Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Should I switch from xp to vista?

<< < (6/8) > >>

Carol Haynes:
So you like it then  :greenclp:

Vinny:
I would stick with what you have for now unless you want to go to XP 32 bit to get your bluetooth adapter working.  XP is a great operating system and unless you are running an Exchange or SQL server and have hundreds of users then the next generation Windows is  only going to slow you down.

As for Windows 7 being faster, it might be slightly faster than Vista but it still runs like a tortoise compared to XP and its not surprising as it is still based on the Vista code base. 

Testing the Windows7 beta I expected big things but was quite disappointed with the speed, it felt just as slow as Vista.

To be fair to the developers though it has loads more drivers for existing hardware so installed flawlessly and isnt annoying with all the popups like Vista was. 

Would I shell out money to go to Vista or Windows 7 - not a chance !!!

Carol Haynes:
As for Windows 7 being faster, it might be slightly faster than Vista but it still runs like a tortoise compared to XP and its not surprising as it is still based on the Vista code base.
-Vinny (April 22, 2009, 05:16 PM)
--- End quote ---

Not really my experience. Out of the box Vista 'seems' slower because it is doing things (like automatic Windows Defender Scans) without asking the user and loading pointless crap such as the Desktop widgets. Once you strip away the rubbish it runs fin and just as fast as XP. My experience with the Windows 7 beta is that is seems faster (and probably even faster than XP).

At the end of the day I suppose it depends on how you have your system set up - 10 minutes of tweaking makes all the difference with Vista. It used to disk trash but that doesn't seem to happen having stripped out some of the sill processes. They even seem to have fixed the 'confused network adapter' bug/feature these days which was a really annoying gripe.

f0dder:
Visual Studio seems to start up faster on my Vista laptop which is in every way more limited than my XP workstation (2GB vs 8GB ram, 7200rpm laptop drive vs 10k rpm raptors, dualcore vs quadcore). In fact, everything runs pretty smoothly on this Vista machine... dunno where people are getting that "dog slow" nonsense from (yes, it'll be slow if you don't have enough RAM and the pagefile gets involved, but whatever :)).

mwb1100:
dunno where people are getting that "dog slow" nonsense from -f0dder (April 23, 2009, 03:12 AM)
--- End quote ---

I think one of the primary reasons people tagged Vista as slow was because of changes MS made to file copy operations (possibly in Explorer only).  The changes were supposed to make copies both faster and more reliable (I think in particular over the network), but also the copy operation didn't complete until the operation had been committed to disk which I think was different behavior from XP.

MS is supposed to have again significantly reworked the file copy operation in Vista SP1 to remove this problem (which I think they claimed was more of a perception problem than an actual 'copies take longer' problem).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page