XP twice as fast as vista

[kirk jim]

I have dual boot vista and xp

XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
same),
but durring its normal function.
Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
fast...
I was working almost a day on vista.... and when I booted back to XP,
it was like a totally different machine!
The specs of this machine are cpu single core 2600 mhz, 1.25 gb ram.
I have had no problems with drivers or blue screens...
I just multitask very fast with lot of programs... so the speed difference
is evident.

Perhaps with a dual or quad core vista will work ok.. but with this single
core its too slow for my tastes.. I prefer snappy lightning fast performance
than the little new things vista has to offer.
But then on the other hand if you were to install XP on the quad, it would
be even faster...

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

I agree...

I certainly have NO intention of trading SPEED for EYE CANDY.

DSH

 

[Zhang Bin]

What you said is correct.Microsoft has set a very low requirement to let ppl
install Vista.But eventually those requirements are just as an entry to the
new OS.Some friends who are using P4 CPU tested to install Vista before,of
course all have more than 1G RAM...The result is all seem to be ok:boot-up
speed is as normal;running programs are still ok,not having many
problems;the look is quite nice...But the difference is showing on the time
when they use multi-task.The response of program is slower than which is
running in XP...

So in my thought,big RAM size(better having 2G) and dual core CPU may have
nicer experiences...Of course,much latest technologies should give you
better feelings...

 

[Sascha Jazbec]

Windows 95 is way faster than 98.

So what ?

PCs from the XP era , years 2002 and up are not comparable to our todays
Gigahertz Monsters..

XP installs on 233MhZ with only 64 MB Rams ! .. just think.

And don't forget that Vista was intended to appear in 2004 or so if the
Longhorn Delay Desaster would not have happened, then we all were working
with Vista since then.
XP is outdated and simple an old OS, no wonder it is "fast".

SJ /germany

 

[Don]

I have dual boot vista and xp

XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
same), but durring its normal function.
Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
fast...

Do you have the fancy new Vista GUI (I always forget the name) with
transparent windows, etc? You might try disabling that GUI to see
if it fixes the problem.

My Vista box has inadequate hardware for that GUI, so it was not
installed. The only real difference in speed I've noticed is that
playing a DVD video in Vista is a disaster. I'm assuming that my
cheapie video card is to blame for that difference, but I'm not about
to buy an expensive one just to test my theory ;o) Both linux and XP
do a great job of playing DVD's on the same cheap video card...

 

[Lang Murphy]

Turn off Aero. There goes your EYE CANDY.

Lang

I agree...

I certainly have NO intention of trading SPEED for EYE CANDY.

DSH

 

[Lang Murphy]

Wow, you worked a DAY in Vista and came to this conclusion. Maybe if you
gave Vista the opportunity to complete its initial indexing, you might see
an improvement in speed.

Lang

 

[kirk jim]

no I have used vista for months...including betas, and RC, I have tried
several times to migrate, but because if these problems I keep going back to
XP.

This was one of my most serious attempts to actually try to do some
productive work on vista,
and vista failed. Indexing is done.

no excuses! Vista is slow.

 

[kirk jim]

by the way I was using classic most of the time.

The drawing speeds for the gui are pathetic...

and even in classic and all effects turned off you still have all the
elements of the vista gui, that are strange...

My conclusion is that vista has been designed from the bottom up, with aero
glass in mind,
and they thew productivy out of the window. Especially that save as window
with the arrow that expands more locations! lol what a disaster that is?
Windows explorer has been destroyed compleatly.

Im back to XP again... vista doesnt work good enough.

 

[kirk jim]

outdated????

the updated one sucks!

I am always for the newer and better...

vista is newer but worse!

 

[Diamontina Cocktail]

Get rid of indexing entirely in Vista and it works one HELL of a lot faster.
Indexing is a waste of time and effort.

 

[john]

Get rid of indexing entirely in Vista and it works one HELL of a lot
faster. Indexing is a waste of time and effort.

Right - Good point...
So far I've seen "Turn off UAC", and now "Turn off Indexing"

Well, if those are 2 of Vista's top selling points, and I have to turn them
both off, then why should I bother to upgrade?
Wouldn't it just be easier to stay with XP, which works?

Vis-Duh
The OS of Tomorrow (that will make you wish it was yesterday...)

aka Windows 95 v4.0

 

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

| Get rid of indexing entirely in Vista and it works one HELL of a lot faster.
| Indexing is a waste of time and effort.

I turned off indexing for Word XP on my 98SE machine, and that stopped the
machine from not functioning period.

 

[Cymbal Man Freq.]

|
| | | Get rid of indexing entirely in Vista and it works one HELL of a lot faster.
| | Indexing is a waste of time and effort.
|
| I turned off indexing for Word XP on my 98SE machine, and that stopped the
| machine from not functioning period.
|

Of course, every Office update turned indexing back on and I'd have to go to
Safe mode to turn it back off because my computer wouldn't finish booting.

 

[D. Spencer Hines]

by the way I was using classic most of the time.

Which doesn't look like XP Classic?

The drawing speeds for the gui are pathetic...

and even in classic and all effects turned off you still have all the
elements of the vista gui, that are strange...

What are those elements that are strange?

 

[Jan Hyde]

I have dual boot vista and xp

XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
same),

I've had the opposite experience, Vista has resulted in a
speed improvement. The improvement is not as obvious in
machines that have been upgraded rather than a fresh install
but noticable all the same.

J

 

[kirk jim]

Wouldn't it just be easier to stay with XP, which works?

BINGO!

 

[mikeyhsd]

for a trial uninstall your virus program and try a few tings that appear to be so slow.
I use avast and have noticed a DRAMATIC difference in speed of the system with avast installed and active and with it uninstalled.

you can always install the virus program again.
by the way norton and macafee have known problem with vista.

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

I have dual boot vista and xp

XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
same),
but durring its normal function.
Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
fast...
I was working almost a day on vista.... and when I booted back to XP,
it was like a totally different machine!
The specs of this machine are cpu single core 2600 mhz, 1.25 gb ram.
I have had no problems with drivers or blue screens...
I just multitask very fast with lot of programs... so the speed difference
is evident.

Perhaps with a dual or quad core vista will work ok.. but with this single
core its too slow for my tastes.. I prefer snappy lightning fast performance
than the little new things vista has to offer.
But then on the other hand if you were to install XP on the quad, it would
be even faster...

 

[kirk jim]

Vista looks good only if you still have it in the box...

once you install it, it shows its true nature...


for a trial uninstall your virus program and try a few tings that appear to be so slow.
I use avast and have noticed a DRAMATIC difference in speed of the system with avast installed and active and with it uninstalled.

you can always install the virus program again.
by the way norton and macafee have known problem with vista.

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

I have dual boot vista and xp

XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
same),
but durring its normal function.
Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
fast...
I was working almost a day on vista.... and when I booted back to XP,
it was like a totally different machine!
The specs of this machine are cpu single core 2600 mhz, 1.25 gb ram.
I have had no problems with drivers or blue screens...
I just multitask very fast with lot of programs... so the speed difference
is evident.

Perhaps with a dual or quad core vista will work ok.. but with this single
core its too slow for my tastes.. I prefer snappy lightning fast performance
than the little new things vista has to offer.
But then on the other hand if you were to install XP on the quad, it would
be even faster...

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Windows 95 is way faster than 98.

Sure. But w98 supports hdds up to 40gb (as opposed to 1.2gb for w95) and
also supports USB, which w95 does not.

Those were important new capabilities that the market clearly wanted by
the time Microsoft released w98.

What comparable new capabilities does Vista offer relative to XP?

Charlie