Vista VS XP Pro

[Metal425]

Well, I used to run XP pro, but I decided to take the plunge and try out Vista.
I have been running Vista Home Premium for about 2 months now.
I'm starting to notice some slow-downs but I think it's because Vista's effects and themes. I was wondering what would your advice be?

Stick with Vista or Reformat and go back to XP Pro.




Thanks,
Matt

[WSFuser]

Your choice. If you want better performance go back to XP otherwise stay with Vista.

[nexstar]

-{ Quote: "Stick with Vista or Reformat and go back to XP Pro." }-
You could try turning off some of the visual stuff first and see if that makes it ok for you.

I've just reverted back my only Vista installation to XP and I have to say that I'm not regretting it :) .

Graham

[Franklin]

I would get another hard drive and install XP on that as you might come across some tips on Vista and think damn, I wish I could have tried that.

[lucas1985]

Looking at Vista's I/O Performance (http://www.tech-hounds.com/article29/ArticlesPage1.html)
-{ Quote: "Originally, we set out to compare various RAID and AHCI SATA controllers and what kind of performance we can expect with Vista. But problems during testing lead us elsewhere - this article. These preliminary testing clearly shows that kind of comparison is just not possible right now - something is still definitely broken with Vista's I/O performance. Even with the performance and reliability updates installed, performance is way off from where it should be. This mean any benchmarks we do will not be able to show the hardware's optimal performance. Microsoft's recent performance and reliability patches may help some users, but it's still far from perfect.
" }-

[ErikAlbert]

Ditch winVISTA and go back to winXP. After 3-5 years winVISTA + 100 patches will be ready for you and there will be enough tweaking softwares to get rid of the useless gadgetry.
I run Applications to do my job or hobbies, because an OS is unable to do this.
What is so important about an OS that only runs your system and can't do nothing more than that ?

[lucas1985]

-{ Quote: "What is so important about an OS that only runs your system and can't do nothing more than that ?" }-
A good OS extracts the best of a given system and improves the user experience. But yes, I run applications, no OSes.

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "A good OS extracts the best of a given system and improves the user experience. But yes, I run applications, no OSes." }-
I ran win2000proSP4 and now winXPproSP2, I don't see any difference as an average user, except gadgetry. If I want to see gadgetry, I watch cartoons. :)

[lucas1985]

Do you want a difference? ClearType (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType) is an example of a useful feature.

[sukarof]

I find Vista at least as fast as XP, even with most of the bells and whistles turned on (hard drive grinding services like superfetch and indexing turned off though)
All the software that I want to run, I can run in Vista.
I have nothing to complain about really, except the price is really too high. After a couple of months of real use I find Vista to be a bit of a anticlimax, it is not the 8th wonder of the world. I will continue to use it since I spent all the money on it and have no problems with it and it looks nice, but if you are happy with XP I cant see no reason to spend the extra money on Vista. Maybe, if you´re a gamer, DX 10 compatible games (whenever they will appear) will add something revolutionary? I dont know.

[EASTER]

Money is better spent IMHO on a Premium upgrade for hardware/software on XP rather then vista (formerly Longhorn). You can achieve lightning velocities beyond vista's even with some old fashioned ingenuity and tweaking.

Besides, in my instance, i already have most everything that was tauted for vista right here on good ole XP Pro, minus the useless internal overhead changes called improvements. Security programs for XP are at an all time APEX also right now. You can completely customize XP to look "AND" perform the gadgetry features including sounds, appearances, skins, backgrounds, icons etc. with programs like VistaMizer and more.

I just recently run across this what looks to be a Novice developer (maybe student?) who seems to be right on track with his own XP version of Flip 3-D.

I checked it out and although it's a little rough around the edges, i was thoroughly impressed with the EFFECT! and no crash. Author's freeware website link is below for any interested in seeing yet another new creation to mimic vista for XP.


WinFlip new release (http://www.tokyodownstairs.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?select=works)

[gkweb]

Hello,

If you are using a restricted user account under XP, then go to Vista as it makes things a lot easier to this regard (UAC prompts you for temporarily elevating privileges). If you are gamer, things are mixed : somes games works fine, others not. But if you want to play DirectX10 games (with DirectX10 compatible graphic card), go to Vista. If security is one of your priority, you may like the Vista IE protected mode, UIPI and ASLR.

However, if you prefer a well tested, stable, and solid OS, without struggling to find compatible and stable drivers, stay with XP.

It all depends on what you want from your OS, and the risks you are ready to take.

Regards,
gkweb.

[L Bainbridge]

-{ Quote: "

Besides, in my instance, i already have most everything that was tauted for vista right here on good ole XP Pro, minus the useless internal overhead changes called improvements. Security programs for XP are at an all time APEX also right now. You can completely customize XP to look "AND" perform the gadgetry features including sounds, appearances, skins, backgrounds, icons etc. with programs like VistaMizer and more." }-

Couldn't agree more.
More & more developers are showing us that Vista's visual effects can all have been executed on XP without the overheads -e.g.:
VistaInspirat2 BricoPack - http://www.crystalxp.net/dl/en.gal.130.html
ViStart - http://www.lee-soft.com/downloads/vista.php?language=english
WinFlip -http://www.tokyodownstairs.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?select=works
Thoosje's sidebar -http://www.thoosje.com/
True Transparency - http://www.crystalxp.net/galerie/en.id.5139-truetransparency-lefreut-explorer-tools.htm
Visual Tooltips -http://www.crystalxp.net/dl/en.gal.197.html

Plus there's Window Blinds 6 (currently in Beta) which gives glass 'blur' effects as per Vista with the same overhead as XP Visual styles.

Security-wise XP is at its apex both in terms of MS & external developers plus the drivers are all fully developed.
I extensively beta- tested Vista & have decided to skip this OS if Microsoft follow their promised upgrade cycle, I suspect the next OS will achieve the balance of security & useability that Vista was striving for but IMHO fails to achieve. Providing of course MS can learn from this one.....

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
Since security is not an issue for anyone with a bit of common sense, what remains is the price, performance, stability, in all of which XP wins hands down.
Mrk

[gkweb]

Hello,

-{ Quote: "Hello,
Since security is not an issue for anyone with a bit of common sense
Mrk" }-

I hardly see how common sense will protect you from a trusted website or forum that is hacked and using a 0-day exploit to infect visitors.

Do not happen everyday ? Yes. But happens anyway.

Regards,
gkweb.

[Arup]

XP is far more mature and stable, all holes existing have been patched, the developers are veterans and know all the ins and out, for Vista to acheive that kind of stability, it would take a few more years, till then XP is the best bet for performance and stability.

[Mrkvonic]

-{ Quote: "Hello,



I hardly see how common sense will protect you from a trusted website or forum that is hacked and using a 0-day exploit to infect visitors.

Do not happen everyday ? Yes. But happens anyway.

Regards,
gkweb." }-

Hello,

Theoretically, true. In practice, not really.

I would appreciate an example that can blast past Firefox or Opera ... even without content-management software like Noscript or such ...

BTW, I place "using non-MS browser" under common sense.

Mrk

[gkweb]

Hello,

Common sense in security, is also to foresee what could happen (be proactive), and not only reacting on what has happened and what is known. I'm sorry I do not have a link at hand to show you something that has happened, even if I remember one fact, but that doesn't change what could happen.

For me, common sense and control do vanish past your computer. I mean you can be the smartest person, your control applies only to your computer, and everything you remotely access (forum, websites, etc...) is beyond your control.

I don't think common sense can replace security. It is the most effective and the most important, but it has limits. Always consider there is smartest people than you on the Internet.

I was only reacting to "security is not an issue with common sense".
Anyway, I can agree you disagree ;)

Regards,
gkweb.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

This could be an argument over words - and this could be an argument over practical implications of the said "common sense."

Common sense means quite a few things - like not speeding at 150kph down a 50kph road.

In the same sense, computer use can be modified to minimize uncontrollable factors to such extent that the marginal what-if is no longer a major concern.

It is quite possible for a server to get hacked and benign content replaced with something malicious. But then, there's the matter of duration of such a problem, exposure, and of course, how the user treats digital content.

It is also possible that exploits be planted on sites, forums etc, in hope to hack through browsers, but again, we have the issue of exposure, vulnerability of browsers etc.

Now, as soldiers of the internet, we need to assess the threats. How likely things are to happen?

It is not wise protecting against something that can occur in 0.0001% of cases, when there's the 99.9999% of other things to take care of. There's a far greater chance that a user will infect oneself accidentally or deliberately far before he stumbles upon a hacked site that will slice through a specific exploit of his site.

Thus, if people adhere to a few simple key issues, the remainder becomes a non-issue. Yes, you can be hacked, but the computer can also die, get stolen, flooded, electrocuted, you can spill lemon juice on the keyboard etc. All possible. But should we worry?

It's not the matter of smart - it's the matter of reality.

Cheers,
Mrk

[attila4000]

i agree with nexstar. vista is better for people who dont know how to setup and run a limited user account. vista does it for you. but if Metal425 knows how to do this then stick with winxp pro and use a LUA. wait until vista sp1 is released.

[gkweb]

Hello Mrk,

I can see two issues here.

The first, is on one hand the probability (that you freely set to 0.00001%), and on the other hand if we should care or not. In my job, I am used to care even about a probability of 0.1%. I cannot say to someone like a bank "do not worry, just cross your fingers, it is very unlikely to happen !". Oh and, any lemon juice won't infect my computer if leaked on the keyboard, don't worry ;) Applied to a home user, 0-day vulnerabilities (that are more likely to happen than 0.0000...%) worth to protect against.

:
-{ Quote: "
It is not wise protecting against something that can occur in 0.0001% of cases, when there's the 99.9999% of other things to take care of. There's a far greater chance that a user will infect oneself accidentally or deliberately far before he stumbles upon a hacked site that will slice through a specific exploit of his site.
" }-
I never said you should take care of your purpoted 0.0001%, and forget the other 99%. What I'm saying is that you should take care first of this 99%, obviously, and that the remaining %, as negligeable as it seems to you, deserves to protect against, above all when you can do it easily.


The second, is a confusion about the term "common sense". We both agree that common sense is the most important, however on one hand you say that security is not necessary if you use common sense, but on the other hand you say it's better to use Firefox. Switching browser and adding NoScript, is already more than common sense to me. In my opinion, common sense makes you install Firefox and NoScript, but Firefox and NoScript stop the baddies, not your common sense ;) It would be a nonsense to say that security is not needed if you have common sense, but on the other side to use security and to say it's common sense. Do you see ?

In my dictionary, common sense is safe habbits, do not browse anything malicious, do not expose yourself stupidly by opening attachements, and so on. But as soon as you modify your setup (hardware router, browser, updates, etc...) it's already more than common sense, even if initiated by it ! :) If however you disagree and say that it is common sense, then for you common sense = security, and security = common sense, but then to say that you don't need security if you have common sense is madness ;D

To finish on a more sensible sentence, I think our problem is simply wording :)

Regards,
gkweb.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
Well, agreed.
Cheers,
Mrk

[Dogbiscuit]

-{ Quote: "I would appreciate an example that can blast past Firefox or Opera ... even without content-management software like Noscript or such ..." }-
Wouldn't the exploit in Webattacker, and Webattacker toolkit released last June, which use a Firefox vulnerability (MSFA 2005-50), among many other kinds of exploits, be an example of malware that targets and sails through Firefox?

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
Send me a link via pm and I'll tell you if it would or wouldn't ...
Mrk

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "Do you want a difference? ClearType (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ClearType) is an example of a useful feature." }-
I use "ClearType" in WinXPproSP2 (one of my tweakings), which is a big improvement, but I don't need winVISTA for that.

[kennyboy]

I am finding a lot of people coming here (Asia) from the US etc who have bought a Vista specific laptop with them (because it is cheaper in the west) but when they discover the problems with Vista, try and get it changed to XP.
Problem is the computer shops here say it can not be done because XP just doesnt have the drivers for their hardware. Must say Vista is getting a pretty bad name here, although this area is quite behind the times in terms of technology.

Ken

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,

dogbiscuit, thanks for the links.

After reviewing the links, here's what I have found:

- A pair of articles discussing things in general about a vulnerability affecting a very old version of Firefox (more than a year)
- PoC code - not good enough (I'm not interested in what-ifs)
- The code was posted about half a year after the bugzilla report, by the same person prompting the developers to escalate the severity from moderate to critical, not a bad thing, but far shot from malicious code.
- The would-be code affected version 1.0.5 and was discovered about a year after the release of the specific version.
- The flaw was fixed in 1.0.6, according to release notes.

To say nothing that this exploit required JS to work.

How is this anything else than just a very tiny and miscellaneous problem...?

Mrk

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "I use "ClearType" in WinXPproSP2 (one of my tweakings), which is a big improvement, but I don't need winVISTA for that." }-

Same here.

[midway40]

Turning off window animation helps a lot. The transition is too slow and it makes it appear that the system is sluggish. It sure helped me anyway.

[appster]

-{ Quote: "I use "ClearType" in WinXPproSP2 (one of my tweakings), which is a big improvement, but I don't need winVISTA for that." }-
How do you enable ClearType?

[ErikAlbert]

-{ Quote: "How do you enable ClearType?" }-
I used "XP Tweaking Utility" (PAYWARE) to change it.

This might be a cheaper way to do it :
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/20547/20547.html

[zapjb]

I use ClearTweak in XP. ClearTweak™ is FREEWARE.

Q - What is ClearTweak?

A - ClearTweak allows you to change the contrast setting of the ClearType setting for Windows XP. ClearType is designed to enhance LCD displays. It may appear slightly blurry on standard desktop monitors. It does not hurt to try ClearTweak on a CRT monitor. Even though ClearType is designed for LCD's, some people see an improvement on CRT's.

http://www.ioisland.com/downloads/

[midway40]

I used this tool from MS to enable and tweak ClearType:

ClearType Tuner (http://www.microsoft.com/typography/cleartype/tuner/Step1.aspx)

[must use IE to do this]

[gkweb]

Hello,

I don't understand, I always enabled ClearType on XP Pro from the UI, without any tool.
Right-Click on the Desktop -> Properties, then from memory it should be something called Appearence tab, then the "Visual Effect" button. There you can select "ClearType" in the combo list.

Can you find it ?

Regards,
gkweb.

[appster]

-{ Quote: "Hello,

I don't understand, I always enabled ClearType on XP Pro from the UI, without any tool.
Right-Click on the Desktop -> Properties, then from memory it should be something called Appearence tab, then the "Visual Effect" button. There you can select "ClearType" in the combo list.

Can you find it ?

Regards,
gkweb." }-
Yes, and the tuner midway40 suggested helps to optimize the effect. :thumb:

Thanks!

[appster]

Getting back to the main topic, I am now dual-booting WinXP Pro and Vista Home Premium. While there is no doubt that Vista consumes quite a bit more resources than XP, so far I have not experienced any difficulties running apps on Vista. Other than being resource-hungry, the biggest complaint I have about Vista is that it's overly secure (it's User Account Control is rediculous)!

[gkweb]

Hello,

What do you consider ridiculous in UAC ?

Do you know that UAC sets all of your running processes with restricted rights, enable you to elevate privileges temporarily when required per application (not globally) without the need to input a password (behavior can be changed to request one) unlike XP, UAC also enable the virtualization for program not compatible (by making them believe they write to protected folders or registry while in fact they do not). Finally, UAC enables the IE "Protected Mode" which sets IE to a Low Integrity Level, making it unable to modify or send Windows messages to any other processes (even to the other default restricted), or to write to any critical directories, in a more restrictive way than a simple restricted process.

Anyway, if you consider UAC "not suiting your needs", you can turn it off :)

Regards,
gkweb.

[appster]

-{ Quote: "Hello,

What do you consider ridiculous in UAC ?

Do you know that UAC sets all of your running processes with restricted rights, enable you to elevate privileges temporarily when required per application (not globally) without the need to input a password (behavior can be changed to request one) unlike XP, UAC also enable the virtualization for program not compatible (by making them believe they write to protected folders or registry while in fact they do not). Finally, UAC enables the IE "Protected Mode" which sets IE to a Low Integrity Level, making it unable to modify or send Windows messages to any other processes (even to the other default restricted), or to write to any critical directories, in a more restrictive way than a simple restricted process.

Anyway, if you consider UAC "not suiting your needs", you can turn it off :)

Regards,
gkweb." }-
The pop-ups are a real pain in the butt - and I did turn it off. ;)

[gkweb]

Hello,

Ok I see :) There is two ways of preventing UAC popups : the first and the most obvious is to turn off UAC. The second, is to configure UAC to automatically elevate privileges for applications that need it, without prompting you. This way you still benefit from other UAC's advantages, without being annoyed.

Setting up UAC :
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=185220

Check the "ConsentPromptBehaviorUser", or you can do it from the UI if you have a version above the Home edition.

Regards,
gkweb.

[appster]

-{ Quote: "Hello,

Ok I see :) There is two ways of preventing UAC popups : the first and the most obvious is to turn off UAC. The second, is to configure UAC to automatically elevate privileges for applications that need it, without prompting you. This way you still benefit from other UAC's advantages, without being annoyed.

Setting up UAC :
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=185220

Check the "ConsentPromptBehaviorUser", or you can do it from the UI if you have a version above the Home edition.

Regards,
gkweb." }-
Thanks for the link on 'Setting up UAC' (btw, I'm running Home Premium)! ;)

This is not to bash Vista, but as I already implied in post #36, the same apps on the same machine run faster on XP.

[gkweb]

Hello,

This is not bashing that giving out facts. I have no hard time believing you that a program designed for XP, when Vista didn't exist yet, is running faster on XP. I could see many reasons to that :
- Vista takes much more resources and consequently there is less left for you program
- your program is conflicting with something on Vista such as Aero. You may try running it with XP SP2 compatibility mode.
- Vista's services are intensively using your hardrive : Indexing, Superfetch, Scheduled tasks, etc... disabling them may help.

I know for a fact (just search the net about XP VS Vista) that video games generally have less frames per second on Vista. While it may be caused by drivers not being mature, that is an example. However there is exceptions too, for instance on my computer, Firefox opens faster on Vista than on XP.

I think XP consumes less resources and is generally faster than Vista.

Regards,
gkweb.