xp runs faster than vista as simple as that i only care about speed and compatibility. Vista still has many problems, if your just the average user surf web do word processing, play some games your not going to figure out whats wrong with vista, so vista would be good for those type of people.

---

I wasn't going to add anymore to this thread........but I will. Well said Evildave. coastie65

---

eMachines T5212.... Intel Pentium D 945 3.4Ghz..... evga 8600 GT 256 Mb PCI-E video card..... Realtec HD audio......2 Gb 533 Mhz DDR2 memory..... Lite on CD RW; DVD +R / RW DL optical drive...... Windows XP MCE 2005....... Antec Basiq 500w PSU......200 Gb PATA HDD

Hi MySpaceMedia. This is a good wrap-up. The computer world is split right down the middle on how Vista performs compared to XP. My latest computer has both Windows XP and Windows Vista and purrs like a kitten.

That being said, I will not begin to doubt or question another person who states that Windows Vista is slow as molasses. People will debate this issue long beyond this Discussion and well up until Windows 7 comes out. Once Windows 7 comes out, you will have people who can't stand it and some people who love it. Remember the phrase, "you cannot please all of the people all of the time."

---

This is my personal Dream PC: http://forums.pcworld.com/blogs/mphenterprises/2007/12/21/my-gift-to-myself

I have the original invoice...


All in all, the biggest 'user error' in the order was not having it a Linux machine from the start. This resulted in getting the Dell-branded BCM4328 wireless mini-card that resulted in compatibility issues and extra hours of head-scratching when installing Linux.

I don't remember whether XP was available, though I may have thought "Got to see if it breaks any of my products some time...", and oh yes, IT DID. It also broke Microsoft Visual C/C++ 6, and Microsoft Visual Studio 2002/2003, which were used to build and debug versions of those products. That's over $1000 worth of Microsoft's own software into the 'bit bucket' right there, and NO I was not going to install a new version, and I WILL NOT. MinGW (another build mode of a library I maintain) needed lots of tinkering to get working sort-of right under Vista. My formerly favorite tool, 'Partition Magic 8' wouldn't work (not even booting off the CD because of the Vista partition - and there is no new version of PM), and nor would 'Drive Image 2007'; I had to upgrade to the latest Norton Ghost 8 for another $90 to make sure I could recover quickly from 'problems'. Vista has a 'resize' option for its partitions, but with 20GB on a Vista partition, it wouldn't resize below 90GB until recently when I found some alternate 'Disk Optimize' software (Perfect Disk) that moved the Vista bits that were in the way, and got most of my first hard disk back. 'TotalRecorder Pro' NEVER worked, even after I upgraded it to the 'Vista Compatible' version for another $30. A few kinds of Flash authoring tools I used also failed to install/run, for another $200 down the toilet, and there are no new versions of those.

The Microsoft Vista 'Digital Rights Management' REQUIRES encryption of accessible data buses. In software, no less, since most hardware will not have this support, it will be encoded into (for instance) the driver code sending the data to the video card, and in the microcode implemented on the card to read data from the bus and (for instance) move it into texture memory, which also takes up space in the graphics card for more kinds of 'effects', requiring more internal memory and more 'general purpose' CPU functionality in the GPU. Microsoft also requires constant 'polling' of buses (whether you use them or not) and 'tilt bits' to detect tampering. This is a HEAVY performance AND reliability penalty.

The very worst thing in hardware was the on-board audio. Clicks, pops, etc. from ANY source. In games, in video, in MP3s. I'm not a picky 'audiophile', but this was VERY annoying. Even downloading a new Vista driver for the sound device from Dell didn't help. This was all instantly cured merely by booting an Ubuntu 'Live' CD that had a driver that wasn't RETARDED.

Vista is INTENDED and DESIGNED to DEGRADE analog media channels, (audio and video) BTW. Copy protection. Give your ripped copy of your CD library instant dusty vinyl quality. If there ain't Macrovision on a composite video RCA plug, Vista won't play video out of it. If your HDMI port is not ENCRYPTED (and your MONITOR must compatibly support decrypting), then Vista won't play video through it, or will play it at 'degraded' quality. If your digital audio output is not encrypted (as well as a compatible decoder in your amp), Vista won't play sound through it.

Nothing like paying for a top-of-the-line DVI monitor and having to plug it into a VGA port because DVI doesn't support 'encryption'. Or virtually any HDMI compatible monitor/TV that was made before Microsoft's own 'special' standard.

Worse of all, Microsoft will REVOKE drivers. Remotely. Make Windows stop loading them. They have already revoked drivers. One day out of the blue, your monitor could come up in 800x600 mode along with a message telling you to upgrade your driver because some 'haxx0r' in China figured out how to rip a BluRay disk. Well, actually, yet another 'haxx0r', since both HD-DVD and BluRay are already cracked, and Microsoft's 'protection' didn't last one month.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Microsoft+driver+revocation

The notion that it's 'user error' since Vista is 'configurable' to behave better is a bit of a hollow argument. I'm not Joe User, and you can bet I tracked down and killed 'indexing' and the automatically scheduled and pointless drive 'optimizations', and all manner of other things. The POINT is I shouldn't have had to spend that time searching for those OBVIOUS PROBLEMS which is the default configuration of Vista.

After I got Linux booting and working, and spent $180 for a Linux version of VMware, I had Windows running in a box under Linux. Actually Windows 2000 in one virtual machine, and Windows Vista in another. Windows 2000 runs the older development software just fine. I'm stuck with a Vista VM for now (because I have no convenient XP media to boot), and it more or less runs the 'newer' software that wants XP or higher, sort of OK. Interestingly, the Windows 2000 virtual machine is half the size of the comparably set up Windows Vista VM, and the Vista VM needs 4x as much RAM to run right (1GB vs 256MB).

Having a rotating, 3D representation of multiple virtual desktops (with 3D fish swimming inside) under Linux is OK with me.

Vista might be good enough for you, but you have very low standards if it is.

Download a 'Live' Linux ISO and play with it. It's FREE. Compare how much RAM the OS eats to Vista. See how much faster it boots. How well it runs things like Firefox and OpenOffice.org compared to Windows. I mean, if some foolish, ignorant dumb-dumb like me can make Linux work, I'm sure a l33t Vista fanboy could.

With all that legacy software you didn't check on updates and compatibility before ordering the machine? You ordered it in August, more than six months after it's release. If you can disable the AHCI controller in the BIOS, you can install XP on the machine, but I have a feeling that won't satisfy you either.

There are many programs that will not run under Vista because of the way they were written - no surprise. There were many programs that would not run, and still don't run in XP - no surprise either. I still have one on a Win98 machine - but I don't post 500 word rants against XP because of it.

Oh - by the way - they won't run under Linux either - so using your logic I should blame Linus?

---