PDA

View Full Version : Here ya go Partial: Upgrading from Vista to XP



Jimx29
12-18-2007, 04:38 PM
:lol:

Pretty funny article actually considering that vista still only has just under 3% of the market last I saw.

Story (http://dotnet.org.za/codingsanity/archive/2007/12/14/review-windows-xp.aspx)


Friday, December 14, 2007 2:06 PM codingsanity
Review: Windows XP

I have finally decided to take the plunge. Last night I upgraded my Vista desktop machine to Windows XP, and this afternoon I will be doing the same to my laptop.

Look & Feel

Windows XP has quite a cartoony look and feel compared to the slick look of Aero Glass; this is mostly offset by the lack of strange screen artifacts caused by malfunctioning graphics code. You know, almost like static on the screen. This was a once or twice monthly occurrence on my laptop, and happened on my desktop whenever I logged in, and also whenever I played a 3D game after leaving Vista running for a couple of hours. I also miss the "orphaned windows" I got on Vista, dialog boxes that would not go away, in a sense they became part of the desktop, since you could drag a selection from within them, despite the fact that the Glass would render the selection below them. Such crazy graphics bugs appear to be a thing of the past.

Performance

Well, here there appears to be no contest. Windows XP is both faster and far more responsive. I no longer have the obligatory 1-minute system lock that happens whenever I log onto Vista, instead I can run applications as soon as I can click their icons. Not only that, but the applications start snappily too, rather than all waiting in some "I'm still starting up the OS" queue for 30 seconds or so before all starting at once. In addition, I have noticed that when performing complex tasks such as viewing large images, or updating large spreadsheets, instead of the whole operating system locking down for several seconds, it now just locks down the application I am working on, allowing me to <gasp> Alt-Tab to another application and work on that. I am thrilled that Microsoft decided to add preemptive multitasking to their operating system, and for this reason alone I would strongly urge you to upgrade to XP. With the amount of multi-core processors around today using a multitasking operating system like XP makes a world of difference.
A doomed attempt to cancel a file copy, I had to hard reset the computer after this.

In addition, numerous tasks that take a long time on Vista have been greatly speeded up. File copies are snappy and responsive, and pressing the Cancel button halfway through actually cancels the copy almost immediately, as opposed to having it lock up, and sometimes lock up the PC. In addition, a lot of work has gone into making deletes far more efficient, it appears that no more does the operating system scan every file to be deleted prior to wiping it, and instead just wipes out the NTFS trees involved, a far quicker operation. On my Vista machine I would often see a dialog box from some of my video codec's pop up when deleting, moving or copying videos. No more, now all that is involved is a byte transfer or NTFS operation.

Automatic Updates has also gone through a performance facelift in that it no longer hogs your bandwidth when you're surfing, a nice touch.

Device Support

XP comes with some impressive device support. In fact, every peripheral I've collected over the years works perfectly with it. Many have the device drivers preinstalled on XP, making their installation a snap, but for the rest it was easy to find device drivers on the Web. In addition I found the drivers quick and reliable, a far cry from the buggy, slow and sparse driver support in Vista. I'm glad to see that with their new flagship OS, Windows XP, Microsoft have finally learnt from the mistakes they made with the Vista launch. In addition, support for mobile devices seems to be significantly improved.

I've also found that XP seems much lighter on the hardware than Vista, when it's inactive the hard drive very rarely spins up, a major advantage for me, since I often sleep near my laptop. No longer do I have to try and ignore the continual hard drive drone, but can now sleep soundly just like my computer. I never did figure out exactly what Vista was doing with my hard drive the whole time, but I'm sure it degraded its lifespan with all that spinning.

Reliability

All I can say is "wow!" You can see that a lot of work has gone into making XP more reliable than its predecessor. The random program crashes, and hangs appear to be a thing of the past.

The Lack-of-Solutions tool
Internet Explorer 7 is much more reliable on XP as well, and has so far not crashed once whilst viewing GMail, when it used to do this several times a day. In addition, I can now actually close the thing down normally every time, instead of sometimes having to kill the process. Error collection seems to be far better as well. Instead of a dialog taking a minute or two to collect the information it needs, the dialog comes up and is ready to send error data almost immediately. I am sad to see the back of the Solutions tool though, it may have hardly ever delivered any valid solutions, especially for the standard random crashes, but at least you knew that something under your control was tracking that information. Please, Microsoft bring it back.

The much-missed reliability report
Speaking of which, I notice that the Reliability Report is also gone, again a sore loss, I really enjoyed charting the downward spiral of my Vista reliability, there were those occasional humps that got you all excited, and then the graph would continue its steady sojourn downwards. Of course, the fact that it only appeared to pay attention to a tiny fraction of the actual problems was a bit of an issue, but I'm sure they could have resolved that for the XP release. Ah well.

I also am pleased to note that Ctrl-Alt-Del does actually have an effect nowadays. Many times in Vista, I wished that they would make this more reliable so I could kill off the inevitable hanging Windows Explorer process (as a matter of fact, this is the situation I find myself in right now), in XP it actually does something as opposed to being part of the usual Vista eternal hang. Speaking of which, please excuse me for a few minutes, Windows Explorer has now been 100% hung for 5 minutes, despite my asking Vista to restart it, and despite me pushing Ctrl-Alt-Del several times over those 5 minutes. So I'm going to have to hard-reset my laptop. This process, by the way, is also something that amazingly seems to almost never be required in the clean and sparkling new XP.

Right, I'm back, thanks for being patient. I mentioned how much quicker you could start using programs from a boot in XP; I must admit that, appealing though that feature is, you won't actually find it that useful. XP almost never appears to require a reboot, so you hardly ever take advantage of a wonderful improvement like that, which otherwise would save you at least 15-20 minutes a day.

Gaming

This is another area where Microsoft has really excelled in Windows XP. Games are significantly more responsive, get much higher frame rates, and are far more reliable than in Vista. If you're a gamer, the upgrade to XP is mandatory. Whilst there are a few games that won't work as well in XP than in Vista, you'll find that on the whole XP supports almost all the games you'd want to play. In addition, it's vastly increased reliability means you'll spend much more time killing things than restarting, a welcome change I can assure you. You'll also find that non-X-Fi soundcards with EAX are much improved by their support in XP, which can really add a bit of excitement to your gaming experience.

Multimedia

Multimedia support on XP is vastly better than on Vista. Whilst content-creators had insisted on all sorts of intrusive features in Vista that made the multimedia experience a living hell for Microsoft users, thankfully with XP Microsoft were able to insist that their customers' needs came ahead of the content creators outdated business model. It's nice to see a corporation like Microsoft stand up to the cyber bullies at the MPAA and refuse to assume that its loyal customers are criminals. In any case, the DRM built into Vista was broken shortly after its release anyway.

Conclusion

To be honest there is only one conclusion to be made; Microsoft has really outdone themselves in delivering a brand new operating system that really excels in all the areas where Vista was sub-optimal. From my testing, discussions with friends and colleagues, and a review of the material out there on the web there seems to be no doubt whatsoever that that upgrade to XP is well worth the money. Microsoft can really pat themselves on the back for a job well done, delivering an operating system which is much faster and far more reliable than its predecessor. Anyone who thinks there are problems in the Microsoft Windows team need only point to this fantastic release and scoff loudly.

Well done Microsoft!

Partial
12-19-2007, 02:14 AM
I may very well be intoxicated right now, but after making it home safely I will say I am debating whether to get a Macbook and build my own 600 dollar quad-core machine, or to get a MBP. I just do not know. Zool, tell me whos your daddy.

Zool
12-19-2007, 07:35 AM
Quad core's are too much for the performance bump unless you're doing some hardcore video editing, or audio recording with tons of plugins on DP or Pro Tools. Build the Core2Duo, but wait till January when the 45nm procs hit the market. The DDR3 memory is faster and the new chipsets from Intel are suppsed to be hella cool with a boot menu built right in.

And for Gods sake man, install XP as your dual boot and not Vista.

Badgerinmaine
12-19-2007, 07:48 AM
That was good!
I just bought a new PC from a local shop and expected them, like all the big box stores did, to push Vista. Instead, they said "You're a lot better off with XP, until the first Vista service pack comes out". Nearly everyone I talked to agreed so I gotr XP, and I am much happier with it than my annoying old PC running Windows ME.

3irty1
12-19-2007, 07:51 AM
I have a quad core and its glorious. Get one if you are still running Ubuntu. I can compile anything super fast. I compiled firefox in like 25 minutes.

Pretty amazing in XP or Vista too.

Zool
12-19-2007, 08:37 AM
I have a quad core and its glorious. Get one if you are still running Ubuntu. I can compile anything super fast. I compiled firefox in like 25 minutes.

Pretty amazing in XP or Vista too.

But its really only like 10% faster at most than a dual core right? At least those are the benchmarks i've been seeing. 25% cost upgrade for a 10% speed upgrade is my point. Unless Partial has come into some money.

3irty1
12-19-2007, 08:45 AM
I have a quad core and its glorious. Get one if you are still running Ubuntu. I can compile anything super fast. I compiled firefox in like 25 minutes.

Pretty amazing in XP or Vista too.

But its really only like 10% faster at most than a dual core right? At least those are the benchmarks i've been seeing. 25% cost upgrade for a 10% speed upgrade is my point. Unless Partial has come into some money.

Sort of. But the same can be said about a dual core. Its not that much faster unless you're doing something multi-threaded. More and more apps are dual threaded and the quad core makes more and more sense.

Zool
12-19-2007, 08:54 AM
I have a quad core and its glorious. Get one if you are still running Ubuntu. I can compile anything super fast. I compiled firefox in like 25 minutes.

Pretty amazing in XP or Vista too.

But its really only like 10% faster at most than a dual core right? At least those are the benchmarks i've been seeing. 25% cost upgrade for a 10% speed upgrade is my point. Unless Partial has come into some money.

Sort of. But the same can be said about a dual core. Its not that much faster unless you're doing something multi-threaded. More and more apps are dual threaded and the quad core makes more and more sense.

Same thing except for the fact that single core procs are hard to come by and dont cost any less than dual core.

Freak Out
12-19-2007, 11:17 AM
I went with a Q6600 for my last build just because it was only about $40 more than the damn E6600...and the only issue I have with Vista is the 64 bit drivers can be a pain...I run both versions and if you have the hardware Vista is the way to go I think. I have a linux/vista box, a macbook and a Vista 64 box and like them all.

Partial
12-19-2007, 11:44 AM
yes the price difference between a Q6600 and an E6600 is very minimal.

Zool
12-19-2007, 11:47 AM
~$50, I guess for you rich interns its not much, but to us working schlubs it can be the difference between an 8600GT and an 8800GT

Freak Out
12-19-2007, 12:03 PM
~$50, I guess for you rich interns its not much, but to us working schlubs it can be the difference between an 8600GT and an 8800GT

I already had a 8800GTS so I'm holding pat for a bit.....if the prices and availability for the 8800GT were a bit better I might pounce though! :lol:

MadtownPacker
12-19-2007, 12:24 PM
I bet you :laugh: studs get all the ladies.

Zool
12-19-2007, 12:27 PM
I keep tellin you Mad, women think smart is hot now.

Partial
12-19-2007, 12:35 PM
I bet you :laugh: studs get all the ladies.

You sir have seen my lady. I do alright 8-)

MadtownPacker
12-19-2007, 12:43 PM
I bet you :laugh: studs get all the ladies.

You sir have seen my lady. I do alright 8-)Please you dumb nabisco... while you are freezing your ass of in WI she is down in Florida with some spic Rico Suave right now!!

Sorry young buck but she is too fine to have let her go. Once you are financially established (and she gets bored) she will come back to you.

MJZiggy
12-19-2007, 02:01 PM
I keep tellin you Mad, women think smart is hot now.

We do? Thanks. I had no idea. I always thought hot was kinda hot...

Zool
12-19-2007, 02:37 PM
I keep tellin you Mad, women think smart is hot now.

We do? Thanks. I had no idea. I always thought hot was kinda hot...

Well the guy cant be an gargoyle, but good looking and smart is better than good looking from what i've been told.

MJZiggy
12-19-2007, 02:40 PM
Well the guy cant be an gargoyle, but good looking and smart is better than good looking from what i've been told.

I'm finding that out... :?

retailguy
12-19-2007, 07:49 PM
Well the guy cant be an gargoyle, but good looking and smart is better than good looking from what i've been told.

I'm finding that out... :?

Zool dusted you. big time.

MJZiggy
12-19-2007, 08:25 PM
Depends. Is he good looking?