Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
RacerBG

XP to Vista - is it worth it?

Recommended Posts

On x64 you will have use of the full 4 GB in addition to whatever physical video memory your card has. Under 32-bit XP with a 768MB video card, my available system memory was only 3.25 GB of the installed 4 GB.

Not all of the video card's memory is addressable by the CPU. I have a 1 GB nVidia Fermi video card, and 3.47 GB of RAM is still available to the OS. Even if this memory could be "recovered" for the OS, it would once again be spent on larger 64-bit code and the graphical and other bloat of NT 6.

In 2K and up to Windows XP SP1 the code was there AND there was NO actual memory limit (on selected hardware, with appropriate drivers).

XP SP1 is such a great system. I am using it but never tried on a system with that much memory; because old software which SP1 is for for me, doesn't need it.

There is still Windows Server 2003, without a memory limit even updated to the last SP. Buying it is probably next to impossible though. I didn't consider 512 MB of "lost" memory reason enough to try and install it. People say it's working well.

I would go with Seven out of all NT6 variants due to its popularity. Chances are Vista won't support an application or have a driver in the future. Same reasons why I can't use XP SP1. Just installing the nVidia driver proved to be an excersise on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I would skip vista and jump to 7 or 8.1

7 is more refined than vista as well, vista just felt like a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah I would skip vista and jump to 7 or 8.1

7 is more refined than vista as well, vista just felt like a mess.

he said he doesn't like Win7 ;)

And, being the first one ever on this board to suggest that 8.1 can be a replacement or an alternative for 7 :w00t:, I would say that spidernz is eligible to take part to the finals for "the most senseless advice on board 2014" award. :whistle:

I mean, one thing is getting the stupid 8/8.1 as a bundle with a new machine, and another is actually purchasing a "full" license to downgrade XP to it. ;)

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, one thing is getting the stupid 8/8.1 as a bundle with a new machine, and another is actually purchasing a "full" license to downgrade XP to it. ;)

jaclaz

Another funny little pic :P That explains windows 8.1

win8sp1fuckyousm.jpg

EDIT: I found where windows 8 developers got their "good user interface" ideas from :sneaky:http://toastytech.com/guis/uirant.html

Edited by Flasche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still using Vista and I like it a lot, nothing at all a mess with Service Pack 2. Now the same can't be said before that, but performance is about on par with Windows 7 now. Fact is Windows 7 removed a lot of features and functionalities from Vista in attempt to be more light weight, but many nice functions where torne out. Windows Explorer is more locked down in terms of customizing the arrangement of items, the classic control panel is replaced with a less configurable "Large Icons" view, WMP12 is a mess, Photo Gallery is replaced with Photo Viewer and no longers has the gallery nor the editing features etc. I personally would take it over Windows 7 in a heart beat, but switching from XP is up to you. I'd go for it though if you wanted a more updated system, I've had no issues with stability. Using Vista Business x64 SP2 on an HP Compaq 6005 Pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why take it over XP?

1. Search is integrated throughout the GUI

2. It is an easier OS to use and navigate

3. Security has greatly been improved under the hood, and due to it having such low marketshare it is less targered with viruses and attacks etc. (This is Windows still, it will never be that safe)

4. More compatible with new hardware, although Vista is starting to loose hardware support as well. But if you use AMD, it works fine despite maybe some missing hotfixes.

5. It looks very polished imo, more so than Windows 7.

So up to you, but I'd definately go for it. Just watch out with editions though. Ultimate is a little heavy if you have anything under 4 GB of RAM, but Business handles memory just fine. Ultimate is awesome if you can run it though, it has the most features and because of that it's also somewhat heavier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Business run faster? What do you sacrifice between the two?

(and don't send me on a Google chase...lol. I'm at work, so if someone can actually tell me, I'd appreciate it. I'm running a vLited Ultimate, and it's pretty much fine in 7 GB of memory.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jody

I really don't know why it's faster, almost all of the same features. But it uses significantly less RAM on my somewhat slow Compaq. Something to do with less services I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need it for work, get a low-end NT 6.0++, for those programs, and usage. That is the only reason why people really use a newer OS like XP, compared to 98. Because the program vendor does not make the version and the program does not match in the conversion. They poorly programmed the software to force you to buy new software. UNIX machines have been out doing Windows and other OSes including DOS for years. We are just being herded into buying the new product to keep Microsoft alive, so those people who have jobs, can keep their jobs. The only person who defends Microsoft is the only person who is on their tab. Chances are a hungry employee of Microsoft would attack you for talking bad about their company. They need that job, to feel like if they actually accomplished something.

If you use a computer on a continues basis, for things that invades your privacy. This is a problem with the law, not a problem with the OS. Go to your local city council, town meetings and bring up issues like computer privacy, and how privacy is privacy. Find out vendors, who do not support privacy and expose them, for the traitors they are.

Why do I have NT 6.0++? Because I need it for work. Without Microsoft, Adobe, or even Autodesk products, Windows is as useless as a Mac without videogames. People are only nostalgic for the use of windows, since the Bob Pedora days. Does an health instructor, who is also an athlete have the lastest windows? No? Does a Sociologist have the latest windows? No? Does an Hollywood Agent have the latest windows? No? They do not even touch computers.

Are you happy with your XP ( NT 5.0 ???? ) setup? Why do you need NT 6.0 +????

Vista like XP can be a great OS, but you need to tweak the living daylights out of it. XP so far has more things in the open, and even more for 9X. Which is more easier to deal with?

Edited by ROTS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why take it over XP?

1. Search is integrated throughout the GUI

2. It is an easier OS to use and navigate

3. Security has greatly been improved under the hood, and due to it having such low marketshare it is less targered with viruses and attacks etc. (This is Windows still, it will never be that safe)

4. More compatible with new hardware, although Vista is starting to loose hardware support as well. But if you use AMD, it works fine despite maybe some missing hotfixes.

5. It looks very polished imo, more so than Windows 7.

So up to you, but I'd definately go for it. Just watch out with editions though. Ultimate is a little heavy if you have anything under 4 GB of RAM, but Business handles memory just fine. Ultimate is awesome if you can run it though, it has the most features and because of that it's also somewhat heavier.

you have some weird issues there

1. it needs stupid indexer that nicely slows down whole system, I'd take any alternative fast search over MS's crap

2. how so ? if anything in any NT 6 you have to do 2x more clicking through menus and crap to find simple thing

3. this makes no sense... both 6.0 and 6.1 share codebase, and 6.1 is most polular of the 2, anything that catches 6.1 6.0 will get it for sure

5. looks ? ... if its so more polished why does file manager have all icons in tree crammed up with 1mm space

lets not forget the fantastic scrolling left and right

or even better - useless taskbar thumbnails that even don't show enough visual info needed

or even better than that - good old useless taskbar button grouping - now that one wins "more polished" award

Edited by vinifera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty of all NT based OSs, Windows 2000 proabbaly lands the best performance even compared on level to XP. It functions flawlessly with well under a gig of RAM, and with proper mods will be almost as compatible as the latest NT 6+ OSs. As for Vista, sorry but a lot was removed from 7. When I want to force a search, even Windows 98 does a better job than 7. Vista had a very well organized searching filter, almost like XP's but with integration throughout Windows Explorer. Explorer on 7 was also a wreck considering you can't even bypass auto arrange without a registry mod. Yes of course NT 5 was quciker, and I miss the daylights out of XP's and 2k's raw, snappy performance. But the issue with XP is it can't even read more than 4 GB of memory, unless of course you go with XP x64 which is awesome. But has terrible support and sadly cannot even install SP3. I use Vista because it feels like an advanced Windows 7, a little higher on memory but at the same time you do get more functions with it. I think MS tried to strip Windows 7 down as much as possible to feel less bloated, and did have some semi cool new ideas. Like the UI of search seemed like a rushed re-rash in attampt to look nicer, while at the same time stripping it down to the bone! I Not talking about the little Photo Gallery and MM6, but REAL functionality within the OS. Like for example on Vista I can customize my Control Panel views and orders, tweak my Explorer some, easily add the WMP11 toolbar etc. Much was narrowed down in Windows 7, it drove me crazy. I spend hours and hours at a time using my pc, and it's safe to say I use nearly every feature that comes on Vista. I use the built in Photo Gallery for adjusting photo's color and red eye, I use the Windows Calendar for school related things, I countlessly am browsing within Explorer and use the customization options available to it, I use the Advanced Search for seeking docs and what not, I mean the list goes on. I use these tools and features on a daily basis, and I can safely say this is a stable system even on my slow computer. Now how would 2k or XP perform in here? It would be like a rocket ship! But have to ask yourself something; Do I really want an operating system from the beginning of the millenium? Sure it was fast but XP can barely even run on a modern pc. 2k probably could though ftw. Ask BlackWingCat, even he uses it still thanks to his mods. All in all the choice is up to you on what you really want, you can go with Windows 7 and get a tad more support but massively loose certain features. Or you can stick with what your used to and hang onto XP. All depends on what you need and what your personal taste is. I'm going Vista for now, maybe even dualboot with Linux Mint when I get a new pc. Unix ANYTHING kills Windows EVERYTHING. Exception for Win2k, because that system was bloody awesome and rock solid. Well long post, but that's just my experience and thoughts on the matter. No I'm not a Windows 7 or XP hater btw, in fact the complete opposite! Just like what I can do with Vista that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@11ryanc

Look, don't want to seem grumpier than I normally am :w00t:, but - provided that like 99% of people - you run NT systems on NTFS filesystems there is NO match between *any* indexing/traditional searching utility and a $MFT searching one, simply NO match.

Examples:

http://reboot.pro/topic/18855-windows-file-search-utility-that-is-fast/

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But has terrible support and sadly cannot even install SP3

coz there is no SP3 for x64

the 64bit XP is actually Server 2003 recompiled to client version

hence why both share same number of SP's

Edited by vinifera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...