I have an Asus with AMD DC 4.2GHZ, 5 SATA II drives and am testing Vista on
another partition. Some observations from comparing Vista and XP:


1. I have some folders with over 220GB of MP3s. XP Explorer choked when
trying to do a detailed view on the contents so I use Opus when in XP. Vista
could handle it without any problem.

2. Copying a full 4.7GB DVD of image files from DVD to HD took around 40
minutes in XP. Vista could do it in less than 13 minutes.

3. Adding files in Media Player 11 took about 30 minutes in XP. the same
folders took around eight minutes in Vista.

4. I have about 300 videos in Media Player. Vista got thumbnails for all in
the first pass. XP is still working on it after a hundred openings.

5. Media Player also performs a lot better under Vista. the album JPGs come
up so much faster.

your observations are faulty, probably due to some driver problem on your XP
installation

XP outperforms Vista hands down on every test I could throw at it
and similar results have been found by many people...

your XP install has something wrong with it... that's the only explanation
because Vista is slow
as a big fat pig



"Ex-COC" <fakename@fakeemailserver75.org> wrote in message
news:E6Pdj.35180$_m.16275@bignews4.bellsouth.net...[color=blue]
>
> I have an Asus with AMD DC 4.2GHZ, 5 SATA II drives and am testing Vista
> on another partition. Some observations from comparing Vista and XP:
>
>
> 1. I have some folders with over 220GB of MP3s. XP Explorer choked when
> trying to do a detailed view on the contents so I use Opus when in XP.
> Vista could handle it without any problem.
>
> 2. Copying a full 4.7GB DVD of image files from DVD to HD took around 40
> minutes in XP. Vista could do it in less than 13 minutes.
>
> 3. Adding files in Media Player 11 took about 30 minutes in XP. the same
> folders took around eight minutes in Vista.
>
> 4. I have about 300 videos in Media Player. Vista got thumbnails for all
> in the first pass. XP is still working on it after a hundred openings.
>
> 5. Media Player also performs a lot better under Vista. the album JPGs
> come up so much faster.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[/color]

I concur. It sounds very likely that the XP installation has a problem. I
recently defaulted my dual boot machine back to XP because, although my
Vista installation is rock solid reliable, XP is soooooooooo much faster.
--

" non flammable" <34433@co4m.com> wrote in message
news:4777c900$1@newsgate.x-privat.org...[color=blue]
> your observations are faulty, probably due to some driver problem on your
> XP installation
>
> XP outperforms Vista hands down on every test I could throw at it
> and similar results have been found by many people...
>
> your XP install has something wrong with it... that's the only explanation
> because Vista is slow
> as a big fat pig
>
>
>
> "Ex-COC" <fakename@fakeemailserver75.org> wrote in message
> news:E6Pdj.35180$_m.16275@bignews4.bellsouth.net...[color=green]
>>
>> I have an Asus with AMD DC 4.2GHZ, 5 SATA II drives and am testing Vista
>> on another partition. Some observations from comparing Vista and XP:
>>
>>
>> 1. I have some folders with over 220GB of MP3s. XP Explorer choked when
>> trying to do a detailed view on the contents so I use Opus when in XP.
>> Vista could handle it without any problem.
>>
>> 2. Copying a full 4.7GB DVD of image files from DVD to HD took around 40
>> minutes in XP. Vista could do it in less than 13 minutes.
>>
>> 3. Adding files in Media Player 11 took about 30 minutes in XP. the same
>> folders took around eight minutes in Vista.
>>
>> 4. I have about 300 videos in Media Player. Vista got thumbnails for all
>> in the first pass. XP is still working on it after a hundred openings.
>>
>> 5. Media Player also performs a lot better under Vista. the album JPGs
>> come up so much faster.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

I have XP and Vista installed on separate identical hard drives in a dual
boot system.
I keep all drivers up to date for both systems.
The same programs are installed in XP and Vista.
Obviously they are running the same Nvidia card, the Vista side having the
"benefit" of DX10.
Unfortunately, even with the beta SP1 for Vista installed Vista remains time
by your wristwatch slower in every operation including file installation,
file move/copy, open and close any program. Vista hiccoughs frequently on
internet streaming media.
Your results suggest that in your case a pig can fly: maybe yours can but
nobody else's can.

I have both XP Pro and Vista Home Premium on this dual-boot PC. Both
operating systems are running on the same hardware and for me XP is much
faster than Vista. XP runs great on this PC and Vista is very sluggish. I've
been using MS operating systems for about 27 years since DOS 3.x, then
Win3.0, 3.1, 95, 98 etc. Overall I've been happy with their products. Vista
is the first MS operating system that I'm disappointed with because of the
slow performance. Since this is an older PC (AMD XP2100+ / 2gb DDR400
/ 256mb ati video), the only cure for Vista may be faster hardware :-((

Richard


"Ex-COC" <fakename@fakeemailserver75.org> wrote in message
news:E6Pdj.35180$_m.16275@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

I have an Asus with AMD DC 4.2GHZ, 5 SATA II drives and am testing Vista on
another partition. Some observations from comparing Vista and XP:


1. I have some folders with over 220GB of MP3s. XP Explorer choked when
trying to do a detailed view on the contents so I use Opus when in XP. Vista
could handle it without any problem.

2. Copying a full 4.7GB DVD of image files from DVD to HD took around 40
minutes in XP. Vista could do it in less than 13 minutes.

3. Adding files in Media Player 11 took about 30 minutes in XP. the same
folders took around eight minutes in Vista.

4. I have about 300 videos in Media Player. Vista got thumbnails for all in
the first pass. XP is still working on it after a hundred openings.

5. Media Player also performs a lot better under Vista. the album JPGs come
up so much faster.

non flammable wrote:
[color=blue]
> your observations are faulty, probably due to some driver problem on your XP
> installation[/color]

You don't have nor do you use Vista...so just STFU![color=blue]
>
> XP outperforms Vista hands down on every test I could throw at it
> and similar results have been found by many people...[/color]

Wanna bet?[color=blue]
>
> your XP install has something wrong with it... that's the only explanation
> because Vista is slow
> as a big fat pig[/color]

You're the stupid pig capin' crunch! Now get lost ashole!
Frank[color=blue]
>
>
>
> "Ex-COC" <fakename@fakeemailserver75.org> wrote in message
> news:E6Pdj.35180$_m.16275@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>[color=green]
>>I have an Asus with AMD DC 4.2GHZ, 5 SATA II drives and am testing Vista
>>on another partition. Some observations from comparing Vista and XP:
>>
>>
>>1. I have some folders with over 220GB of MP3s. XP Explorer choked when
>>trying to do a detailed view on the contents so I use Opus when in XP.
>>Vista could handle it without any problem.
>>
>>2. Copying a full 4.7GB DVD of image files from DVD to HD took around 40
>>minutes in XP. Vista could do it in less than 13 minutes.
>>
>>3. Adding files in Media Player 11 took about 30 minutes in XP. the same
>>folders took around eight minutes in Vista.
>>
>>4. I have about 300 videos in Media Player. Vista got thumbnails for all
>>in the first pass. XP is still working on it after a hundred openings.
>>
>>5. Media Player also performs a lot better under Vista. the album JPGs
>>come up so much faster.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

flambe wrote:
...in your case a pig can fly: maybe yours can but[color=blue]
> nobody else's can.
>
>[/color]
You're full of sh*t capin' crunch. You don't have nor do you use Vista.
Stop lying as*hole and get a life!
Frank

again you are calling people captain crunch who are not ...

lol this is so funny..
You are terrified you see a captn cruch everywhere! :-)


"Frank" <fb@spamm.nrz> wrote in message
news:uUVJ9IySIHA.6036@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> flambe wrote:
> ...in your case a pig can fly: maybe yours can but[color=green]
>> nobody else's can.[/color]
> You're full of sh*t capin' crunch. You don't have nor do you use Vista.
> Stop lying as*hole and get a life!
> Frank[/color]

non flammable wrote:[color=blue]
> again you are calling people captain crunch who are not ...
>
> lol this is so funny..
> You are terrified you see a captn cruch everywhere! :-)[/color]

Hey bozo...it's capin' crunch...and I lump all losers like you under
that name...LOL!
Idiot!
Frank

duh...make that about 17 years (since 1990)...it only seems like 27.

Richard


"Richard Eagle" <Richard@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OLfVH$xSIHA.4280@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
I have both XP Pro and Vista Home Premium on this dual-boot PC. Both
operating systems are running on the same hardware and for me XP is much
faster than Vista. XP runs great on this PC and Vista is very sluggish. I've
been using MS operating systems for about 27 years since DOS 3.x, then
Win3.0, 3.1, 95, 98 etc. Overall I've been happy with their products. Vista
is the first MS operating system that I'm disappointed with because of the
slow performance. Since this is an older PC (AMD XP2100+ / 2gb DDR400
/ 256mb ati video), the only cure for Vista may be faster hardware :-((

Richard


"Ex-COC" <fakename@fakeemailserver75.org> wrote in message
news:E6Pdj.35180$_m.16275@bignews4.bellsouth.net...

I have an Asus with AMD DC 4.2GHZ, 5 SATA II drives and am testing Vista on
another partition. Some observations from comparing Vista and XP:


1. I have some folders with over 220GB of MP3s. XP Explorer choked when
trying to do a detailed view on the contents so I use Opus when in XP. Vista
could handle it without any problem.

2. Copying a full 4.7GB DVD of image files from DVD to HD took around 40
minutes in XP. Vista could do it in less than 13 minutes.

3. Adding files in Media Player 11 took about 30 minutes in XP. the same
folders took around eight minutes in Vista.

4. I have about 300 videos in Media Player. Vista got thumbnails for all in
the first pass. XP is still working on it after a hundred openings.

5. Media Player also performs a lot better under Vista. the album JPGs come
up so much faster.

> your observations are faulty, probably due to some driver problem on your[color=blue]
> XP installation
>
> XP outperforms Vista hands down on every test I could throw at it
> and similar results have been found by many people...[/color]

Must be nice. (don't like someone's observations, call 'em faulty :)

None of the above is the case on my machine.

The OP observations are right on.

Now what?

Rich

Your observations are faulty ... heh

tell momy to leave the night light on because you see all those bad dreams
with captn crunches formating your vista and installing ubuntu..... LOL

they are everywhere! lol

are you afraid yet?


"Frank" <fb@spamm.nrz> wrote in message
news:%23bymL5ySIHA.2376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> non flammable wrote:[color=green]
>> again you are calling people captain crunch who are not ...
>>
>> lol this is so funny..
>> You are terrified you see a captn cruch everywhere! :-)[/color]
>
> Hey bozo...it's capin' crunch...and I lump all losers like you under that
> name...LOL!
> Idiot!
> Frank[/color]

non flammable wrote:


....nothing of any interest...except to himself.
Get a life you moron!
Frank

and there he is...the world's biggest liar !! He could not post the truth if
someone helped

" non flammable" <34433@co4m.com> wrote in message
news:47780e2a@newsgate.x-privat.org...[color=blue]
> again you are calling people captain crunch who are not ...
>
> lol this is so funny..
> You are terrified you see a captn cruch everywhere! :-)
>
>
> "Frank" <fb@spamm.nrz> wrote in message
> news:uUVJ9IySIHA.6036@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> flambe wrote:
>> ...in your case a pig can fly: maybe yours can but[color=darkred]
>>> nobody else's can.[/color]
>> You're full of sh*t capin' crunch. You don't have nor do you use Vista.
>> Stop lying as*hole and get a life!
>> Frank[/color]
>
>[/color]