XP Prof/Vista Experience

[James]

I have been using both XP Prof and Vista Business for 2 months on a home
built computer with 100% Vista approved hardware and 2 GB memory.
I am using the following software: Office 2003, Photoshop CS, MS money 2004,
Norton 360, Perfect Disc 8, Nero and Acronis (both latest build).
I use 3 WD Raptor hard discs, 1 for XP, 1 for Vista and the third for images
and general use. I use XP prof one week and Vista the next by restoring the
previously made images and do not use dual booting. (with Acronis this
switching is done very quickly)
With this system I now have a better opinion of the pros and cons in the
daily use of both systems. My conclusion is that in my case there is no real
reason to permanently switch to Vista. Both system perform OK, but I find
Vista a bit slower in booting and shutting down and also the Perfect disc
defragmentation seems to do a more thorough job in XP (judging by the
graphic display of the results) Also I dislike constantly having to confirm
changes that I wish to make in certain Vista files.
As far as security is concerned, Vista is perhaps a better OS, but in my
case that does not play a role, since I always have a 100% working image.
I would appreciate comments from other XP/Vista users.

 

[Gordon Keenan]

With this system I now have a better opinion of the pros and cons in the
daily use of both systems. My conclusion is that in my case there is no
real reason to permanently switch to Vista. Both system perform OK, but I
find Vista a bit slower in booting and shutting down and also the Perfect
disc defragmentation seems to do a more thorough job in XP (judging by the
graphic display of the results) Also I dislike constantly having to
confirm changes that I wish to make in certain Vista files.

You have made your conclusion and like you I too find that XP is running
slicker and faster then my (almost double) powerful new computer system that
has Vista on it. I still think that the drivers are the main issue with the
new box, so I'm just waiting like the rest of the world for the changes to
come. I am still unwilling to tell my client baser to use Vista on their new
systems, and I'll NEVER get them to install Vista on their old ones!!!!!

As far as security is concerned, Vista is perhaps a better OS, but in my
case that does not play a role, since I always have a 100% working image.
I would appreciate comments from other XP/Vista users.

Bottom line, we all jumped in to embrace Vista and see what we could find
out about it (or is that moan about it) but we are also experiencing issues
that Microsoft will probably tweak around with until we get a level of
happiness

 

[Lee]

I have been using both XP Prof and Vista Business for 2 months on a home
built computer with 100% Vista approved hardware and 2 GB memory.
I am using the following software: Office 2003, Photoshop CS, MS money
2004, Norton 360, Perfect Disc 8, Nero and Acronis (both latest build).
I use 3 WD Raptor hard discs, 1 for XP, 1 for Vista and the third for
images and general use. I use XP prof one week and Vista the next by
restoring the previously made images and do not use dual booting. (with
Acronis this switching is done very quickly)
With this system I now have a better opinion of the pros and cons in the
daily use of both systems. My conclusion is that in my case there is no
real reason to permanently switch to Vista. Both system perform OK, but I
find Vista a bit slower in booting and shutting down and also the Perfect
disc defragmentation seems to do a more thorough job in XP (judging by the
graphic display of the results) Also I dislike constantly having to
confirm changes that I wish to make in certain Vista files.
As far as security is concerned, Vista is perhaps a better OS, but in my
case that does not play a role, since I always have a 100% working image.
I would appreciate comments from other XP/Vista users.

I am dual-booting XP Pro SP2 and Vista Ultimate on a P4 3.2 X86 with 2GB of
DDR and a 256 MB Nvidia Geforce 7600 GT video card. UAC is a non-issue, I
don't mind it, I would turn it off if I did. I find that for most things
performance is pretty comparable on the two OS's with this hardware. On the
plus side for XP, I find display a little more responsive, example, I play
Virtual Pool 3 and it is perfectly smooth on XP, but a little choppy with
Vista. Despite that I love the visual enhancements in Vista, they make it
worth the loss in video response. So sue me, I'm superficial. I am hoping
that some future display drivers solve my issue. I also have backup images,
but I don't keep them 100% up-to-date and don't like to bother restoring
them.

 

[Steve Thackery]

Truth is, I can't actually notice any difference between my old XP and Vista
in terms of performance.

I don't mind the UAC. It gets a bit tiresome in the first week, when you're
installing all your apps and fine tuning the various settings. Once you get
into 'just using it' mode, it's really no bother at all. I'm rather glad
the computer asks me to confirm an action which might have security
implications.

In terms of the new user interface, I think it is better in every respect
that XP.

Almost every part of the interface has been polished, and I think it is
much the better for it. Gone are those hideous Fisher Price colours; gone
is the child-like 'My' in front of everything; gone are the patronising and
intrusive sound schemes, with their brash fanfares, giggling children,
robotic beeps and farts.

For the first time ever I've kept most of the animations and sounds.

Vista isn't fully stable yet (for instance, mine won't Sleep, and installing
the latest nVidia driver caused problems), but that's OK. It's only going
to get better.

Steve

 

[mikeyhsd]

what power mode are you using.
I have found that even with balanced I find some jerkiness with displays.
I use on line casino game
www.freeslots.com
and the wheels jerk sometimes.
switching to HIGH Performance the jerkiness goes away.



(e-mail address removed)

I have been using both XP Prof and Vista Business for 2 months on a home
built computer with 100% Vista approved hardware and 2 GB memory.
I am using the following software: Office 2003, Photoshop CS, MS money
2004, Norton 360, Perfect Disc 8, Nero and Acronis (both latest build).
I use 3 WD Raptor hard discs, 1 for XP, 1 for Vista and the third for
images and general use. I use XP prof one week and Vista the next by
restoring the previously made images and do not use dual booting. (with
Acronis this switching is done very quickly)
With this system I now have a better opinion of the pros and cons in the
daily use of both systems. My conclusion is that in my case there is no
real reason to permanently switch to Vista. Both system perform OK, but I
find Vista a bit slower in booting and shutting down and also the Perfect
disc defragmentation seems to do a more thorough job in XP (judging by the
graphic display of the results) Also I dislike constantly having to
confirm changes that I wish to make in certain Vista files.
As far as security is concerned, Vista is perhaps a better OS, but in my
case that does not play a role, since I always have a 100% working image.
I would appreciate comments from other XP/Vista users.

I am dual-booting XP Pro SP2 and Vista Ultimate on a P4 3.2 X86 with 2GB of
DDR and a 256 MB Nvidia Geforce 7600 GT video card. UAC is a non-issue, I
don't mind it, I would turn it off if I did. I find that for most things
performance is pretty comparable on the two OS's with this hardware. On the
plus side for XP, I find display a little more responsive, example, I play
Virtual Pool 3 and it is perfectly smooth on XP, but a little choppy with
Vista. Despite that I love the visual enhancements in Vista, they make it
worth the loss in video response. So sue me, I'm superficial. I am hoping
that some future display drivers solve my issue. I also have backup images,
but I don't keep them 100% up-to-date and don't like to bother restoring
them.

 

[Lee]

Truth is, I can't actually notice any difference between my old XP and
Vista
in terms of performance.

I don't mind the UAC. It gets a bit tiresome in the first week, when
you're
installing all your apps and fine tuning the various settings. Once you
get
into 'just using it' mode, it's really no bother at all. I'm rather glad
the computer asks me to confirm an action which might have security
implications.

In terms of the new user interface, I think it is better in every respect
that XP.

Almost every part of the interface has been polished, and I think it is
much the better for it. Gone are those hideous Fisher Price colours; gone
is the child-like 'My' in front of everything; gone are the patronising
and
intrusive sound schemes, with their brash fanfares, giggling children,
robotic beeps and farts.

For the first time ever I've kept most of the animations and sounds.

Vista isn't fully stable yet (for instance, mine won't Sleep, and
installing
the latest nVidia driver caused problems), but that's OK. It's only going
to get better.

Failure to sleep is usually associated with wireless USB mice. I resolved
the problem by using a USB-PS/2 adapter (the little green ones) but there is
a patch at Windows Update under optional hardware undates. How-EV-ah Mikey
just clued me in that allowing sleep mode in Power Options degrades video
performance, and he was right. Choppiness in games much diminished using
High Performance mode. <yay!>

I had no problem with the Nvidia drivers..

 

[Lee]

what power mode are you using.
I have found that even with balanced I find some jerkiness with displays.
I use on line casino game
www.freeslots.com
and the wheels jerk sometimes.
switching to HIGH Performance the jerkiness goes away.

OMFG! You are DA MAN! I would never have thought that. THANK YOU BERRY BERRY
much!

Lee


(e-mail address removed)

I have been using both XP Prof and Vista Business for 2 months on a home
built computer with 100% Vista approved hardware and 2 GB memory.
I am using the following software: Office 2003, Photoshop CS, MS money
2004, Norton 360, Perfect Disc 8, Nero and Acronis (both latest build).
I use 3 WD Raptor hard discs, 1 for XP, 1 for Vista and the third for
images and general use. I use XP prof one week and Vista the next by
restoring the previously made images and do not use dual booting. (with
Acronis this switching is done very quickly)
With this system I now have a better opinion of the pros and cons in the
daily use of both systems. My conclusion is that in my case there is no
real reason to permanently switch to Vista. Both system perform OK, but I
find Vista a bit slower in booting and shutting down and also the Perfect
disc defragmentation seems to do a more thorough job in XP (judging by the
graphic display of the results) Also I dislike constantly having to
confirm changes that I wish to make in certain Vista files.
As far as security is concerned, Vista is perhaps a better OS, but in my
case that does not play a role, since I always have a 100% working image.
I would appreciate comments from other XP/Vista users.

I am dual-booting XP Pro SP2 and Vista Ultimate on a P4 3.2 X86 with 2GB of
DDR and a 256 MB Nvidia Geforce 7600 GT video card. UAC is a non-issue, I
don't mind it, I would turn it off if I did. I find that for most things
performance is pretty comparable on the two OS's with this hardware. On the
plus side for XP, I find display a little more responsive, example, I play
Virtual Pool 3 and it is perfectly smooth on XP, but a little choppy with
Vista. Despite that I love the visual enhancements in Vista, they make it
worth the loss in video response. So sue me, I'm superficial. I am hoping
that some future display drivers solve my issue. I also have backup images,
but I don't keep them 100% up-to-date and don't like to bother restoring
them.

 

[mikeyhsd]

glad it makes sense.



(e-mail address removed)




what power mode are you using.
I have found that even with balanced I find some jerkiness with displays.
I use on line casino game
www.freeslots.com
and the wheels jerk sometimes.
switching to HIGH Performance the jerkiness goes away.

OMFG! You are DA MAN! I would never have thought that. THANK YOU BERRY BERRY
much!

Lee


(e-mail address removed)

I have been using both XP Prof and Vista Business for 2 months on a home
built computer with 100% Vista approved hardware and 2 GB memory.
I am using the following software: Office 2003, Photoshop CS, MS money
2004, Norton 360, Perfect Disc 8, Nero and Acronis (both latest build).
I use 3 WD Raptor hard discs, 1 for XP, 1 for Vista and the third for
images and general use. I use XP prof one week and Vista the next by
restoring the previously made images and do not use dual booting. (with
Acronis this switching is done very quickly)
With this system I now have a better opinion of the pros and cons in the
daily use of both systems. My conclusion is that in my case there is no
real reason to permanently switch to Vista. Both system perform OK, but I
find Vista a bit slower in booting and shutting down and also the Perfect
disc defragmentation seems to do a more thorough job in XP (judging by the
graphic display of the results) Also I dislike constantly having to
confirm changes that I wish to make in certain Vista files.
As far as security is concerned, Vista is perhaps a better OS, but in my
case that does not play a role, since I always have a 100% working image.
I would appreciate comments from other XP/Vista users.

I am dual-booting XP Pro SP2 and Vista Ultimate on a P4 3.2 X86 with 2GB of
DDR and a 256 MB Nvidia Geforce 7600 GT video card. UAC is a non-issue, I
don't mind it, I would turn it off if I did. I find that for most things
performance is pretty comparable on the two OS's with this hardware. On the
plus side for XP, I find display a little more responsive, example, I play
Virtual Pool 3 and it is perfectly smooth on XP, but a little choppy with
Vista. Despite that I love the visual enhancements in Vista, they make it
worth the loss in video response. So sue me, I'm superficial. I am hoping
that some future display drivers solve my issue. I also have backup images,
but I don't keep them 100% up-to-date and don't like to bother restoring
them.

 

[S Wayne]

My opinion of Vista so far is that it is a makeover of XP with a pretty face
and some minor enhancements (e.g. "instant" search and UAC). While I believe
that Microsoft may have made significant changes under the hood with Vista,
they aren't visible to the average user, and therefore aren't of particular
interest.

With the problems of bad driver support and backwards compatibility of
applications, I think Vista is going to be received pretty much the same way
Windows Me was received. Which is to say, not very well. I think Microsoft's
investor's should be asking a lot of questions about how the money was spent
on developing Vista.

 

[Don]

My opinion of Vista so far is that it is a makeover of XP with a pretty
face and some minor enhancements (e.g. "instant" search and UAC). While
I believe that Microsoft may have made significant changes under the
hood with Vista, they aren't visible to the average user, and therefore
aren't of particular interest.

With the problems of bad driver support and backwards compatibility of
applications, I think Vista is going to be received pretty much the same
way Windows Me was received. Which is to say, not very well. I think
Microsoft's investor's should be asking a lot of questions about how the
money was spent on developing Vista.

I agree completely with what you said above. The problem with Vista is
poor marketing. Vista is truly a radical departure from the MS norm,
but the marketing doesn't reflect reality (heh -- what's new there?).

Vista includes a radical improvement in security, but you wouldn't know
that from the marketing alone. I'm hoping that the world is ready and
willing to accept the minor inconvenience of dealing with the new
security features -- but it won't happen until MS is honest enough to
admit that previous versions of Windows were an abject failure in the
security department and start to brag about the great new security
of Vista. They have good reason to brag -- but will they?

 

[Lee]

glad it makes sense.

I didn't say it made sense, but it WORKED! (TUVM again) It's beyond me why
programming the system to go into sleep mode after a specified period of
inactivity should have such a dramatic impact on performance NOW. Aamof I
would like an explanation. At the very least this drawback should be made
very clear. Maybe it's a bug.

Lee



(e-mail address removed)


what power mode are you using.
I have found that even with balanced I find some jerkiness with displays.
I use on line casino game
www.freeslots.com
and the wheels jerk sometimes.
switching to HIGH Performance the jerkiness goes away.

OMFG! You are DA MAN! I would never have thought that. THANK YOU BERRY BERRY
much!

Lee


(e-mail address removed)

I have been using both XP Prof and Vista Business for 2 months on a home
built computer with 100% Vista approved hardware and 2 GB memory.
I am using the following software: Office 2003, Photoshop CS, MS money
2004, Norton 360, Perfect Disc 8, Nero and Acronis (both latest build).
I use 3 WD Raptor hard discs, 1 for XP, 1 for Vista and the third for
images and general use. I use XP prof one week and Vista the next by
restoring the previously made images and do not use dual booting. (with
Acronis this switching is done very quickly)
With this system I now have a better opinion of the pros and cons in the
daily use of both systems. My conclusion is that in my case there is no
real reason to permanently switch to Vista. Both system perform OK, but I
find Vista a bit slower in booting and shutting down and also the Perfect
disc defragmentation seems to do a more thorough job in XP (judging by the
graphic display of the results) Also I dislike constantly having to
confirm changes that I wish to make in certain Vista files.
As far as security is concerned, Vista is perhaps a better OS, but in my
case that does not play a role, since I always have a 100% working image.
I would appreciate comments from other XP/Vista users.

I am dual-booting XP Pro SP2 and Vista Ultimate on a P4 3.2 X86 with 2GB of
DDR and a 256 MB Nvidia Geforce 7600 GT video card. UAC is a non-issue, I
don't mind it, I would turn it off if I did. I find that for most things
performance is pretty comparable on the two OS's with this hardware. On the
plus side for XP, I find display a little more responsive, example, I play
Virtual Pool 3 and it is perfectly smooth on XP, but a little choppy with
Vista. Despite that I love the visual enhancements in Vista, they make it
worth the loss in video response. So sue me, I'm superficial. I am hoping
that some future display drivers solve my issue. I also have backup images,
but I don't keep them 100% up-to-date and don't like to bother restoring
them.

 

[LaRoux]

On the consumer side, security just doesn't sell. That's why consumer
marketing is focused on 3D flip, Aero glass, and Dreamscene. And don't
forget the new start-up sound.

On the business side, security is way more important than flash. I doubt
that many companies will invest much if anything to enable the new eye candy
while if you can demonstrate that Vista is immune from most existing
malware, then to them, you have something.

 

[S Wayne]

Don, I agree, but I have to say that I don't see any of those features
as being worth the price Microsoft is currently asking for Vista. The
over all feel of Vista to me is just not that of a major OS upgrade.

Had Vista been a $100 upgrade for all XP users, then I'd be suggesting
that more people at least try it. As it is, the upgrade is too painful
and the value too little to recommend to anyone.

Most businesses are already dealing with the security issues in XP, and
they know how to do that now. So Vista isn't really adding value in
that area, IMHO.

 

[LaRoux]

Not to nit pick but XP Home -> Vista Home Basic Upgrade = $99 retail.

 

[Lee]

Not to nit pick but XP Home -> Vista Home Basic Upgrade = $99 retail.

That's no nitpick, its bang-on.