The lie?

[John Jay Smith]

Ok now to remind you all of my bet....

People in here claimed that the size, bloat and slowness of vista was due to
the DEBUGGING code inside the
betas and RC's..... Then went ahead to say that when this would be removed
vista would be far leaner and faster.....

in fact this was their primary excuse for the way vista is in the betas (and
RC's).

I say that they are stupid, and that vista will have almost the same speed
as it has now, and the bloat wont go away.

They are either lying, or don't know what the .... they are talking about!

The same excuse was given when Live Messenger was in beta.. when it was
released did something change? NOPE!!!

We will see in RTM.... but Im pretty sure I am right....

 

[BChat]

If you don't like it - don't use it.....................it really is very
simple.
--
BChat

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message
Ok now to remind you all of my bet....

People in here claimed that the size, bloat and slowness of vista was due to
the DEBUGGING code inside the
betas and RC's..... Then went ahead to say that when this would be removed
vista would be far leaner and faster.....

in fact this was their primary excuse for the way vista is in the betas (and
RC's).

I say that they are stupid, and that vista will have almost the same speed
as it has now, and the bloat wont go away.

They are either lying, or don't know what the .... they are talking about!

The same excuse was given when Live Messenger was in beta.. when it was
released did something change? NOPE!!!

We will see in RTM.... but Im pretty sure I am right....

 

[Jeppe]

Ok now to remind you all of my bet....

People in here claimed that the size, bloat and slowness of vista was due to
the DEBUGGING code inside the
betas and RC's..... Then went ahead to say that when this would be removed
vista would be far leaner and faster.....

in fact this was their primary excuse for the way vista is in the betas (and
RC's).

I say that they are stupid, and that vista will have almost the same speed
as it has now, and the bloat wont go away.

They are either lying, or don't know what the .... they are talking about!

The same excuse was given when Live Messenger was in beta.. when it was
released did something change? NOPE!!!

We will see in RTM.... but Im pretty sure I am right....

Vista is almost on par with XP. At least for me. I expect performance to
increase when drivers get better. When I remember the change from
Windows 2000 to XP current Vista performance is great.

 

[Vlad \(DarkTrooper\)]

I say that they are stupid, and that vista will have almost the same speed
as it has now, and the bloat wont go away.

I say, that you are stupid, becouse on my PC Vista shows same speed, like in
XP, even in games. I think you need Mak.

 

[chriske911]

Vlad (DarkTrooper) wrote :

"John Jay Smith" <-> wrote in message

I say, that you are stupid, becouse on my PC Vista shows same speed, like in
XP, even in games. I think you need Mak.

hmmmm, not true for me
at least conecerning game play
I see a performace fall quite clearly
also the screen is much darker playing the same game as opposed to
winxp
I am using the WDM drivers for an ATI 9600Pro though, maybe that could
be the reason

in regards to bloat, there is a truth in there about the size of the
system
I am currently using 13GB of a 16GB system partition

grtz

 

[John Jay Smith]

install 50-100 + programs like almost all modern systems have then you will
see the speed fall rock bottom.

I dont suppose your stupidness is comparing a freshly installed vista with
an old installment of xp?

 

[John Jay Smith]

The OS is ok if you take it for what it is... the problem is the lies people
say claiming that it is fast, or
the speed and bloatness will magically go away when the RTM is released.

Any person who has even basic computer knowledge can clearly see that Vista
is slower of far more bloated...
and all this for no spectacular reason.

Hey... you're gonna hear it again and again from thousands of people... dont
stand there and look suprised...
you will get used to it!

 

[Jimmy Brush]

Hello,

People in here claimed that the size, bloat and slowness of vista was due
to the DEBUGGING code inside the
betas and RC's..... Then went ahead to say that when this would be removed
vista would be far leaner and faster.....

Actually, this was said about Beta2, and WAS true. The RC/RTM builds are
much, much faster than the beta 2 builds. I expect performance in RTM to not
change much from the current builds.

Obviously, Vista isn't going to outperform XP on the same hardware. I don't
think anyone expects that.

 

[Guest]

I say that they are stupid, and that vista will have almost the same speed
as it has now, and the bloat wont go away.

I have a very old PC and Windows Vista RC1 runs faster than Windows XP.
I'm downloading RC2, where we have further performance improvements.

 

[pvdg42]

Ok now to remind you all of my bet....

People in here claimed that the size, bloat and slowness of vista was due
to the DEBUGGING code inside the
betas and RC's..... Then went ahead to say that when this would be removed
vista would be far leaner and faster.....

in fact this was their primary excuse for the way vista is in the betas
(and RC's).

I say that they are stupid, and that vista will have almost the same speed
as it has now, and the bloat wont go away.

They are either lying, or don't know what the .... they are talking about!

The same excuse was given when Live Messenger was in beta.. when it was
released did something change? NOPE!!!

We will see in RTM.... but Im pretty sure I am right....

Fact is that Vista performance *did* improve between betas and RC1, to where
(here, at least) it performs as well as or better than XP Pro on dual boot
test machines. And, this is true on relatively modest hardware as well (AMD
Athlon XP 3200+ w/1 gig memory & FX 5500 video), in one instance.

 

[Mario Rosario]

Any chance it'll outperform Windows 3.11?

Hello,


Actually, this was said about Beta2, and WAS true. The RC/RTM builds are
much, much faster than the beta 2 builds. I expect performance in RTM to
not change much from the current builds.

Obviously, Vista isn't going to outperform XP on the same hardware. I
don't think anyone expects that.


--
- JB

Windows Vista Support Faq
http://www.jimmah.com/vista/

 

[Fuzzy John]

On the Gateway M275 convertible (tablet) Beta 2 was just about the same
speed as Windows XP TabletPC 2005 Edition.
RC-1 build 5728 that I am running now on the same tablet is faster.

As for bloat... maybe. But keep in mind that Vista has so many more features
than XP which in turn had more features than 2000. New features do need more
HD space and more memory to run in. If that is not satisfactory for you
there is always DOS.

 

[Vlad \(DarkTrooper\)]

also the screen is much darker playing the same game as opposed to

winxp

Ha-ha-ha! And mob's in WoW much harder.

I am using the WDM drivers for an ATI 9600Pro though, maybe that could
be the reason

9600 isn't video for game long-long time ago

I play in FarCry, CS source, Company of Heroes, same FPS in XP and Vista.

 

[Robert Moir]

Ok now to remind you all of my bet....

People in here claimed that the size, bloat and slowness of vista was
due to the DEBUGGING code inside the
betas and RC's..... Then went ahead to say that when this would be
removed vista would be far leaner and faster.....

in fact this was their primary excuse for the way vista is in the
betas (and RC's).

I say that they are stupid, and that vista will have almost the same
speed as it has now, and the bloat wont go away.

I agree that speed might be a problem, though another reason to wait for RTM
before judging that is to wait for updated drivers - these can have a major
impact on performance as any of the gamers on gamer websites where they
obsess over frame rates far more than whether or not the game is actually
fun can tell you.

As for 'bloat', again the footprint seems a little high, but on the other
hand, Vista does a lot more. The majority of people want it to do more for
them 'out of the box', and implementing those features takes up disk space.

If we're going to obsess about 'bloat' then try an interesting experiment.
Find out the average size of a hard disk in a new computer today and compare
it to the average size of a computer 10 years ago. Now compare the
percentage used by the OS on each (e.g. Vista now, and Win 95 then). How
does it compare?

Or we can use those average figures again, and work out the cost per gigabye
for the hard disk (e.g. divide price by capacity). How does the cost of the
disk space used for a Vista install compare with the cost of the disk space
used for a Win 95 install?

I think the footprint for the new OS is a little high, let me be clear about
that, but words like "bloat" don't mean much. Quantify how the new OS
compares to one from 10 years ago using methods like I outline above to
provide a fair basis for comparison and if the figures are that bad then
you'll actually sound like you've got a point to make.

 

[Guest]

then dont use it, or buy a godly graphics card and processor and add more
memory. they're probably gonna do that to future computers anyways when vista
comes out.

 

[chriske911]

Vlad (DarkTrooper) expressed precisely :

Ha-ha-ha! And mob's in WoW much harder.

9600 isn't video for game long-long time ago

I play in FarCry, CS source, Company of Heroes, same FPS in XP and Vista.

try writing in simple english because I have no clue what you mean

grtz

 

[John Jay Smith]

are you comparing a clean install of vista with a few programs on with
a XP installation with many programs, codecs, startup thingies that youhave
been using for a year???

Hmmm????????

 

[John Jay Smith]

I dont accept that excuse.. it does more therefore its entitled to 12 gb of
disk space to install....lol

See utorrent, its 150k and does what other apps do that are 10 or 30 times
as big....
It does it better in fact and thats the reason why so many people like it
over bitcomet, and ARGG azauerus (the monster). Thats why they hated
netscape 6, and Mozilla suite and wanted firefox... (but now firefox is fat
and sluggish too).

So its a matter of DESIGN... and bloat is not about hard disk space.. who
cares really about that...
but bloat means more ram and more resources to load it up....

I should post a PDF I have about making lean software.. the author back in
1994? was it?
warned of the bloat that would come.. and he was right....

 

[John Jay Smith]

No, I am like the Japanese who go on strike while still working, just
protesting by wearing a red band on their head.

I will use it, but I still protest about its ugliness.

Beauty is multidimensional... do you get that?


"(e-mail address removed)"

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Not on hardware designed for and at the time of Windows 3.11.