Some Vista/XP Observations

[Ex-COC]

I have an Asus with AMD DC 4.2GHZ, 5 SATA II drives and am testing Vista on
another partition. Some observations from comparing Vista and XP:


1. I have some folders with over 220GB of MP3s. XP Explorer choked when
trying to do a detailed view on the contents so I use Opus when in XP. Vista
could handle it without any problem.

2. Copying a full 4.7GB DVD of image files from DVD to HD took around 40
minutes in XP. Vista could do it in less than 13 minutes.

3. Adding files in Media Player 11 took about 30 minutes in XP. the same
folders took around eight minutes in Vista.

4. I have about 300 videos in Media Player. Vista got thumbnails for all in
the first pass. XP is still working on it after a hundred openings.

5. Media Player also performs a lot better under Vista. the album JPGs come
up so much faster.

 

[non flammable]

your observations are faulty, probably due to some driver problem on your XP
installation

XP outperforms Vista hands down on every test I could throw at it
and similar results have been found by many people...

your XP install has something wrong with it... that's the only explanation
because Vista is slow
as a big fat pig

 

[flambe]

I have XP and Vista installed on separate identical hard drives in a dual
boot system.
I keep all drivers up to date for both systems.
The same programs are installed in XP and Vista.
Obviously they are running the same Nvidia card, the Vista side having the
"benefit" of DX10.
Unfortunately, even with the beta SP1 for Vista installed Vista remains time
by your wristwatch slower in every operation including file installation,
file move/copy, open and close any program. Vista hiccoughs frequently on
internet streaming media.
Your results suggest that in your case a pig can fly: maybe yours can but
nobody else's can.

 

[GTS]

I concur. It sounds very likely that the XP installation has a problem. I
recently defaulted my dual boot machine back to XP because, although my
Vista installation is rock solid reliable, XP is soooooooooo much faster.
--

 

[Richard Eagle]

I have both XP Pro and Vista Home Premium on this dual-boot PC. Both
operating systems are running on the same hardware and for me XP is much
faster than Vista. XP runs great on this PC and Vista is very sluggish. I've
been using MS operating systems for about 27 years since DOS 3.x, then
Win3.0, 3.1, 95, 98 etc. Overall I've been happy with their products. Vista
is the first MS operating system that I'm disappointed with because of the
slow performance. Since this is an older PC (AMD XP2100+ / 2gb DDR400
/ 256mb ati video), the only cure for Vista may be faster hardware :-((

Richard



I have an Asus with AMD DC 4.2GHZ, 5 SATA II drives and am testing Vista on
another partition. Some observations from comparing Vista and XP:


1. I have some folders with over 220GB of MP3s. XP Explorer choked when
trying to do a detailed view on the contents so I use Opus when in XP. Vista
could handle it without any problem.

2. Copying a full 4.7GB DVD of image files from DVD to HD took around 40
minutes in XP. Vista could do it in less than 13 minutes.

3. Adding files in Media Player 11 took about 30 minutes in XP. the same
folders took around eight minutes in Vista.

4. I have about 300 videos in Media Player. Vista got thumbnails for all in
the first pass. XP is still working on it after a hundred openings.

5. Media Player also performs a lot better under Vista. the album JPGs come
up so much faster.

 

[Frank]

your observations are faulty, probably due to some driver problem on your XP
installation

You don't have nor do you use Vista...so just STFU!

XP outperforms Vista hands down on every test I could throw at it
and similar results have been found by many people...

Wanna bet?

your XP install has something wrong with it... that's the only explanation
because Vista is slow
as a big fat pig

You're the stupid pig capin' crunch! Now get lost ashole!
Frank

 

[Frank]

flambe wrote:
...in your case a pig can fly: maybe yours can but

nobody else's can.

You're full of sh*t capin' crunch. You don't have nor do you use Vista.
Stop lying as*hole and get a life!
Frank

 

[non flammable]

again you are calling people captain crunch who are not ...

lol this is so funny..
You are terrified you see a captn cruch everywhere!

 

[Frank]

again you are calling people captain crunch who are not ...

lol this is so funny..
You are terrified you see a captn cruch everywhere!

Hey bozo...it's capin' crunch...and I lump all losers like you under
that name...LOL!
Idiot!
Frank

 

[Richard Eagle]

duh...make that about 17 years (since 1990)...it only seems like 27.

Richard


I have both XP Pro and Vista Home Premium on this dual-boot PC. Both
operating systems are running on the same hardware and for me XP is much
faster than Vista. XP runs great on this PC and Vista is very sluggish. I've
been using MS operating systems for about 27 years since DOS 3.x, then
Win3.0, 3.1, 95, 98 etc. Overall I've been happy with their products. Vista
is the first MS operating system that I'm disappointed with because of the
slow performance. Since this is an older PC (AMD XP2100+ / 2gb DDR400
/ 256mb ati video), the only cure for Vista may be faster hardware :-((

Richard



I have an Asus with AMD DC 4.2GHZ, 5 SATA II drives and am testing Vista on
another partition. Some observations from comparing Vista and XP:


1. I have some folders with over 220GB of MP3s. XP Explorer choked when
trying to do a detailed view on the contents so I use Opus when in XP. Vista
could handle it without any problem.

2. Copying a full 4.7GB DVD of image files from DVD to HD took around 40
minutes in XP. Vista could do it in less than 13 minutes.

3. Adding files in Media Player 11 took about 30 minutes in XP. the same
folders took around eight minutes in Vista.

4. I have about 300 videos in Media Player. Vista got thumbnails for all in
the first pass. XP is still working on it after a hundred openings.

5. Media Player also performs a lot better under Vista. the album JPGs come
up so much faster.

 

[Rich]

your observations are faulty, probably due to some driver problem on your

XP installation

XP outperforms Vista hands down on every test I could throw at it
and similar results have been found by many people...

Must be nice. (don't like someone's observations, call 'em faulty

None of the above is the case on my machine.

The OP observations are right on.

Now what?

Rich

 

[Rich]

Your observations are faulty ... heh

 

[non flammable]

tell momy to leave the night light on because you see all those bad dreams
with captn crunches formating your vista and installing ubuntu..... LOL

they are everywhere! lol

are you afraid yet?

 

[Frank]

non flammable wrote:


....nothing of any interest...except to himself.
Get a life you moron!
Frank

 

[Drew]

and there he is...the world's biggest liar !! He could not post the truth if
someone helped

 

[DarkSentinel]

your observations are faulty, probably due to some driver problem on your
XP installation

And you know this HOW?

XP outperforms Vista hands down on every test I could throw at it
and similar results have been found by many people...

Then YOU didn't set Vista up correctly, therefore YOUR observations are
faulty. My system is AS fast if not faster under Vista as it is under XP.
And don't even THINK about saying I don't know how to set up a system. You
no credibility as it is, don't make it worse.

your XP install has something wrong with it... that's the only explanation
because Vista is slow
as a big fat pig

Nope just shows YOUR Vista install has something wrong with it. Perhaps you
should have someone with some experience set up a Vista system correctly,
and then come back and talk to us when you have some valid data.

 

[DarkSentinel]

duh...make that about 17 years (since 1990)...it only seems like 27.

Richard


I have both XP Pro and Vista Home Premium on this dual-boot PC. Both
operating systems are running on the same hardware and for me XP is much
faster than Vista. XP runs great on this PC and Vista is very sluggish.
I've
been using MS operating systems for about 27 years since DOS 3.x, then
Win3.0, 3.1, 95, 98 etc. Overall I've been happy with their products.
Vista
is the first MS operating system that I'm disappointed with because of the
slow performance. Since this is an older PC (AMD XP2100+ / 2gb DDR400
/ 256mb ati video), the only cure for Vista may be faster hardware :-((

Well I have been doing this since 81. So 26 years. Started with DOS 1. So
lack of experience is by no means a problem in my case. Hell, I fought
moving to Vista from XP, until I got my new system. Said what the hell,
let's see what it's got. If it sucks, I can always use XP. Any gripes I have
had are due to personal preferences. I HATE not being able to disable the
favorites view without killing the folder view. I HATE not being able to
view the full path in the title bar unless I run classic folders which I
don't like. But does that make it crap? Nope. Just means I have to deal with
it, and now I don't really notice it. I had the same type of gripes when I
went from 98 to 2K.

After tweaking both systems, my Vista is AS fast if not faster in some cases
as my XP set up. I also seem to remember the same crap being said about 2K
and XP. That it was slower than 98, blah, blah, blah. You CANNOT get a
increase in functionality without some performance hit. Seem to also
remember people bitching that they had to upgrade their hardware when they
moved from 98.

"My printer doesn't work like it did under 98" or "My scanner doesn't have
drivers for it in XP" or "Why doesn't XP run well in 64MB RAM like 98 did?"

Sound familiar? Hell, I had to write an .inf file for an old tape drive(Aiwa
Bolt) under 2K. It's still on driverguide.com. Then had to hack the registry
under XP for my UMAX SCSI scanner because the driver for it showed 8
instances for it in device manager. If the trolls/flamers took the time to
actually TRY and make it work, they might find that it actually DOES work
pretty well. YES, on some older systems, it DOES run slower. 98 ran fast as
hell on my old P3 450 with 256MB, XP sucked ass. Went to dual P3 800's with
512MB. Guess what? XP rocked. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to
understand that the better the hardware, the faster the OS is going to run.