All the people who incorrectly thought vista was faster...
as they install programs, codecs and bog down their machines now..
they will see that it is really in fact slower than XP with the same amount
of apps installed.

This needs a month or two to show really depending on the use of the OS/

The faster performance was only a brief illusion because they clean
installed.

Welcome to the REAL vista now! Where bloat and snail speed dominates!

"jim" <1@1.1> wrote in message news:uI3iyDoWHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> Welcome to the REAL vista now! Where bloat and snail speed dominates!
>[/color]

I wonder how many days before Vista SP1 appears?
;-)

Ron

Sure, current programs are a tad slower in Vista.
That will change as developers learn to write code for
Vista's strengths, such as off-loading a lot of the graphics
manipulation unto the GPU, and making more efficient use
of dual core processors.

Gary VanderMolen


"jim" <1@1.1> wrote in message news:uI3iyDoWHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> All the people who incorrectly thought vista was faster...
> as they install programs, codecs and bog down their machines now..
> they will see that it is really in fact slower than XP with the same amount
> of apps installed.
>
> This needs a month or two to show really depending on the use of the OS/
>
> The faster performance was only a brief illusion because they clean
> installed.
>
> Welcome to the REAL vista now! Where bloat and snail speed dominates![/color]

> and making more efficient use[color=blue]
> of dual core processors.[/color]

Dual? They are talking about 100 cores in 5 years :-)
But thats not only for vista.. XP can handle them too...

"Gary VanderMolen" <Gary@nomail.invalid> wrote in message
news:uEnyprqWHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Sure, current programs are a tad slower in Vista.
> That will change as developers learn to write code for
> Vista's strengths, such as off-loading a lot of the graphics
> manipulation unto the GPU, and making more efficient use
> of dual core processors.
>
> Gary VanderMolen
>
>
> "jim" <1@1.1> wrote in message
> news:uI3iyDoWHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> All the people who incorrectly thought vista was faster...
>> as they install programs, codecs and bog down their machines now..
>> they will see that it is really in fact slower than XP with the same
>> amount of apps installed.
>>
>> This needs a month or two to show really depending on the use of the OS/
>>
>> The faster performance was only a brief illusion because they clean
>> installed.
>>
>> Welcome to the REAL vista now! Where bloat and snail speed dominates![/color][/color]

6-7 months and you can pretty much quote me on that.

Also jim is a bit of a troll :(

When I compare an OS versus another OS I compare them apples to apples.

I use the same software installed on both machines and run test after test
after test.

Vista for the most part completes tasks faster, plain and simple.


"Cast-it Admin" <cast-it@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:qe_Eh.19662$mn2.17983@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...[color=blue]
>
> "jim" <1@1.1> wrote in message
> news:uI3iyDoWHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>
>> Welcome to the REAL vista now! Where bloat and snail speed dominates!
>>[/color]
>
> I wonder how many days before Vista SP1 appears?
> ;-)
>
> Ron
>[/color]