anybody has gone from vista back to xp?

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,493
Case in point, I can run certain games just fine in XP with 1GB of ram, however they thrash the HDD in Vista.
Rewind your memory about six years when the very same things were being said in comparing XP and 2000.

What I find most amusing is that very few people seem to remember, or be willing to admit that all these same complaints, bashes, etc are just repeating what's happened several times in the past. XP went through the very same thing in the past....the very same OS that's now being defended. Instead of wasting all this time arguing, debating, etc....why not put the effort into something positive and/or creative, such as working on Vista isues, or working through them? It's all a cycle, nothing more. There will be a day when Vista is hotly debated, when compared to the next version of Windows. Some people like trying something new, and enjoying it...while others like to cling back to that "safe ledge". There's no reason or point in bashing someone who's choosing the opposite decision.

*none of this is directed at jimmyb, except the first paragraph. I'm just venting my frustrations at how many people choose to argue, rather than think something through a bit more.
 

svet-am

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
5,146
Rewind your memory about six years when the very same things were being said in comparing XP and 2000.

I understand what you're getting at, but XP didn't introduce any entirely new memory management system and paradigm (not just SuperFetch, everything to do with memory). The memory management architecture was entirely re-written from the ground up for Vista. In XP, it shared the same code was Windows 2000.

Thus, people complaining about XP compared to Win2k were out of line since the memory management architecture was identical. In Vista, it's entirely new and not necessarily as efficient. Thus, I think people have a legitimate complaint against Vista in this area.
 

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,493
XP still used more memory than 2000 did, running the same apps. I clearly recall all of the "it's only 2000 with eye candy on top of it, so why should I switch" comments.
 

svet-am

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
5,146
XP still used more memory than 2000 did, running the same apps. I clearly recall all of the "it's only 2000 with eye candy on top of it, so why should I switch" comments.

Yes, and this increased memory usage was directly tied to a higher number of _optional_ services enabled by default in XP. Disabling these services brought the memory usage back to Windows 2000 levels.

In Vista, it's different. Even with all "optional" services (read: those that will not b0rk the OS from running) turned off Vista uses much more memory than XP.

What this is driving at is that Microsoft is pushing more and more OPTIONAL services that not everyone will use into the core OS files. Why does my desktop without any wireless functionality at all need the wireless connectivity service running? In addition, why does Vista prevent me from disabling said service because the kernel depends on it?
 

Sieravor

Gawd
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
943
I was in favor of the 2000 -> XP switch. The only thing I require is that the system perform at least as well as what I'm currently using. If I buy a Ferrari, it had better perform better than my BMW. XP did that, although it took several updates and two service packs to get where it is.

When put side by side, however, I find that the differences and annoyances found between 2000 and XP are far fewer and less severe than they are between XP and Vista. I'm sure Vista will be a fine OS, much like XP is, but I just can't say that it is currently as functional and rich as XP is...

But yes, people were slamming XP like crazy, much like they are right now with Vista, and for good reason. :)
 

Uberbob102000

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
2,243
Wow, I'm using Vista Ultimate x64 on my systems and I love it. I haven't had driver problems and I've had very few app problems (Gothic 3 running at 5fps on all the rigs in my sig is the only big one).
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
I was in favor of the 2000 -> XP switch. The only thing I require is that the system perform at least as well as what I'm currently using. If I buy a Ferrari, it had better perform better than my BMW. XP did that, although it took several updates and two service packs to get where it is.

When put side by side, however, I find that the differences and annoyances found between 2000 and XP are far fewer and less severe than they are between XP and Vista. I'm sure Vista will be a fine OS, much like XP is, but I just can't say that it is currently as functional and rich as XP is...

But yes, people were slamming XP like crazy, much like they are right now with Vista, and for good reason. :)


It's funny, for me my experience was different. On my last PC which was an AMD 64 X2 4400+ I ran Vista 32 for a good 10 months. When I upgraded to a new PC I sold the AMD box to a friend. Since I didn't have a Vista License to keep on the old box I installed XP back on it. I was very suprised to not that The brand new XP install on the very same hardware wasn't as snappy as the 10 month old Vista install.

One thing about Vista that has been becoming clear to me is the longer it has been installed and used, the better the experience gets. Vista performance actually improves over time. I can only assume it's because of all the self tuning Vista does with Auto defrag, Superfetch, etc... XP can't say this at all. Most XP boxes get slower over time.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,064
One thing about Vista that has been becoming clear to me is the longer it has been installed and used, the better the experience gets. Vista performance actually improves over time. I can only assume it's because of all the self tuning Vista does with Auto defrag, Superfetch, etc... XP can't say this at all. Most XP boxes get slower over time.

Thats nice if you dont mind waiting months for Vista to optimise itself.
What happens if you need to re-install or restore a backup?
You have to go through the same experience again.

Maybe you can keep a backup that is already optimised but after a few months operation, the backup wont be virgin and could have an undesirable installed.
This would then be present in every restore you do.

At least when you restore a backup of XP, you know its performance will be top notch.
I prefer XP in this manner because if it does get slow (takes a looong time to start doing that), the cure is quick and painless.
 

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,493
What if your fresh Vista install is every bit as snappy and responsive as a fresh XP install on the same system? A great way to compare the OSes side by side is to use this product to do some testing. After deciding to stay with Vista x64 quite some time ago, I pulled it from my system, but it's a great way to find out for yourself that Vista runs every bit as fast, if not faster on the same system.
 

Sieravor

Gawd
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
943
but it's a great way to find out for yourself that Vista runs every bit as fast, if not faster on the same system.

I'm starting to see a trend (not just here, but in the real world as well) that Vista makes a decent/good desktop system, but a less than average workstation. I'm wondering if the problem isn't really responsiveness so much as reliable usability. I never had a problem with it being too slow, my primary problems were with it's ability to do what I told it to do. I don't need my OS correcting me every couple of minutes telling me that 'you shouldn't do this' or 'I won't let this program run.' Combine that with dumbed down access methods (no real admin account, even on an admin account without registry tweaks....), UAC, and some other stuff, it just doesn't lend itself well to my lifestyle or job.

I'm also starting to wonder if alot of these problems have to deal with specific hardware configurations. While Vista may play well with each device one on one, who knows what kind of crap it's doing behind the scenes with the whole system. The way windows interacts with the hardware has never been the best, so this could all be s symptom of slightly unrefined (ie, new OS = start over again with common issues) subsystems.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,064
What if your fresh Vista install is every bit as snappy and responsive as a fresh XP install on the same system? A great way to compare the OSes side by side is to use this product to do some testing. After deciding to stay with Vista x64 quite some time ago, I pulled it from my system, but it's a great way to find out for yourself that Vista runs every bit as fast, if not faster on the same system.

lol, its easy to tell by using them :)
 

crewzen

Gawd
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
584
I use data express by kingston, same thing with 2 slide out hd trays for scsi and that is how I found out just how slow vista 64 ultimate realy is right now without the SP1 which isnt out yet.

After SP1 is out we will see then. But scsi it totaly different in Vista 64 realy has problems with a good raid on chip.
 

jimmyb

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
3,165
Rewind your memory about six years when the very same things were being said in comparing XP and 2000.
[...]
For a lot of people, it was a valid complaint back then, and it applies now as well. Just because it's inevitable that the upgrade will happen, doesn't mean there aren't any valid complaints. (For example, I still use win2k on a system with 128MB. I suppose eventually I will just retire the machine)

It sounds like we both agree that Vista uses more memory than XP (we should agree, it's easily verifiable).

It also sounds like this isn't a concern at all for you; however it's not unreasonable to think that for some people this might be a concern.
 

Sunin

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - August 2008
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
3,421
Let's face it Vista is the future regardless of what we think. Does MS have a ways to go before it is accepted? Yes. Is is a failure? NO.. It needs work, drivers, support, etc... the same things that XP lacked when it first arrived.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,064
Let's face it Vista is the future regardless of what we think. Does MS have a ways to go before it is accepted? Yes. Is is a failure? NO.. It needs work, drivers, support, etc... the same things that XP lacked when it first arrived.

Vista is a stopgap, its by no means the future.
So much of what Vista was going to be was dropped, this will find its way into the new OS that Vista should have been.
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
Thats nice if you dont mind waiting months for Vista to optimise itself.
What happens if you need to re-install or restore a backup?
You have to go through the same experience again.
The bulk of the tuning is done after the first week after a re-install.

Using the included system restore doesn't seem to make things slower. I recently was a little overzealous on some driver changes on my system and messed up my system pretty good. I restored my system from my latest back up and didn't see any sort of slow down.

So the reality of it is, If you have to re-install, sure you get some HD thrashing for a week, but it really doesn't affect performance badly, excpet maybe on older PCs. But My typical expericence with XP is that I start noticing slowdowns after about 6 months and usually ended up doing a re-install within a year. I never saw any slow downs on Vista after 10 months.

Maybe you can keep a backup that is already optimised but after a few months operation, the backup wont be virgin and could have an undesirable installed.
This would then be present in every restore you do.

That doesn't seem to be a problem. One of the nice things about the Vista backup/restore is that I can just select a date of which to restore from and get your system the state it was in on that date.

At least when you restore a backup of XP, you know its performance will be top notch.
I prefer XP in this manner because if it does get slow (takes a looong time to start doing that), the cure is quick and painless.

Hardly painless. I'd rather go through a week or two of high HD use and then have a system that I don't need to re-install due to gradual performance degredation. Most people will put up with a slowing PC for months before doing the re-install which in the end is more performance loss than Vista's initial optimization period.
 

svet-am

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
5,146
So much of what Vista was going to be was dropped, this will find its way into the new OS that Vista should have been.
QFT! Microsoft made a bad habit of tooting its own horn on this round with promises that couldn't be delivered. They did it with Vista with all of these GREAT features (WinFS, I still love you) that would've been great to have only to scrap them and leave us with the empty shell (relatively) that is Vista.

They did the same thing with Flight Simulator X and all of the goodness that it was supposed to be only to drop or severely pare down virtually every new and innovative feature in the product.

Microsoft Office 2007 was supposed to revolutionize collaboration and data access and all we've really got to show for it is the ribbon bar.
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
For a lot of people, it was a valid complaint back then, and it applies now as well. Just because it's inevitable that the upgrade will happen, doesn't mean there aren't any valid complaints. (For example, I still use win2k on a system with 128MB. I suppose eventually I will just retire the machine)

It sounds like we both agree that Vista uses more memory than XP (we should agree, it's easily verifiable).

It also sounds like this isn't a concern at all for you; however it's not unreasonable to think that for some people this might be a concern.

Most people, even pro Vista folks like myself, don't think that people need to rush out and buy the Vista upgrade for their existing PCs. Most of us simply recommend it when people are buying or building new PCs. So if someone has an XP machine I wouldn't recommend going through the pain involved of installing a new OS. On the other hand, I see no real reason to stick with XP when buying or building a new PC.
 

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,493
That's pretty much the advice I give as well. For a home PC, especially something new or recent, Vista is great. I have no plans to upgrade my current work PC fleet to Vista for two reasons. First, I work in a low tech industry, and the majority of people I work with are still getting comfortable with XP, three years after they've been using it. Secondly, the desktop most of my users have, wouldn't run Vista very well. They are lowly 2 Ghz Pentium 4s, with 1 GB of memory (single channel), and onboard Intel 900 graphics cards. When I do upgrade this line in mid-2009, I'll be going to Vista.
 

svet-am

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
5,146
I thought I'd ressurect this thread a little to make a note that now that Gigabyte has released a new BIOS update, my Vista install issue (couldn't install with all 4GB+ of memory installed, else BSOD) has gone away.

So, my earlier criticisms of Vista based on this are now moot. however, my other criticisms still stand.
 

trypt

Weaksauce
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
93
I just switched back to XP after using Vista Ultimate x64 for about a month. I really liked vista and had no plans to switch back until my DVD drive started disappearing. For most dvd's it worked fine, but some of my dvd+r's would make the drive disappear from the system, and I would have to reboot to get it back. I tried all the solutions I could find, none worked, so here I am. :-(
 

ozziegn

The man behind the curtain...
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
Messages
17,533
I went back to XP just two days after installing Vista. two works can describe Vista: It Sucks! LOL :p
 

nigerian_businessman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Messages
1,535
why in your case?:)

I reverted from Vista Home Premium to Windows XP Pro x64 on my gaming desktop, after using it daily for approximately 3 mos. Why?

  • difficult to integrate into a network with other XP and Linux machines
  • when the network was "connected" I was still contending with random connectivity issues
  • Took longer in Vista to copy 4gb across a gigabit ethernet network than it did to burn to DVD, swap disc from one machine to another, and copy the file off of the dvd
  • moving files between partitions was equally painful
  • performance was underwhelming at best. both linux and XP feel more responsive.
  • customizability is a big issue for me. I can get 95% of the UI benefits of Vista in Windows XP through third party software. Vista has very few visual styles availble and most of the ones it does have are simple Aero edits.
  • Not fond of the aero interface. I guess I'm just spoiled by XFCE w/ gnome-panel + compiz-fusion.
  • DX10 offers nothing more than an unnecessary waste of resources to me right now.

I could go on, but it's pointless and I'd be reaching when it's really unnecessary. Really, it's just a personal preference. I'm sure it works great for some people. It's not bothering me too much on my laptop (although admittedly I spend more time using Linux), but for day to day usage it was more of a chore than anything else. I found few compelling reasons to stay and several very compelling reasons (for me) to switch.
 

book

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
368
So Vista is worse than XP? I'm trying to find out which one to install
 

nigerian_businessman

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2004
Messages
1,535
So Vista is worse than XP? I'm trying to find out which one to install

I wouldn't say it's worse than XP. It's just not much better, and plagued with all the issues that surround any relatively new OS. If I were building a new PC today, I would still buy Vista. I just downgraded because the issues I was facing were a dealbreaker for me given the nature of my home network. I got a new router and I believe most of the issues, if my laptop is any indication, would now be fixed. For now I still see no compelling reason to upgrade my main/gaming PC to Vista again.
 

devman

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
2,400
I thought I'd ressurect this thread a little to make a note that now that Gigabyte has released a new BIOS update, my Vista install issue (couldn't install with all 4GB+ of memory installed, else BSOD) has gone away.

So, my earlier criticisms of Vista based on this are now moot. however, my other criticisms still stand.

There was a windows update that came out shortly after Vista's release that addressed that.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929777
 

svet-am

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
5,146
There was a windows update that came out shortly after Vista's release that addressed that.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929777

Please go back and read my posts. The need for that patch is exactly what upset me. I could not INSTALL Vista with all 4GB installed. I had to physically remove 2GB, install Vista, install the updates, re-install the other 2GB, and then hope for the best.

I am _very_ aware of that infamous KB article. However, the need for it in a "modern" OS is what disturbed me.
 

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,493
That won't be an issue now that the discs with SP1 included are starting to appear. TechNet has had them for a few days now.
 

svet-am

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
5,146
That won't be an issue now that the discs with SP1 included are starting to appear. TechNet has had them for a few days now.

That's what I figure too -- but, it's moot for me either way now thanks to the new BIOS.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
20,064
I gave Vista another go starting a few weeks back as one Forum member expressed it could be as good or faster than XP in games.
Sadly it was about 20% slower in Crysis and nearly all disk operations were orders of magnitude slower so I didnt bother going any further.
If you hate Crysis, best not comment but I really like it and the file transfer speeds alone are a deal breaker for me.

I had numerous other problems including BSODs and it simply cannot run my security software properly so Vista isnt ready for me yet :)
 

Met-AL

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 9, 2002
Messages
7,889
I went back to XP on one of my PC's, the one I use for gaming. I am enjoying it still on my laptop. Very nice for a laptop.

My reasons for going back to XP:

1) Drivers for my mainboard are outdated and nVidia dropped support for it when they took over the company, ULI, that made the chipset. The network part doesn't work at all and there is unexplained instability that I can only rule out to drivers for my mainboard.

2) Sound. I have a X-Fi soundcard and really like it. It is near perfect under XP, but Vista, it has issues. For one, if I turn up the microphone to where others can hear me on TS2 or in game VOIP, the signal sounds overdriven and distorted and starts turning to static.

3) Aero Interface. I am not sure what was causing this, but often my PC would freeze up and finally a message would pop up about desktop manager crashing. Also, often it would switch from 3D Aero Mode to Basic Mode because supposedly an application didn't support Aero, but instantly it would switch back just after it finished switching into Basic Mode. It's a very very annoying 15 second cycle that seemed to be random.

4) I really really like Windows Explorer. I really really dislike Vista's Windows Explorer.

5) My Network. For some reason, it couldn't tell every time after I booted that my network was my Home network and that I had stated that it was a private network. It would think that my network was a new one, set the firewall for "Public" and then nothing would work on my network such as file sharing.

So, maybe Vista will be on my new PC and be fine, but on my current one, it's a bust. I really really like it on my Laptop. Vista has some real neat features that play right into my Laptop. The superfetch helps make a slow RPM laptop drive not seem so slow. The Windows Mobile Center works seamlessly with my Windows Mobile 6 phone.
 

devman

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 3, 2005
Messages
2,400
Please go back and read my posts. The need for that patch is exactly what upset me. I could not INSTALL Vista with all 4GB installed. I had to physically remove 2GB, install Vista, install the updates, re-install the other 2GB, and then hope for the best.

I am _very_ aware of that infamous KB article. However, the need for it in a "modern" OS is what disturbed me.

Did you read the title?
"Error message when you try to install Windows Vista on a computer that uses more than 3 GB of RAM: "STOP 0x0000000A""
 
R

ring.of.steel

Guest
Ive finally had it with vista, its back to xp for me in the next couple of days
 

svet-am

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
5,146
Did you read the title?
"Error message when you try to install Windows Vista on a computer that uses more than 3 GB of RAM: "STOP 0x0000000A""

What are you getting at? I _know_ that the KB article is an install based article.
 

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,493
I think he's getting at the fact that it has no bearing on the operation of Vista once it is installed. If you use disk imaging, or you don't install every week, this isn't really a big deal, and hardly a deal-killer. I have one board that suffers from this problem, and the manufacturer of the board is blaming Vista. If it was truly a Vista problem, it would affect all systems with 4 GB, when in fact it only affects a small few. Since the company didn't seem to be interested in a BIOS update to fix their board, I replaced it.

EDIT: I see in another thread that Gigabyte fixed it with a BIOS revision. Very nice.
 

Cannydog

Gawd
Joined
Aug 11, 2004
Messages
669
Having reinstalled the MCE version of XP several times recently (on different machines), I do have to say that there are some installation "foibles" that you have to deal with. Sort of makes me wonder if Microsoft is using "updating" issues to "encourage" Vista adoption?

For instance; they shut down the Autopatcher program. But you may have issues installing some of the "updates" to the Windows Update Install program without using something like Autopatcher to at least partially update a fresh install. Also, something specific to MCE, it strikes me as odd that Microsoft includes the Update Rollup 2 package for MCE on a separate CD, but it requires that you first install .Net 1.1 and SP1 for .Net 1.1. Why didn't they think to include those updates on that CD?

Still I prefer XP over Vista. Though I can imagine that I might be persuaded to reinstall Vista. When there is a game that will "Only" run on DX10. Until then ... I'll stay with XP!
 

jordan12

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 29, 2000
Messages
9,880
I went back to XP after 3 months too..

I really feel that XP feels much snappier..
 

Drakul

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
374
I'm just about to give up on this freaking OS
and I just installed it today

I back up all my data on a dynamic drive that Vista can't read (nice!)
My DVD-Rom disappears from My Computer for no reason so I can't even burn stuff to back them up

I'm giving it 2-3 more days to solve my problems but I'm about to install XP and be happy

that was $100 well spent! :/
 
Top