S
Sam
But you SHOULD make fun of them if their primary language is English and they
speak like this here person.
speak like this here person.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
C
Canuck57
Steve Thackery said:Mid-range desktop (2.4G Intel dual core, 2G RAM).
You and the remarkably eloquent 'terren' are obviously correct - XP is
faster than Vista in most benchmarks.
BUT - you failed to spot a key word in my original post: NOTICEABLY. I'm
an experienced PC user (since before you two were born, I suspect) and
have used every Microsoft desktop OS they've ever made, and can honestly
say that Vista is not NOTICEABLY slower than XP, except in one key area:
network file copying.
I was using microprocessors before Bill Gates knew what one was. So your
point?
Also disk to disk copy. Try copying say 120GB.... Pathetic. No reason
either should be noticablely slower other than major defects in the OS code
or design.
In all other respects, including...
* web site editing (NetObjects Fusion, Serif WebPlus, Namo WebEditor Pro)
* graphics editing (Paint Shop Pro)
* technical drawing (Visio)
* sound editing (Adobe Audition)
* software development (Visual Studio 2008, CodeGear RAD Studio)
* video editing (VideoReDo TVSuite)
* OCR (Omnipage Pro)
* technical writing (MS Office 2007)
... I can honestly say there is no NOTICEABLE difference. And that is
what matters to me.
To each their own. But I actually push my machines. Pop open say 4-5 VMs
at a time and run load testing on code. Not unusually for me to site at 7GB
of 8GB used, near 100% utilization for a few hours at a go. Vista,
noticeably not the best.
F
Frank
You're so full of sh*t it's pathetic.Canuck57 said:I was using microprocessors before Bill Gates knew what one was. So your
point?
Also disk to disk copy. Try copying say 120GB.... Pathetic. No reason
either should be noticablely slower other than major defects in the OS code
or design.
To each their own. But I actually push my machines. Pop open say 4-5 VMs
at a time and run load testing on code. Not unusually for me to site at 7GB
of 8GB used, near 100% utilization for a few hours at a go. Vista,
noticeably not the best.
Frank
S
Steve Thackery
To each their own. But I actually push my machines. Pop open say 4-5 VMs
I only run one VM at a time. I have to say, though, that your useage is FAR
away from typical. Indeed, running five VMs, each doing load testing, is
the kind of thing - what, perhaps one in ten thousand Vista users? - would
need to do.
I think everyone - including MS - would agree that XP is faster than Vista
when operating under such extreme conditions, or when running benchmarks,
primarily because it is somewhat "lighter". W2K and NT4 are lighter still,
and may well run some benchmarks yet faster. More security, more resilience
and more "hardening" bring their own overheads, so of course Vista has more
overheads than XP.
If it didn't, I feel sure you'd be the first to complain that Vista's
security and resilience isn't much better than XP's!
But that isn't my point. You have demonstrated that you are NO WAY
representative of most Vista users, and I've demonstrated that I am. So I
don't think your observations when running load testing on five VM's mean
very much to the average user.
On the other hand I can, and do, stick to my view that - for the kind of use
I give my machine (which I believe is still heavier than most users) - there
is no noticeable difference in speed between XP and Vista, except for
copying large files. (On that last point I have to agree - MS cocked up.
They mended something that wasn't broken, and made it worse.)
SteveT
at a time and run load testing on code. Not unusually for me to site at
7GB of 8GB used, near 100% utilization for a few hours at a go. Vista,
noticeably not the best.
I only run one VM at a time. I have to say, though, that your useage is FAR
away from typical. Indeed, running five VMs, each doing load testing, is
the kind of thing - what, perhaps one in ten thousand Vista users? - would
need to do.
I think everyone - including MS - would agree that XP is faster than Vista
when operating under such extreme conditions, or when running benchmarks,
primarily because it is somewhat "lighter". W2K and NT4 are lighter still,
and may well run some benchmarks yet faster. More security, more resilience
and more "hardening" bring their own overheads, so of course Vista has more
overheads than XP.
If it didn't, I feel sure you'd be the first to complain that Vista's
security and resilience isn't much better than XP's!
But that isn't my point. You have demonstrated that you are NO WAY
representative of most Vista users, and I've demonstrated that I am. So I
don't think your observations when running load testing on five VM's mean
very much to the average user.
On the other hand I can, and do, stick to my view that - for the kind of use
I give my machine (which I believe is still heavier than most users) - there
is no noticeable difference in speed between XP and Vista, except for
copying large files. (On that last point I have to agree - MS cocked up.
They mended something that wasn't broken, and made it worse.)
SteveT
A
Alias
Frank said:You're so full of sh*t it's pathetic.
Frank
Good old Frank, hurling an insult and thinking that he's refuted the
post. Truly pathetic.
Alias
B
Bob Eyster
My reply is in the body of the message, DUMMY!
S
Sam
Yes, it is. I read your message and reminded you to include a question mark,
as, I assume, your statement was actually meant to be a question. Of course,
as you falsely used a period instead, there's no way of telling for sure.
"Did you forget about Windows ME."
as, I assume, your statement was actually meant to be a question. Of course,
as you falsely used a period instead, there's no way of telling for sure.
"Did you forget about Windows ME."
S
Sam
Is yous using they Vista 64-bit?