Actually things are far worse for Vista., because they are using only a
benchmark program to count various
aspects... However in a REAL life environment Vista performs incredibly
slower... Good tech's know that benchmarks only show some aspects of the
performance of a computer.

I have seen that sometimes vista is as low as 300% slower on some things,
yes, that means that something that would take XP 10 minutes to do, vista
needs 30 minutes... What kind of things? Installing huge programs for one...
vista is slower PERIOD. Basically it was said that vista was faster in boot
and shutdown...
I thought that was true.. but after testing machines that had vista on them
for some time and installed programs,
that too it seems is a misconception.

[url]http://thepodest.blogs.keznews.com/2007/05/22/comparing-vista-and-xp-with-performcetest/[/url]

You can also see this link
[url]http://keznews.com/2902_Vista_vs._XP_in_Performace_Test[/url]

( I don't agree totally with some of these for example XP performed better
with 512 mb ram than windows98 since it could take advantage of the ram
better, but there is absolutely no such major technological improvement from
XP to Vista)

where it says:

As you can see, my computer perform better in Windows XP. Right now I'm dual
booting Windows XP and Vista.

If you really need your PC to finish huge encoding, transcoding or rendering
workloads within a defined time frame, yes, it is. Don't do it; stay with
XP.

But as long as you don't need to finish workloads in record time, we believe
it makes sense to consider these three bullet points:

* Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more
resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for
free.
* There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast
dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the
middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by
upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and
tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead.
* No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance
than its predecessor.

Although application performance has had this drawback, the new Windows
Vista performance features SuperFetch and ReadyDrive help to make Vista feel
faster and smoother than Windows XP.

Tiberius wrote:[color=blue]
> Actually things are far worse for Vista., because they are using only a
> benchmark program to count various
> aspects... However in a REAL life environment Vista performs incredibly
> slower... Good tech's know that benchmarks only show some aspects of the
> performance of a computer.[/color]
[color=blue]
> I have seen that sometimes vista is as low as 300% slower on some things,
> yes, that means that something that would take XP 10 minutes to do, vista
> needs 30 minutes... What kind of things? Installing huge programs for one...
> vista is slower PERIOD. Basically it was said that vista was faster in boot
> and shutdown...
> I thought that was true.. but after testing machines that had vista on them
> for some time and installed programs,
> that too it seems is a misconception.[/color]

#1 Slower on bootup and shutdown

[color=blue]
> [url]http://thepodest.blogs.keznews.com/2007/05/22/comparing-vista-and-xp-with-performcetest/[/url]
>
> You can also see this link
> [url]http://keznews.com/2902_Vista_vs._XP_in_Performace_Test[/url]
>
> ( I don't agree totally with some of these for example XP performed better
> with 512 mb ram than windows98 since it could take advantage of the ram
> better, but there is absolutely no such major technological improvement from
> XP to Vista)[/color]

#2 No better use of RAM (that's good, we won't have to buy more
expensive RAM, just
use what we currently have with XP)
[color=blue]
> where it says:
>
> As you can see, my computer perform better in Windows XP. Right now I'm dual
> booting Windows XP and Vista.[/color]

#3 XP performs better (that's always good. :-)
[color=blue]
> If you really need your PC to finish huge encoding, transcoding or rendering
> workloads within a defined time frame, yes, it is. Don't do it; stay with
> XP.[/color]

Most of us pace our work and don't overdo things. But we don't want
the OS
to be lollygaging. :-)
[color=blue]
> But as long as you don't need to finish workloads in record time, we believe
> it makes sense to consider these three bullet points:[/color]
[color=blue]
> * Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more
> resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for
> free.[/color]

[color=blue]
> * There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast
> dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the
> middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by
> upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and
> tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead.[/color]

I am running a P-3 and it's plenty fast for me. I sometimes have 3 or
4 windows open.
It does drag a little if I am writing to a floppy or online and
playing some tunes.

[color=blue]
> * No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance
> than its predecessor.[/color]

Doesn't this statement conflict with some previous ones ?

[color=blue]
> Although application performance has had this drawback, the new Windows
> Vista performance features SuperFetch and ReadyDrive help to make Vista feel
> faster and smoother than Windows XP.[/color]

How long have you worked for MS ? :-)

I am just joking.

Tiberius wrote:[color=blue]
> Actually things are far worse for Vista., because they are using only
> a benchmark program to count various
> aspects... However in a REAL life environment Vista performs
> incredibly slower... Good tech's know that benchmarks only show some
> aspects of the performance of a computer.
>
> I have seen that sometimes vista is as low as 300% slower on some
> things, yes, that means that something that would take XP 10 minutes
> to do, vista needs 30 minutes... What kind of things? Installing huge
> programs for one... vista is slower PERIOD.[/color]

Yeah, but how often do you install really big programs compared to how often
you look at a really cool screen?

Tiberius wrote:
[color=blue]
> Actually things are far worse for Vista., because they are using only a
> benchmark program to count various
> aspects... However in a REAL life environment Vista performs incredibly
> slower... Good tech's know that benchmarks only show some aspects of the
> performance of a computer.
>[/color]

Good techs also have knowledge of what they're using and in this case
Superfetch takes time to learn the users habits (something no benchmark
can ever do) before noticeable gains in real world performance can be
noticed. Suggest you first use Vista in a real world work environment
for a period of time before you go making your unfounded and untrue
claims about real world performance.
Otherwise you will continue to look like a **** fool!
Frank

Hi T,

I have read both your comments and other on how slow Vista is compared to XP.
While I do not disagree that in some cases this can be true on my computer
this is not the case.
I have just finished a project of copying a video tape ( of a Wedding ) onto
my computer ( Vista Business ) edited it with Ulead Video Factory added
little extras and then compiled it so that it will fit onto DVD. Now under XP
Pro the actual encoding for a job this size usually takes about 90 minutes
but with Vista it too just a smidge over an hour. Because it took less time I
expected to see some dropped frames but the end product is perfect.
Now I'm not saying that this is the case for all users of Vista, but in the
REAL world of my office this is the case.


"Tiberius" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Actually things are far worse for Vista., because they are using only a
> benchmark program to count various
> aspects... However in a REAL life environment Vista performs incredibly
> slower... Good tech's know that benchmarks only show some aspects of the
> performance of a computer.
>
> I have seen that sometimes vista is as low as 300% slower on some things,
> yes, that means that something that would take XP 10 minutes to do, vista
> needs 30 minutes... What kind of things? Installing huge programs for one...
> vista is slower PERIOD. Basically it was said that vista was faster in boot
> and shutdown...
> I thought that was true.. but after testing machines that had vista on them
> for some time and installed programs,
> that too it seems is a misconception.
>
> [url]http://thepodest.blogs.keznews.com/2007/05/22/comparing-vista-and-xp-with-performcetest/[/url]
>
> You can also see this link
> [url]http://keznews.com/2902_Vista_vs._XP_in_Performace_Test[/url]
>
> ( I don't agree totally with some of these for example XP performed better
> with 512 mb ram than windows98 since it could take advantage of the ram
> better, but there is absolutely no such major technological improvement from
> XP to Vista)
>
> where it says:
>
> As you can see, my computer perform better in Windows XP. Right now I'm dual
> booting Windows XP and Vista.
>
> If you really need your PC to finish huge encoding, transcoding or rendering
> workloads within a defined time frame, yes, it is. Don't do it; stay with
> XP.
>
> But as long as you don't need to finish workloads in record time, we believe
> it makes sense to consider these three bullet points:
>
> * Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more
> resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for
> free.
> * There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast
> dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the
> middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by
> upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and
> tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead.
> * No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance
> than its predecessor.
>
> Although application performance has had this drawback, the new Windows
> Vista performance features SuperFetch and ReadyDrive help to make Vista feel
> faster and smoother than Windows XP.
>
>
>
>[/color]

"HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in
news:#akVhMVnHHA.4132@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
[color=blue]
> Tiberius wrote:[color=green]
>> Actually things are far worse for Vista., because they are using only
>> a benchmark program to count various
>> aspects... However in a REAL life environment Vista performs
>> incredibly slower... Good tech's know that benchmarks only show some
>> aspects of the performance of a computer.
>>
>> I have seen that sometimes vista is as low as 300% slower on some
>> things, yes, that means that something that would take XP 10 minutes
>> to do, vista needs 30 minutes... What kind of things? Installing huge
>> programs for one... vista is slower PERIOD.[/color]
>
> Yeah, but how often do you install really big programs compared to how
> often you look at a really cool screen?[/color]


If all you use your computer for is looking at a really cool screen, you
can get all the 'cool' you can handle plus more for $50 from Stardock for
any MS OS post-Win95.

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
news:Xns9939C74A26D4Athisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142[color=blue]
> "HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in
> news:#akVhMVnHHA.4132@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>[color=green]
>> Tiberius wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Actually things are far worse for Vista., because they are using
>>> only a benchmark program to count various
>>> aspects... However in a REAL life environment Vista performs
>>> incredibly slower... Good tech's know that benchmarks only show some
>>> aspects of the performance of a computer.
>>>
>>> I have seen that sometimes vista is as low as 300% slower on some
>>> things, yes, that means that something that would take XP 10 minutes
>>> to do, vista needs 30 minutes... What kind of things? Installing
>>> huge programs for one... vista is slower PERIOD.[/color]
>>
>> Yeah, but how often do you install really big programs compared to
>> how often you look at a really cool screen?[/color]
>
> If all you use your computer for is looking at a really cool screen,
> you can get all the 'cool' you can handle plus more for $50 from
> Stardock for any MS OS post-Win95.[/color]

I like Aston Shell using the Vista theme myself. Uses about the same
memory footprint as Windows XP itself.

[url]http://themes.astonshell.com/495/[/url]

--
Bill

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in news:u6zoq6ZnHHA.4132
@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Yeah, but how often do you install really big programs compared to
>>> how often you look at a really cool screen?[/color]
>>
>> If all you use your computer for is looking at a really cool screen,
>> you can get all the 'cool' you can handle plus more for $50 from
>> Stardock for any MS OS post-Win95.[/color]
>
> I like Aston Shell using the Vista theme myself. Uses about the same
> memory footprint as Windows XP itself.
>
> [url]http://themes.astonshell.com/495/[/url]
>[/color]

Hmmm. That looks like a pretty complete shell replacement. I don't remember
if I saw that one at ShellCity or Desktopian when I was researching
alternate shells.