Hear from somewhere, the release version Vista performance improved. At
least the performance is better than RC1 and RC2. Is it really? I am using
RC1 in my IBM T42 notebook with 786MB RAM, but performing poor performance.

Generally each release has better performance than the last.
Start by doubling your RAM.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"Alexander Brown" <alexander.brown@windowsmail.com> wrote in message
news:F9CDF290-E893-4B15-B5EE-C485D225EE76@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Hear from somewhere, the release version Vista performance improved. At
> least the performance is better than RC1 and RC2. Is it really? I am using
> RC1 in my IBM T42 notebook with 786MB RAM, but performing poor
> performance.
>[/color]

"Alexander Brown" <alexander.brown@windowsmail.com> wrote in message
news:F9CDF290-E893-4B15-B5EE-C485D225EE76@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Hear from somewhere, the release version Vista performance improved.
> At least the performance is better than RC1 and RC2. Is it really? I
> am using RC1 in my IBM T42 notebook with 786MB RAM, but performing
> poor performance.[/color]


On my other machine with 1gig of memory, it was obvious that RC2 was
faster than RC1 and much more compatible. RTM is about the same RC2 in
practical usability. It might be a bit faster in tests, but at the
keyboard you won't notice much difference.

With more memory, like 1.5 to 2gigs, the differences are a bit
smaller, but overall speed of each version is improved. If you can
upgrade your notebook with more memory, you'll definitely appreciate
it. I would say 786megs is the practical limit for Vista, and 1-2gigs
is much more appropriate.

Vista liars in here claim that vista outperforms XP....

they are delusional sick people who know nothing about computers.
I would gladly slap them on the face with a glove that says XP on it.

The HYPE and lies given on this newsgroup was that the RC's contained
debugging code and THAT was the reason they were slow like cows...

But guess what? Exactly as I predicted, the FINAL has very little difference
that RC2.
Its still slow as a cow, and I don't mean a live cow but a cow in a can.

You can clearly see the lies some people say in this newsgroup,
anything to support their perverted and distorted view of the
worst OS Microsoft has ever made.. YES that includes WinME.

Advice? Don't install Vista unless you absolutely have to.
Advice 2? Don't listen to this uneducated vista supporters,
they will keep on saying what they want even if hard proof is shoved on
their ugly faces.



"Alexander Brown" <alexander.brown@windowsmail.com> wrote in message
news:F9CDF290-E893-4B15-B5EE-C485D225EE76@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Hear from somewhere, the release version Vista performance improved. At
> least the performance is better than RC1 and RC2. Is it really? I am using
> RC1 in my IBM T42 notebook with 786MB RAM, but performing poor
> performance.
>[/color]

Regardless of what the egomaniacal malcontent says...

I've run RC2 on a laptop with 512MB RAM and 64MB video RAM and it ran
acceptably. What exactly is it that you're doing that makes you define
performance as poor? Video editing? Any type of multimedia tasks? Is the
indexer thrashing away? Need a little more info...

RTM Ultimate is running just fine on this box... (1GB RAM, 128MB dedicated
vid RAM)

Lang

"Alexander Brown" <alexander.brown@windowsmail.com> wrote in message
news:F9CDF290-E893-4B15-B5EE-C485D225EE76@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> Hear from somewhere, the release version Vista performance improved. At
> least the performance is better than RC1 and RC2. Is it really? I am using
> RC1 in my IBM T42 notebook with 786MB RAM, but performing poor
> performance.
>[/color]