| |||||||
| Windows Vista Discuss the different versions of Windows Vista, Fuji, or Vienna |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
09-03-2007, 04:00 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Install Ubuntu and none of them are lite.. lol not with all the feature installed that is... of course there are other linux that fit in a floppy.. but not the major distros... "Gav" <gav@nospam.com> wrote in message news:eU9Uv0g7HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > "Spanky deMonkey" <spanky@deMonkey.com> wrote in message > news:%23BFqukd7HHA.5796@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> You could install Ubuntu on your machine and it would be about 200% >> faster but you couldn't do anything with it !!!!! > > Really? Don't use Ubuntu myself but I do use Debian (Ubuntu base) and > SuSE, nowadays I only use Windows for Visual Studio, Plextools and Gaming. > > Gav >      |
|
09-03-2007, 04:30 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... But hardware is not constant, and the operating systems must adapt to take advantage of them. Computers evolve, so must the OS. Making comparisons between them is pointless, as each is written for the hardware in use at the time. To compare Win98 on a system against XP is like giving the keys to a porsche to a 3 year old. If they don't know what to do with it, it's not going to matter. Win98 cannot take advantage of today's memory technology. WinXP, likewise, has limitations on what it can do on today's hardware, so in some cases it's quite possible that Vista can manage it better. Same thing applies in the Linux and Mac worlds, it's certainly not limited to Windows. Nothing's hard and fast here, the results of any comparison are going to depend heavily on how the test is structured. To say unequivically that one performs better than the other demonstrates a lack of knowledge on how an operating system interacts with the components. For me, such comparisons are pointless as they can easily be structured to proving any point of view. -- Best of Luck, Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/ Windows help - www.rickrogers.org My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message news:46db9cb2$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... > Rick > > I urge you to repeat what you said to all the vista maniacs who claim > without even thinking that vista is actually FASTER than XP on the same > hardware! > > This simply cannot happen... there is no super duper great leap in Vista > that would make it better as in for example > the win98 to XP leap that was one of the most significant ones in > Microsoft history. > > on a pentium 4 for example with 3 gb ram, XP can outperform win98 because > it can utilize all the ram. > When you try to compare XP and Vista though there is no significant change > in technology.. its basically the same ol thing! > > not to say that there are not improvments in vista under the hood.. but on > that framework they added so much crappy bloat that bogs the whole OS down > too much making it significanly slower than XP. > > Stop trying to compare old hardware with new ones... > > I am comparing OS's. The hardware must be a constant in order to compare > them! > > > > "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message > news:%23uUAEyc7HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Of course it is as it has a higher overhead requirement. Now, compare >> Vista's performance on modern hardware against XP's performance on the >> hardware from 2001, and you will see they are pretty much the same. >> Operating systems are built for the hardware available at the time of >> their release. Run Win2000 or Win 98 on today's hardware and it'll really >> fly. That doesn't mean they're better, just that they have lesser >> requirements because that's what was out there then. >> >> -- >> Best of Luck, >> >> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/ >> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org >> My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com >> >> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message >> news:46db5e10$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >>> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot... >>> >>> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP.... >>> >>> its irritating... >>> >>> >>> >> > > |
|
09-03-2007, 04:30 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... Care to offer the computer's specs and what tests you applied? "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message news:46db5e10$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... > Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot... > > even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP.... > > its irritating... > > > |
|
09-03-2007, 04:30 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... "Telstar" <none@none> wrote in message news:ebYDPsc7HHA.4736@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message > news:46db5e10$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot... >> >> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP.... >> >> its irritating... >> >> >> > > Have you tried Windows 98? It is FAR faster than XP. And we had them saying, who would want to use 'MS ****y XP crap' my W98 runs better & faster!!! |
|
09-03-2007, 04:50 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Install Ubuntu "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message news:46dbf6be@newsgate.x-privat.org... > and none of them are lite.. lol not with all the feature installed that > is... Nope they can be quite large, depends how you install them though. Standard installs have been geared to noobs and tend to give you a heck of a lot that you probably don't need, although they do run well. I tend to do minimal install and put the stuff I want on afterwards to get a really quick machine. Thats the great thing about it, actually being in full control. Oh and the fact that when you want to change configuration you can just edit a file, rather than be asked again and again are you sure you want to do this. > > of course there are other linux that fit in a floppy.. but not the major > distros... > > > "Gav" <gav@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:eU9Uv0g7HHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> "Spanky deMonkey" <spanky@deMonkey.com> wrote in message >> news:%23BFqukd7HHA.5796@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> You could install Ubuntu on your machine and it would be about 200% >>> faster but you couldn't do anything with it !!!!! >> >> Really? Don't use Ubuntu myself but I do use Debian (Ubuntu base) and >> SuSE, nowadays I only use Windows for Visual Studio, Plextools and >> Gaming. >> >> Gav >> > > |
|
09-03-2007, 05:10 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... * Lang Murphy: > "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message > news:46db5e10$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot... >> >> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP.... >> >> its irritating... > I suppose that would be extremely frustrating. That said, Vista works as > fast on most tasks here than XP, and is some cases faster. If your system is > running half as fast with Vista than with XP, then one can only assume that > your system doesn't have the juice to run Vista or you've got software, like > AV, running on Vista that is sucking up system resources. Without knowing > the specifics of your system, though, it's impossible to offer any > assistance. "Vista works as fast on most tasks here than XP, and is some cases faster." Lang, Your statement above really says it all, and is my biggest complaint about Vista. After more than 5 years, a supposed $6 billion spent, and more powerful computers- we get an OS that performs "as fast on most tasks than XP" and in "some cases faster". So, Vista's performance is mostly about equal to that of XP, except there are times when it's not, and then there are a few times when Vista might be faster. That basically sums it all up. -Michael |
|
09-03-2007, 05:20 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... I spent $30,000 renovating my house. Guess what? Its still just a house. It looks prettier though. "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message news:ephliti7HHA.3624@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >* Lang Murphy: >> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message >> news:46db5e10$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >>> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot... >>> >>> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP.... >>> >>> its irritating... > >> I suppose that would be extremely frustrating. That said, Vista works as >> fast on most tasks here than XP, and is some cases faster. If your system >> is >> running half as fast with Vista than with XP, then one can only assume >> that >> your system doesn't have the juice to run Vista or you've got software, >> like >> AV, running on Vista that is sucking up system resources. Without knowing >> the specifics of your system, though, it's impossible to offer any >> assistance. > > "Vista works as fast on most tasks here than XP, and is some cases > faster." > > Lang, > > Your statement above really says it all, and is my biggest complaint > about Vista. After more than 5 years, a supposed $6 billion spent, and > more powerful computers- we get an OS that performs "as fast on most > tasks than XP" and in "some cases faster". So, Vista's performance is > mostly about equal to that of XP, except there are times when it's not, > and then there are a few times when Vista might be faster. That basically > sums it all up. > > > -Michael |
|
09-03-2007, 06:10 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... Surely an OS is not so much about speed as overall capability, security etc.. "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message news:ephliti7HHA.3624@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >* Lang Murphy: >> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message >> news:46db5e10$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >>> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot... >>> >>> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP.... >>> >>> its irritating... > >> I suppose that would be extremely frustrating. That said, Vista works as >> fast on most tasks here than XP, and is some cases faster. If your system >> is >> running half as fast with Vista than with XP, then one can only assume >> that >> your system doesn't have the juice to run Vista or you've got software, >> like >> AV, running on Vista that is sucking up system resources. Without knowing >> the specifics of your system, though, it's impossible to offer any >> assistance. > > "Vista works as fast on most tasks here than XP, and is some cases > faster." > > Lang, > > Your statement above really says it all, and is my biggest complaint > about Vista. After more than 5 years, a supposed $6 billion spent, and > more powerful computers- we get an OS that performs "as fast on most > tasks than XP" and in "some cases faster". So, Vista's performance is > mostly about equal to that of XP, except there are times when it's not, > and then there are a few times when Vista might be faster. That basically > sums it all up. > > > -Michael -- Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
|
09-03-2007, 06:10 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... Hertz_Donut wrote: > "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message > news:46db5e10$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot... >> >> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP.... >> >> its irritating... >> >> >> > > Then you have issues with your installation or hardware. > > I am dual booting on 3 different computers...2 desktops and a laptop. > On all three computers, Vista is faster than XP. > > Honu > > More likely your XP installs have issues. If, as is claimed, Vista is so good, what do you need to go to the trouble of dual booting for. |
|
09-03-2007, 06:20 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... well that is not really true I have bought so far for clients 10 vista computers, all vista home premium, combination of laptops and desktops, all brand new with 2 gigs of ram and 160gig hds, and ALL of them on boot up and shut down run MUCH slower than XP The only thing I will grant you is when Vista finally shows the desktop and everything loads, when you open programs- there it is faster that xp btw I took all the craplets off the new computers and the only thing loading in start up are the necessary programs that vista needs to run. robin "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message news:OwCcoVd7HHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Upgrade your machine or stay with XP. Vista does need a heavier duty > machine to work properly, but in my opinion is worth it. If yours truly > is 50% slower, you have some seriously obsolete equipment. Functions > like copy and move are very much slower even with great equipment. If you > do a lot, stay with XP. Clue, complaining won't make it faster > > > "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message > news:46db63bf@newsgate.x-privat.org... >> vista is far slower in everything... >> >> I did not make this up on this spot.. I have been comparing the 2 >> extensivly since vista was in beta!! >> >> its just that now I tried to make vista into a "lite"version with >> www.vlite.net but even with that its still far slower.... >> >> >> >> >> "Val" <vmanes@NOSPAMrap.midco.net> wrote in message >> news:d-ydnXQ6Mbbf_EbbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@midco.net... >>> Care to give any specifics? How did you test? How did you ensure that >>> the >>> testing situations were comparable? >>> >>> Given the old adage that 85% of quoted statistcis are made up on the >>> spot..... >>> >>> >>> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message >>> news:46db5e10$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >>> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot... >>> >>> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP.... >>> >>> its irritating... >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > |
|
09-03-2007, 06:21 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... Lots of reasons he might be dualbooting. XP is fun. A software developer might need to test on XP. Someone designing websites will want to test on XP and so on. Many many reasons to dual and even multi-boot. Saucy "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message news:ev6EJNj7HHA.3528@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Hertz_Donut wrote: >> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message >> news:46db5e10$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >>> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot... >>> >>> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP.... >>> >>> its irritating... >>> >>> >>> >> >> Then you have issues with your installation or hardware. >> >> I am dual booting on 3 different computers...2 desktops and a laptop. >> On all three computers, Vista is faster than XP. >> >> Honu >> >> > > > More likely your XP installs have issues. > > If, as is claimed, Vista is so good, what do you need to go to the > trouble of dual booting for. |
|
09-03-2007, 06:30 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... >WinXP, likewise, has limitations on what it can do on >today's hardware, so >in some cases it's quite possible that Vista can manage it >better. what crap is this?? there is nothing vista can take advantage of that XP cannot! Misleading information or delusions just to make yourself feel good about vista??? "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message news:eoowWUi7HHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > But hardware is not constant, and the operating systems must adapt to take > advantage of them. Computers evolve, so must the OS. Making comparisons > between them is pointless, as each is written for the hardware in use at > the time. To compare Win98 on a system against XP is like giving the keys > to a porsche to a 3 year old. If they don't know what to do with it, it's > not going to matter. Win98 cannot take advantage of today's memory > technology. WinXP, likewise, has limitations on what it can do on today's > hardware, so in some cases it's quite possible that Vista can manage it > better. Same thing applies in the Linux and Mac worlds, it's certainly not > limited to Windows. > > Nothing's hard and fast here, the results of any comparison are going to > depend heavily on how the test is structured. To say unequivically that > one performs better than the other demonstrates a lack of knowledge on how > an operating system interacts with the components. For me, such > comparisons are pointless as they can easily be structured to proving any > point of view. > > -- > Best of Luck, > > Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/ > Windows help - www.rickrogers.org > My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com > > "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message > news:46db9cb2$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >> Rick >> >> I urge you to repeat what you said to all the vista maniacs who claim >> without even thinking that vista is actually FASTER than XP on the same >> hardware! >> >> This simply cannot happen... there is no super duper great leap in Vista >> that would make it better as in for example >> the win98 to XP leap that was one of the most significant ones in >> Microsoft history. >> >> on a pentium 4 for example with 3 gb ram, XP can outperform win98 because >> it can utilize all the ram. >> When you try to compare XP and Vista though there is no significant >> change in technology.. its basically the same ol thing! >> >> not to say that there are not improvments in vista under the hood.. but >> on that framework they added so much crappy bloat that bogs the whole OS >> down too much making it significanly slower than XP. >> >> Stop trying to compare old hardware with new ones... >> >> I am comparing OS's. The hardware must be a constant in order to compare >> them! >> >> >> >> "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message >> news:%23uUAEyc7HHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Of course it is as it has a higher overhead requirement. Now, compare >>> Vista's performance on modern hardware against XP's performance on the >>> hardware from 2001, and you will see they are pretty much the same. >>> Operating systems are built for the hardware available at the time of >>> their release. Run Win2000 or Win 98 on today's hardware and it'll >>> really fly. That doesn't mean they're better, just that they have lesser >>> requirements because that's what was out there then. >>> >>> -- >>> Best of Luck, >>> >>> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP >>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/ >>> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org >>> My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com >>> >>> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message >>> news:46db5e10$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >>>> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot... >>>> >>>> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP.... >>>> >>>> its irritating... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > |
|
09-03-2007, 06:30 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... "Robinb" <robin@discussion> wrote in message news:O3GzLRj7HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > > btw I took all the craplets off the new computers and the only thing > loading in start up are the necessary programs that vista needs to run. > > robin > Ha ha - yup .. I even went further with my new laptop. I downloaded the hardware drivers off the Acer website then I blanked it's harddrive [even the recovery partition] and installed a generic copy of Vista - I'm much happier with it now. Boots quickly enough for a laptop and runs as near flawlessly as I could expect from a computer. The 2nd and 3rd party stuff is so invasive .. getting into the the workings of Windows Explorer, clogging the boot process, running "monitoring" here there and everywhere. No wonder people claim Vista is 'slow' .. only it's not Vista that's slowing things down - it's software from Acer - HP - Compaq - Toshiba - Lenovo and so on ... Saucy |
|
09-03-2007, 06:40 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... It's about all those things, Mike. What are Vista's overall capabilities compared to XP? Are they really different or better? Security? My XP machines were/are secure. I still have two XP virtual machines. I still use an AV, anti-spyware and a firewall with Vista. I still see security patches being issued for Vista. UAC? You mean that annoying nanny that many users will just turn off? All of it seems so same old, same old. However, I guess all those things are to be expected. So, since we can't seem to get past these "that's just the way it has been and will be"- an OS should at least do something much better than its predecessor- impress me, make it faster. For the most part, I'm not impressed. -Michael * Mike Hall - MVP: > Surely an OS is not so much about speed as overall capability, security > etc.. > > > "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message > news:ephliti7HHA.3624@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> * Lang Murphy: >>> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message >>> news:46db5e10$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >>>> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot... >>>> >>>> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP.... >>>> >>>> its irritating... >>> I suppose that would be extremely frustrating. That said, Vista works as >>> fast on most tasks here than XP, and is some cases faster. If your system >>> is >>> running half as fast with Vista than with XP, then one can only assume >>> that >>> your system doesn't have the juice to run Vista or you've got software, >>> like >>> AV, running on Vista that is sucking up system resources. Without knowing >>> the specifics of your system, though, it's impossible to offer any >>> assistance. >> "Vista works as fast on most tasks here than XP, and is some cases >> faster." >> >> Lang, >> >> Your statement above really says it all, and is my biggest complaint >> about Vista. After more than 5 years, a supposed $6 billion spent, and >> more powerful computers- we get an OS that performs "as fast on most >> tasks than XP" and in "some cases faster". So, Vista's performance is >> mostly about equal to that of XP, except there are times when it's not, >> and then there are a few times when Vista might be faster. That basically >> sums it all up. >> >> >> -Michael > |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| New computer, running slower and slower with SP2 - any ideas?!?! | David D | Windows XP | 11 | 05-05-2007 02:25 PM |
| Does Vista boot slower than XP? | Loren | Tablet PC Bloggers | 0 | 04-10-2007 08:30 AM |
| Can't Back Up From Vista Machine to XP Machine Using Vista's Backu | Jim | Windows Vista | 3 | 02-23-2007 01:00 PM |
| Vista is slower then XP | Carl G | Windows Vista | 32 | 02-17-2007 12:45 AM |
| 3.4Ghz Notebook 1gig RAM getting slower & slower | JDJ | Windows XP | 3 | 01-04-2007 06:27 AM |
