anybody has gone from vista back to xp?

I've considered going back to XP, but i'm starting to get used to Vista now and i'm liking it. The whole driver and software problems was a pain at first, but I have most of the stuff worked out now.
 
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.
 
Raise ma hand up.

Half of my software would never install.

EDIT: Keep in mind this was when RC1 and 2 were out.
 
i'd like to see a list of software that people can't install in vista. i don't have one single problem installing software in vista(64bit), old or new. for goodness sake, it's running DVD Dycrpter what more can you ask for?:D
 
Yea, Ive been running vista for a while now, and have no problems. I would never go back. I game, I use bittorrent, and daemon tools, and watch anime, and many other things. Nothing I did on XP I cant do on Vista. I even play older games like Freelancer and UT2004 and they run great on Vista. Now, for software engineers and programmers and stuff, I could see where vista could be an issue (specially 64) but for the normal user, and or gamer, and or advanced PC user, you shouldnt have problems.
 
SuperGem 318 Supermicro is a driver

Nero 7.4

IOMeter

Adaptec on chip raid runs but real slow. speed 180MBps should be 580MBps.
 
SuperGem 318 Supermicro is a driver

Nero 7.4

IOMeter

Adaptec on chip raid runs but real slow. speed 180MBps should be 580MBps.

Have you considered updating to Nero Lite 8.2? That's what I have, and IIRC, it was free. I only used it once to burn a DVD on Vista sometime ago.
 
Every version of Nero 7 I have ever tried works on Vista x64. I am currently running Nero 7.10.1.0 on my system in my sig named Saturn. Assuming you have a legit key to Nero 7, you can download the latest version.
Raise ma hand up.

Half of my software would never install.

EDIT: Keep in mind this was when RC1 and 2 were out.
It's been over a year since that point, and you still base your information on that fact? As mentioned above, give a list of that software, and I can guarantee most, if not all, will work on Vista now.
 
I tried once... I just like Vista too much, and went back to Vista after a week.

No compelling reason to stick with XP for me, as every program I've ever tried to run works fine, with the exception of some older games, which didn't run in XP anyway.
 
Every version of Nero 7 I have ever tried works on Vista x64. I am currently running Nero 7.10.1.0 on my system in my sig named Saturn. Assuming you have a legit key to Nero 7, you can download the latest version.

It's been over a year since that point, and you still base your information on that fact? As mentioned above, give a list of that software, and I can guarantee most, if not all, will work on Vista now.
The OP asked who tried it and went back and why. I tried it and I went back and that is why.

He did not ask for you to get irate about it. So what if it was a year ago. I tried it and I went back. I also tried the Home Server beta and threw those discs away too.
 
I haven't totally dumped it, but I reinstalled XP and am using it as my main OS (dual boot).

I don't like being non-efficient at moving around in windows, and the new explorer was driving me nuts.
 
I had vista come pre loaded on my laptop. I liked it and all. Majority of my software worked. I got steam and Counter strike. My favorite game at the time to even work. I then ran into activation problems after 30 days were up and had to call microsoft and hp back up. I got a new disk installed vista, and then tried installing steam and it wouldn't work correctly. Got some install error. I emailed steam support. after a few email back and forth over a week period i never got a response out of them. Then 4 months later i get email saying they released a new installer and that i should try that. What bullshit

So basicll i went back due to i was addicted to counter strike at the time. Still using it to this day :)

note: i got my laptop two weeks after vista released.
 
He did not ask for you to get irate about it.
Man, I love this. I simply point out that it was over a year ago, and that things have changed. Somewhere apparently, that makes me irate, I guess. Instead of sticking to this game, or making wild assumptions, I'll leave it at this. I simply asked for a list of programs that didn't work in the RC versions, so I could find out which ones worked now. You can't honestly compared a pre-release version with a final version that's been in use for over a year. Obviously the compatibility situation will be hugely different. No one was getting irate, and there was no need to make that assumption.
 
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.
 
I don't like being non-efficient at moving around in windows, and the new explorer was driving me nuts.

Goto the Control Panel/Folder Options. On the General Tab in the Tasks section, select "Use Windows classic folders"
 
Did a dual boot and I just switched to Vista full time. At that time I had the OEM Dell version of Vista Ultimate, now I am running my own copy in 64-bit enviornment. The only program that will not work is Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory but it works in 32-bit mode. Why? Because of Starforce! FUCK YOU STARFORCE!
 
ixnay on the warezay

Too much information.
Remember the rules folks.
 
I dual boot, but went from mainly using vista x64 to XP because my vista's networking went south after a few months. The internet still works but my network explorer doesn't work and I can't get my BT listen port to work anymore.

I'm going to do a fresh install once SP1 is out and maybe SP3 too.
 
Yeah ok 6 months ago maybe, but now xp is dieing fast imo.
 
Development software is a biggie for me. Some of the software that was a dealbreaker for me include:

SDCC (Small Device C Compiler)
GCC-MinGW
Altium DXP
ModelSim

The problems Vista has with the above is not the same in all cases, but they all have sufficient enough issues that it makes Vista a non-starter.

edit: Forgot to include the Cadence OrCAD suite, specifically PSPICE.
 
Used Vista pre RC for 6 months until it expires.

Got Vista Ultimate retail sitting in my drawer for almost a year, will install when I'm bored.. :p
 
I went from Vista x64 to XP64 because the former uses a lot of RAM and hard disk space, which are both bad for the virtualization stuff I have been fooling with lately. The hard disk and RAM difference amounts to another VM I can store and run.

Even with my new very DX10-capable laptop (8800M GTX woot) I am on XP64. I miss the clock, and Aero was kinda nice, but not critical.
 
Tried Vista, went back to XP. A bunch of little things really, but the biggest was UAC. To me, it was a pain in the ass that wasn't worth a damn.
 
Just bought a lappy and a big difference in speed. Don't really care for vista. Every machine I have tried it one is much faster in XP. Most machines had at least 2GB and were mid range dualies. Except 2 laptops and they just flew in XP vs Vista. I also am so used to moving around XP vs the way Vista is setup. If I want Vista looking I just install a program to make it look like Vista.

Outside a few cases there is very little reason tu go to Vista. Maybe once sp1 and 2 come out things might change. Until then I can wait till 7.
 
I have XP with 3.5GB ram (4GB installed).
Much faster and more free ram than with Vista :D
 
I have went back on both of my computers as well. Even running linux, because I tried it, and loved it.
 
Stuff kept crashing under vista, network problems, and slow as a dog.

Back to XP... where stuff still keeps crashing, but the network works and it's now as fast as a llama.

But hey, games work!
 
I use vista to play Stalker because it doesn't blue screen on me there, it works without a hitch. It's also 64-bit so I'm thinking to try out 64-bit 3Ds-Max and see if I notice an improvement there over 32-bit. I still find myself booting back into XP for 2 big reasons.

Vista guzzles up my RAM, and doesn't seem to let it go very fast, I found in stalker that after a couple level changes suddenly it would get really slow, I'd save the game an exit and see a big "OMG NO MEMORY" message. so I boosted up my page file, and now I don't get the stuttering problem, but I can hear my HDs roaring like lions the entire time.

That bothers me, I'm not keen on the idea of the OS chewing up my HDs for no reason. Now I could turn of superfetch, but then... why the hell am I using vista? UAC annoys me to no end as well, but I understand the purpose there, but tbh, at the end of the day, I'm going to stick with XP as my main OS (so it'll stay as the default in the boot loader).
 
Yeah ok 6 months ago maybe, but now xp is dieing fast imo.
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.
 
i'd like to see a list of software that people can't install in vista.
When I posted earlier in this thread, I was focused on my early RC1 experience with Vista on my home machine. After further consideration, I have decided to comment on another aspect of the Vista experience in my life.

I work for a major oil company in the field of automated controls. My official job title is "Instrumentation and Automation Technician". We have an exclusive contract with one OEM PC company. Every PC that they ship to us comes with a Vista Business License and Disc. Not one single PC or laptop in use in our business district has Vista installed.

The automation software used in our facilities for equipment made by Honeywell, GE, Allen-Bradley, Rockwell Automation, Rosemount (Emerson Process) and Bently Nevada will not run on Vista.
 
Let's see.
1) slightly reduced gaming perf, not really a big deal at all.
2) Raid 0 perf cut in half (huge deal)
3) Weird networking bug that killed LAN upstream data rate (SCP was 40kbs, bogged VNC viewer session, tried all the little tweaks, turned out to be first packet for nvidia, fixed that, but now first packet doesn't work)
4)the 100gig partition on my raid for vista just kept getting larger and larger even though I wasn't installing anything. Never investigated it too much, but it was out of the ordinary.

I'm dual booting so I can still use DX10, but I'm not sure if I'll boot back into it for a while. I'll probably leap in with both feet again when I do my spring rig refresh and give it 8 gigs of mem.
 
I had a friend working at Microsoft who got me enrolled in the Vista beta program. However, both times I attempted installation, in fairly short order, Vista would try to put my display into a powered down mode from which it could not recover. The only way to correct this was to reinstall XP.

So since I submitted bug reports on those two incidents, Microsoft gave me a free retail copy of Ultimate. And because I wanted to avoid the issues of trying to get Vista drivers, for the very slightly out of date hardware (an Athlon 939-pin Dual core - Asus A8R-32 MVP Deluxe - X1900XT - Audigy 4... etc.). I chose to build a new system from the ground up for Vista. That system is detailed in my signature below.

Well I guess I was a victim of my own success. I might have been more satisfied with Vista if; I didn't have 4 hard drives, I didn't use external USB drives frequently, I was willing to purchase an X-Fi soundcard, I only used one type of networking, I was willing to buy all new N spec wireless gear,... or maybe if I lived in a different space/time continuum? :rolleyes:

As it is, I lasted for 9 months using Vista on a daily basis. Files transfer over either USB, or simply disk to disk is incredibly slow. It literally requires more time for Vista to "estimate the time it will take" than it does for XP to copy/move the files. The sad part is that I did everything possible to remedy the situation. I tried installing both versions, x64 and x86, of Vista. I tried installing both versions with and without AHCI drivers. I tried reinstalling using new drivers. I tried every "update" offered by Microsoft. The ONLY thing I didn't try was that one RC for SP1, that Microsoft allowed the public to download. (You'll just have to pardon my reluctance - Vista beta was enough to put me off beta software - at least from Microsoft.)

Now there were other issues with Vista that were also an irritation. Truthfully I wanted to "get used to" them because I don't see change as something "bad". At the same time, I think part of my problem is that I have several XP machines running here at home. So some comparison of performance was inevitable. I also had just a few programs like Picozip that, there weren't Vista compatible updates for, and didn't quite work properly. (Specifically the UAC would not allow Picozip to open up from a context menu.) Then finally there were other programs, like Diskkeeper, that wouldn't work unless I purchased an upgrade (though at first that was not available).

Mind you I don't care that Vista requires more resources. I don't care if the UAC nags me, as many as 4 times, when I want to perform basic actions. But I do expect it to perform the "most basic" function of an Operating System. That is to effectively, and efficiently, use my hardware at it's potential. If it can't do that then it's time for me to "move on", or in this case "move back".

The "straw that broke the camel's back" for me was when Microsoft decided that Vista SP1 wouldn't be released until after "mid-March". I understand now that they wanted to kill the ways you can get around activation. And that is the reason for the delay. But it still doesn't help ease my frustration with Vista's critical lack of performance. And that is when I decided to revert to XP.

In the end I seriously doubt Microsoft will completely resolve the issues I experienced without building a new kernel (I would suggest one that features less virtualization...). Face it, sometimes everyone makes mistakes. And with Vista, Microsoft provides us with yet another illustration of this principle. Now I'm sure some of you love Vista. I remember Windows ME, I know that everyone hated it, but I didn't have the same crashes and instability. Now, for some inexplicable reason, the shoe's on the other foot; and what "works" for many of you doesn't work for me.

I'm not just being some Microsoft hater here. It's just that Vista won't do what I want it to, at least not very well. XP on the other hand, does what I want it to do. For example: XP will allow me to connect via a wireless NIC and a regular wired NIC concurrently. Vista won't do that; if you first make a wireless connection then plug in a cable, the wireless disconnects. Then if you subsequently disconnect that cable, it will reconnect with the wireless, but it won't fully connect to the internet until after you restart the machine. On the other hand, if you start a machine with a cable plugged in Vista will not connect via the wireless hardware. You can force it to try, but then it will take a long time to fully connect, and you won't have Internet access via the wireless.

You might tell me that this is part of Vista's security enhancements. That's all well and good, but maybe I don't need that feature. The biggest problem is, at least from my perspective, is that Vista doesn't allow you to make these choices. Granted, Vista is easier to use, but at the same time, user control over system operation is far more limited than with XP. And THAT is why I will probably stick with XP!
 
This is exactly why I am stepping away from Windows OS'es. In linux, YOU (the user) are in control of everything. That is how an Operating System should be. You can bend the OS exactly to how you want it, and no 2 linux installations will be the same. Not to mention the genious root user security system.
 
I have XP with 3.5GB ram (4GB installed).
Much faster and more free ram than with Vista :D

And those 3.5GB of RAM aren't doing you any good.

XP's cache system is ok so long as you never turn off your computer, or always run the same programs every time.

Vista's cache system keeps a running tally of programs ran over multiple logins, and utilize your otherwise excessive RAM very well.

/funfacts


You can also turn off the file transfer estimation feature, in services.



I originally tried a copy during the first week of retail release just to get familiar with the new software. I wasn't looking to use it in any serious fashion, just to tinker with. Eventually I reformatted both XP and the Vista partitions and went back to XPpro-64. The format was due to new hardware install, not because I hated it.

Went back to it last fall with Ultimate x64, and now use it exclusively.
 
Back
Top