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

[Charlie Tame]

Yeah, I learned the technique from you.


If you are not comparing fresh installs the comparison is moot, since as
you well know a lot of manufacturer installed garbage and other
miscellaneous software can interfere.

 

[Stephan Rose]

Right, it is quite hard to keep any install "Clean".

Only if said install is Windows. =)

--
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‚‰

 

[Leythos]

Upgrade your machine or stay with XP. Vista does need a heavier duty
machine to work properly, but in my opinion is worth it.

Other than being locked down - what is worth it?

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(e-mail address removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[Guest]

I have two very similar laptops kind of one generation apart. Both have
"Centrino Duo" processors, the newer laptop's processors are slightly faster.
The old laptop (with XP) has 1 GB of memory, and the newer one (with Vista
Home Premium) has 2 GB of memory. The newer one has a larger, faster disk
with more free space.

My observations:

Vista seems boot (on the new machine) in about the same time as XP on the
old machine.

Certain actions (e.g., opening new windows is much slower on Vista than XP).

XP will run many more windows/application in 1 GB than Vista will run in 2 GB.

Vista's failure mode when running too many applications/windows (which may
be a few as 2) is either to Blue Screen or to simply hang in the midst of
painting windows...Vista is MUCH less reliable than XP.

Using Vista (home premium), usually several times a day I will get a
low-memory error message (e.g., last night I had two IE windows and WMP open
and got the message), forcing me to reboot. I've never seen that message
with XP.

So, subjectively, my experience is that Vista loads about the same speed as
XP, but the user experience (e.g., opening new windows, etc.) is much slower
in Vista than XP.

Objectively, XP is much more suitable for using multiple
windows/applications without crashing, and, similarly, Vista is MUCH less
reliable than XP (hard crashes with data loss).

 

[Saucy]

Apologies for the last post to you.. it should have been directed to
another group entirely..




--


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

Yes, alt.hot.talk

LOL .. darling.

 

[Lang Murphy]

* Lang Murphy:


"Vista works as fast on most tasks here than XP, and is some cases
faster."

Lang,

Your statement above really says it all, and is my biggest complaint
about Vista. After more than 5 years, a supposed $6 billion spent, and
more powerful computers- we get an OS that performs "as fast on most
tasks than XP" and in "some cases faster". So, Vista's performance is
mostly about equal to that of XP, except there are times when it's not,
and then there are a few times when Vista might be faster. That basically
sums it all up.


-Michael

Well... Vista is new. XP's been around for 5 years. Given that fact, I think
Vista's performance can only improve as 3rd party drivers catch up and MS
tweaks Vista accordingly (one hopes, anyway...).

I understand what you're saying, believe me. I have two boxes here that I
won't upgrade to Vista because they require new hardware to do what I need
them to do under Vista. Yes, that frustrates me. Hmm... just like I was
frustrated when XP was released and my scanner wouldn't work with XP and I
had to buy a new scanner.

And I don't remember XP being all that much faster than W2K when XP was
initially released. I do remember that, as usual, MS's requirements for XP
were understated. (I can only assume that the engineers say something along
the lines of "well, the minimal amount of RAM should be X." and then Ballmer
or one of his stooges says, "No effin' way are we saying that's the minimum!
Halve it!" and so it goes...) Point being: Vista surely is not the first
version of Windows to have anemic minimal requirements claimed by MS.

At any rate... having gotten away from the original poster's complaint...
Vista 50% slower than XP? Maybe on file copies, although I hear that's one
of the fixes in SP1, but overall? Not here.

Lang

 

[Johnny]

Other than being locked down - what is worth it?

It's not TERRIBLE. It is freaking slow at times. And I have had just
about enough of UAC pestering me everytime I want to start a program,
open control panel, open my c: drive, etc....


I suggest just waiting until you buy a new computer, then you will have
to use Vista so it's a moot conversation.

-J

 

[f/fgeorge]

It's not TERRIBLE. It is freaking slow at times. And I have had just
about enough of UAC pestering me everytime I want to start a program,
open control panel, open my c: drive, etc....


I suggest just waiting until you buy a new computer, then you will have
to use Vista so it's a moot conversation.

-J

The UAC is just training us to be more aware of what goes on in the
background of our pc's. Those things you hate saying yes to are the
exact same things that viruses, trojans and spyware do, but just never
knew it in the past. Mac's have been doing all those permission things
all along and have few viruses as a result. Vista DOES need alot of
memory, much mroe than XP but uses all of it, hopefully efficiently.
That should get better with SP1 and SP2.