Hm your are unlucky I hda no crashes from xp at all but we never updated it to sp3, I think we got xp 6-8months after it came out.

What type of crashes are you talking about the type that the computer goes kaboom and has make sure you disk is not corruted or it just completely freezes up and you cant do anything wich is not a crash (its you cliking to much)

I cheer your emancipation from Vista!

I had more crashes on XP than Vista too. I prefer Vista 100%

I found best way use IE and click on my account when in forums and then can update ok.

Welcome back as Fuzzy Logic. much better than Deionychus IMO

I've never BSOD'd in Vista and I don't think I ever did in XP either but when I had(shudder) ME, it was a daily occurrence.

   I had no problems changing my Compaq f500 notebook over to XP from Vista. And , lucky me, HP had all the XP drivers for my rig ready for downloading.   Then I found 2GB of ram at walmart for an affordable price. Changed my notebook back to Vista, thinking the extra ram would matter.....NOT!!!  Vista still sux, even with 2.5 GB ram.  So, now I am thinking of going back to XP again. Dual booting worked, but I want to lose Vista altogether. The only thing Vista does for me that XP don't is Vista run dreams more smoothly. And UAC is driving me nuts!!! I know how to turn it off, but then I have nag screens, popup warnings, etc.   

   So as I think about going back to XP, again, I wish Fuzzy Logic, Spock, would come back to us. I vote Fuzzy!!!!    

I wish someone would give a valid reason why Vista is better than XP.

Looking at my screen now, I see no difference between the two. Well, that isn't strictly true. In XP I have a usable start menu, and Windows Explorer hasn't got any clutter or any mouseover nonsense.

Oh, and games like UT2004 (a favourite of mine) romps along at 2-300 fps instead of the miserly 75-80 Vista can manage.

People just won't admit Vista is a pup.

Vista was supposed to be a new visual experience blah blah. But really, with all these incredible Stardock programs to play with, Vista kinda missed the boat.

Thinking about it, I hardly ever use the start menu, with all the Stardock's apps for short cuts. I find the Vista programs feature much cleaner to use than the XP's 2 or 3 full screen menus that pop out.

I'm feelin warm and Fuzzy..... I know we never spoke but I miss Scotty's expression, hehe

Welcome back.

I forgot all about the bsod. The only time I had it in XP was with the bklaster worm and I've never had it in Vista. Might as well go back to win9x if you really want to impress.

I prefer XP over Vista for the simple reason of less "safety features" if you get my meaning. XP I tell it to do something, it does it, or at least tells me why it can't do it and then I make it do what I want anyway.

Vista it's constantly "Are you sure you want to install this program?" Are you sure you want to startup this program? This program may not be installed properly. Are you sure you want to shutdown the computer?

At least XP let's me save money on aspirin.

You can do the same in Vista by disabling UAC... it's no biggie and you can do what you like, with no need for aspirin, tantrums or strait jackets.

I hear you all, agree with some disagree with others...

But, point here isn't in going from one dead horse to another or from one pig to another... 

I also used to run Vista and XP and 2000 and 98 and 95...

But then, after plenty of "aspirins" and various forms of frustration and utter pain I made rather balled move and switched to OS X

13 months later:

- not a single crash

- not a single virus

- not a single trojan or other bs file 

- plus perfectly clean XP installation via Bootcamp for all my gaming needs

= the ultimate computing experience

In short - whenever I see thread like this I remember old days and feel with you all

I built a new quad core PC earlier this year (my brother in law is an Intel Rep - free motherboard and top line CPU!). The word from my computer geek friends is that Vista was a memory hog, prone to driver-related crashes, would not work with some peripherals, and had some performance problems. XP worked fine with me, so my new rig got XP. I've had no problems whatsoever.

What is telling for me is that my company (engineering) has not migrated and has no intention of migrating to Vista. When 98 was replaced by XP (ME and 2000 weren't considered except for specialty business computers) it took only a year before the rollout. Of course, 98 DID have stability problems. Why aren't they jumping onto the (small) Vista bandwagon? Our IT guys have told me that VISTA doesn't play nice with other XP PCs (a problem during the middle of a rollout that takes 2 years before all PCs cycle off lease), and that changing over ten thousand PCs at my company, upgrading the servers, and dealing with hordes User Issues is not something they want to deal with. XP is well understood and works just fine. Plus, Vista is such a memory hog that PCs that have lots of company security and specialty software become brain dead doorstops unless they massively upgrade the memory. And why go to the extra expense when XP works?  

So, I'm happy with XP. Once I have a reason to switch I will.

Hydro