Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I assume that it will work for a while, but no new updates.
The main reason I decided to upgrade to Windows Vista this weekend, was when I looked back my security update history on Windows XP.
I saw that Microsoft added lots of security updates during the past few years.
That made me realize how risky it would be to simply keep using XP after April 8th.
I would not only be worried about viruses and malware, but also the possibility that someone puts a key logger onto my system, that would record everything I type on my keyboard, including passwords.
Vista takes forever to load compared to XP. If anything, I hope to upgrade to 7 one of these days.
Yes .... fully agree. Vista does take longer than XP to boot.
My Windows 8.1 laptop boots in around 1/3rd the time of XP. But I keep my Windows 8.1 laptop in sleep mode all the time, and I just hit the power button, and it turns on immediately.
I will eventually buy a newer desktop PC with Windows 9 installed when it gets released next year. I will get one with Windows installed on an SSD drive (solid state drive), so it boots immediately.
7 Boots faster then XP. Fact.
People assume because it's newer it smply MUST take longer. It's bigger and more bloated, right? Wrong. The boot time has been decreased even on the weakest machines. Windows 7, Vista, and XP Bootup Benchmarks Updated
XP was a great OS but it started showing its age when I could no longer get the latest version of IE to work with it. Ironically, that's what pushed me to start using Google Chrome.
7 Boots faster then XP. Fact.
People assume because it's newer it smply MUST take longer. It's bigger and more bloated, right? Wrong. The boot time has been decreased even on the weakest machines. Windows 7, Vista, and XP Bootup Benchmarks Updated
I just installed Vista Ultimate with SP2, and it seems to take a little longer to boot than my previous version of XP Pro with SP3.
So I'm not sure if the above website is 100% accurate for all PCs?
My desktop PC has nearly identical specs to the one they used in the above test. Mine was built around 2008.
The difference could be that some of my hardware drivers and other start up programs simply take longer to load on Vista than on XP?
Or maybe Vista has additional new features that XP didn't have, which are being loaded at start up time?
I also used AutoRuns to manage my start up programs in XP, so it booted only the things I absolutely wanted. That may also be the reason Vista is taking longer to boot?
Honestly, IMO, Vista isn't slower but not even remotely noticeably faster.
7 is. The thing about 7 too is that it is more "ready" when the desktop loads. Not like XP where you still have to wait a minute or so for XP to "settle down" and really be ready, if you know what I mean.
On the same machine certainly it would, 7 would take even longer.
My experience is the opposite. When I moved from Vista to 7 (all hardware stayed the same), everything about the machine was faster. Even after reinstalling all of the same software.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
