So, which do you prefer and why? I used to hate vista; even on my high end machine it felt like a slow, bloated resource pig. I downgraded to XP and loved it; my bootup times were under 18 seconds with out a CF or SSD! I used that for a while, but strange errors and problems begin to pile up. I also missed the start search, breadcrumbs, and other handy features of Vista.

 

 

 

`I finally decided to tackle it a different way: I installed vLite (A legal but Microsoft-hated tool for stripping the parts that you don't want out of Vista. I knocked out roughly 3.2 of the 4 GB Vista installation files, while leaving everything I would possibly use, including games. I integrated all of the updates, along with SP1. I put it on a flash drive, booted off of it, and proceed to install it. The instillation, from the time I turned on the computer to the time I was at my desktop was less then 10 minutes. And that's with a 20$ flash drive! From then on, I was more and more impressed. I did quite a bit of tweaking, taking out services and other things I did not need. My entire Vista install was under 3 GB on disk! With vLite, its possible to make an install file of 285 MB (Windows XP is 550), and an extracted size of roughly 850 MB (Windows XP is several GB when its all said and done). However, that took out some features that I thought I might need, so I was happy with mine. I went back to classic, disabled all startup items, then sat back and started using it.

 

 

 

The verdict: Vista just needs a little slimming down. It now runs far faster then XP, and I mean fast. Startup is a very short procedure (Haven't timed it), shutdown is ~3 seconds. Firefox launches in roughly 1 second, and the machine never bogs down with 30+ windows open. Prefetch and Superfetch are obviously doing their job quite well; I can't remember the last time besides restarting I waited for my computer to catch up! Photoshop takes a couple of seconds to load the first time, 1-2 seconds after that. Sure, this is a good system, but Vista is running far faster then XP ever did. My only complaint is that hibernate takes slightly longer then in XP, as Vista appears to write all 4 GB of information in the RAM down, instead of just what's running. Which is fine with me, as that way it also seems to save the memory caches.

 

 

 

Bottom line: I dislike Vista, I'm OK with XP, I really like vLited Vista. I use many older programs and software, but have had no compatibility problems. Networking works better, faster, and smoother then in XP. Go vLited Vista!

This should be locked! This is nothing but asking for a big argument.

I'm running Vista on a high end machine right now and it seems slow compared to XP I had on my old machine that was low-middle grade. As you said, Vista really just needs to be slimmed down and it would be better.

I'm running Vista on a high end machine right now and it seems slow compared to XP I had on my old machine that was low-middle grade. As you said, Vista really just needs to be slimmed down and it would be better.

 

 

 

Hehe.. i wonder how many hours/days this topic will live.

 

 

 

Windows 7 (Vienna was it?), if i don't remember wrong, will use the same kernel as Vista, but reworked.

 

I'm looking forward to it.

I've never heard of this vLite, have a link for it or any more information?

 

 

 

I was thinking of possibly acquiring Vista 64 once Age of Conan goes to DX10 but I wasn't sure if I wanted to. [cabbage], if this vLite worked with DX10 just fine that'd be nice.

This really should be locked, no point in it and it's asking for flame.

 

 

 

Anyway, no matter what OS you choose, be it Windows, Mac or Linux; each later version will nearly always be more bloated than the last. Seeing as computer power doubles every 2 years, devs will always find new things to include whether you need/want them or not, just because there is the extra power to do so.

I've not used Vista, but from everything I've heard it seems like I wouldn't like Vista as much as I like XP. I currently have an XP which boots up in something like 10 seconds; very fast compared to the 2000 which takes at least five minutes to boot up... But that XP doesn't have a lot of extras on it. (Also have a laptop running XP, that's what I'm on right now, boots up in maybe 30 seconds?)

With all the good intentions of the Original Poster, this thread will soon loose the point of why the thread was started and end up just like all the other OS vs OS threads, a flame match.

 

 

 

Please could a mod lock this before all hell breaketh out?

-In before flame war-

 

 

 

Such a discussion will only invoke some bad replies, so I'm going to lock this before it gets that way.