Save XP! - Page 7

You should think about what you are saying. I never said very high doesn't work under XP, I said DX10 doesn't work under XP because XP doesn't have DX10.

DX10 is no big deal. Just like SSE3 and SSE4, DX10 is just a new set of instruction subroutines. If you have the hardware that supports these routines it is simply a matter of software coding taking advantage of them. Considering XP has an install base of over 550 million users, it seems highly likely that some form of DX10 will show up on XP in the near future.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inqu [...] ly-windows

Yes, the article is a whole 3 months old! Do you really believe the situation has changed since then? Oh, I forgot it has.... There have been more problems identified with Vista.
Like I said, if MS doesn't add DX10 support it is highly likely a third party will. If that seems far fetched to you, I suggest you are more than a little bit wet behind the ears. Look at groups like http://www.omegadrivers.net/ or many others.... Its not about wanting to "move on", its about wanting something that is actually better. Something Vista clearly isn't, and a few gimmicks do not make it so.
But I digress, this is not the save Vista thread, and considering XP has more than 10 times as many users as Vista, most of us are not worried about it's future.

The ALKY Project is the only attempt I know of, and it was somewhat successful. This is not something that is beyond the capability of an experienced developer. As with many other projects that have enhanced MS products, MS has no history of stopping them. There are tons of examples,but the one that comes to mind in this thread is the Vista Transformation Pack that makes XP look like Vista without the downside.

I think the versatility of XP is just another strongpoint that has made it so popular. I run WindowBlinds on all my machines, and each of my 7 systems has a completely different personality depending on it's specific use (actually if you consider my laptop, my wife's laptop, and my Dell Axim X51v we have 10). I don't care for Vista's one size fits all approach, or constant nags asking me if I really want to take control of a file, or really understand what I want.

A year plus now and nobody has produced anything significant with DX10 on XP. One thing I've learned in my years of PC experience is that if people want something and it's possible not only will it happen, but it will happen quick. If something that people goes this long with nothing to show and no indication that it will happen then chances are that there's a good reason - like it's not possible. Things like DRM and WPA were cracked before Vista was even released. So why so long on DX10 in XP? My guess is that if it ever does happen it will be long after XP stops being relavent (and probably Vista too). Things like this either happen right away or years after anybody cares anymore and 2008 is no man's land for DX10 on XP.

Of course windows 7 will be more like vista, M$ isn't into backtracking. You can't expect the eye candy and security to disappear any time soon. I just hope UAC doesn't ask you about everything.

Well to be honest I only know one person who switched back to XP, and plenty who went to vista. But it is definitely happening. I think the issue that is more pressing is the number of people who just aren't upgrading in the first place. I'd like to know which games you mean when you say DX10 really makes a difference though, I don't know of any.

Virtually every module added to the kernel of an OS is a patchwork of sorts. XP is essentially a completely different OS than it was originally. SP2 was a major upgrade to stability, SP3 is a major upgrade to speed and security. SP1 for Vista is a service pack of questionable integrity. Windows 7 will be nothing like XP or Vista, as it will be the first MS OS that does not use a registry. In my opinion the quick failure of Vista, and the long term success of XP will both be influences this new OS. I judge the success of an OS by how easy it is to administer and network, how many different applications I can run on it and what can be done with them, how fast it is, and how stable it is. From this benchmark XP is head and shoulders above any other option. One thing is sure, a pretty interface, DX10, Futuremark Vantage, or any other gimmick will not influence the majority of knowledgable users to give up a great OS for one that is sadly mediocre at best.

Not sure in which of these benchmarks Vista differs from XP much either way.

Vista sucks to administer and network, it runs about 30% of the apps that run on XP, it is clearly much slower than XP, and it has proven to be far less stable!

Funny how you're the one who dislikes Vista so much but sees so much of a difference where others don't. Anyways if DX10 in XP were to be done it's not going to be by a gamer because they want the graphics. It will be done by somebody who sees it as a challenge and does it just to do it. And that gauntlet was laid down a long time ago and people have already failed. Also even if games using DX10 did drive somebody to put it on XP many of those you listed have been out for 6 months and I don't see where anybody has made any progress yet in getting DX10 in XP.

I administrer vista and your right its bad only if the server is 2003 because of the file sharing slowdown. Ive had more problems with peer to peer networks in xp then I ever had with vista. But for an office enviroment there is little to no reason to upgrade where there will be no dramatic increase in productivity. Most of our offices running windows xp only do so because thats what the computers come with, and we have to revert back to xp on the new computers to keep them in compliance with the old. Once we are allowed to switch them over to longhorn we can start to move over to vista. Alot of peoples perception that windows vista is bad is because they
1 dont know how to use it and its confusing
2 heard from someone else that its bad
3 used a very low end computer and found it to be slow

I do see alot of 3 happening because many people buy cheapo emachine computers that are running vista premium and alot of added on programs that kill what little memory the computer accually has. Ive found the windows vista machines to have the same if not better stability to windows xp from most of the users I know that have it. Now the problem is in a office enviroment alot of users dont know very much about computers as it is and if they have windows xp at the office they wont know or dont know how to adapt themselves to using something different. Weve started the adoption of office 2007 and we are setting up test servers to migrate to longhorn once thats done we will be able to start the migration of our clients to windows vista with their new machines.

How can a person not see Vista aimed at the business and corporate market when 3 of the 5 SKU's are aimed at Business.
1) Vista Business
2) Vista Ultimate
3) Vista Enterprise ( the only one that you can get if you have a BUSINESS contract with MS )
There is a huge push by MS to get this in the corporate arena along with the new Windows Server 2008.
Vista on the Business desktop and W2K8 on the servers, who doesn't know this?




Rattus Viola: Sino non they quisnam operor non have scientia futurus vestri rector.

"who doesn't know this?"

Thanks, I thought I was going crazy or something... LOL

All that those certifications mean is that you were able to memorize a certain percentage of multiple choice questions. Ovbiously you've never tried to install those programs on Vista. Office 2003 does work on Vista and I know because I use. I've been installing tons of apps on Vista since day one and almost all do work, at worst you need an update. Many programs that say that there not Vista compatible actually do work, but they vendor doesn't want to support it or wants people to buy new versions. The only AV software that I knew of that implicity didn't work with Vista at and didn't have a patch was Norton AV. And if you called Symantec and bitched to them they would give you 2007 for free. As far as games I have a pretty decenet collection of games from the past 10 years or so. My 6 year old son has recently taken to installing every single one and even he hasn't had any issues. Games like Myst, Startcraft, Doom(the original), CivII, Sim City 2000 all work just fine. I know these things because I've actually done it, not just read it in a book to get a certification.

As far as "administrer", I wasn't looking for a definition I wanted specifics of what was so difficult. System Administrator is just about the most vague IT job description out there. You can talk to two different system admins from similar companies and they can each have completely different jobs. As far as Vista for business enviroments, I'm not going to argue with anybody on it because I probably agree with you all. If I was wrong about how much it's geared towards business use as compared to home users then fine I'm wrong.

Except that any recent copy of XP Pro comes pre-patched with SP2. Try doing the same with the original XP Pro and fill us in on the results. I've had to install pre SP1 XP not too long ago and wasn't able to get SP2 due to lack of internet connection. It was far worse then any Vista setup and not even worth doing anything else to until I could get SP2 on it.

I was talknig specifaclly gaming in this instance and there has been published results here:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardwar [...] /page2.asp

Sorry but I can't build a machine just to match THG reference machine, but the specs I've used in comparison are close and the results vary only as would be expected due to hardware differences. When I benchmarcked with a lesser machine I got slightly lower results. A high machine, slightly higher results. My results aren't meant to be any sort of standards, simply my own personal experience. Compared to what I see others getting with XP and similar hardware I'm more then satisfied with Vista performance in all apsects.

Wow, gentlemen (I think that’s a pretty safe assumption). This thread just doesn’t die. There’s been so much activity I wanted to pop my head in and make a couple of comments. Pardon my not quoting; it would take way too long to hunt down.

First, the obnoxious links to apcmag… The articles linked were, honestly, borderline retarded. The biggest point I have a beef with is point 1 in the “reasons not to get Vista” BS.

“No one NEEDS Vista.” On the contrary. Most users need Vista. Maybe not most power users. But keep things in perspective; most users are not power users.

This kind of ties into my counterpoint to MU_Engineer (one of the few, as I generally agree with what he says). Vista is indeed a revolutionary release. You have to dig deep to see the changes, of course, on the surface it’s evolutionary, but that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. But all the security enhancements, kernel changes, driver model, are really a fundamental architectural change and thus should indeed be considered a revolutionary step. And there are plenty of neat features, such as the IE protected mode. I can browse online porn quite safely without worrying about anything. I am just kidding of course. I never browse porn, on line or otherwise. But you get my point. And these are things that I am quite comfortable with in XP because I know what I am doing, but again, most users do directly benefit from this.

By the way, another point about all general complaints about Vista, such as UAC, etc. I see people bitching about it all day long “oh it’s annoying,” “oh the new driver model is slower,” etc. Funny. Same people bitched about “XP is not secure,” “in XP a driver crash crashes the kernel,” and so on. Well, people, you can’t effing have it both ways. Complaints about XP were warranted – those are fundamental architectural flaws. Complaints about Vista features that fix these flaws, imho, are people looking for things to complain about. First of all, you are complaining about fixes to things you used to complain about. Second of all, if you think Vista’s way is bad, what is the alternative? Linux and OSX all have UAC equivalents, and certainly a much more restrictive driver model. That is just OS design, if you don’t understand it, then please, do stop talking about something you have no clue about.

Next issue that really irks me is DRM. This, of course, comes with a big fat disclaimer before I begin. Here goes. I REALLY DISLIKE DRM AND WISH IT NEVER EXISTED AND, EVEN MORE GENERALLY, I REALLY DON’T LIKE THE WHOLE IDEA OF LICENSING CONTENT ALTHOGH I REALLY HAVE NO BETTER WAY THAT WOULD PROTECT THE AUTHOR. If you don’t understand what licensing I’m talking about, just realize that you don’t really own things like seats at entertainment venues, songs you buy on CDs, movies you buy on DVDs or HD media, software you install, etc. despite paying for it. With the disclaimer in mind, I really don’t mind the fact that DRM code is a part of Vista and, in fact, would like it to be there. If you think that is a contradiction, either you have read the FUD spewed by Peter Gutmann or his supporters (by the way, I really really disdain Peter Gutmann. I wish he would get into a car accident and lose ability to have forum for his lies. Well, no, not really, but he’s a remarkable disingenuous moron), or don’t understand what having it means. First of all, the code is absolutely required to be included for the system to be able to play HD media. See, DRM is as much a part of licensing common HD media as anything else, and for you to be able to play it legally, you have to have adequate handlers built it. That goes for anything – Vista, OSX, PS3 (Blu-ray), XBOX (HDDVD), etc. So I would prefer that I can play hi-def media on the system I buy than to not be able to play it. Playing it without the adequate code is defeating DRM associated with the licensed content and thus is illegal. If you are running a legitimate enterprise (like MS, Apple, Sony, etc). you simply can not openly break the terms of license in this way, you would lose the license. So, for the dense out there, you have to incorporate the DRM handling code into the OS / device if you want the ability to legally play hi def media. Now again, let me remind you that I wish that everyone involved in RIAA and MPAA would just choke on their lunch this very moment (again, not really, but they are not going to change their ways until they are dead, are they?) [/end rant].

Then we have people saying “anything from MS before SP3 is beta quality.” I am sorry, but that is RETARDED. What is your standard? Apple? Like file move bugs in the release version of the OS that DELETES source files of move fail (as in there is no more source file and also no destination file, as in your file just got deleted, bye bye). Open Source, where there are always bugs in early code our of the nature of the beast? What the F are you talking about? Are there bugs in Vista? Sure. But it was a pretty good effort given the scope of the software; mind you, this is the most convoluted platform you can imagine with loose controls on the hardware side, while Apple runs in a closed and tightly controlled ecosystem.

And last but not least, the question of hardware resource usage by the OS. To me, that’s really the only interesting rational discussion to be had. And the question is this – do you want your OS to be the barebones OS in the strictest definition of the term (i.e. a piece of software that takes users’ input and provides output, manages a storage system, manages users and tasks, and provides access to the resources to programmers) , or if you expect more from a “modern day OS,” such as internet browsing built-in, GUI, various media functions, etc. For instance, Linus Torvalds believes in the strict definition. MS and Apple clearly disagree. That’s a philosophical disagreement, but I expect that most common users would prefer MS’s interpretation, as I just don’t see the majority being able to operate a command prompt or expecting to install separate shells, browsers, etc.

So with that said, as more resources become available as hardware advances, should you use it to enrich the user experience further, as long as you maintain a minimum base-line performance? This is a philosophical question that you can not answer unequivocally, but I think that on a modern system Vista is quite a good OS to run and gives you acceptable performance in the vast majority of application scenarios, including hardcore gaming. Yes I do know that you lose 5-10% in certain games, but not all, and in most instances that leaves you with good FPS anyway.

BSOD the first time I tried to install it. I finally did get it to complete, then lost the first Word doc I was working on because it crashed. Even though I had saved the doc previously it was gone. Outlook and Word would crash for no apparent reason. I uninstalled 2003 and moved to 2007 which never had a glitch. Lonesome on this huh? Did I mention I'm an MCSE, own a small business systems design & network company, and manage a large data center?

http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuin [...] &SiteID=25

http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNe [...] &SiteID=17

http://uksbsguy.com/blogs/doverton [...] ng-up.aspx

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6 [...] 48&start=0

http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.php?t=180657

http://www.vistaheads.com/forums/m [...] vista.html

http://www.smartertools.com/forums/t/14659.aspx

http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=906016

In any case, I think the biggest reason Vista seems to get more venom now than XP did on its release is the significant gap in time between OS releases.

XP came out in 2001. Its predecessors were:
- Windows 2000 (Released in 1999)
- Windows Me (Released in 2000)
- Windows 98 (Released in...I think 1997, but I could be wrong)

Windows Me was considered a joke by many, which is why I have Windows 98 listed above. Either way, XP smoked the 9x kernel as far as stability went. That alone was a + for XP. However, many games were on the 9x kernel, which caused problems with XP (a - for XP).

As for 2000, that's probably where the most -'s came from, since XP was NT 5.1 while 2000 was NT 5.0...nothing really all that significant of a change. Did any business networks "NEED" XP back then? Not really. Was it nice to have? For many environments, yes (Remote Desktop, anyone?)

Overall, people were used to Microsoft releasing an OS every 1-2 years. XP was stable. XP was a good Microsoft OS (I say "Microsoft" in case some Linux or Mac zealots decide to comment). It had all of the benefits of 2000 and none of the drawbacks of 9x. It was a winner.

Many businesses prosper over fixing flaws, rather than making good stuff better. Auto mechanics fix flaws in vehicles. XP fixed flaws. The good stuff was made better over time with service packs, hotfixes, security lessons taught to Microsoft by hackers (Blaster, anyone?).

As a result, no new Microsoft consumer and business/workstation OS was released until...January 2007! Yes, there's Windows Server 2003, but still, that's for servers only (unless you really want to spend the time turning it into a workstation and paying big bucks for it for it to be legal).

Overall, not much has changed since 2001. People are resistant to change and XP did TOO good of a job fixing all the flaws of the 9x kernel and improving over 2000. All Vista can do is add bells and whistles to the experience while, hopefully, not ruining what made XP good. The problem is the latter...

I didn't say thee hasn't been published results. I said they have been no published results showing Vista being faster than XP.

Looking at your link, I've quoted the comparisons in each game.

In ET:QW, the GeForce 8800 GTX performs similarly regardless of the OS used in single card configuration. Once a second card is dropped in for SLI however, you can see that Vista performance takes a backseat to WinXP:

[In FEAR] As you can see, all of the cards performed similarly in both flavors of Windows Vista, as well as Windows XP. Only the GeForce 7900 GT SLI saw a decline in performance when moving from WinXP to Vista, and the drop was only 7%

[In Company of Heroes] The GeForce 8800 GTX ran 4% faster in Windows XP than in Vista at 1600x1200. The margin decreases to just 2% at 1920x1200. We saw similar results when two cards were combined running SLI.

[In Stalker] In any case, the Radeon HD 2900 XT and GeForce 8800 GTX both performed better in this game under WinXP rather than Vista. The 2900 XT in particular ran around 8% faster in XP at 1920x1200, while CrossFire was 10% at the same resolution. The GeForce 8800 GTX/WinXP combination also outperformed Vista, although the difference wasn’t quite as high – just 4% at 1600x1200 for both single card and SLI setups and 2% at 1920x1200.

[In Oblivion] Performance is generally pretty comparable for the GeForce 8800 GTX regardless of OS used. We saw a slight, 2% advantage for the GeForce 8800 GTX SLI setup at 1600x1200 but honestly considering we’re running FRAPS to test performance with this game this could fall within margin of error. Interestingly enough, the Radeon HD 2900 XT ran about 10% faster under XP than Vista.

[In Bioshock] It looks like the performance boost is a little greater under XP though based on our tests: the GeForce 8800 GTX ran up to 8% faster under XP than Vista

Conclusion: With all that being said though, Windows XP did run up to 8% faster than Vista in our testing. ."

I got nothing to add.

I have a bachelor's in English/Theatre, only two Microsoft Certs (from Windows 2000 no less), and I've installed Office 2003 on at least five vista machines with zero problems in the enterprise.

And sorry, but owning your own business means squat. Anyone with about 10 minutes of free time and $57 can get a trade name and a sales tax license here in Colorado and poof, there's a "business". If you really want to impress us, post a profit/loss report from 2007.

I do agree though that Vista users at home have far fewer software issues to deal with than Vista users in the enterprise. Lots of Sage Software products don't work with Vista, and even the new UPS Worldship v10 software is not Vista compatible. Over a year after Vista's release. Strange more than anything.

Sorry we can't all have mommy and daddy pay for our educations and have to work our way through college. Anyways all that Geek Squad reference proves is that all your certifications mean squat, since it's a requirement that all of their managers get those same certifications. And yes the mangager I worked for was a complete idiot when it came to computers; he also had a Masters to go along with all those certifications.

Truth be told, XP had a TON of issues at the introduction, and in my recollection, it was worse than Vista.

With respect to your Windows 7 point, I suggest that you follow your own advice and get a clue. I really couldn't explain it better than Ed Bott, so I'll let him do the job: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=361

So answer me this: Why don't you want to see the truth?