XP or Vista?

[yegosimo]

Uh.. My XP Home SP2 isn't working well, and I need to format soon.
Do I begin using Vista RC1 as my default OS? Do you think that my PC will do better performance? Or do I keep using this buggy Windows?
I know the specs suck, but I can't customize my PC since it's prebuilt. :down:

[EDIT: Sorry that I made this thread here I just realized that this was ToTT and not TechTalk. Please move this]

 

[Toasty]

Vista's system requirements are higher than XP's, so XP will no doubt perform better on less powerful machines. (I don't think you'll be using all of Vista's new bells and whistles with that graphics chip, and Vista's RAM requirements may be too high to run well with 512MB.) Vista is currently in the release candidate stage, so while most of the major bugs have been eliminated, it still has had nowhere near as much time to be refined as XP has (though many will argue that XP still needs a lot of improvement too). If you're going to reformat anyway, you might try installing both of them on separate partitions so you can try out Vista while still having a familiar OS to fall back on if you run into problems. Otherwise, I'd suggest you install Vista and see how you like it. Test out all your commonly used programs to make sure they'll work okay. If you like it, stick with it. After a few days if you're missing XP, reinstall XP. Bare in mind that if you decide to use Vista as your main OS, the free license will expire (in June '07?) and you'll have to purchase a full version of Vista when it does if you want to continue using it.

 

[yegosimo]

I'd like to have Vista as my default, but... the download is 2 GBs or so, I have just begun it, and I'd like to know if it will be compatible to my hardware, i mean, if it will automatically install my graphics chipset or let me run the Windows XP one.
Does FIFA 06 work on Vista? San Andreas?

 

[t0rek]

Dunno if Fifa 06 or San Andreas work in Vista, but with yor specs not only Vista will not have the Aero thing enabled, but I'll bet they will perform worst than they do now with your integrated video. If I were you I'll stay with XP. BTW you have to consider that Vista OS requires 15 GB.

 

[ScottJC]

Your graphics card is not powerful enough for vista nor do you have enough memory to run it yegosimo. I'm not saying it wouldn't boot but your system would seem like a snail with vista.

but I can't customize my PC since it's prebuilt.

a prebuilt pc is the same thing as a custom pc only someone else made it, i've taken apart machines made by dell before and put new stuff in em.

 

[Doomulation]

But so again, you could purchase new hardware and have a tech expert install it for you. That does not void the warranty, does it?
Vista won't run like a snail - but it probably won't run really fast either. Your memory is too low. 1 GB is recommended for Vista.
Otherwise, well... yes, I think you should try Vista. When my XP refused to connect to internet I got pissed off and installed Vista on another partition. And what can I say? I'm still running it to date. The only shame is lack of Firewalls.
Vista does not have drivers for everything either so be prepared that some may not work.

Otherwise, you could purchase an USB device and use it as secondary memory via ReadyBoost. It won't perform as well as the real thing, but it is better than nothing.

 

[yegosimo]

My prebuilt PC is a Compaq Presario S5000V. The case is kind of small so a new motherboard won't fit unless I change the case too, and that's what I mean by saying that I cannot customize it. I already tried, and the computer guy told me that I'd better leave the PC as it is now. Then I would sell it and buy one myself, a lot modern, and very cheap on his store.
So then, I'm kind of dissapointed. I measured the start-up of both of the OSs, and this was the results:
Windows XP Home SP2 - 05:31
Windows 2003 Server R2 - 01:42
Why is this going on? I know that Server OSs are made to run more efficiently but why is my XP so slow..???

 

[SlimickGamer]

Your CPU's processing power is good for both OSs but XP takes more RAM than Windows 2003 Server R2 and it depends on how many start up processes you have when you start XP. You can check how many processes you have in Task Manager. You might wanna compare how many processes in each OS.

 

[yegosimo]

The only difference about the start up processes is that I'm running Norton Internet Security with the XP, and Symantec Antivirus with the 2003 Server.
Other than that, all the processes are all the same.
Does it have anything to do that I have a Vista theme running, enabled Cleartype, have IE7, WMP11, Office 2007.... ?

 

[Doomulation]

You do know that XP is a bastard when it comes to booting. Sometimes it's lightning fast and on other installation it's lightning slow (Yes, even on the same computer).