Should I switch from xp to vista?

[Carol Haynes]

So you like it then 

[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)

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)

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).

[DDRAMbo]

Diet after diet and people continue to complain that one is Better than the other. Well, the ultimate fact is that if all comes down to caloric intake: the more calories you take in, the more you have to burn off to stay the same weight.
The same goes for your typical OS. Ultimately it comes down to how many things are you expecting it to do at the same time. The more processes you pile into a given input/output operation, the more clock cycles you're going to have to 'burn' to get something done. If you burn more cycles, the whole operation is going to appear 'slower' because the OS is using more clock cycles to get the main job done.
Lacking the specifics regarding how many clock cycles it takes for a given operation, you would have to start with a base measure of each OS (i.e. their most basic state of operation) and look at how much processing is being done at any given moment. Now compare that to how long it takes to perform an additional operation and you'll begin to have a measure of how much additional work it takes for each OS to perform that 'type' of task, to load a file, for example.
It's all Very basic on paper, but much more work in real life. I have yet to see anything close to this type of analysis being done, even a basic measure in terms of seconds taken to do this or that, in a comparison of these two OS's. Very weak indeed.
Maybe the discussion should be slanted to "which sites/forums Do have such useful info?" so that we can all go There instead for Real Answers?

[f0dder]

DDRAMbo: clock cycles is hardly a problem on any even recently modern CPU - even Vista doesn't eat up that much.

The possible performance issues are...

Memory consumption	Run an OS on a machine with too little memory, and it's going to be dog slow no matter  which OS it is - linux included. Vista might require more memory than XP (although a lot of people don't understand filesystem caching and shout their mouths off wrongly). I haven't used it on hardware with less than 2GB of RAM, but from watching my own usage stats I'd expect it to run smoothly with 1GB except when playing recent games.
Disk overhead	A lot of people bitch at Vista's disk indexer - but that can be turned off. Other than that, I'd say that Vista feels smoother than XP, probably because of the more aggressive prefetcher and cache system. Might also have something to do with Vista being able to I/O requests larger than 64KB... and I/O prioritization is a nice feature as well.
GUI overhead	On able hardware, the Vista GUI is a lot smoother than XP. It's probably a bit unfortunate that MS decided to implement the acceleration purely with shaders, though, since that leaves some otherwise capable fixed-function hardware without acceleration.

Yes, Vista eats up more resources than XP, which eats up more resources than Win2k, which eats up more than Win9x. Some iterations have brought substantial gains and have made the extra resource consumption worthwhile. To be honest, I'm not sure what the balance is for Vista.

However, for all the Vista hate I've expressed during the past years (and some of which I still have), if my workstation crashed today, I'd be installing Vista (since Win7 isn't final yet). While it be too much for older machines, I very much doubt I'd be able to feel a speed hit on the hardware I use today, and while there's a few annoyances (mostly control panel related), there are several benefits that I'd like to take advantage of:

• UAC - yes, I see this a benefit. It's a tradeoff between security and annoyance, but from daily use on my laptop for ~5 months, the annoyance has been very small.
• Prioritized disk I/O - since harddrives is the major bottleneck in my system, this is going to be nice.
• More aggressive prefetcher and disk cache. VS2008 starts faster on my 7200rpm laptop drive (Vista) than on my 10.000rpm raptor (XP64) - 'nuff said.
• Smoother GUI and (non-hacky) live previews on alt+tab - minor thing, but I've come to appreciate it on my laptop.

Apart from that, there's some lower-level features that aren't such a big deal right now (because not widely used), but will eventually be nice: SMBv2 (windows file sharing that can saturate gigabit ethernet), support for >64kb I/O requests, transactional NTFS (data integrity ftw!), etc.

None of these are reasons enough to do a reinstall as long as I have a working system - I do plan on a reinstall when Win7 final hits the streets, though.

Oh by the way, I've used tweaked windows installs since Win2000 - and the default Vista install size is too bloated for my taste.

[DDRAMbo]

First, for those reading your response and thinking, "oh, this guy's got a 'Honorary' next to his name. He Must speak wisely and truthfully", I must correct your very first statement, oh Wise one. Any OS uses All the clock cycles it is given, whether they are used wisely or wasted; they are All 'eaten up'. Now to the meat.
Aside from your 'general feelings' about Vista, your accumulated 'hate' for some features, bugs, etc. and your specific 'taste' for an OS (I might not want to know the specifics  ), my main gripe is exemplified by your illustrious rendition of an attempt to box me into a corner with guilt that I had dissed this forum, when in fact you've laid the groundwork for my Proof!
As witness to my unfounded ramblings, see where you have used expressions such as 'too little memory', 'dog slow', 'filesystem caching and the shouting of mouthes' (which disses those who may have a point that you fail to invalidate), 'usage stats' ( ), 'expect it to run smoothly' (an unvalidated assumption, probably as reliable as those 'shouting of mouthers' and 'people who bitch'), 'feels smoother than XP', 'able hardware', acceleration purely with shaders, though, since that leaves some otherwise capable fixed-function hardware without acceleration' (simply gobble-d-gook), 'eats up more resources' (what and where, and how is this different from eating up clock cycles and slowing things down, My Point Exactly), 'if my workstation crashed today, I'd be installing Vista' (you would reinstall your OS because it crashed????  ), 'UAC..., a trade off between security and annoyance' (doesn't that depend on how often one attempts system functions that call upon this feature?), 'since harddrives is the major bottleneck in my system' (like, your computer is different how? and since when is this not a antiquated bus system issue?), 'More aggressive prefetcher and disk cache. VS2008 starts faster on my 7200rpm...' (apparently you've figured out a way to successfully compare large apples to small oranges), 'Smoother GUI and (non-hacky) live previews' (sorry, but another  ), blah, blah, blah, then, 'default Vista install is too bloated' (by which I assume you mean that it takes up too much space in memory and eats up too many clock cycles doing unnecessary crap).
Seriously, could I refer to this overview as bloat-babble? I rest my case.

[Carol Haynes]

Any OS uses All the clock cycles it is given

-DDRAMbo (April 23, 2009, 11:48 PM)

Tosh - the clock cycles happen (its the nature of a clock to tick!) but if they are not used they are not used. If the OS used every clock cycle it would be running at 100% power it would be under 100% constant load which is simply not true - if it were you would have far more overheating problems out there.

It is a similar argument to saying that because my heart beats constantly it doesn't matter whether I am climbing Everest or sitting in front of the TV my workload is the same.

[DDRAMbo]

Geez. I guess 2 moderators do make a right. I bow to your combined wisdom, and hereby grovel in a most earnest and humble expression of regret that I ever whispered a syllable of condescension at the wonder that is this forums top-level experts. From the very depth of my programming ilk I could never have imagined that my heart was as a mere clock cycle of time, never amounting to anything useful unless, dare I say, it's beating to the rhythm of your wise analogies and succinct but yet somehow informative reviews as I read them with breathless anticipation seeking if I be so wise those seeds of genuine interest to all whose eyes fall upon them.
Greater still must be your physical prowess for as you illuminate so clearly you've managed, probably through some manner of ultimate mind control, to make your heart beat the same rate whether you're climbing mount Everest or sitting in front of the TV, a skill I do so wish (dare I believe my attendance to this forum may lend me some partial understanding of this power) to emulate, lo someday master. To this very splendid goal of optimism of what can be if I but shut my crude, uneducated trap and read herewith and learn from thou wisest of the wise, I can only beg the benefits that have given you such a lauded, multi-syllabled monocle of wisdom, and may I someday join your ranks, step as proudly through the posts of those like myself of lesser knowledge and wisen them also.
I will wait with baited breath as an undisciplined child, cowering in shame, but willing to aspire to and learn from your greatness, if you will forgive my insolence.

[Carol Haynes]

Quite correct too - make sure you know your place 

[CodeTRUCKER]

In 1984, I worked in the Traffic Engineering Dept. of a municipality.  Eventhough the rest of the departments were upgrading to the new IBM-PC and clones, we, in this department continued to use the humble "Osborne 64," bit to run a traffic signal timing program called "Transyt-7."  To this day, there is no better piece of software to provide a smooth cruise from 38th Street to 4th Street at any time of the day.

So what's my point...

Simply, no one needs to feel the oppressive stress-inducers of adrenaline-laden commentary.  If you are happy with what you have then don't let the gainsayers beleaguer you contentment.  If you want to and can move to something better easily (and YOU know it's better) then more power to you. 

I run Vista 32 and would be delighted to "upgrade" to XP Pro 32^*. My previous Toshiba (Vista 32) was a breeze, but this HP is a bear!

Bottom Line:  Two rules...

• Rule @1 - If you are content, stay that way.
• Rule @2 - If you are not, then move to where you can apply Rule #1

 
^*If anyone can tell me how to get back to XP Pro on this infernal HP Paviliondv6700! (but PM me and I will start a new thread so we don't hijack this one)