Would you rather use XP or Vista? and why?

is it true that since i need to "hack" to enable ACHI on XP, the performance will take a hit? from http://www.msfn.org/board/enable-AHCI-Inte...XP-t109450.html

It's not a "hack," it's just a registry edit to allow Windows to recognize the driver at boot. It's functionally no different than loading the driver from a floppy during installation.

This would explain the poll:

Vista is like the pretty broad with an empty head, that constantly argues with you.

XP is like the homely maid that will do your dishes, clean your apartment, and cook dinner in record time.

is this another one of those purposely biased polls or just broken?



i selected the bolded options and got:




plus when you say compatibilities i think you mean capabilities. In my experience Vista will run anything XP can with very few exceptions.

XP
Performance
Compatabilities
I Chose XP

I'd rather use XP. It's faster and better performing on my quad system than Vista is. Vista just got on my nerves too much especially when I encountered that out of memory while copying files bug.

I do find it strange that people would pick "looks" as a main reason for using Vista though. I don't get why people want looks over functionality.

I prefer Vista over XP but around the office I never call it Vista i call it 'Windows XP Shiny Edition'

with sp1 now available for vista, vista looks and feels more better than xp, only problem is file copying is still a pain, and improves with sp1 only by a little margin, apart from that, its performs and responses better than xp, unless your on a old basic pc spec, then do expect sluggish performance as vista requires more power. (new os = more processing and memory)

How do you measure better? Is it faster? Any tests? From what I've seen on the Web (which need not necessarily be true) XP is faster than Vista on same hardware (either new or old).

GL

I personally would much prefer to use Vista, but unfortunately, SP1 doesn't play nice with Skype, so I'm stuck with XP.

Before I started using Skype, Vista had always been stable for me, and in the year+ that I used it, I only had 1 BSOD, and that was a bad video driver early on. I can't say the same for XP, which crashes on me fairly often.

yes true, either old or new pc, for raw speed xp is faster. the only way to measure speed is by benchmarking, but thats long. from what i've read from website reviews is that vista is more responsive and runs more smoothly than xp, and in my experience thats exactly what it does. the only downside of vista is gaming performance and some application compatibility which is going to be improved for sure with future patches. also remember after xp sp3 MS will drop support for xp sooner or later, which means clearly vista is the way forward as it has improved with sp1, and do expect more improvement in future, specially on compatibility and performance side.
check this link out
http://wannabegeek.org/index.php/Vista/Vis...-86-faster.html

What i really want is xp64 with superfetch

The way I see it, microsoft's way forward is pay per hour usage. That's why they've been training (brainwashing) us with increased product activation and OS covert communication with M$ servers. They even have one version that does that (pay per hour) in non-US/European markets. XP had around 14 points of 'phoning home' (as seen by XP AntiSpy; without WGA). Who can count them in Vi$ta?

@shahed26: When it comes down to the article you're pointing out, I'm very reluctant to trust 'independent' tech sites and bloggers after I learned how much money M$ pays to journalists. Even the title itself is telling - UP TO 86% faster?! What is this? A soap commercial?! Even Mark Russinovich of microsoft admitted in his blog (that is mentioned in the article) that in some cases there are speedups, but there are slowdowns in other places.

I ask: why was all this rewrite (of fundamental file operations) and reshuffle (of the UI) necessary? If the hardware has grown faster, just write new driver for that hardware and/or increase the buffers (as mentioned in the excerpt from Russinovich blog). Vista should have been SP3 for XP, given away for free.

But, of course, microsoft needs to make money, so we'll have to weed out parts of this insanity... Long live Nuhi!

GL

Im staying with XP until I get a new computer. Or until vLite can perform miracles and make Vista much much faster.

I now read the article in full and it appears not to be what I judged by the title - it's somewhot constructive. I appologise if I was too hasty, but that's the case in today's perception of the news articles - we tend to glimpse them over and not read fully.

However, I still consider the article biased - they took the largest number and slapped it in the title?! (Or was it just the editor? Maybe only he has a fatter wallet now )

Oh, and the article is not from the site you linked - they just copied it. Look at your site's top 10 downloads.

GL

I'll stick with xp pro, until microsoft no more releases hotfixes or updates for it. It does all my job, also runs faster than vista on my current hardware...

second that. I got my XP Pro with my ThinkPad, why should I "upgrade"? and at work, XP does the job, is supported until 2014 as of now and is paid. So why buy a new Windows version, work around new problems, if you know your running system good enough and your essential apps run on it?

Third that. XP just works.

Vista looks nicer, and has a few new features. They're not groundbreaking enough to upgrade.
Performance is significantly worse.

Plus with the news of Windows7 in 2010, we can just wait 2 years. Why bother with Vista?

another poll on the same ole topic. this belongs in the poll center. i'm sure you'll find 10 other polls similar to this.

Possibly, but for God's sake, don't move it or close it. We're doing quite nicely right here....thank you.

I have both XP-Pro-SP2 and Vista Ultimate installed on my own (homebuilt) PC. (in separate HD's of course)
It's no sluggard with an AMD dual core 3800+ cpu and 2 gigs of DDR2 ram and two SATA2 HD's.

My reasons for preferring XP over Vista would not fit here in space or time allotted.
But just a few....
for a purist, XP will run quite fast on a FAT-32 formatted HD.....Vista will NOT.
I can back up my XP partition to a single DVD or six gig flash drive....NOT so with Vista.
(it's way too big for that)

I can add, remove, delete, change attributes or rename any file in XP, or from a DOS boot disk....NOT so with Vista.
It's forever telling me I don't have permission to do something, and I'm the Administrator.
Don't you know, that really gripes my Axx!!!

So for me and g'zillions of other purists, Vista wets the bed!

Cheers Mates!
Andromeda43

XP also performs much faster when you're running NTFS. It's a bit odd that Microsoft didn't do like they did with Vista and force NTFS to be the primary file system on XP. Vista enhances security in many ways, this is why you can only run NTFS.

For anyone still running FAT/32 on your drive and you're on 2000 or XP, just do this:


You'll see a huge change as your entire system will perform much faster with reads/writes.

XP FTW!

compatibility, performance, stabaility.

Correct, and I made that topic to help some people out that I advised a chipset with ICH9 and were missing that performance boost on XP.

I don´t notice anything negative about transferring data between Vista and Vista, it should give you a performance boost as the network layer no is more optimized. Are you referring to Vista to XP or visa-versa? Then wait a few weeks for SP3 of XP and you will have that part solved too .

I moved from 32bit XP to 64bit Vista and have to say that all "feels" smoother, an huge difference I noticed was when I opened Adobe Photoshop for the first time: It just pops open and it´s ready to use! (wow, I almost look like a Vista fan-boy now )

No problems here with that, as I use good compression. Time to move on and leave Norton Ghost for what it is an take a look at Acronis True Image (really, I would try it again although you had problems with it before, and no, it´s nothing personal).

That's not a fair comparison...

GL

Okay, I cheat a bit. But who has XP 64bit legally? Now, 32 or 64 bit Vista has the same price, this is why I took 64bit and to tell you the truth I would never take 32bit Vista...

i have vista 64bit sitting at home (legit) just dotn use it, but upgradign to for gigs or ram, so i may be tempted...

You should Maleko, Photoshop does its work so much faster ...

XP64, hands down
Vista is overly bloated, sluggish at times, and lacks compatibility with older apps and devices.
Only with Win2008, it's starting to get better (although still some issues remain).

My vote goes for Vista entirely

Windows vista is very difficult to operate