[PDL]

That's probably why most corporations immediately downgrade all their systems to XP.

The reason that some - not most - corporations are downgrading to XP is that they are:

• Using old hardware that does not meet Vista's requirements on EVERYONE's desktop/laptop.
• Their SW vendors have not produced versions of business applications that work with Vista.
• They are too cheap to re-write their in house applications to work with Vista's much more stringent security characteristics.
• They have too much invested in HW that is old (in my case servers that are 8 years old - hey they still work - why replace it?) (ah - no spares, slow, no SW support for the apps running on them etc)
• Capital outlays - just can not justify (to the bean counters) having HW and SW that works without handholding.

I have Vista Ultimate running on a 5+ year old P4 with 2GB ram, 4 HD (2 IDE and a mirrored SATA setup) a CD/RW, DVD/RW and a 3.5" floppy. I have a 5.25" floppy laying around here somewhere too. I have one piece of SW that just will not run (a mid 90's CAD program written in Turbo Pascal). Runs just fine, thank you very much.

Adam check out the "Problem Reports and Solutions" applet in Control Panel (have to use Classic View to find it easily). Defrag your disk too. Look before you leap to misqueued conclusions.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

---

Last edited by PDL; 01-12-2009 at 11:34 PM. Reason: additional comment

[Adam]

The fact remains that you'll get better performance on XP than on Vista, even on a powerful system. For my purposes, as I said earlier, that's what I need, and I won't be upgrading again unless the new version of Windows is a bit more efficient.

[user440]

The fact remains that you'll get better performance on XP than on Vista, even on a powerful system. For my purposes, as I said earlier, that's what I need, and I won't be upgrading again unless the new version of Windows is a bit more efficient.

Agreed. When I bought my 4gig, dual core HP a few years ago, it came with Vista pre-installed (along with a ton of other crap). Next to it, I had my 512mb 1.3 ghz machine with XP. The 1.3 ghz machine with XP ran faster in nearly every way. Switched over to Kubuntu and have been happy ever since.

[Gooshin]

Agreed. When I bought my 4gig, dual core HP a few years ago, it came with Vista pre-installed (along with a ton of other crap). Next to it, I had my 512mb 1.3 ghz machine with XP. The 1.3 ghz machine with XP ran faster in nearly every way. Switched over to Kubuntu and have been happy ever since.

you bought an HP with preloaded junk and you're telling us it ran slow?

durr....

rule #1 of fast PC's, DO IT YOURSELF

rule #2 of fast PC's, see rule #1

why do you think Linux and subsequent variants are so fast? because only the junk you want gets to run, and nothing else.


i have a self-built PC with self isntalled Vista Ultimate, an E8400 chip and 8 gigs of DDR2 ram, it reached a point in speed where i am unable to notice any performance increase.

the last time i was forced to wait for something was when i started to encode a 64 gigabyte video file without really knowing what i was doing....

[Maxington]

The fact remains that you'll get better performance on XP than on Vista, even on a powerful system. For my purposes, as I said earlier, that's what I need, and I won't be upgrading again unless the new version of Windows is a bit more efficient.

Yep, XP will be generally faster because it has a lot less overhead. Windows 98 would be faster than XP

Doing heavy work, Vista is far more stable and efficient. For general use, you wouldn't really notice the difference.

[Adam]

If 98 would install properly on modern hardware, that is