New laptop: Vista or XP? Specific questions

OK, here’s the score. I have a new laptop. T5670 Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz, 2GB DDR RAM.

It comes with Vista. All my other PCs in the house are XP.

  1. Does Vista offer any distinct advantages over XP?
  2. If I use Vista, will it network OK with XP?
  3. If I used XP, would it perform faster than Vista does?
  1. No
  2. Yes
  3. Yes

Your opinion that XP is better then?

IMHO, Vista offers not much beside eye-candy improvements, while at the same time robbing your system of resources.
do some searching for yourself - below are two articles of interest;
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3712951
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/11/26/windows-xp-sp3-is-fast-vista-sp1-not-so-much/

stick with XP

[QUOTE=xtacydima;2113071]stick with XP[/QUOTE]

I agree with the MOD if XP is less demanding on resources and works great now that I have SP3 installed on it. And if it’s not broken why replace it save the money and use it to upgrade your computers you get more benefits from that then going Vista.

Haha, so no-one thinks that Vista’s worth it!

Which leads me to the question… why does ANYONE bother with it?

[QUOTE=groovemeister;2113111]
Which leads me to the question… why does ANYONE bother with it?[/QUOTE]

Without turning this into another XP vs. Vista thread, I got Vista Home Premium (32bit) with my Dell, and after initially wiping Vista and sticking XP Pro back on, I decided to do a clean install of Vista to see how I got on. Just so happens me and Vista get on well :wink:

I have XP on the other machine (and yes, both PCs are networked), but prefer to use Vista. Best of both worlds, though. :slight_smile:

Personally, I would say give Vista a shot, and if you don’t like it, do as I did initially - wipe it and stick XP back on :slight_smile:

There is no reason to get Vi$ta unless you get 64 bit version and i wouldn’t put Vi$ta 64 bit on that lappy.

Vista comes with the laptop anyway.

Hmmm decisions decisions!

Well I get on fine with XP and if I get better speed out of the laptop that way anyway then why the hell not?

Could just do a dual install?

I agree, xp sp3 is better than vista, and server 2003 is better than xp. The problem is finding the right drivers. My lap came with vista and I dumped it after a few weeks. Now I run serv2003 tweaked as a workstation, and couldn’t be happier.

Ah yes. I don’t know what the laptop is - only the specs (university is giving it to me, learning difficulties). But from what I’ve read, the drivers should all be XP compatible as they’re suspected to be ported from XP drivers anyway.

I hope there are compatible drivers; I don’t want to be stuck with Vista just because of that.

Server 2003 - never even heard of that. Will read up. OK just glanced at Wikipedia and can someone fill me in? Is it like a better version of 2000? What would I miss from XP if I used it? Not for the lappy - that’s plenty beefy for XP but for slower PCs in the house…

[quote=groovemeister;2113415]Ah yes. I don’t know what the laptop is - only the specs (university is giving it to me, learning difficulties). But from what I’ve read, the drivers should all be XP compatible as they’re suspected to be ported from XP drivers anyway.

I hope there are compatible drivers; I don’t want to be stuck with Vista just because of that.

Server 2003 - never even heard of that. Will read up. OK just glanced at Wikipedia and can someone fill me in? Is it like a better version of 2000? What would I miss from XP if I used it? Not for the lappy - that’s plenty beefy for XP but for slower PCs in the house…[/quote]

  1. POWER MANAGEMENT.
    Vista makes the battery last about twice as long compared to XP.

And that computer is easily powerful enough to run either vista 32 or 64.
With SP1, it’s a no brainer.

Thank - really? A juicer OS is more efficient with power?

Can’t I just edit the power options in Control Panel of XP? I was all excited at having good ol’ XP on there and now this is thrown into the mix!

(BTW, your sig is a bit wrong: it’s more like going into the bank and making copies of the notes that already exist in there without taking anything from the bank. I’m a pedant :wink: )

A lot more options in vista, Ditch XP its old. The people saying go back to Xp are the sort of people that when the next windows comes out will be saying go back to vista the new one sucks.
I’d say give vista a go if YOU don’t like it go back to XP or whatever OS you want even linux.

[QUOTE=slayerking;2113427]
I’d say give vista a go if YOU don’t like it go back to XP or whatever OS you want even linux.[/QUOTE]

Exactly - the OP has nothing to lose by trying it and seeing how he and Vista get on :iagree:

Except time! :stuck_out_tongue:

Hm, interesting divide of opinions. As I like XP plenty, and barring the (rather convincing argument) of Vista’s juice-saving abilities, can I ask what ‘more options’ there are?

Also: http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/03/22/lenovo-vista-battery-life-shorter-and-uses-more-power-than-windows-xp/

Ten-a-penny like this. Looks like Vista is more power hungry, which makes more sense. That’s probably won it for me TBH. I like XP, and while Vista may have more features, providing that the drivers are OK and I get longer battery life and better performance then I’ll just stick with XP.

Thanks guys. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=groovemeister;2113475]Except time! :p[/QUOTE]

OK, you got me there :wink:

The best and fastest OS for me is Win XP Pro 2008 SP-2 64Bit. It runs better than Vista Ultimate SP-1 64Bit on the same PC. I use two HD’s with dual boot.
Another PC I use has WinXP Pro SP-3 32Bit and Vista Ultimate SP-1 32Bit. I have two HD’s with dual boot. In this instance, I prefer Vista.

I use 2.4GHz with 4GB RAM.

[quote=groovemeister;2113425]Thank - really? A juicer OS is more efficient with power?

Can’t I just edit the power options in Control Panel of XP? I was all excited at having good ol’ XP on there and now this is thrown into the mix![/quote]
The point about PC’s is that humans are slowing the computers down - it spends many Watt’s waiting for the pebkac to do something.

Note that WindowsXP does not use hardware acceleration for the GUI.
If you compare apples for apples, and turn off Aero, and use the maximum power saving capability of Vista vs XP … Vista will mop the floor with XP.

XP’s power saving capability is quite … crap … to say the least. Shutting the monitor, HDD’s or overall PC off so it’s unusable is not decent power management.

Vista uses dimming of the LCD screen (probably the largest drain on teh battery), turns off hardware video acceleration and unnecessary eye candy, closes unnecessary programs, and lowers the CPU multiplier, and drops the FSB when you’re on the move to lower power consumption - The 3D accelerator is a HUGE waste of power when on the go - All that and the power management isn’t enabled by default.