Vists versus XP

[cliff]

No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to have
Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb
HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP
installed on both.

The difference in performance is just amazing.

Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins 5
secs on Ave
XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =
50secs on ave
Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins
Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4 times
longer than on XP.

How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose their
thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much faster
previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

 

[Avraham]

No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to
have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb
HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP
installed on both.

The difference in performance is just amazing.

Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins
5 secs on Ave
XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =
50secs on ave
Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins
Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4
times longer than on XP.

How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose
their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much
faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

I'm no expert, but I was given to understand that Office XP does not run
on Vista.
Avraham

 

[Richard Urban]

And your time to a usable desktop is?

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

 

[MICHAEL]

* Avraham:

I'm no expert, but I was given to understand that Office XP does not run
on Vista.
Avraham

OfficeXP works fine on Vista, for the most part.
Outlook 2002 doesn't remember email server passwords.
There may be another quirk or two, but most everything
in OfficeXP works well on Vista.

Microsoft mainstream support for Office XP ended July 11, 2006.


-Michael

 

[babaloo]

Vista has three advantages over XP: it boots faster and both Solitaire and
Hearts are the best versions ever in a Microsoft OS.
Apart from that Vista is slow, incompatible with many programs, useless for
gaming and high end graphics, unstable for internet steraming media and has
no security advantages over Win XP.
If you need to network Vista with XP computers be prepared for inexplicable
incompatibilities and unstable connections.
When will Microsoft and its henchman who reply to some of these posts get
it?
Vista is just bad and needs a total rewrite.
Microsoft should show character and withdraw Vista from the market until
they can make it usable.
Unfortunately Microsoft can force feed Vista via new computer sales to
individual buyers. Governments and businesses, whose IT pros know better,
are not switching to Vista.
Richard Urban should devote his time to improving this kludge turkey of an
OS and less time replying to this newsgroup.

 

[Frank]

Vista has three advantages over XP: it boots faster and both Solitaire and
Hearts are the best versions ever in a Microsoft OS.

Hummm...that's wonderful!!!

Apart from that Vista is slow,

slow in doing what...?


incompatible with many programs,

specifically which programs (not games) are you referring to...please
name them, ok?


useless for

gaming and high end graphics,

Don’t do gaming but we do "high end graphics" (not sure though what
you're calling "high end graphics") daily meeting all production
schedules. We have no problems running Adobe CS3 Master Collection,
Corel Draw X3, etc., however we do have Quark 7 loaded on XP because
we've had problems with it not being compatible with Vista.

unstable for internet steraming media

we stream media from our server (WHS) to all of our Vista boxes with no
problems.

and has

no security advantages over Win XP.

I don't think that's really true. You've had security problems with
Vista? Please explain...

If you need to network Vista with XP computers be prepared for inexplicable
incompatibilities and unstable connections.

It's very important that all of our boxes be able to fully interface
over our LAN. We don't use a domain but use a workgroup (we keep under
10 boxes on the workgroup) and haven't, as of yet experienced any problems.

When will Microsoft and its henchman who reply to some of these posts get
it?

I hear what you're saying but haven't experienced any unsolvable
problems using Vista Ultimate in a small business atmosphere

Vista is just bad and needs a total rewrite.

Maybe you could offer to rewrite Vista for MS. I'd be glad to test it
for you when it's ready.

Microsoft should show character and withdraw Vista from the market until
they can make it usable.

Well, that's a very strange statement seeing as how proly millions are
using it on a daily basis.

Unfortunately Microsoft can force feed Vista via new computer sales to
individual buyers.

It that what you did? We clean installed all of our Vista seats
ourselves. We didn't buy any new hardware.

Governments and businesses, whose IT pros know better, are not switching
to Vista.

Yeah, some of them are still using DOS & W3.1. many are still on Win9X
and the rest are on either 2K or XP. They are always slow to make the
change.

Richard Urban should devote his time to improving this kludge turkey ofan
OS and less time replying to this newsgroup.

And maybe you should actually get Vista and/or learn how to use it?
Happy 4th!
Frank

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Desperately poor video drivers do not help gaming or streaming video..

While network performance is not stunning either, instability is not a
universal problem..

Incompatibility with some programs is not a new issue on the release of a
new OS.. we have all seen it before..

Many can and have a reasonable Vista system running, and it will get better
still..

Vista has three advantages over XP: it boots faster and both Solitaire and
Hearts are the best versions ever in a Microsoft OS.
Apart from that Vista is slow, incompatible with many programs, useless
for gaming and high end graphics, unstable for internet steraming media
and has no security advantages over Win XP.
If you need to network Vista with XP computers be prepared for
inexplicable incompatibilities and unstable connections.
When will Microsoft and its henchman who reply to some of these posts get
it?
Vista is just bad and needs a total rewrite.
Microsoft should show character and withdraw Vista from the market until
they can make it usable.
Unfortunately Microsoft can force feed Vista via new computer sales to
individual buyers. Governments and businesses, whose IT pros know better,
are not switching to Vista.
Richard Urban should devote his time to improving this kludge turkey of an
OS and less time replying to this newsgroup.

--


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

 

[Guest]

Is this a honest question ? with the intention to help ?
Or is it a nasty teaser, a challenge ?
Be more specific when you ask this kind of things to CUSTOMERS please.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Many report better performance with Windows Vista and others report
worse with identical hardware and software.
Differences in specific hardware and software apparently favor one OS
for another.

"How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me"
The same applies to previous versions.
Generally a newer OS requires more power than the previous and as in
the past, the older OS will perform faster than the new on identical
hardware.
this is nothing new.
Go back to any previous OS and do a similar comparison, Windows 98
will similarly perform faster on hardware designed for Windows XP.
Some use that as a reason for stating with Windows 98.
While your experiment is valid, it ignores the new features in Windows
Vista.

As drivers and software mature, performance will continue to improve
as it did with previous operating systems.

Try this.
You already have a state of the art laptop for Windows Vista.
Now get one that was new at about the release of Windows XP.
Perform the same experiment except this time install Windows Vista on
both.
Which performs better?

That is largely a nature of technology, at it progresses, more is
needed similar as you home probably requires more of just about
everything than your grandparents home.
A modern car requires more power than a car available 50 years ago.
The list goes on and computer technology is no different.

 

[Mellowed]

Vista has three advantages over XP: it boots faster and both Solitaire and
Hearts are the best versions ever in a Microsoft OS.
Apart from that Vista is slow, incompatible with many programs, useless
for gaming and high end graphics, unstable for internet steraming media
and has no security advantages over Win XP.
If you need to network Vista with XP computers be prepared for
inexplicable incompatibilities and unstable connections.
When will Microsoft and its henchman who reply to some of these posts get
it?
Vista is just bad and needs a total rewrite.
Microsoft should show character and withdraw Vista from the market until
they can make it usable.
Unfortunately Microsoft can force feed Vista via new computer sales to
individual buyers. Governments and businesses, whose IT pros know better,
are not switching to Vista.
Richard Urban should devote his time to improving this kludge turkey of an
OS and less time replying to this newsgroup.

Upgrading to Vista seems to be a fairly general problem. Probably due to
early generation hardware and software. I built a new system and I love it.
The only software incompatibilities was an old 'Paperport' and Nero 6.
Other old software problems only occured with UAC on, such as backing up
Quicken 2002 and my old Canon download software. Turning off UAC solved
those problems.

Your solution of a total rewrite is unreal. I can understand why businesses
would not upgrade to Vista. Why fix something that is not broken and expose
yourself to incompatibilities . But Vista in a new system with proper
components is the only way to go.

 

[Richard Urban]

I am asking for a specific reason. If you must know Internet Explorer in
Vista has protected mode on by default. Windows XP does not even offer
protected mode for IE. Therefore, IE in Vista takes longer to bring up
certain web pages.

HAPPY!

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

 

[Alias]

But Vista in a new system with proper components is the only way to go.

Ubuntu on a new or old system is the only way to go. Why? No viruses or
malware. It's free and can be copied and installed on as many computers
as you like. No activation and no WGA. Beryl makes Aero look like some
amateur designed it.

Alias

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:

Ubuntu on a new or old system is the only way to go. Why? No viruses or
malware. It's free and can be copied and installed on as many computers
as you like. No activation and no WGA. Beryl makes Aero look like some
amateur designed it.

 

[Stephan Rose]

Many report better performance with Windows Vista and others report
worse with identical hardware and software.
Differences in specific hardware and software apparently favor one OS
for another.

"How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me"
The same applies to previous versions.
Generally a newer OS requires more power than the previous and as in
the past, the older OS will perform faster than the new on identical
hardware.
this is nothing new.
Go back to any previous OS and do a similar comparison, Windows 98
will similarly perform faster on hardware designed for Windows XP.
Some use that as a reason for stating with Windows 98.
While your experiment is valid, it ignores the new features in Windows
Vista.

As drivers and software mature, performance will continue to improve
as it did with previous operating systems.

Try this.
You already have a state of the art laptop for Windows Vista.
Now get one that was new at about the release of Windows XP.
Perform the same experiment except this time install Windows Vista on
both.
Which performs better?

That is largely a nature of technology, at it progresses, more is
needed similar as you home probably requires more of just about
everything than your grandparents home.
A modern car requires more power than a car available 50 years ago.
The list goes on and computer technology is no different.

Uhhh a modern care does not require more power than a car available 50
years ago. Quite the contrary. Today's car, while they may have more
power due to technology and greater efficiency, actually require less power.

Reason simply being that it's possible today to build much lighter cars
than it was 50 years ago.

And last time I checked, Mass is not subject to Microsoft bloat. Which
means that it still takes the same amount of energy to move an identical
amount of mass today than it took 50 years ago. So if today's cars are on
average lighter than cars 50 years ago, it takes less energy to move them
and therefore less power.

Also that each Operating system release has to be slower than the
previous is also complete crap that could only possibly come out of
Redmond. No it doesn't have to be. There's absolutely no technical reason
for it to be.

--
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‚‰

 

[Peter in New Zealand]

Many report better performance with Windows Vista and others report worse
with identical hardware and software.
Differences in specific hardware and software apparently favor one OS for
another.

"How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me"
The same applies to previous versions.
Generally a newer OS requires more power than the previous and as in the
past, the older OS will perform faster than the new on identical hardware.
this is nothing new.
Go back to any previous OS and do a similar comparison, Windows 98 will
similarly perform faster on hardware designed for Windows XP.
Some use that as a reason for stating with Windows 98.
While your experiment is valid, it ignores the new features in Windows
Vista.

As drivers and software mature, performance will continue to improve as it
did with previous operating systems.

Try this.
You already have a state of the art laptop for Windows Vista.
Now get one that was new at about the release of Windows XP.
Perform the same experiment except this time install Windows Vista on
both.
Which performs better?

That is largely a nature of technology, at it progresses, more is needed
similar as you home probably requires more of just about everything than
your grandparents home.
A modern car requires more power than a car available 50 years ago.
The list goes on and computer technology is no different.

Nope, something's wrong there mate. I have an Athlon 2.2 Gbyte CPU on an
Albatron mb with 1Gbyte RAM that's been running XP Pro SP2 for a couple of
years. The entire machine was built to be utterly bog standard in every way.
Recently I wiped it clean and clean installed Vista Home Premium. I was
thrilled with the results, and consider Vista an excellent OS. Regrettably I
have had to revert to XP. Why? My Palm is so old that the only version of
Docs to Go that it can talk to won't run on Vista. I am really disappointed
at having to go back to XP, fine OS though it is.

The thing is, the hardware is incredibly ordinary, nothing exotic or
special, and was always intended to run Vista when it became available.
There's something in your setup that is not right I am sure. I'm not trying
to score a point here - just wanting to encourage you that Vista is OK,
given the inevitable teething issues with a complete OS rewrite. Don't give
up on it just yet. Good luck.

 

[Danny]

No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to
have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb
HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP
installed on both.

The difference in performance is just amazing.

Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins 5
secs on Ave
XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =
50secs on ave
Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins
Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4 times
longer than on XP.

How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose
their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much
faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

I am on Vista for one reason. MS have me by the balls regarding DX10 games
and hardware.

I admit XP is a lot quicker in terms of operation. Vista has some nice stuff
which I am starting to rely on like thumbnails on the taskbar.

But, if DX10 could be fully compatible with XP I'd probably go back in a
flash.

 

[Charles W Davis]

cliff,

As I read this post, I'll call it a Rant. Never mind the Un-bunt-too nuts.
Are you a compentent tester with loads of software and hardware set up to
test these things? I'll answer the question, you aren't. Two machines, with
a couple of "timing" results. Read this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/
Yep, both excell in certain aspects. I have throughly enjoyed my new (not
upgraded) Windows Vista System.

 

[Tom]

I love having vista, shows XP up alot in my eyes, Only problem is
Compatabilty issues, but thats all. Everyone think back to how rubbish XP
was at the start, Now look Everyone loves it. We all need to give Vista a
chance, If you dont like it now. Wait till SP1 comes out, Will be a doddle
from there.