That is the question.  Whether tis nobler to use XP...

I dual boot Windows XP and Ubuntu right now.  Windows is mainly my gaming OS, while Ubuntu is everything else.  The problem is, when I look into the future, I can already feel the pressure to upgrade windows to Vista.

Right now, I'm sticking with XP because it's faster than Vista, has better compatibility for older games and such, and uses a fraction of the resources that Vista uses.  But still, it's only a matter of time before Microsoft completely stops supporting XP, and games start requiring DirectX 10.

I don't want to add another OS to my boot loader.  Two versions of Windows is a bit much for me.  I'm even thinking of dropping Ubuntu just to centralize everything onto one OS.  While Windows will do everything I need (Games, word processing, internet, etc.) Ubuntu will not (Games... mainly.)

My PC specs are on the "Tell us about your computer" thread, here - http://www.gamingw.net/forums/index.php?topic=5129.0  As you can see, with 3 gigs of ram, I know that vista will run just fine.  I even researched all the devices on my machine, and discovered that everything but my TV tuner has 64 bit drivers available for it.  I don't use my TV tuner enough to care.

Reasons for each OS:

Windows XP:
Faster than Vista.
Better compatibility for older software.
Not held back at all for current games.

Windows Vista:
Increased potential for things that aren't out yet.
Support will eventually swing in this direction anyway.
Performance decrease is only marginal for games vs XP. (From benchmarks I've seen anyway.  A few games even ran a little better.)

What are your experiences with each OS?  Are there any other reasons why I should/shouldn't upgrade?  Should I throw away my computer and become a hunter/gatherer, lurking in the woods in search of berries and wild boar, living up in a tree?

OK it's basically really simple:

If your Windows XP is working just fine, keep it.
If your Windows XP is starting to not-work-so-hot (tons of Spyware, weird virii, etc) get Vista there is absolutely no reason not to besides having a working Windows XP.

Also Vista should work with every old game, the only reason it wouldn't is if your PC is too fast but there is programs to slow it down. It has compatibility modes just like XP does.

EDIT:
Also you can disable the things that make Vista take an FPS hit, as well.

I really hated Vista until I actually sat down and used it (I was having problems with my XP). I had the same fears as everyone: nothing would be compatible, games would run like ass, specs wouldn't be good enough, etc.

Those fears were all put to rest incredibly quickly.

Even with a 3 year old system (socket 939 AMD 4000+, 1.5 GB DDR 3200 RAM, 7800 GT) things run smooth and beautifully. My games run just as good as they did on XP - maybe a frame or 2 less a second but nothing noticable. My shit all still works (and I mean everything... I haven't run into a piece of software that hasn't worked on Vista). Some of the new features like superfetch are scary if you don't know what they are, but are easy to appreciate once you understand how they work. As a commercial artist, the improved Windows Explorer is great as is the ability to scale any of your icons with extreme ease. UAC can be turned off but I leave it on for the added security blanket (it really only bugs you when you're installing programs and when you're running something as an admin, so it isn't so big of a hassle). I used to use a pirated version of diskeeper to keep my hard drive's defragmented but Windows will do it for you automatically this time around. That's the nice thing about Vista - it does a much better job of taking care of itself. What else... oh god right the new integrated search feature - it's impressive to say the least. Windows key (start) + p + h + enter and Photoshop is firing up. Any program can be opened this way which is really nice.

Sorry to sound like a Microsoft representive or something but I must say that Vista refines Windows XP in a lot of ways. There are still some problems, for sure. One being the fact that it runs like ass on 512 megs of RAM... wouldn't ever recommend that. They also really screwed up the control panel and network settings to the point where it's inefficient. But overall I feel Vista is a great step up from Windows XP. Are any of the new features really worth spending $100 for? Well... probably not. I got my copy of Vista for free through my school. It's basically Windows XP with some interface upgrades. That said, these are nice upgrades which I can appreciate, and I would never go back to using XP on my own personal computer.


EDIT: Also, I have never ever encountered a BSOD on Vista... which is a nice change of pace because it happened every once in awhile on XP. Yeah, a lot of this post is sort of unnecessary and off-topic but I need to balance some of the trash-talk and negative shit I hear about Vista all the time. I, for one, really like it!

Vista is really really slow and it eats up a lot of memory if your computer isn't up to snuff. There's no harm in waiting, at least.

Vista is really really slow and it eats up a lot of memory if your computer isn't up to snuff. There's no harm in waiting, at least.

On the memory issue - you may be talking about Superfetch, which again, is scary if you don't understand it. When your computer is idle, you may pop into Task Manager and... dear god, so much RAM is being used! Even the processor is working much harder than it would have been on XP. What Vista does is that it recognizes that you aren't using these resources, and instead of letting them just sit to waste it puts them to good use. As quoted from Microsoft's site:

Windows SuperFetch enables programs and files to load much faster than they would on Windows XP–based PCs.
SuperFetch monitors which applications you use the most and preloads these into your system memory so they'll be ready when you need them. Windows Vista also runs background programs, like disk defragmenting and Windows Defender, at low priority so that they can do their job but your work always comes first.

However, as soon as you start opening a resource hungry app, Vista quietly steps aside and gives you back your resources you weren't using.

After reading a myriad of benchmarks, the concensus is that XP is better at raw speed but lacks the reliable, consistant performance Vista has. This doesn't mean Vista is slow, as you assert, but is admittedly a bit slower than XP at certain things. For instance, Superfetch has 'learned' that I use that I use Photoshop a lot and it opens noticably quicker on Vista than it ever did on XP, which is very nice.

And on your comment about needing a computer that's up to snuff... it really isn't difficult to have a Vista-ready computer. 1GB of RAM and a decent processor (my 2.4 ghz single core works great) will run Vista as it should.

I'm still on Windows 2k!

honestly, i would suggest trying vista out first. seems to be hit and miss with a lot of people.

i strongly dislike vista, personally. it feels like they took xp and added all these needless GADGETS and shit that are only useful to people who aren't particularly interested in running an efficient system. it's like they made the whole damn process of using a computer more time-consuming and less intuitive because most computer users are DUMP AUDIENCE and would waste lots of time trying to find things anyway. i can't speak as much for how things actually run once you get them started but the organization and presentation itself is just lame and messy.

i mean, it's probably like xp where you can get the thing to work rather well if you get good at disabling all of microsoft's cute and useless bullshit, but it feels like a lot more stupid shit that you'll need to take care of with no noticeable upgrade in terms of the way the interface is put together.

so yeah, my advice is to hold off on it unless there's some actual REASON to get it, like a game or something you physically cannot run effectively(if at all) on xp. hopefully they'll iron out a lot of the glitches and provide quality fixes for the dumb shit in the near future.


oh yeah, it's worth noting that the various computer industries definitely aren't abandoning xp yet, so it's not like there's really a definitive REASON to get vista unless you like the interface or are getting a computer anyway and don't feel like postponing the inevitable.

If your focus is a gaming OS, you should be fine and dandy with XP. Since a majority of games not only run faster, but are more stable in XP, it's still the #1 choice for a PC gaming OS. The only lure it has for gamers right now is Direct X 10 which is right now not only barely optimized, but doesn't have much of a noticable advantage over Direct X 9 in most instances. Since Vista is shown to run just about everything slower than XP, if you have no problem with XP, just stay with it, and enjoy to soon-to-come SP3 for it. Just because MS Switches their support away from a product doesn't mean you won't find help on it (they also extended their support for XP until about 2009-2010, because of so many people refusing Vista). And don't assume that just because your hardware has a driver for Vista that it will run as well as it did on XP. There's still a lot of things Vista needs to work out. I'm with you that someday we'll all eventually be using it (or its successor), but that time is nowhere near soon.

Thanks for the feedback.  I think I'll hold off on Vista for the time being.  If I have an extra 130usd, then I may pick up a copy, but I don't think I'll make the extra effort and investment to make the move just yet.

I had Vista and it was using up like 20% of my CPU on idle and like 40% when I was in Firefox... I was like WTF? XP only uses like a max of 2%-5%.

SuperFetch.....

Get Vista now.. the only thing taht would stop you fromm upgrading will be hardware. But with your specs, it's a fine pc already. Softwares and technology are now starting the focus on windows vista. Sonn, xp will just be something like 98..

You cannot bank your opinion so much on personal experience. You may have had no problem with drivers but that doesn't clear others from having them. Even proud vista supporters wouldn't say the OS doesn't have a driver problem anymore. And with that said, I'm not saying vista is runs slower from personal experience, but it's a widely known FACT, that can be shown from countless XP vs Vista benchmarks. XP outperforms vista across the board in more than 90% of the tests, with vista only matching or barely beating out XP in the rest. There's no doubt in my mind that if XP was given DX10 it would also run it faster in most instances (but why would they give up one of the only few selling points of Vista). Vista uses more ram, and supports less applications than XP, so if your stuff runs fine in XP there is honestly no reason to get it at this point in time. Especially for gaming.

I think if you've got a solid system, Vista is a decent upgrade. It's probably not worth it just yet even with SP1, but I think in about a year I can see myself switching. Of course I can see some people not even bother with it. People used to come in where I used to work with Pentium II computers and 128MB of ram asking what the hell they needed for Vista. There's still so many users out there who don't meet the OS's requirements, and I think that's where the big issue is. But XP was like that when it first came out as well, so this was expected.
I've still got my Vista Home Premium sitting in my closet that I got from that retail edge. If any of you want it, I can give it away fairly cheap.

Also yeah, if DX10 went to XP, I would never switch until 2013.