Downgrading to XP from Vista

  • Thread starter Hexadic
  • https://www.osnn.net/admin.php?templates/thread_view.1970/delete&_xfRedirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.osnn.net%2Fadmin.php%3Ftemplates%2Foutdated Start date

Maveric169

The Voices Talk to Me
Joined
5 Dec 2002
Messages
1,148
I personally feel that vista was rushed into service, IMHO. But really it is no different than every other windows platform, they all have bugs when put to market, XP is no different. Seems to take Microsoft about a year to get the newest OS upto spec with update, patches, fixes. Think back to when XP first came out, while in many ways it was a vast improvment over WIN98SE, and WIN2000, there were growing pains. Vista is the same, (granted Win98se was never as stable as XP was, but you get my point). By this time next year, Vista will have it's very own service pack or Second edition, and will be great and software vendors will be on top of things to support it.

Ok, off my soapbox and to Hex, As has been posted the "conversion" can be done, but you would save yourself some headaches to just return it and get the machine configed and installed with XP.
 

Sazar

Rest In Peace
Joined
12 Apr 2002
Messages
14,905
@ Lancer, is that the fault of Vista or of Adobe for not optimizing their application sufficiently, or both?

Vista designates resources as needed, it's the way it was designed, to keep things plugging along.

@ maverick, the OS was polished even in the final beta's. There are always going to be a few quirks, but this can occur even in something that has been around for a few years. I will post my reliability report tonight to demonstrate :)
 

j79zlr

Glaanies script monkey
Political Access
Joined
16 Feb 2003
Messages
2,725
Vista designates resources as needed, it's the way it was designed, to keep things plugging along.

You mean how it purposely degrades network speeds when playing audio files. Sounds like a great idea!

I have two 250GB SATA drives, a dual core AMD 5200+ and 2 GB of RAM, yet it takes MINUTES to move smallish [100MB] files around. Takes seconds in XP and Gentoo.

Vista designates resources to DRM not to where they are needed. You should not have to have 2GB of RAM, a dual core processor and a 256MB+ video card for an OS to be USABLE.
 

lancer

There is no answer!
Political Access
Joined
7 Oct 2004
Messages
3,093
You mean how it purposely degrades network speeds when playing audio files. Sounds like a great idea!

I have two 250GB SATA drives, a dual core AMD 5200+ and 2 GB of RAM, yet it takes MINUTES to move smallish [100MB] files around. Takes seconds in XP and Gentoo.

Vista designates resources to DRM not to where they are needed. You should not have to have 2GB of RAM, a dual core processor and a 256MB+ video card for an OS to be USABLE.

completely agree.

@ sazar, premiere pro 2 was probably not optimized with vista in mind, but at the same time, vista is using about 30% cpu power @ all times. and at least 500mbs at all times, thats mental.....

Vista is Satan in the eyes of the world :0
 

Perris Calderon

dealer
Staff member
Political Access
Joined
24 Jan 2002
Messages
12,375
completely agree.

@ sazar, premiere pro 2 was probably not optimized with vista in mind, but at the same time, vista is using about 30% cpu power @ all times. and at least 500mbs at all times, thats mental.....

Vista is Satan in the eyes of the world :0

You mean how it purposely degrades network speeds when playing audio files. Sounds like a great idea!

I have two 250GB SATA drives, a dual core AMD 5200+ and 2 GB of RAM, yet it takes MINUTES to move smallish [100MB] files around. Takes seconds in XP and Gentoo.

Vista designates resources to DRM not to where they are needed. You should not have to have 2GB of RAM, a dual core processor and a 256MB+ video card for an OS to be USABLE.


pretty sure everyone knows I'm not a big fan of vista but there's plenty of misinformation in both of these posts

first of all, my laptop for the most part only uses 10 to 20 percent cpu and I don't see the os being cpu intensive

as far as the amount of memory;

computers used to use in the tens, then the 20's then the 100's

now they're using in the 1000's and when 64 becomes more pervasive they will use in the tens of thousands

the problem with vista using all that memory is I don't see the return, I don't see apps opening faster or anything

using two gigs of memory should be a GOOD thing not a bad thing that's what you guys don't understand

the problem is I don't see where that memory is helping, that's the rub
 

j79zlr

Glaanies script monkey
Political Access
Joined
16 Feb 2003
Messages
2,725
Of course I understand that perris. Linux has always used all available memory. Here is the memory usage for my Gentoo box atm:

Code:
joe@emperor ~ $ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          2013       1877        136          0        130       1106
-/+ buffers/cache:        640       1372
Swap:         2047          0       2047
joe@emperor ~ $

Notice that almost all of the memory is used, but 1372MB are just buffers and cache. That is a good thing. Also notice that my swap space is NOT being used at all. Windows still like to cache to the pagefile or swap space on disk. That is why you don't really notice any increase in speed.

I've never noticed my CPU on vista idling at a high amount maybe 5-10% which is fine, but it is very noticeable that pretty much everything runs slower. It is very easy to tell since I triple boot this PC with XP, Vista Ultimate and Gentoo. When the exact same machine runs one app slower in one OS and not the others or when disk i/o is noticeable different, it is quite obvious who the culprit is.
 

gonaads

Beware the G-Man
Political Access
Joined
31 Mar 2002
Messages
18,474
Funny how everyone else has taken over this thread and Hexadic hasn't posted again. Hmmmmm
 

Perris Calderon

dealer
Staff member
Political Access
Joined
24 Jan 2002
Messages
12,375
Of course I understand that perris. Linux has always used all available memory. Here is the memory usage for my Gentoo box atm:

Code:
joe@emperor ~ $ free -m
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:          2013       1877        136          0        130       1106
-/+ buffers/cache:        640       1372
Swap:         2047          0       2047
joe@emperor ~ $

Notice that almost all of the memory is used, but 1372MB are just buffers and cache. That is a good thing. Also notice that my swap space is NOT being used at all. Windows still like to cache to the pagefile or swap space on disk. That is why you don't really notice any increase in speed.

I've never noticed my CPU on vista idling at a high amount maybe 5-10% which is fine, but it is very noticeable that pretty much everything runs slower. It is very easy to tell since I triple boot this PC with XP, Vista Ultimate and Gentoo. When the exact same machine runs one app slower in one OS and not the others or when disk i/o is noticeable different, it is quite obvious who the culprit is.


I didn't know that about linux j79 and I'm certainly not going to make any excuses for vista but I do think you misunderstand that writing to the pagefile stuff

it's only a profilactic backup for data in memory if there is no other image, a write does't mean a swap. and it's only information that isn't already on disk somewhere besides memory, if the data is already available somewhere else there is no pagefile write

for instance if you open a file and don't alter it, that doesn't need a new image and it doesn't get written or swapped to the pagefile, there's no need for a pagefile image since one already exists, the os knows where to regain that information if a swap occurs (it gets the information from original file)

even if you open a file from a network and not from your disc, neither does that go to the pagefile since the data is retrievalble for a swap from your network

now if you disconect from that network and you have a network file in memory, that will get an image on your native disc or wherever you have the pagefile, data in memory needs an image otherwise there can be no swap if neccesity arises, the area for that image is the pagefile and that's the only data that goes to the pagefile, everything else goes to the original file whence it came

also, in nt, reported "pagefile use" is only an allocation in anticipation, it's not actual writes to the file

looking at your image I'm wondering why llinux doesn't write to disk the information that's new who's only copy is in memory, if there's no other image there isn't any headroom if you do need to launch something new.

unless in this particular screenshot your os didn't have any private writeable info which is of course possible but not likely

information that's only available in memory should be pro actively written to disc (in the backtound only when there are no other writes going on) so if there does need to be a swap it's seemless

I think it's just a reporting differance though, not an actual differance, there really has to be at least an allocation if the info isn't available anywhere but memory, nt reports the allocated space and linux probably sees no need, I understand both philosophies, there's no reason to report something that MIGHT happen and it does seem to go over everyone's head so I think the report might best be left out

pagefile use (in nt) doesn't at all mean an actual swap...it is a long explanation

in any event, vista isn't slow because of the reported pagefile use, I don't know what does make vista slow but reporting something that might happen is not it

I do know what you mean by moving files, I don't understand why moving a file takes so long in vista, especiall when vista is replacing a file, it's bizzare

I think I'm gonna get me some linux on this thing, I hear there are driver packs that makes it run right our of the box

anyway, back to pagefile stuff

if you look at my screenshot below it shows about a gig of pagefile useage but if I look at the actual file there's only about 280 mbs written to it and my box has been running for three days with about twenty hybernates, that number would be lower if I just booted and much lower if didn't hybernate so much

if you want to see how much nt is really writing to the file as apposed to simply reporting potential, save the following as a vb script and launch, it will tell you what your pagefile useage really is;

Code:
' WinXP-2K_PageFile.vbs - Checks the current and peak usage, and allocated
' size of the Windows Windows XP or Windows 2000 pagefile and optionally
' log and/or show the results in a popup.


'**********************************************************
' Three optional settings are configurable below:
'  WriteToFile - If set to True the information will be added to a log file in
'    your 'My Documents' folder.  Of course, you want this if you are running
'    at logoff, but you might not want it for manually checks.  Changing this
'    to False disables logging.
'   ShowPopup - If set to True then after the script runs a message box is
'     presented with the results.  This might not be desirable when
'     automatically running the script at logoff.  False disables popup.
'   DisplaySeconds - The number of seconds that the results popup will
'     display.  Setting this to 0 (zero) will cause the popup to remain until
'     acknowledged.

WriteToFile = True    'Options: True, False
ShowPopup = True      'Options: True, False
DisplaySeconds = 0    '0 (zero) to force OK
'**********************************************************

'**********************************************************
' You can also set the options using arguments:
' Syntax:  [path]scriptname [log] [rpt] [t:sec]
'   log - add results to the logfile
'   rpt - show results in popup
'   t:seconds - controls how long the popup message will display

' Example: "WinXP-2K_PageFile.vbs rpt t:5" - show popup for 5 seconds, no log.
' Example: "WinXP-2K_PageFile.vbs log" - log the results, no popup.
' Example: "WinXP-2K_PageFile.vbs log rpt t:10" - log and 10 second popup.

' NOTE: If ANY arguments are used, all hardcoded variables are set to
' false or 0, so you must specifically set which options you want.

' To use these options, create a shortcut to the script and add the arguments
' there, or the arguments can be used running the script from command line.
'**********************************************************

' Do not edit below this line
If WScript.Arguments.Count > 0 Then
  WriteToFile = False
  ShowPopup = False
  DisplaySeconds = 0
  For Each arg in WScript.Arguments
    If LCase(arg) = "log" Then
      WriteToFile = True
    End If
    If LCase(arg) = "rpt" Then
      ShowPopup = True
    End If
    If Left(LCase(arg), 2) = "t:" Then
      If IsNumeric(Mid(arg, 3)) Then
        DisplaySeconds = Mid(arg, 3)
      End If
    End If
  Next
End If

For Each obj in GetObject("winmgmts:\\.\root\cimv2").ExecQuery(_
    "Select Name, CurrentUsage, PeakUsage, " & _
    "AllocatedBaseSize from Win32_PageFileUsage",,48)
  s = s & vbcrlf & "Pagefile Physical Location: " & vbtab & obj.Name
  s = s & vbcrlf & "Current Pagefile Usage: " & vbtab & obj.CurrentUsage & " MB"
  s = s & vbcrlf & "Session Peak Usage: " & vbtab & obj.PeakUsage & " MB"
  s = s & vbcrlf & "Current Pagefile Size: " & vbtab & obj.AllocatedBaseSize & " MB"
Next

If WriteToFile Then
  Set fso = CreateObject("Scripting.FileSystemObject")
  logfile = CreateObject("WScript.Shell"). _
    SpecialFolders("MyDocuments") & "\PagefileLog.txt"
  If NOT fso.OpenTextFile(logfile, 1, True).AtEndOfStream Then
    With fso.OpenTextFile(logfile, 1)
      s2 = .ReadAll : .Close
    End With
  End If
  With fso.OpenTextFile(logfile, 2)
    .Write Now() & vbcrlf & s & vbcrlf & vbcrlf & s2 : .Close
  End With
End If

If ShowPopup Then
  WScript.CreateObject("WScript.Shell").Popup _
    s, DisplaySeconds, 4096
End If

go in there, highlight, write to notepad, save as vb, double click, the applet that pops up is how much info is actually written in your pagefile, this works on vista as well as xp and probably 2000 but I never tried it there

so "pagefile use" only means address allication to the page file, not actual useage, right now my os has 280 mbs of actual writes compared to the report below which sayas a gig

quite a differance, the report indicates how much memory MIGHT become private writeable and not on disc, it allocates area for that unique data, in this case about a gig might become private writeable but hardly anything is written to that gig
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    53.9 KB · Views: 86
Last edited:

Maveric169

The Voices Talk to Me
Joined
5 Dec 2002
Messages
1,148
@ Lancer, is that the fault of Vista or of Adobe for not optimizing their application sufficiently, or both?

Vista designates resources as needed, it's the way it was designed, to keep things plugging along.

@ maverick, the OS was polished even in the final beta's. There are always going to be a few quirks, but this can occur even in something that has been around for a few years. I will post my reliability report tonight to demonstrate :)

This is true, microsoft still puts out updates to XP that causes issues (usually security updates), and I am not saying that Vista is any less stable than XP was on release. The killer for me as far as Vista is concerned is the lack of backward compatability and the slow response of software makers to support it. Remember Apple tried that several years ago and it nearly took them out of the computer market all together. Now MS is going not going to face that issue at all, but untill there is more support for Vista I can't even imagine switching to it for my personal machine, and there are many software companies that are playing the wait and see game as far as support goes, many remember ME which really wan't much of an issue for software makers.

I have just not seen ANYTHING in Vista that XP doesn't already do, and do it well enough to justify it's existance. I have not seen any performance increases in applications or graphics that makes it an "upgrade". The only thing I see it has over XP is Apple like visual characteristics. Not really worth the price tag to me.
 

Johnny

.. Commodore ..
Political Access
Joined
12 Jan 2004
Messages
5,015
@Leegen - Dell does not support down grading from Vista to XP. I called them and asked about it for my PC. They told me that if I do downgrade I loose all warantee and the like with it. They recommended me to stay with vista till my warantee runs out. By which point they "Should" have Vista SP1 out.
 

Sazar

Rest In Peace
Joined
12 Apr 2002
Messages
14,905
I will post a simple tidbit about my reasons for thinking the vast majority of posts (by a very vocal minority) are erroneous on many levels or espouse beliefs that are simply incorrect.

I am running Vista and have been doing so for a while on a simple X2 4400+ processor with 2 GB of memory. The 2 GB is the important part and it is fairly inexpensive to procure or upgrade if needed. The Operating system will run with 1 GB and run relatively well but not for what I use my system for.

I am a hardcore gamer and I am big-time into movies/editing and the like. All applications I use work and I have a large suite of applications I am employing. All games I have work fine and I haven't noticed any measurable drops of performance. If someone lives and dies by benchmarks and 2 or 3 fps differences, I am sure that an imperceptible drop in some games with previous drivers was terrible for them but I haven't experienced a single game so far from my library that has failed to work.

The same applications work FASTER and SMOOTHER under Vista than they do under XP. Further, Vista is a lot more stable and doesn't "crash" like XP and therefore my productivity and uptime have gone up. Not saying much because XP hardly ever crashed for me and I used to string together several weeks of uptime before reboots for software updates. But Vista simply is rock-solid, in my experience.

I have seen it hang or crash for some people but this is more to do with the other software used on the system and less to do with Vista itself.

There are visual enhancements but the majority are cosmetic. However, the aero enhancements have improved my work many fold simply with their usefulness. Being able to get full and live previews of windows I have open (and I typically run about 15-30 windows open at any given time, minimum, on my work system) is a god-send. Per application volume control is my most often used application after the very nicely integrated desktop search.

Apple's OSX has some nice graphics features but it is not the same as Vista and the use of those graphics features are different. Also, both the flagship OS's offer different things to the consumer in many different ways.

The tightly integrated tools are the main benefactors. IE for example, simply rocks under Vista as does WMP11. Sidebar has competitors but under Vista, it is an excellent tool and one I cannot do without. I used a similar tool from Google under XP but the bloat and the sluggishness on the exact same system simply was not useful for me.

File transfers are rapid for me and faster than they were under XP in pretty much every situation I can think of and remember off the top of my head. I transfer huge files to and from my mp3 player several times a week and I have never seen something take an abnormally long time. Maybe I am just lucky?

XP was a solid OS for me. I loved it. Vista is many magnitudes better and given how much I loved XP and how long I used it, that is saying something. I used windows2000 for a while before moving to XP, I dual-booted for a while because I just loved 2k so much but when I moved over completely and decided to really give it a go, boom, 2k was gone.

Regarding memory usage and cpu usage, my home system cpu usage is quite low to none. At work I have more indexing options turned on and it averages about 5-10%. Memory, before I load up all my applications, is typically in the 30% range.

/me shrugs

Not exactly catastrophic. If you're using XP and like it, that's great. If you use another operating system, same story. But the over-the-top bashing of Vista is getting a little out of control especially when comparing the experiences with power-users who have used the OS for many, many months now.

-edit-

Addendum for the backwards compatability. When I was dual-booting Vista and XP, I could use saved files from one partition on the other and vice-versa. Likewise, if I work on documents or projects under Vista and send it over to someone else using XP, there is no issue. Backwards compatability is definitely present although there are some differences in the file-structure and naming conventions. But there are plenty of free tools, including free ones offered by Microsoft, for conversions as needed.
 

j79zlr

Glaanies script monkey
Political Access
Joined
16 Feb 2003
Messages
2,725
You make it sound like we are a vocal minority, yet I thought you worked for Dell. There have been outcries for XP when Vista was the only option and guess what, it is offered again. I don't think a vocal minority would cause a major corporation to change its offerings when that major corporation has a lucrative deal with another major corporation to force feed, err offer its product. Even technically inept people have heard about Vista and want little to do with it.

I don't think the backwards compatibility issue is about file-types and file structure since WinFS was scrapped along with numerous other features that were cut to get Vista out of the door. The backwards compatibility issue is with numerous programs that have not been rewritten to work with Vista. Is that Microsoft's fault? Not entirely, but that doesn't make the consumer happy, they want it to just work.
 

CriticalPoint

Addicted to Gaming
Joined
31 Oct 2007
Messages
58
Of couse it is still a resource hog that turns a perfectly good PC into a dog.

Lmao - I don't know why as this is true! I have an okay system here and don't really mind either way.. The deciding factor for me to go 'back' to Xp is the compatability issues that are running us all down. I can't even run L33tsig on Vista without it crashing in the first 3 minutes! Vista needs time to blossom.. The more we bitch and nag, the better it gets!!
 
Last edited:

Sazar

Rest In Peace
Joined
12 Apr 2002
Messages
14,905
You make it sound like we are a vocal minority, yet I thought you worked for Dell. There have been outcries for XP when Vista was the only option and guess what, it is offered again. I don't think a vocal minority would cause a major corporation to change its offerings when that major corporation has a lucrative deal with another major corporation to force feed, err offer its product. Even technically inept people have heard about Vista and want little to do with it.

I don't think the backwards compatibility issue is about file-types and file structure since WinFS was scrapped along with numerous other features that were cut to get Vista out of the door. The backwards compatibility issue is with numerous programs that have not been rewritten to work with Vista. Is that Microsoft's fault? Not entirely, but that doesn't make the consumer happy, they want it to just work.

Survey's show about 30% of users are not that happy with Vista.

Where I work at has little to do with the products. If someone wants something, the company will offer it. Linux is hardly a market leading operating system and yet it is offered.

Technically inept people wouldn't know one way or the other about the product if they haven't used it. Many people who haven't used the operating system or barely used it seem to have some pretty big concerns with it :) That is what I mean when I say there is a very vocal minority.

I use the OS in mission critical situations. The vast majority of tools that I am using are designed for XP and yet they work just fine for me. Further, it is not Microsoft's fault that there are 3'rd party vendors out there who have not fixed their products. That is not a fault of the OS but rather the people who make the applications and yet even with their shoddiness, there aren't that many incompatabilities.
 

gonaads

Beware the G-Man
Political Access
Joined
31 Mar 2002
Messages
18,474
This thread is starting to get boring. :s I think it's safe to say that Hexadic doesn't want Vista, doesn't like Vista and would like to have XP again.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest forum posts

Latest profile posts

Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.
Terrahertz wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Yo fellas!
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Where are you buddy?

Forum statistics

Threads
62,000
Messages
673,429
Members
5,596
Latest member
Joshua Liansky