Save XP! - Page 3

Last message on previous page:
I think Vista is what Killed PC Game sales. Consoles will prevail i guess, shame really. I can see it now.

Increased startup time or decreased startup time? Longer or shorter?

The way i see it is, why do i even need Windows. In linux i can do 99% of everything i want, with programs that are free and open source. I still run windows XP, i turn off all the XP stuff and it looks like Windows 2000. I have a few gripes about vista. I dont like how they changed the start menu. I like the XP one a lot better. And i dont like how with Vista when you go to install Apps, the validating part takes for ever compared to windows XP. Vista has some cool stuff in it, but with the performace sacrifice and the start menu from hell, id rather use something else. Windows XP also sucked but once SP1 came around it got a lot better so we will see what happens with Vista.

This really is one of peoples biggest complaints about Vista. I worked at Best Buy when Vista was released and up until last September. People would look at a Vista machine and be like "OMG WTF IS THE START BUTTON! HOW WILL ANYTHING WORK WITHOUT A START BUTTON!!!" Then you show them and it's "Thats the Start button? But it's round and doesn't say start, how can it possibly be the Start button" completely ignoring the fact that it's in the same spot and with the same icon. At that point I knew better then to even open the Start menu for fear that their heads might explode.

Ya, people have to stop trying to throw Linux into the Windows discussion. It's like throwing the Wii into a PS3 vs 360 debate. It's not the same and it doesn't belong. Get over it and go discuss Linux in a Linux thread.

Yay for you.

You are too kind.

Here ya go:

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com [...] 130626.asp

e6600 is definitely 64 bit able. I run Vista 64 on it.

Personally I like Vista 64. I run 6 gigs of RAM and an e6600 @ 3.5 ghz and everything works for me. It is of course possible you could run into some favorite applications or hardware which might have issues but the number of things that work on Vista 64 seems to vastly dwarf the few that don't. You will find here that many are indeed using Vista 64 and are quite happy with it. I'd say it's time has come, for the home user/gamer/geek type at least.

If you have any old apps or hardware you are concerned about you should research them individually.

In doing a little research about Vista vs XP performance I realized something that may be the cause of so many believing Vista is so slow. When I Googled "Vista VS XP benchmarks" I found plenty of tests that revealed Vista to be slower then XP. Most however only noted a small difference. Some even found Vista to be faster. However the thing that jumped out at me the most is that the average date of the first page of results (which should be the most relavent) was 2/5/2007 - just about 1 year ago. Has nobody tested Vista in the last year? Or does nobody care that Vista has caught up if not surpased XP in many cases? Tom's Hardware was the top result, dated 1/29/07, but in the last year hasn't done a follow up? It seems like people are just actively choosing to be ignorant.

Looks like this might happen soon.

All of the problems with Vista come from Microsoft Pirate Paranoia and it's DRM lock down for the MPAA and RIAA.

What ever happend to just running msconfig and adding them in to run at start up... that and what a great way to waste system resources! oh... and what about people that do things at random? goooooOOOOO SHISTA! :-p

they do seem to be acting like that purplerat....:|

Not quite sure why..but apparently the anti-vista bandwagon is a cool thing to be riding

I run half a dozen websites. My own b2b site as well as a few that I threw together for local churches, realtors and the like.

The church etc sites are accessed by the general public, while the b2b site is primarily accessed by government and business customers.

So I have access to a wide variety of website visitor data.

Here are some interesting little tidbits:

About +/- 1% of all visitors to my various websites are still using Win95. About +/- 2% are still using Win98.

Vista % are increasing. Very steadily increasing. 21% of the visitors to one of the sites in December were using Vista. The average across all sites was about 15% during December.


Linux users are decreasing. Very rapidly decreasing. At the end of 2007 slightly less than 1% of all visitors to all sites are using any Linux OS. At the beginning of 2007 the % was just over 2%.

Visitors with an Apple OS are increasing by big margins. One of my sites is now hitting almost 8% Apple OS. At the beginning of 2007 that same site had 4% Apple OS visitors. Across all sites, slightly above 5.5% of all visitors were using an Apple OS


In the interest of full disclosure: I am personally running Vista64. EVERY application that I routinely use has been specifically written for Vista64 or is compatible for Vista64. However, one of our business applications has still NOT been released for Vista. Currently we have two computers running Beta versions of the application. Oops, there goes a crash again. Overally, the current forecast for the business is for us to be WinXP free by the end of 2009.

At which point the lead computers will change to Win7 or whatever it is called and we start this entire process all over again..... which won't be a bad thing because my personal computer will be 2 years old and due for an upgrade anyway.

[/scream] Who gives a crap, choose what you want it really doesn't matter in the scheme of things. Get your sh*t together, there are far bigger concerns.

It's also the longest running currently supported windows OS, I expect it to be the most stable. Get real.

45 What?

I'm on xp too

^^Rock on.

No offence dud, but I have dual-boot PC with XP and Vista 64-bit. I used XP less then 10 times (probably 5 to 7 times) since I got my PC last february, most of the time to set it up for further used. Actually, last time was to uninstall my X1950Pro driver to replace it with my new BFG OC2 8800GT.

All of my games work flawlessly in Vista, altough I admit I might have been lucky until now.

And about Dx10. It's slow as hell, but there is a real difference in quality, for the better. I can only imagine what it'll be when well implemented. Just compare first Dx9 game (say Far cry) with todays CoD4 for exemple, or even Bioshock without Dx10 activated... for those not on Vista lol. Don't shoot me, I'm just kidding

For real, we've been going through this with every new release of Windows. Shish!!! Some people even complained that XP was gonne ruin their gaming experience because it was based on W2000 when released. The wheel is turning, that's all.

Here is a few facts, actually they are only true according to me

1) Vista will probably be rock solid after SP2

2) DX10 probably won't be a huge visual difference from DX9, I support OpenGL anyways since you don't need a new card to get the graphics you seek.

3) If a DX10 version of XP came out, it would in fact be considered "awesome", by me at least.

4) In the year 2000 dinosaurs will be cloned

5) Vista should be primarily used for DX10 applications and Vista only programs until it becomes more mainstream. Just dual boot XP for now, and switch between the two.

6) I hope they cut Vista down to just 1 version, I hate how "Home" and "Pro" of XP had almost no differences and no reason to exist besides marketing.

7) Here's to hoping Windows 7 will be compatible with Vista programs!

Can you provide a link to that press release? Here's a link to a Google search for "Microsoft to end Vista Support"
http://www.google.com/search?q=mic [...] art=0&sa=N
Not even a sniff of what you claim. I was going to try and get into all the reasons why it's stupid to think MS will do as you say and end Vista support (like SP1) but it would be pointless. You're just another one of these people who thinks that if you say something enough, regarless of how void of it is of any factual evidence, it will eventually be true just because you said it, or atleast somebody will believe you.

I don't know where you saw that, but here is actual end-of-life information for XP and Vista:

XP:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/l [...] fault.mspx

Vista:

http://support.microsoft.com/lifec [...] 4&p1=11707


EDIT: Link fixed

Yeah, I'm not on a bandwagon. I've just noticed that there are a lot of linux distro's that seem to do much better than windows... I like not having a headache, and when something doesn't work right, there's almost always a workaround, no bandwagon, i'm not a joiner anyway. :-p

Yeah, when there's information loaded into your memory it takes more time to load up new information, this is why you'd always get bsod's on memory interfaces when loading apps back in the day, but when you restart, everything worked fine because there was a memory dump when you restarted. well, that's one of the reasons, there's no such thing as a 'bsod'ish type thing on linux that i have experienced. I've locked up ubuntu like once or twice due to overclocking my ram... it's crappy ram. and that doesn't have much to do with the os, improper hardware frequencies. but other than that, it's been flawless... never had to hardboot, and have been messing around with files that i have no idea what they do for over a year now. :-p I had xp for the longest time, and always had lock ups and crashes doing some of the simplest stuff and waiting for new drivers and all that. It's bad... I would rather have my memory empty for the programs I want to run now, because my OS isn't so slow that it really makes a difference. Shista is just slow. they use "prefetch" or whatever they call it to create the illusion of the os actually being faster than it is for people who use a certain set of programs over and over. Truth being the OS is sluggish n the same set of hardware, and as of right now, there is no benefit to having windows vista over windows xp or any given decent linux distro or a combination of a dual boot of the two. Not to mention the fact that the most popular OS' usually get the most viruses. :-p

Right on man, Ubuntu is really great, and my brother and I are actually in the VERY EARLY planning stages of figureing out how to run any given windows game on linux, not sure just how it's going to be done... and if you want games for linux, america's army=free, wolfefnstien enemy territory=free, and quake wars=cost, but good game. You can also run guild wars and a slew of other games under wine, and even more are available on cedega... quake 3 and quake 4 i believe run natively on linux, as well as the original neverwinter nights. The list is getting bigger thanks to id software's full support of linux, and i think the new Unreal Tournoment game will be on linux as well if not already, native... and just as a side note (nwn runs 2x as fast on ubuntu on the same hardware as it does in windows with my config, amazing)


k, i'm done for now.

I understand %100 that XP is slightly faster then Vista for gaming…

Let’s define faster, Right now I play Lord of the rings online… maxed everything, DX10, no slow down EVER. I used to play Lord of the rings online winXP, DX9, no slow down EVER.
-Do you need 100 FPS when 60 FPS is overkill? Why do I have a car that can do 414 kms/hr when the speed limit is 120kms/hr? (im dreaming, just an example)

I understand this is somewhat an enthusiast’s site but sometimes I think WE get too carried away with benchmarks and lose focus on the real picture which is real life performance.

Does XP play games faster, YES. Does Vista play the same game with better graphics’ (DX10) at an unnoticeable lower speed? YES. <-- I am sure there is a bigger difference in Crysis.

I for one do not constantly bench my machine; I took my really low/completely stable OC and was happy with it because I don’t need 4 FPS more at the expense of my gears life.

I don’t care if Johnny has a 15GHZ processor; when I only need a 1.5GHZ to run certain the same Apps.