New Test Vista Sp1 Vs Xp Sp3

[Guest Reimar]

There two articles with a new test comparing Vista SP1 vs XP SP3 done on the same computer with same test running. The result shows that a change from XP to Vista will be a loose of performance and everyone should think twice before consider to change!

As I've to deal with both OS I need to run them and frankly, i\Vista runs well for me. But to get it that stage was a quite long journey and I've to tweak Vista down to the bottom. What I've done will be impossible for the most of the users for many reasons. It isn't easy at all!

Pesonally I would suggest Vista to Users with a lot experiences only. All others should stick with XP. XP is a great system and very stable as well. In the real, there isn't any really need for change special if everything works fine. In Vista some of the first thing anyone will get in cinflict with are the Drivers for some older and even new Hardware. Ok, that isn't a foul from MS but from the hardware Manufacturer. But Vista stucks with it and that's the only point which is counting!

But go ahead and read the articles. I haven't copy the whole articles here and to read the full you'll need to go to websites, follow the links for that.

Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test

New tests have revealed that Windows XP with the beta Service Pack 3 has twice the performance of Vista, even with its long-awaited Service Pack 1.

Vista's first service pack, to be released early next year, is intended to boost the operating system's performance. However, when Vista with the Service Pack 1 (SP1) beta was put through benchmark testing by researchers at Florida-based software development company Devil Mountain Software, the improvement was not overwhelming, leaving the latest Windows iteration outshined by its predecessor.

Vista, both with and without SP1, performed notably slower than XP with SP3 in the test, taking over 80 seconds to complete the test, compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP's 35 seconds.

Vista's performance with the service pack increased less than 2 percent compared to performance without SP1--much lower than XP's SP3 improvement of 10 percent. The tests, run on a Dell XPS M1710 test bed with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 1GB of RAM, put Microsoft Office 2007 through a set of productivity tasks, including creating a compound document and supporting workbooks and presentation materials.

In response to the test, a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement that although the company understood the interest in the service packs, they are "still in development" and will continue to evolve before their release. "It has always been our goal to deliver service packs that meet the full spectrum of customer needs," the spokesperson said.

...............................Full Article

******************************************************

Windows XP SP3 Twice as Fast as Windows Vista – Leaves Vista SP1 in the Dust

- Vista SP1 is no match for XP SP3

Forget about Windows Vista. And forget about Windows Vista SP1. Microsoft's latest Windows client has been quite sluggish to begin with. This in both consumer adoption and in terms of the performance it delivers. As the operating system was crawling along, while performing the most common of tasks, even "speed bumps" seemed an integer part of the road's landscape. Right, that was uncalled for... But still, even on its best day, Vista is slow, and the first service pack for the operating system will change nothing in this aspect. Windows XP SP3 simply flies in comparison to Vista, SP1 or no SP1.

...........................................

>>(Extend the Memory in an additional test from 1 to 2 GB)

...........................................

"By providing Vista (SP1) with an additional 1GB of RAM (that's a total of 2GB for those of you keeping score) we managed to achieve a "whopping" 4% improvement in OfficeBench throughput. Moving from Office 2007 to Office 2003 definitely improved Vista's showing. Instead of being over 2x slower than XP on the same OfficeBench workload, Vista is now "only" 1.8x slower", the Devil Mountain Software added.

Full Article

[Guest Reimar]

One more article found at NeoWin

C|Net shows no love for Vista yet

Oh dear! It seems that there are no allies at CNet when it comes to Windows Vista. I can only imagine that their IT department is still firmly attached to Windows XP on all their clients (except of course some very poor test machines). Anyway, a bright spark at CNet HQ has clocked Vista in at Nr 10 on their article: Top ten terrible tech products, with the Sony Rootkit fiasco just ahead of Vista at Nr 9. The list even includes the Sinclair C5 as the worst tech product, will Sir Clive ever be forgiven for that?

Do our active members even know what a C5 is?

Heres what CNet have to say about Vista: Any operating system that provokes a campaign for its predecessor's reintroduction deserves to be classed as terrible technology. Any operating system that quietly has a downgrade-to-previous-edition option introduced for PC makers deserves to be classed as terrible technology. Any operating system that takes six years of development but is instantly hated by hordes of PC professionals and enthusiasts deserves to be classed as terrible technology.

Windows Vista conforms to all of the above. Its incompatibility with hardware, its obsessive requirement of human interaction to clear security dialogue box warnings and its abusive use of hated DRM, not to mention its general pointlessness as an upgrade, are just some examples of why this expensive operating system earns the final place in our terrible tech list.

[ukjackthai]

Thanks OP!

Where and when can i get this XP SP3 ?

I have a dell laptop similiar to the one mentioned in your post but I got the 2GB RAM model. It had windows XP media centre installed on it but i reformatted and installed Vista ultimate but now i want XP SP3! Could i get the update with Dell's XP media centre installed on it? How can i reinstall XP but keep the movies + MP3's i downloaded whilst running vista?

Personally, been having no problems with Vsta so far.. all hardware installed, everything running smoothly. But i would like to operate from a more stable platform - XP.

Thanks.

[Wolfie]

Personally, been having no problems with Vsta so far.. all hardware installed, everything running smoothly. But i would like to operate from a more stable platform - XP.

I've found Vista to be as stable as XP (in fact slightly more so) - I've never seen a Blue Screen of Death on Vista, I've never had processes crash (explorer process etc), Had no viruses and all but 1 item has working drivers (my web cam, which is really old doesn't work - but i don't use it anyway so no loss)

Speed isnt really an issue since i upgraded my home pc, but then its never had XP on it so i couldnt compare it to be honest.

All in all, a satisfied Vista user here... especially as it was a free copy

[Guest Reimar]

Personally, been having no problems with Vsta so far.. all hardware installed, everything running smoothly. But i would like to operate from a more stable platform - XP.

I've found Vista to be as stable as XP (in fact slightly more so) - I've never seen a Blue Screen of Death on Vista, I've never had processes crash (explorer process etc), Had no viruses and all but 1 item has working drivers (my web cam, which is really old doesn't work - but i don't use it anyway so no loss)

Speed isnt really an issue since i upgraded my home pc, but then its never had XP on it so i couldnt compare it to be honest.

All in all, a satisfied Vista user here... especially as it was a free copy

Wolfie you're right and as I wrote I'm ok too. But to got there was a quite long way! And if I compare Vista with XP, it's depend on the computer Vista is faster or not. On computer with Dual Core 2 CPU Vista is faster than XP if you've 2 GB memory or more. But on single Core CPU XP is faster!

But with SP3 installed XP is faster even on Dual Core 2 CPU!I've both installed on different but same model HDD an the same computer. It'e an AMD X2 Core 2 Atlohn 3800 plus with 2 GB memory.

Vista with SP1 (RC Preview) is slower than XP SP3 (RC1). The time for an Excel Spreadsheet to filtering took with Vista app. 5 min but with XP 3 min and that's a big difference!

ukjackthai:

there is an hack available with which you can download SP3 from MS. But I can't post the location! Its nearly 400 MB!

[Guest Reimar]

I got an PM from Veazer with an question and I think that others should be know this as well. So I'll display the PM here:

Can you try the same test using Windows Server 2K3 with the latest service pack? In my experience, Win2K3 is faster than WinXP or Vista. I would be very interested to see the results! Unfortunately my dual core is dead right now.

There's a great article about using Win2K3 as a desktop OS here.

I use this app to make it work more like XP:

http://www.kood.org/win-2003-optimize-tool/changes/

Once you take the time to enable hardware acceleration and other essential things in 2K3, it is very fast! I know it is not an affordable OS, i just think it is important to show how well it works.

I had done this testing with MS Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP2 as well using the same Spreadsheet and the time need was just 2 min 10 sec. for the same filtering.

The Spreadsheet I use for this testing is nearly 50 MB with an huge database of Thai Companies. This spreadsheet contains various infos and is exellent for to do some testings. An other file I use sometimes for to test Graphic Cards and CPU's is an AutoCAD file to rendering to 3D in 3D Max. may I do the testing with this file in the next days.

But Server 2003 is a great OS and if you know how to "adjust" the OS for your use you'll have the fastest and stables OS MS ever launches until right now!

[Veazer]

I had done this testing with MS Windows Server 2003 Enterprise SP2 as well using the same Spreadsheet and the time need was just 2 min 10 sec. for the same filtering.

The Spreadsheet I use for this testing is nearly 50 MB with an huge database of Thai Companies. This spreadsheet contains various infos and is exellent for to do some testings. An other file I use sometimes for to test Graphic Cards and CPU's is an AutoCAD file to rendering to 3D in 3D Max. may I do the testing with this file in the next days.

But Server 2003 is a great OS and if you know how to "adjust" the OS for your use you'll have the fastest and stables OS MS ever launches until right now!

Thanks for confirming my suspicions Reimar. So not only does XP fly past Vista, Server 2003 flies past XP!

I was told some time ago about the performance of Win2K3 as a desktop OS but didn't take the person seriously. As a former systems admin, my experience with server operating systems was quite the opposite (I was an NT4 admin).

I finally took the time to install 2K3 after reading the article above and see if it could live up to the hype. I was very impressed with 2K3 and still am, it is an amazingly fast and stable OS.

After seeing what it can do, I think M$ has really taken the wrong path with Vista.

EDIT: typo

Edited November 28, 2007 by Veazer

[Veazer]

Not to hijack the thread, but as long as we're comparing XP to 2K3 here's another interesting test...

On XP:

On 2K3:

That's a 3D benchmark, aimed at gaming, performing 24% faster on a server OS using the same pc.

Images are from the discussion here.

[Guest Reimar]

I'm not a Gamer!

If I do testings I use normal software under normal conditions.

Comparing the different OS systems you can only on the same computer may just on different HDD's, but that HDD's must be the same Model!

Ok, there some limitations on Server OS systems. Many of the Anti Virus programs didn't work or the Server versions are very expensive. But for the most of this kind of software you can find even Freeware which will work just fine. Other Limitations in some Multimedia Software. But again even here you can find usefull replacements which will works fine.

To "tweak" a server OS you need to know a bit about the Server Rules and Network, Firewall and Sercurity settings to be able to enhance the system without to "open" the OS for attacks and so on.

I haven't done it yet but I planning to install my only famous Game (Flight Simulator X) on Server 2008 to compare with Server 2003 but I'm quite sure that server 2003 will still better and faster on the same computer. As I tested the server 2008 until now, the Web Edition is exellent and better than Server 2003 Web but the Enterprise Edition is more slow on Server 2008. The Server Management on server 2008 is much more easy than on server 2003 and that is the only advantage I see in server 2008 until now. But that can change with the final version because Server 2008 is still in beta testings!

And the Security on the Server OS, both 2003 and 2008 out of any questions!

[Veazer]

I'm not a Gamer!

If I do testings I use normal software under normal conditions.

I understand that, i was just trying to show that Server 2003 seems to outperform XP even in tasks we wouldn't expect a server to be good at, in this case Direct3D apps.

[nikster]

Oh my, once even shameless MS fanboys like C|Net start hating Vista, things are dire! Let's look forward to Vista SP2. Alternatively, let's look forward to eight-core 4GHz systems. Whichever comes first

[cdnvic]

So the seven year old OS runs faster on the same machine than the brand new one? Wow... quite the dramatic insight there.

[Guest Reimar]

Server 2003 was launching end 2002 and that's 5 years.

But nevertheless it's true that the Server 2003 OS runs better than any other MS OS since than: Faster, more secure and more stable!

And funny may that the Windows Home Server is using Sever 2003 SBS as basis system instead of Server 2008!

An other advantage of Server 2003 is that this OS need much less power and memory than XP or Vista or even Server 2008!

[nikster]

Vista will eventually be faster than XP simply because most engineering resources are directed towards Vista. Bugs will be fixed, performance problems worked on, drivers be optimized and new hardware features taken advantage of. An old OS will not in general be faster than a newer one. Dual core is a great example - Windows 98 or OS 9 won't know what to do with 2 cores, let alone 4 or 8.

The question is when Vista will pass XP - given the initial impression, the complexity involved and the messy architecture, my prediction would be mid-2009.

The biggest problem with Vista in my book is: What does it do for me? Or more specifically, what does it do better than XP? I appreciate the slightly slicker graphics, but I also have a whole laundry list of things it does worse than XP so that makes Vista the clear loser.

[sjaak327]

I don't get that vista bashing all the time.

I mean I run a series of OS including OSX 10.5.1 (Leopard) and cleary the most usefull of the systems I run is Vista, it's on par with XP, but simply runs a little bit faster on my machine, but more importantly it is more advanced. Media Centre for instance just looks better then the MCE running on XP, it's withouth a doubt much more secure, (at a price I know) and it is at least as stable as XP, even though I also have to see the first BSOD.

[cdnvic]

You'll find the most Vista bashing coming from non-users.

[pumper]

<h1 class="title">i wish i didn't have such an investment in windows apps.

i also wish i had the youthful cognition / ability to learn new apps .. on the a new OS / platform.</h1><h1 class="title">>>>>>>microsoft lawyers are forced to tell the truth<<<<

</h1><h1 class="title">Vole proves Vista incapable</h1>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/27/vole-proves-vista-incapable

>NOT EVEN MICROSOFT is quite certain what the "Vista Capable " marketing slogan exactly means, it would seem, as a product manager failed to correctly explain exactly what it's all about, reports PC World.

A lawsuit filed earlier this year claimed that The Volish Ones misled the general geeky public with its Vista Capable slogan, claiming that "a large number" of Vista Capable PCs could only run Vista Home Basic, the very simplest (and crappiest?) version of the OS.

While Microsoft has argued that it's spent a fair bit of time on making clear to the public and OEM hardware partners about that Vista Capable malaerkey, a Volish manager was stuck for words when lawyers asked him to explain what capable exactly meant.

Mark Croft, marketing director, said, "Capable is a statement that has an interpretation for many that, in the context of this program, a PC would be able to run any version of the Windows Vista operating system."

He continues: "Ready may have prompted concerns that the PC would run in some improved or better way than capable, therefore this word capable was deemed to be a more fitting word for the program."

Hold on a minute Mark, Vista Capable doesn't mean that yer new box can fire up any copy of Vista, but only a specific version. Like the Crappy Version, Home Basic.

Croft later corrected his statement after a Vole caught his tongue. "Our intent with Capable was that the system would be able to run a version of Windows Vista," said he.

He admitted that Microsoft hadn't done any market research to see if Vista Capable could "cause any consumer to make the very mistake that you made."

He said, "nawrh." Or something to that effect. µ<

[LivinLOS]

I like many others done see the fuss...

Win98Lite is fast as hel_l.. runs in less ram than I have on my mobile phone.. But I dont use it as my desktop OS..

Vista is a bit of a hog, but moores law means I can now load gigs of ram and stick a readyboost stick in.. I am sure in years to come we will look back at the XP desktop and think it looks as old and clunky as a win98 one does now..

Also I read on another site (and I didnt verify this so take it for what its worth) that they tested XP with office 2003 and Vista with office 2007.. If that is true its not apples to apples..

[Guest Reimar]

This is an Update of the posted Report and can be viewed HERE

Update: Retesting Vista with 2 GB Ram and Office 2003

Many of our members have requested that we re-test Vista SP1 with 2GB of Ram instead of the 1GB we used in our original tests.

Note: We added the Windows XP (SP3) results to the chart to add further context to the Vista results. As before, all tests were conducted on the same Dell XPS M1710 system w/2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and DDR-2 667MHz Ram.

A few members voiced their concerns over the use of Office 2007 under Vista. They suggested we re-test using Office 2003 on both Vista and Windows XP. Here are the results:

Analysis: Moving from Office 2007 to Office 2003 definitely improved Vista's showing. Instead of being over 2x slower than XP on the same OfficeBench workload, Vista is now "only" 1.8x slower.

To quote Darth Vader: "Impressive...most impressive."

[Guest Reimar]

A new Report from MS speaks a different language! But is it true?

Judge by your self:

Microsoft hones its internal sales pitch for Vista Service Pack 1

With all the controversy as of late regarding the extent to which Service Pack (SP) 1 will improve Windows Vista’s performance, what is Microsoft saying?

Microsoft hones its internal sales pitch for Vista Service Pack 1Externally, not much. Throughout 2007, Microsoft officials have tried to downplay SP1, hoping to convince users that they don’t need to wait for the first service pack before moving to Windows Vista. As a result, executives have been less-than-forthcoming when it comes to the performance gains they expect Vista SP1 will deliver.

Internally, however, the company is promising some pretty hefty improvements for users who install SP1, according to sources.

I hear that Microsoft is telling its own employees - whom it is hoping to convince to install the new escrow build of te Vista SP1 Release Candidate (RC) test build in order to give the code a final check before the company begins making it available to testers outside the company — that Vista SP1 will:

* Improve by 25 percent local file copying on the same disk on the same machine

* Improve by 45 percent the speed of copying files from a remote non-Windows Vista system to a SP1 system

* Speed up by 50 percent the rate of copying files from a remote SP1 system to a local SP1 system

* Improve the reading time for large images by roughly 50 percent

* Improve the time to resume from standby for a “certain class” of USB hubs by about 18 percent

* Improve the performance of user login on corporate PCs outside of the corporate environment so that it is comparable with login inside companies

What else will Vista SP1 fix? Microsoft is dangling these other SP1 improvements in front of its employees internally, sources said, including:

* Reduction of the number of User Account Control (UAC) prompts from four to one when creating or renaming a folder at a protected location

* Improvement of compatibility with third-party diagnostic tools that rely on raw sockets

* Addition of a password hint during the initial set up of Vista SP1

* Resolution of many of the most common causes of crashes and hangs in Vista, especially those involving Windows Calendar, Windows Media Player and a number of other drivers included with Vista

Microsoft is expected to make the near-final Vista SP1 RC code available publicly in mid-December. The final version of Vista SP1 is due out in the first calendar quarter of 2008.

I’m curious whether any of the 15,000 external testers who’ve been dabbling with the Vista SP1 RC preview build that Microsoft made available in mid-November have seen these kinds of performance improvements. Anyone care to share?

Source

[kat]

Personally, been having no problems with Vsta so far.. all hardware installed, everything running smoothly. But i would like to operate from a more stable platform - XP.

I've found Vista to be as stable as XP (in fact slightly more so) - I've never seen a Blue Screen of Death on Vista, I've never had processes crash (explorer process etc), Had no viruses and all but 1 item has working drivers (my web cam, which is really old doesn't work - but i don't use it anyway so no loss)

Speed isnt really an issue since i upgraded my home pc, but then its never had XP on it so i couldnt compare it to be honest.

All in all, a satisfied Vista user here... especially as it was a free copy

Wolfie you're right and as I wrote I'm ok too. But to got there was a quite long way! And if I compare Vista with XP, it's depend on the computer Vista is faster or not. On computer with Dual Core 2 CPU Vista is faster than XP if you've 2 GB memory or more. But on single Core CPU XP is faster!

But with SP3 installed XP is faster even on Dual Core 2 CPU!I've both installed on different but same model HDD an the same computer. It'e an AMD X2 Core 2 Atlohn 3800 plus with 2 GB memory.

Vista with SP1 (RC Preview) is slower than XP SP3 (RC1). The time for an Excel Spreadsheet to filtering took with Vista app. 5 min but with XP 3 min and that's a big difference!

ukjackthai:

there is an hack available with which you can download SP3 from MS. But I can't post the location! Its nearly 400 MB!

You'll find the most Vista bashing coming from non-users.

As you guys know from previous posts, I have been struggling with Vista on my 3-month old Dell PC and I am about to give up. Everything that Reimar posted in that article conforms to my experiences. Literally every month since I've gotten the PC, I have been on the phone at least once a month for hours at a time with Dell tech staff. They all parrot the same party line: everything is fine, etc., no complaints.

I have seen the blue screen THREE times, after never seeing one in my life, my internet access becomes blocked because of automatic updates even after the technician has blocked automatic updates, it's not as fast as it should be, and now 2 days ago, I suddenly couldn't access the internet with either Firefox or Internet Explorer because of updates from McAfee. It takes hours to fix, and the tech has to go into the MS Configure mode to fix it. I am not a techie, and do not want the hassle of constantly having to follow around new problems to fix.

I am in hel_l, and I don't think an upgrade to 2GB is going to fix it. Right now, I am back on line because it took me two 3 hour chats with the techies to go in and find and disable the firewall situation on my computer. Everything was installed by Dell when I bought the computer. We had to de-install and re-instatll McAfee and Firefox. I'm in hel_l.

I've never had these problems, and I resent being the guinea pig for Microsoft on a computer that I bought from Dell, and didn't have the choice of what software I wanted. I don't think this issue is going to be full resolved by just more memory.

I have a Intel Core Duo CPU T2350 @ 1.86 GHz and 99 GB, or 1014 MB. (Inspiron e1405).

&lt;deleted&gt; the SP1; I'm switching. I've never done this before, so of course advice and feedback welcome. I know I have to back everything up, etc. Any other advice?

Fully appreciated, guys.

Edited November 29, 2007 by kat

[Ping]

Personally, been having no problems with Vsta so far.. all hardware installed, everything running smoothly. But i would like to operate from a more stable platform - XP.

I've found Vista to be as stable as XP (in fact slightly more so) - I've never seen a Blue Screen of Death on Vista, I've never had processes crash (explorer process etc), Had no viruses and all but 1 item has working drivers (my web cam, which is really old doesn't work - but i don't use it anyway so no loss)

Speed isnt really an issue since i upgraded my home pc, but then its never had XP on it so i couldnt compare it to be honest.

All in all, a satisfied Vista user here... especially as it was a free copy

Interesting - I wonder how long you have had Vista, Wolfie? I bought Vista HP when I got my new system (at market release of Vista). The shop put it all together and sang me a tale of woes about the dramas with installation of Vista with the set-up I had ordered (lack of drivers for peripherals/incompatibilities with XP drivers).

Previously, I had been using Windows '98 - so it was a fairly significant jump for me and I cannot compare it with XP. However, it is (obviously) far more reliable than the frequent BSOD of Win 98. Software support was a problem initially (Vista drivers) for peripherals but has improved immensely in a short period. Nonetheless, I still occasionally experience the BSOD/process crashes. Even out of the box, Windows' own Calendar (for example) was extremely unstable, but seems to have improved over the course of the various updates. I am also getting the occasional Explorer crash - particularly when running Flash (latest version) - but I expect that this and the other minor problems will also be resolved with updates over time. The biggest issues for me are:

- the security features overkill (I could write a book about this problem - even involving some software on Microsoft's own website)

- the refusal to install Office 97 (I am retired and refuse to be forced to make an expensive update to software that is adequate for my purposes - now using the free Open Office suite)

- the refusal to/run install some of my other older Win 98 software.

In short, for me Vista has a lot of pros but many cons - let's hope MS gets its act together re some of those cons.

[Wolfie]

Interesting - I wonder how long you have had Vista, Wolfie? I bought Vista HP when I got my new system (at market release of Vista). The shop put it all together and sang me a tale of woes about the dramas with installation of Vista with the set-up I had ordered (lack of drivers for peripherals/incompatibilities with XP drivers).

I had it from about a month after release, the first month or two had some issues with drivers, but once all the vendors released the final version its been plain sailing since then...

As you guys know from previous posts, I have been struggling with Vista on my 3-month old Dell PC and I am about to give up. Everything that Reimar posted in that article conforms to my experiences. Literally every month since I've gotten the PC, I have been on the phone at least once a month for hours at a time with Dell tech staff. They all parrot the same party line: everything is fine, etc., no complaints.

I have seen the blue screen THREE times, after never seeing one in my life, my internet access becomes blocked because of automatic updates even after the technician has blocked automatic updates, it's not as fast as it should be, and now 2 days ago, I suddenly couldn't access the internet with either Firefox or Internet Explorer because of updates from McAfee. It takes hours to fix, and the tech has to go into the MS Configure mode to fix it. I am not a techie, and do not want the hassle of constantly having to follow around new problems to fix.

I am in hel_l, and I don't think an upgrade to 2GB is going to fix it. Right now, I am back on line because it took me two 3 hour chats with the techies to go in and find and disable the firewall situation on my computer. Everything was installed by Dell when I bought the computer. We had to de-install and re-instatll McAfee and Firefox. I'm in hel_l.

I've never had these problems, and I resent being the guinea pig for Microsoft on a computer that I bought from Dell, and didn't have the choice of what software I wanted. I don't think this issue is going to be full resolved by just more memory.

I have a Intel Core Duo CPU T2350 @ 1.86 GHz and 99 GB, or 1014 MB. (Inspiron e1405).

&lt;deleted&gt; the SP1; I'm switching. I've never done this before, so of course advice and feedback welcome. I know I have to back everything up, etc. Any other advice?

Fully appreciated, guys.

Sounds to me like you've had a bad install or something, either way theres a fundamental problem with the version your running, there is no way a company would release such a bad product and your experiences do not match either my own or the other hand full of Vista users i know personally. My recommendation would be to get hold of your product key then goto Pantip and buy one of the 100b copies of vista, but make sure its not a hacked version! Just a straight mirror copy of the original disks. Do a fresh install, entering your original product key instead of the dodgy one that came with the copy.

What do you have to loose?

You have to have had a bad install for this kind of behavior, send me a PM if you want any help with that

[Guest Reimar]

For those of you want to test the working with SP3 in XP, you can download from TV, just take a look at the File Library.

[Guest Reimar]

Just added the Vista Transformation Pack 8.0.1 to the downloads. It's the latest Release of this program and supports both XP and Server 2003.

File size is app. 28 MB

[Tywais]

For those of you want to test the working with SP3 in XP, you can download from TV, just take a look at the File Library.

I just finished the download and will take it home to try it out. Will install on a Virtual Machine version of XP, no point in taking chances.