[Hrennilasi]

I usually use linux, but to be fair-Vista right now is leaps and bounds above xp.

[mxzjxluwst]

I usually use linux, but to be fair-Vista right now is leaps and bounds above xp.

In what way?

I still take a 10% performance hit with Vista. At home, I don't care, I'm in no hurry to get things done. At work it's a different story.

[plogypeskelry]

I don't have the hardware for Vista.
I tried it on my 2.6 ghz single core system with 2gb of ram.
It was a little sluggish & I had problems with video drivers.

I went back to XP.

My buddy has Vista on a dual core dual GPU uber-system & it flies.

the need to put an admin password in to do anything was beyond annoying & is usually the first thing to get turned off & that reduces vista's security.

[Biassasecumma]

My buddy has Vista on a dual core dual GPU uber-system & it flies.

Yes, Vista wants more, but put XP on the same system and it's like switching on the afterburners.

[inchaaruutaa]

Yes, Vista wants more, but put XP on the same system and it's like switching on the afterburners.

Take that XP install CD & trim the fat using Nlite & you have an even faster system.

[htDgExh8]

My laptop has Vista and I can't really tell that much of a difference as far as every day stuff.....

[kucheravka]

Take that XP install CD & trim the fat using Nlite & you have an even faster system.

Yes.
Make it XP 64 with 4Gig+ ram.

I will give Vista props on it's installer, it may still be full of crap but it is quick and easy to install.

[VemyhemiHef]

Yes.
Make it XP 64 with 4Gig+ ram.

I will give Vista props on it's installer, it may still be full of crap but it is quick and easy to install.

I got a copy of 64 also but never installed it.
I got it when it first came out through work but read about driver issues.

besides the ability to access 4gigs of ram in the OS, is 64 bit any faster?

[Rjvpicux]

I got a copy of 64 also but never installed it.
I got it when it first came out through work but read about driver issues.

besides the ability to access 4gigs of ram in the OS, is 64 bit any faster?

Seems faster, but then I installed it at the same time as my velociraptor drive, which screams.

I need the extra ram in daily work so that makes a huge difference for me, and I have one version of a 64 bit app that moves along much faster than it's 32 bit sibling. I have only had one driver issue, which was an eight year old piece of hardware that the vendor quit supporting a few of years back. It also has a problem with Vista.

It seems remarkably stable so far. No CPU munching rogue apps, no blue screens, though I never got that many BSODs with XP.

[paratayoma]

In what way?

I still take a 10% performance hit with Vista. At home, I don't care, I'm in no hurry to get things done. At work it's a different story.

Yeah, I would admit work machines don't need to have Vista. Sorry, I was talking more about home use.

What 10% hit are you talking about? You mean the guaranteed 1 gig to run it?

[Scukonaher]

What 10% hit are you talking about? You mean the guaranteed 1 gig to run it?

I mean speed. I get around a 10-15% performance boost using XP over Vista, on a higher end system. I get the same boost on pretty much anything I have moved to XP from Vista.

[hoconnor6605]

I mean speed. I get around a 10-15% performance boost using XP over Vista, on a higher end system. I get the same boost on pretty much anything I have moved to XP from Vista.

What are you using to test this with. And what happens if you turn off Aeroglass?

[Lgcjqxlw]

I don't think those kind of tweaks show up in benchmarks or single apps, rather they way on your experience day to day, like the UAC prompt. I see this is confusing, what I mean is the UAC prompt is one of those little things, like interface tweaks, aeroglass features and such that over the course of months add up to a performance hit.

[Roamsaffots]

I have no problem with the UAC prompt, except that it is worthless. Linux does such all the time and prompts for passwords that Vista doesn't. Vista's UAC just requires a mouse click which to me either will be ignored by the end user (they will click it to make it go away without reading it or wondering why it popped up) or code can be written to click on it automatically.

[EasyLOAD]

I have no problem with the UAC prompt, except that it is worthless. Linux does such all the time and prompts for passwords that Vista doesn't. Vista's UAC just requires a mouse click which to me either will be ignored by the end user (they will click it to make it go away without reading it or wondering why it popped up) or code can be written to click on it automatically.

I agree, and if you aren't installing software, you don't see the UAC prompt much at all.

I should probably run a new test to see who comes out ahead now. I did it just after Vista SP1 was released and still found XP to be a bit faster, FOR ME. But I have not done this in a while, I should try it again, though I don't want to go back to 32bit vista, and I don't have a Vista ultimate.

Another issue speed wise is boot times. My clean XP installs tend to boot much faster than a clean vista install. But then Vista booting in my experience is hit and miss, sometimes it's quick, sometimes it takes way longer than normal. Overall I feel more efficient with XP, and I like the look, especially with the Zune theme installed.

[OpVJokl8]

You two are going to have to move this conversation to the lounge.. phew!

[kimaddison]

You two are going to have to move this conversation to the lounge.. phew!

Zune theme gets you hot, does it?

[Trientoriciom]

Zune theme gets you hot, does it?

She just likes calling me "Ultimate"

[happyman]

She just likes calling me "Ultimate"

or is it Hardy Heron?

[Pheboasmabs]

It is just all these hot, sexy, computer words! (ones that I don't understand )