* Charlie Tame:
> 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.

If he's being honest, then more than likely- he has three XP installs
that are several years old, with numerous programs installed.
His Vista installs are new and clean. Clean install XP, many folks
may feel like they have a new/faster machine, too.


- Michael

MICHAEL wrote:
> * 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

Well, take a collection of files (something like MP3) and try drag and
drop copying them to another folder or network location, My experience
is this will take maybe an hour and when you go back to look it's quit
on some file or other, so you either have to manually check what's been
copied and sort it out yourself or else remove the offending file and do
the whole thing again.

This is true of XP and Vista in any combination.

Do the same between any two versions of Linux (Have tried quite a few)
and guess what, it all gets copied and takes < half the time, across a
network or not. I've done it enough times now that there does seem to be
a clear pattern, it's not just a few "Bad files".

So, given that an OS does not know what it's copying so there's no
reason for it not to like the tunes or whatever, one has to question why
the MS systems fall on their ass and Linux apparently does not.

Considering that moving data is a fundamental requirement for any OS
this seems odd.

Vista drag and drop sure "Looks" prettier, but come on, looks are not
everything.

IMHO the cosmetic changes in Vista simply work to give the impression
that it is not "Same old same old" when in fact if one looks a bit
deeper it really is, and many of the bits that do appear to have at
least been re-written appear to have problems.

I had never bothered to look elsewhere for either email, newsgroups or
an OS but when circumstances make one look and one finds better
alternatives for so many functions guess what...

The biggest danger to MS that I see on the horizon is that while Linux
is a collection of different bits from different groups many
distributions are getting to "Feel" a lot more integrated while the
"Windows" product like is going the other way.

I don't think this is Microsoft's fault, I think the original PC
architecture has influenced it and the desire to provide backward
"Compatibility" has influenced it but it's not something MS can simply
ignore.

Add to this the risk which is now apparent that due to some fault or
other MS can potentially shut down half the country at a stroke and the
advertised or implied ability for your PC to be a centerpiece for
entertainment etc being compromised by such as DRM there are some very
logical reasons for not wanting all your eggs in one basket.

Hmm, well you better tell that to some here who claim Vista is good for
"Everything" then.


Saucy wrote:
> 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.
>

MICHAEL wrote:
> * Charlie Tame:
>> 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.
>
> If he's being honest, then more than likely- he has three XP installs
> that are several years old, with numerous programs installed.
> His Vista installs are new and clean. Clean install XP, many folks
> may feel like they have a new/faster machine, too.
>
>
> - Michael


Right, it is quite hard to keep any install "Clean".

> Well, take a collection of files (something like MP3) and try drag and
> drop copying them to another folder or network location, My experience
> is this will take maybe an hour and when you go back to look it's quit
> on some file or other, so you either have to manually check what's been
> copied and sort it out yourself or else remove the offending file and do
> the whole thing again.
>
> This is true of XP and Vista in any combination.
>

I have a gigabit network and SATA-II drives. When I am copying from XP to
XP or from Vista to Vista or from Vista to XP, I get about 300 m-bits per
second transfer rates across the network; about half the speed as I get from
SATA drive to SATA drive. The problem here is not Vista, it's the
motherboard, processor and system busses. And I am running a dual quad-core
Xeon Intel server board with Vista Ultimate X64.

As strange as it seems to many of us who have been around since 4.77 MHZ
processors, hard drives are no longer the bottleneck. Motherboards and
chipsets are the bottleneck now.

Another bottleneck I discovered on my gigabit network was the network
cables. I had to order about 4 CAT-6 cables for each PC and swap them
around until I got the best network transfer rates. Some certified CAT-6
cables would not connect at 1-gbps at all, and of those that would connect
at 1-gbps, I got differing results in transfer tests.

Dale

Darling, as search 'of' suggests searching one topic where a search 'on'
suggests seeing what appears.. I could be wrong, but is how I have always
understood it..

Sauternes is actually the correct spelling for the dessert wine produced in
Sauternais (Grave area of Bordeaux).. Sauterne is a derogatory US term for
cheap plonk..

ILD iue DL
"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/

Apologies for the last post to you.. it should have been directed to another
group entirely.. :-)


"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/

Startup same machine XP86 45 seconds XP64 36 seconds Vista32 38 seconds
Vista64 50 seconds Both XP are Pro, both Vista are Ultimate
Pretty much same programs in startup, but counting only from OS selection to
Desktop w/icons Not waiting for balance of programs to load. Shutdown
seems about the same with all, though I haven't timed them as I don't
usually wait for it anyway.


"Robinb" <robin@discussion> wrote in message
news:O3GzLRj7HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 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...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Kind of an uninformed irrelevant comment

"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.

It was an interesting post. ;-)


* Mike Hall - MVP:
> Apologies for the last post to you.. it should have been directed to another
> group entirely.. :-)
>
>
> "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
>

Yeah, I learned the technique from you.


If you are not comparing fresh installs the comparison is moot, since as
you well know a lot of manufacturer installed garbage and other
miscellaneous software can interfere.


John Barnes wrote:
> Kind of an uninformed irrelevant comment
>
> "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.
>

On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:07:08 -0500, Charlie Tame wrote:

> MICHAEL wrote:
>> * Charlie Tame:
>>> 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.
>>
>> If he's being honest, then more than likely- he has three XP installs
>> that are several years old, with numerous programs installed.
>> His Vista installs are new and clean. Clean install XP, many folks
>> may feel like they have a new/faster machine, too.
>>
>>
>> - Michael
>
>
> Right, it is quite hard to keep any install "Clean".

Only if said install is Windows. =)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
君のこと忘れたときがないから

In article <OwCcoVd7HHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, jbarnes@email.net
says...
> Upgrade your machine or stay with XP. Vista does need a heavier duty
> machine to work properly, but in my opinion is worth it.

Other than being locked down - what is worth it?

--

Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

I have two very similar laptops kind of one generation apart. Both have
"Centrino Duo" processors, the newer laptop's processors are slightly faster.
The old laptop (with XP) has 1 GB of memory, and the newer one (with Vista
Home Premium) has 2 GB of memory. The newer one has a larger, faster disk
with more free space.

My observations:

Vista seems boot (on the new machine) in about the same time as XP on the
old machine.

Certain actions (e.g., opening new windows is much slower on Vista than XP).

XP will run many more windows/application in 1 GB than Vista will run in 2 GB.

Vista's failure mode when running too many applications/windows (which may
be a few as 2) is either to Blue Screen or to simply hang in the midst of
painting windows...Vista is MUCH less reliable than XP.

Using Vista (home premium), usually several times a day I will get a
low-memory error message (e.g., last night I had two IE windows and WMP open
and got the message), forcing me to reboot. I've never seen that message
with XP.

So, subjectively, my experience is that Vista loads about the same speed as
XP, but the user experience (e.g., opening new windows, etc.) is much slower
in Vista than XP.

Objectively, XP is much more suitable for using multiple
windows/applications without crashing, and, similarly, Vista is MUCH less
reliable than XP (hard crashes with data loss).
--
Krusty One


"vista terminal ator" wrote:

> 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...
>
>
>
>

"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eQZtNPk7HHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Apologies for the last post to you.. it should have been directed to
> another group entirely.. :-)
>
>
> "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/
>
>
>


Yes, alt.hot.talk

LOL .. darling.