Vista SP1 or XP SP3 if you have a decent computer?

[Myst]

Ive got a Quad Core Q6600 and a decent video card and ram.. will Vista SP1 be faster (and can it take more advantage of my resources) or is XP SP3 still the way to go?

[The Sultan Of Smut]

I'm using Vista and it's ok but the only reason I changed was just for kicks. If you play the latest games or you wanna use more than 3GB of RAM then Vista is the way to go otherwise XP is just fine but Microshaft is gonna make ya upgrade eventually so... I dunno I'm no help.

[qxm]

this is what happened when I tried to take advantage of XP:

[sandman!]

i dont think there is anything vista is faster in then XP

i welcome someone to prove me wrong

[sandman!]

Originally Posted by qxm

this is what happened when I tried to take advantage of XP:

your an idiot.

[martinsc]

i installed vista sp1 and i'm pretty happy

[qxm]

Originally Posted by sandman!

your an idiot.

.... uhh I think someone is grouchy tonight:



lol

[sandman!]

Originally Posted by qxm

.... uhh I think someone is grouchy tonight:



lol

na your the one posting hotlinked images from places that have gofuckyourself.com banned cant afford hosting ?

[qxm]

Originally Posted by sandman!

na your the one posting hotlinked images from places that have gofuckyourself.com banned cant afford hosting ?

.....mmm so they couldn't take the gfy heat? lol ....

As far as the hosting.... if you want to have random shnizle in your servers that is not related to business then be my guest...... I personally use photobucket or sites like that for random images.....nothing to do with hosting prices...silly comment .. lol

[Jens Van Assterdam]

Vista SP1

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Myst

Ive got a Quad Core Q6600 and a decent video card and ram.. will Vista SP1 be faster (and can it take more advantage of my resources) or is XP SP3 still the way to go?

That's exactly what I got, 4gig RAM, Vista runs nice.

[CheneyRumsfeld]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...boots_crashes/

Microsoft's service pack three (SP3) for Windows XP has caused havoc on hundreds of PCs, just hours after it was released as an automatic update.

Angry customers have vented their spleen on the firm's Windows XP message board, posting complaints that include spontaneous PC reboots and system crashes after the service pack installs.

Poster Dan said: "I installed SP3 this morning but when rebooting it loops between startup screen and restarting screen. I can boot into safe mode. Is uninstalling XP service pack 3 the only resolution?"

Doug W complained: "After three attempts [to install XP SP3] with different configurations each time, System Restore was the only way to get me out of deep shit."

Similar problems were reported by frustrated customers throughout the message board.

Microsoft finally released XP SP3 on Tuesday this week. It was supposed to be available last week, but an eleventh hour FAIL between the service pack and its point-of-sale application ? Dynamics Retail Management System (RMS) ? forced Microsoft to put the cork back in the bottle while it sorted out the problem.

The cock-up also affected Windows Vista SP1.

Earlier this week Microsoft said it had deployed a band-aid filter for the automatic Windows Update to block RMS customers from getting the service packs while it scurries to fix the glitch.

Whether the latest issues will be patched remains to be seen. But it's likely the Microsoft Windows teams will spit out further updates to address the system reboots and crashes being reported in XP SP3.

Meanwhile, Jesper Johansson, a prominent Windows blogger, has claimed that the problem only involves machines using AMD processors.

Microsoft, which wasn't immediately available for comment, had said the long-awaited, final service pack for XP "includes a small number of new functionalities, which do not significantly change customers' experience with the operating system". ®

[Tat2Jr]

I just "downgraded" my Vista laptop back to XP SP3, and couldn't be happier. Faster, runs all my programs, and I feel so much better after fighting with Vista on that machine for a year. Screw Vista. It's gonna go down in history as the next Windows ME.

[Myst]

bump bump

[3M TA3]

Originally Posted by Tat2Jr

I just "downgraded" my Vista laptop back to XP SP3, and couldn't be happier. Faster, runs all my programs, and I feel so much better after fighting with Vista on that machine for a year. Screw Vista. It's gonna go down in history as the next Windows ME.

I had a similar experiance. My laptop would take 3 hours to install automatic updates then every time i restarted the computer it would install the same updates all over again.

i reinstalled XP and everything is fine.

on my desktop i haven't had a problem.

The laptop says it's Vista Ready.

[nivram45]

Haven't tried Windows XP essential pack ?, its like half vista, only whitout the nasty things in it

[just a punk]

XP for EVERY computer.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Rochard

That's exactly what I got, 4gig RAM, Vista runs nice.

Yes, but XP on the same computer will work MUCH nicer. That's a fact.

[u-Bob]

XP Pro X64.

[Ethersync]

I have had no problems with SP3. Things seem to run even faster actually.

[bokva]

XP for now. For Vista they plan replacement already.

[Violetta]

Vista works fine for me, but I liked xp better!

[woj]

probably go with xp

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Yes, but XP on the same computer will work MUCH nicer. That's a fact.

Its not a Fact. Where do you get your facts from? I ran XP Pro on this computer for a year or so, and now have Vista Ultimate on it. Everything runs faster, smoother, and without issue. Your "facts" are off.

[minddust]

XP, 32-bit and SP3.

Got 4GB of ram, but 32-bit XP recognize 3GB max (without fucking around with some obscure patch, registery tweaks, instabilities...) Not much of a problem with the price of computers right now... Got one for Photoshop, Premiere, Video processing (encoding) or general high memory/disk/cpu intensive applications. and one for submitting/browsing.

[polle45]

Originally Posted by sandman!

i dont think there is anything vista is faster in then XP

i welcome someone to prove me wrong

Searching --> overview
Easy on the eyes - pleasant to work in, and a kickass voice recognition feature that you can dictate our daily blog video descriptions to!

[polle45]

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

XP for EVERY computer.

Year because 64bit is NOT the futere, XP64 bit works wothout a glitch, DJESYS are you afraid og cell phones as well ??

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Its not a Fact. Where do you get your facts from?

Here:
http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outsh...3-6220201.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2096945,00.asp
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html
and many-many-many more...

Just a quote:

New tests have revealed that Windows XP with the beta Service Pack 3 has twice the performance of Vista, even with its long-awaited Service Pack 1.
~ CNet News

Actually I also tested it myself. As a former system programmer and an advanced user (I believe I'm) I noticed a serious slowdown on Vista comparing with XP. I was testing it on Core2Duo/2Mb/Asus P5B/GeForce 9600

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

I ran XP Pro on this computer for a year or so, and now have Vista Ultimate on it. Everything runs faster, smoother, and without issue. Your "facts" are off.

Also be sure to read this: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forge...ft-58752.shtml - a very interesting info...

These are facts. Everything else like "I feel...", "I think..." etc is just a bullshit. Benchmark is the king!

FYI: every newly installed copy of Windows works a way much faster than the one which was working for months because of HDD fragmentation, registry fragmentation etc. To compare XP and Vista you have to compare only 2 just installed copies. Never try to compare newly installed system with the old-working one!

And one more quote from http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Mic...s-up-on-Vista/ :

The question now isn't "Is Vista Dead?" It is. The real question is: Can Microsoft get Windows 7 out in time to save its desktop domination? I think Microsoft "could" pull it off. Here's how...

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by polle45

Year because 64bit is NOT the futere, XP64 bit works wothout a glitch, DJESYS are you afraid og cell phones as well ??

32bit or 64bit - doesn't matter. Both systems XP and Vista have 32- and 64bit versions.

[polle45]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Its not a Fact. Where do you get your facts from? I ran XP Pro on this computer for a year or so, and now have Vista Ultimate on it. Everything runs faster, smoother, and without issue. Your "facts" are off.

Thank you Sticky!

As for you Myth: When gaming you use XP because vista uses allot of the video card recourses, but when working you will be THAT much happier with Vista, and remember that it you reinstall ones every 3 month Vista is free, if you know the reset code for the trial counter.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Here:
http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outsh...3-6220201.html
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2096945,00.asp
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...ista_cost.html
and many-many-many more...

Just a quote:


Actually I also tested it myself. As a former system programmer and an advanced user (I believe I'm) I noticed a serious slowdown on Vista comparing with XP. I was testing it on Core2Duo/2Mb/Asus P5B/GeForce 9600



Also be sure to read this: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Forge...ft-58752.shtml - a very interesting info...

These are facts. Everything else like "I feel...", "I think..." etc is just a bullshit. Benchmark is the king!

FYI: every newly installed copy of Windows works a way much faster than the one which was working for months because of HDD fragmentation, registry fragmentation etc. To compare XP and Vista you have to compare only 2 just installed copies. Never try to compare newly installed system with the old-working one!

And one more quote from http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Mic...s-up-on-Vista/ :

God damn I think I had this same discussion before but it was "Im not switching to XP 98 is way faster and I never need to upgrade"

[polle45]

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

32bit or 64bit - doesn't matter. Both systems XP and Vista have 32- and 64bit versions.

I know that, my point is that XP64 will never work like Vista, Vista64 is build up from the ground to support 64 bit, both programs, processers and off cause the RAM. XP is a 64 hoodie pulled over 32 version, we all know how that works.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

God damn I think I had this same discussion before but it was "Im not switching to XP 98 is way faster and I never need to upgrade"

Why didn't you want to upgrade to XP? Don't you know that 95/98/Millennium is not a real operating system at all. It was working over MS-DOS. The Real OS was NT. NT 3, NT 4, Win2K etc. For example I haven't moved to XP from 98. I was on NT all the time (the last version before XP was Win2k).

How can you compare 9x with NT???

Sometimes the ppl's ignorance is just amazing

P.S. I glad you did read (I hope you did) the articles with FACTS I gave you the links to. At least you won't ask such strange questions anymore.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by polle45

I know that, my point is that XP64 will never work like Vista, Vista64 is build up from the ground to support 64 bit, both programs, processers and off cause the RAM. XP is a 64 hoodie pulled over 32 version, we all know how that works.

Course that is wrong. I'm telling you that as a coder.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Why didn't you want to upgrade to XP? Don't you know that 95/98/Millennium is not a real operating system at all. It was working over MS-DOS. The Real OS was NT. NT 3, NT 4, Win2K etc. For example I haven't moved to XP from 98. I was on NT all the time (the last version before XP was Win2k).

How can you compare 9x with NT???

Sometimes the ppl's ignorance is just amazing

P.S. I glad you did read (I hope you did) the articles with FACTS I gave you the links to. At least you won't ask such strange questions anymore.

Ya dont really care what you link to, or what other bs is said about it. Ive had fresh installs of XP on this computer. I know how it runs. I have has Vista on here quite a while and it hasn't slowed down. Vista is faster for me, runs more programs with less issues, is quicker and less likely to crash due to a poorly scripted program, and will be compatible with all new software that comes out. End of discussion for me.

[just a punk]

Haven't read the articles? So WTF you have asked me for facts? Note for myself: never try to explain you anything. I don't spend my time on ignoramus people. You are happy with Vista and you are ready to open your private info for m$ (perhaps not only for them)? Ok, np - that's your problem, not mine Good luck with it

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ya dont really care what you link to, or what other bs is said about it. Ive had fresh installs of XP on this computer. I know how it runs. I have has Vista on here quite a while and it hasn't slowed down. Vista is faster for me, runs more programs with less issues, is quicker and less likely to crash due to a poorly scripted program, and will be compatible with all new software that comes out. End of discussion for me.

You're a fanboy. You have been from the very release of Vista. You're about as objective as a 13 year old girl talking about her favorite boyband.

Benchmarks show that on a vast majority of systems, Vista is much slower than XP. That's a simple fact. Denying it is much like denying gravity or evolution.

Vista has some major advantages over XP, but speed is not one of them. A few years from now, it won't matter, but right now, to most people, it does.

[polle45]

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

Course that is wrong. I'm telling you that as a coder.

Well can you then, as a coder, tell me, as an IT-supporter, why XP64 sucks so very much ass?? Because i would seriously like to know this.

[tony286]

Sticky must of got the extra special version of Vista no one else in the known world has. lol

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by polle45

Well can you then, as a coder, tell me, as an IT-supporter, why XP64 sucks so very much ass?? Because i would seriously like to know this.

First of all it doesn't. According to benchmarks it works much faster than Vista 64bit. BTW, I'm using XP64 and can tell you a lot about it. As about sayings "not really 64", "inferior" - that's a total bullshit. All XP64 code is 100% 64bit in a same way as Vista 64bit. All the kernel DLL's are 100% 64bit PE files - you can see it yourself if you analyze them with any PE-analyzer.

As a former system programmer, I can assure you that it's impossible to have a 16bit code in 32bit PE executable/DLL, and the same applies to 32bit and 64bit. You can't have 32bit code in 64bit library, because the same machine code will work different according to the memory model it's working in. E.g. a simple asm instruction "mov ax, bx" has a same machine code as "mov eax, ebx" but works different in different memory models.

BTW, XP64 wasn't build on XP32. It's a follower of MS Windows Server OS line.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by Libertine

You're a fanboy. You have been from the very release of Vista. You're about as objective as a 13 year old girl talking about her favorite boyband.

Benchmarks show that on a vast majority of systems, Vista is much slower than XP. That's a simple fact. Denying it is much like denying gravity or evolution.

Vista has some major advantages over XP, but speed is not one of them. A few years from now, it won't matter, but right now, to most people, it does.

Yes cause as a Video Editor, Video Encoder, PhotoShop heavy user, Designer, I would not know if something is faster now than it was before right? And for your info I tested out Vista in beta on a dual boot for a quite a while. I COULD NOT do a full switch yet however due to the main programs I used were not ready yet. I WAS NOT a fanboy right off. However I do remember all this exact same crap when XP came out. There will ALWAYS be a little cluster fuck of hangers on telling everyone that the newest OS is crap and they will never switch.

I went from 14 hour encodes on xp crashing midway through for no apparent reason, to 14 hour encodes on Vista running and never crashing, and it being rare to have any program crashes at all. Stability for me is awesome, and the speed compared to XP for me is faster. My benchmarks are how often something wont fuckin work, and with Vista I rarely have a problem. All you anti Vista quakers keep quaking. Ill continue on getting my work done faster with less fuck ups than I had using XP.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by tony404

Sticky must of got the extra special version of Vista no one else in the known world has. lol

Maybe the whiners just whine louder than the supporters? Seems like some other thing hmm.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Yes cause as a Video Editor, Video Encoder, PhotoShop heavy user, Designer, I would not know if something is faster now than it was before right? And for your info I tested out Vista in beta on a dual boot for a quite a while. I COULD NOT do a full switch yet however due to the main programs I used were not ready yet. I WAS NOT a fanboy right off. However I do remember all this exact same crap when XP came out. There will ALWAYS be a little cluster fuck of hangers on telling everyone that the newest OS is crap and they will never switch.

I went from 14 hour encodes on xp crashing midway through for no apparent reason, to 14 hour encodes on Vista running and never crashing, and it being rare to have any program crashes at all. Stability for me is awesome, and the speed compared to XP for me is faster. My benchmarks are how often something wont fuckin work, and with Vista I rarely have a problem. All you anti Vista quakers keep quaking. Ill continue on getting my work done faster with less fuck ups than I had using XP.

The crashes werent xp it was the premier pro you love so much. lol

[polle45]

Originally Posted by cyberxxx

First of all it doesn't. According to benchmarks it works much faster than Vista 64bit. BTW, I'm using XP64 and can tell you a lot about it. As about sayings "not really 64", "inferior" - that's a total bullshit. All XP64 code is 100% 64bit in a same way as Vista 64bit. All the kernel DLL's are 100% 64bit PE files - you can see it yourself if you analyze them with any PE-analyzer.

As a former system programmer, I can assure you that it's impossible to have a 16bit code in 32bit PE executable/DLL, and the same applies to 32bit and 64bit. You can't have 32bit code in 64bit library, because the same machine code will work different according to the memory model it's working in. E.g. a simple asm instruction "mov ax, bx" has a same machine code as "mov eax, ebx" but works different in different memory models.

BTW, XP64 wasn't build on XP32. It's a follower of MS Windows Server OS line.

Thanks, i'm not a programmer so i did not know all this, all i know is that where i work, they did not and will not start using XP64 because it was so poor, and i was told it was a hoodie solution, but i know that is not the case.

Still I could never go back - ones you've taken a week to learn to know Vista and all the little things, you simple can't go back when working, at least in what i'm working with!

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by tony404

The crashes werent xp it was the premier pro you love so much. lol

Sorry but no. Happened more in Sorenson and Canopus Procoder 2. I normally just export to mpeg2 then use my 3rd party programs to compress with, except for h.264 .mp4 which I use the Main Concept plugin for Premiere cs3.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Maybe the whiners just whine louder than the supporters? Seems like some other thing hmm.

Im sorry I had to set up wireless at my aunts house and she had a brand new dell laptop with 3 gig of ram running vista.It was shit slow and clunky.Now if it was suckful doing nothing spectacular I cant imagine actually doing serious work with it.

[polle45]

Windows XP was first released on October 25, 2001
Service Pack 1 (SP1) for Windows XP was released on September 9, 2002
Service Pack 2 (SP2) (codenamed "Springboard") was released on August 6, 2004

XP was a mess untill SP2.

So i'll say Vista has a very stable starting point compared, and a great first year - at least in my book!

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by tony404

Im sorry I had to set up wireless at my aunts house and she had a brand new dell laptop with 3 gig of ram running vista.It was shit slow and clunky.Now if it was suckful doing nothing spectacular I cant imagine actually doing serious work with it.

Hmm did you check to see what vid card it was running? Cause that is the bottle neck on laptops. Might have a fast processor and lots of ram, but if the video card on it blows then it will not run vista with everything enabled well at all. You are welcome to drive up and try out either my laptop or my desktop though ;) Do you REALLY think if my systems were running clunky or slow that I would stick up for Vista? lol [sarcasm] Yes you are correct I am standing behind an OS that is slow and clunky and doesnt allow me to do stuff I need to do.. [/sarcasm]

[farkedup]

I don't care what a few links say, the fast is superfetch using 3Gb+ RAM on vista makes your BASIC desktop things load faster. Anything intensive the extra RAM overhead of Vista kills any performance gains.

That said... Ubuntu 64 bit for me with XP as a backup OS for when I "need" windows.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by farkedup

I don't care what a few links say, the fast is superfetch using 3Gb+ RAM on vista makes your BASIC desktop things load faster. Anything intensive the extra RAM overhead of Vista kills any performance gains.

That said... Ubuntu 64 bit for me with XP as a backup OS for when I "need" windows.

Hey hit me on aim real quick. Ill try you again but you were offline last I looked.