| |||||||
| Windows Vista Discuss the different versions of Windows Vista, Fuji, or Vienna |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
09-02-2007, 05:10 PM
| |||
| |||
| vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... 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...      |
|
09-02-2007, 05:30 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... 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... |
|
09-02-2007, 05:40 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... 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... > > > > |
|
09-02-2007, 05:50 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... "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. |
|
09-02-2007, 05:50 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... faster not always... XP is better than windows 98 and XP is better than vista... on complex high memory programs win98 had resource problems, XP might needed more ram but it was better in taking advantange of more ram... Vista is far worse in memory use than XP even though there are some smarty pants that say that vista uses ram more intelligently.... those guys know skit about how memory should be used.. they are just following the leader and repeating the MS propaganda they hear in the media and advertisments. "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. > > |
|
09-02-2007, 06:00 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... 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... > > > |
|
09-02-2007, 06:20 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:37:59 -0700, Telstar 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... >> >> >> >> > Have you tried Windows 98? It is FAR faster than XP. About as stable, too. |
|
09-02-2007, 07:00 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... 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... >> >> >> >> > > |
|
09-02-2007, 07:30 PM
| |||
| |||
| Install Ubuntu You could install Ubuntu on your machine and it would be about 200% faster but you couldn't do anything with it !!!!! "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... > > > > |
|
09-02-2007, 07:30 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... I dual boot XP Pro SP2 and Vista Ultimate. With a bare/clean install of each on a P4-2.8Ghz/1,5GB Dual Channel DDR (and actually working as dual channel)/512MB PCI-e 6200 Video/200GB SATA, the XP install boots faster by about 15 seconds, the seat of the pants feel while surfing, emailing, etc is faster in XP. I use classic menmus and turn off all the visual effects. No shadowing, slide out/fade menus etc. I haven't had any trouble with the machine, I simply do not like the way Vista looks and feels. If they put the ignition/blinker/dimmer switch to my car in the trunk, I'd buy a different brand. Every prior version of MS OS from DOS to WIn3/3.1/95/98/2000/XP has felt like an improvement. This feels like a clunker. MS finally made their own Edsel. "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... > > > > |
|
09-02-2007, 09:30 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... yes... ok... but I ask you this.. even if you get a new machine that is faster, why would you want to slow it down with a hog like vista eating up the resources with the OS? The OS in my opinion should be light giving the resources to the applications.... even if I get a quad core cpu .... I think I will stay with a lightning fast XP, than have a so and so vista machine. Even with Vlite I could not get the performance I was hoping.. Gee MS blew it this time... 5 years. billions of dollars, so much time effort and hopes, only to create a bloated hog that doesnt really have anything more to offer than XP but a glass theme.... geshhh..... "Not Me" <cargod01@bresnan.net> wrote in message news:%23XNpCnd7HHA.5424@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >I dual boot XP Pro SP2 and Vista Ultimate. > With a bare/clean install of each on a P4-2.8Ghz/1,5GB Dual Channel DDR > (and actually working as dual channel)/512MB PCI-e 6200 Video/200GB SATA, > the XP install boots faster by about 15 seconds, the seat of the pants > feel while surfing, emailing, etc is faster in XP. > I use classic menmus and turn off all the visual effects. No shadowing, > slide out/fade menus etc. > I haven't had any trouble with the machine, I simply do not like the way > Vista looks and feels. > If they put the ignition/blinker/dimmer switch to my car in the trunk, I'd > buy a different brand. > Every prior version of MS OS from DOS to WIn3/3.1/95/98/2000/XP has felt > like an improvement. > This feels like a clunker. MS finally made their own Edsel. > > "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... >> >> >> >> > > |
|
09-02-2007, 09:41 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... 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... >> >> >> > |
|
09-02-2007, 09:41 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... "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. Lang |
|
09-03-2007, 12:30 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: vista 50% slower than XP on same machine... "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 |
|
09-03-2007, 01:40 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Install Ubuntu "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 |
|
| 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 |
