Windows XP vs. Vista

Our "pub" where you can post about things completely Off Topic or about non-silent PC issues.

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

tgdrums1990
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:14 pm
Contact:

Windows XP vs. Vista

Post by tgdrums1990 » Sat Jun 23, 2007 6:46 pm

Hello. I have been pondering this for some time now. I have a AMD Athlon 3800+ X2 64 bit processor in a pc with a gig of ram running Windows XP Professional 32 bit edition.

My question if I were to switch to Vista 64 bit Ultimate edition would I notice any performance increase?

Another question, has anybody had any issues with software not being compatible with vista?

My pc runs ok now, but I was wondering if I would gain anything from running vista.

Xhyra
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 4:15 pm

Post by Xhyra » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:02 pm

As far as performance, I seriously doubt it.

I switched to Vista about a month back and have had no problems that weren't easily corrected, but with all the horror stories I hear about program & hardware incompatibilites there's no way to really tell.

Redzo
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 1:51 am
Location: Sweden, Stockholm

Re: Windows XP vs. Vista

Post by Redzo » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:21 pm

tgdrums1990 wrote: My question if I were to switch to Vista 64 bit Ultimate edition would I notice any performance increase?

Another question, has anybody had any issues with software not being compatible with vista?

My pc runs ok now, but I was wondering if I would gain anything from running vista.
No performance gain.....
Why would completely new,barely tested OS be faster then one that has matured and developed for a very long time ?

I dont think you would gain something running it. I do run Vista but only becouse I got licence for free (school thing) .It's a pumped up XP with lip gloss and a push up bra...

bonestonne
Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: Northern New Jersey
Contact:

Post by bonestonne » Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:23 pm

It's a pumped up XP with lip gloss and a push up bra...
lmao, thats a good one.

true. Vista will destroy your computer...that and you do run the risk of incompatible hardware..very common with vista.

only run it if you've got it for free. its not worth the money.
|Dual Intel Xeon E5-2680v2--Xigmatek SD1283 DK-II|Asus Z9PA-D8--HR-05 IFX|128gb DDR3-1600 ECC RDIMM|300gb DC SSD, 640gb, 1TB, 2TB HDDs|nVidia GTX660ti 2GB|Antec HCG-750|NZXT Source 210 Elite|M-Audio ProFire 2626|Art TubeOpto8 with Smooth Plate Tube Swap|Avid Artist Mix x2|
FartingBob wrote:A 9500GT with 1GB of RAM is the most pointless thing since NASCAR.

Michael Sandstrom
Posts: 606
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:03 pm
Location: Albany, GA USA

Post by Michael Sandstrom » Sat Jun 23, 2007 8:33 pm

I am waiting for a compelling reason to switch to Vista. I can't see expending the time and money needed to get everything functioning. Using a spare HD I did play around with RC! and, based on that experience, I don't think I am missing much.

Lawrence Lee
SPCR Reviewer
Posts: 1115
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Vancouver

Post by Lawrence Lee » Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:36 am

You're more likely to see performance decreases. Vista has very high overhead especially when it comes to RAM. Vista 32-bit is bad enough, but Vista 64-bit will have even more hardware and software incompatibilities.

Thomas
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by Thomas » Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:50 am

From what I've heard... Vista = at least 2 gig RAM...
AMD Phenom II 925/Asus Triton 75 | Gigabyte GA-MA78G-DS3H/IGP | Kingston 6GB | Antec P180/S-Flex | Seasonic S12 380/S-Flex | Crucial C300 64 + Samsung F2 EcoGreen | Optiarc 7240s | Dell 2412M | Sidewinder mouse+keyboard | Win7 x64

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:37 am

The truth is that it depends on what you're doing. Straight compute functions will probably run the same or faster, since the new WHQL model provides better "bare metal" control of the hardware. If you're looking for gaming performance, then it depends on the game AND the video card AND the driver. Comparing ATI X1000 and HD 2000 cards to NVIDIA 7- and 8-series cards, ATI nets an FPS improvement, where NVIDIA suffers a small amount.

There is a lot of software that technically runs slower, but I couldn't tell you what it was side-by-side. It takes longer to boot, but that's the only noticeable difference.

Vista is so much more than XP with a new skin, I'm not entirely sure where to begin, except to say that the lipgloss analogy grates. In any case, it is true that it's a good idea to have two gigs of RAM, but on the other hand, given the way Vista manages its inactive threads and paging, you actually have more headroom on the same hardware than if you were running XP.

Combined with the searching and indexing, I'm not really ever going to go back to XP, except for work stuff.

Compatibility is an issue, however, as I've run into serious problems with Realtek hardware (older audio support is non-existent) as well as any weird third-party software (like the shitty VFD on the Zalman 160) but as a whole, as long as you're running new hardware, it's pretty much all good.

So far, the only application that I've tried that /didn't/ work was Nero 6.
Hardware Editor @ www.thetechlounge.com

rjhythloday
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 5:20 am

Post by rjhythloday » Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:48 am

Amourek wrote:You're more likely to see performance decreases. Vista has very high overhead especially when it comes to RAM. Vista 32-bit is bad enough, but Vista 64-bit will have even more hardware and software incompatibilities.
exactly, gamers who used to run 2gb ram are now using 4gb for vista.

thejamppa
Posts: 3142
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:20 am
Location: Missing in Finnish wilderness, howling to moon with wolf brethren and walking with brother bears
Contact:

Post by thejamppa » Sun Jun 24, 2007 4:14 am

Besides, MS is probably postponing releasing its SP1 for Vista until next years Q1. Many say, you should get Vista unless the SP1. Even if then.
If seeing is believing, how can blind person believe in anything?
Maturity is just not experience in life but also ability to make compromises.

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:07 am

You don't need four gigs, it can make a difference because of the way Vista uses RAM to cache data; it's not that it's limited at two gigs, it's that it can capitalize on more memory.

Here's an article I did on Vista gaming.
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article/41 ... rformance/

I have to say that, as a gamer myself, it's not noticeably different to game on Vista. Although I like ATI's drivers better than NVIDIA, (with the exception of NVIDIA's profiles, those are way better) NVIDIA only really lags behind performance-wise when the performance is already well beyond the point at which it's possible to notice a 10% performance drop, at least for the most part.

Also, service pack 1 is already in testing, and the funny thing is, it's less necessary the way the new Windows Update works. Lots of the stuff could just be automatically updated; but businesses don't know this, they live by the proclamation that they will not make the change until SP1, which still has the earmarks of late 2Q'07.
Hardware Editor @ www.thetechlounge.com

Mr Evil
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:12 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Mr Evil » Sun Jun 24, 2007 11:10 am

It looks like Vista is the new ME.

bonestonne
Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: Northern New Jersey
Contact:

Post by bonestonne » Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:26 pm

given the way Vista manages its inactive threads and paging, you actually have more headroom on the same hardware than if you were running XP.
biggest load of crap. actually, vista will eat your resources, and leave little for anything else. run it with 384 MB of ram, and run another program at the same time...and i don't mean disable glass and all the other visual features before you do, do it right then and there. it wont happen. run XP with 384Mb of RAM, and what are you complaining about?

long boot times, indexing actually eats your ram, so its no good.

Vista is complete fat butt. thats all it is.
|Dual Intel Xeon E5-2680v2--Xigmatek SD1283 DK-II|Asus Z9PA-D8--HR-05 IFX|128gb DDR3-1600 ECC RDIMM|300gb DC SSD, 640gb, 1TB, 2TB HDDs|nVidia GTX660ti 2GB|Antec HCG-750|NZXT Source 210 Elite|M-Audio ProFire 2626|Art TubeOpto8 with Smooth Plate Tube Swap|Avid Artist Mix x2|
FartingBob wrote:A 9500GT with 1GB of RAM is the most pointless thing since NASCAR.

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Sun Jun 24, 2007 12:58 pm

actually, vista will eat your resources, and leave little for anything else. run it with 384 MB of ram,
I don't care how much of the system's resources the OS uses on the desktop. The fact of the matter is clear: once the developers know how to make their drivers, games run as fast or faster, with two gigs of RAM, on a Vista platform. If you're putting together a new computer, it's great. It runs into problems with older hardware.

So what if the desktop uses more RAM. Vista allows programmers better direct control of the hardware than XP, and in a little while, Vista performance will exceed XP on all fronts. Given DirectX 10 (which won't actually run on XP, it's not that MS is using it to make people buy Vista) the better features and cleaner UI, great security and all that, why even concede XP any points?

People shouldn't be bagging on MS (unless they're willing to switch to another developer entirely) they should be pissed at the hardware and software developers that don't learn to make things run smoothly on Vista.

Also, Vista takes less time to boot on 2007 hardware than XP did on 2001 hardware.

Get over it. XP is six years old. At best, XP SP2 is almost three years old. Time for some re-building.
Hardware Editor @ www.thetechlounge.com

tgdrums1990
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:14 pm
Contact:

...

Post by tgdrums1990 » Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:01 pm

Max Slowik wrote:
actually, vista will eat your resources, and leave little for anything else. run it with 384 MB of ram,
I don't care how much of the system's resources the OS uses on the desktop. The fact of the matter is clear: once the developers know how to make their drivers, games run as fast or faster, with two gigs of RAM, on a Vista platform. If you're putting together a new computer, it's great. It runs into problems with older hardware.

So what if the desktop uses more RAM. Vista allows programmers better direct control of the hardware than XP, and in a little while, Vista performance will exceed XP on all fronts. Given DirectX 10 (which won't actually run on XP, it's not that MS is using it to make people buy Vista) the better features and cleaner UI, great security and all that, why even concede XP any points?

People shouldn't be bagging on MS (unless they're willing to switch to another developer entirely) they should be pissed at the hardware and software developers that don't learn to make things run smoothly on Vista.

Also, Vista takes less time to boot on 2007 hardware than XP did on 2001 hardware.

Get over it. XP is six years old. At best, XP SP2 is almost three years old. Time for some re-building.






So shoudl a wiat a while, add a gig of ram and then upgrade to Vista???

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:11 pm

Can you dual-boot? If you're not sure you're ready for it, you can always:

Get Vista Home Premium x64 OEM. It can be re-installed, I've done it. It costs a third what Ultimate costs. . .

Get a RAM upgrade. If you're a gamer, anyway. Gaming on XP benefits from the increase just as much.

Get another hard drive to install Vista on to.

Then, you can go back and forth as you need to, without the stress of backing things up without knowing what you'll need and what you won't. Make sure that your hardware has good Vista support. I can tell you that Realtek's very common ALC850 drivers suck balls and only work in mono; center channel of a 5.1 configuration only.

I haven't had problems using Creative soundcards with Vista, specifically the X-Fi series.
Hardware Editor @ www.thetechlounge.com

pputer
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:05 am

Post by pputer » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:05 pm

How many computers can you run XP on? If you update it on one but don't on another, can you have it on two computers?

Does Windows 2000 do everything XP can if you have Service Pack 4? What if you try to run a program or use an MP3 player that only has mention of XP (and Vista) support? Does anyone know? I keep trying to find the answers through Google but not having much luck.

~El~Jefe~
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 2887
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: New York City zzzz
Contact:

Post by ~El~Jefe~ » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:24 pm

windows 2000 is neat but its super not supported. good and bad. really, xp didnt need much support. after sp1, I failed to find anything useful or different about it. the only performance gains my friends have noticed is with vista64. Yeah, sux. the reason that sux is that it isnt meant to be the OS M$ wants you to use. they want you running xp-II, aka, vista 32.

Someone is going to crack dx10 for windows XP. when that happens, there is absolutely no reason to use vista. It can happen and will, when is the question now.

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:46 pm

Someone is going to crack dx10 for windows XP. when that happens, there is absolutely no reason to use vista. It can happen and will, when is the question now.
Yes, they will, and I have met some of the people that are working on it. Let me tell you what you'll need to make this work.

First, you'll have to be running XP x64 or Server 2003 x64, for kernel-level support of virtualization--operating systems both which are no slouches when it comes to lacking hardware support.

Then, you'll need to a patch from or a re-compiled version of a beta of Microsoft Virtual Server, install it, and tweak the registry to make it run all the time. You might also need a copy of Vista, but a bittorrented Longhorn beta might work.

Then, you'll be able to install DirectX10. Not the real version, but a re-compiled build that installs on the virtual machine layer. This will, of course, make it easy to keep up-to-date and Microsoft will never figure any of this out when it comes time for regular patching and updates.

It's not as if this whole deal will suck up some serious resource, and wait, there's more.

Then you'll have to get some drivers. Since only NVIDIA has good open-source drivers right now, I suspect this will only work with NVIDIA hardware. You'll also probably have to be running a Core 2 processor and a specific chipset, but who knows.

You get these drivers, and they're from an old build. Good thing you don't want up-to-date drivers. No performance tweaks go into those, anyway, that's a sham.

To top it all off, this project is being worked on in the Ukraine. That speaks loads for the quality of documentation, because this whole project will leave the guys time and money to translate it all into English.

So with those easy steps, why use Vista? Nobody wants a new OS anyway, with better indexing, a clever file system coming down the pipe along with a complete shell and a command language built from the ground up. All that new networking stuff is worthless, and the power management stuff is for people who don't know how to solder more efficient VRMs onto their PCB, anyway.
Hardware Editor @ www.thetechlounge.com

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Sun Jun 24, 2007 6:52 pm

How many computers can you run XP on? If you update it on one but don't on another, can you have it on two computers?
You might be able to do this if both computers are on the same network. I've done it when I was upgrading, but that was always short-term and it's not allowed according to the EULA. When both computers have internet access and go to Windows Update, they send MS their MAC addresses, which are unique to every node on the planet. MS may let it slide; it's really up to them.
Does Windows 2000 do everything XP can if you have Service Pack 4? What if you try to run a program or use an MP3 player that only has mention of XP (and Vista) support?
No. It might work, but the two are quite different; it depends on how deep the software gets installed. Remember, 2000 is closely based on NT4 and doesn't support a lot of multimedia stuff. What player are you intending to use this way?
Hardware Editor @ www.thetechlounge.com

cmthomson
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:35 am
Location: Pleasanton, CA

Post by cmthomson » Sun Jun 24, 2007 7:50 pm

Max Slowik wrote:So with those easy steps, why use Vista?
Indeed. You are aware, of course, of the hopeless ineffectiveness of online satire...

BTW, for those who didn't notice, the OP was running x64 before. So hardware support issues wouldn't be important.
i7 4790K CPU@4.6 GHz, ASUS Z97-PRO, 16GB G.Skill 2400C10, Intel 335 240GB SSD + WDC EFRX 1TB, Internal i7 graphics, Antec P180 case, Seasonic X-400 fanless PS, Megahalems CPU HS, Nexus 3-pin & AC PWM fans < 600 RPM, AcoustiPack foam, homemade ducts.

pputer
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:05 am

Post by pputer » Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:00 pm

Max Slowik wrote: You might be able to do this if both computers are on the same network. I've done it when I was upgrading, but that was always short-term and it's not allowed according to the EULA. When both computers have internet access and go to Windows Update, they send MS their MAC addresses, which are unique to every node on the planet. MS may let it slide; it's really up to them.
It doesn't sound good. I was just curious. I will probably have windows 2000 and a linux distro on one system and Windows XP on another.
No. It might work, but the two are quite different; it depends on how deep the software gets installed. Remember, 2000 is closely based on NT4 and doesn't support a lot of multimedia stuff. What player are you intending to use this way?
Any player that will work. The problem is having a system that is set up as an HTPC and for playing videos and mp3s. I have to decide which one will do what. In addition, I will be comparing a MythTV system and Windows PVR system. I am researching which video card to get that is a good compromise which will run in either pvr system. I will have XP, 2000 and Ubuntu but won't be getting Vista unless I can get it for free (totally).

I usually use VLC in Windows although I have used Media Player but I try to use programs like VLC more because of the limitations and restrictions Microsoft puts on their players and other software/hardware.

~El~Jefe~
Friend of SPCR
Posts: 2887
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:21 pm
Location: New York City zzzz
Contact:

Post by ~El~Jefe~ » Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:11 pm

Max Slowik wrote:
Someone is going to crack dx10 for windows XP. when that happens, there is absolutely no reason to use vista. It can happen and will, when is the question now.
Yes, they will, and I have met some of the people that are working on it. Let me tell you what you'll need to make this work.

First, you'll have to be running XP x64 or Server 2003 x64, for kernel-level support of virtualization--operating systems both which are no slouches when it comes to lacking hardware support.

Then, you'll need to a patch from or a re-compiled version of a beta of Microsoft Virtual Server, install it, and tweak the registry to make it run all the time. You might also need a copy of Vista, but a bittorrented Longhorn beta might work.

Then, you'll be able to install DirectX10. Not the real version, but a re-compiled build that installs on the virtual machine layer. This will, of course, make it easy to keep up-to-date and Microsoft will never figure any of this out when it comes time for regular patching and updates.

It's not as if this whole deal will suck up some serious resource, and wait, there's more.

Then you'll have to get some drivers. Since only NVIDIA has good open-source drivers right now, I suspect this will only work with NVIDIA hardware. You'll also probably have to be running a Core 2 processor and a specific chipset, but who knows.

You get these drivers, and they're from an old build. Good thing you don't want up-to-date drivers. No performance tweaks go into those, anyway, that's a sham.

To top it all off, this project is being worked on in the Ukraine. That speaks loads for the quality of documentation, because this whole project will leave the guys time and money to translate it all into English.

So with those easy steps, why use Vista? Nobody wants a new OS anyway, with better indexing, a clever file system coming down the pipe along with a complete shell and a command language built from the ground up. All that new networking stuff is worthless, and the power management stuff is for people who don't know how to solder more efficient VRMs onto their PCB, anyway.
I think the guys you met suck at doing this

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:00 pm

Yeah but--you think Vista is just XP with bloat and a re-tread.
Hardware Editor @ www.thetechlounge.com

Max Slowik
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado USA
Contact:

Post by Max Slowik » Sun Jun 24, 2007 10:39 pm

Any player that will work.
Well, a whole lot of players work as external hard drives, so you just copy the files you want to them. That effort gets old and boring, though. You got other requirements? Ogg, video, drive size?
The problem is having a system that is set up as an HTPC and for playing videos and mp3s. I have to decide which one will do what. In addition, I will be comparing a MythTV system and Windows PVR system.
My only experiences are MythTV vs. MCE 2005 vs. Vista MCE. The benefits I see to each are as follows:
MythTV: Free, works OK on old hardware
MCE 2005: Great support, works OK on old hardware
Vista MCE: Best UI and features (limited hardware support--not a benefit)

Why do you want multiple HTPCs? More than one TV/display? One to play music while you watch TV?
I am researching which video card to get that is a good compromise which will run in either pvr system. I will have XP, 2000 and Ubuntu but won't be getting Vista unless I can get it for free (totally).
I think your best bet is a 7-series NVIDIA card, but those don't have the greatest video acceleration. For now though, they're cheap and when 8-series cards seem well-supported or ATI gets their shit together on open-source drivers, well, they'll be reasonably priced.
I usually use VLC in Windows although I have used Media Player but I try to use programs like VLC more because of the limitations and restrictions Microsoft puts on their players and other software/hardware.
I used to be a Winamp guy, but made the switch over to Media Player 11; yeah, having the store bothers me, but the automagic ratings system coupled with the ID3 tag-correction won me over. I don't feel a licensing pinch or any intrusiveness about it. I have also never seen Media Player put requirements on players, if anything, players put requirements on using specific versions of Media Player. Besides, if you use MCE, you'll have it there, ready to organize your shit for you. This prompted me to buy a Gigabeat (i.e. Zune beta) because of its flawless integration with MCE. Another nice thing is that when you set your encryption settings in Media Player, they carry over to MCE, lock, stock, and barrel.

I still resent the terrible visualizations. I pour one out for Milk Drop, from time to time.

You can, of course, use a file server to house your media, and dick around with the various apps; that's really safe and might lessen your need for multiple HTPC builds, at least, when you find one you like.

Unfortunately, getting MCE 2005 to use something other than it's non-primary partition to house recorded TV is nothing if not hackish. While it will play video from a networked drive, it will not record to one. The easiest solution there is to write a batch file that moves the contents of the shared "Recorded TV" folder and operate it via scheduled task.

By the by, I know at this point I probably sound like a MS whore. I'm not, I roll with Ubuntu from time to time, enjoy a lot of things about OS X, even tried my hand at Gentoo--from scratch, no packages--but after I spend hours and hours with leading-edge hardware, I just want my shit to work.

That, and I'm pretty much against piracy when it doesn't overlap with fair use, so I don't feel bad about buying my OSes. I've gotten to the point where my time spent getting it to work isn't time spent having fun, it's time being frustrated.

And I will concede this: XP works the best for this. I will make some exceptions for the features Vista brings. even if that means no remote and VFD on my HTPC. I also have the luxury of having all new computer parts (my primary reason for recommending Vista to anyone building a new computer--Vista works with new stuff well, it's hardware more than a year out that it starts choking on).
Hardware Editor @ www.thetechlounge.com

jaganath
Posts: 5085
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Location: UK

Post by jaganath » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:31 am

the power management stuff is for people who don't know how to solder more efficient VRMs onto their PCB, anyway.
are you saying running Vista will make your existing VRM more efficient? how?

Steve_Y
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:17 pm

Post by Steve_Y » Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:38 am

pputer wrote:Does Windows 2000 do everything XP can if you have Service Pack 4? What if you try to run a program or use an MP3 player that only has mention of XP (and Vista) support? Does anyone know? I keep trying to find the answers through Google but not having much luck.
I used Windows 2000 for over 5 years and only switched to XP when I built a new PC earlier this month. I think of XP as little more than an overpriced Windows 2000 service pack. If Microsoft had continued their NT naming conventions and released 2K as NT 5, then XP should have been NT 5.1, rather than a major upgrade. Even using them side by side, trying to find the improvements in XP is like a spot the difference competition. Personally I think that the advantages of 2K, like not having to ring up Microsoft to reactivate when I upgrade my hardware, easily outweigh the little tweaks in XP.

Even in the last couple of years, while Windows 2000 has been considered an obsolete OS, I’ve had no problem with software compatibility. All the software I’ve tried, even some multimedia apps that only list XP as compatible, work perfectly in 2K. I’ve had no problems playing every media file I’ve come across, or using hardware like MP3 players and digital cameras. Overall 2K remains my favourite version of Windows, one Microsoft product that I don’t begrudge paying for.

Having said that, hardware support for 2K is fading away and I wouldn’t recommend it for a new PC. For example, Asus didn’t provide 2K drivers for my M2A-VM motherboard, and while plenty of modern hardware does offer 2K support; some of the latest drivers appear to be XP/Vista only. I expect to see more and more hardware and software that no longer runs on 2K to be released in the next year or two.

As I’m not really a gamer I don’t see any reason to switch to Vista; I’ve played with it and was utterly unimpressed by its ‘new’ features. I expect that XP will continue to be supported for at least a few more years, and maybe then I’ll seriously consider running Linux.

Mr Evil
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:12 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Mr Evil » Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:18 am

Steve_Y wrote:...Having said that, hardware support for 2K is fading away....
XP will happily use 2K drivers; does it not work the other way around? I know that most software that works under XP but won't install under 2K only doesn't because the installer explicitly checks the OS, even though it does run under 2K once installed.

edit: It seems that the same way be true with Vista -> XP too: I have been reliably informed that the two recent games Halo 2 and Shadowrun that are labeled as "Vista only" will actually run fine under XP with only a minor patch.

SirPoonga
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:18 am

Post by SirPoonga » Mon Jun 25, 2007 7:31 am

Max Slowik wrote:Yeah but--you think Vista is just XP with bloat and a re-tread.
That's what people said about XP when compared to 98. Vista just needs to go through a couple of service packs like XP to make it a good OS.
I have been reliably informed that the two recent games Halo 2 and Shadowrun that are labeled as "Vista only" will actually run fine under XP with only a minor patch.
I couldn't get past installing Shadowrun. I wanted to try this. But the install checks for OS version. Even if you copy the dvd contents and patch the installer it wouldn't install. I'd like to find information from someone who did this successfully.

The other thing is if someone did install Shadowrun successfully on XP can they play 360 players? Does the Live component work?

Beyonder
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:56 pm
Location: EARTH.

Re: Windows XP vs. Vista

Post by Beyonder » Thu Jun 28, 2007 6:11 pm

tgdrums1990 wrote: My question if I were to switch to Vista 64 bit Ultimate edition would I notice any performance increase?
In theory, yes. In practice, no.

There were a lot of performance tweaks that were made for Vista, but it's offset by a lot of pork that's been added. Aero, the disk indexing and security features, and the other various add-ons (e.g. sidebar) seem to have some serious overhead. The graphics drivers are still a bit quirky, especially when gaming.

I think all of the stuff added slows the machine down more than than the improvements that were made to the OS speed things up.
Another question, has anybody had any issues with software not being compatible with vista?
Some CD burning programs I like aren't compatible. I also had issues with the 64-bit version, across the board. My suggestion is to avoid it for six months or a year until you have a compelling reason to upgrade. Either that, or give Ubuntu a try if you're feeling adventurous.
Fun: [url=http://goldfishforthought.blogspot.com/]GOLDFISHY[/url]
Work: [url=http://www.wilife.com]Video Surveillance[/url]

Post Reply