this PC for almost a year now. I was using XP primarily until about 2 months ago. At that point, it seemed like they'd done enough patching where the compatibility issues I was having initially are no longer occuring. It seems to me like all of my programs run just as well in Vista x64 as (if not in some cases better than) they do in XP x86. Vista boots a heck of a lot quicker than my install of XP does as well, even with the same amount of programs loading at the OS's startup.

I was running the SP1 RC Refresh, but ended up having a network driver issue, thus rolled back and I am waiting for the official release.

The more I use Vista, the more I like Vista over XP, whereas I initially scoffed at it. The only thing I hope is that Vista doesn't end up being the stop-gap for their next OS like I've been reading that it may be. I would like it to improve and last, not be Windows ME version 2. :nono2:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I voted Vista because when SP1 comes out I will jump in with both feet.


----------



## CoriBright (May 30, 2002)

Vista Ultimate x 4, XP Pro on the very old notebook that just hasn't got the hardware for Vista. Windows Server on the server. SP1 is available on MSDN and Technet if you subscribe.


----------



## kocuba (Dec 29, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I voted Vista because when SP1 comes out I will jump in with both feet.


Quite Brave of you Stuart.

I'm running a laptop with an RTM version of SP1 to test with before we move the Vista way at work. But still not crazy about the overall performance yet.

At home I'm still running XP and probably won't move to Vista until a new machine is purchased. Which hopefully is still a couple years away. By then I hope that Vista is more user freindly.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I voted Vista, however I only have one machine currently running it. I am in the midst of upgrading my machines that can be upgraded and I am going to put Vista on them. The one machine I have running it, the OS features are prety kewl and with the upcoming release of SP1, things should iron out nicely.


----------



## rkcoll1 (Jan 29, 2008)

kevinwmsn said:


> I have XP at home, but I use Vista Business at work. After I turned off UAC, it got a less annoying. I'm finding things here and there that don't work in Vista.


How do you shut off UAC? And should I shut it off?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Pinion413 said:


> I didn't see a result for both.


Now that would make things too simple, wouldn't it 

Vista certainly runs better on newer hardware and that is where I have it now .. Don't plan on updating any of the old machines from XP to Vista ..

I do need a new Linux box, though. My server keeps crashing .. likely due to dust build-up and hot AMD processors. I think I want Core 2 Duo for my Linux server and I just don't have the cash/desire to do it at this point.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

rkcoll1 said:


> How do you shut off UAC? And should I shut it off?


There are a few ways, but the one I found that works the best is as an Administrator, go to type secpol.msc in Run, enable the Administrator account and do the big no no and log on as Administrator. UAC is the most annoying thing about Vista, it sucks, especially for those that are intelligent enough and have common sense on how to not get yourself in trouble. UAC turned me off from Vista right from the start, I can't stand the hand holding from Microsoft.

If you just disable UAC, Windows Security Center will complain that you have UAC disabled and want you to enable it.


----------



## rkcoll1 (Jan 29, 2008)

Steve Mehs said:


> There are a few ways, but the one I found that works the best is as an Administrator, go to type secpol.msc in Run, enable the Administrator account and do the big no no and log on as Administrator. UAC is the most annoying thing about Vista, it sucks, especially for those that are intelligent enough and have common sense on how to not get yourself in trouble. UAC turned me off from Vista right from the start, I can't stand the hand holding from Microsoft.
> 
> If you just disable UAC, Windows Security Center will complain that you have UAC disabled and want you to enable it.


Thanks Steve, I like everything else about Vista but just can't stand UAC. Like you said, if you have common sense you don't need windows double checking your every move. Thanks again.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

You're welcome, enjoy a UAC-free PC


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

I voted for Vista because SP1 is due in march. From what I have read SP1 makes Vista at last a better op system then XP.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I have SP1 on Mrs. Smiddy's XPS one and it seems to do wonders for it.


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

i just ordered a new xps with vista, will it come with SP1 or do i need to install it


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

dave29 said:


> i just ordered a new xps with vista, will it come with SP1 or do i need to install it


Chances are you will have to load it when you get it. X64 SP1 was released this week, X86 is still a few weeks away. That is assuming you get the updates thru Microsoft.


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

thanks, do i just download it from their website, and how do i know which version i currently have


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

For me (personal) - Vista
For my office (business) - XP


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Sirshagg said:


> For me (personal) - Vista
> For my office (business) - XP


yup, I'm still in that category .. I should get a new work PC later this year (I hope) and I'm not sure yet if it will have Vista or XP.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

dave29 said:


> thanks, do i just download it from their website, and how do i know which version i currently have


When you boot up Vista, there is welcome center that shows up. If you click "show more details", it will give you the major information about your system.

The windows update built-in to Vista is an actual program now. It is where, when available, you will be abled to download and install SP1.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Work here is so slow, I don't have the latest IE for XP, so I won't expect a Vista Machine until the turn of the next century.


----------



## BaldEagle (Jun 19, 2006)

SP1 for Vista is not released yet except in Beta. I'd skip the beta and wait for the release of the finalized version. When released if you have auto updates activated it will download when available without doing anything assuming you are hooked up to the internet.


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

thanks for the info guys


----------



## Zepes (Dec 27, 2007)

XP only

Some software that I use is sketchy on Vista.

besides, my PC is the way that I get my food.....wait... maybe I could go on the Vista Diet


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

BaldEagle said:


> SP1 for Vista is not released yet except in Beta. I'd skip the beta and wait for the release of the finalized version. When released if you have auto updates activated it will download when available without doing anything assuming you are hooked up to the internet.


SP1 for Vista X64 has been released to windows update. It is the official finalized release.


----------



## BaldEagle (Jun 19, 2006)

phat78boy said:


> SP1 for Vista X64 has been released to windows update. It is the official finalized release.


???

This is from yesterday:

"A little over a year after the first appearance of Vista, Service Pack 1 (SP1) is nearly ready for download." http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2192557,00.asp

Did a search on microsoft's site and only could find beta. What am I missing?


----------



## BaldEagle (Jun 19, 2006)

Just found this on Microsofts site:

"On February 4, 2008 Windows Vista Service Pack 1 was released to manufacturing. TechNet Plus subscribers can now access Windows Vista SP1 in the Top Subscribers Download section on the subscriptions home page. Windows Vista SP1 will be available to the public in mid-March via Windows Update and the Microsoft Download Center."

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/bb738089.aspx

SP1 for Vista is not available to the public until mid March.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

smiddy said:


> Work here is so slow, I don't have the latest IE for XP, so I won't expect a Vista Machine until the turn of the next century.


I've always thought it would be cool to make it to the next century, but alas it would take a miracle of miracles for that to happen .. I'd be 132


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

BaldEagle said:


> Just found this on Microsofts site:
> 
> "On February 4, 2008 Windows Vista Service Pack 1 was released to manufacturing. TechNet Plus subscribers can now access Windows Vista SP1 in the Top Subscribers Download section on the subscriptions home page. Windows Vista SP1 will be available to the public in mid-March via Windows Update and the Microsoft Download Center."
> 
> ...


I have technet, but have updated X64 Vista systems with Windows Update. Nothing special about the machine, just ran the Windows Update.

Here is a link confirming... http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/21/microsoft-lets-loose-vista-sp1-for-x64-based-systems/


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I've always thought it would be cool to make it to the next century, but alas it would take a miracle of miracles for that to happen .. I'd be 132


Weird, me I'd be 137-ish. But who's counting?! :lol:


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

I'd be 160 and remember many years ago thinking it would be cool to make it to *this* century!


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

I am running the following:

1 - Vista Ultimate Desktop (my primary)
1 - Vista Business Enterprise Edition Desktop
1 - Vista Business Enterprise Edition Laptop
1 - Vista Home Premium Desktop

I participated for over 2 years in the Vista Beta, so I will admit to a certain prejudice in favor of Vista.

You couldn't drag me back to an XP machine.

In all my reading I have narrowed most of the complaints about Vista to the following:

1. UAC is so annoying: get over it. After you have used your machine for a few weeks many of the UAC's go away. Further, the UAC makes certain that no executable can install itself on your PC without your permission. It also means that some member of your family can't download and install that "cute little emoticon program" that installs 40 different kinds of malware on your PC. I dont even notice them anymore... If I am doing something that triggers a UAC, I click thru it. If it pops when I am not expecting it I look... carefully.. to see what is happening. I APPRECIATE UAC.

2. My <insert here>... printer sound card scanner favorite software from 15 years ago, etc., ... wont run on Vista! This is Vista's fault? All vendors had access to the Vista code well in advance of release. The fact that they failed to do their job is hardly Vista's fault. All the Vendors were guilty of this except perhaps for the Video Card vendors who seemed to have their act mostly together. I had an HP Scanjet 4670 that I dearly loved and it wouldn't work on Vista. Adding insult to injury, HP declared they weren't going to bother updating it either. WRONG! HP got nailed to the wall on this and many other device drivers that they "weren't going to update". The public let them know in no uncertain terms that it wasnt acceptable and they reversed their decision on many drivers. Other vendors found themselves similarly under assault. The driver situation is vastly improved.

3. Another area of complaint was software incompatibility. This is always a problem when a new OS comes out. Even when vendors think they have themselves covered on the new OS, they will frequently find some small bug still out there. All of the major vendors went thru this in some fashion or another with the release of Vista and most worked through it pretty quickly. The Security vendors had their own set of issues with Vista, but while Norton and McAfee whined and moaned about Vista, Trend Micro kept their mouth shut and did their job. During Beta, Trend Micro took the smart approach and provided their Internet Security package free to all beta testers in return for the testing of that package. Imagine that: a Vendor with some brains! I also wish to apologize (NOT) that your favorite spreadsheet software Visacalc V1 wont run in Vista... get over it.

My biggest issue with Vista was the inability to run Juniper Networks Netscreen VPN software that I needed to communicate with a client's network. I solved this by installing Microsoft's free Virtual PC 2007 and Installing a copy of Windows XP in it. I ran the VPN software from there until Juniper got their act together.

Vista isn't an OS for weak PC's and if your PC is older than 2 years I wouldn't go to the expense of upgrading. If it is less than 2 years old... see what you need. The processor isn't the most important factor, but I wouldn't go with anything less than a P4 3.0GHz. Memory is very important and I would go with at least 2GB, 3 GB if you can swing it. A video card with at least 128 mb of memory is also essential.

In summary... don't believe everything you read. You have to weed out the crap written by the Mac and Linux OS fanboys who just like to spout off and then eliminate those who just plain don't like Microsoft. I have my own network of Vista PC's and I have deployed over 200 Vista PC's at my clients... hate to tell you this but I'm not having any problems.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> Vista isn't an OS for weak PC's and if your PC is older than 2 years I wouldn't go to the expense of upgrading. If it is less than 2 years old... see what you need. The processor isn't the most important factor, but I wouldn't go with anything less than a P4 3.0GHz. Memory is very important and I would go with at least 2GB, 3 GB if you can swing it. A video card with at least 128 mb of memory is also essential.


My computer is upwards of 4 1/2 years old and handles Vista Ultimate like a champ. Compaq Presario, P4HT at 3.20Ghz, 2 GB of PC3200 DDR RAM, GeForce 5600 FX. That computer cost me over $2500, the computer I'm getting next month will be $3000. People look at me like I'm nuts for paying that much in the age of $300 Walmart PCs. I'd rather get a killer system and max out performance to the extent that I'll never use at the time, because who knows what the future will be like. I'm against cheap PCs, all of mine have been $2500+ and I've gotten good use out of them.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I'm a happy XP user who's debating the switch. I have a serious question for the Vista proponents:

Having just installed the XP SP3 beta, what is the most compelling reason for me to upgrade? What will I be able to run in the future with Vista that I can't run now?

TIA for your comments. /steve


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Steve said:


> I'm a happy XP user who's debating the switch. I have a serious question for the Vista proponents:
> 
> Having just installed the XP SP3 beta, what is the most compelling reason for me to upgrade? What will I be able to run in the future with Vista that I can't run now?
> 
> TIA for your comments. /steve


An answer to this question depends on so many factors.

The things I find most compelling about my Vista machines is sometimes suttle. I appreciate the added security immensely. Unless you do something not too bright like disabling UAC, it is virtually impossible for any malware, delivered thru a web site or any other way to execute. I find the Windows sidebar functionality extremely useful. There are literally thousands of side bar gadgets availalble, many of which are somewhat frivilous, but also many which are downright useful. I kee p my sidebar exposed at all times and find the information flow it provides very useful. Whether it is the correct time of clients in other time zones, local weather alerts, my incoming and outgoing IP traffic or the memory and processor usage and even local traffic conditions... it is constantly at my fingertips.

The ease of adding new devices has never been better.

Microsoft has also installed a new system for monitoring problems. It records any major system issue and periodically checks these problems against a solution database. I have had several nagging issues that were resolved when this function notified me that a solution was now available.

I know this may not be important to many, but as I spend about 16 hrs a day infront of computer screens, I appreciate the wonderful graphic interface that Vista has provided.

I am just getting around to testing out the speech recognition package built in to Vista, I am impressed so far, but the feature requires that you work with it as it improves with use.

I have never found networking easier on any system, bar none

I like the level of control over file security. Vista incorporates the very best file security feature in a personal computer that you would normally only find in a Domain Networked machine.

Directly above the start button is a space that says start search.. I think many Vista users have yet to begin to explore this function. It will do something as simple as open a program ... type Word and hit enter and it opens immediately... to elaborate boolean searches of your PC or the internet.

I could ramble on like this for hours about Vista.. it is a continuing work of discovery. If your PC can handle it... why not? If you are contemplating the replacement of your PC in the next year.. I might wait til I bought the new one.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

LarryFlowers said:


> You couldn't drag me back to an XP machine.


You've presented many reasons that Vista isn't as bad as some say, but none that suggest that it is better than the alternatives and certainly no better than the incumbent.

If you're going to present a compelling argument in favor of Vista, you'll have to avoid any kind of "upgrade, you idiot" and "get over it and throw out everything that doesn't work with it" kinds of arguments. Vista may be better for us, but it makes things that used to be easy a little more complicated in the interest of protecting us from its design weaknesses.

In the long run, Vista may be a winner. It could just as easily become the next Windows Me. The public has figured out that what Micro$oft says and does is offered largely because it is in Micro$oft's best interest, not that of the end user.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> I could ramble on like this for hours about Vista.. it is a continuing work of discovery. If your PC can handle it... why not? If you are contemplating the replacement of your PC in the next year.. I might wait til I bought the new one.


Thanks for your thoughtful reply. 

Guess I'm OK with XP for the time being, then. While it's nice to have everything integrated into the OS, between Windows firewall, Windows Defender and Symantec AV, I have no security issues, and I've never had any networking issues with my small, 4 PC network. The latest update to Dragon Naturally Speaking rocks on my 2.66 mhz Core2 Duo box with 2 GB ram... I get 99.99% recognition accuracy in real-time. And Google desktop SEARCH takes care of finding any file on any of my drives.

I guess the only reason I'd consider switching would be for better CPU or memory utilization, but from what I've read, I don't believe Vista SP1 offers that over XP, but I could be mistaken.

/steve


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

LarryFlowers said:


> ...In summary... don't believe everything you read. You have to weed out the crap written by the Mac and Linux OS fanboys who just like to spout off and then eliminate those who just plain don't like Microsoft. I have my own network of Vista PC's and I have deployed over 200 Vista PC's at my clients... hate to tell you this but I'm not having any problems.


Thanks for your excellent comments, Larry. You are obviously highly qualified to
address the XP vs Vista question.

In your review, you have managed to change my mind about Vista. I'm about to
order a new home network, consisting of a desktop, two laptops and a multi-
function printer. It is comforting to know that I'm not confined to buyng from a
vendor, such a Dell, who will retro-install XP.


----------



## Pinion413 (Oct 21, 2007)

Update (since I finally voted) :

Since I was one of the few who had SP1 show up waiting for me on Thursday morning, I'll now be using Vista pretty much exclusively and my XP partition will more or less just sit there. I'm very happy with how it is performing now.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

I kinda like vista.. of course mine is stripped to look like win98 like my xp machine is too :lol:


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Yep, that's the only way to go, I call it the WIN2K look. Classic Theme, Classic Start Menu, Classic Control Panel, Classic Log On. The default theme and welcome screen is way too cartoony and completely unprofessional looking, the XP style and Vista style Start Menus have me confused and I don't can't to click 20 times to access something in the control panel.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

OS X


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Steve Mehs said:


> Yep, that's the only way to go, I call it the WIN2K look. Classic Theme, Classic Start Menu, Classic Control Panel, Classic Log On.


Same here. All my XP machines are configured with the Win2k UI. /steve


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Thought folks viewing this thread might be interested in Adrian Kingsley-Hughes's ZDNet benchmark of Vista *SP1 *vs. XP *SP2*.

Mr. Kingsely-Hughes came to the following conclusion:
_
"So, onto conclusions. Looking at the data there's only one conclusion that can be drawn - Windows XP SP2 is faster than Windows Vista SP1. End of story. Out of the fifteen tests carried out, XP SP2 beat Vista SP1 in eleven, Vista SP1 beat XP SP2 in two of the tests, and two of the tests resulted in a draw.

The best result for Vista SP1 was in the single file drive-to-drive copy, while the best result for XP SP2 was extracting multiple files from a compressed folder. Given these results and taking into account the improvments that SP1 bought to Vista, if I was to go back and compare XP SP2 with Vista RTM, XP would have hammered Vista even harder."_

Given that XP *SP3 *is reportedly somewhat faster than XP SP2, I wonder if some of the performance improvements that led Vista *SP1 *to perform better in two of the tests have also been incorporated into XP *SP3*? I guess we'll see when the next benchmark is run.

/steve


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Steve said:


> Thought folks viewing this thread might be interested in Adrian Kingsley-Hughes's ZDNet benchmark of Vista *SP1 *vs. XP *SP2*.
> 
> Mr. Kingsely-Hughes came to the following conclusion:
> _
> ...


I've read that article prior to this and can only wonder what configuration he was using on the Vista machine. If you have all "extras" enabled, which are on by default, it only makes sense the the Vista machine would be slower. Its doing more. I would like to see that test with the sidebar, aero, uac, and the dreamscene turned off. Not sure what the outcome would be, but I think those items listed are just some of the things that could impact the test.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

phat78boy said:


> I've read that article prior to this and can only wonder what configuration he was using on the Vista machine. If you have all "extras" enabled, which are on by default, it only makes sense the the Vista machine would be slower. Its doing more. I would like to see that test with the sidebar, aero, uac, and the dreamscene turned off. Not sure what the outcome would be, but I think those items listed are just some of the things that could impact the test.


He says that _"No optimizations were carried out other than defragging the drive and making sure that all background tasks had finished."
_
He basically tested both systems as configured out of the box, which is probably the only fair way to do something like this, since this is the way Microsoft intends the average user to be configured in each case. Note that this means "system restore" was on by default in XP, which also causes a performance hit, as you know.

And if you are going to turn off those Vista features for performance reasons, there's probably even less of a reason to upgrade, isn't there? Just my .02. /steve


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Steve said:


> He says that _"No optimizations were carried out other than defragging the drive and making sure that all background tasks had finished."
> _
> He basically tested both systems as configured out of the box, which is probably the only fair way to do something like this, since this is the way Microsoft intends the average user to be configured in each case. Note that this means "system restore" was on by default in XP, which also causes a performance hit, as you know.
> 
> And if you are going to turn off those Vista features for performance reasons, there's probably even less of a reason to upgrade, isn't there? Just my .02. /steve


If we are going to use "benchmarks", the validity of which I question as the only benchmark that really counts is how it works in the real world, then lets add the follow up to the quoted ZDnet review by Ed Bott http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=369 in which his results differed drastically from those presented by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Ed Bott's question is the perfectly valid "why did they differ".

He also points out on page three that even Adrian Kingsley-Hughes said:

"Oddly enough, Vista SP1 felt more responsive [than XP SP2] to user inputs such as opening applications and saving files while the tasks were being performed (we tried this out on separate runs). Problem is that it's darn hard to measure this end responsiveness without relying more on synthetic benchmarks."

The benchmark discussions can rage on forever. In the real world, Vista PC's will probably be faster than XP machines if only for the reason that users tend to beef up their existing machines when they ugrade or buy more powerful PC's if they purchase Vista on a new machine.

All of it is largely a mute point. I have yet to see a computer in my real world business or personal environments that suffered by moving to Vista.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> "Oddly enough, Vista SP1 felt more responsive [than XP SP2] to user inputs such as opening applications and saving files while the tasks were being performed (we tried this out on separate runs). Problem is that it's darn hard to measure this end responsiveness without relying more on synthetic benchmarks."


I'm actually seeing a similar increase in "snappiness" on my machine running XP SP3, so I wonder if some of the Vista improvements have, in fact, been "backed-in" to XP courtesy of XP3? I'm anxious to see Mr. Kingsley-Hughes's next benchmark report.



> In the real world, Vista PC's will probably be faster than XP machines if only for the reason that users tend to beef up their existing machines when they ugrade or buy more powerful PC's if they purchase Vista on a new machine.


Agree 100%, but that does beg the obvious question of how much faster XP SP3 would run on such a "beefed-up" box. :lol: /steve


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Steve said:


> I'm actually seeing a similar increase in "snappiness" on my machine running XP SP3, so I wonder if some of the Vista improvements have, in fact, been "backed-in" to XP courtesy of XP3? I'm anxious to see Mr. Kingsley-Hughes's next benchmark report.
> 
> Agree 100%, but that does beg the obvious question of how much faster XP SP3 would run on such a "beefed-up" box. :lol: /steve


I would also be interested in seeing the effect with XPSP3 and I am wondering as well if it will benefit from certain underlying core code changes (also squirreled away in Vista SP1) to accomodate the release of WIndows 2008 Server!


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> I would also be interested in seeing the effect with XPSP3 and I am wondering as well if it will benefit from certain underlying core code changes (also squirreled away in Vista SP1) to accomodate the release of WIndows 2008 Server!


I highly doubt SP3 will see any significant performance increases. The only increases would likely be from machines that are not fully up to date. SP3, for all purposes, is a giant update for system administrators. At this time, when you re-build an XP machine with SP2, you must install about 3 years worth of updates to complete the install. SP3 will just simply have all these updates built-in.

The only "new feature" if you will is network access protection compatibility. This is basically just so XP machines will play nice with Server 2008.

I would not expect alot from SP3.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

phat78boy said:


> I've read that article prior to this and can only wonder what configuration he was using on the Vista machine. If you have all "extras" enabled, which are on by default, it only makes sense the the Vista machine would be slower. Its doing more. I would like to see that test with the sidebar, aero, uac, and the dreamscene turned off. Not sure what the outcome would be, but I think those items listed are just some of the things that could impact the test.


The graphical tack-ons probably don't have much impact on the performance. Much of that is handed over to display card hardware which may actually give Vista a bit of an advantage under certain circumstances.

Then again, isn't the whole point of Vista to have these things running?

Kind of like suggesting how much better a car with much of the bodywork removed would compare in a drag race.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

harsh said:


> The graphical tack-ons probably don't have much impact on the performance. Much of that is handed over to display card hardware which may actually give Vista a bit of an advantage under certain circumstances.
> 
> Then again, isn't the whole point of Vista to have these things running?
> 
> Kind of like suggesting how much better a car with much of the bodywork removed would compare in a drag race.


Unfortunately alot of machines now days have grahpics cards with shared system memory. These machines will have a negative impact on overal system performance since the graphics card and machine will both be fighting for available memory.

1GB and even 1.5GB of memory that is shared is inadequate IMHO and would cause Vista to run slow on a machine that ran XP just fine.


----------



## dmurphy (Sep 28, 2006)

No options for Leopard or Tiger?

We're full up on Leopard here... no issues to report.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

phat78boy said:


> Unfortunately alot of machines now days have grahpics cards with shared system memory. These machines will have a negative impact on overal system performance since the graphics card and machine will both be fighting for available memory.
> 
> 1GB and even 1.5GB of memory that is shared is inadequate IMHO and would cause Vista to run slow on a machine that ran XP just fine.


So Vista is a poor match for computers where the display card cost less than the rest of the computer. How is this a plus?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

phat78boy said:


> I highly doubt SP3 will see any significant performance increases.


I guess it depends if you consider a 10% performance increase on the Office Benchmark significant or not. 

/steve


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> So Vista is a poor match for computers where the display card cost less than the rest of the computer. How is this a plus?


You obviously don't have a clue about today's video cards... High powered 256MB video cards are readily available under $200. You can order brand new computers with 256MB video cards for less than $150.

If you are going to be "harsh" get your facts straight!


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Steve said:


> I guess it depends if you consider a 10% performance increase on the Office Benchmark significant or not.
> 
> /steve


10% these days is definitely significant!


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Steve said:


> I guess it depends if you consider a 10% performance increase on the Office Benchmark significant or not.
> 
> /steve


That 10% is only for certain dual and quad core chips. It would have been the same for SP2 if the patch would have been manually ran on it. The patch was not pushed out through Windows Update.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

phat78boy said:


> That 10% is only for certain dual and quad core chips. It would have been the same for SP2 if the patch would have been manually ran on it. The patch was not pushed out through Windows Update.


But the fact is that improvement is available thanks to SP3, and since I run a couple of dual-core machines, it means something for me. 

Like I said before, I just want to run the apps I use in as kick-ass a fashion as I possibly can, and by most reports, Vista doesn't offer any advantage over XP3 on that front. Since I'm already running comparable add-ons to the ones that Microsoft built into Vista that are important to me (i.e., security, voice recognition and search), there's no need for me personally to upgrade to Vista for the foreseeable future. I can see why it appeals to others, of course.

Now once there's something that only Vista can do that I would like to do as well, that will be another story.  But unless it's something extremely compelling, I still won't sacrifice performance in order to get it. /steve


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

LarryFlowers said:


> If you are going to be "harsh" get your facts straight!


How much do you think the mainboard, processor and RAM of a computer cost?

For $200, you can get a AMD X2 4500+, 2GB of RAM and an SLI motherboard. No case, drives nor power supply, but I think my point is made in that the graphics card is far and away the most expensive item in the computer.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Steve said:


> But the fact is that improvement is available thanks to SP3, and since I run a couple of dual-core machines, it means something for me.
> 
> Like I said before, I just want to run the apps I use in as kick-ass a fashion as I possibly can, and by most reports, Vista doesn't offer any advantage over XP3 on that front. Since I'm already running comparable add-ons to the ones that Microsoft built into Vista that are important to me (i.e., security, voice recognition and search), there's no need for me personally to upgrade to Vista for the foreseeable future. I can see why it appeals to others, of course.
> 
> Now once there's something that only Vista can do that I would like to do as well, that will be another story.  But unless it's something extremely compelling, I still won't sacrifice performance in order to get it. /steve


DirectX 10? If your a gamer anyway.


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

harsh said:


> How much do you think the mainboard, processor and RAM of a computer cost?
> 
> For $200, you can get a AMD X2 4500+, 2GB of RAM and an SLI motherboard. No case, drives nor power supply, but I think my point is made in that the graphics card is far and away the most expensive item in the computer.


Have to disagree with you. Mid to high range processors, motherboards, and hard drives are all more expensive then a mid to high range video card. DDR3 memory is more expensive then everything listed. Needless to say, the video card is 3 or 4 on the list of expensive items in most machines.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> How much do you think the mainboard, processor and RAM of a computer cost?
> 
> For $200, you can get a AMD X2 4500+, 2GB of RAM and an SLI motherboard. No case, drives nor power supply, but I think my point is made in that the graphics card is far and away the most expensive item in the computer.


What a fool I am... I spent $1400 on the last PC I built. I must of been ripped off!


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

In case you missed, Microsoft just announced price cuts on different flavors of Vista. The cuts are expected to coincide with the official release of SP-1. /steve


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Steve said:


> In case you missed, Microsoft just announced price cuts on different flavors of Vista. The cuts are expected to coincide with the official release of SP-1. /steve


Saw it, wish they had done more as it is "Microsoft is cutting prices only on the higher-end versions of Vista, and only for the upgrade version used to move from XP or another copy of Vista. The suggested price for Vista Ultimate drops to $219 from $299, while Home Premium falls to $129, from $159."

But any price change downward is a good thing and maybe some individuals who are on the fence will take advantage of this to upgrade.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

LarryFlowers said:


> What a fool I am... I spent $1400 on the last PC I built. I must of been ripped off!


How much did you spend on the display system?


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

$229... on sale!


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

I have been running both Vista and XP for a while now and I can say only one thing about Vista. 

I am not impressed. 

Service pack 1 will (hopefully) fix some of the compatibility issues. 

Then again, Microsoft has already posted a document on their website detailing which programs Vista Service Pack 1 is known to break. Of course, the list is only the applications they are aware of, I'm sure that Service Pack 1 will break others.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Ratara said:


> Of course, the list is only the applications they are aware of, I'm sure that Service Pack 1 will break others.


They say as much in the accompanying text.

What I find notable is the distinct absence of Microsoft's own products from this list.


----------

