How many of you have "downgraded" from Vista back to XP?

[bobogs]

I've had Vista Ultimate installed on my newly built Core 2 Duo (E6600, 2gb ram) since March, and in all honesty, I just don't know what to make of it, performance-wise. I'm not a pc gamer, but I do my video and photo editing, dvd ripping and transcoding, the usual Outlook 2007 stuff, and email and web browsing. I came from a 1.8ghz Pentium 4 with 1gb ram, and while the new pc is definitely much faster in all aspects, I can't help but think that Vista is holding a brotha down. It just seems sluggish for what I was expecting from what should be considered quite a powerful pc (right?).

I see excessive hard drive access when there really shouldn't be that much, network issues (file copying across a G lan at KB/s, not MB/s), slow local disk file copying, app incompatibilities, driver issues (expected, but still bothersome). Not sure if this is reasonable, but I expect that a launched program should come up pretty darn fast on the new pc, given its raw horsepower, but I still see apps like iTunes and Outlook taking a while to appear. Connectivity/sharing problems on my home lan, and UAC have all been a pain in the a** (I gave up and changed mine and my wife's accounts to admins...at least the prompts are easier to handle now).

Given that Microsoft is apparently holding off until mid-to-late-2008 for Vista's SP1, maybe it's time I went back to XP Pro? I can always reinstall Vista later if I get the itch. I know there are many here that advocate not installing Vista at all, but has anyone else been down the Vista road and then gone completely back to XP? If so, for what reasons?

I know I could dual-boot Vista and XP, but that doesn't appeal to me. If I go back, it'll be a clean break from Vista.

Thanks!
Gary

[JimboS]

I have a 4 year old 1.4gig celeron with 512meg of ram...
It has Win XP sp2 (home version)..
It does anything and everything I ask of it...
Including capturing HD mini-dv..........
It even scratches my ..... if I ask......
I think Win Vista is a resourse hog..........
If I had a new 'puter built, I would ask for XP.......
You can on some sites like Dell, etc......

[Dv8ted2]

I use Vista at work and at home. It is not as bad as people think.

[classfour]

I switched back. DVD Rebuilder (of May vintage) had compatibility issues (contrary to what some here may believe - you weren't the ones having the issues) and crashed on every rebuild.

jDobbs would appreciate this: I simply couldn't live without his program.

The interface impressed me about as much as Office 2007: NOT

MS did not really invent much of an operating system with this one: The constant nagging over small security issues, the flakey interface, the difficult to navigate menu. If I'd have wanted that much transition, I'd have booted windows 3.11 for workgroups - at least it was stable and fast in it's day.

[bendixG15]

You're right...we all should have stayed with 3.11

(FYI .. I am not on vista.. I am just a slow upgrader)

[guns1inger]

Vista runs well on a system big enough to handle it. In most cases legacy systems should not be upgraded, only new systems should be used. Yes, there are still quite a few programs that don't run on Vista. However this happens with every major OS upgrade, from Windows to Apple, to Linux. Sometimes there are work arounds, sometimes there aren't. This needs to be factored into the decision to upgrade.

As for Office 2007 - I actually find the new interface a lot smarter than the old one.

I run Vista at work on a legacy laptop that was upgraded from 512 MB to 1.5 GB. It runs well, but some of the base drivers are not compatible, so I lose some of the hot-key type crap that gets bundled into most laptops.

I run XP at home because I am not ready to spend a lot of money on an older system just to run it. Microsoft's minimum specs have never be worth a pinch of sh*t. They are only enough to load the OS and that's it. Anyone who takes the minimum spec as a guide an upgrades based on that is a fool. Any company who builds to that spec and sells as Vista ready is ripping people off.

I actually have little sympathy for people who have either upgraded without thinking through the implications (not enough hardware, software incompatibility), or who bought a new system from someone who would only install and did not offer XP as an option.

With all that said, I cannot yet see a compelling reason to use Vista instead of XP. XP is stable, fast enough, and does everything I need. I don't have any DirectX10 hardware, and by the time any decent DX10 games are finally released, DX11 will have rolled out anyway.

[KTH]

My new work computer came with Vista installed, but I ended up formatting the HDD and installing XP. The first problem was that we have 3 different printers that we use depending on what type of document is being printed. I only could get one of these to work with Vista. The second thing that would not work with Vista was my scanner. It does not have any drivers that are compatible with Vista. Also a lot of software that we use would not install on Vista or if it did, it did not work well. To keep using Vista would have ment thousand's of dollars of hardware & software upgrades. Thanks Microsoft for such a great compatible OS like VISTA!?!?!? I wonder if Microsoft planned this so that they could sell you two OS's for the same computer.

[guns1inger]

Microsoft rolled Vista out to driver creators and hardware manufacturer, and most major software producers well in advance. This is probably the longest advance exposure of any OS. It is not Microsoft's fault that these companies sat on their arse and did nothing during this time. That there are still companies not producing drivers for Vista is shameful. But it is the companies at fault, not Microsoft.

And if yuou knew anything about software support you would understand that the last thing M$ want is to have XP hang around for another 5 years. The more OS's they have, the harder it is to support them. They would rather have everyone on Vista within two years than have XP still being used. This is why they stop patching older OS's like Windows 95/98. Even older versions of XP only get essential security patches.

You should have checked to make sure everything you needed would run under Vista, and if it wouldn't, you should have ordered XP instead.

[edDV]

My new work computer came with Vista installed, but I ended up formatting the HDD and installing XP. The first problem was that we have 3 different printers that we use depending on what type of document is being printed. I only could get one of these to work with Vista. The second thing that would not work with Vista was my scanner. It does not have any drivers that are compatible with Vista. Also a lot of software that we use would not install on Vista or if it did, it did not work well. To keep using Vista would have ment thousand's of dollars of hardware & software upgrades. Thanks Microsoft for such a great compatible OS like VISTA!?!?!? I wonder if Microsoft planned this so that they could sell you two OS's for the same computer.

I hope you got the system admin fired. Or was it the purchasing guy that screwed up?
Most corp environments take years to plan an OS change. This used to be a problem with people insisting they should be allowed to buy a Mac.

[mk2006]

I'm still using W2K Pro and I don't think I'll switch to anything until Microsoft stops supporting it. I don't see the point of upgrading OS and Office if you end up needing a system that's 3 times "faster" to run the upgrades at about the same speed as the old software on the original system.

[yoda313]

I bought vista on a new computer. I am keeping my xp computer just the way it is. That way i have the best of both worlds. A fully functioning vista pc for the inevitable 'VISTA ONLY' software that will come down the pipeline. AND a fully functional xp machine for legacy stuff. (hard to believe xp is now considered legacy isn't it? )

[TimA-C]

What anti-virus/firewall software are you using? The Norton 2006 range of products REALLY slows down PCs (if you have a genuine copy, you're eligable to get a free upgrade to the far superior 2007 range of products from the Symantec support website. If you're upgrading from Internet security don't forget to get the free add-on pack.) The latest versions of ZoneAlarm (7.0.366, 7.0.362) make my system unuseable and make me yearn for the performance of my old K6-2 system! The earlier 7.0.337 isn't too bad once you've turned off the 'on-access scanning'.

Also, is your new PC an 'off-the-shelf' one or was it built for you? If it's an off-the-shelf one then it's probably got LOADS of unnecessary and unwanted software running in the background, slowing everything down. If you've got Nero 7 on there, disable or uninstall Nero Scout - possibly the most pointless 'new feature' I've ever seen! Also get rid of Google Desktop if you've got it.

[rumplestiltskin]

Lobotomized a new Acer laptop (CoreDuo running Vista Home Basic) and installed XP2(SP4). Much better. Vista took so long to boot and to do anything. The responsiveness to user input (mouseclicks, for example) could best be described as numb.

Then there's the constant "big-brother-over-your-shoulder" nagging and warning about everything. It was awful.

When I bought the Acer, I checked at their website to verify that XP drivers were available if I needed to switch. I wouldn't have bought the unit unless they were.

I had previously bought a CoreDuo notebook from HP - also running Vista Home Basic. It was so brutally bad I returned it in 90 minutes after I brought it home. HP told me that XP drivers weren't available for it (after I called them to troubleshoot why this POS was running so poorly).

By the way, both the Acer and the HP were config'd with 1GB of RAM. I've since upgraded the Acer to 1.5GB just because I had a spare 1GB module after upgrading a Core2Duo Mac.

[Squash]

I bought a new Vista machine last week. I like it so far, no real problems, but, like yoda313, I plan on keeping my old XP box hooked up for a quite awhile.

Here's a tip for anybody that's annoyed by the constant UAC nags that Vista gives you. You can get rid of that easily by using a program called TweakUAC, which I have come to love. Here's a brief article telling you why this is not a bad thing to do, security-wise. It also has a link to download the program if you want to try it out:

http://www.tweak-uac.com/

Also, bobogs, I don't know if it will help with your performance problems, but if you haven't already tried these, Microsoft released a couple of patches for Vista a few weeks ago to address performance and reliability problems. I downloaded them from Betanews, which has links to their respective Microsoft pages if you'd rather get them from there:

http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Microsoft_Windows_Vista_Reliability_Update_32bit/1186586196/1

http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Microsoft_Windows_Vista_Performance_Update_32bit/1186585906/1

One of the fixes in the second one is for "When you write data to an AVI file by using the AVIStreamWrite function, the file header of the AVI file is corrupted", which may be of particular interest to users of this forum. There are also 64-bit versions of the updates.

And, like rumplestiltskin says, if you decide to go to XP, you'll need XP drivers for some of your hardware; for instance, SATA drivers if that's what your hard drive(s) are (I think the drivers were included in XP SP2, or you can install them off a floppy if you're using an earlier XP disc, if you have a floppy drive).

[Midzuki]

mk2006 wrote:

I don't see the point of upgrading OS and Office if you
end up needing a system that's 3 times "faster" to run
the upgrades at about the same speed as the old software
on the original system.

My current WinXP-ed PC does NOT run faster than my deceased
Win95-ed, 32 MB, 66MHz, DX2-80486 used to run.

P.S.: When the core files of an OS do not fit on an installation CD,
you can be sure there is something quite wrong going on. Unfortunately
most people do appear not to give a damn about the fact that Windows 98
already was bloatware. Yes!, what is the problem in filling RAMs and HDDs
with garbage when memory chips and hard disks are "cheaper than ever"?

=====

[classfour]

Out of the box - new Dell with Vista was way slower. (1GB RAM, 3400AMD proc., SATA drives, etc.). Upgraded to 2GB RAM, new install on 80GB SATA = DVD Rebuilder wouldn't function. Rather than wait for jDobbs to create a Vista compatible program, I switched to XP Pro.

The good news: I can boot in a little less than a minute - including the full desktop load. The only time it's more is when the antivirus updates. As expected, with the specs of the machine - this is my fastest one by far. Vista - on the new install - still took three times as long to load.

[oldfart13]

Upgrade?

[TBoneit]

From another site. Microsoft has released an update for Vista that is claimed to improve reliability and performance for either 32 bit or 64 bit versions of Vista. In our own testing, some file operations went from 30 seconds to 2 seconds so you may notice significant improvements.

Whether or not this is one of the ones mentioned by Squash I could not say.

I'm running a dual OS on one computer XP Pro and Vista Ultimate

I'm not seeing drastic speed differences. AMD 64X2 4200 w/1gig

Only difference is I didn't load the SATA drivers that allow hot swapping SATA drives for vista.

[Faustus]

I'm dual boot XP and Vista but I really have only gone back to XP once or twice to be honest. Vista is okay if a little slow.

[hudsonf]

I'm happy with Vista so far. I installed it to a separate hard drive so I could dual boot XP or Vista. Like Faustus said; since I started using Vista I've only booted into XP a couple of times.

[Xylob the Destroyer]

this thread should have a poll in it!

[edDV]

Vista seems fine on a Core2Duo machine although there are some unusual delays that don't happen in XP. Apps seem to run about as fast.

The main issue is getting the drivers and applications working properly. There are still many Vista related application bugs and the redesigned control panels are frustrating. I wish there was a "pro" control panel with all the settings (other than the registry :P ). Many old audio programs aren't running properly. Some of the Vista internal apps like Sidebar are extremely poor in design.

This will all sort out in time just like it did with XP. So far I give Vista a B- and I expect more from SP1.

[guns1inger]

You can switch your control panel to classic mode for that XP experience.

[redwudz]

It does take a while to 'find your way around' with Vista. I haven't had any real problems with the programs I use. Some hardware manufacturers haven't bothered to issue any updated software , but most all newer hardware should work fine.

A lot of the 'slowness' reported with Vista seems to be from the increased security software. When I have all my 'protections' running on XP, it slows down a fair bit also.

I rather like the look of the interface. XP looks somewhat plain afterwards. As for older OS's like W95 and W98, I remember having to reinstall the OS about 3 - 4 times a year to keep them running at a reasonable speed without too many crashes. I don't miss that at all.

I agree the OS has a bit of 'fine tuning' left to go, but I have no plans to downgrade my Vista computer to XP.

[bobogs]

Thanks for all the comments.

I'll stick with Vista for now (I don't hate it), and I'll see how the suggested patches help. I'm sure every Vista user is waiting anxiously for SP1...hopefully it will be sooner rather than later.

Regarding redwudz's comment about all the security sw slowing down the OS, I can attest to that. I run Trend Micro 2007, and there's a big difference between pre-install post-install performance.

Try this if you can...create a new virtual machine and install an old pre-slipstreamed-SPx version of XP. Do some general OS stuff to gauge performance in the following three states: post setup; post SP2; post SP2+AV sw. It's amazing how much the pc will slow down just after the SP2 install. I guess you pay for security with performance.

[yoda313]

As for older OS's like W95 and W98, I remember having to reinstall the OS about 3 - 4 times a year to keep them running at a reasonable speed without too many crashes. I don't miss that at all.

Ditto. I had that with win98 on a p3 hp I was using sometime ago. I'd wipe it and reinstall twice a year minimum. Strange thing was my old p1 windows 95 pc didn't seem to have that issue - maybe only having 1 gig of HARD DRIVE space made me more conservative of what I installed back then

[stiltman]

Where's windows 2000 in the poll?

I use Win2K at home because that's my perferred OS
I use WinXP and Vista at work, because XP it is the OS of choice and Vista will be the upgrade after SP1.

[mazinz]

I really wish someone out there could make a patch to get sygate firewall running on vista. When Microsoft eventually forces us to switch over I do not want to be without it. No longer made or supported (thanks a lot Norton) but still a damn good firewall

[Marvingj]

I expected more out of Vista. But I will stick with XP Pro.

[ssj2_goha]

When Microsoft eventually forces us to switch over

When they "force" go to OSX
Screw Microsoft!