Vista - 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...

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@xxxxxx-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...

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@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d-ydnXQ6Mbbf_EbbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@xxxxxx

"vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
news:46db5e10$1@xxxxxx-privat.org...Have you tried Windows 98? It is FAR faster than XP.

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@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ebYDPsc7HHA.4736@xxxxxx

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@xxxxxx-privat.org...

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:37:59 -0700, Telstar wrote:
About as stable, too.

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@xxxxxx-privat.org...

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@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:d-ydnXQ6Mbbf_EbbnZ2dnUVZ_v6rnZ2d@xxxxxx

Vista is actually faster on strt up that XP.. Its a simlpe issue in your services on startup. Most people will say that vista need 1gb of ram when actually it will run on far less ram than that. You show that you have 1.5gb ram and that your startup is slowerin vista. While in Vista type msconfig in you search bar on the start button and chek hide all microsoft services and on the startup ta disable anything that you directly do not need on your startup and the system will use less than .5 of a gig if you disble unnessary startup programs in the msconfig custom settings. Beware that you don't disable any required microsoft components or applications. This will release the ram and speed up the startup and the programs will not consume your ram unless you open that program. Simple Solution.