Frankly, Win95 performed better

[Kovale]

Well, recently i just bought a brand new PC:
Q6600
8800GTX
2GB RAM
Vista Home Premium came pre-installed.
So.... considering that this is a brand spanking new computer with an
uncluttered drive and a modern OS (fully upgraded) i wasn't expecting the
sheer amount of tedium that I am getting in terms of performance.

It takes about 10 - 15 minutes to start up. Thats right, from the first
green Vista loading bar to the time when i can open the first program i have
to wait an unreasonable amount of time.

Sometimes, during normal operation, applications and control panels take an
insane amount of time to open, the system sitting strangely idle in this
delay. This is not to mention the constant freezing and crasing. And for a
system which takes an impressive amount of drive space and performance to
run, peripherals that were installed fine on XP are unable to load drivers.
But this is merely obvious banter, so lets focus on one problem at a time;
the initial bootup stage.

Recently, i had the pleasure of using an ancient Pentium 3 machine which was
running XP. I was astounded by the swift loading times and razor performance
which my leviathan rig obviously couldn't match.

Now i have gone to the trouble of disabling any superfluous services running
on Vista, disabling the flashy-yet-useless graphical effects , running a
thorough anti-virus scan and ensuring driver compatibility. Albeit to no
avail.

As dearly as I would love to "downgrade" back to Windows XP, and even though
i possess the disc, the product code has been "retired" by Microsoft,
possibly due to a number of re-installations over the years. So i guess i am
stuck with Vista.

Please tell me, what can a performance freak like me do to get the system to
boot in under 10 minutes?

 

[Bob J]

Check out link below, advice on setting up PC to run better
http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/81176-speed-up-performance-vista.html
--
Regards
Bob J
If advise given from anyone, solves problem or not, or if solved from
another source,post back & let us know.
Then we all benefit.



"

 

[Jacob2000]

Well frankly, you are comparing an operating system that has had nearly 6
years of repairs to it, to a new operating system that is just about to have
sp1 released. Vista is the future, as simply put as i can be. I remember xp
having a lot of the same problems that you mention with vista, when it was
first released. Generally, it appears to me, after nearly 20 years of using
MS operating systems, that it takes 1 1/2 to 2 years for MS to work out the
kinks, and for the software developers of the millions of components out
there, to decide if its in their best interest to try to patch an old piece
of software or hardware to work with the newer OS. That quite frankly isnt
MS' fault. It is usually companies like HP, Dell, Gateway (to name a few)
that decided that it wasnt worth their time and money to fix something that
is obsolete. They simply make new products to work on the new OS.

When I upgraded from windows 3.1 to windows 95, a lot of my old programs and
hardware didnt work anymore. Same when I went from 98 to xp. So its no big
surprise when upgrading to vista, that my 5 yr old printer that I got with
XP, no longer had drivers available for much more than its basic functions.
Thats the price of progress.

As for comparing your old Pentium 3, to the newer quadcore system. thats
comparing apples to oranges, for the same reasons mentioned above. You might
as well compare an intel 8086 to the pentium 3, and windows 3.1 to windows
98.

There was a big difference in the technology back then too. I bet you
wouldnt use windows 3.1 vs windows 98, and the same being true for windows 98
vs windows xp, or to finish the conversation, and extend this logic, to
compare windows xp to vista. Its a completely different ball game, and a bad
comparison.

 

[WinGuide]

I just came across this, and I'm sorry to say this but why the heck do people
have to disable features that a new OS gloats about to make it run. That is
rediculous! I'm sick of Microsoft adding useless features, and also sick of
all of these software companies putting loads of demo software, and crap on
new computer systems. This stuff didn't happen back in the 1990's.
I am using Microsoft Windows 95 right now, and it's true that USB support is
not supplied. I do have wireless Internet and Networking, I can watch any
type of video on the web...and can watch any media too. I can do all the
things newer PC's can do minus hooking up digital cameras and anything USB.
And I don't have to worry about Viruses or Malware, or Adware. I don't even
have a virus scanner...and won't need one.
I do have a new MAC that I use for film editing, but listen folks. These new
Windows OS's are not good at all.
I hate ot say it, but even though my computer is technically not faster than
those running Vista, I'm sure it performs Better.
Microsoft Windows 95--where do you want to go today?
Microsoft Windows Vista--Your potential, not ours.

 

[Jacob2000]

If you are still using windows 95, 98 or 2000, then I must say that you are
in trouble. Since MS no longer supports those OS', then all the known hacker
holes in those OS's are there and there is almost nothing that can be done by
you to stop a hacker from getting into your system! So in that sense, those
OS' are now obsolete. Sorry but technology has ran past you on that.

So you are also missing out on USB. Which means you are missing out on the
speed, convenience and portability of USB products. Better graphics in video
games (comparing 95 to vista), better hardware such as soundcards, video
cards, dvd/cd burners, better software such as High definition dvd players,
and video/photo editing. That doesnt sound to me like windows 95 is better
then vista!

The conversation and the general thing that I am trying to allude to is the
fact that technology keeps grinding ahead.

To make an analogy of computers and cars. At some time you have to throw
out the Model T and upgrade to a newer 2008 car. Yah a Model T will get you
there, but it may take you 3times longer and without the nice, quiet, easy
riding cab, AC, heater, lights, safety advancements, fuel economy, etc. Same
goes true with newer computer operating systems. You end up having to pay a
bit more the nicer things in life. But as a result, your overall experience
with that newer computer will still be better then one made 5-10 years
before. Just like when people had to learn how to operate new features on
cars, so too is it your responsibility to learn the new features of an
computer OS.

 

[On the Bridge!]

windows 95b supported USB

Ignorance and arrogance are the vista way. Vista is the worst version of
Windows ever, and this means yes it is worse than win95.

--
What people are REALLY saying about Vista:
http://www.microsplot.com/news/2007..._people_are_really_saying_about_windows_vista

50 Ways to leave your Vista....

CHORUS:

You just format the drive , Clive
Get a New Mac , Jack
Y'don't need that crap toy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Boot from a *nix, Jix
You don't need to discuss much
Install XP, Lee
And get yourself free

 

[Jacob2000]

In theory.. yes.

In reality.. not very well!

It really took windows98/xp before usb really took off because the usb
drivers in 95 were junk.

I still will say that XP is still far better than 95! If you gave people a
95 machine and a xp machine, very few people will choose a 95 machine as
their main machine!

As for Vista being worse than any previous version, I strongly disagree! I
think that windows 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 was far worse than windows 98 or xp or
vista!

Yah there is some stupid things in vista, but overall, vista is still far
better than the any 16bit windows! Vista is an OS that does have many "new"
things in it that people have to learn. Thats probably the biggest problem
is that people are just not willing anymore to learn. They are content on
the next 100 years of windows being virtually the same in looks and feel.
But technology changes and people will have to change to meet it.

BTW, there is several ways of making VISTA look and feel like XP. I have
turned on several of those because I too wasnt willing to completely jump
onto the Vista bandwagon. As I get use to the feeling of vista, I have
turned some of those things back on to the original vista defaults.

Over all, I think that some of the first impressions vista made on people
turned them off to vista. Things have improved in the past 1yr since it has
been released and its much better. Those people still using any Pre-xp os
needs really badly to upgrade their computer. If not, then you are a hackers
best wet dream... A VERY OPEN AND VUNERABLE OS!

 

[On the Bridge!]

even Microsoft bob was better than vista

If you take into consideration the "time frame" of each OS, vista is POS....

if XP was a great OS in (sp was released in 2003?) then you would imagine
that
vista would be super duper great..... yet it is WORSE than XP in many
aspects...

only one time you could say that a new version was worse than the previous
one, and that was windows ME

but windows ME had good ideas at least, only the kernel it was using was
crappy..