Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

XP to Vista - is it worth it?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#51
11ryanc

11ryanc

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • OS:Vista Business x64
  • Country: Country Flag

@Flasche -Did you really? That'a awesome , I have heard that Win2k is supoosedly more stable as a whole though. Tried it myself and it seems that way, although I've never used any good mods on XP before. I do love XP still, I think with proper mods and bottlenecks it could make a nice system still. And yeah I agree, lot of garbage loaded up on newer OSs. Though I still do love using Vista, lot of crap running in the background though. Same with Windows 7. I don't care much for 7 tbh though. Just feels like a lighter, stripped down version fo Vista.

2 issues:

XP is just weeks from loosing support

Vista is only 3 years from loosing support

I know going down the road of unofficial support they both can have long futures ahead of them, question is how?.... Win2k is still kicking, who's to say XP and Vista can't be used for a while? By the way I see your still on ME, how does that perform for you? Personally never liked the 9x series at all, too unstable imo. But maybe it could be modded to run ok, I'm not sure. Just curious how it works for you.


Edited by 11ryanc, 22 March 2014 - 08:43 PM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#52
G8YMW

G8YMW

    Junior

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 98 posts
  • OS:XP Pro x86
  • Country: Country Flag

 

11ryanc wrote

2 issues:

XP is just weeks from loosing support

Vista is only 3 years from loosing support

 

Personally never liked the 9x series at all, too unstable imo

I used to run Win98SE and found it very stable. What I found was get the DOS right underneath and it worked a treat together with MDGX's SE2ME patch. Unfortunately I had to change the mobo so 98 got left behind.

As far as "support" goes, doesn't bother me.

Just out of interest, why would "support" be an issue?

Browsers, only Microsoft has left XP behind,  I have been using Firefox since (almost) it came out although I recently changed to Pale Moon. They fully support XP

Email, Thunderbird.

Office suites, one or two free suites out there (eg Open Office).

I think I will only leave XP behind when I cannot get hardware that can use it (I suppose I will have to walk like a penguin when that happens)



#53
ND22

ND22

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 45 posts

My impressions after running Vista X64 business since January 2007: the operating system is incredibly stable; no matter how much bad software I installed and how many weeks I left it running it will not crash! It starts and shuts down faster that XP on the same hardware! It is also compatible with everything I need and ever used since 7 years ago – it may be possible that the OS is not compatible with specific or very old software and some exotic hardware. Windows updates for vista and 7 are the same – I downloaded on purpose a kb for 7 and installed it on vista with no problems. Now for the bad point: the OS uses only for himself 1 gigabyte of ram and that is without third party programs; with them it goes up to 1.2 gigabyte of ram – I have 4 gb of ram so this is not a problem for me but by comparison a test install of windows XP 32 bit uses 200 mb of ram!

Also vista is more secured then XP – of course the underlying problem remains: the user is still the biggest “threat“ and if you just click away on every link you will get malware on your system really fast!


Edited by ND22, 23 March 2014 - 08:47 AM.


#54
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developers
  • 13,428 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

A layman comparison that I personally find interesting:
http://channel9.msdn...r-than-in-Vista

I am sure if I had XP and Visual Studio 2003 running on the same machine they would be blazing fast because they have fewer moving parts (or parts in general). I don't think we can get to the stage where a 1970s Golf GTI weighs half as much as it's modern day equivalent, and the modern day car is faster and better all round. The older version will always take corners quicker, because, lets face it, it weights half as much.

 

As said elsewhere ;):

http://www.msfn.org/...ize-of-bootsdi/

http://www.msfn.org/...otsdi/?p=933421

 


As a dinosaur, in my simplicity I continue thinking that smaller things are faster, no matter how faster is your hardware, managing less bytes it will make it faster! :thumbup

 

jaclaz



#55
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 3,888 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

:crazy: Devolving topic? :blink: Haven't we been down this road before? :whistle: (with all due respect...)



#56
11ryanc

11ryanc

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 17 posts
  • OS:Vista Business x64
  • Country: Country Flag

@ND22 -People hate on Vista way too much though man, SP2 runs very stable for me always has. But about support, I know a lot open source programs have good legacy support. But application support is still diminishing on Vista, even now. Any possible way to compatible launch something to run in a Windows 7 compatibility layer under Vista? I saw that done with Win2k using XP dll's. Any thoughts on that? I know Vista could probably run Server 2008 R1 updates after 2017, same kernel in both OSs


Edited by 11ryanc, 23 March 2014 - 11:40 AM.


#57
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developers
  • 13,428 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

:crazy: Devolving topic? :blink: Haven't we been down this road before? :whistle: (with all due respect...)


On the contrary, I find your take on the matter exceptionally good :thumbup::

Whatever floats your boat, whichever one "feels" good to you, whichever serves the functional purpose, whatever "works best' on the hardware it's loaded onto, whichever one "runs" the applications you want to use.
 
One's trash is another's gold. Relativity...

still, facts (measurable/measured) should be separated and distinguished from opinions and preferences.


jaclaz

#58
vinifera

vinifera

    <)))><

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 894 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

 

 

I wounder how many of the changes between vista, and 7 were just junk.

 

thats a good question
hard to tell the insides ... but 1 thing is certain, win7 is more decomponentized than vista

 

does removing dependencies make more junk code or less ?

 

all I know that "under the hood" they changed kernel by some by using "minwin"

and ofc the famous "superbar"

 

other than that between vista and 7 I fail to see "under the hood" major change



#59
Flasche

Flasche

    A bottled message!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 411 posts
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

@ND22 -People hate on Vista way too much though man, SP2 runs very stable for me always has. But about support, I know a lot open source programs have good legacy support. But application support is still diminishing on Vista, even now. Any possible way to compatible launch something to run in a Windows 7 compatibility layer under Vista? I saw that done with Win2k using XP dll's. Any thoughts on that? I know Vista could probably run Server 2008 R1 updates after 2017, same kernel in both OSs

 

I think someone here claimed that windows 7 updates will work with no issue on windows vista. (He/She said they tried it and it worked)



#60
vinifera

vinifera

    <)))><

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 894 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

depends which

 

you can't use components (dll's, exe's) which call for API's that Vista doesn't have


Edited by vinifera, 24 March 2014 - 04:20 PM.


#61
Flasche

Flasche

    A bottled message!!

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 411 posts
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

depends which

 

you can't use components (dll's, exe's) which call for API's that Vista doesn't have

 

I know that's why people made things like kernel-Ex for Windows Me. I'ma try and find this persons post. When I do I'll post it here.



#62
ROTS

ROTS

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 190 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
VIsta is just XP with all the fixes, and more spyware. Out of the box, it will keep scanning, which is a problem I am still having with my Vista. If you need it for work, then get it, but otherwise as a programmer, or person who does not want to deal with newer programs, do not get it..

Edited by ROTS, Today, 08:56 AM.


#63
TELVM

TELVM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 202 posts
  • OS:Windows 7 x64
  • Country: Country Flag
... There are not (AFAIK and with the notable exception of a few very high end graphical/video oriented programs and possibly programs dealing with extremely large databases or very large numbers) any reliable report of 64 bit being in any way faster than 32 bit OS, actually available data hints that the performance of 64 bit and 32 bit programs is the same or very nearly the same, and in some case the 64 bit version is actually slower.

JFYI:

http://reboot.pro/to...32-bit-version/

 

... the following types of applications are most likely to see performance benefits on Windows 7 x64 Edition, provided that both 64-bit application software and drivers are available:

 

  • Applications that require mathematical precision and floating-point performance

 

Yep. Identical system with 16GB of memory, left W7 x86 RAM-unlimited, right W7 x64:

 

Y0zqSCL8.png

 

x64 manages more GFLOPS in less time.

 

 

... 64-bit versions of operating systems such as Windows Vista and Windows 7 are not automatically faster than their 32-bit counterparts. In some cases, they may even perform slower because of the larger pointers as well unrelated OS overhead ...

 

Yep, in some cases unlimited x86 is faster.

 

Also CPU temps and power draw are lower on unlimited x86 than on x64 (at least with a Phenom II Thuban X6).



#64
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developers
  • 13,428 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

 

Also CPU temps and power draw are lower on unlimited x86 than on x64 (at least with a Phenom II Thuban X6).

 

I am pretty sure that this applies to *any* hardware, speed=power=heat.

 

Think of all the 64bit processing power (and unused RAM, and increased power consumption) in the world because of the senseless shift ot 64 bit computing on "end-user" machines (used daily to do mainly e-mails, badly written reports on Word and lousy spredsheets on Excel, besides some browsing on the Internet). 

 

Fortunately this is  probably somehow compensated by the increase of smallish, less powerful, portable devices and the overall decrease of desktops. :)

 

jaclaz






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN