XP to Vista - is it worth it?

[jaclaz]

Sure , the point was exactly that.

What I would expect from an OS is that it does the whatever it is supposed to do.

A "better" OS is something that allows me to do more things but do the same things above in less time (faster).

We have now (almost 13 years later) replacement OS's that take advantage of the very substantially increased power of modern hardware to do (limited) more things but that takes the same or more time to do the same things that the previous (actually two previous) generation of OS can do in the same time or even take more time.

If I put on the hat of the "technical savvy user" I can understand fine how a number of features (not all of them IMHO) that were added are either "more elegant" or "more efficient" or "more handy", but when I take that hat off and put on my "plain layman" one, I cannot but notice how the global result (in it's entirety) provides no or very little advantage.

jaclaz

[Flasche]

Sure , the point was exactly that.

What I would expect from an OS is that it does the whatever it is supposed to do.

A "better" OS is something that allows me to do more things but do the same things above in less time (faster).

We have now (almost 13 years later) replacement OS's that take advantage of the very substantially increased power of modern hardware to do (limited) more things but that takes the same or more time to do the same things that the previous (actually two previous) generation of OS can do in the same time or even take more time.

If I put on the hat of the "technical savvy user" I can understand fine how a number of features (not all of them IMHO) that were added are either "more elegant" or "more efficient" or "more handy", but when I take that hat off and put on my "plain layman" one, I cannot but notice how the global result (in it's entirety) provides no or very little advantage.

jaclaz

Well yet another reason to use an old OS. Just as I thought when I saw the benchmark.

[11ryanc]

Windows 2000 is probably the only old OS I'd ever touch, it doesn't look pretty but it's performance, raw speed, and stability make it seem to be the best of the NT series. Here we have Vista and 7 which NEED a gig or more of RAM just to perform basic tasks at a usable speed, where as Win2k will function fully with just 256 MB of memory. Using proper mods it will be almost as compatible as any new OS, so even to this day it's pretty awesome. What does it lack? In all honesty just no eyecandy, it doesn't look pretty but it will blast through anything you throw at it. Though Vista+, the NT 6+ kernel does feature a more simplified desktop shell with the seaching options within folders, Start Menu, Explorer, security especially etc. I personally like Vista the best, but it has it's flaws big time! Stable OS, really hates older computers though. Same with 7, just not quite as bad. 7 is bit more stripped down

[vinifera]

... where as Win2k will function fully with just 256 MB of memory.

with XP its same story

believe or not my custom nlited XP SP3 with all prettyness enabled still uses ~80 MB RAM cold

[Flasche]

... where as Win2k will function fully with just 256 MB of memory.

with XP its same story

believe or not my custom nlited XP SP3 with all prettyness enabled still uses ~80 MB RAM cold

I can be believe you. The amount of junk put onto these OSes are insane. I wounder how many of the changes between vista, and 7 were just junk.

[11ryanc]

@Flasche -Did you really? That'a awesome , I have heard that Win2k is supoosedly more stable as a whole though. Tried it myself and it seems that way, although I've never used any good mods on XP before. I do love XP still, I think with proper mods and bottlenecks it could make a nice system still. And yeah I agree, lot of garbage loaded up on newer OSs. Though I still do love using Vista, lot of crap running in the background though. Same with Windows 7. I don't care much for 7 tbh though. Just feels like a lighter, stripped down version fo Vista.

2 issues:

XP is just weeks from loosing support

Vista is only 3 years from loosing support

I know going down the road of unofficial support they both can have long futures ahead of them, question is how?.... Win2k is still kicking, who's to say XP and Vista can't be used for a while? By the way I see your still on ME, how does that perform for you? Personally never liked the 9x series at all, too unstable imo. But maybe it could be modded to run ok, I'm not sure. Just curious how it works for you.

Edited March 23, 2014 by 11ryanc

[G8YMW]

11ryanc wrote

2 issues:

XP is just weeks from loosing support

Vista is only 3 years from loosing support

Personally never liked the 9x series at all, too unstable imo

I used to run Win98SE and found it very stable. What I found was get the DOS right underneath and it worked a treat together with MDGX's SE2ME patch. Unfortunately I had to change the mobo so 98 got left behind.

As far as "support" goes, doesn't bother me.

Just out of interest, why would "support" be an issue?

Browsers, only Microsoft has left XP behind, I have been using Firefox since (almost) it came out although I recently changed to Pale Moon. They fully support XP

Email, Thunderbird.

Office suites, one or two free suites out there (eg Open Office).

I think I will only leave XP behind when I cannot get hardware that can use it (I suppose I will have to walk like a penguin when that happens)

[ND22]

My impressions after running Vista X64 business since January 2007: the operating system is incredibly stable; no matter how much bad software I installed and how many weeks I left it running it will not crash! It starts and shuts down faster that XP on the same hardware! It is also compatible with everything I need and ever used since 7 years ago – it may be possible that the OS is not compatible with specific or very old software and some exotic hardware. Windows updates for vista and 7 are the same – I downloaded on purpose a kb for 7 and installed it on vista with no problems. Now for the bad point: the OS uses only for himself 1 gigabyte of ram and that is without third party programs; with them it goes up to 1.2 gigabyte of ram – I have 4 gb of ram so this is not a problem for me but by comparison a test install of windows XP 32 bit uses 200 mb of ram!

Also vista is more secured then XP – of course the underlying problem remains: the user is still the biggest “threat“ and if you just click away on every link you will get malware on your system really fast!

Edited March 23, 2014 by ND22

[jaclaz]

A layman comparison that I personally find interesting:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Test-shows-Windows-7-is-5x-slower-than-XP-in-UI-and-apps-load-slower-than-in-Vista

I am sure if I had XP and Visual Studio 2003 running on the same machine they would be blazing fast because they have fewer moving parts (or parts in general). I don't think we can get to the stage where a 1970s Golf GTI weighs half as much as it's modern day equivalent, and the modern day car is faster and better all round. The older version will always take corners quicker, because, lets face it, it weights half as much.

As said elsewhere :

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/145209-the-smallest-possible-size-of-bootsdi/

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/145209-the-smallest-possible-size-of-bootsdi/?p=933421

As a dinosaur, in my simplicity I continue thinking that smaller things are faster, no matter how faster is your hardware, managing less bytes it will make it faster!

jaclaz

[submix8c]

Devolving topic? Haven't we been down this road before? (with all due respect...)

[11ryanc]

@ND22 -People hate on Vista way too much though man, SP2 runs very stable for me always has. But about support, I know a lot open source programs have good legacy support. But application support is still diminishing on Vista, even now. Any possible way to compatible launch something to run in a Windows 7 compatibility layer under Vista? I saw that done with Win2k using XP dll's. Any thoughts on that? I know Vista could probably run Server 2008 R1 updates after 2017, same kernel in both OSs

Edited March 23, 2014 by 11ryanc

[jaclaz]

Devolving topic? Haven't we been down this road before? (with all due respect...)

On the contrary, I find your take on the matter exceptionally good ::

Whatever floats your boat, whichever one "feels" good to you, whichever serves the functional purpose, whatever "works best' on the hardware it's loaded onto, whichever one "runs" the applications you want to use.

One's trash is another's gold. Relativity...

still, facts (measurable/measured) should be separated and distinguished from opinions and preferences.

jaclaz

[vinifera]

I wounder how many of the changes between vista, and 7 were just junk.

thats a good question

hard to tell the insides ... but 1 thing is certain, win7 is more decomponentized than vista

does removing dependencies make more junk code or less ?

all I know that "under the hood" they changed kernel by some by using "minwin"

and ofc the famous "superbar"

other than that between vista and 7 I fail to see "under the hood" major change

[Flasche]

@ND22 -People hate on Vista way too much though man, SP2 runs very stable for me always has. But about support, I know a lot open source programs have good legacy support. But application support is still diminishing on Vista, even now. Any possible way to compatible launch something to run in a Windows 7 compatibility layer under Vista? I saw that done with Win2k using XP dll's. Any thoughts on that? I know Vista could probably run Server 2008 R1 updates after 2017, same kernel in both OSs

I think someone here claimed that windows 7 updates will work with no issue on windows vista. (He/She said they tried it and it worked)

[vinifera]

depends which

you can't use components (dll's, exe's) which call for API's that Vista doesn't have

Edited March 24, 2014 by vinifera