Windows XP allowed to live again

To the posters who think Vista sucks and all that crap:

I haven't had a single problem with Vista since Beta 2 in mid-2006.

I wish people would stop hearing such BS rumors. Seriously.

I do dual-boot between XP and Vista on my desktop, but since I got Vista in January 2007, I am RARELY ever on XP. By the way, to Purple Catty, Microsoft will NOT be releasing another service pack for XP; SP3 is the final one.

XP has had its days, and now it's ready to die off. Vista is light-years ahead of XP in so many ways that it's not even funny.

Windows 7 is essentially Vista "Release 2" and it builds upon the improvements of Vista itself (and has the same system requirements as Vista's). Vista marked the beginning of the New Computing era, with like almost half of the operating system code rewritten from scratch, particularly the audio, video, networking, and print stacks being completely rearchitectured. Vista is much easier to use and is a LOT more secure than XP was and is. With XP (with the exception of Service Pack 2, which essentially should be a XP Second Edition), the code builds on top of Windows 2000, which builds on top of NT 4. So, if an exploit is found in 2000, MOST LIKELY the same exploit would be there in XP.

Come to think of it, didn't people complain when Windows 95 broke a lot of what used to work well under Windows 3.1/3.11? Think of Vista as the modernized Windows 95, if you will: Both of them offer a mile-long list of new features, and both of them are turning-point milestones, improvement-wise. Windows 7 is just like Windows 98; they build on top of their predecessors.

I seriously find the negative press, the hearsay, and the overactive bias about Vista to be utterly ridiculous. People are just afraid of change, and I personally find them to be wussies.
 
Secretblend said:
I got 8 GB of memory and Vista 32 bit installed. It works fine.
Click to expand...

Your OS will utilize on 3-4 GB RAM and left other 4 GB unused, that how 32 bit works.

If you have OS with 64 bit then will utilize all of 8 GB RAM.
 
SnAzZyStyLe2002 said:
To the posters who think Vista sucks and all that crap:

I haven't had a single problem with Vista since Beta 2 in mid-2006.

I wish people would stop hearing such BS rumors. Seriously.

I do dual-boot between XP and Vista on my desktop, but since I got Vista in January 2007, I am RARELY ever on XP.

XP has had its days, and now it's ready to die off. Vista is light-years ahead of XP in so many ways that it's not even funny.

Windows 7 is essentially Vista "Release 2" and it builds upon the improvements of Vista itself (and has the same system requirements as Vista's). Vista marked the beginning of the New Computing era, with like almost half of the operating system code rewritten from scratch, particularly the audio, video, networking, and print stacks being completely rearchitectured. With XP (with the exception of Service Pack 2, which essentially should be a XP Second Edition), the code builds on top of Windows 2000, which builds on top of NT 4.

Come to think of it, didn't people complain when Windows 95 broke a lot of what used to work well under Windows 3.1/3.11? Think of Vista as the modernized Windows 95, if you will: Both of them offer a mile-long list of new features, and both of them are turning-point milestones.

I seriously find the negative press, the hearsay, and the overactive bias about Vista to be utterly ridiculous. People are just afraid of change, and I personally find them to be wussies.
Click to expand...

I have nothing to against on Vista but I got some issues with 64 bit.

Only issue is network, when I put PC into sleep then wake up and internet went disconnect, I tried to fix by disable on allows to disconnect internet during sleep and don't work, I had installed all update and haven't solve any issue.

I want use Vista with 64 bit, not 32 bit due 4 GB RAM.
 
Foxrac said:
Your OS will utilize on 3-4 GB RAM and left other 4 GB unused, that how 32 bit works.

If you have OS with 64 bit then will utilize all of 8 GB RAM.
Click to expand...

If that was true, it would only show 4 gig. However it shows that there are 8 gig so I dont think that's right. If you are right, show me the documents.
 
Secretblend said:
If that was true, it would only show 4 gig. However it shows that there are 8 gig so I dont think that's right. If you are right, show me the documents.
Click to expand...

32 bit OS couldn't utilize more than 4 GB RAM due 32 bit limitation.
32-Bit Vs. 64-Bit Windows ~ Windows Fanatics

If Vista does listed on spec and they supposed to misled like WEI (Windows Experience Index) does but in your system don't utilize full 8 GB RAM but rather to used 4 GB instead.
 
Foxrac said:
32 bit OS couldn't utilize more than 4 GB RAM due 32 bit limitation.
32-Bit Vs. 64-Bit Windows ~ Windows Fanatics

If Vista does listed on spec and they supposed to misled like WEI (Windows Experience Index) does but in your system don't utilize full 8 GB RAM but rather to used 4 GB instead.
Click to expand...

Then show me the documation of it. If you are right, then it would only show 4 gig of memory installed instead of 8.
 
Secretblend said:
Then show me the documation of it. If you are right, then it would only show 4 gig of memory installed instead of 8.
Click to expand...

Vista does misled it on spec but show and utilize aren't same.

Some members from other forums has same problem as you did.

If you don't believe then good luck for wasting of memory on 32 bit OS and you can find more information via Google.

Shown on Vista isn't accurate.
 
Foxrac said:
Vista does misled it on spec but show and utilize aren't same.

Some members from other forums has same problem as you did.

If you don't believe then good luck for wasting of memory on 32 bit OS and you can find more information via Google.

Shown on Vista isn't accurate.
Click to expand...

Just read a few that I found on Google. They say it is possible to use full 8 gig but gotta do some hacking. At least I'm all set for next generation of OS that would use full 8 gig in future. The last 4 gig I bought was only 20 dollars after I get the rebate. Not a big deal for time being.
 
That is an interesting thought. How do you order it? Any idea of how much they cost?
 
Secretblend said:
Thanks. That is very interesting. Wish I woudl have known about that long time ago. I may order it eventually.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can't blame on any people who don't understand about between 32 bit and 64 bit and said Vista shown as 8 GB RAM on 32 bit.

Shame on MS for fix the Vista to make full information but non-SP1 Vista does shown as 3.5 GB if you have 8 GB RAM.
 
And, one more thing I remember is .... Vista does not have the "decay install" issue that XP and all previous OSes has.

The explanation of "decay install" is that you go and install XP on the hard drive ..... everything went well for the first month or 2, no problems yet. But, the more you use XP for the 3rd month and later (could be a year or 2 since you installed XP), you start to notice performance deterioration. XP would start to get slower and slower - like longer bootups, etc - and eventually you'd need to reformat the hard drive and reinstall XP to regain lost performance.

That's not the case with Vista anymore due to its rewritten code - goes to show how people are misinformed via the press and hearsay - [sarcasm] they would not want their OS copy to have decay-install issues, right? [/sarcasm]
 
SnAzZyStyLe2002 said:
And, one more thing I remember is .... Vista does not have the "decay install" issue that XP and all previous OSes has.

The explanation of "decay install" is that you go and install XP on the hard drive ..... everything went well for the first month or 2, no problems yet. But, the more you use XP for the 3rd month and later (could be a year or 2 since you installed XP), you start to notice performance deterioration. XP would start to get slower and slower - like longer bootups, etc - and eventually you'd need to reformat the hard drive and reinstall XP to regain lost performance.

That's not the case with Vista anymore due to its rewritten code - goes to show how people are misinformed via the press and hearsay - [sarcasm] they would not want their OS copy to have decay-install issues, right? [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

I'm using XP for more than 5 month and had notice on performance loss before but solved by use defrag (not MS, just use third party defrag) and modify on bootup to make boot so fast.

It was happened when install alot of games.
 
SnAzZyStyLe2002 said:
To the posters who think Vista sucks and all that crap:

I haven't had a single problem with Vista since Beta 2 in mid-2006.

I wish people would stop hearing such BS rumors. Seriously.

I do dual-boot between XP and Vista on my desktop, but since I got Vista in January 2007, I am RARELY ever on XP. By the way, to Purple Catty, Microsoft will NOT be releasing another service pack for XP; SP3 is the final one.

XP has had its days, and now it's ready to die off. Vista is light-years ahead of XP in so many ways that it's not even funny.

Windows 7 is essentially Vista "Release 2" and it builds upon the improvements of Vista itself (and has the same system requirements as Vista's). Vista marked the beginning of the New Computing era, with like almost half of the operating system code rewritten from scratch, particularly the audio, video, networking, and print stacks being completely rearchitectured. Vista is much easier to use and is a LOT more secure than XP was and is. With XP (with the exception of Service Pack 2, which essentially should be a XP Second Edition), the code builds on top of Windows 2000, which builds on top of NT 4. So, if an exploit is found in 2000, MOST LIKELY the same exploit would be there in XP.

Come to think of it, didn't people complain when Windows 95 broke a lot of what used to work well under Windows 3.1/3.11? Think of Vista as the modernized Windows 95, if you will: Both of them offer a mile-long list of new features, and both of them are turning-point milestones, improvement-wise. Windows 7 is just like Windows 98; they build on top of their predecessors.

I seriously find the negative press, the hearsay, and the overactive bias about Vista to be utterly ridiculous. People are just afraid of change, and I personally find them to be wussies.
Click to expand...

I wonder how Vista fare with stress test like heavy gaming, multitasking ect?

I do have Windows Vista Home Preminuim on my VMware. I installed it from Dell Restoration CD and played with it. I only have 1gb stick on AMD64 system. The only issue is that VMware don't have graphic card porting, it only use virtual graphic driver to run. There are hack to get OpenGL working but I don't have pci-e graphic card. I have is shared ATI xpress200 chipset. Sucky tho. I probably would get new pc with Win7 instead of Vista cuz it's slimmed down and 60% faster than Vista.

Iam sure people still keeping XP as long as software still sold at store till they stopped selling XP only softwares. I am sure I'm one of them!

When Economic get better and afford to purchase new laptop, I would dualboot with Ubuntu.

I'm sure that Win7 would boot from flashdrive if installed properly. U can boot XP from flashdrive (not bartpe), by extracting 3 of Win Server 2003's USB driver to allow USB to stay on while booting up. That's how netbook with flashdrive works with XP.

Catty
 
SnAzZyStyLe2002 said:
XP is still nearing its mainstream support's death - on April 14th of this year.
Click to expand...

about April 14. :Ohno:

You can still buy new PCs and use Windows XP. Windows Vista Business and Windows Vista Ultimate have downgrade rights that let you return your operating system to Windows XP. Microsoft plan to provide support for Windows XP until 2014.
 
Last edited:
Chevy57 said:
about April 14. :Ohno:

You can still buy new PCs and use Windows XP. Windows Vista Business and Windows Vista Ultimate have downgrade rights that let you return your operating system to Windows XP. Microsoft plan to provide support for Windows XP until 2014.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for extended support ...... not mainstream.

On 4/14/2009, XP'd be entering extended support. That's the way MS wanted, because they already delayed both XP mainstream and extended support once .... the support has been reset for XP SP2 in 2004. If it's MS's way and not the consumer's, they'd have ended XP mainstream support in 2006 and XP extended support in 2009 to 2011.

Seriously, XP may be "very stable" and such, but it's STILL an ancient OS made in 2001! I find it really sad to know that people are still clinging to XP like it's some treasured teddy bear. :roll:

Vista is light-years better and ahead of XP in so many ways that if it's my shop that people are entering, I'd put up a sign that reads "HAVE YOU UPGRADED TO VISTA? IF NOT, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO SO!" or something to that.
 
SnAzZyStyLe2002 said:
Yeah, for extended support ...... not mainstream.

On 4/14/2009, XP'd be entering extended support. That's the way MS wanted, because they already delayed both XP mainstream and extended support once .... the support has been reset for XP SP2 in 2004. If it's MS's way and not the consumer's, they'd have ended XP mainstream support in 2006 and XP extended support in 2009 to 2011.

Seriously, XP may be "very stable" and such, but it's STILL an ancient OS made in 2001! I find it really sad to know that people are still clinging to XP like it's some treasured teddy bear. :roll:

Vista is light-years better and ahead of XP in so many ways that if it's my shop that people are entering, I'd put up a sign that reads "HAVE YOU UPGRADED TO VISTA? IF NOT, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO SO!" or something to that.
Click to expand...

Not every consumers are equal when come to Vista, some of them are prefer to sticking with XP and if you are happy with Vista then go sticking with it.

XP is stable OS, of course, if slow down then use defrag from third party software and use modify to boost up the OS, most businesses are sticking with XP as well.

Vista is nowhere to more snappier than XP, however Windows 7 is more snappier than Vista.
 
Secretblend said:
Then show me the documation of it. If you are right, then it would only show 4 gig of memory installed instead of 8.
Click to expand...

Simple - do the math.

Computers tend to have a base number of 2. I'd explain further, but it's late right now.

2 to the 32nd power is over 4 billion, hence the 32-bit limit of 4 GB.

2 to the 64th power is over 18 quintillion, 16 EB.

But motherboards wouldn't even support 16 EB (exabytes) of memory! Therefore, MS had to lower the limit to 128 GB max for 64-bit desktop OSes, 2 TB for 64-bit server OSes.
 
Back
Top