Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

Downgrading Windows Vista to Windows XP?


  • Please log in to reply

#1
admin

admin

    Founder Geek

  • Community Leader
  • 24,583 posts
Are you considering a downgrade from Windows Vista to Windows XP? If so, Microsoft has created a new resource for you:

http://www.microsoft...-xp/future.aspx

It discusses the future of XP. Discusses what downgrade rights are, and which versions of Vista have downgrade rights. As well as:
1) Content that can help customers make informed choices about Vista and the benefits it has over XP.
2) A Top Windows XP questions FAQ.
3) A Vista-to-XP downgrade FAQ in two sections: General Questions and How-to, including support options.
  • 0

Advertisements


#2
jt1990

jt1990

    Member 1K

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
I would tend to change the topic title to Upgrading from Vista to XP.... :)
  • 1

#3
admin

admin

    Founder Geek

  • Topic Starter
  • Community Leader
  • 24,583 posts
Just curious. Have you tried Vista?

Interesting fact, Microsoft found that 50% of the people that want to downgrade to XP, have never tried Vista.
  • 0

#4
keithr128

keithr128

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts
I just bought myself a new laptop for Christmas (but I couldn't wait until Christmas Day to play with it.) and so far I like Vista a lot, the search feature is great and the whole design and look of it is much sleeker.
All in all Vista is way better than XP.
The only thing I don't like is the UAC but since I am the only person using the laptop I just turned it off.
  • 0

#5
admin

admin

    Founder Geek

  • Topic Starter
  • Community Leader
  • 24,583 posts
Unfortunately, UAC is the most annoying when configuring, and breaking in a new system. Of course, that makes the initial impression of UAC, and Windows Vista a poor one. I don't think some people ever get past that point. However, after a few days or weeks at the most, you barely see a UAC prompt. I have it enabled on my system, and it's really not bothersome at all. Turn it back on in a couple of weeks, and see what you think.
  • 0

#6
Essexboy

Essexboy

    GeekU Moderator

  • Retired Staff
  • 69,964 posts
I would agree with Admin (creep :) ) I have had Vista since Beta 2 and yes the UAC is annoying at first but it quietens down after a while and I now only get it when I install a programme. Would I go back to XP.. NO. I find Vista a very stable platform - not one BSOD yet no hangs or slowdowns

And very forgiving when 'er indors plays with the settings
  • 0

#7
jt1990

jt1990

    Member 1K

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts

Just curious. Have you tried Vista?

Interesting fact, Microsoft found that 50% of the people that want to downgrade to XP, have never tried Vista.


Yes, I have. I'm running it on a computer at work. I find that there's a lot more bells and whistles then are really necessary (Asking if I really really want to confirm do something before it'll actually let me do it, for example. And yes, I know there's ways to turn it off, I just haven't really looked for them.) I've also found that my laptop (specs in sig) runs much faster then my work machine (specs also in sig.)

I think what really turned me off to Vista was the first time I tried to use it:
My dad downloaded a beta version and put it on his laptop - a Celeron 1.6Ghz with 1GB RAM. The thing couldn't handle it - he ended up wiping the computer and putting XP back on it. And I just was never really impressed after that.
  • 0

#8
stettybet0

stettybet0

    Trusted Tech

  • Technician
  • 2,579 posts
Just as Windows XP had higher system requirements than Windows 2000, and Windows 2000 had higher system requirements than Windows 98, etc., Vista has higher system requirements than XP. That's like saying I was never impressed with my Honda Accord, because it doesn't go as fast as a Ferrari. Well, sure, but the Honda Accord was never meant to go as fast as a Ferrari, it exists to serve a different portion of the market. Similarly, Vista wasn't meant to be run on computers with specs such as those, it was designed with newer computers in mind. And I use "newer" pretty loosely, as I have a 5 year old HP that runs Vista fine.

And of course your home system is faster than your work system. The Core 2 Duo is a far superior CPU.

The UAC may be annoying to some (though as others have said, the UAC hardly shows its face once you get your system configured), is having to do one extra click really that much of a hassle? And when you're surfing the internet one day and you see "Virus.exe wants to run", you'll be glad you had the UAC activated.
  • 0

#9
jt1990

jt1990

    Member 1K

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
I'm not trying to start a debate here - I'm just stating my preference. And my preference is toward XP as opposed to Vista. And yes - I know that Vista wasn't designed to run effectively on those specs, but wasn't they're initial minimum system requirements something like a P3 800Mhz and 512MB RAM? (I think they may have changed that since Vista was released, but still...)
  • 0

#10
Ricky_22

Ricky_22

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 346 posts

I'm not trying to start a debate here - I'm just stating my preference. And my preference is toward XP as opposed to Vista. And yes - I know that Vista wasn't designed to run effectively on those specs, but wasn't they're initial minimum system requirements something like a P3 800Mhz and 512MB RAM? (I think they may have changed that since Vista was released, but still...)



You make many points that I personally am swayed to, (but I really don't understand vista at all, and at 73 I am not inclined to go into tech details, they're far beyond me! that's why I post here when I have problems - ) Automatic updates are fine, but not if we don't understand what they're all about - tech details just fly above my head :) yes, xp was easier for me, but I had problems from earlier windows os - sorry, my mind is running out about now, so back to the 'experts'
  • 0

Advertisements


#11
shawbroth

shawbroth

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
As aforementioned in the above posts your vista experience all depends on your system specs. I run vista on my notebook and XP on my desktop. I use both pretty frequently The differences are minute once configured to you own specifications. I wouldn't consider myself a power user, but have spoken with a few windows admins and they all fall on the xp side of the fence. no real answer was given why, just having to do with preference.I also use linux so im a fan of the command line. The command prompt is slightly different in vista, some commands you can no longer use. This is where i feel the differences lie between the two versions. When its time to use the dos prompt its XP all the way.

Edited by shawbroth, 22 December 2008 - 08:13 PM.

  • 0

#12
JoxonDandry

JoxonDandry

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
The best solution is to wait for the official release of Windows 7.
  • 0

#13
lavagolemking

lavagolemking

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts
I also dislike Vista, for several reasons. The first, and most obvious is that it's slow. I just got a new XPS and it's capable of running Vista efficiently, but it's way faster to put something else on it, such as Ubuntu which boots and connects to wireless in less than 30 after the computer is turned on. Sure my computer meets the requirements, but that doesn't mean something else won't run faster. A professor from my school also told us of some alleged programming practices at Microsoft, which he says "Vista never recovered from". The computer science department installed it on everything on their network and nearly everyone who isn't in their IT staff is unhappy with it. Secondly, I do not like the user-interface. I used to hate graphical effects in file browsers, but with compiz in Ubuntu, I'm not so sure anymore about what I hate about the interface, but I still don't like it. I was never bothered by the UAC cancel/allow thing, but I've heard it's not quite what it's made out to be, at least not when it came out. People found ways around it, and with many users turning it off due to annoyance, it really doesn't do them any good. Having liked TeaTimer in SpyBot for all these years though I hardly noticed.

I also aim to avoid it also for political reasons. Aside from the monopolistic tendencies of Microsoft, according to this web page, Vista was basically built from the ground-up as a DRM engine. As a fan of open source software and freedom, I very much disapprove of that philosophy and as a statement of support for less restrictive operating systems, I use Linux as my primary operating system. I won't get into detail with the politics, so as not to start a flame war, but let's leave it at the fact that copyright law was never intended to give content producers the right to say you can only watch a movie in certain countries or many of the other things it's used for nowadays. There is also the controversy behind shrink-wrap contracts, in that you agree after you buy the product, are given no way of opting out (you have to get a refund to opt-out, and you're ineligible if it was OEM). Unfortunately for me, it was pre-installed and I have to keep it there if I want to get the benefit of my 3-year warranty.

Edited by lavagolemking, 04 January 2009 - 03:21 AM.

  • 0

#14
JimB007

JimB007

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts

As aforementioned in the above posts your vista experience all depends on your system specs. I run vista on my notebook and XP

You must be joking. I think I already said it somewhere, but I run Vista Premium on a brandnew LENOVO notebook too, and I already said it I guess, yes I did quite some tweaks. Explorer locked up from time to time b4, as well as some programs, bootup time was slow b4, blue screen, all this within 2 weeks etc... After some tweaks that I did within a few weeks, the OS still locks up quite frequent (explorer and app's). The only thing I haven't seen reappearing are the BSOD's. And if 2.1Ghz CPU and 3Gb Ram aren't enough I'm sure nothing will be enough.

There is something wrong with the memory management of Vista. Vista will always use your max memory available, since the OS looks what you're most freq app's are and what their memory usage is, and it reserves this memory, so that it will immediately be available if you need it. Well that's the theory behind it. I think it just doesn't deliver quick enough that so-called memory that was reserved.
  • 0

#15
lavagolemking

lavagolemking

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 282 posts

I think I already said it somewhere, but I run Vista Premium on a brandnew LENOVO notebook too, and I already said it I guess, yes I did quite some tweaks. Explorer locked up from time to time b4, as well as some programs, bootup time was slow b4, blue screen, all this within 2 weeks etc... After some tweaks that I did within a few weeks, the OS still locks up quite frequent (explorer and app's). The only thing I haven't seen reappearing are the BSOD's. And if 2.1Ghz CPU and 3Gb Ram aren't enough I'm sure nothing will be enough.

Depending on the nature of these tweaks, you may be in violation of that somehow legally binding contract nobody ever reads, which you agreed to when you clicked "I accept". From their End User License Agreement, section 8,

8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some
rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you
more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this
agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only
allow you to use it in certain ways.
For more information, see
http://www.microsoft...nsing/userights. You may not

  • work around any technical limitations in the software;
  • reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that
    applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;
    use components of the software to run applications not running on the software;
  • make more copies of the software than specified in this agreement or allowed by applicable law,
    despite this limitation;

It's my opinion that you shouldn't have to consult an attorney (or risk another DMCA lawsuit) for using your computer in ways Microsoft sees unfit, so I try to avoid Vista altogether. It's a shame that OEM and requirements to use Vista if you want the hardware warranty coverage under you already paid for make that impossible. To complicate the legal mess, Microsoft has several web addresses in their agreement with terms you're also bound to. This means that they can change the terms at any time without notice and the user is the one responsible for checking those web pages for any added responsibilities in their MS contracts.

There is something wrong with the memory management of Vista. Vista will always use your max memory available, since the OS looks what you're most freq app's are and what their memory usage is, and it reserves this memory, so that it will immediately be available if you need it. Well that's the theory behind it. I think it just doesn't deliver quick enough that so-called memory that was reserved.

It actually doesn't do that for me. It constantly uses a minimum of 1 GB of my 3 GB RAM but usually doesn't surpass 2 GB. Maybe I require less memory for all my applications combined (I don't play games too often), or maybe it's something specific to your architecture. That reminds me of something else I may have forgotten to mention. I often get better driver stability out of Ubuntu; everything on my computer just immediately works, while with Vista I have to reboot through 3 instances of "your newly installed hardware might not work correctly until you restart". Sometimes the hardware (such as the wireless card) doesn't work at all until you download the driver, while it works from the Ubuntu LiveCD. To me, that really says something about Vista's driver stability.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP