"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


Well... Vista is new. XP's been around for 5 years. Given that fact, I think
Vista's performance can only improve as 3rd party drivers catch up and MS
tweaks Vista accordingly (one hopes, anyway...).

I understand what you're saying, believe me. I have two boxes here that I
won't upgrade to Vista because they require new hardware to do what I need
them to do under Vista. Yes, that frustrates me. Hmm... just like I was
frustrated when XP was released and my scanner wouldn't work with XP and I
had to buy a new scanner.

And I don't remember XP being all that much faster than W2K when XP was
initially released. I do remember that, as usual, MS's requirements for XP
were understated. (I can only assume that the engineers say something along
the lines of "well, the minimal amount of RAM should be X." and then Ballmer
or one of his stooges says, "No effin' way are we saying that's the minimum!
Halve it!" and so it goes...) Point being: Vista surely is not the first
version of Windows to have anemic minimal requirements claimed by MS.

At any rate... having gotten away from the original poster's complaint...
Vista 50% slower than XP? Maybe on file copies, although I hear that's one
of the fixes in SP1, but overall? Not here.

Lang

Leythos wrote:
> 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?
>


It's not TERRIBLE. It is freaking slow at times. And I have had just
about enough of UAC pestering me everytime I want to start a program,
open control panel, open my c: drive, etc....


I suggest just waiting until you buy a new computer, then you will have
to use Vista so it's a moot conversation.

-J

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:59:14 -0700, Johnny <chucaflete******.com>
wrote:

>Leythos wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
>
>It's not TERRIBLE. It is freaking slow at times. And I have had just
>about enough of UAC pestering me everytime I want to start a program,
>open control panel, open my c: drive, etc....
>
>
>I suggest just waiting until you buy a new computer, then you will have
>to use Vista so it's a moot conversation.
>
>-J
The UAC is just training us to be more aware of what goes on in the
background of our pc's. Those things you hate saying yes to are the
exact same things that viruses, trojans and spyware do, but just never
knew it in the past. Mac's have been doing all those permission things
all along and have few viruses as a result. Vista DOES need alot of
memory, much mroe than XP but uses all of it, hopefully efficiently.
That should get better with SP1 and SP2.