[joneeboi]

Greetings,

Should I switch from Vista Basic to XP Pro [or Vista Business]? I have a Toshiba Satellite A100 (bottom of the barrel) and I am within reach of Windows XP Professional 32-bit [and Vista Business] through school. I mainly use my computer for the internet and storing notes. I just want something that will do simple things as quickly as possible. MS Office; Mozilla Firefox; foobar2000, iTunes and WMP11; WMP classic for some TV shows; avast anti-virus; ZoneAlarm Firewall (switch to Comodo if I go with XP); Windows Messenger; and HotSync manager for my Palm Treo 680. Here are some cursory specs:

80GB
Intel Celeron
1.86GHz
1.0GB RAM

Specs are at the link, Toshiba Satellite A100. Now, I have Vista and I think I've heard all about how crappy it is. I'm just wondering if I would have faster operation with Windows XP Pro as opposed to Vista. The thing is that I just got comfortable with the way everything is set up (antivirus, firewall, sidebar, folders, music). Is it worth the migration? Would this be a trek to the promised land for me or will it be a wild goose chase? I appreciate any help.

edit: forgot Vista Business.

 

[iggee85]

Well, Vista with Aero will run slower than XP on your machine. Having said that, I don't think you'll notice the difference in performance if all you're doing is basic stuff. If you already setup Vista the way you like it, why not just stick with it.

 

[AlanY]

One recent review I read suggested that XP is twice as fast on certain real-world workloads (on the same machine). Given that you have a modest machine, I'd expect you'd see some speed benefit by going back to XP.

 

[n00bler]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iggee85 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, Vista with Aero will run slower than XP on your machine. ...

On vista, is using basic faster than aero?

Quote:

Originally Posted by joneeboi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Greetings, Should I switch from Vista Basic to XP Pro [or Vista Business]? ...

If speedy operation is of main concern, have you considered win2k? It's XP without the frills and eyecandy. Same drivers and all.

If boot speed is important, vista is faster than xp or win2k

 

[Aevum]

if you dont need direct X, and you can skip aero, XP SP2 is your OS,

win2k is a bit old, and still very mainframe oriented,

 

[Zanth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlanY /img/forum/go_quote.gif One recent review I read suggested that XP is twice as fast on certain real-world workloads (on the same machine). Given that you have a modest machine, I'd expect you'd see some speed benefit by going back to XP.

Exactly. For what the OP needs his comp for I would get XP Pro, update it with all the SPs and then optimize it for performance over visuals. One would have a very nice and fast windows experience.

 

[AlanY]

The other benefit is you'll get somewhat longer battery life with XP, which may be useful being a student. Part of it is increased use of the GPU in Vista, but most of it is Vista spinning the hard drive more (larger working set, that pre-emptive caching scheme that runs continuously to fill empty memory, etc.).

Btw, here's a link comparing the performance of XP and Vista:
Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test | CNET News.com
The same set of tasks took 80 seconds on Vista and 35 seconds on XP. That's the equivalent of a computer upgrade really.

 

[joneeboi]

Sounds good, guys. It seems it's a pretty decisive victory for XP Pro here. One drawback I was considering was Vista's awesome hibernate/sleep mode. I can turn on the computer fairly quickly and be up and running in no time, all the while drawing very low power until startup. How does XP's sleep mode compare to Vista's? My friend on XP said his battery drained only 0.5%/hr, while mine is a bit closer to 1%/hr. Is that typical for XP-ed laptops?

 

[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joneeboi /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sounds good, guys. It seems it's a pretty decisive victory for XP Pro here. One drawback I was considering was Vista's awesome hibernate/sleep mode. I can turn on the computer fairly quickly and be up and running in no time, all the while drawing very low power until startup. How does XP's sleep mode compare to Vista's? My friend on XP said his battery drained only 0.5%/hr, while mine is a bit closer to 1%/hr. Is that typical for XP-ed laptops?

Sleep and hibernate are the same in both XP and Vista, assuming you have power management (ACPI) drivers for both. (I had ACPI drivers for my 2001 vintage ThinkPad, so it always surprises me when I see laptops from say 2006 with no sleep support. I suppose some hardware vendors just don't care.) Current drain in sleep is going to depend on the laptop hardware, battery chemistry, battery age, etc. It has nothing to do with the OS.

 

[Basil101]

I would definitely "downgrade" to XP Pro SP2, the major selling point of Vista is Aero but with Basic you don't even have that. Aero on a GMA 950 runs, but it's not pretty, especially with 1GB of RAM. Ultimately the best way to make the most of your PC is to use XP which will run faster on your PC.

 

[`danny]

With that setup of yours I would stick with XP. I do a lot of consulting for companies/people and a very common question they ask is if it is worth upgrading to Vista. I always tell them if they have brand new hardware and 2 gigs of RAM I feel that Vista would take better advantage of it than would XP.

 

[joneeboi]

A funny thing just happened. I put the Windows XP disc in my CD drive and restarted. Then as luck would have it, Vista popped up and asked me to log in. Odd. I went to 'Computer' and when the CD opend, "Install Windows XP" was greyed out. What am I supposed to do?

 

[AlanY]

Boot directly off the install CD, don't let Vista boot first.

 

[socrates63]

As you found out, you can't install WinXP from Vista, and thus no automated migration is possible.

You will need to boot your computer using the XP CD.

 

[Honken]

Considered something like Ubuntu? It should be able to do what you're looking for.