vista 50% slower than XP on same machine...

[vista terminal ator]

Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...

even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....

its irritating...

 

[Val]

Care to give any specifics? How did you test? How did you ensure that the
testing situations were comparable?

Given the old adage that 85% of quoted statistcis are made up on the
spot.....


"vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...

even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....

its irritating...

 

[vista terminal ator]

vista is far slower in everything...

I did not make this up on this spot.. I have been comparing the 2 extensivly
since vista was in beta!!

its just that now I tried to make vista into a "lite"version with
www.vlite.net but even with that its still far slower....

 

[Telstar]

Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...

even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....

its irritating...

Have you tried Windows 98? It is FAR faster than XP.

 

[vista terminal ator]

faster not always... XP is better than windows 98
and XP is better than vista...


on complex high memory programs win98 had resource problems, XP might needed
more ram but it was better in taking advantange of more ram...

Vista is far worse in memory use than XP even though there are some smarty
pants that say that vista uses ram more intelligently....
those guys know skit about how memory should be used..

they are just following the leader and repeating the MS propaganda they hear
in the media and advertisments.

 

[Rick Rogers]

Of course it is as it has a higher overhead requirement. Now, compare
Vista's performance on modern hardware against XP's performance on the
hardware from 2001, and you will see they are pretty much the same.
Operating systems are built for the hardware available at the time of their
release. Run Win2000 or Win 98 on today's hardware and it'll really fly.
That doesn't mean they're better, just that they have lesser requirements
because that's what was out there then.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

 

[Brown Spot]

Have you tried Windows 98? It is FAR faster than XP.

About as stable, too.

 

[John Barnes]

Upgrade your machine or stay with XP. Vista does need a heavier duty
machine to work properly, but in my opinion is worth it. If yours truly is
50% slower, you have some seriously obsolete equipment. Functions like
copy and move are very much slower even with great equipment. If you do a
lot, stay with XP. Clue, complaining won't make it faster

 

[Spanky deMonkey]

You could install Ubuntu on your machine and it would be about 200% faster
but you couldn't do anything with it !!!!!

 

[Not Me]

I dual boot XP Pro SP2 and Vista Ultimate.
With a bare/clean install of each on a P4-2.8Ghz/1,5GB Dual Channel DDR (and
actually working as dual channel)/512MB PCI-e 6200 Video/200GB SATA, the XP
install boots faster by about 15 seconds, the seat of the pants feel while
surfing, emailing, etc is faster in XP.
I use classic menmus and turn off all the visual effects. No shadowing,
slide out/fade menus etc.
I haven't had any trouble with the machine, I simply do not like the way
Vista looks and feels.
If they put the ignition/blinker/dimmer switch to my car in the trunk, I'd
buy a different brand.
Every prior version of MS OS from DOS to WIn3/3.1/95/98/2000/XP has felt
like an improvement.
This feels like a clunker. MS finally made their own Edsel.

 

[vista terminal ator]

yes... ok...

but I ask you this.. even if you get a new machine that is faster, why would
you want to slow it down with a hog like vista eating up the resources with
the OS? The OS in my opinion should be light giving the resources to the
applications....

even if I get a quad core cpu .... I think I will stay with a lightning
fast XP, than have a so and so vista machine.

Even with Vlite I could not get the performance I was hoping..

Gee MS blew it this time... 5 years. billions of dollars, so much time
effort and hopes, only to create a bloated hog that doesnt really have
anything more to offer than XP but a glass theme....

geshhh.....

 

[vista terminal ator]

Rick

I urge you to repeat what you said to all the vista maniacs who claim
without even thinking that vista is actually FASTER than XP on the same
hardware!

This simply cannot happen... there is no super duper great leap in Vista
that would make it better as in for example
the win98 to XP leap that was one of the most significant ones in Microsoft
history.

on a pentium 4 for example with 3 gb ram, XP can outperform win98 because it
can utilize all the ram.
When you try to compare XP and Vista though there is no significant change
in technology.. its basically the same ol thing!

not to say that there are not improvments in vista under the hood.. but on
that framework they added so much crappy bloat that bogs the whole OS down
too much making it significanly slower than XP.

Stop trying to compare old hardware with new ones...

I am comparing OS's. The hardware must be a constant in order to compare
them!

 

[Lang Murphy]

Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...

even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....

its irritating...

I suppose that would be extremely frustrating. That said, Vista works as
fast on most tasks here than XP, and is some cases faster. If your system is
running half as fast with Vista than with XP, then one can only assume that
your system doesn't have the juice to run Vista or you've got software, like
AV, running on Vista that is sucking up system resources. Without knowing
the specifics of your system, though, it's impossible to offer any
assistance.

Lang

 

[Hertz_Donut]

Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...

even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....

its irritating...

Then you have issues with your installation or hardware.

I am dual booting on 3 different computers...2 desktops and a laptop.
On all three computers, Vista is faster than XP.

Honu

 

[Gav]

You could install Ubuntu on your machine and it would be about 200% faster
but you couldn't do anything with it !!!!!

Really? Don't use Ubuntu myself but I do use Debian (Ubuntu base) and SuSE,
nowadays I only use Windows for Visual Studio, Plextools and Gaming.

Gav

 

[vista terminal ator]

and none of them are lite.. lol not with all the feature installed that
is...


of course there are other linux that fit in a floppy.. but not the major
distros...

 

[Rick Rogers]

But hardware is not constant, and the operating systems must adapt to take
advantage of them. Computers evolve, so must the OS. Making comparisons
between them is pointless, as each is written for the hardware in use at the
time. To compare Win98 on a system against XP is like giving the keys to a
porsche to a 3 year old. If they don't know what to do with it, it's not
going to matter. Win98 cannot take advantage of today's memory technology.
WinXP, likewise, has limitations on what it can do on today's hardware, so
in some cases it's quite possible that Vista can manage it better. Same
thing applies in the Linux and Mac worlds, it's certainly not limited to
Windows.

Nothing's hard and fast here, the results of any comparison are going to
depend heavily on how the test is structured. To say unequivically that one
performs better than the other demonstrates a lack of knowledge on how an
operating system interacts with the components. For me, such comparisons are
pointless as they can easily be structured to proving any point of view.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

 

[Gaza]

even if I get a quad core cpu .... I think I will stay with a lightning

fast XP, than have a so and so vista machine.

Until only Vista software only, starts to show up

 

[Saucy]

Care to offer the computer's specs and what tests you applied?

 

[Gaza]

Have you tried Windows 98? It is FAR faster than XP.

And we had them saying, who would want to use 'MS shity XP crap'
my W98 runs better & faster!!!