Windows XP vs Windows Vista (THG Review & Benchmarks)

Ok, now that Vista has been out for a while, any new thoughts from those who have it?

I'm looking more specifically at the 64 bit edition, how does it work with gaming?

(DC)DEMONSLAYER wrote:

Ok, now that Vista has been out for a while, any new thoughts from those who have it?

I'm looking more specifically at the 64 bit edition, how does it work with gaming?

I bought it and am returning it. I couldn't even install it, the installer cant even find the installation files. I would definatly recommend not buying it unless your computer comes with it preinstalled. Basically there is no way of knowing if your computer can bu "upgraded" to vista (or if the new computer you built will run with it)

Short conclusion: don't get Vista.

My experience and my personal opinion (which may be totaly wrong, contadictionary to everything else and itself too):
1. On a desktop I have Vista and XP. I rarely boot to Vista, like 1%. That says a lot.

2. My notebook came preloaded with Vista and I manage to live with it.

3. Compared to XP, Vista looks better, does have better GUI and is easier to use. It also boots and shutdowns faster than XP. So there's that.

4. Everything else works notably slower in Vista.

5. I still can't get my HP inkjet to work properly with Vista and my new Vista certified TV tuner doesn't work in Vista (works in XP, go figure).

6. The endless "Windows needs your permission" msgs are making me crazy. It seems that everything you want to do needs your permission. About 37 permissions actually. And you can't turn it off.

7. Vista is very smart. For every problem you encounter it goes search a solution on the internet. Too bad it never finds one.

8. Vista crashes at least as much as XP.

9. It seems with every iteration of MS OS the user gets less control over his PC. MS has to realize that it is myPC and I want it to do what I want it to do, not what MS wants it to do.
EXAMPLE: File backup. Such a neat feature, very easy to use etc. But: while choosing what to back up, you can't pick specific folders, you can only choose partitions/disks. So if you back up, you have to back up everything on that partition. And that is not the worst thing. You absolutely have to backup the partition the OS is on. This happens to be C in my case and it also happens to be the only partition, where I don't keep my files that need backup. (I am talking about file backup not system backup)

Another "awesome" thing with backup: first file backup took 31GB for me. Out of curiosity, I made another backup just after the first (without modifying any files). It wasted a whole 49MB. Perhaps MS thinks it's OK to waste 49MB 'cos people have 500GB disks and its OK to waste CPU time, 'cos CPUs are getting better. I don't agree. You dont waste a single MB unless you need to. If I buy a better CPU I want better performance. Not a more demanding OS that will make my new shiny CPU perform exactly like my old CPU.

I am still hungry for an OS that is: fast, easy to use, stable, looks nice, gives you control and does not bug you. Vista gets you "looks nice" and "easy to use".

I am very happy that most people didn't make the same mistake I did by purchasing Vista or Vista preloaded machine.

Interesting enough, this post was written on Vista and I am not pulling my hair out. Yet.

So it won't run on my 286 ?

darkway wrote:

So it won't run on my 286 ?

You gotta be joking. Minimum requirements for Vista dictate at least an extreme high-end P4 or equal. Win 95 was was the max (and I'm not too sure of that) that you could go with a 286 and most of those PCs came out with Win 3.1.

P1/P2 came out with Win95, P3 with Win98/98SE, and P4 with Win ME/XP.

Wonko The Sane wrote:

6. The endless "Windows needs your permission" msgs are making me crazy. It seems that everything you want to do needs your permission. About 37 permissions actually. And you can't turn it off.

Actually, you can. Google:

user account control disable

And you should be able to find ways to disable it. However, you're probably going to want to also disable the little "windows security" icon completely as well, as disabling the UAC will cause it to complain.

My assistant said that on his home computer, he saw great performance gains (particularly in games) when he went through the process to remove/disable the sidebar. I have yet to try this, and by default my dual boot Vista 64/XP 32 system goes into XP (and my Vista install has no games yet, and it's only on a 40GB HD, which is rapidly disappearing with standard stuff like office, Firefox, and some other basic stuff installed).

Oh, and

getting the boot loader to work took some effort, due to my computer's particular hard drive setup.

RE: 64bit stuff: Note that previously I had XP 64 bit installed where I now have Vista. I'd say that drivers for 64 bit Vista are probably easier to find. However, most games are still going to run 32 bit, and if the XP 64bit comparisons are valid, YMMV when it comes to 32 bit game performance.

My 64 bit UT2004 on XP 64 bit was okay, but had one or two "bugs" (and I think I have posts about them buried around here) that I never bothered to resolve (as the performance difference wasn't spectacular).

Note that if you're trying to squeeze performance out of Vista, it's the same process as squeezing performance out of XP: disable all of the "neat" graphical enhancements in the basic GUI (including stuff like not using an image in your background and going with a flat black color, disabling "extra" stuff that requires a system tray icon, etc.). On Vista, the graphics options are heavier than XP was, so if you drop it all and make it look like W2K/98, you'll notice a significant gain. However, it won't look like Vista any more and will probably run much like XP under the same conditions, I think.

BotFodder wrote:

My assistant said that on his home computer, he saw great performance gains (particularly in games) when he went through the process to remove/disable the sidebar. I have yet to try this

That was the first thing I did, removed the freaking sidebar. Improved things very much. I don't get it how a simple clock and some weather icons can eat so much CPU time.

Interesting enough, when I had a yahoo (maybe it was google) sidebar installed it did not criple the performance at all and it could also show clock, weather, photos and such. So basically the same thing, only it worked like it should.

I googled some for backup troubles I had, seems that general consensus on it seems to be that backup center in Vista is not worth beans. That's exactly what I need in business edition of Windows, a lousy backup center.

Thanks for the info on permission msgs. I'll look into it.

BotFodder wrote:

Actually, you can. Google:

user account control disable

And you should be able to find ways to disable it. However, you're probably going to want to also disable the little "windows security" icon completely as well, as disabling the UAC will cause it to complain.

My assistant said that on his home computer, he saw great performance gains (particularly in games) when he went through the process to remove/disable the sidebar. I have yet to try this, and by default my dual boot Vista 64/XP 32 system goes into XP (and my Vista install has no games yet, and it's only on a 40GB HD, which is rapidly disappearing with standard stuff like office, Firefox, and some other basic stuff installed).

Oh, and getting the boot loader to work took some effort, due to my computer's particular hard drive setup.

RE: 64bit stuff: Note that previously I had XP 64 bit installed where I now have Vista. I'd say that drivers for 64 bit Vista are probably easier to find. However, most games are still going to run 32 bit, and if the XP 64bit comparisons are valid, YMMV when it comes to 32 bit game performance.

My 64 bit UT2004 on XP 64 bit was okay, but had one or two "bugs" (and I think I have posts about them buried around here) that I never bothered to resolve (as the performance difference wasn't spectacular).

Note that if you're trying to squeeze performance out of Vista, it's the same process as squeezing performance out of XP: disable all of the "neat" graphical enhancements in the basic GUI (including stuff like not using an image in your background and going with a flat black color, disabling "extra" stuff that requires a system tray icon, etc.). On Vista, the graphics options are heavier than XP was, so if you drop it all and make it look like W2K/98, you'll notice a significant gain. However, it won't look like Vista any more and will probably run much like XP under the same conditions, I think.

Thanks for the heads up on the "permission" setup. I disabled both upon the first startup and went to "classic" view immediately.

I could not load Vista X64 at all despite my machine being a X64 machine. At first Vista X32 would not load, but a friend who works for the "GEEK" squad said to remove my sound card before loading Vista.

I guess I looked at him kinda weird so he explained that Vista has problems with Creative Lab products when installing the OS. So, I took my X-Fi sound card out and Vista X32 installed quite nicely and no problems after I re-installed the sound card. I wonder if that's why I could not get the X64 version to install......

I know that you folks have told me not to install Vista, but this is the only way I can play Halo 2 for the PC......It was still cheaper than buying a X-Box

Well, Vista is off my computer. I had problems booting up. So, no Halo 2 to play!!!!!!

As an extra to turning off User Account Control, if you use a tweaker, (TweakUAC to name but one) rather than disabling it through Windows, you can turn off the popups but still leave the protection offered to things like Int Explorer, running it in protected mode, and apps starting in NON admin mode.

1 week 2 days of Vista, installed over my XP install as an upgrade, and (amazingly) so far so good, much better than the XP instal I upgraded. I only did it as an experiment, expecting to have to wipe it and clean install.
I must say i'm stunned.

MaK_FlunkeY wrote:

1 week 2 days of Vista, installed over my XP install as an upgrade, and (amazingly) so far so good, much better than the XP instal I upgraded. I only did it as an experiment, expecting to have to wipe it and clean install.
I must say i'm stunned.

Then, you are doing better than I did....with a full install of Vista Ultimate.

So has Service Pack 1 hit yet and has it made the OS actually usable?

Yea, Sp1 is out. Sadly, I can't say whether it's an improvement, I installed from a disk that had already had SP1 slipstreamed into it, so i've never used it pre-SP1
Results so far. No sign of any file move / copy operatons taking ages, no compatibility issues with anything I already had installed, except Avast! but a reinstal fixed that.
UT2k4 seems to be running a few FPS slower than before, but nothing noticeable.
As for overall stability, it's not crashed any more than it used to under XP, and this is an upgrade, too,not a clean instal. And if I was pressed, i'd say it is more stable than it was before.
On a slightly related note, I can HIGHLY recommend Firefox 3 Beta 4, so fast!

I've never had XP Pro crash on me, period.

With Vista full OS (looks like pre-SP1), I had problems installing it, it ran much slower, it didn't like to boot up, and it had a host of other minor issues. And this was after all of the available updates were loaded and the OS was loaded on a high-end gaming pc. Yet, Vista rated my machine as a 5.4 out of a possible 5.9.....................Go figure

So, as far as I'm concerned, $250.00 wasted along with the cost of Halo 2.

I've advised other friends not to get Vista at all on their pc or take it off and use their XP instead.

Huh, that's odd, I get 5.2 and I have a lowly to mediocre comp...

250$??? Did you buy the full (non OEM) version or is it really that expensive where you live?