Alex Leonard said:
Hi all,
I don't want to sound like I'm trying to get a rise out of anyone here,
but
I've been using Vista (pre-installed on my new laptop) for about 2 months
now
and I am finding it difficult to justify using Vista instead of going back
to
Windows XP. I've been very happy with XP for a long time - it's stable,
quick
and gets the job done very well in my mind.
I have greatly expanded my point on my blog (link at the end), but the
long
and the short of it is the bad outweighs the good and I can think of more
reasons to go back to XP than stick with Vista. Ultimately it's an overall
sluggishness that is probably the main reason. I have a desktop with XP on
it, with much lower specifications than my laptop and it feels snappier
and
more responsive.
So, is there anything people can say to convince me to stay?
Cheers,
Alex
http://www.pixelapes.com/index.php/2007/08/27/should-vista-get-another-chance.html
I took a gander at your blog. I've looked through this thread. And I can
find no reference to which AV you're using, if any. Granted, I might have
missed that, but I'd like to know which AV product you're using. This is
related to your Vista system's "sluggishness." I've run Vista on systems
with anywhere from 512MB's RAM up to 2GB's RAM. The only system on which I
could detect "sluggishness" was the system running with 512MB's RAM. That
was a painfully apparent sluggish system. My son's running Vista on a three
year old system with 1GB RAM and it runs quite acceptably. Not sluggish at
all.
As quite a few others have responded... convincing you to stay with Vista is
like tilting at windmills. Only you know whether Vista suits your needs or
if XP is the better choice for you. Heck, let's not leave Ubuntu out of the
mix.
There is one thing that is sluggish in Vista... file copying. I've seen
other posts in this ng that point to a couple of MS patches that will,
supposedly, address that problem. I have not had the opportunity to install
those patches and evaluate whether they do, in fact, address the problem.
Other than that... no sluggishness here.
Ulimately, as we all know, it's apps that determine whether a PC is usable
or not. If your apps run better in XP than in Vista, then, well, there's
your answer. I'll admit that I haven't moved my main personal PC to Vista
yet because there are no Vista drivers for my TV card or my Plextor ConvertX
box. Not likely that there will ever be Vista drivers for either piece of
hw. So... until I can afford to replace them with Vista compatible hw, that
box will continue to run XP MCE. That said, I'm running Vista on two laptops
here that I use on a daily basis and the OS has been rock solid on both. Not
a single blue screen on either, ever. Not bad for a new OS, prior to SP1.
Performance is as good, if not better, than XP on the same laptops.
UAC doesn't bug me at all. Does UAC offer perfect security? Of course not,
but it's better than XP's native security. If you don't like UAC's dlg
boxes, then stay away from Ubuntu or other Linux flavors, because not only
does one have to deal with the same type of security dlg boxes, but one must
also type in the system acct's pw to move forward when those security dlg
boxes present themselves. (And that's not a knock on that type of
security... just an observation.) It seems kind of odd, to me anyway, that
one would bemoan the UAC dlg boxes and then bemoan disabling UAC to get rid
of said dlg boxes.
What I like about Vista is: better memory management, better security,
better system tools. Are those features perfect? No. There is no such thing
as a perfect OS. Not now, not in the past, not in the future. So,
ultimately, the choice is yours. Good luck, whichever path you choose.
Lang
