The Vista Challenge..

[kirk jim]

Ok Sir's Vista-naysayers of all the world.... I have a challenge for you....

I was able to install XP on a Pentium 133 with 64 ram in the past.. just to
see if it would work.
Well if you turned off all the extra stuff XP would be extremely slow but it
worked...

If you say Vista is faster than XP, that would mean that you could install
Vista on a P133
and have it working FASTER than XP could.. Perhaps even giving new life to
that old hardware... (lol)

Now I know Vista will complain about not having enough ram if you try to
install it on less than 512 MB ram... but if you are all that smart, I am
sure you vista gurus will be able to find the way around this small problem
(there is a way, but im not telling.. hehe).

So this is my challenge... if you are able to install vista on a Pentium 133
with 64 mb ram and run it faster than XP.... I will forever accept that
Vista is faster.

If your only answer to the above is that Vista is faster only on Modern
Hardware.... all you are telling me is that
vista is faster on faster hardware.. dahhhh...... XP is faster on that same
hardware though!

In fact Vista has no groundbreaking technology to make it faster than XP.
All it has is superfetch and that stupid
readyboost that try to drag the immense bloat of vista, so it wont be slower
than a turtle with arthritis!

Prove to me with data that Vista is faster... I want proof with numbers...
back up your absurd claims with
real mesurements... not "dah.. I formated my 2 year installation (that had a
whole bunch of crap installed) of xp and vista now seems faster... dahhhh"

 

[Alias]

It's definitely faster in the sense that you can get to things more
quickly, things open more quickly, and the whole experience is just
smoother and quicker. This based on over a year of using both Vista and
XP and many different apps with it.

How much faster? Faster than a speeding bullet? Can it jump tall
buildings in a single bound?

Old hardware is totally irrelevant.

If you want Vista, it is relevant in that old hardware doesn't do
Windows Vista.

Alias

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Today, Puppy Breath made these interesting comments ...

It's definitely faster in the sense that you can get to things
more quickly, things open more quickly, and the whole
experience is just smoother and quicker. This based on over a
year of using both Vista and XP and many different apps with
it.

Old hardware is totally irrelevant.

"faster" or "slower" must be qualified by first defining your
particular use of those terms. e.g., your comment above. Most
people, though, tend to think in performance terms, as in time-
to--launch, time to perform a given task, time to read or write
to HD, etc. Both definitions are valid to me, and there're
probably others.

But, old HW IS relevant if you cannot obtain a Vista driver. That
may be OK if you intended to replace it anyway but is fatal if
you can't. Same is true for legacy SW where it just isn't
feasible to upgrade yet you like it, e.g., the company went out-
of-business or simply doesn't support that version with patches
any longer.

 

[Jeffrey S. Sparks]

Vista will run faster on newer computers where it can take advantage of say
newer CPU features (just one example) that XP currently doesn't.

Here would be one example where vista would be faster:

The new hybrid hard drives that have the flash memory built in. XP isn't
capable of using the flash memory built into these drives but Vista is.
This is one area where vista can pick up speed that xp can't.


Jeff

 

[Steve Drake]

Its not measured like that. But I do see your point.

Vista takes advantage of newer and better hardware. You may find vista is
faster on a modern PC than XP (not tested myself)

But for me.

Visual studio build times for my .net project that over 500k lines of code.

on XP 1min 30 seconds.

on vista with readyboost 30 seconds.

Finding emails about 'stuff'

Vista, seconds I hit start type some text and hit enter.

XP, welll... with office 2007 and desktop search. You can improve things.

Even running programs, start enter SQL I have SQL Management Studio.

Also.. kernel changes, the hardware takes CPU cycles from threads making
video playback jumped. Fixed in vista.

With the new memory management you should see a perf improvement in video
editing.

Changes to heap memory management should improve perf on 64 hardware.

Changes to the way DLL as resolved makes loading DLLs faster.

Ok, I am fed up now.

Performances improvements is very subjective.

Steve

 

[kirk jim]

The new hybrid hard drives that have the flash memory built in. XP isn't

capable of using the flash memory built into these drives but Vista is.
This is one area where vista can pick up speed that xp can't.

Wait... are you sure that XP cant handle those drives? What about with new
drivers,
or a PCI card that will work as controller for those drives? Or an adaptor
or something?

I really doubt that there will be no solution for the XP users.

 

[Jeffrey S. Sparks]

Will you be able to use the drives themselves in xp? Probably as the ones i
have seen are all SATA. Will XP get the extra benefit of the flash memory
built into these drives? No, as it is a part of readyboost which is built
into vista...

Jeff

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP]

If you want Vista, you have to get the hardware on which it is designed to
be run..

How much faster? Faster than a speeding bullet? Can it jump tall buildings
in a single bound?


If you want Vista, it is relevant in that old hardware doesn't do Windows
Vista.

Alias

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Richard]

Why should we all give a toss what you think?
Like anyone is going to spend a single second on your challenge.
I'm amazed I even read the post.
lol.

 

[mikeyhsd]

whine, whine, whine.
if you do not like vista, then do not use it.
or learn how to use it.
get over it and get a life.

(e-mail address removed)@sport.rr.com

Ok Sir's Vista-naysayers of all the world.... I have a challenge for you....

I was able to install XP on a Pentium 133 with 64 ram in the past.. just to
see if it would work.
Well if you turned off all the extra stuff XP would be extremely slow but it
worked...

If you say Vista is faster than XP, that would mean that you could install
Vista on a P133
and have it working FASTER than XP could.. Perhaps even giving new life to
that old hardware... (lol)

Now I know Vista will complain about not having enough ram if you try to
install it on less than 512 MB ram... but if you are all that smart, I am
sure you vista gurus will be able to find the way around this small problem
(there is a way, but im not telling.. hehe).

So this is my challenge... if you are able to install vista on a Pentium 133
with 64 mb ram and run it faster than XP.... I will forever accept that
Vista is faster.

If your only answer to the above is that Vista is faster only on Modern
Hardware.... all you are telling me is that
vista is faster on faster hardware.. dahhhh...... XP is faster on that same
hardware though!

In fact Vista has no groundbreaking technology to make it faster than XP.
All it has is superfetch and that stupid
readyboost that try to drag the immense bloat of vista, so it wont be slower
than a turtle with arthritis!

Prove to me with data that Vista is faster... I want proof with numbers...
back up your absurd claims with
real mesurements... not "dah.. I formated my 2 year installation (that had a
whole bunch of crap installed) of xp and vista now seems faster... dahhhh"

 

[Plato]

whine, whine, whine.
if you do not like vista, then do not use it.

http://www.bootdisk.com/html.htm

 

[Stephan Rose]

Old hardware is irrelevant as a measure of speed and performance. Whether
or not it runs within X-meg of RAM has nothing to do with it.

Also, when you invest billions of dollars producing 50+ million lines of
code, you can't be thinking in terms of how things are now or how they
used to be. You have to design for current and future hardware. Anything
else would be technological and financial suicide.

As far as speed of an OS goes, obviously no OS can run any given piece of
hardware faster than the hardware can go. Most of what you experience in
terms of "speed" from an OS has more to do with the general experience.
How much time you spend navigating to and finding things, how long it
takes for things to open, the little lags within programs caused by
fetching from the paging file. Those things are definitely improved in
Vista.

Clearly it makes a lot more sense to use solid-state flash memory than
hard disk storage for all the paging stuff, because hard drives are
notorious for bad random I/O. The hard drive is one of the biggest (if not
thee biggest) bottleneck in the whole system.

There is one thing I never understood about the paging in any version of
windows, and that is why it pages hundreds of megabytes to the hard disk
when there is several times that much physical memory available just
sitting there unused.

Or the fact that it uses a paging file in the file system rather than a
seperated partition that doesn't suffer from file system overhead.

--
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‚‰

 

[Shane Nokes]

Oh yeah well I have a real challege.

Fit Vista on 13 floppies, yeah because that's a real challenge.

Make it just like Windows 95, because after all Windows is Windows and it
should always stay the same and never progress

"Viva La Captain Kirk"

Retard *rolls eyes*

 

[mikeyhsd]

if you do not like my posts , then do not read them.

OR

better yet LEARN how to use a proper news reader with options to configure to your liking.


(e-mail address removed)@sport.rr.com

whine, whine, whine.
if you do not like vista, then do not use it.

http://www.bootdisk.com/html.htm

 

[Puppy Breath]

The OS doesn't get to call all the shots. Each developer/programmer can use
memory as he or she sees fit. Often they'll load the absolute minimum just
to keep the hardware requirements down and to keep room for documents.
Anything that doesn't absolutely have to be in RAM, because it's accessed
infrequently, often gets put out into virtual memory by the app itself.



I don't know that there'd be any real advantage to putting all of that on a
separate partition, because it already is like its own little partition of
reserved space. But I'm not 100% sure on that. Putting it into flash memory
will definitely make a difference though. How much difference depends on the
difference between the flash memory's random I/O speed and drive's.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Today, Puppy Breath made these interesting comments ...

Old hardware is irrelevant as a measure of speed and
performance. Whether or not it runs within X-meg of RAM has
nothing to do with it.

Also, when you invest billions of dollars producing 50+
million lines of code, you can't be thinking in terms of how
things are now or how they used to be. You have to design for
current and future hardware. Anything else would be
technological and financial suicide.

This is true, but it is also true that it just ain't very bright
to intentionally piss off your installed base with no good reason
other than MS's desire to amortize its investment faster. That
said, nobody can make an XP user upgrade, so the discussion for
one with a stable machine, as mine is, is both academic and moot
for the time being.

As far as speed of an OS goes, obviously no OS can run any
given piece of hardware faster than the hardware can go. Most
of what you experience in terms of "speed" from an OS has more
to do with the general experience. How much time you spend
navigating to and finding things, how long it takes for things
to open, the little lags within programs caused by fetching
from the paging file. Those things are definitely improved in
Vista.

The clear history of ALL SW written in say, the last 5 years or
so, is that each new version is bigger and slower and takes more
HD space. That dirty little secret is covered up by HW getting
faster at a quicker rate than the SW is getting slower.

Clearly it makes a lot more sense to use solid-state flash
memory than hard disk storage for all the paging stuff,
because hard drives are notorious for bad random I/O. The hard
drive is one of the biggest (if not thee biggest) bottleneck
in the whole system.

I asked this before: what is the price/gig of solid-state right
now? HD is under 50 cents, maybe 2 bits or even less. I cannot
imagine solid state within an order of magnitude of that economy.

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Today, Mike Hall - MS MVP made these interesting comments ...

If you want Vista, you have to get the hardware on which it is
designed to be run..

MIke, you MVPs should get together on the answer to this
question. Others claim that if you've got 20 gig free on your HD
you CAN run Vista with 512 meg of memory or even 256. Huh? So, in
your opinion, what are the MINIMUM specificatins for a PC that
will run Vista "well" (whatever that means!)?

 

[kirk jim]

Dear Shake Kones,

good products give more features will size increases slightly....

Horrible products inflate size and give very little new features that are
user friendly
and people need. = VISTA

By the way.. some people have made customized versions of vista called vista
lite
with a program called v-lite and they fit onto a cd...

but of course they remove the huge amount of bloat vista has.

 

[NoStop]

if you do not like my posts , then do not read them.

OR

better yet LEARN how to use a proper news reader with options to configure
to your liking.

I'll do that, but only if you promise to learn how to post to Usenet. That
means, stop this Wintard top posting bullshit.

Cheers.

(e-mail address removed)@sport.rr.com



http://www.bootdisk.com/html.htm

--
The "Wow" starts now.

Windows is not a virus! Viruses are small, efficient and built to get a job
done. Windows on the other hand ...

 

[HEMI-Powered]

Today, Puppy Breath made these interesting comments ...

The OS doesn't get to call all the shots. Each
developer/programmer can use memory as he or she sees fit.
Often they'll load the absolute minimum just to keep the
hardware requirements down and to keep room for documents.
Anything that doesn't absolutely have to be in RAM, because
it's accessed infrequently, often gets put out into virtual
memory by the app itself.

Agreed. And, it can be difficult to tell of the myriad of processes
running at any given time who it is that paged to HD

I don't know that there'd be any real advantage to putting all
of that on a separate partition, because it already is like
its own little partition of reserved space. But I'm not 100%
sure on that. Putting it into flash memory will definitely
make a difference though. How much difference depends on the
difference between the flash memory's random I/O speed and
drive's.

[snip]