Windows Vista compared to All other Windows OS?

[Annobanno]

I am no tech genius, so I'v been thinking about - why is it that Vista was so INCREDIBLY slow and resource demanding, compared to Windows 7, XP etc.?

When I changed from Vista to Win 7 back when my machine was stock, it got A LOT faster - what did Microsoft do wrong in Vista?

[dr_st]

Did you change a fresh installation of Vista to a fresh installation of Win7 and it got a lot faster?

Vista is not any more resource demanding that Win7, but it can feel a bit more sluggish on a slower PC. In Win7 Microsoft worked specifically on the responsiveness.

[Annobanno]

Yes I did a fresh install of both

[pianowizard]

I just installed Vista on my Dell Precision M90 (2GHz Core2Duo, 3GB DDR2 RAM, 160GB 7200rpm HDD) because this machine's COA is for Vista. While it's noticeably slower than Win XP on this same laptop, it's perfectly acceptable. Several years ago, I ran Vista for several months on a Thinkpad G41 (3.33GHz Pentium 4, 1GB DDR1 RAM, 80GB 5400rpm HDD) and even with such limited specs, I was happy with the performance.

I like Vista's user interface more than Win 7's because the former is still kind of similar to XP's, especially the classic Start Menu. I have been running 7 for almost a year and still don't like its looks very much. For that reason, I will be downgrading from 7 to XP for my HP Mini 5101 this week.

[craigmontHunter]

I have found that the only way to compare windows vista to 7 is when you install sp2 on vista - it performs as well as, if not better than windows 7, and it has better battery life. While windows vista was a dog when it was first released, it was also released on hardware that had no busniess running windows vista (celeron 1.4ghz, 512mb ram?), once you bumped it up to a better system, it ran OK, it was sp1 that made huge diffrences, and vista sp2 is the best edition. It is like windows xp - with no service packs it was terrible, sp1 made it acceptable, sp2 made it the windows version to use, then sp3 was just an upate. vista has finally matured, but since 7 arrived at about the same time, everyone left vista so they did not see the improvements. I am running vista X64 on my t61, and it beats all the other operating systems I have tried in terms of speed and stability (aside from some stupid apple software )

[pianowizard]

craigmontHunter, thanks for that excellent post. When I got my Precision M90 several weeks ago, I was a bit disappointed that its COA was for Vista, thinking I was stuck with an inferior OS. I felt better after finding out for myself that Vista is actually not that bad on this laptop, and your post made me feel even better.

[dr_st]

If you need more support - Vista is the OS on my primary desktop (Ultimate 64bit, started with SP1 and now on SP2), and it's rock solid and far better than any XP installation I have.

The only crashes I experienced were due to a buggy Ralink wireless driver (solved by changing to a different adapter - since it took Ralink over a year to fix the bug)

I used to work with Classic look on my Vista setup, but recently decided to switch to Aero, and use some nice Sidebar gadgets (mostly system information and weather/calendars). Still sticking to the classic start menu, though.

[Harryc]

Glad I read this thread too. I don't recall trying Vista past SP1, so I think I'll revisit it some time

[Annobanno]

Glad I read this thread too. I don't recall trying Vista past SP1, so I think I'll revisit it some time

Me neither - I don't think I even kept it long enough to see the arrival of SP1, but nice to hear that it has gotten so much better

[vital-analitix]

If you are thinking of using a SSD then imho you may want to seriously consider Windows 7: Windows 7 was build with native support for a SSD.

[Brian10161]

I'm not really sure where I read it, but people kept saying Windows 7 automatically disables defrag and a few other things for SSD drives. I had to do it all manually with my OCz SSD and my Intel SSD.

I honestly remember reading that, but can't remember where. Just be fore-warned.

[vital-analitix]

I'm not really sure where I read it, but people kept saying Windows 7 automatically disables defrag and a few other things for SSD drives. I had to do it all manually with my OCz SSD and my Intel SSD.

I honestly remember reading that, but can't remember where. Just be fore-warned.

Originally a host of items were disabled by Windows 7 but most of those remarks refer to the pre-release versions of Windows 7. When Windows 7 was released a number of items have to be manually performance tested and then disabled if it proves to have better performance. Just run the Intel SSD toolbox and it will inspect.

Sometimes Windows 7 does not detect that it is a SSD - this can happen (mainly) with older controllers that are not SSD aware.

On my T61p Windows 7 detected on install that it was an SSD and a host of items were disabled but the Intel SSD toolbox found one item that was not disabled and I had to do this manually.

[Brian10161]

Oh okay, good to know. I will try the SSD toolbox on my computer under 7, I never even thought to install it lol

[paul*robertson]

I use Vista business on my X61, no problems. I have it on another laptop, which is not to fast, and yes it can be slow. However, i'm used to it and cant be bothered changing.

[craigmontHunter]

I use Vista business on my X61, no problems. I have it on another laptop, which is not to fast, and yes it can be slow. However, i'm used to it and cant be bothered changing.

If it is the 600x, then I would understand it being slow

[paul*robertson]

Its a Samsung. My 600x has win 2K.

[j-dawg]

As far as I'm concerned, if you've got 2+GB RAM, Vista is pretty much as good as 7 now that they've got the kinks worked out. 7 was more of a PR move than an engineering feat. It's close enough that I won't pay the $30 to upgrade to 7 - that should say it all.

Vista is leaps and bounds better than XP. On the few occasions over the last two years that I've had to use XP, it's felt primitive and buggy by comparison.

[dr_st]

7 was more of a PR move than an engineering feat.

It's somewhat true. I tend to agree with the statement that was voiced when 7 first came out - "7 is Vista how it should have been".

7 does have some improvements in the UI and a few (mostly minor) in the kernel over Vista, but mostly it's the same.

The choice to distribute 7 as a new OS rather than a service pack to Vista - that is the PR move in my view.

[craigmontHunter]

I seem to remember a vista PR stunt where microsoft got people to use vista and give a review, and almost all of the users disliked/hated vista. Then they got htem to use vista again without telling them, and they all liked this "new and improved" os, and were suprised that it was vista as well. They used this to show that vista was good, even though it had lots of negative reviews and press around it.

[pianowizard]

Vista is leaps and bounds better than XP. On the few occasions over the last two years that I've had to use XP, it's felt primitive and buggy by comparison.

Vists is better than XP in one more way: it will be supported by Microsoft until April 2017, while XP support will end in April 2014. Right now, I have just one laptop (my Precision M90) with a Vista COA and just one destop (a custom-built machine in my lab) with a 7 COA, and all my other 9 computers have XP. I will continue to use XP on these machines until April 2014, and then I will have to use my department's site license to upgrade to 7. Even though, like I said above, I prefer Vista over 7, I will upgrade to 7 because if I upgrade to Vista, I would have to upgrade again in 2017.

[craigmontHunter]

Pianowizard - by the time 2014 comes, I expect that windows 8 will be out - that may provide a method of bypassing 7 altogether (and I expect that 7's support will end around 2020 (3 years after vista, same timeframe as the release)

The problem I have with planing that far ahead is that someone else changes everything on me .

what systems do you have anyway that came with xp and will be worth upgrading to 7/8? I would have thoguht that they would have reached the end of their service life by then (I guess that it depends on their use)?

[pianowizard]

I would have thoguht that they would have reached the end of their service life by then

Absolutely not. I don't get rid of a computer just because it has reached a certain age. As long as the computer runs well, I keep using it. I don't do very demanding tasks, but I do multitask like there's no tomorrow, and yet most of machines can handle that quite well. I expect them to continue to meet my needs for at least five more years. My main computer, a Dell Optiplex GX280, is 6 years old with 2.8GHz Pentium 4, 2GB DDR2 RAM and a 2TB 5400rpm HDD.

On this forum as well as the NotebookReview forum, lots of people look for a new computer "because my current computer is 3 years old!", even though most of these people just do very simple tasks on these machines. If they know how to properly maintain their computers, they wouldn't need to upgrade once every 2 to 3 years.

[craigmontHunter]

I have no issues with old computers (I just upgraded my desktop from a p3 1ghz to a p4 2.2), I just *assumed* that a production/proffesional enviroment would need better systems (through yours sound better really good).

I guess it is because I get computers at the end of their life, and assume that everyone would get rid of them then (at which point I use them for another 5 or 6 years, untill I get another free system)

[ZaZ]

I prefer Vista, mainly because there's on application I use that doesn't work in Windows 7. With SP2 Vista runs quite well. Windows 7 is Vista tweaked and I don't find it to all that different from Vista, at least not enough to spend money to get it.

[ajkula66]

pianowizard wrote:

I don't get rid of a computer just because it has reached a certain age. As long as the computer runs well, I keep using it. I don't do very demanding tasks, but I do multitask like there's no tomorrow, and yet most of machines can handle that qutie well.

I couldn't agree more. As long as one is aware of the machine's limitations and bears those in mind, there's a lot to be said about keeping semi-vintage gear...until the bitter end...

[dr_st]

I also have an old main computer which is a P4. It is disabled now, and needs some diagnosis on whether the motherboard can be fixed or requires a replacement. I will happily replace the board for this machine - I like it enough.

I also have an AMD-K6 500MHz desktop still up and running, beat that!

[craigmontHunter]

I just aquired a p1 233 that is still running - I am going to swap cases with the p3 though (the p3 is pretty beat up)

Yay for standards

[pianowizard]

The oldest computer that I currently have is a Dell desktop with 800MHz Pentium III and 512MB of RAM. It's not powerful enough for a smooth Windows XP experience and so it's just collecting dust for now. However, someday I may use it to run some DOS-era software and its ISA slot may also prove useful at some point. So, I am holding onto it.

[Neil]

I also have an AMD-K6 500MHz desktop still up and running, beat that!

I'm still using a twelve or thirteen year old HP desktop 200MHz CPU (overclocked to 233MHz!) with 128MB (up from the original 32MB) RAM, that shipped with, and is still running Win95. I run it 24/7 as a telephone and fax center, because the software that was packaged with it is just the best I have ever used for that purpose. I've looked, and tried other things, but have come back the the old stuff.

Oh! Back on topic, I never really used Vista, so can't compare with the others.

[A31]

I prefer Vista to XP, if I had the choice XP or Vista - Vista everytime (so long as it has SP2).

I have a virtual machine of Vista Ultimate w/SP2 on my PC, running on two of my i5's four cores, 4GB of my 8GB RAM and runs fine. No issues. The main OS on this machine however is Windows 7 and it is better than Vista, but I wonder how well Vista round run on an i5 760, 8GB DDR3 and a GTS 450? 7 runs very well!

It really depends on your hardware though, if you have 2GB or more, I'd go Vista over XP, or if you have less than 2GB stick with XP. When support for XP is dropped in the next few years, just switch over to Ubuntu or get a new machine.