Is there a trick to get Vista to work as fast as XP?

"babaloo" <fac187********.com> wrote in message
news:IQ3Ci.22273$eY.17067@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...[color=blue]
> Is there a trick to get Vista to work as fast as XP?[/color]

I'm thinking of formatting and going back to the lovely XP. Well, compared
to my findings of Vista, XP is more than lovely!

No trick really.
Like operating systems before including Windows XP, generally more
power is needed if you desire similar speed as the previous operating
system.
1 GB - to 2 GB RAM minimum.
1.5 GHz to 2 GHz Processor minimum.
A newer Windows Vista compatible video card.
Of course all other hardware should have Windows Vista drivers and
software Windows Vista compatible for best performance.
The list goes on and depends on your specific uses.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"babaloo" <fac187********.com> wrote in message
news:IQ3Ci.22273$eY.17067@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...[color=blue]
> Is there a trick to get Vista to work as fast as XP?[/color]

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=blue]
> No trick really.
> Like operating systems before including Windows XP, generally more power
> is needed if you desire similar speed as the previous operating system.
> 1 GB - to 2 GB RAM minimum.
> 1.5 GHz to 2 GHz Processor minimum.
> A newer Windows Vista compatible video card.
> Of course all other hardware should have Windows Vista drivers and
> software Windows Vista compatible for best performance.
> The list goes on and depends on your specific uses.
>[/color]


So you consider this a "Natural" progression, eh?

It is quite reasonable to consider that W2000 did much more than 98, and
reasonable to consider that XP did more than 2000, although by that
comparison you'd think that an OS doing less would run a bit faster (so
XP home might be a bit faster than XP Pro for example) except that
didn't seem to be the case. IOW there is a speed penalty for extra
functionality. Fair enough. Where is the extra functionality between XP
and Vista? Get lost did it?

Since there IS no extra functionality in Vista that we can see (As there
was between 98 and 2000 and XP) where do the extra resources go to? How
about WDM, WGA, Activation checks, driver signature checks etc etc.

Either it's doing something extra than XP on identical hardware or it's
full of bloat. So what is it doing?

You need to read my post again.
I am not sure where you get that quote "Natural" but it is not from
me.
Perhaps that is a quote from someone else and you are confusing posts.

But in the past newer operating systems have performed slower on the
same hardware than the previous.

As for extra functionality, if you see none, clearly Windows Vista is
not for you.
Stay where you are at and use what works for you.
Check Microsoft's website for details.

Since Windows XP will probably be supported for several more years,
the release of Windows Vista in itself is not a sufficient reason to
upgrade.
Most should stay with Windows XP until hardware, software or something
else requires a change of operating system.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:e1OVjVE7HHA.5424@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> So you consider this a "Natural" progression, eh?
>
> It is quite reasonable to consider that W2000 did much more than 98,
> and reasonable to consider that XP did more than 2000, although by
> that comparison you'd think that an OS doing less would run a bit
> faster (so XP home might be a bit faster than XP Pro for example)
> except that didn't seem to be the case. IOW there is a speed penalty
> for extra functionality. Fair enough. Where is the extra
> functionality between XP and Vista? Get lost did it?
>
> Since there IS no extra functionality in Vista that we can see (As
> there was between 98 and 2000 and XP) where do the extra resources
> go to? How about WDM, WGA, Activation checks, driver signature
> checks etc etc.
>
> Either it's doing something extra than XP on identical hardware or
> it's full of bloat. So what is it doing?[/color]

"babaloo" <fac187********.com> wrote in news:IQ3Ci.22273$eY.17067
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net:
[color=blue]
> Is there a trick to get Vista to work as fast as XP?
>
>[/color]

LOL!

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=blue]
> You need to read my post again.
> I am not sure where you get that quote "Natural" but it is not from me.
> Perhaps that is a quote from someone else and you are confusing posts.
>
> But in the past newer operating systems have performed slower on the
> same hardware than the previous.
>
> As for extra functionality, if you see none, clearly Windows Vista is
> not for you.
> Stay where you are at and use what works for you.
> Check Microsoft's website for details.
>
> Since Windows XP will probably be supported for several more years, the
> release of Windows Vista in itself is not a sufficient reason to upgrade.
> Most should stay with Windows XP until hardware, software or something
> else requires a change of operating system.
>[/color]


No I don't, you do. A "Natural" progression is something one takes for
granted, and I'm not the least bit confused, but perhaps you are because
once again all you seem capable of is repeating one of several tired old
mantras.

In the past newer OS have performed slower because they had greater
functionality, but Vista has little greater functionality that's visible
to the user so where is it? Don't be ashamed that you don't know the
answer because you're probably "Not supposed to know".


Now, tell me about the aero desktop, or the amazing "DreamScene"
animations and tell me why things are still slower than XP when I'm not
using either of them. XP can play a full movie with no glitches while
running office on another monitor and still go faster than Vista. One of
the key statements alleged to be made for SP1 is to improve performance,
and although I doubt it will by much there is an admission that MS
actually know and admit Vista leaves something to be desired. So instead
of advising me to stick with XP and advising "Most" to do the same AFTER
they have bought Vista and turned up here looking for answers why don't
you explain the situation. I'll tell you why you can't, because you
don't know is why, and because there is no logical reason for it except
perchance bloated programming or else the system doing things it maybe
shouldn't be doing.

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=blue]
> As for extra functionality, if you see none, clearly Windows Vista is
> not for you.
> Stay where you are at and use what works for you.
> Check Microsoft's website for details.[/color]

How come the "friends of Vista" can never elaborate on this? Is all this
extra functionality hidden away somewhere and only available to MVPs and
Vista fanboys? I've yet to see anything in Vista that isn't
doable/available in XP, without the extra need of more horsepower, more RAM
and more hard drive space.
[color=blue]
>I am not sure where you get that quote "Natural" but it is not from
>me. Perhaps that is a quote from someone else and you are confusing posts.[/color]

Why do you guys take everything so literally?! No, you didn't use the word
"natural" but it certainly fits perfectly to what you said.

Charlie Tame wrote:[color=blue]
> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=green]
>> No trick really.
>> Like operating systems before including Windows XP, generally more
>> power is needed if you desire similar speed as the previous
>> operating system. 1 GB - to 2 GB RAM minimum.
>> 1.5 GHz to 2 GHz Processor minimum.
>> A newer Windows Vista compatible video card.
>> Of course all other hardware should have Windows Vista drivers and
>> software Windows Vista compatible for best performance.
>> The list goes on and depends on your specific uses.
>>[/color]
>
>
> So you consider this a "Natural" progression, eh?
>
> It is quite reasonable to consider that W2000 did much more than 98,
> and reasonable to consider that XP did more than 2000, although by
> that comparison you'd think that an OS doing less would run a bit
> faster (so XP home might be a bit faster than XP Pro for example)
> except that didn't seem to be the case. IOW there is a speed penalty
> for extra functionality. Fair enough. Where is the extra
> functionality between XP and Vista? Get lost did it?
>
> Since there IS no extra functionality in Vista that we can see (As
> there was between 98 and 2000 and XP) where do the extra resources go
> to? How about WDM, WGA, Activation checks, driver signature checks
> etc etc.
>
> Either it's doing something extra than XP on identical hardware or
> it's full of bloat. So what is it doing?[/color]

Gotta be bloat. Just look at the size of Vista! I don't have or know the
exact figures but Vista is 3 or 4 times the size of XP (and yes, I realize
disk space is cheap these days but that's certainly not that point)

"Is all this extra functionality hidden away somewhere..."
Not at all, if so it would not be easily available on Microsoft's
website.
As I have suggested before, if none of that is to your benefit, stay
with what you have.
There is no reason to upgrade from Windows XP in such a case.
If you want a sales pitch, which is what you are really asking, ask a
sales person, not me.
Salespeople can be found many places.

"I've yet to see anything in Vista..."
Then stay with Windows XP, it is your computer.
I have no desire to convince anyone to switch since that is their own
decision.

"Why do you guys take everything so literally?"
He placed "Natural" in quotes as if I said it.
There is no reason for the quotes if he knew I did not say it.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:O2Opa3E7HHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> How come the "friends of Vista" can never elaborate on this? Is all
> this
> extra functionality hidden away somewhere and only available to MVPs
> and
> Vista fanboys? I've yet to see anything in Vista that isn't
> doable/available in XP, without the extra need of more horsepower,
> more RAM
> and more hard drive space.
>[color=green]
>>I am not sure where you get that quote "Natural" but it is not from
>>me. Perhaps that is a quote from someone else and you are confusing
>>posts.[/color]
>
> Why do you guys take everything so literally?! No, you didn't use
> the word
> "natural" but it certainly fits perfectly to what you said.
>
>
>
>[/color]

You place "Natural" in quotes as if I said it, I did not.

"Now, tell me about..."
Surely you are able to read about those and others on the many
resources already available.

"So instead of advising me to stick..."
If you do not want answers, stop asking questions.
If there is no benefit, there is no reason to upgrade.
Why is that so difficult for you?

"...AFTER they have bought Vista..."
Then they should return the computer if there is a negative benefit.
Or return Windows Vista, easy for retail in North America.

"...why don't you explain the situation"
See my first post in this thread.

"I'll tell you why you can't..."
It seems you have already made up your mind and follow up with
ASSUMPTIONS.
Surely you know the problem with making "ASSUMPTIONS".

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:OG2YG3E7HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[/color]
[color=blue]
> No I don't, you do. A "Natural" progression is something one takes
> for granted, and I'm not the least bit confused, but perhaps you are
> because once again all you seem capable of is repeating one of
> several tired old mantras.
>
> In the past newer OS have performed slower because they had greater
> functionality, but Vista has little greater functionality that's
> visible to the user so where is it? Don't be ashamed that you don't
> know the answer because you're probably "Not supposed to know".
>
>
> Now, tell me about the aero desktop, or the amazing "DreamScene"
> animations and tell me why things are still slower than XP when I'm
> not using either of them. XP can play a full movie with no glitches
> while running office on another monitor and still go faster than
> Vista. One of the key statements alleged to be made for SP1 is to
> improve performance, and although I doubt it will by much there is
> an admission that MS actually know and admit Vista leaves something
> to be desired. So instead of advising me to stick with XP and
> advising "Most" to do the same AFTER they have bought Vista and
> turned up here looking for answers why don't you explain the
> situation. I'll tell you why you can't, because you don't know is
> why, and because there is no logical reason for it except perchance
> bloated programming or else the system doing things it maybe
> shouldn't be doing.[/color]

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=blue]
> You place "Natural" in quotes as if I said it, I did not.
>
> "Now, tell me about..."
> Surely you are able to read about those and others on the many resources
> already available.[/color]



So you have no answer...



[color=blue]
> "So instead of advising me to stick..."
> If you do not want answers, stop asking questions.
> If there is no benefit, there is no reason to upgrade.
> Why is that so difficult for you?[/color]


It's not, for me. Except the user is not going to have the questions or
know there's no benefit until AFTER they have the OS, and so never knew
there was no reason to upgrade until it was too late.


[color=blue]
> "...AFTER they have bought Vista..."
> Then they should return the computer if there is a negative benefit.
> Or return Windows Vista, easy for retail in North America.[/color]



None of this answers the simple question as to why it is slower than XP.



[color=blue]
> "...why don't you explain the situation"
> See my first post in this thread.[/color]




Seems that was basically the same reference to "Natural" progression, as
in any new OS is slowed than the one before, however until now there's
been a reason for that.


[color=blue]
> "I'll tell you why you can't..."
> It seems you have already made up your mind and follow up with ASSUMPTIONS.
> Surely you know the problem with making "ASSUMPTIONS".[/color]



Like the assumption that a new OS is always going to be slower than it's
predecessor.

Again, skirting around the question. I am staying with XP and I'm not
looking for convincing, just looking for answers. Time and again people are
saying that Vista is such an improvement over XP, I just want to know what
that is specifically? People here clearly don't have an answer, or perhaps
just afraid to face the truth. And a salesperson certainly doesn't have the
answers, they just spiel off the same marketing mumbo-jumbo from MS's
website.

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=blue]
> "Is all this extra functionality hidden away somewhere..."
> Not at all, if so it would not be easily available on Microsoft's
> website.
> As I have suggested before, if none of that is to your benefit, stay
> with what you have.
> There is no reason to upgrade from Windows XP in such a case.
> If you want a sales pitch, which is what you are really asking, ask a
> sales person, not me.
> Salespeople can be found many places.
>
> "I've yet to see anything in Vista..."
> Then stay with Windows XP, it is your computer.
> I have no desire to convince anyone to switch since that is their own
> decision.
>
> "Why do you guys take everything so literally?"
> He placed "Natural" in quotes as if I said it.
> There is no reason for the quotes if he knew I did not say it.
>
>
> "GO" <aa533@remove.this.chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
> news:O2Opa3E7HHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> How come the "friends of Vista" can never elaborate on this? Is all
>> this
>> extra functionality hidden away somewhere and only available to MVPs
>> and
>> Vista fanboys? I've yet to see anything in Vista that isn't
>> doable/available in XP, without the extra need of more horsepower,
>> more RAM
>> and more hard drive space.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> I am not sure where you get that quote "Natural" but it is not from
>>> me. Perhaps that is a quote from someone else and you are confusing
>>> posts.[/color]
>>
>> Why do you guys take everything so literally?! No, you didn't use
>> the word
>> "natural" but it certainly fits perfectly to what you said.[/color][/color]

"So you have no answer"
I gave you an answer.
You simply seem unwilling to look for what you already know is there.

"...or know there's no benefit until AFTER..."
They should know before they spend $.
Why are they buying if they do not know what to expect?
If they do not know, they need to research.
If they see no benefit, there is no reason for them to upgrade.
This applies to all kinds of products.
I do not purchase a new model of anything simply because it is
available.
I need to see some type of benefit as all buyers should before
spending their $.

"None of this answers the simple question..."
The answer is simple for you.
Stay where you are since you see nothing to benefit and a lot of
disadvantages.
I fail to see why you seem to continue to want someone to sell you on
something you do not want or need.

"Like the assumption that a new OS is always going to be slower..."
You may assume whatever you want, "always" is your word not mine.
In the past that has been true.
Unlike you I will not assume but will wait and see what the future
brings.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:u$GQJiF7HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=green]
>> You place "Natural" in quotes as if I said it, I did not.
>>
>> "Now, tell me about..."
>> Surely you are able to read about those and others on the many
>> resources already available.[/color]
>
>
>
> So you have no answer...
>
>
>
>[color=green]
>> "So instead of advising me to stick..."
>> If you do not want answers, stop asking questions.
>> If there is no benefit, there is no reason to upgrade.
>> Why is that so difficult for you?[/color]
>
>
> It's not, for me. Except the user is not going to have the questions
> or know there's no benefit until AFTER they have the OS, and so
> never knew there was no reason to upgrade until it was too late.
>
>
>[color=green]
>> "...AFTER they have bought Vista..."
>> Then they should return the computer if there is a negative
>> benefit.
>> Or return Windows Vista, easy for retail in North America.[/color]
>
>
>
> None of this answers the simple question as to why it is slower than
> XP.
>
>
>
>[color=green]
>> "...why don't you explain the situation"
>> See my first post in this thread.[/color]
>
>
>
>
> Seems that was basically the same reference to "Natural"
> progression, as in any new OS is slowed than the one before, however
> until now there's been a reason for that.
>
>
>[color=green]
>> "I'll tell you why you can't..."
>> It seems you have already made up your mind and follow up with
>> ASSUMPTIONS.
>> Surely you know the problem with making "ASSUMPTIONS".[/color]
>
>
>
> Like the assumption that a new OS is always going to be slower than
> it's predecessor.
>[/color]

GO wrote:[color=blue]
> Charlie Tame wrote:[color=green]
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> No trick really.
>>> Like operating systems before including Windows XP, generally more
>>> power is needed if you desire similar speed as the previous
>>> operating system. 1 GB - to 2 GB RAM minimum.
>>> 1.5 GHz to 2 GHz Processor minimum.
>>> A newer Windows Vista compatible video card.
>>> Of course all other hardware should have Windows Vista drivers and
>>> software Windows Vista compatible for best performance.
>>> The list goes on and depends on your specific uses.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> So you consider this a "Natural" progression, eh?
>>
>> It is quite reasonable to consider that W2000 did much more than 98,
>> and reasonable to consider that XP did more than 2000, although by
>> that comparison you'd think that an OS doing less would run a bit
>> faster (so XP home might be a bit faster than XP Pro for example)
>> except that didn't seem to be the case. IOW there is a speed penalty
>> for extra functionality. Fair enough. Where is the extra
>> functionality between XP and Vista? Get lost did it?
>>
>> Since there IS no extra functionality in Vista that we can see (As
>> there was between 98 and 2000 and XP) where do the extra resources go
>> to? How about WDM, WGA, Activation checks, driver signature checks
>> etc etc.
>>
>> Either it's doing something extra than XP on identical hardware or
>> it's full of bloat. So what is it doing?[/color]
>
> Gotta be bloat. Just look at the size of Vista! I don't have or know the
> exact figures but Vista is 3 or 4 times the size of XP (and yes, I realize
> disk space is cheap these days but that's certainly not that point)
>
>[/color]


Well I have my own theories as to the size and speed problems but in
fact the whole thing is drifting toward the user being inexorably tied
to MS and worse still to developers being inexorably tied to MS.

Extra layers of driver abstraction, DRM and so called "Managed Code"
have been added so that what is generated these days by what looks like
a C++ program is actually a "Byte Code" program similar to that used in
Java and which adds more extra steps or "Interpretation". This is okay
with an application but far less satisfactory for an OS. You want high
level languages sure, but you want to go from them to machine code where
possible and not through some other "Layer" of something such as .net
framework. The farther your program gets from the hardware the slower it
gets.