Vista Ultimate 32-bit or stay with XP Pro SP2??

[Homer23]

hey guys,

I am currently running Windows XP SP2 on my computer and I'd like to upgrade to Vista Ultimate 32-bit, do any of you guys recomment it or should I stay with my original operating system.

And another question, if i do upgrade and have to face problems afterward, can i install XP again?? If I have 1 HD with two partitions (C:=58GB and D:=170GB)
and if i put Vista on my C:, will it have any effects (lose all Data) on my D: partition??

Should I upgrade or stay with what I got???

Thanx

[Zelig]

If you have to ask, and if you're happy with XP, it isn't worth the $200 cost.

[ibleet]

Stick with XP for now. I haven't switched to Vista on any of my machines yet. I'm still awaiting SP1, and maybe even then I will wait a bit longer.

And yes, you can switch back to XP if you don't like Vista.

[Homer23]

So my computer wouldn't run any better with Vista installed on it?? or would it be close to what i already have set on my computer?

Thanx

[ibleet]

So my computer wouldn't run any better with Vista installed on it?? or would it be close to what i already have set on my computer?

Thanx

You can always try it and see for yourself. My guess is that Vista will run worse on your system. Vista is a resource hog, and from what I have seen, very invasive.

Just last night I did some work for a guy with Vista and it was a pain compared to working with XP.

[Major_A]

Take this how you will...
A) late January 2007 - Buy Vista Home Premium and install it. Order for $10 the x64 version of HP from Microsoft. Gets to my house in under a week.
B) early February 2007 - Buy another GB of RAM for a total of 2GB for Vista.
C) mid February 2007 - Format machine and put Windows XP x64 on computer.
D) early July 2007 - Decide to give Vista HP a try again. Have to call and talk to India to validate my Vista serial.
E) mid July 2007 - Get fed up with the performance and lack of printer support in Vista install XP Pro SP2 back on my machine.

I will give Vista a try again once SP1 comes out. If I don't like then I'll put XP SP2 back on my computer.

Now to answer your questions...

And another question, if i do upgrade and have to face problems afterward, can i install XP again??

If you buy the Vista Upgrade you can not install XP back. However there are ways around this. Install Vista upgrade this way and you don't need XP installed.

If I have 1 HD with two partitions (C:=58GB and D:=170GB)
and if i put Vista on my C:, will it have any effects (lose all Data) on my D: partition??

It shouldn't mess with your seperate partition at all. But in any case you should backup or move your data just to be safe.

[DL126]

Vista is prettier.
But it comes at a price.
Gobbles up RAM and other hardware like it was nothing.

You can see my configuration in my sig.
I didn't have much choice in getting it so that I could support the new machines coming out.
XP on this machine runs faster than a ... (insert your favorite "fast" cliché here)
Visa on the other hand .... well, it's pretty.

I haven't had a great amount of problems with it. Just a glitch here and there.
Driver and software support is the biggest drawback at the moment. (And hardware requirements)

But hey .... it's pretty.

[Sparky]

Homer23, why don't you try a dual boot set up by partitioning your hard drive that way you can play with it and still go back and forth. Best of both worlds in my opinion.
I am running dual boot with XP w/SP2 & 32 bit Vista Ultimate. Although Vista looks great and is a new toy for me, I still prefer XP by far. Vista is so SLOOOOWW to do load all my drivers (wireless card & RivaTuner are last to load on my system) and it really does hog resources.

[Major_A]

I dual booted a PC of mine for a while. I found I was on XP 90% of the time so I formated the Vista partition and merged it back with my XP install.

[Zelig]

Memory use isn't comparable between XP and Vista. On new hardware, a properly configured Vista install will be as fast, or faster, than a properly configured XP install.

[ibleet]

Memory use isn't comparable between XP and Vista. On new hardware, a properly configured Vista install will be as fast, or faster, than a properly configured XP install.

I've read a lot of Vista reviews, and this is actually the first time I'm hearing anything like this...even from those reviewers who like Vista.

I'm not saying that you're wrong because I have no practical experience, but I spent a few hours today visiting forums that are solely dedicated to Vista and not one person said the Vista install was faster.

[Zelig]

I've read a lot of Vista reviews, and this is actually the first time I'm hearing anything like this...even from those reviewers who like Vista.

I'm not saying that you're wrong because I have no practical experience, but I spent a few hours today visiting forums that are solely dedicated to Vista and not one person said the Vista install was faster.

The media generally hates MS, I'm amazed at the number of stories bashing Vista containing either little, or plain wrong, factual information.

Forum consensus depends on where you visit. Of the 3 forums I read daily, this one is by far the most "hostile" to Vista.

Vista is far better than XP at handling multi-core (4+ cores, not going to see much of a difference with duals) and large amounts of ram. The simple fact that XP is limited to less than 4GB of ram dooms it to obsolesence in performance systems in the near future.

My own thoughts on the matter: Is Vista worth upgrading to if you already have XP? Probably not. Is XP worth buying for a new computer? Absolutely not. Vista is a modern, progressive step for Windows, and is comparable to other recent desktop operating systems (any of the big linux distros, Leapord). XP, although a perfectly fine OS which is compatible with everything under the sun, is showing its age.

[Major_A]

Both XP 32-bit and Vista 32-bit are limited to addressing 3GB of RAM. XP Pro x64 and Vista x64 can handle up to 64GB (if I remember correctly).

[Zelig]

Both XP 32-bit and Vista 32-bit are limited to addressing 3GB of RAM. XP Pro x64 and Vista x64 can handle up to 64GB (if I remember correctly).

XP Pro X64 is limited to 128GB, and Vista 64-bit is 128GB+.

I can see situations where 32-bit XP is preferable to 32-bit Vista, but I can't see any situations where XP x64 would be preferable to Vista 64-bit. XP x64 is much closer to Windows server 2003 than it is to XP, and has awful compatibility.

[Major_A]

I agree there, XP Pro x64 has less support than Windows ME.

[cyclo]

Memory use isn't comparable between XP and Vista. On new hardware, a properly configured Vista install will be as fast, or faster, than a properly configured XP install.

This is true, Vista actually uses memory that would ordinarily be unused in XP. Vista in short uses available memory to implement what they term as SuperFetch... in other words, it uses available memory as a cache. As a result applications launch much faster.

My own experience with Vista (Ultimate Edition on desktop, Enterprise edition on laptop) has been very positive maybe partly because I only started using it recently after a bunch of updates have already been issued... also I installed it as the OS on a new build (Quad Core). The things I like about Vista:

1. Much faster boot times.
2. Much faster application launch times... mainly because of the aforementioned SuperFetch.
3. Improved power management compared to XP. I especially like their new Sleep (hybrid sleep) mode that is an improvement over XP's standby. This mode shuts all the components on the PC down (CPU, fans, drives, etc.) but maintains the state of the desktop in RAM. Moving a mouse, tapping a key on the keyboard, or issuing a Magic Packet over the LAN / Internet (WOL) wakes the PC up in an instant... Again, this goes hand in hand with the hardware and not all hardware might support this properly.
4. Vista Ultimate includes a disk imaging feature so no need for other software to image your hard drive.
5. I am a big fan of the sidebar. I used gkrellm when Linux was my desktop to show PC stats such as processor, network activity, hard drive usage and so on. With XP I used Samurize... with Vista there are a bunch of good looking gadgets that does the same thing.
6. Many people who complain about Vista are probably just not used to the new layout / features. What they often forget is instead of looking for the applet in control panel that does what they want to do (this could be confusing at first as MS renamed and re-arranged the applets), they could just type the request on Vista's improved help system.
7. The new paradigm of using "breadcrumbs" in File Explorer, Media Player, etc., also takes getting used to at first but then becomes second nature.
8. Last but not least, Vista's search (of files, images, etc.) is much faster than XPs.

Things I did not like:

1. Occasional crashes in File Explorer.
2. Some older apps needed hand holding to install properly. Examples are Adobe CS2 which must be launch at first using Admin privileges to avoid the "register nag" problem. Also a little more problematic was installing Visual Studio 2005 and SQL Server 2005 as Vista specific install procedures and patches needed to be applied and installed to make these apps run smoothly in Vista.

The thing with Vista is to go with the flow, don't fight the new features but instead explore them... sometimes you need to unlearn old XP habits and this is what is probably difficult for some. Finally, here is a good read on how Vista uses memory: Why does Vista use all my memory

[Methious]

XP Pro VS Vista

I am fortunate enough to have two identical machines, one with Vista home premium, one with xp pro. As far as performance goes Vista uses more resources, a few more driver headaches, and people aren't used to it. Speeds are about the same unless you go to Quad Core. A lot of people have multiple gigabytes of ram, unfortunately all that ram setting out there un-addressed by the system (not being used) is about as useful as teats on a boar hog. On my Vista system I have one gig and on the desktop half of it is free. On a lot of XP systems (especially xp media center) half of the gig is used. I almost guarantee 5 years from now one or two gigs will look like a drop in the bucket.

The head geek himself (Gates) once said: "I can't see anyone ever needing more that 640k of Ram". (loose quote don't kil me on that one hehe) If the head geek couldn't see requiring gigs 15 years ago what are we gonna see in the future. Currently Vista Ultimate at the accepted level of 2 gig requires 3125 times more memory than the old dos boxes. (figured using 2000000000 as 2 gig, and 640000 as 640k, ball park numbers). At that rate in 15 years we will need, 6.25 terrabytes of ram. (my guess is that we won't lol)

Every time an operating system comes out I go through the same thing, people hate it, I get asked to put the previous operating system on their new computer, and a year or so later they come back and want the new operating system back on it.


New operating systems happen, and eventually you will have to go to it (or the next after which historically will be based on the old operating system). Most of the out of the factory Vista systems I work on there is no option to go to XP as no drivers exist for XP. So eventually to support my/your hardware habit they gonna get you. Quad core is out, prolly hex core, then oct core (and so on until they make a drastic breakthrough), so unless you wanna be setting on a dual/quad core system in fifteen years cursing the gods that be for coming out with new operating systems that eat memory and resources while the rest of the world flies at unheard of speeds get over it.

Right now if you got XP stick with it at least until SP 1 Vista comes around. Me i have both, I have to work on both, good thing I'm a split personality lol.

Face it just sign your check (an prolly your kids checks) over to Gates eventually his big promo will prolly be, "Buy Windows Orgasm get a PC free" lol. Later all I gotta go play with my new processor/320 gig sata/lightscribe toys, any day you smell new chips breaking in is a good day indeed!

Oh BTW get a boyfriend or girlfriend as appropriate for your orientation or you'll end up like me, 10 desktops, 3 laptops, and a whole room of parts full enough to build 4 more and still have 4 barebones laying around lol. And yes I have an old lady an yes she is in fact the best woman in the world (she lets me have my toys without complaint)

[stev]

I like the read Methious stated.

It wasn't until this year that many of my home systems went from Win98SE to XP Home/Pro. That's nearly a decade for using an OS.

Just why did I hang on sooooo long to Win98SE? Well, NT wasn't that great for supported drivers. (hum, Vista likewise?) ME was extremely buggy and after a few months corrupted itself to no long boot up so as for the user to reinstall afresh. (hum, Vista likewise?) By the time Win2000 arrived, I had locked into much external hardware devices not to upgrade. Finally, when XP arrived, those external devices got support either by the manufacture themselves or good ol M$ offered basic drivers for them.

If I had to upgrade to Vista, 80% of my hardware would have to change. Much of this hardware is still in great working order. ie. webcam, scanner, audio recording card for my cassete tapes, printer, fax, iomega 100 external drive and the SuperVoice answering machine card to the telephone. This is without even mentioning the purchase of extra system memory (RAM) and possibly a newer graphics card. The Vista upgrade would have me to toss out good hardware and buy the stuff NEW again. Sure, much of the stuff these days are USB plug-and-go that make life better for upgrading, but I'm not there yet with this hardware setup.

As Methious mentioned about system memory (RAM), I need every ounce of it while doing the audio editing. Plus, running Need-For-Speed-Underground or Halo2 or Ages of Empires tasks the memory too. I can't afford the Vista resource hog.

To sum up the question of jumping to Vista vs. staying with XP, it's a personal choice based on your computing needs and the amount of cash you want to dish out moving forward. If you wait to SP1 or later, prices always head down, down, down. So the future would be cost efective for Vista or whatever OS one plans to tackle.

My question is, when will XP home drop further in price to aquire more licenses for building a few older barebone machines
lying around.

Is Vista the harden Windows version of the M$ OS's that really went no place? LOL



(he-he, I always wanted to us this image someday.)

[Zelig]

As Methious mentioned about system memory (RAM), I need every ounce of it while doing the audio editing. Plus, running Need-For-Speed-Underground or Halo2 or Ages of Empires tasks the memory too. I can't afford the Vista resource hog.

Vista isn't really a resource hog, like it's been mentioned, memory usage in Vista can't be compared to XP. Any unused ram is being wasted, and Vista is a big step up over XP in this regard, bringing it in line with other modern operating systems.

To sum up the question of jumping to Vista vs. staying with XP, it's a personal choice based on your computing needs and the amount of cash you want to dish out moving forward. If you wait to SP1 or later, prices always head down, down, down. So the future would be cost efective for Vista or whatever OS one plans to tackle.

My rule of thumb is to get a new OS on new PCs. If old PCs are serving their indended purpose, then they can usually stick with whatever OS they have.

My question is, when will XP home drop further in price to aquire more licenses for building a few older barebone machines
lying around.

It isn't going to drop in price much, MS is going to stop selling it except for volume licensing customers soon. Regardless, Vista is close in price to XP, and I'd be inclined to put linux on older barebones machines rather than Windows in any case.

FWIW, the real price of Windows over the years has been pretty consistant. Windows 3.1 had a suggested retail price of $149.95, or about $215 adjusted for inflation. Windows Vista Home Premium has a suggested retail price of $239. Which one seems like a better deal?

[stev]

As Methious mentioned about system memory (RAM), I need every ounce of it while doing the audio editing. Plus, running Need-For-Speed-Underground or Halo2 or Ages of Empires tasks the memory too. I can't afford the Vista resource hog.

Vista isn't really a resource hog, like it's been mentioned, memory usage in Vista can't be compared to XP. Any unused ram is being wasted, and Vista is a big step up over XP in this regard, bringing it in line with other modern operating systems.

Exactly my point! I don't have enough memory to be wasted. The machine tends to be borderline with going to virtual memory (swaping) on the hard drive with the above mentioned programs and memory buffering.

Vista is a new beast on the market. And as you have mentioned correctly, it's intended to be run on the "newer" machines. As for XP, I've managed to successfully run it as low as a Dell 400Mhz 10Gb drive desktop using 640Mb of RAM. The only wait is on boot up. XP is capable of running on the older machines up to the present year machines. Sure, these are mostly single core computers, but for my aunt and others liker her, e-mail, internet, word processing and music listening doesn't require Vista nor much above a single core computer.