I posted a week or so ago about the fact I noticed Vista was faster in disk
IO and about all said that was not that case.

I downloaded Dacris for a HD benchmark and found that:

XP - 140MB/s
Vista - 110MBs


So the benchmark proves that XP is faster in that respect but still I notice
Vista:

1. Under Vista in Media Player, all 200+ videos I have come up as
thumbnails. XP is still working on it and that is after deleting the Media
Player database and re-importing everything as well as letting it sit there
to try and create thumbnails. Also, when I add MP3s to Media Player and do a
'add to library it scans the same folders in about a third of the time as
XP.




2. I have one folder with 220GB of MP3 files. XP Explorer could never read
it so I got Opus. Vista Explorer and read the folder fine and sort all the
files in seconds. Using Opus under Vista it reads the file information
(artist, album, etc) in about a third of the time as XP.


Conclusion: XP may be faster for file IO, but Vista deals with NTFS at lot
quicker.


I spending a lot more time in Vista than XP at this point and have ordered
some upgrades I will need to use Vista full time.

Have you applied the latest performance and reliability updates for Windows
Vista?

Vista x86:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en

Vista x64:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...DisplayLang=en
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"Ex-COC" <fakename@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PE4gj.34853$k27.8586@xxxxxx

>
> I posted a week or so ago about the fact I noticed Vista was faster in
> disk IO and about all said that was not that case.
>
> I downloaded Dacris for a HD benchmark and found that:
>
> XP - 140MB/s
> Vista - 110MBs
>
>
> So the benchmark proves that XP is faster in that respect but still I
> notice Vista:
>
> 1. Under Vista in Media Player, all 200+ videos I have come up as
> thumbnails. XP is still working on it and that is after deleting the Media
> Player database and re-importing everything as well as letting it sit
> there to try and create thumbnails. Also, when I add MP3s to Media Player
> and do a 'add to library it scans the same folders in about a third of the
> time as XP.
>
>
> 2. I have one folder with 220GB of MP3 files. XP Explorer could never read
> it so I got Opus. Vista Explorer and read the folder fine and sort all the
> files in seconds. Using Opus under Vista it reads the file information
> (artist, album, etc) in about a third of the time as XP.
>
>
> Conclusion: XP may be faster for file IO, but Vista deals with NTFS at lot
> quicker.
>
>
> I spending a lot more time in Vista than XP at this point and have ordered
> some upgrades I will need to use Vista full time.
>
>
>
>

1) thats all due to the codec that you have for AVI, the thumbnails need to
use the codec to be created.. so its not XP's fault

2) Files do not need time to "read" as you say unless you are extracting
meta data from them with a setting in the view of Windows Explorer (SEE THE
COLUMNS THAT HAVE INFO LIKE BITRATE? where do you think that data is coming
from? The sky? LOL, its hard to explain but all the things you are saying
are not related to the actual OS, but to either codecs or the way you
display the data in Windows explorer... the DISK itself is faster as you
have seen on XP.. and this is true...

Thus your conclusion is wrong.. XP is faster ALWAYS... as long as you
compare apples with apples...

Vista is very slow.. and whatever you are saying is not well documented...
You have to know more things in depth to really make a comparisson..

and I have done just that.. Vista is slower than XP in ALL functions.
PERIOD.




"Ex-COC" <fakename@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:PE4gj.34853$k27.8586@xxxxxx

>
> I posted a week or so ago about the fact I noticed Vista was faster in
> disk IO and about all said that was not that case.
>
> I downloaded Dacris for a HD benchmark and found that:
>
> XP - 140MB/s
> Vista - 110MBs
>
>
> So the benchmark proves that XP is faster in that respect but still I
> notice Vista:
>
> 1. Under Vista in Media Player, all 200+ videos I have come up as
> thumbnails. XP is still working on it and that is after deleting the Media
> Player database and re-importing everything as well as letting it sit
> there to try and create thumbnails. Also, when I add MP3s to Media Player
> and do a 'add to library it scans the same folders in about a third of the
> time as XP.
>
>
> 2. I have one folder with 220GB of MP3 files. XP Explorer could never read
> it so I got Opus. Vista Explorer and read the folder fine and sort all the
> files in seconds. Using Opus under Vista it reads the file information
> (artist, album, etc) in about a third of the time as XP.
>
>
> Conclusion: XP may be faster for file IO, but Vista deals with NTFS at lot
> quicker.
>
>
> I spending a lot more time in Vista than XP at this point and have ordered
> some upgrades I will need to use Vista full time.
>
>
>
>

64 bit can be faster if you have 4 or more gigs..

under that, 32 bit is faster

have you compared 64 bit xp and 64 bit vista?

dont say no.. please dont say no...


"MegaDETH" <MegaDETH.32s1rz@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:MegaDETH.32s1rz@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net...

>
> I am sure it is "on your system"
>
> I find Vista x64 faster than XP on just about everything, but this is
> on "my system"
>
> YMMV applies here as always.
>
>
> non flammable on XP;563418 Wrote:

>> 1) thats all due to the codec that you have for AVI, the thumbnails need
>> to
>> use the codec to be created.. so its not XP's fault
>>
>> 2) Files do not need time to "read" as you say unless you are
>> extracting
>> meta data from them with a setting in the view of Windows Explorer (SEE
>> THE
>> COLUMNS THAT HAVE INFO LIKE BITRATE? where do you think that data is
>> coming
>> from? The sky? LOL, its hard to explain but all the things you are
>> saying
>> are not related to the actual OS, but to either codecs or the way you
>> display the data in Windows explorer... the DISK itself is faster as
>> you
>> have seen on XP.. and this is true...
>>
>> Thus your conclusion is wrong.. XP is faster ALWAYS... as long as you
>> compare apples with apples...
>>
>> Vista is very slow.. and whatever you are saying is not well
>> documented...
>> You have to know more things in depth to really make a comparisson..
>>
>> and I have done just that.. Vista is slower than XP in ALL functions.
>> PERIOD.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Ex-COC" <fakename@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:PE4gj.34853$k27.8586@xxxxxx> > >

>> > >
>> > > I posted a week or so ago about the fact I noticed Vista was faster
>> > in
>> > > disk IO and about all said that was not that case.
>> > >
>> > > I downloaded Dacris for a HD benchmark and found that:
>> > >
>> > > XP - 140MB/s
>> > > Vista - 110MBs
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > So the benchmark proves that XP is faster in that respect but still I
>> > > notice Vista:
>> > >
>> > > 1. Under Vista in Media Player, all 200+ videos I have come up as
>> > > thumbnails. XP is still working on it and that is after deleting the
>> > Media
>> > > Player database and re-importing everything as well as letting it sit
>> > > there to try and create thumbnails. Also, when I add MP3s to Media
>> > Player
>> > > and do a 'add to library it scans the same folders in about a third
>> > of the
>> > > time as XP.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 2. I have one folder with 220GB of MP3 files. XP Explorer could never
>> > read
>> > > it so I got Opus. Vista Explorer and read the folder fine and sort
>> > all the
>> > > files in seconds. Using Opus under Vista it reads the file
>> > information
>> > > (artist, album, etc) in about a third of the time as XP.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Conclusion: XP may be faster for file IO, but Vista deals with NTFS
>> > at lot
>> > > quicker.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I spending a lot more time in Vista than XP at this point and have
>> > ordered
>> > > some upgrades I will need to use Vista full time.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > >

>
>
> --
> MegaDETH
>
> Core 2 Duo E6600 (L629F) @ 3.690GHz
> ASUS P5K DELUXE/WIFI
> 4X2GB A-DATA PC2 6400
> eVGA E-GEFORCE 8800 GT 512MB Superclocked
> 22\\" Hanns.G HDMI LCD
> LG GGC-H20LI
> BenQ 1655
> LiteOn DH20A3P
> Samsung 203N
> LG GSA-H42N
> LG GSA-H22N

"Ex-COC" <fakename@xxxxxx> wrote in
news:PE4gj.34853$k27.8586@xxxxxx:

>
> I posted a week or so ago about the fact I noticed Vista was faster in
> disk IO and about all said that was not that case.
>
> I downloaded Dacris for a HD benchmark and found that:
>
> XP - 140MB/s
> Vista - 110MBs
>
>
> So the benchmark proves that XP is faster in that respect but still I
> notice Vista:
>
> 1. Under Vista in Media Player, all 200+ videos I have come up as
> thumbnails. XP is still working on it and that is after deleting the
> Media Player database and re-importing everything as well as letting
> it sit there to try and create thumbnails. Also, when I add MP3s to
> Media Player and do a 'add to library it scans the same folders in
> about a third of the time as XP.
>
>
> 2. I have one folder with 220GB of MP3 files. XP Explorer could never
> read it so I got Opus. Vista Explorer and read the folder fine and
> sort all the files in seconds. Using Opus under Vista it reads the
> file information (artist, album, etc) in about a third of the time as
> XP.
>
>
> Conclusion: XP may be faster for file IO, but Vista deals with NTFS at
> lot quicker.
>
>
> I spending a lot more time in Vista than XP at this point and have
> ordered some upgrades I will need to use Vista full time.

Are you using the same anti-virus program under XP and Vista ?

There are several CD's I have that each contain a 400+ MB single exe
file. For a time, it appeared as all of them were unreadable when I put
them in the CD drive.

They weren't. The problem was, when I went to access the CD, the AV
program, Norton, took a REALLY long time to scan the file. That is what
was causing it to appear that the CD couldn't be read with Explorer.

I only figured it out after a failed Norton update which crashed the
realtime scanning engine so it wasn't running. One of those CD's was
still in the CD tray, and I went back to Explorer for something else and
had realized that the CD Drive was now showing the disk label. Trying the
other 'bad' CD's which now worked, and then re-starting Norton, and going
thru the experiment again and finding that they didn't 'work' once again,
sealed Norton fate. It was gone from my machine shortly after.

you can have 64 bit with all vista editions, the send you the DVD for the
non ultimate versions
for free, and you use the same product key


"MegaDETH" <MegaDETH.32sbi3@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
news:MegaDETH.32sbi3@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net...

>
> No sorry but I didn't. I got a good deal on Vista Ultimate so I
> bought it.
>
>
> non flammable on XP;563483 Wrote:

>> 64 bit can be faster if you have 4 or more gigs..
>>
>> under that, 32 bit is faster
>>
>> have you compared 64 bit xp and 64 bit vista?
>>
>> dont say no.. please dont say no...
>>
>>
>> "MegaDETH" <MegaDETH.32s1rz@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net> wrote in message
>> news:MegaDETH.32s1rz@xxxxxx-mx.forums.net...> > >

>> > >
>> > > I am sure it is "on your system"
>> > >
>> > > I find Vista x64 faster than XP on just about everything, but this is
>> > > on "my system"
>> > >
>> > > YMMV applies here as always.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > non flammable on XP;563418 Wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > MegaDETH
>> > >
>> > > Core 2 Duo E6600 (L629F) @ 3.690GHz
>> > > ASUS P5K DELUXE/WIFI
>> > > 4X2GB A-DATA PC2 6400
>> > > eVGA E-GEFORCE 8800 GT 512MB Superclocked
>> > > 22\\" Hanns.G HDMI LCD
>> > > LG GGC-H20LI
>> > > BenQ 1655
>> > > LiteOn DH20A3P
>> > > Samsung 203N
>> > > LG GSA-H42N
>> > > LG GSA-H22N > >

>
>
> --
> MegaDETH
>
> Core 2 Duo E6600 (L629F) @ 3.690GHz
> ASUS P5K DELUXE/WIFI
> 4X2GB A-DATA PC2 6400
> eVGA E-GEFORCE 8800 GT 512MB Superclocked
> 22\\" Hanns.G HDMI LCD
> LG GGC-H20LI
> BenQ 1655
> LiteOn DH20A3P
> Samsung 203N
> LG GSA-H42N
> LG GSA-H22N

There is only one product that I could say is worse than norton..
and thats vista


vista and norton make the worse combination you could ever have!


"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9A1DA52BDFDF5thisnthatadelphianet@xxxxxx

> "Ex-COC" <fakename@xxxxxx> wrote in
> news:PE4gj.34853$k27.8586@xxxxxx:
>

>>
>> I posted a week or so ago about the fact I noticed Vista was faster in
>> disk IO and about all said that was not that case.
>>
>> I downloaded Dacris for a HD benchmark and found that:
>>
>> XP - 140MB/s
>> Vista - 110MBs
>>
>>
>> So the benchmark proves that XP is faster in that respect but still I
>> notice Vista:
>>
>> 1. Under Vista in Media Player, all 200+ videos I have come up as
>> thumbnails. XP is still working on it and that is after deleting the
>> Media Player database and re-importing everything as well as letting
>> it sit there to try and create thumbnails. Also, when I add MP3s to
>> Media Player and do a 'add to library it scans the same folders in
>> about a third of the time as XP.
>>
>>
>> 2. I have one folder with 220GB of MP3 files. XP Explorer could never
>> read it so I got Opus. Vista Explorer and read the folder fine and
>> sort all the files in seconds. Using Opus under Vista it reads the
>> file information (artist, album, etc) in about a third of the time as
>> XP.
>>
>>
>> Conclusion: XP may be faster for file IO, but Vista deals with NTFS at
>> lot quicker.
>>
>>
>> I spending a lot more time in Vista than XP at this point and have
>> ordered some upgrades I will need to use Vista full time.

>
> Are you using the same anti-virus program under XP and Vista ?
>
> There are several CD's I have that each contain a 400+ MB single exe
> file. For a time, it appeared as all of them were unreadable when I put
> them in the CD drive.
>
> They weren't. The problem was, when I went to access the CD, the AV
> program, Norton, took a REALLY long time to scan the file. That is what
> was causing it to appear that the CD couldn't be read with Explorer.
>
> I only figured it out after a failed Norton update which crashed the
> realtime scanning engine so it wasn't running. One of those CD's was
> still in the CD tray, and I went back to Explorer for something else and
> had realized that the CD Drive was now showing the disk label. Trying the
> other 'bad' CD's which now worked, and then re-starting Norton, and going
> thru the experiment again and finding that they didn't 'work' once again,
> sealed Norton fate. It was gone from my machine shortly after.
>

" non flammable on XP" <not@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47811173@xxxxxx-privat.org...

> 1) thats all due to the codec that you have for AVI, the thumbnails need
> to use the codec to be created.. so its not XP's fault
>
> 2) Files do not need time to "read" as you say unless you are extracting
> meta data from them with a setting in the view of Windows Explorer (SEE
> THE COLUMNS THAT HAVE INFO LIKE BITRATE? where do you think that data is
> coming from? The sky? LOL, its hard to explain but all the things you are
> saying are not related to the actual OS, but to either codecs or the way
> you display the data in Windows explorer... the DISK itself is faster as
> you have seen on XP.. and this is true...
>
> Thus your conclusion is wrong.. XP is faster ALWAYS... as long as you
> compare apples with apples...
>
> Vista is very slow.. and whatever you are saying is not well documented...
> You have to know more things in depth to really make a comparisson..
>
> and I have done just that.. Vista is slower than XP in ALL functions.
> PERIOD.

Wrong again dimwit, I have disproven THAT personally.

--
The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry
than work.
http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel
Undo the munge to reply by email