Used Vista for months, but thinking of going back to XP

M

mjz_5

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2001
Messages
3,637
I've been using 32bit vista on my work laptop for a year and 64bit vista (with and without SP1) on my main machine for a couple of months... I'm thinking that i should go back to XP.. I like vista, but it doesn't seem as snappy as XP. I have a good computer (Q6600, 4GB ram), so i dont know.. Even on my work laptop, there are two many slow downs when multitasking (ie, playing wmplayer or downloading stuff) while trying to do any work..

i dont know, i'm venting.. but i'm thinking, why should i upgrade my computer to make it feel as fast as when i had XP install
 
You might want to hold off for a bit and try SP1 - it makes Vista feel more responsive
 
Honestly, if you don't feel Vista is any snappier, especially with SP1, I would immediately starting looking at drivers. With SP1, Vista is snappier than any OS I've ever used, especially under load.
 
i have SP1.. i guess i'll wait a little longer and reinstall vista with newer drivers and hopefully it fixes everything.
 
I guess I might have to go back to Vista x64. I went back to XP 32bit after Vista annoyed the hell out of me. I'll have to read up on what SP1 actually did.
 
i find vista needs a fast HD (like a raid 0 setup) else its a slow pig. (at least pre-sp1)

used vista x64 ultimate for awhile, got ticked off, went back to xp 32 and still running it
 
I just recently switched back from Vista x64 SP1 to XP 32bit.

I did it for one reason alone: dismal gigabit networking speed under Vista.

Vista has some real wank gigabit speeds. On a regular 100 megabit network, no problems. Go to gigabit and the speeds barely improve. Even after extensive tweaking, I could barely get network throughput to increase.

Format and install XP 32bit on the same machine.Speeds increase dramatically with not tweaking or even messing with jumbo frame settings.



Examples (copy files to and from my fileserver):


Vista to Server 2003 machine: 20 megabytes/sec (after tweaking this bumped to 25 megs sec)
Server 2003 to Vista: 8 megabytes a sec (no matter what adjustments I make its capped at this)

XP to Server 2003: 25 to 30 megabytes/sec (no tweaking needed)
Server 2003 to XP: 25 megabytes/sec (no tweaking needed)


I have seen some other folks with different results from Vista, but thats my biggest concern: results are all over the map and highly unreliable.
 
messerchmidt said:
i find vista needs a fast HD (like a raid 0 setup) else its a slow pig. (at least pre-sp1)

used vista x64 ultimate for awhile, got ticked off, went back to xp 32 and still running it
Click to expand...

I agree that a fast hard drive helps Vista a lot, especially with laptops. I upgraded my tablet pc from a 5200RPM to a 7400RPM, taking my Vista Hard Drive score from 4.2 to 5.3, and it made a very noticeable difference. But needing RAID 0 for good performance is taking it too far.

I’ve got a similar system to what you described in the OP, and even before SP1, my machine run very smoothly, especially under load as DeconFrost said.

I’ve been using Vista including the beta for close to 18 months, starting with the tablet pc I on right now, which has had Vista Ultimate 32bit RTM on it since 11/18/2006. I’ve gone from 1GB to 4GB of RAM and a 100GB 5400RPM drive to a 200GB 7200RPM. Things were a little quirky at first, but I’ve had far fewer issues with this machine than any of the dozen XP laptops\tablet pc’s I’ve had. I’ve had similar positive experiences with my three Vista desktops.

I’ve heard a ton of Vista horror stories, yes, people are having problems. I just haven’t seen them. Yes, network speeds do seem a little slower, but with SP1 and the benchmarks I’ve seen, that seems to a large degree mitigated. But I’m copying a lot of wireless, so maybe I just haven’t seen the issue like Mathemabeat has.

At any rate, I believe that when it’s on good hardware, Vista is the best OS has released to date, simply because to date, it’s had a pretty good security record, and my personal XP migration problems are solved. I’m in the minority, but I’m sure glad I’ve not had any of the problems that I hear about all the time!
 
I feel that RAID 0 is taking it too far, I use to run RAID 0 on the original raptor 74s and with vista I decided; c drive on a raptor 74, games only on a raptor 74 and Virtual PC/Newsgroups on a 80gb IDE. With the OS on a raptor and games on a raptor that are separate, it is much faster. I can be running a Virtual PC with 1gb of ram set aside, doing updates or installing something on it and still load a game, alt-tab and go to the desktop with no lag or any issues.
The way you set up your hard drives, and if you have 4gb of ram or more, then your Vista machine will be very snappy and fast!
 
XP machine will always be faster so just go back to XP. Vista brings zero benefit to the table but in turn brings several downfalls (UAC, compatibility problems etc etc).

SP1 is polishing the turd. If W7 comes out 2011 the smartest thing is to wait and then take the plunge with the new slim kernel hopefully getting windows back on track.

XP will easily live untill 2011 and serve you more efficiently than Vista. And no, you really do _not_ need 4gb for anything unless you install the resource hog that will force you to upgrade for zero benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top