Quake3World

it sure does, i had that hunk o junk on my lappy when i baught mine a year ago..

Nice KOS,

i would go back to XP on my Desktop, but then i cant use 784megz of my ram :/

that allways bothered me when i was using it.

rofl, so how much ram does that son of a pig aero use?

Kills On Site wrote:Yea, but Vista prolly uses all that 784 to run Areo and other useless services, so I find XP with just 2 GB of RAM to be a nice setup, :P.

there is an option to kill all that extra crap ya know

actually, it is proven that vista only needs 128... Of course, its sliggish, but its proven that thats all it uses for various windows applications & aero, if a little choppy

link plz.

bork[e] wrote:

Kills On Site wrote:Yea, but Vista prolly uses all that 784 to run Areo and other useless services, so I find XP with just 2 GB of RAM to be a nice setup, :P.

there is an option to kill all that extra crap ya know

Oh I know, I still just perfer XP to Vista anyday.

Serious question: Why should someone abandon Vista and go XP?

My brother just bought a new machine with Vista and the first thing I thought was "Why Vista"?

If someone could explain the particulars I'll pass it on to my bro so he can make an informed decision on which OS he'll use.

Thanks.






Cunt.

im not a big user, not trying to do anything fancy and whatnot, but one thing i really dont like is how, on vista, it feels slow to transfer files from one place to another. simply unzipping a file takes substantially longer than it should. my USB 2.0 port is slow as hell and i can't figure out why. i looked it up a bit and it seems as if a lot of people have really slow transfer times on their USB port.

maybe this has been fixed, but it can be extremely frustrating. i couldnt imagine using an external usb hdd with vista.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:link plz.

yeah, that's what i thought.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Serious question: Why should someone abandon Vista and go XP?

My brother just bought a new machine with Vista and the first thing I thought was "Why Vista"?

If someone could explain the particulars I'll pass it on to my bro so he can make an informed decision on which OS he'll use.

Thanks


Cunt.

Speed - XP's faster by a good margin. On a laptops this seems more of an issue since they typically have less power to play with in the first place
Legacy apps - particularly games. A number of them won't run on Vista. No reason here until you come across one.
Small things - Vistas crappy file transfer for one. DRM for another.
Power consumption - XP's lighter on laptops hence less power drain. Not a big deal on desktops.

The third option is to dual-boot.

GONNAFISTYA wrote:Serious question: Why should someone abandon Vista and go XP?...

You probably know more about this than I do, so I'm a bit surprised you ask, but anyways...
You're turning shit around;
Seriously, the real question is: why vista instead of XP? Not: why XP instead of vista?
Vista is an " upgrade", Vista has to prove itself, not XP.

I see myself as an average PC user.
I have had both vista and XP installed on dual boot for almost a year now.
Not once have I had the urge to boot into vista instead of XP.

I know there are some advantages using vista *64 bit*, but Joe Sixpack (me, you and your bro) doesn't need any of that nerd stuff.
Joe sixpack wants his shit to run smoothly and that's what XP will do better than vista.
Numerous benchmarks have shown that XP outperforms vista.

I almost feel embarrassed for MS pushing this turd, but sure; when vista SP 48 arrives it will *almost* match XP's performance.
Just do your brother a favor and install XP.

Blurredman wrote:actually, it is proven that vista only needs 128... Of course, its sliggish, but its proven that thats all it uses for various windows applications & aero, if a little choppy

oh please. i have a testmachine here that only had 512, and it dragged and stalled. clean normal user install, too, nothing fancy.

at first I liked Vista but indeed XP feels like it runs circles around it...I am dual booting now cause I'm such a whore

i don't necessarily like vista better than xp. i just happened to install vista64 a few months ago on a new machine i slapped together.

its been fine for me. snappy and stable so there was no reason to go back with xp.

i just purchased a new hdd and am gonna put xp on a small partition just to see the difference myself on the same machine.

it's just that with vista it feels like something is between your mouse and the monitor...
but not with xp on a new system

I've been running Vista 64 for quite awhile and its quick and smooth. Personally, I find the anti-Vista rants being made here and elsewhere on the net a little comical. Similar comments were made about XP and how it had a "fluffy" interface and was slower than 2K and now those same people are clinging to XP and repeating the same tired lines about Vista.

Tor:

Well put.. its so True.. i was a Extremly late switcher to XP, i rocked Win2ooo Untill Late XP SP1, and i switched a little wile ago to Vista ( Basically when SP1 hit ) And honestly? the O/s is alright, it is rather quick

The amount of System resources that it uses is a little mis-leading when it comes to performance, My Loading times for Games and apps are As quick or quicker then a XP install, and apparently i'm using over 1gig more of ram when compaired to a XP install.

Beond that, the main reason why i'm switcing back to XP ( littlerly after this post, i'm formatting ) is i'm getting tired of all of the Rants from the security settings, and having to go and turn each one of them off.. i had to work on a Asus router, and it was next to impossible to actually be able to work with it.. Telnet is gone, Cant ipconfig /release or /renew, SSH is a pain ( Putty works well with vista now ).

these are small things, but i'm getting nestalgic with a nice XP install, Simple, clean, Security settings Off and move on.

scratch that, even through XP cant use 750mb of my ram... its WAY quicker..

Honestly, i'm blown away at the moment.

I'm using vista64 sp1 and xp sp2 dual booted. I don't really notice much difference. But honestly, you kind of expect a new OS to be a little more demanding on the hardware than previous releases don't you? And yes, I remember most of the same things being said about XP when it came out.

The permission prompts annoyed me for all of 10 minutes until I disabled them. And other than a couple games that just don't work with vista atm, I really don't boot to xp that much anymore.

in all honesty, i didnt have a single Game/app that didnt work on Vista64.

Is there a central Selection/steps/etc to be able to turn off that security junk? or is it a step by step kinda thing...

Little of both.

http://www.petri.co.il/disable_uac_in_windows_vista.htm

after using xp for the last two days i seriously can't tell where xp has an advantage over vista64.

nothing seems to be any quicker. going back to xp feels like a step backwards. from what i've gathered vista takes a little bit to get up to speed. once it gets all your most used programs in superfetch and indexing is completed.

4 gigs of ram may be required for optimal performance too.