anybody has gone from vista back to xp?

Menelmarar said:
L O L
XP is not dieing, and not dieing fast. I still have computers in my lab, running ancient automation software for GPIB buses running Win98, and they haven't *died*.

Even new application releases will support XP for at least another 2-3 if not 4 years I imagine. It's not going anywhere fast.
Click to expand...

Im talking mainly about OEM computers, out of how many computers/laptops come with xp as default? hardly any.

When you go into a computer store what operating system do they have on the shelf? Vista. Wheres xp? On the bottom shelf.

When you go on a site to download drivers/software whats the default option? Windows Vista

With dx10 there isnt really a future for xp after sp1, why use dx9 when your machine can run games at a lot better quality with dx10.

Think about what you are saying before you 'L O L' next time.

You have windows 98, what does windows 98 support now? Nothing. What new drivers are released for windows 98? Hardly Any..
 
ring.of.steel said:
With dx10 there isnt really a future for xp after sp1, why use dx9 when your machine can run games at a lot better quality with dx10.
Click to expand...

I am sure that was the plan, but I hardly doubt the switch to DX10 will be any where near as quick as the switch from DX8 to DX9 was.
 
Met-AL said:
I am sure that was the plan, but I hardly doubt the switch to DX10 will be any where near as quick as the switch from DX8 to DX9 was.
Click to expand...

I agree, but there was a huge leap from dx8 to dx9, which isnt really as big as the current leap.
 
ring.of.steel said:
Im talking mainly about OEM computers, out of how many computers/laptops come with xp as default? hardly any.
Click to expand...
Sure, consumer side. I just ordered about 50 desktops for corporate use. All with XP.
With dx10 there isnt really a future for xp after sp1, why use dx9 when your machine can run games at a lot better quality with dx10.
Click to expand...
Oh? Which games are you thinking of here? Because the only DX10 titles I know of offer a bit of flash for a performance hit.

Now yes, that may change over time as developers become comfortable with DX10, but given that DX10 requires an OS upgrade they'd have to be crazy to really move on this anytime in the next few years. The financial numbers simply wouldn't justify the move.
 
XOR != OR said:
Sure, consumer side. I just ordered about 50 desktops for corporate use. All with XP.
Click to expand...

This is a subject in it's own, but how come you can't order a workstation with no OS? A few years ago, my company placed an order for a couple of thousand HP DT330 machines all to have the hard disks wiped and to have our own custom image with our corporate XP license put on them. Each PC came with XP on it with it's own COA. (And, no, taking home the WinXP cds doesn't work, they won't activate after installation and the HP image restore CD only works on you guessed it, HP computers :) )
 
Met-AL said:
This is a subject in it's own, but how come you can't order a workstation with no OS? A few years ago, my company placed an order for a couple of thousand HP DT330 machines all to have the hard disks wiped and to have our own custom image with our corporate XP license put on them. Each PC came with XP on it with it's own COA. (And, no, taking home the WinXP cds doesn't work, they won't activate after installation and the HP image restore CD only works on you guessed it, HP computers :) )
Click to expand...
Ya, that's a separate thing altogether. We have a contract with MS, so we should be able to get blank systems from HP and load our custom image.

Not so of course. Frustrating.
 
XOR != OR said:
Now yes, that may change over time as developers become comfortable with DX10, but given that DX10 requires an OS upgrade they'd have to be crazy to really move on this anytime in the next few years. The financial numbers simply wouldn't justify the move.
Click to expand...

So you think games arnt going to drop dx9, i think this will start happening in the back end of this year with certian titles.
 
ring.of.steel said:
So you think games arnt going to drop dx9, i think this will start happening in the back end of this year with certian titles.
Click to expand...
That'd be a silly move on the part of a software developer; you will still have DX9 machines out there for at least another 2 years. I'm basing this on the average life cycle of a consumer PC at 3 years.

Now, in 2 years, *maybe* we'll be seeing dx10 only titles. I doubt even that though, given the flak main stream media has given Vista. It'll really depend on public opinion of Vista in a year. If my mother, for example, is still saying "no way" to vista, then I'll know MS has a problem on their hands ( yes, she actually does say this. She doesn't want to touch it. XP works fine for her ).

Unless they are getting kickbacks from MS ( which is likely, I'll grant you ), software developers aren't going to artificially hamstring their potential market.
 
I have XP and Vista in dual boot, but I cant remember the last time I used Vista. UAC made me want to pull my hair out, not to mention stupid file permissions crap....so annoying and useless. It kept trying to protect me from myself. Maybe thats a great idea for casual non-techies, but for me it was nothing but an exercise in frustration. UAC can be turned off, but I never could get the file permissions thing worked out...

Overall I kind of liked it, but the bottom line is with Yahoo widgets on XP, theres nothing Vista does for me XP doesn't. I have no reason to use it. Sure, I have 4GB and it would be nice to use all of it more efficiently....but thats not enough reason to switch.

So, I will keep my dual boot around for now, I just never use it anymore. Maybe SP1 will change my mind.
 
DeaconFrost said:
What "annoying file permissions" crap are you referring to? I can't say, on three Vista boxes, I have been prevented from doing anything I need to do.
Click to expand...

When I installed Vista dual boot, I copied over my personal files from my XP install. I guess because they were "created" under a different OS, I didn't actually "own" them and couldn't do shit with them. Trying to gain proper ownership never seemed to work. I tried making the system the owner, making me the owner, etc. It would accept the change with no complaint, and then not work. Id go back in the file settings and my change was gone. I also was playing around with creating my own Vista widgets, and I guess those folders are all "protected" so I couldn't do that either. After spending hours surfing the web looking for info and dicking around with it, I finally said "this is not worth my time."
 
Thats why you employee a much better data storage technique. Don't store any data on your system volume. If you keep a separate data drive/partition, you don't run into any of these issues, nor the dreaded "take ownership" issues.
 
Simple:

Vista x64 taking 1.2-1.6gig of memory, upon trimming it down it still took 750meg

XP x64 taking about 500meg of memory, upon trimming it down it is under 200meg.

Both do the same thing and DX10 is not accepted enough to warrant that bloated pig!

I have 4 gig, but to have over 30-40% dedicated to the operating system makes me :(


Also, DX9 is here for at least 5 years more before we see companies droping support for it. 90% of the installed base is not ready for DX10
 
Sunin said:
Simple:

Vista x64 taking 1.2-1.6gig of memory, upon trimming it down it still took 750meg

XP x64 taking about 500meg of memory, upon trimming it down it is under 200meg.

Both do the same thing and DX10 is not accepted enough to warrant that bloated pig!

I have 4 gig, but to have over 30-40% dedicated to the operating system makes me :(


Also, DX9 is hear for at least 5 years more before we see companies droping support for it. 90% of the installed base is not ready for DX10
Click to expand...
Vista's memory utilization is completely different than XP.

I have 4gig of memory. I want the OS to use it in the most optimum way for maximum performance and response. Sounds like from your numbers Vista is doing that. RAM is much faster than HDD thrashing.

The OS will release low priority items if other applications need it. NT kernel has always worked in that way. But I have yet to find a way even running intensive games to saturate more than 65% of 4gig.
 
Menelmarar said:
Vista's memory utilization is completely different than XP.

I have 4gig of memory. I want the OS to use it in the most optimum way for maximum performance and response.
Click to expand...
Seriously. How much longer will we have to hear people complain about Vista's memory usage? When will the madness end? :(
 
DeaconFrost said:
Thats why you employee a much better data storage technique. Don't store any data on your system volume. If you keep a separate data drive/partition, you don't run into any of these issues, nor the dreaded "take ownership" issues.
Click to expand...

So I shouldn't store my documents in the my documents folder. Right.
In order for Vista to not annoy the shit out of you, buy another hardrive for your text files. okay.
 
I bought a Gateway Q6600 with 3 gig of ram and Vista Home Preemium 32 bit. Everything was fine for a few weeks until I went to use Ebay. I went to pay for my auction and the link wouldn't work. So I went straight to Paypal and the page would not load. So I emailed the guy and he sent me a direct link. Nope. So he gave me the number for paypal....no problems on their end. I called my ISP...no problems there. My ISP gave me a bunch of things to try...no phish filtering...etc...nope. I rebooted into safe mode with networking and the page would still not load. Come to find out it was the way Vista handled certificates. If it could not verify the certificate, it wasn't loading the page, period. It didn't give you the option that XP does. So I returned the computer to Best Buy and the manager said they had a bunch of returns with people having problems with Vista. I got my money and built the computer in my sig. Now I'm using XP, but now that I know what it was and how to get around it, there are ways....I'd use Vista again. I actually like it.
 
dadi38 said:
I bought a Gateway Q6600 with 3 gig of ram and Vista Home Preemium 32 bit. Everything was fine for a few weeks until I went to use Ebay. I went to pay for my auction and the link wouldn't work. So I went straight to Paypal and the page would not load. So I emailed the guy and he sent me a direct link. Nope. So he gave me the number for paypal....no problems on their end. I called my ISP...no problems there. My ISP gave me a bunch of things to try...no phish filtering...etc...nope. I rebooted into safe mode with networking and the page would still not load. Come to find out it was the way Vista handled certificates. If it could not verify the certificate, it wasn't loading the page, period. It didn't give you the option that XP does. So I returned the computer to Best Buy and the manager said they had a bunch of returns with people having problems with Vista. I got my money and built the computer in my sig. Now I'm using XP, but now that I know what it was and how to get around it, there are ways....I'd use Vista again. I actually like it.
Click to expand...
Firefox..Opera...
Why do people still punish themselves with IE... sigh :(
 
Menelmarar said:
Vista's memory utilization is completely different than XP.

I have 4gig of memory. I want the OS to use it in the most optimum way for maximum performance and response. Sounds like from your numbers Vista is doing that. RAM is much faster than HDD thrashing.

The OS will release low priority items if other applications need it. NT kernel has always worked in that way. But I have yet to find a way even running intensive games to saturate more than 65% of 4gig.
Click to expand...

Yeah I didn't like it when playing VG I was hitting 89% memory usage. I know its not 100%, but generally right around then is when I would start crashing.

Overall, I like vista and the feel, but went back mainly due to stability. Will I go back to Vista in the next 6 months most likely! With my new build, Fast Dual core or Quad Core, with 4-8gig and hopefully SSD's. It will be a purely gaming computer that hopefully will have 1 or 2 9800GTX's. Still not 100% sold on SLI even though I've dabbled with my 8800GTX's.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Seriously. How much longer will we have to hear people complain about Vista's memory usage? When will the madness end? :(
Click to expand...
Well, the difference is minimal. At least, it has been my experience that all that extra caching doesn't really translate well into increased performance.

So you have an OS using up more memory than it's predecessor without any perceived benefit. And given that people don't exactly trust MS to implement new concepts well ( see: vista networking stack ), why would anybody trust the "new" memory techniques vista employs?
 
dadi38 said:
I bought a Gateway Q6600 with 3 gig of ram and Vista Home Preemium 32 bit. Everything was fine for a few weeks until I went to use Ebay. I went to pay for my auction and the link wouldn't work. So I went straight to Paypal and the page would not load. So I emailed the guy and he sent me a direct link. Nope. So he gave me the number for paypal....no problems on their end. I called my ISP...no problems there. My ISP gave me a bunch of things to try...no phish filtering...etc...nope. I rebooted into safe mode with networking and the page would still not load. Come to find out it was the way Vista handled certificates. If it could not verify the certificate, it wasn't loading the page, period. It didn't give you the option that XP does. So I returned the computer to Best Buy and the manager said they had a bunch of returns with people having problems with Vista. I got my money and built the computer in my sig. Now I'm using XP, but now that I know what it was and how to get around it, there are ways....I'd use Vista again. I actually like it.
Click to expand...

I use both ebay and paypal every day in Vista Home Premuim, Ultimate, and x64 flavors.
 
XOR != OR said:
Well, the difference is minimal. At least, it has been my experience that all that extra caching doesn't really translate well into increased performance.

So you have an OS using up more memory than it's predecessor without any perceived benefit. And given that people don't exactly trust MS to implement new concepts well ( see: vista networking stack ), why would anybody trust the "new" memory techniques vista employs?
Click to expand...

Because its a proven concept in OSX, *nix etc etc. It is a standard everywhere else. Microsoft is just using it finally. If you haven't seen a benefit of super fetch, you haven't let your vista install sit on your machine under constant usage for a month+.
 
crewzen said:
I am this week going back to XP x64 because there are no signed drivers around for Vista and I am talking Supermicro and the slowness of my large scsi raid arrays with adaptec on chip arrays. When I come out of a game the graphics reverts back to a previous setting not supporting Vista and the list goes on.:eek:

No workstation support.
Click to expand...

What this guy said.
 
I see this whole signed drivers bit popping up in several threads. I can't honestly say I've ever had this problem pop up, where a driver failed to install. I am not sure about anything from SuperMicro, but wouldn't there be OEM drivers available, such as straight from Intel, if it's an Intel chipset board?
XOR != OR said:
At least, it has been my experience that all that extra caching doesn't really translate well into increased performance.
Click to expand...
It certainly doesn't translate to lesser performance, that's for sure. I guess some people like to feel warm and fuzzy watching so little of the memory they paid for being used, but to each his/her own. I like knowing my computer is using the memory I paid for....albeit at ridiculously low prices.
 
Monkey God said:
When I installed Vista dual boot, I copied over my personal files from my XP install. I guess because they were "created" under a different OS, I didn't actually "own" them and couldn't do shit with them. Trying to gain proper ownership never seemed to work. I tried making the system the owner, making me the owner, etc. It would accept the change with no complaint, and then not work. Id go back in the file settings and my change was gone. I also was playing around with creating my own Vista widgets, and I guess those folders are all "protected" so I couldn't do that either. After spending hours surfing the web looking for info and dicking around with it, I finally said "this is not worth my time."
Click to expand...

I have the same problem.

If I have anything on XP, I'll have to either move it to my internal storage drive or directly to the Vista drive. Once I do that the file permission issue is gone. It only applies for files on the XP hard drive.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Seriously. How much longer will we have to hear people complain about Vista's memory usage? When will the madness end? :(
Click to expand...

Caching aside, Vista uses more memory than XP does. Memory usage can be a legitimate complaint.

Case in point, I can run certain games just fine in XP with 1GB of ram, however they thrash the HDD in Vista.
 
jimmyb said:
Caching aside, Vista uses more memory than XP does. Memory usage can be a legitimate complaint.

Case in point, I can run certain games just fine in XP with 1GB of ram, however they thrash the HDD in Vista.
Click to expand...
HP had DDR2 sticks for $3 per GIG a few weeks ago. You have no excuse not to have 4gig. Even regular prices around newegg and such are dirt cheap.
 
That's beside my point though: Caching aside Vista does in fact use more memory than XP, and it's not totally illegitimate to say you don't like that.
 
I went from Vista Home Premium to Server 2003 Standard on my htpc. Regardless of the improved memoryusage and Superfetch, Server 2003 runs faster and can actually play all my 1080p movies. On Vista I started to drop frames in movies where the bitrate would pass 35mbit/sec (and cpu usage would peak at 100%), the same movie now plays at 60-80% cpu usage instead and no dropped frames. Open and closing programs/windows and moving through a large fileserver is also a lot snappier. I suppose that if/when I upgrade my hardware, Vista would be more useful.

Some images, first is memory usage in Zoomplayer on Vista. I got a few dropped frames here and the movie would not keep its desired frame rate. Its the same codecs/setup. Just a different operative system. Fear my paintskills!

zoomplayer.JPG


The dropped frames...

zoomplayer4.JPG


Same movie on Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition

zoomplayer2.JPG


Desired framerate and no jitter

zoomplayer3.JPG
 
Interesting post Demodred! I had similar issues, with both Video and Sound playback Under Vista, and failed to thoroughly investigate the cause. I guess I just assumed that it was the fault of the Cyberlink Power DVD and Winamp programs I was using.
 
Yes, PowerDVD is, when it works, great. But this was an MVK- file and as far as I know they cant be accelerated. WIth some skins and modifications Server 2003 can act and feel like Vista - with the exception from all those extra clicks that are in Vista.
 
I'm running Vista Ult x64 and using nero 6 Ultimate. Is there known computability issues? I've burned CDs and DVDs fine with it.
 
AFAIK, you should not install Nero 6 on Vista. Download Nero 8.2 Lite. I believe I mentioned it earlier in this thread.
 
GORANKAR said:
Tried Vista in a dual boot with Xp, liked it ok, but just found myself booting into it less and less. There is nothing wrong with Vista, I just prefer Xp. The same thing happened with Unbuntu, it was not bad, it just did not suite me like Xp does.
I will switch over full time to Vista eventually. just not today.
Click to expand...


my thoughts exactly
 
I went from Vista Ultimate x64 to XP 64bit due to the video drivers issues that has plagued many users.

Display Driver has stopped responding and recovered, I've seen that error TOO many damn times.
 
I used Vista for about 3 months or so. The only real complaint I have about the OS (which means I'm not including 'lack of driver support' because that is a failure of the software makers, not MS) is that the new 'security' features are too intrusive.

I do alot of contract work and giving Vista a shot at being my work laptop was the worst thing I could have done (but turned out to be a good test for practical reasons). It failed to connect to all networks equally, it nagged me constantly about invalid certs and improper authentication methods from 'untrusted' sources even though I had them implicitly set to trusted. It seems that they have removed/broken/obfuscated alot of VPN support in Vista (at least I couldn't find out how to get it work in a timely fashion. not everyone in the world has the best VPN setups so at least a minor amount of deprecated protocol support should be allowed) so suddenly I couldn't access some of my older VPN tunnels. Having to create trust relationship with each network I connect to is annoying. UAC is annoying as well, and while I could disable it, what would be the point? 'Secure' is one of Vista's selling points, so I can't imagine I should be required to either strip that feature away or be forced to 'deal' with it. The list of 'I could just disable it, but why should I have to compromise my system for it to work correctly' situations goes on and on.

Another issue I had with Vista was the massive change in hardware that was recommended (relatively speaking, it goes well beyond the reasonable and expected HW increase requirements of other OS's). While I am not poor, and I always keep my systems within a few months of SOTA, I see this change as nothing more than a result of bloat ware, especially when you consider all of the 'rights management' subsystems that constantly poll your hardware. While this doesn't have any real impact other than slowing down the system as a whole, as soon as all of this garbage media protection comes into play, the requirements are going to be even higher. While hardware may be cheap, I don't see why I should be required to add an additional 512, or 1,024MB of memory to my system just to be equal with XP. It's not a problem, mind you, I just find it to be bad software engineering. Virtualization on Vista failed miserably as well, so running Backtrack and other useful systems was out of the question....which makes me wonder, why didn't they just use the same virtualization technology in Vista as they did in Server 2008? I mean, for $499 license you should at least get the same package as you're upgrading from.

All in all from what I've seen of Vista, it offers absolutely nothing to me, or anyone I know for that matter (other than a fancy shell which is far inferior to compiz fusion/beryl). The only reason I am even bothering to use Vista at all is because MS has too much market inertia and Vista will eventually replace older systems, so I need to keep up to date with it.

Conclusion: Vista, to me, is alot like 'The Day After tomorrow.' Pretty decent special effects, but is ultimately hampered by a poor and unrealistic plot.

I just can't help but see Vista as another Windows ME.

::EDIT:: I forgot to mention the failure of the most basic operation of all OS's. Copy/Paste/Cut/Moving of files from one location to another....never, EVER, should users be expected OR required to move their data to a transitional medium before being moved. That you cannot take some files from an inactive XP partion and copy them onto the Vista partition is beyond absurd, it's flat out bad implementation. Maybe if MS had spent more time worrying about the OS rather than their marketting (ie, competing with Google) they would have released an 'improved' system instead of just a 'functional' system.
 
Menelmarar said:
Firefox..Opera...
Why do people still punish themselves with IE... sigh :(
Click to expand...

I actually tried firefox as well, I do prefer firefox over IE. Thought for sure that would solve the problem, but it didn't. did the exact same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top