Vista vs XP: Stability

This is one issue I hear very different things about. On the one side lots of people say that XP is more mature and because of this, it is more stable (crashes and such). On the other side of the argument is that Vista is better made from the ground up, and that its past its baby-issues and now it's the better OS.

I would really like to know this as I'm going to start doing serious work on my laptop, and I get a fair amount of crashes on XP (around 1 a week). What are your personal experiences on the subject?

 

Vista Ultimate w/ SP1 for me has been a beauty The last 4 months or so it has never crashed on me once, no blue screen or whatever and working around is pretty neat as well, and I think the organization/layout is a lot user friendly too.. And this is the first time I ever started using Vista, when I got this laptop and I have been in love since Just my opinion Desktop at work has XP Pro... I'm not saying its bad, but these days I think I prefer Vista Ultimate more Its feels good and nice and neat with everything it does... secure too with all the protection and lot more features to work with.. setting it up is pretty neat as well, with some wonderful help and guide' from people like Les who have made a beautiful sticky thread here Cheers.

 

Probably lots of search results for this, but anyway...

I used XP from 2001-2007. It didn't crash much but it I did have hardlocks, softlocks and other problems which crept up a couple times a year, sometimes a few a month. Nothing too bad though--I still love XP like a lot of forum readers.

I've been using Vista for one year now. I've had two crashes which caused system instability requiring a restart. No hardlocks. Several program-specific crashes (sigh TF2/Steam/CSS and Firefox3) but really, that's it.

I only hibernate my laptop so Vista's uptime is around 20 days right now (last rebooted for an update), but yeah stability is fine.

 

I'm a real fan of Vista Ultimate x64 w/ SP1, but on my Notebook there is some kind of a power issue that causes BSOD so I ended up using XP on it, its one of those baby issues. XP maybe more mature, but XP has also reached its limits in terms of improving and it even being out shined by most free OS, I would say if you can deal with some miss steps while things are worked out use Vista.

 

I've been using Vista for a while now (a few months) and it hasn't crashed on me yet, save a few power outages, but that's not Vista's fault. I'm also dual booting XP on the same machine and I've been using that for years. Haven't had problems either.

Whenever I see threads elsewhere that bash Microsoft and it's products, I always think, "man, what are these people doing on their computers?". It's sad that those people have bad experiences with Windows, but Windows really isn't bad.

I love both XP and Vista, but if I were you, I'd go with Vista since XP is getting pretty old already. Not much difference on the stability part.

 

I have been running Vista Home Premium since June of 2007, and updated it with SP1 when it came out. I have only seen one BSOD in that entire time, and it was due to an error in my judgement in installing Comodo firewall.

 

Post SP1 vista is just as stable as XP was/is. As well as it performs the same.

 

I used XP as my primary OS from 2002-2008, and it was always fairly stable (i.e. only 1 BSOD in 6 years - fried MB). The only problems I really had with XP stability were programs not responding, which happened fairly often. I can't honestly say I ever get 'crashes' though with either XP or Vista. IMO, they are pretty even in stability, although it seems like Vista doesn't require frequent restarts like XP does, in order for the system to run smoothly. When I run XP, I have to restart once every couple days. With Vista, I haven't rebooted in 2 weeks and haven't lost any performance.

 

*sigh* why does everyone on NBR support a terrible operating system? Even with sp1, vista is slower than XP:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=4

(First website if u search windows xp vs vista sp1)
Vista dosen't offer any reason to switch over XP... There's basically no software thats vista dependent, but there IS software that runs on XP but no vista... I see no reason of going that route.

Granted Sp1 is a huge improvement over the vanila vista, its still inferior.

Remember windows ME? An analogy for you.
Vista is to XP as ME is to 98.
Vista is going to be replaced very soon with windows 2008, just wait until then, and have a good new operating system, rather than a quickly put together crap of an operating system.

 

^^Im sorry, since when were speed and stability the same thing? The least you could do in your response is say something that correlates with the question at hand. SP1 helped Vista alot, and as long has you have the proper hardware, it will work well. While different people will have a different experience, generally, Vista is not nearly as bad as many people make it out to be.

 

Very well:
http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-vista-versus-windows-xp-reliability/


Quote:
"There is no doubt that Vista is less reliable than XP. It is still a young operating system and all the compatibility issues and badly programmed device drivers certainly do their part to make Vista seem less stable than XP; so it will take some time for Vista to catch up with XP in this area. We all expected that, but it doesn’t mean that Vista is an unstable operating system. At least since the release of SP1, Vista is certainly ready for prime time."

Exactly what I said... Its better, but still inferior, with no reason whatsoever to switch.
All the features now included in vista have been available as third party programs for years, most of which are also more efficient.

 

Whether one thinks XP is better or Vista is better, one thing's for certain:

Vista 64-bit owns XP 64-bit

 

Quickly put together? Um... yeah, it's not like Vista was in development for nearly five years or anything.
I have ME and 98, and I use both daily. The pc's specs are identical except that the 98 box is an Intel while the ME box is AMD (one was originally a high end gaming 98 box, while the other was a later mid/low range ME box). The ME box is *brace yourselves* 2-3 times faster. It boots in <1 minute, restart is <1:30.
ME, for all its rep, wasn't overly terrible, and Vista is far from it.


EDIT: And posting four to six month old articles from sites I've never heard of (well one of 'em I have) isn't doing a lot to back you up.

 

The date on the article dosen't matter, because it compares sp1, which hasen't changed in the past 4 months.
Also, you probbably HAVE herd of Zdnet, but if you haven't, millions of others have: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/zdnet.com

Edit:
http://www.techradar.com/blogs/article/is-windows-vista-the-new-windows-me--385014?artc_pg=2

^^ More recent, and from a reputable website, just for you.

Quote:
"Windows Me ended up with the nickname ‘Windows Mistake Edition’, and it’s possible that Vista will end up with the same reputation.

We’ve tried Vista. Some of us have rolled back to XP. But we’re hoping that, beyond any touch screen gimmicks, Windows 7 will finally bring the features and stability that Vista failed to deliver."

 

Ah the good old February '08 article. Of course you are entitled to your opinion...but many of us feel Vista is not a 'terrible' OS, and even *gasp* prefer it over XP

Wasn't the topic about Stability? I'm surprised, it actually took longer than expected for the first Vista hater to arrive to this thread. Thanks for contributing nearly nothing about stability between the two. Kudos.

 

Anyone who compares Vista to ME has zero credibility in my book. These users probably have never used either, they just spout the same tired lines.

Vista is far more stable than XP was for me. Right now my Vista desktop has 32 days of uptime where XP would start to flake out around 20+ days of daily use. Vista also handles software crashing better where in XP it would usually take down the whole system.

 

There's a negligible different.

 

Wrong...
I've used vista for a week, and ME for two months.
Ran 3dmark, and other benchmarks on vista before I reformatted to Xp sp3... Saw probably a 5% performance gain on average... not to mention that vista crashed on me 3 times in that week, while Xp hasen't yet in 3 months.
ME used to crash on me daily. ME and vista are the operating systems to skip... Just wait for windows 7


Edit:
Can anyone else provide any evidence that vista is now MORE reliable than XP? I seem to be the only one able to provide anything from reputable websites.

 

I am not really interested in getting into yet another XP vs Vista holy war.

Run whatever you like and keep it to yourself.

 

You used Vista for a week?....Wow what an open-minded individual you are!

Also, it doesn't take much to google "XP more reliable than Vista" or vice versa...

Anyway, why is atbnet wrong? Vista was more stable for him, while XP is more stable for you. Why are you right? Isn't this subjective?

 

A whole week, wow! Seems like your mind was already made up before hand and nothing would convince you otherwise. I am glad I didn't base my judgement of XP after my first week of using it. XP pre any service pack was a pile of ****.

 

You've used Vista for a week and you dont like it...hm...Im sure there was absolutely no bias there....You made your decision with complete impartiality right?

Here we go with 3dmark...are you serious, youre comparing the OSes using benchmarking software!? Thats a joke right?! How does that even compare stability again? THIS THREAD IS ABOUT STABILITY!! Also, if XP always gives me issues but Vista doesnt once, which is better for me?

 

I haven't had any real "stability" problems with the NT kernel in many years. I think the last BSOD problems I had were with a Plextor CD burner in Win2K back in around 2001. XP has never given me any trouble, and Vista x64 has been rock solid.

I don't tolerate instability. Random crashes simply should not happen. Ever. If I boot up a box, and walk away from it for a week, when I turn the monitor on it should be where I left it and ready to be left on for another week. Or month. Or year. My systems have no problem meeting this expectation.

 

The past two threads i've bashed Vista in, thats all i've heard. Gimme some proof, just ONE link!

 

I've been running Vista exclusively since June of 2007, have run every operating system from Microsoft back to Windows 2.1, and have made my living in computing since the 1970's.

So, yes, I am backing out of this "discussion".

 

"Having made such a hullaballoo about Vista’s security, Microsoft can at least take comfort from the fact that our experts and PC Authority’s readers are convinced the new OS is safer than its predecessor, although the company may need to look again at the constant nagging of UAC if it wants to prevent users from switching off a potentially critical feature. It also appears to be a job well done on the new interface, with most people appreciating Aero Glass and the redesigned Start menu."

http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Feature/106588,xp-vs-vista.aspx/19

 

First, most of your links are old and about performance.

Secondly, I think you need reading glasses.

http://4sysops.com/archives/windows-vista-versus-windows-xp-reliability/

There's your proof from your own links.

 

it says vista x64 is more reliable than xp x86, and vista x86 for the same reason, only because it dosen't allow anyone to write a driver for it, which means it won't be able to run alot of hardware/software.

we're comparing vista x86 and XP x86, not 64bit editions, which are too early in infancy for the general consumer.

@NAS Ghost
Its more secure, because it asks you every 2 seconds if you want to do something.... Shut off that annoyance, and its no more secure than XP.

and another trend:
windows 98 required 16 megs of ram, 2000 required 32 megs, XP requires 64... if we continue this, vista should require 128 right?... Nope, it requires 512, and really needs at least 1024 to function whatsoever. If that continues, windows 7 should require 4GB, and function with at least 8GB.

 

Oh now you want to make restrictions to further preserve your bias. Gotcha!

Try Vista x64 for more than a week and you'll be impressed. I've been using it for eight months now without any problems.

 

No x64? Why not? Both exist for XP and Vista but you dont wanna include them?

Oh so you admit that Vista is more secure than XP?

 

This is why I don't include them:

http://www.geekie.org/technology/software/2008.02/147.disadvantages-windows-xp-x64.web

"Though Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (I’ll just refer to it as x64 Windows from now on) comes with 32-bit editions of the same DLL’s in order to support most 32-bit programs written for “normal” Windows , many programs simply do not run on x64 Windows."

And no, I admit that vista x64 is more reliable than xp x86 and vista x86, simply because you can't run most software on it, only signed drivers will work. If you can't run all the software you want, you are obviously going to crash less.


Again, its more secure, but only to people who don't know anything about computers, who open random exe's, and install random programs/cracks which often have viruses in them. And even so, they'd still just click the "confirm" button, so its really no help anyway.

 

Golly gee, you're right you convinced me....I am now uninstalling Vista and ordering my XP disc. I mean it's pretty evident you gave Vista a fair chance (1 week) and it simply didn't cut it. Seriously though, what are you hoping to accomplish?

Also, isn't x64 able to run all x86 programs? You just don't see any improvement as you may with programs specifically designed for x86? I thought the only thing different w/ x86 was having to find signed drivers...

 

I agree my personal experience with vista is a bit short, but that only adds to the number of times i've heard my roommate curse across the room at why vista is doing this, or that, running slowly, crashing.

I just want to make sure the starter of this topic dosen't get stuck with a crappy operating system.


And no, x64 Can't run all x86 programs. they have to be written to support the operating system (see my link above). If what you said was the case, i'd start using vista x64 in a heartbeat (given it would work with all my hardware as well)

 

This just gets better and better. Talk about officially fitting the mold.

Well wait now, is your site really reputable or not?

"However, it is also a matter of fact that now most Vista compatible 32-bit apps work on Vista x64 as well. Actually, it is hard to find software that runs on Vista x86 but not on Vista x64."

http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-x64-vs-vista-x86-is-software-compatibility-still-an-issue/

The link you posted earlier about x86 programs not being compatible w/ x64 is from 2004...

 

Hmm................

 

I've been using XP for several years, never had a BSOD exept once because of some bad drivers. The computer was freezing some times and whenever a program stopped responding, there was no solution exept the big button END PROCESS. But XP did the job. When I switched to Vista, whenever my windows stopped responding, I just had to wait a little bit. Vista got some improvements over XP but it stays a big OS with no major improvements.

If you have XP, keep it. If Vista came with your PC, keep it; don't downgrade. If you have the choice, go with Vista x64

The main reason for crashes and all is caused by 3rd part applications as some are poorly coded and have poor drivers. For example, Mac OS is a pretty stable system but just try a 3rd party app and it crashes a lot more than the bundled softwares.

And instead of complaining about UAC and the "Run as Administrator", just use the Administrator account (go in Computer Management) so you will have all the priviledges you had with XP.

 

@ Itomix:
Wait, you claim you've bashed vista in two threads prior to this, and with say an average of 10-15 posts in each (based on how long this is heading to be) that leaves little over 20 posts (out of your 70) not bashing Vista.
Are you a self confessed troll?

If you can read the first three pages of this and absorb what you read, come back and I may listen to you then!
Otherwise, take your week of Vista and shove it up your ***. Pre SP XP was dire, pre SP Vista was dire, pre Updates ME was dire (I have week long uptimes on it now, only resetting to flush it) - they all were and likely always will be.

 

Again, here's someone who throws itself at conclusion without even reading the full article.

Quote for the link: Update: I am back on 64-bit Windows and compatibility has improved drastically. 64-bit is becoming mainstream.

 

I dont think hes a troll, rather he just has some bias with him. Its understandable; one person said Vista sucks and the world followed. At first, XP was the clear winner, similar to the 100m dash in the Olympics, but now after Vista has had some time to mature, have some updates, its getting much better than it was at its initial release.

Also, most driver issues with x64 are with legacy hardware/software, not usually stuff thats been updated recently

 

First off, http://www.ntcompatible.com/Google_Earth_c13165.html
Google Earth is rated "five stars" for XP64 and Vista x64 compatibility.

http://forums.techarena.in/windows-x64-edition/945602.htm

Secondly, I'm interested in knowing where all this x64-incompatible software is. I have been on Windows x64 exclusively for 18 months and have yet to run into anything that has failed to run simply due to it being Windows x64. My games run, my apps run, random apps I have tried off the internet have run. I'm not hindered in any way, and since all of my computers have 4GB+ of RAM (my gaming rig has 8GB), I am able to enjoy all this inexpensive RAM to the fullest.

What are some apps you know don't run under Windows x64, that you're not gleaming from inaccurate websites?

 

Whats there to read? Not one of you privided a single piece of evidence, all was from "personal experience"

I agree XP sucked even after sp1, it wasen't until sp2 than it was worth switching to over windows 2000, which is what is happening with vista. SP1 is an improvement, just not enough to justify upgrading to vista. Maybe when sp2 comes out i'll reconsider, but for now, i'll keep my cpu cycles for something useful.


@ S.Subzero:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/30/iphone-not-supported-under-64-bit-windows-xp-or-vista-oops/

hmmmm

 

Since you have never used it, you won't know that Vista x64 runs 32 bit software just fine. I have yet to come across any software that won't work.

 

Hmm, glad to see another one year old article of proof from you. You're doing a great job at proving you're an ***.

 

OK. I can't resist. I am back for this one!

Yes, be sure to save those CPU cycles. I hear that you can make a 4% return on them in the CPU cycles futures market. Good god man! They are a transient event; if you don't use the CPU in the moment, the cycle is forever gone! Unless, of course, you have some sort of quantuum computer! Burn all the cycles you want! Use them, or buy a slower processor and spend your hard-earned CPU money elsewhere!

 

Good job double posting.

Didn't check the date on that article, but here's something updated:
http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Windows_Vista_RTM_Software_Compatibility_List

Granted, alot of things work... but I want EVERYTHING to work.


@AKAJohnDoe

Yeah, if i'm not currently doing anything, that dosen't matter... But if i'm using 100% of my CPU for something, that 5% nonesense that vista uses for nothing, translates to a 5% loss of performance.

 

Lol, this is quickly becoming a classic thread.

Keep the "reputable" sources comin'....

 

Sorry, I forgot you don't know how computers work.
See the word "this" in my post? It's actually a link to a webpage (Stop me if this is getting to be too much for you). You can tell by the way it's blue, italic and underlined.
Try left clicking on it and it will lead you to an article!

 

http://yukichigai.googlepages.com/iphonex64

Also, iTunes has supported Vista x64 for a while.

The article you quote is dated June 30th, 2007. It's 14 months old.

 

the comparison given is good but u hav to notice how xp is on SP2 while vista is on SP1. im not sure abt this and correct me if im wrong but i THINK xp sucked wen it came out and became better after the service packs. and who knows....wat if windows 7 (2008) isnt as good as expected--i mean vista was supposed to be the best and all but it didnt turn out so good.