Originally Posted by Apokalipse
* Vista is slower
* file copying, from one hard drive to another, often will only reach just over one megabyte per second. And copying to a USB drive will struggle to reach a few hundred kilobytes per second
* Vista is much less controllable
* Vista has very annoying features. You disable UAC, and the security center complains. You disable the security centre, and the OS complains.
* network transfer speeds are slower
* it boots up slower
* it takes up a significant amount of hard drive space. (I have 2.4TB, and I still don't like it)
Windows XP with SP2 (or with SP3), simply works as it should.
I know Vista has its problems, but to be fair, I'll have to say that I haven't experienced some of these problems.
* I can copy to a USB drive much faster in Vista than I could in XP because XP didn't recognize that I had USB 2.0 slots, and I couldn't find any drivers anywhere to make it work. Vista recognized it OOTB and its USB speed is on par with my Ubuntu install, which is fast.
* I turned off UAC and
security center warnings and now nothing ever
complains. (who cares about security, right?)
* Mine boots up just as fast or faster than my XP did. It's just the shutdown that takes about 10 minutes for some reason.
I'm sorry you may have had these problems, but evidently it's not always like that.
But if you have an older rig that won't run Vista, and you don't have the cash to upgrade, I can see why you would need XP support.