speed of vista

[Zim Babwe]

You are a Vista Retard

I bet you print "vista" labels for all your food and glue them on to the
products you have in
your refrigerator...

Vista Jam, Vista ketchup, Vista baloney....etc Anything that is junkfood
and has artificial coloring and flavoring, you turn into vista chow.

Yes siree, Im sure you eat lots of Vista baloney (Bologna)... anything to
keep that brain working
at a crawling pace! (Just like vista works... you have to keep those 2
synchronized ya know!)

 

[Jeffrey S. Sparks]

Mine is running faster under Vista than XP was...

Jeff

 

[Dale M. White]

Could you guys quantify "faster" Feels faster and seems faster is rather
subjective. From a video gamer's perspective, there is nothing faster about
Vista. If all we're talking about is boot time and maybe how fast a
application launches, then I'm I'd go with "Vista feels faster"

And what does Core 2 Duo have to do with anything ?

 

[Richard Urban]

No. He's an MVP who know his computer inside and out. He has been using the
same hardware for over a year now and made no extra concessions when Vista
was installed.

So............................. Sorry Friend!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User

 

[philo]

Will upgrading to Vista, make my computer slower then it is now?

For those who use Windows Vista already, have you realize a difference in
the speed of vista over XP?

It would be great if you also post you computer specs.

Just idling...Vista uses about 100 - 150 more megs of RAM than XP...
but seems to run about the same. It's not noticably better or worse.

 

[Justin]

Faster all around. Application launch, menu browsing, waiting for lists to
populate...as well as what you mentioned.

Maybe instead of faster, "more responsive" would be more appropriate?

 

[Justin]

I bet you print "vista" labels for all your food and glue them on to the
products you have in
your refrigerator...

No, I don't.

Yes siree, Im sure you eat lots of Vista baloney (Bologna)... anything to
keep that brain working
at a crawling pace! (Just like vista works... you have to keep those 2
synchronized ya know!)

No, I don't.

 

[Consultant]

lighten up francis

No. He's an MVP who know his computer inside and out. He has been using
the same hardware for over a year now and made no extra concessions when
Vista was installed.

So............................. Sorry Friend!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User

 

[ThePro]

And what does Core 2 Duo have to do with anything ?

It's the CPU.

 

[Dale M. White]

I know that it's the CPU, I'm wanting to know how it ties into the
statement, which implies, a core 2 Duo is faster under Vista than XP or that
Vista is faster than XP, because he's using a Core 2 duo. Eitehr which way,
I'd like more details

 

[Dale M. White]

Now I could probably get on-board with that kind of description. maybe I'm a
special case, but I did a clean install of XP, about 2 weeks before I
installed Vista. So other than the login "seems" a little faster, nothing
really seems faster or more responsive under Vista than XP. I still think
some people are comparing a 2+ year old installl of XP to Vista, which after
2 years of junk build up, Vista will be equally slow if not slower than the
XP install.

 

[Adam Albright]

I know that it's the CPU, I'm wanting to know how it ties into the
statement, which implies, a core 2 Duo is faster under Vista than XP or that
Vista is faster than XP, because he's using a Core 2 duo. Eitehr which way,
I'd like more details

A better answer is does your application software exploit the Intel
Core 2 Duo features? If yes then all things being equal yes your
system should be faster under Vista than XP since Vista has had many
of its subroutines that have caused processing bottlenecks refined. If
or not you notice really depends. Super fetch for example is only in
Vista. For more:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page2.html

 

[Leythos]

Will upgrading to Vista, make my computer slower then it is now?

For those who use Windows Vista already, have you realize a difference in
the speed of vista over XP?

It would be great if you also post you computer specs.

Thanks.




I'm running right now a,

Intel Pentium D 2.8
1GB of Ram
128MB 7300 Nvidia graphics card
160GB hard drive

On EVERY computer we've installed VISTA on, from a wiped drive, not an
upgrade, that was running XP, we seen Vista require MUCH more in resources
and runs about everything slower.

Typical machines are:

1) P4/3.2ghz HT, 1GB RAM, 256MB AGP8x video
2) Dual Xeon 3ghz, 4GB RAM, 256MB AGP8x video
3) Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 512MB PCIx video

Each of these machines installed Vista with few issues, but, nothing in
vista proved to ENHANCE performance or operation of daily business
functions.

 

[Leythos]

Just idling...Vista uses about 100 - 150 more megs of RAM than XP...
but seems to run about the same. It's not noticably better or worse.

LOL - My fully loaded XP Prof machine, even running IIS, uses less than
270MB ram when loaded and idle.

The same machine hardware, with a from scratch copy of Vista Business
installed, without any other software loaded, without AV software, uses
690MB of RAM. The same setup on a Dual Xeon machine with 4GB RAM uses
890MB just sitting there.

 

[Lee Waun]

My dual core AMD also runs faster with Vista 64bit.

 

[Dale M. White]

You know in that article you posted, Vista loses to XP in all almost all the
benchmarks right ? It's partly based on Tom's report that I've said I've not
seen anything showing Vista beating XP and even in most of the wins or
losses, the difference was fairly minor (less than 5% in many cases) which
goes back to me wondering if it's just a case of "Feels faster' versus is
faster

From the conclusion section

"Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower
than under Windows XP.....We are disappointed that CPU-intensive
applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the
MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard
benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP.
There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions
to this issue"

 

[Rich Weimer]

Will upgrading to Vista, make my computer slower then it is now?

For those who use Windows Vista already, have you realize a difference in
the speed of vista over XP?

Is your XP using NTFS FAT FAT32?

I think Vista uses only NTFS.(slower but better)

As for computational speed. How could there be any change at all if they
both are using the same processor and Vista is not running a Virtual system,
right? Don't they both use WIN32 kernal? don't they both use MS net
framework?

The only decrease in speed in Vista would be because of the fancier GUI in
Vista and that would only affect applications that heavily use the GUI
(Games).

Vista also has more bells and whistles but those also come with a price.

Does XP come with multiple processor support? - could make a big
difference depending on computer too.

Dick

 

[Stephan Rose]

Mine is running faster under Vista than XP was...

And your XP install was how old and how cluttered up?

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Stephan Rose]

Is your XP using NTFS FAT FAT32?

I think Vista uses only NTFS.(slower but better)

As for computational speed. How could there be any change at all if they
both are using the same processor and Vista is not running a Virtual
system,
right? Don't they both use WIN32 kernal? don't they both use MS net
framework?

And the .Net Framework is a pig. And yes, I've worked with it for years to
have enough experience to say so. Great for simple UI applications, bad for
anything that needs to do any heavy computing.

The only decrease in speed in Vista would be because of the fancier GUI
in Vista and that would only affect applications that heavily use the GUI
(Games).

Actually that is incorrect. Games usually never use the system GUI, they
always use their own. They are actually the least affected by the system
GUI.

Vista also has more bells and whistles but those also come with a price.

No they don't. I can do things Vista can only dream of and i don't pay the
price.

My current memory usage is 240 megs and 60 megs of those are used by
applications I am running leaving 180 megs to the OS and related services.
Even with beryl enabled, which makes aero look pale in comparison, I am
barely scratching 300 megs.

Plus I am also running a multi monitor setup so I have two desktops to
support, not one.

Does XP come with multiple processor support? - could make a big
difference depending on computer too.

Yes XP Professional does.


--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Rich Weimer]

And the .Net Framework is a pig. And yes, I've worked with it for years to
have enough experience to say so. Great for simple UI applications, bad
for
anything that needs to do any heavy computing.

Please elaborate on that statement. Assuming you have programmed in it for
years what other technologies are you comparing DOT.NET with?

Actually that is incorrect. Games usually never use the system GUI, they
always use their own. They are actually the least affected by the system
GUI.

Read the article here.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128961-page,1/article.html

No they don't. I can do things Vista can only dream of and i don't pay the
price.

I have Vista Premium and the minumum recommended memory is 1024MB.
that is the price. Maybe Microsoft is wrong and it can run on 24MB like NT4?

My current memory usage is 240 megs and 60 megs of those are used by
applications I am running leaving 180 megs to the OS and related services.
Even with beryl enabled, which makes aero look pale in comparison, I am
barely scratching 300 megs.

Again Vista premium minimum recommended memory is 1GB. It is better to have
too much than not enough!

Plus I am also running a multi monitor setup so I have two desktops to
support, not one.

I am running windows 2003 and my peak memory commit charge is 951,880 MB
and without any major programs runnning.
If you are careful and know what you are doing you can stretch your memory.
I do it all the time.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

????????????????
??????????????

What langauge is that? Is that from Vista? What does that mean?
Can you read that?
I need a Chinese interpreter.

Richard