I am breaking up with Vista

[Glordit]

so is it ok to load xp on a separate hdd? I was thinking of getting another 500mb hdd for my pics and movies anyway.

500Mb... I think you mean 500GB and pic's and movies... I wonder?

As for the Crysis DX9 config's they have some configs that make Max detail DX10 look like krap!
Screwit! I would go with Ubuntu 64bit but since they don't have great Game support and .mkv/.rmvb players I'm probably sticking to XP!

 

[sdd]

ooops ... I meant 500GB .... :0

 

[Glordit]

ooops ... I meant 500GB .... :0

lol, still got a 500Mb Seagate around here somewhere ^_^

 

[pjjdp]

so is it ok to load xp on a separate hdd? I was thinking of getting another 500mb hdd for my pics and movies anyway.

I do, on different partitions though. On my trusty 3 year old notebook and my home pc.

Home pc is lightning fast with Vista. Notebook, well is ok with either one.

Here is some good reading

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=239
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=240
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=241

 

[kronoSX]

So many dislikes,I hate vista but...I am inlove with it..kinda a love/hate relationship.
So my baby crashes every night(sound driver issues for 11months already)..so what i just restart again and continue my love.

 

[milomak]

you should never load different os's on the same hdd end of story

linux would like to disagree

i am not the greatest MS fan but besides actually having to ramp up your system specs to use it, Vista seems ok to me.

 

[general_koffi]

A bit off-topic : but has anyone loaded XP and Vista on the same HDD? Any problems with this dual boot arrangement?

I did it for a while. The only problem was that Vista took longer to boot because it was stored in funny places on the disk - not the boot sector. This happens with any dual-boot on one HDD.

I can't imagine how Vista would delete XP files, unless you tried something really stupid like putting them on the same volume...

Honestly, I've never had any real issues with Vista, beyond Hitman Blood Money and Star Wars KOTOR 2 giving some trouble. Compared to the shock that was Windows 2000/XP over Windows 9x, that's nothing.

 

[|tera|]

I did it for a while. The only problem was that Vista took longer to boot because it was stored in funny places on the disk - not the boot sector. This happens with any dual-boot on one HDD.

I can't imagine how Vista would delete XP files, unless you tried something really stupid like putting them on the same volume...

Honestly, I've never had any real issues with Vista, beyond Hitman Blood Money and Star Wars KOTOR 2 giving some trouble. Compared to the shock that was Windows 2000/XP over Windows 9x, that's nothing.

I can't remember where I read it, but it was something like a pagefile or hibernation file or some system file. Also, some people have problems with games running on Xp when they're dual booting.

I bet it isn't as bad as I may have sounded though sorry

 

[a3dm86]

vista (ultimate with regular updates) is much more user friendly, i love the way it just fixes itself (i'm lazy).
i needn't install any drivers (except mbd&gfx) so far, printer, bt, router, zen etc.
even the internet and wlan settings pretty much sorted itself out.
granted, it does take longer than xp to start up, but once its on, it goes like anything.
i'm using the this installation for 6 months now and i haven't had the urge to re-install it, whereas xp i will be re-installing every other month.
i think the moans are just the same for all new, perculiar and unfamiliar products.
once you've accustomed yourself thoroughly with it and have the hardware to run it properly you will enjoy it.
technology will always be changing and you have to keep up with the times, trends and jones's

 

[HavocXphere]

i'm using the this installation for 6 months now and i haven't had the urge to re-install it, whereas xp i will be re-installing every other month.

The difference is a Vista install take 1.5+ hours while an XP install takes <15 minutes. (Timed both, includes SP1 install time on Vista) Also annoyed at the fact that one can't do a true slipstream with Vista...only this weird re-imaging stuff that vlite does. Why...the previous method was perfect.

 

[a3dm86]

to be honest, i don't know whats slipstreaming about.
isn't that when you add all the patches and updates on to the install file?
for what i use and need my pc for (assignments, movies/series, internet, basic gaming) i see no problem with vista

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

The difference is a Vista install take 1.5+ hours while an XP install takes <15 minutes. (Timed both, includes SP1 install time on Vista)

Maybe include SP3 on XP then, or slipstream them both.

Not sure how you'd get to those numbers except for a long SP1 install, Vista didn't seem too much slower than XP for me. Last time I installed Vista though it was heavily vlite'd though.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

to be honest, i don't know whats slipstreaming about.
isn't that when you add all the patches and updates on to the install file?
for what i use and need my pc for (assignments, movies/series, internet, basic gaming) i see no problem with vista

Slisptreaming means the integration of the Service Pack files into the install CD.

Basically it means that you can "merge" XP with SP3, and only need to install XP once, with SP3 already installed, without having to install XP, then install SP3 afterwards.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

Vista will go the way of OS/2.

To be honest, I was an OS/2 fan, and was patient sitting through the installation process - until I decided that I can spend my time doing better things without having to waste my time doing reinstallations.

 

[HavocXphere]

Maybe include SP3 on XP then, or slipstream them both.

Not sure how you'd get to those numbers except for a long SP1 install, Vista didn't seem too much slower than XP for me. Last time I installed Vista though it was heavily vlite'd though.

XP was SP2 slipstreamed. Vista was retail install (~35 min) and SP1 standalone install (~55 min). Dunno why it took so long....Vista doesn't seem to like my rig for some reason.

The Vista installer interface is nice though...esp that it gathers all the info at the start so the long install doesn't matter so much.

I'm running a vlite'd Vista atm (about half the retail size)...didn't help much speed wise. Plus Vista doesn't like my Sound & LAN card. Might have something to do with x64 though.