I Am Sticking With Xp Pro 32 Bit

I started using Vista on my main work computer. Things started looking up after I turned off UAC. I can't stand that part. However, once I figured out where something had moved (without good reason, IMHO), and played with a while, I moved from ambivalence to like.

Of course, this is running on kind of a ridiculously good computer. I'm about to install Vista again on my work laptop so I can study for the MCITP in Vista support (since we're slowly making the big switch accross the corporation), so we'll see how it goes on something a little less powerful.

I'm almost to the point where I'd want to install it on my home computer, as long as it passes the upgrade advisor with something better than a home basic recommendation, but I won't for a while because of cost.

Overall, I think the negative hype has hurt MS, but on the whole I don't think it's near as bad as many people say.

Edit: I ran the Adviser for kicks, and it says my computer is good to go. Now all I need is cash...

Check this out.
I called the main computer store in this area and wanted to buy both Vista and MS Office Ultimate. Pretty big sale...about $800 after it was all said and done.
The sales guy actually talked me out of buying Vista.
He said that a few of his tech employees bought and installed it and very quickly went back to XP Pro.

I havent used Vista, but Im betting that many folks who say they like it simply either cant tell the difference because they dont use apps that make any difference, or they havent used XP before.

mrghost said:

You can have Vista. Most all my friends are tech's, and they all say the same, we do not like Vista.
The only adavantge to Vista that I see, is it's ability to see and use more ram. Do you need more than 4 Gigabytes of ram ?.
You will notice that allot of the new programs are slowing down your computer, Why ? Because they are Resource Hogs. Vista requires one gigabyte of ram to run, where XP. can functing at around 380mb.

I do not need what Vista has to offer, And allot of people feel the same way. And Microsoft knows this, that they have produced a looser. Just like Win2000.

To Make up for lost sales, Don't be supprised if you see Windows7 released in 2009. Like they do not have the money or man power to do this........
Microsoft's stockholders want to see some profit. Sure they may fix Vista someday, But when I spend my money, I want something that works with no problems.

Microsoft's real intent is to force everyone to 64bit OS.
Well thats great, if the thousands of dollars in software that I have works on it with out a hitch..

So due to lost sales; MS. is finally giving the world what it wants, A system that will run anything you put in it. 32bit or 64bit..Win7
So I will wait. Just like most Americans. having to squeeze that dollar. The computer World servers still use 32 bit. MS is pushing them to go to Longhorn 64 bit. But they like us, don't want to pay the price of the big change over.
I will stay with XP. until something better comes along. And with patience it Will. Money always dictates to the companies what they are going to make and when.....
Mrghost Veteran Tech......

Click to expand...

Soul Searcher said:

When I see people spread false information I often step up and say so.

Hopefully the readers here are sharp enough to see through the nonsense posted by the OP in this thread.

Click to expand...

The problem with your assertion is that the OP ISNT the only person making similar claims.
Ive very recently heard nothing good about Vista in COMPARISON to XP Pro.

will Vista run? Why yes it will.

Will it run better than XP Pro for the Apps that MOST of us use ? Based on what Ive heard and read by folks who HAVE used it, probably not.

HuntingMan said:

The problem with your assertion is that the OP ISNT the only person making similar claims.
Ive very recently heard nothing good about Vista in COMPARISON to XP Pro.

will Vista run? Why yes it will.

Will it run better than XP Pro for the Apps that MOST of us use ? Based on what Ive heard and read by folks who HAVE used it, probably not.

Click to expand...

But the fact is that Vista is not dead nor dying and more people are warming up to it everyday. Also fact XP has not taken some huge jump in price as was indicated earlier.

Vista seems to work fine on PCs that have the power to run it. It also has some pretty cool new features once you get used to it, more so in the buisness and ultimate versions.

Keep in mind XP was slower at first compared to Win2000. The major reason was that it required more resources, once PCs caught up and people got used to the new interface most people liked it. Vista is really not so different.

There was also driver issues with XP and with 2000 and others before them when they were first released and always service packs to fix the bugs and such. It takes a while for everything to catch up but soon the majority will be using Vista.

Im not disagreeing that Vista is here to stay....for a while anyway.
Its just that Ive seen too many people, including my brother in law who is a tech for a huge corporation and knows OS's inside and out, who have tried Vista and not one of anyone Ive heard from actually prefers Vista over XP Pro for anything that they do that XP will run (which is pretty much everything).

It doesnt come down to features or ease of use, Ive heard a lot of good things from non-tech types who love Vistas user friendliness, its more about the fact that Vista is a resource hog by comparison to XP Pro.

But in Vistas defense, a lot of us werent too willing to make the 98>XP change either.
It took me until just early last year to do it myself and the only reason I did was because my old motherboard finally went cheesy on me and the new one didnt support Win98 at all, so I was forced into the new millenium...kicking and screaming, as it were.

Personally, Im bypassing Vista on my PC altogether and waiting for the next version. For my wife, who just uses her PC for apps like Office and email, we're getting her a Vista PC here pretty soon (for her new job).
Ill definitely play around with it once she gets it

Have a great day, SS

mrghost said:

You can have Vista. Most all my friends are tech's, and they all say the same, we do not like Vista.
The only adavantge to Vista that I see, is it's ability to see and use more ram. Do you need more than 4 Gigabytes of ram ?.
You will notice that allot of the new programs are slowing down your computer, Why ? Because they are Resource Hogs. Vista requires one gigabyte of ram to run, where XP. can functing at around 380mb.

I do not need what Vista has to offer, And allot of people feel the same way. And Microsoft knows this, that they have produced a looser. Just like Win2000.

To Make up for lost sales, Don't be supprised if you see Windows7 released in 2009. Like they do not have the money or man power to do this........
Microsoft's stockholders want to see some profit. Sure they may fix Vista someday, But when I spend my money, I want something that works with no problems.

Microsoft's real intent is to force everyone to 64bit OS.
Well thats great, if the thousands of dollars in software that I have works on it with out a hitch..

So due to lost sales; MS. is finally giving the world what it wants, A system that will run anything you put in it. 32bit or 64bit..Win7
So I will wait. Just like most Americans. having to squeeze that dollar. The computer World servers still use 32 bit. MS is pushing them to go to Longhorn 64 bit. But they like us, don't want to pay the price of the big change over.
I will stay with XP. until something better comes along. And with patience it Will. Money always dictates to the companies what they are going to make and when.....
Mrghost Veteran Tech......

Click to expand...

Well you might be right mrghost. In that case I have a 64bit version of xp you may like to have. Good luck finding any programs, printer, or peripherals for it. You would think that someone would come up with some programs to help aid the switch. It is kind of hard to go to 64bit when you can't find anything to run with it. And as for backward compatibility, as is claimed, forget it that is just a bunch of baloney. I know because I loaded that xp64 only to find that I could not use it.

Sealacamp

sealacamp said:

Well you might be right mrghost. In that case I have a 64bit version of xp you may like to have. Good luck finding any programs, printer, or peripherals for it. You would think that someone would come up with some programs to help aid the switch. It is kind of hard to go to 64bit when you can't find anything to run with it. And as for backward compatibility, as is claimed, forget it that is just a bunch of baloney. I know because I loaded that xp64 only to find that I could not use it.

Sealacamp

Click to expand...

Vista 64 is better but still leaves a bit to be desired.

Soul Searcher said:

But the fact is that Vista is not dead nor dying and more people are warming up to it everyday. Also fact XP has not taken some huge jump in price as was indicated earlier.

Vista seems to work fine on PCs that have the power to run it. It also has some pretty cool new features once you get used to it, more so in the buisness and ultimate versions.

Keep in mind XP was slower at first compared to Win2000. The major reason was that it required more resources, once PCs caught up and people got used to the new interface most people liked it. Vista is really not so different.

There was also driver issues with XP and with 2000 and others before them when they were first released and always service packs to fix the bugs and such. It takes a while for everything to catch up but soon the majority will be using Vista.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Vista definitely was aimed at newer, more powerful systems. But I also think that while Vista may be a resource hog, it seems to also do a much better job at managing your available resources than XP. The "problem" with Vista is that if your hardware isn't up to the task, then Vista will definitely expose that.

I do a lot of work with Photoshop, Illustrator and Dreamweaver, etc... they seem to run a little better in Vista than it did in XP.

onemessiah said:

Yeah, Vista definitely was aimed at newer, more powerful systems. But I also think that while Vista may be a resource hog, it seems to also do a much better job at managing your available resources than XP. The "problem" with Vista is that if your hardware isn't up to the task, then Vista will definitely expose that.

I do a lot of work with Photoshop, Illustrator and Dreamweaver, etc... they seem to run a little better in Vista than it did in XP.

Click to expand...

Yep, It does do a better job handling resources and actually allows for using 4 megs of system ram where as XP does not. XP was also better at handling resources than the earlier versions, much much better than ME and 98 both of which struggled with anything over 256 k of ram.

It won't be long until the hardware forces Vista on all new pcs. In the last 30 days I have had 2 calls where the xp install was giving the BSOD due to the hardware configuration of the motherboard it was a pain to get it installed but it did work after finding the right work around.

So far the only program I have really noticed a difference in speed on is Nero Vision on my X2 4400+ it takes about 25-30 minutes to encode a dvd from avi under xp and about 50-60 minutes under Vista. I thought that maybe it was because I only have 2 gigs of ram installed but my brother tried it on his machine which is running a Q6700 and 4 gigs of ram and is still seeing similar results where xp is about twice as fast. Of course we are both using version 4 with the vista patch so it could just be an issue with that version fo the software.