Recommend XP over Vista?

[Dutch]

I'm going to be building a medium-end gaming machine for my father in law so he can play games like CoD4.

He said since Vista is the latest he wanted to go with that. Should I try to talk him into staying with XP since he'll see a significant performance hit in games?

[rhagz]

Signifigant performance hit?

There is no 'significant' performance hit in games in Vista over XP.

[JC634]

XP is the past, Vista is the here and now. Any "performance" hit would be very small, if at all.

New build and I assume that this computer will be around for awhile? Then another reason for Vista.

Just my 2 cents.

[Dunan]

yes, vista gives some performance hits in DX10 mode.

i would stay with XP for now until at least the first service pack. its the new windows ME:D

From [H]ardOCP itself, read 'the bottom line'
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMxOCw5LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

:D
http://www.mujerestic.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/errorfunny_.jpg


sorry, just had to do it:D

[Badger]

Some people are going to recommend Vista and some people are going to recommend XP. So that's an even draw, and your father-in-law wanted Vista so why not give him what he wants?

That said, if you're putting a Creative Audigy in his computer like you have in yours, then I'd recommend XP. I tried the drivers daniel_k had modded over on the Creative Forums for Vista and was not getting desirable results in games with the combination of Alchemy, Vista, and these drivers. I see that he has some newer ones out that would probably work better for me, but the damage had been done and I had a copy of XP x64 that I wanted to try out and now I'm happy with.

[nobody_here]

yes, vista gives some performance hits in DX10 mode.

i would stay with XP for now until at least the first service pack. its the new windows ME:D

From [H]ardOCP itself, read 'the bottom line'
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMxOCw5LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

:D

keep in mind the age of that article as well.....myself and several family members or friends have recently gone to Vista and are very pleased

just make sure any rig you plan to use Vista on has at least 1Gb of memory, 2Gb preferred

[rhagz]

From [H]ardOCP itself, read 'the bottom line'
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMxOCw5LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==



Aside from the fact that the 'article' in question is almost 8 months old, Kyle had this to say:

Editor-in-Chief's Note: The fact is that Vista is far from "unfit for any user," and this statement by the author is simply incorrect. If you read the discussion thread linked below you will find there are many Vista users that are having positive experiences. The author's experiences are his own and I think a great look into just some of the complications that can come with upgrading to Vista. Some have had worse experiences and some have had better. -Kyle

[digital_exhaust]

32 bit or 64? Specs would help as well, and what else is he going to use the machine for? Just be sure and do your research and make sure the rig your building will not have any problems hardware wise with Vista.... there have been some incompatibility issues here and there... not many, but there have been a few....

That being said, there is no real reason not to go with Vista at this point, in my opinion... but of course, that's all it is, my opinion.

[NTJedi]

Signifigant performance hit?

There is no 'significant' performance hit in games in Vista over XP.

Wrong... "Recent" testing has shown a few current games using DX10 have noticed a performance hit as much as 55 % ! Windows_Vista has no method of disabling DX_10... so Vista is clearly a gamble until it becomes more stable. I currently recommend dual booting WinXP and WinVista.
LINKS:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxMywzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxNiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA

**I've also heard the Witcher game has performance pains with WindowsVista from family and other members on the forum. I'm not sure how many games are actually suffering from DX10, but if it exists with current games then it's possible performance can suffer in future games as well.

[Rebel44]

Thas nonsense - you can choose if you want ro run game in DX9 or DX10 - just go to Start / Games / right click on game icon and choose whatever you wish...

[Finn]

XP is still the only Windows that generally speaking works. Give Vista a year or two to mature (by which time we'll have Windows7. Vista is another transition OS like ME).

[rhagz]

So because LotRO is unoptimized then DX is a failure? And yes, you can run the DX9 version even if you have Vista and a DX10 card. Same for Gears of War, a game that I ran with DX10 and AA enabled at 1680x1050 flawlessly. Maybe it was a few FPS less than DX9 with no AA, but hey.. that's what AA does, lowers your FPS in exchange for better quality.

Dual booting isn't a bad option though, but if you have to start from scratch and just buy one OS then Vista should be it. IMO of course.

[TechieSooner]

Months ago, at first release, this held some merit. Any recent, objective study shows the differences between XP and Vista are so slim- it takes a tool to measure the differences. One of the better ones was written a couple of months ago by FiringSquad (http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/). Differences are of just a few percent- not enough to be of worry to the vast majority of gamers out there. Worthy of note, however, is the fact that the majority of framerate and gaming issues stemmed from third-party drivers (ATI, NVidia, etc). Since these companies have had plenty of time now to release driver updates, the performance gets better all the time.

I have not seen any recent testing done that shows Vista giving you performance hits. I'd encourage you to post it, however if you have one (But my gut is telling me you will come up dry).

[LstOfTheBrunnenG]

Wrong... "Recent" testing has shown a few current games using DX10 have noticed a performance hit as much as 55 % ! Windows_Vista has no method of disabling DX_10... so Vista is clearly a gamble until it becomes more stable. I currently recommend dual booting WinXP and WinVista.
LINKS:
http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxMywzLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxNiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA

**I've also heard the Witcher game has performance pains with WindowsVista from family and other members on the forum. I'm not sure how many games are actually suffering from DX10, but if it exists with current games then it's possible performance can suffer in future games as well.In both of the links you provided, all tests were run on Windows Vista. The article is comparing Vista to Vista, specifically Vista DX9 to Vista DX10. Turning on and off DX10, as has been previously stated, is trivial.

[InCogneato]

Vista 64 bit and don't look back.

It is leaps ahead of XP in every single aspect.

[Q-BZ]

I'm honestly on the fence about this.

I'm getting ready to get a new system off the ground after 4 years and I'm honestly tempted to stick with XP a little bit longer due to any number of continuing and nagging compatibility/driver/ stability issues we see and hear about here and abroad.

Examples: Routers. Soundcards. Certain applications.

I'm just not 100 percent sure that Vista's time has "fully arrived" just yet.

Am I right or wrong and why? When is this "first service pack" actually due?

[Grentz]

its the new windows ME:D


No...it is not even close. You obviously have not had enough experience with either Vista, ME, or both if you are saying something like that.

ME was unstable, crashed all the time, and did not work with any hardware even the newest and best out there, and did not bring really ANYTHING to the table.


Vista is stable, works very well, provides a lot of updates and new features, has a better file system and rebuilt kernel (that so far has kept my machine from slowing down even at all since my fresh install...cannot say the same thing happened when I used XP), and runs very well.

Most of the Vista "woes" are user error or hardware issues because the manufacturers are being lazy with drivers *cough* creative *cough*. Still though, I have not had any issues with my Vista machines and I even run an XFI in one of them without issue.

[Finn]

Maybe it was a few FPS less than DX9 with no AA, but hey.. that's what AA does, lowers your FPS in exchange for better quality.

No DX9 with AA enabled would have run faster than DX10 with no AA. DX10 you get zero benefits and a big hit in FPS. A rotten deal if any.

[TechieSooner]

Am I right or wrong and why? When is this "first service pack" actually due?
The vast majority of folks that try Vista like it and have no issues. Some switch back because of UI or other things they dislike. Very few are actually forced to switch because of driver issues and whatnot.

The RC1 of SP1 is actually out. Final due in 1Q 2008.

However, the "Wait until SP1" rule no longer applies to Vista.
The only thing this will give you, is more time for folks like Creative to write drivers. That is it: time!
There are no huge and major issues to fix like in most other versions of Windows.

Vista is stable, works very well, provides a lot of updates and new features, has a better file system and rebuilt kernel (that so far has kept my machine from slowing down even at all since my fresh install...cannot say the same thing happened when I used XP), and runs very well.
Someone told this to me, but I do not know if it is true (I see nothing going against this)... but all of Vista's critical files run in RAM. Which means if you crash or have a power outage- there are good, intact files on the hard drive. In XP, it accessed these files while on the drive- which means if the power went out, chance of files being corrupted goes up.

[Kyle_Bennett]

I like XP better than Vista, no questions about it.

[Eradan]

I'm honestly on the fence about this.

I'm getting ready to get a new system off the ground after 4 years and I'm honestly tempted to stick with XP a little bit longer due to any number of continuing and nagging compatibility/driver/ stability issues we see and hear about here and abroad.

Examples: Routers. Soundcards. Certain applications.

I'm just not 100 percent sure that Vista's time has "fully arrived" just yet.

Am I right or wrong and why? When is this "first service pack" actually due?

Routers? What routers is Vista not compatible with?

I've run Vista (Ultimate and Business) on multiple PCs since January and have had no issues. I've used the compatibility mode successfully in a number of cases for software that does not support Vista. I'm also using Vista with my Creative X-Fi without issue.

Come on it. The water is fine.

E

[Q-BZ]

^^ The compatibility mode seems like it would be a good safety net for any issues.

I like XP better than Vista, no questions about it.

May I ask why?

You probably answered that before, so if you want to just toss me a quick link or something.

Whatever works for ya! :)

[Kyle_Bennett]

May I ask why?

You probably answered that before, so if you want to just toss me a quick link or something.

Whatever works for ya! :)

Every XP install I have ever used was just faster overall. Response times etc. Vista's GUI has always felt sluggish to me and I run with Aero and effects turned off. If it was not such a pain in the ass to activate a lot of the software I use, I would go back to XP. I have seen no reason to keep Vista for gaming....at least not yet. DX10 will likely shine the middle of next year.

[rhagz]

I guess it really comes down to user preference and what they do with it. For 'average' use, i.e. read lots of web pages, IMs, email, download/upload, torrent sharing, gaming etc. I don't notice any slow down. Of course that could be due to a faster computer than my XP machine. The one thing I really like about Vista is that it doesn't get bogged down. My file sytstem stays maintained despite how many rars I extract, ISOs I mount, games I install and then subsequently delete. I can load up and delete 20-30GB of files a day and still wind up with only 0-1% fragmentation.

[CptFalcon]

I'm going to be building a medium-end gaming machine for my father in law so he can play games like CoD4.

He said since Vista is the latest he wanted to go with that. Should I try to talk him into staying with XP since he'll see a significant performance hit in games?

Here's an idea, sit down with him and explain to him what the advantages are of Vista and XP and then let him decide.

My 2 cents: Vista x64 is the way to go.

[Q-BZ]

Here's an idea, sit down with him and explain to him what the advantages are of Vista and XP and then let him decide.

My 2 cents: Vista x64 is the way to go.

^^ From what I gather, Vista x64's prospects are a lot brighter than XP 64's ever were?

[TechieSooner]

^^ From what I gather, Vista x64's prospects are a lot brighter than XP 64's ever were?

Yes, many times over.

Driver/Hardware support now is pretty close to the 32 bit support (largely due to Microsoft requiring 64 bit versions if they want to get "certified")

[CptFalcon]

^^ From what I gather, Vista x64's prospects are a lot brighter than XP 64's ever were?

Anyone here who had ever used XPx64 suffered 24/7 of driver related problems that included BSOD, file corruption and the like. Now with nearly every developer offering 64-bit drivers (and MS also helping with the x64 bit dilemma) the OS feels alot faster (to me), and from what I can tell it is supposed to be alot safer too. (I never dl illegal crap or go to stupid sites so I've never had a problem.)

[Grentz]

The other thing is change takes getting used to. There are some differences in the navigation and such in Vista that I hated at first, but then got used to after awhile and now love for their speed and ease of use.

Now XP feels odd and harder to use when before it was Vista feeling this way. It is just what you get used to.

One such thing is how you can now click on the different folder structure levels in the address bar in Vista. It is really nice and makes things a lot quicker at times.

[InCogneato]

Every XP install I have ever used was just faster overall. Response times etc. Vista's GUI has always felt sluggish to me and I run with Aero and effects turned off. If it was not such a pain in the ass to activate a lot of the software I use, I would go back to XP. I have seen no reason to keep Vista for gaming....at least not yet. DX10 will likely shine the middle of next year.

Weird. Vista feels light years faster than my XP. I have XP completely stripped to bare essentials while I have Vista x64 up with all the eye candy yet it boots up in seconds, boots down and sleeps in miliseconds, all apps fly right up and close right down (all 64 bit apps btw), the computer doesnt even think when I boot it up, everything has worked completely fine including all 32 bit apps. my XP lags for everything, and i installed both on the same day, yet Vista still feels fresh.

my experience with Vista has been amazing.

[nobody_here]

Weird. Vista feels light years faster than my XP. I have XP completely stripped to bare essentials while I have Vista x64 up with all the eye candy yet it boots up in seconds, boots down and sleeps in miliseconds, all apps fly right up and close right down (all 64 bit apps btw), the computer doesnt even think when I boot it up, everything has worked completely fine including all 32 bit apps. my XP lags for everything, and i installed both on the same day, yet Vista still feels fresh.

my experience with Vista has been amazing.

same here! i was very much against Vista until recently, then a few family members and friends went to it and said they very much liked it

now keep in mind, they are all running a minimum of a decent AMD X2 dual core CPU at 2+ Ghz, all running 1.5-4Gb of RAM, etc..etc.....nobody is running an older system or low on memory (mostly in part to me advising them on what hardware to get when they did their upgrades)

Versions:
everyone i know personally loves it, one is running 32 bit Ultimate, one running 64 bit Business, everyone else is running 64 bit Ultimate

Example:
the thing runs very slow for a few days or so, but once it is through updating, through indexing, through learning your most used programs, etc.....then it's lightspeed quick compared to XP, even simply opening a PDF with Adobe Reader (which always took at least 10-15 seconds on any machine running XP before) now takes all of two seconds if that, everything is as fast or faster

Bonuses:
Vista is also very good at recovering from errors, have not had to reboot one time because of a program error, i have had the cthelper part of the Creative driver mess up once, and Vista quietly let me know it happened and then successfully restarted the driver's service or whatever and since then has not happened again

Vista Ultimate is the "ultimate" companion for your 360, the Media Center Extender feature is seamless and very impressive, being able to show family members all of our home videos and pics on the big screen without having to move or do anything is just awesome!!

Hardware/App Compatibility:
Have not found a single piece of hardware yet on anyone's machine that wont work in Vista, even 64bit.....and 64bit Vista runs 32bit apps and such extremely well, as if they were meant to be....no problems

Gaming:
the extent of my gaming is Steam games like CS or Defcon or Uplink....i am 31, married, kids, and travel most of the time and simply do not have time to get into uber first person shooters like Crysis and such....have no interest in playing the latest FPS games (which are all boring to me now, same old shit with different graphics/features) so i am not really a good person to ask about the latest game performance in Vista if you are into that stuff..

[bbz_Ghost]

Anyone here who had ever used XPx64 suffered 24/7 of driver related problems that included BSOD, file corruption and the like. Now with nearly every developer offering 64-bit drivers (and MS also helping with the x64 bit dilemma) the OS feels alot faster (to me), and from what I can tell it is supposed to be alot safer too. (I never dl illegal crap or go to stupid sites so I've never had a problem.)

You're making a huge sweeping generalization when you make such statements, and myself, as someone that's run XP x64 since day 1 when it was released on the heels of Win2K3 which is what XP x64 really is with an XP "theme" on it, I would disagree absolutely with your statements.

Across 300 or more machines with 64 bit processors (Athlon64, Pentium 4 w/HT, Pentium D, Celeron D, Core 2 Duo, 64 bit Xeons, etc) and over 2700 installations of XP x64 for testing and benchmarking purposes, I saw maybe 3 BSODs. I never encountered any data or file corruption whatsoever, and as far as "the like" I have no idea what that is supposed to represent. Systems using SCSI, ATA/IDE/SATA, a variety of soundcards, videocards, TV tuners, etc.

I simply never saw or experienced pretty much anything that your claim states, and I seriously doubt the majority of people that chose to take the less beaten path and run XP x64 from the gitgo did either.

I run XP x64 now instead of Vista because of one reason: I do audio work for clients that requires me to have a machine that does what I want it to do, what I need it to do, when I need it to do it without issues. Because of Microsoft's decision to discard DirectSound in Vista, and with an entire audio production industry (at least the ones using Windows-based PCs) that was built upon the DirectSound foundation, a lot of the software people like myself use simply can't and won't use Vista now because the hardware manufacturers so far have failed to create drivers that offer the exact same functionality that XP or XP x64 drivers offer, or any improvements across the board.

I have several soundcards, from M-Audio, to Digidesign, to the "standard" Audigy 2 ZS these days. I put a lot of money into the hardware I have in my own personal workstation and under Vista, none of these soundcards works anywhere nearly as well as it does under XP. I can't blame Vista totally for this situation because Vista was in production for years and the soundcard/hardware makers just haven't seemed to get onboard (no pun intended) with the proper driver support that we producers require.

So, while I do have Vista Ultimate installed in a dual boot situation for learning and tech support purposes, my own primary OS is either XP x64 or 2K3 Enterprise x64 (got that free for attending some Microsoft seminars, and yes it does make the best "workstation" OS ever, seriously, even better than XP x64). It's superior in almost all ways, and gives me reason to hope that Win2K8 will be even better and leave Vista in the dust.

But until the driver situation - which again is not Vista's fault, but Microsoft does have a share of the blame in that respect - is worked out, I'll stick with the previous generation of OSes from Microsoft.

Just my $.02...

[InCogneato]

Example:
the thing runs very slow for a few days or so, but once it is through updating, through indexing, through learning your most used programs, etc.....then it's lightspeed quick compared to XP, even simply opening a PDF with Adobe Reader (which always took at least 10-15 seconds on any machine running XP before) now takes all of two seconds if that, everything is as fast or faster two seconds to open a PDF?! thats ludicrous! :D

(i bet you thought i was being sarcastic :p, which i was kinda)

but lets change that to 2 miliseconds like i have going on in my vista box ;)

download this: http://www.docu-track.com/downloads/users/ (the first one)

64 bit pdf viewer, best ive ever used. computer doesnt even hiccup when scrolling down hundreds of pages. best of all you can click a button and get all the buttons and tabs and options to disappear making it cleaner and even faster. :D hope u enjoy

edit: oh yea and its 64bit

[CptFalcon]

You're making a huge sweeping generalization when you make such statements, and myself, as someone that's run XP x64 since day 1 when it was released on the heels of Win2K3 which is what XP x64 really is with an XP "theme" on it, I would disagree absolutely with your statements.

Across 300 or more machines with 64 bit processors (Athlon64, Pentium 4 w/HT, Pentium D, Celeron D, Core 2 Duo, 64 bit Xeons, etc) and over 2700 installations of XP x64 for testing and benchmarking purposes, I saw maybe 3 BSODs. I never encountered any data or file corruption whatsoever, and as far as "the like" I have no idea what that is supposed to represent. Systems using SCSI, ATA/IDE/SATA, a variety of soundcards, videocards, TV tuners, etc.

I simply never saw or experienced pretty much anything that your claim states, and I seriously doubt the majority of people that chose to take the less beaten path and run XP x64 from the gitgo did either.

I run XP x64 now instead of Vista because of one reason: I do audio work for clients that requires me to have a machine that does what I want it to do, what I need it to do, when I need it to do it without issues. Because of Microsoft's decision to discard DirectSound in Vista, and with an entire audio production industry (at least the ones using Windows-based PCs) that was built upon the DirectSound foundation, a lot of the software people like myself use simply can't and won't use Vista now because the hardware manufacturers so far have failed to create drivers that offer the exact same functionality that XP or XP x64 drivers offer, or any improvements across the board.

I have several soundcards, from M-Audio, to Digidesign, to the "standard" Audigy 2 ZS these days. I put a lot of money into the hardware I have in my own personal workstation and under Vista, none of these soundcards works anywhere nearly as well as it does under XP. I can't blame Vista totally for this situation because Vista was in production for years and the soundcard/hardware makers just haven't seemed to get onboard (no pun intended) with the proper driver support that we producers require.

So, while I do have Vista Ultimate installed in a dual boot situation for learning and tech support purposes, my own primary OS is either XP x64 or 2K3 Enterprise x64 (got that free for attending some Microsoft seminars, and yes it does make the best "workstation" OS ever, seriously, even better than XP x64). It's superior in almost all ways, and gives me reason to hope that Win2K8 will be even better and leave Vista in the dust.

But until the driver situation - which again is not Vista's fault, but Microsoft does have a share of the blame in that respect - is worked out, I'll stick with the previous generation of OSes from Microsoft.

Just my $.02...

I had a ton of problems when using XPx64. I put in Vista x64 and I have never had a problem since. Maybe it me, who knows... :confused:

[nobody_here]

two seconds to open a PDF?! thats ludicrous! :D

(i bet you thought i was being sarcastic :p, which i was kinda)

but lets change that to 2 miliseconds like i have going on in my vista box ;)

download this: http://www.docu-track.com/downloads/users/ (the first one)

64 bit pdf viewer, best ive ever used. computer doesnt even hiccup when scrolling down hundreds of pages. best of all you can click a button and get all the buttons and tabs and options to disappear making it cleaner and even faster. :D hope u enjoy

edit: oh yea and its 64bit

thanks much

[Whiznot]

Install Vista. If your father finds that he does not like Vista go back to XP.

[Finn]

Don't believe the hype. His Vista won't open pdf's any faster than your box with the exception of the single first file he might open. After that it opens them slower actually.

And speed wise, foxit pdf reader is the way to go. It's not bloated like acrobat is nowadays and it is blazing fast. Adobe dropped the ball in a big way (plus they have spyware).