Vista worse than XP?

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by MBX, Aug 1, 2008.

  1. MBX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #1
    So i went through the hassle to install Vista64 (with SP1) and i'm noticing it being more sluggish than XP64 used to be. I'm talking about it in combination with Vmware Fusion.

    When i boot with bootcamp it seems kind of similiar or same speed.

    But all the notifications and asking me if i really want to copy a file and replace another is so annoying too.

    Who else is outthere who is experiencing Vista as slower than XP?
     
  2. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #2
    You will find many who will swear by XP over Vista for speed, stability and more. I have not had XP on my Mac, but Vista is less than a stellar experience for me, even when going through BootCamp and bypassing Fusion. I spend most of my time downloading the updates and virus scans, and very little doing anything productive.

    Woof, Woof - Dawg [​IMG]
     
  3. MattZani macrumors 68030

    MattZani

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Vista is a far more intensive OS, and isnt the best OS, XP is far better, runs faster too :cool:
     
  4. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #4
    WTF, why did i listen then to all those on here when they were telling me to upgrade to Vista since XP was a "dinosaur of an OS"?!?

    I can't find my original thread now.
     
  5. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #5
    XP IS old, but it is relatively stable and mature
    Vista is newer and will have its growing pains and it is more resource intensive

    Vista is the future for Windows

    Woof, Woof - Dawg [​IMG]
     
  6. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #6
    aha, how much RAM do you have to run Vista in VM? Vista needs decent graphic card as well as at least 1G RAM to run decently. It shouldn't be run in VM IMHO.

    ask permission for replacing existing files? isn't that normal everywhere?
     
  7. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #7
    Vista is bugging me on pretty much everything and there are like 2 or 3 permission-notifications to just replace a file (not the usual "are you sure?" - "OK-button").

    I have 16GB Ram and 512mb Graphics card Nvidia 8800 so shouldn't be problem.

    Just think it's true how bad Vista really is now that i'm experiencing it myself. Previously i thought it was a bit of a stretch but if Microsofts latest OS (Vista) is slower than their old XP then that's really sad. I was hoping to be surprised so i went through all the hassle and have to revert back everything to XP again, sigh.
     
  8. MattKanzler macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    PA
    #8
    XP is more stable then vista. And XP isnt stable.
     
  9. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #9
    well, how much RAM did you allocate for Vista?

    Vista does need good graphic card to run. Because it uses some 3D accelerations to draw the nice UI. I really can not agree with the critic of vista based on its performance in VM, Its not encouraged, and I personally would never try it.

    As you mentioned, It runs fine with bootcamp, doesn't it? ....:)

    Notification..... yeah. indeed, Im not sure about replacing files warnings you mentioned. I can't recall i had that many..

    I think notification, very annoying, but is where every OS is headed. When you compare Leopard and Tiger, you can see leopard asks for permission much more than Tiger, when open any downloaded app, when clear trash, etc.

    PS. This is first time I heard anybody with 16G RAM, very impressive.
     
  10. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #10
    Still disappointing to me with BootCamp

    Woof, Woof - Dawg [​IMG]
     
  11. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #11
    Yes it runs better in Bootcamp but i must admit that it still seems a bit more sluggish compared to XP. Like the smoothness of windows when dragging or opening/ closing folders and contents. I'll not start again with all the notifications and warnings.

    I guess i'll just revert back to XP for whenever i have to boot windoze.
     
  12. cromwell64 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    #12
    that's really too bad if anyone on these forums led you to believe that vista would be faster than xp. vista is notorious for being a resource hog and having ridiculous system requirements. xp is a stable os and i still can't find any reason why anyone would want to use vista over xp.
     
  13. slomo86 macrumors member

    slomo86

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Location:
    Turkey
    #13
    The big problem with vista is its a resource HOG!!! you need at least 1 gig of ram and thats just to run it and 512 of that is going to the OS itself and then 80% of the other half is going to useless crap in the background running.

    I can't believe you are having a problem with the 16 gigs that is WAY more then enough, but how much of that is allocated to vista? But if I had to choose I would go with XP any day of the week. Like someone said before its more mature, its not a child still learning the PC ways. Some one needs to give it a little :apple: 101 :D
     
  14. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #14
    Goto Start -> Computer -> System Properties.

    Click Advanced system settings, then, in the Performance section, click the Settings button. Select Custom, uncheck those features that you want to turn off, then click OK.

    The one I recommend turning off (assuming you're using Aero) is "Animate Windows when minimizing and maximizing". That will get rid of that sluggishness (it bothered me a lot too).

    You can always change the UI to the "classic" setting. I have no idea how it "feels" sluggish to you. I'm running on my MacBook Pro (with 4 GB of ram) and it runs fine. And of course XP takes up less resources, it's a 7 year old OS. OS 9 would take up less resources too. But I mean hey, if XP suites you better then go for it. It's going to be EOL'd pretty soon though, so don't be surprised when manufacturers/developers stop supporting it. How long have you actually been using Vista?
     
  15. tri3limited macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #15
    I love Vista! It's taken me over a year to say this but I love it and there is no way i'd go back to XP on either my custom, my macbook or my upcoming imac.

    The only problem i've had was there being no signed drivers for my iphone when it came out but to get around that i booted in unsigned drivers mode (64bit Vista problem). Got AVG antivirus going as it hogs least resources and even have aero and the huge resource hog that is video backgrounds running.

    I love it! Still love mac a whole lot more though!!
     
  16. pinktank macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    #16
    I still find Vista bit of a failure, It just isnt responsive enough
     
  17. hajime macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    #17
    I tried both XP Professional SP2 and Vista Ultimate SP1 on SR MBP (4GB RAM). I heard lots of bad things about Vista but after trying it for about a month, I think that it is not that bad. My complaint is that it takes too much disk space and often, a small window pops out asking for permission. Also, the sleep function is not working all the time. Other than that, I am glad that I moved to Vista.
     
  18. iFool macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    #18
    Do you have SP1 installed? XP may be slightly faster but its not a huge difference, I think people that choose XP instead of Vista are just stubborn, Vista is the Latest Windows, its going to have more updates and grow better in time. In my experience, Vista is about features, not performance increases, XP is what, 7 years old so it obviously going to be less demanding, just like Crysis is a hell of a lot more demanding than Far Cry.
     
  19. Neil321 macrumors 68040

    Neil321

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Britain, Avatar Created By Bartelby
    #19
    I'd try looking around the various sub forums & different threads on the subject before you start name calling

    edit here's a recent post giving loads of reasons why people dislike Vista & none of the reasons are because their stubborn
     
  20. MBX thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    #20
    hey guys, i found my previous thread about installing XP64 when they told me to install Vista64 instead: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=505851&highlight=xp64

    Their comments and suggestions totally differ from what i read here about Vista!

    For example:

    "XP 64 is a disaster. Its a very bad OS that is nothing but trouble.

    Vista 64 is the best version of Windows. Ive heard stories about Leopard being crap too, doesnt actually mean anything."
     
  21. cvmc macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    #21
    I have mixed feelings between XP and Vista, the former being more stable and mature and the latter having a fresher interface (stolen a lot of goodies from Mac).
    Anyway, I've finally tried Vista Utimate and I just have to live with it. Won't die from it!
    FYI: I was told by the sales folks that if you aren't satified with Vista Enterprise or Utimate, MS will replace it with XP Pro. Wonder if this is for real?
     
  22. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #22
    and what is that ridiculous system requirements you are referring to?
     
  23. Daveoc64 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    Bristol, UK
    #23
    So it's no different to Tiger VS. Leopard.

    Technology moves on. They can't keep the same low requirements for years on end.

    Windows Vista is much more complex than Windows XP. It's certainly not a resource hog - it just makes efficient use of the resources you give it. Windows XP doesn't do that.
     
  24. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #24
    I would hardly use any opinion of any Windows product found on this forum as a way to backup a point you're trying to make, being how this is a Mac forum. It's kind of similar to going to a Windows forum and using their opinions of Mac OS X to get an "educated" view on the OS.

    Those of you who are saying that Vista is a hog, come back and learn what "superfetch" is and understand what it is. Then go study how Mac OS X's memory management usage works, and you'll realize that is pretty darn similar to Vista's superfetch. System responsiveness and speed are hardly indicative by how much of your system is doing NOTHING. Having 16 gigs of RAM when you only need and use a maximum of 4 doesn't make your system faster than just having 4 gigs of RAM (not talking about the OP since I have no idea what he does) since the rest of the 12 gigs is doing nothing for you.

    I made a post a while back outlining the similarities between Vista and Mac OS X's (specifically Leopard's) memory management, but I just can't be bothered to find it again.
     
  25. CWallace macrumors 601

    CWallace

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #25
    I find general performance on my MacBook Pro with 4MB to be much better in Windows XP 32-bit then Windows Vista 64-bit.

    That being said, when I get my Mac Pro, I will be using Vista 64-bit because I'll be throwing so much performance at it, even Vista will run snappy. :)
     

Share This Page