Welcome to the Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads, YOUR Largest Resource for Windows Vista related information.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so , join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
same),
but durring its normal function.
Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
fast...
I was working almost a day on vista.... and when I booted back to XP,
it was like a totally different machine!
The specs of this machine are cpu single core 2600 mhz, 1.25 gb ram.
I have had no problems with drivers or blue screens...
I just multitask very fast with lot of programs... so the speed difference
is evident.
Perhaps with a dual or quad core vista will work ok.. but with this single
core its too slow for my tastes.. I prefer snappy lightning fast performance
than the little new things vista has to offer.
But then on the other hand if you were to install XP on the quad, it would
be even faster... :-)
"kirk jim" <11@11.11> wrote in message
news:OZ0KbGGYHHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I have dual boot vista and xp
>
> XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
> same),
> but durring its normal function.
> Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
> fast...
> I was working almost a day on vista.... and when I booted back to XP,
> it was like a totally different machine!
> The specs of this machine are cpu single core 2600 mhz, 1.25 gb ram.
> I have had no problems with drivers or blue screens...
> I just multitask very fast with lot of programs... so the speed difference
> is evident.
>
> Perhaps with a dual or quad core vista will work ok.. but with this single
> core its too slow for my tastes.. I prefer snappy lightning fast
> performance than the little new things vista has to offer.
> But then on the other hand if you were to install XP on the quad, it would
> be even faster... :-)
What you said is correct.Microsoft has set a very low requirement to let ppl
install Vista.But eventually those requirements are just as an entry to the
new OS.Some friends who are using P4 CPU tested to install Vista before,of
course all have more than 1G RAM...The result is all seem to be ok:boot-up
speed is as normal;running programs are still ok,not having many
problems;the look is quite nice...But the difference is showing on the time
when they use multi-task.The response of program is slower than which is
running in XP...
So in my thought,big RAM size(better having 2G) and dual core CPU may have
nicer experiences...Of course,much latest technologies should give you
better feelings...
"kirk jim" <11@11.11> дÈëÏûÏ¢ news:OZ0KbGGYHHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I have dual boot vista and xp
>
> XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
> same),
> but durring its normal function.
> Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
> fast...
> I was working almost a day on vista.... and when I booted back to XP,
> it was like a totally different machine!
> The specs of this machine are cpu single core 2600 mhz, 1.25 gb ram.
> I have had no problems with drivers or blue screens...
> I just multitask very fast with lot of programs... so the speed difference
> is evident.
>
> Perhaps with a dual or quad core vista will work ok.. but with this single
> core its too slow for my tastes.. I prefer snappy lightning fast
> performance than the little new things vista has to offer.
> But then on the other hand if you were to install XP on the quad, it would
> be even faster... :-)
>
>
PCs from the XP era , years 2002 and up are not comparable to our todays
Gigahertz Monsters..
XP installs on 233MhZ with only 64 MB Rams ! .. just think.
And don't forget that Vista was intended to appear in 2004 or so if the
Longhorn Delay Desaster would not have happened, then we all were working
with Vista since then.
XP is outdated and simple an old OS, no wonder it is "fast".
SJ /germany
"kirk jim" <11@11.11> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:OZ0KbGGYHHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I have dual boot vista and xp
>
> XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
> same),
> but durring its normal function.
> Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
> fast...
> I was working almost a day on vista.... and when I booted back to XP,
> it was like a totally different machine!
> The specs of this machine are cpu single core 2600 mhz, 1.25 gb ram.
> I have had no problems with drivers or blue screens...
> I just multitask very fast with lot of programs... so the speed difference
> is evident.
>
> Perhaps with a dual or quad core vista will work ok.. but with this single
> core its too slow for my tastes.. I prefer snappy lightning fast
> performance than the little new things vista has to offer.
> But then on the other hand if you were to install XP on the quad, it would
> be even faster... :-)
>
kirk jim wrote:
> I have dual boot vista and xp
>
> XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
> same), but durring its normal function.
> Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
> fast...
Do you have the fancy new Vista GUI (I always forget the name) with
transparent windows, etc? You might try disabling that GUI to see
if it fixes the problem.
My Vista box has inadequate hardware for that GUI, so it was not
installed. The only real difference in speed I've noticed is that
playing a DVD video in Vista is a disaster. I'm assuming that my
cheapie video card is to blame for that difference, but I'm not about
to buy an expensive one just to test my theory ;o) Both linux and XP
do a great job of playing DVD's on the same cheap video card...
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9e15LGYHHA.2636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I agree...
>
> I certainly have NO intention of trading SPEED for EYE CANDY.
>
> DSH
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> "kirk jim" <11@11.11> wrote in message
> news:OZ0KbGGYHHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>>I have dual boot vista and xp
>>
>> XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
>> same),
>> but durring its normal function.
>> Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
>> fast...
>> I was working almost a day on vista.... and when I booted back to XP,
>> it was like a totally different machine!
>> The specs of this machine are cpu single core 2600 mhz, 1.25 gb ram.
>> I have had no problems with drivers or blue screens...
>> I just multitask very fast with lot of programs... so the speed
>> difference is evident.
>>
>> Perhaps with a dual or quad core vista will work ok.. but with this
>> single core its too slow for my tastes.. I prefer snappy lightning fast
>> performance than the little new things vista has to offer.
>> But then on the other hand if you were to install XP on the quad, it
>> would be even faster... :-)
>
>
Wow, you worked a DAY in Vista and came to this conclusion. Maybe if you
gave Vista the opportunity to complete its initial indexing, you might see
an improvement in speed.
Lang
"kirk jim" <11@11.11> wrote in message
news:OZ0KbGGYHHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>I have dual boot vista and xp
>
> XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
> same),
> but durring its normal function.
> Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
> fast...
> I was working almost a day on vista.... and when I booted back to XP,
> it was like a totally different machine!
> The specs of this machine are cpu single core 2600 mhz, 1.25 gb ram.
> I have had no problems with drivers or blue screens...
> I just multitask very fast with lot of programs... so the speed difference
> is evident.
>
> Perhaps with a dual or quad core vista will work ok.. but with this single
> core its too slow for my tastes.. I prefer snappy lightning fast
> performance than the little new things vista has to offer.
> But then on the other hand if you were to install XP on the quad, it would
> be even faster... :-)
>
no I have used vista for months...including betas, and RC, I have tried
several times to migrate, but because if these problems I keep going back to
XP.
This was one of my most serious attempts to actually try to do some
productive work on vista,
and vista failed. Indexing is done.
no excuses! Vista is slow.
"Lang Murphy" <lang_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:475F9F88-423A-44BA-911A-1D94161A644C@microsoft.com...
> Wow, you worked a DAY in Vista and came to this conclusion. Maybe if you
> gave Vista the opportunity to complete its initial indexing, you might see
> an improvement in speed.
>
> Lang
>
> "kirk jim" <11@11.11> wrote in message
> news:OZ0KbGGYHHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>I have dual boot vista and xp
>>
>> XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
>> same),
>> but durring its normal function.
>> Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
>> fast...
>> I was working almost a day on vista.... and when I booted back to XP,
>> it was like a totally different machine!
>> The specs of this machine are cpu single core 2600 mhz, 1.25 gb ram.
>> I have had no problems with drivers or blue screens...
>> I just multitask very fast with lot of programs... so the speed
>> difference is evident.
>>
>> Perhaps with a dual or quad core vista will work ok.. but with this
>> single core its too slow for my tastes.. I prefer snappy lightning fast
>> performance than the little new things vista has to offer.
>> But then on the other hand if you were to install XP on the quad, it
>> would be even faster... :-)
>>
>
and even in classic and all effects turned off you still have all the
elements of the vista gui, that are strange...
My conclusion is that vista has been designed from the bottom up, with aero
glass in mind,
and they thew productivy out of the window. Especially that save as window
with the arrow that expands more locations! lol what a disaster that is?
Windows explorer has been destroyed compleatly.
Im back to XP again... vista doesnt work good enough.
"Lang Murphy" <lang_murphy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9C45CDE3-D1F0-4068-9702-78315A764E45@microsoft.com...
> Turn off Aero. There goes your EYE CANDY.
>
> Lang
>
> "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e9e15LGYHHA.2636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>I agree...
>>
>> I certainly have NO intention of trading SPEED for EYE CANDY.
>>
>> DSH
>> --------------------------------------------------
>>
>> "kirk jim" <11@11.11> wrote in message
>> news:OZ0KbGGYHHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>I have dual boot vista and xp
>>>
>>> XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
>>> same),
>>> but durring its normal function.
>>> Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
>>> fast...
>>> I was working almost a day on vista.... and when I booted back to XP,
>>> it was like a totally different machine!
>>> The specs of this machine are cpu single core 2600 mhz, 1.25 gb ram.
>>> I have had no problems with drivers or blue screens...
>>> I just multitask very fast with lot of programs... so the speed
>>> difference is evident.
>>>
>>> Perhaps with a dual or quad core vista will work ok.. but with this
>>> single core its too slow for my tastes.. I prefer snappy lightning fast
>>> performance than the little new things vista has to offer.
>>> But then on the other hand if you were to install XP on the quad, it
>>> would be even faster... :-)
>>
>>
>
"Sascha Jazbec" <barefoot_nrw@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:u46zsYGYHHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Windows 95 is way faster than 98.
>
> So what ?
>
> PCs from the XP era , years 2002 and up are not comparable to our todays
> Gigahertz Monsters..
>
> XP installs on 233MhZ with only 64 MB Rams ! .. just think.
>
> And don't forget that Vista was intended to appear in 2004 or so if the
> Longhorn Delay Desaster would not have happened, then we all were working
> with Vista since then.
> XP is outdated and simple an old OS, no wonder it is "fast".
>
> SJ /germany
>
>
> "kirk jim" <11@11.11> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:OZ0KbGGYHHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>I have dual boot vista and xp
>>
>> XP is overall twice as fast (not to boot or shut down, thats about the
>> same),
>> but durring its normal function.
>> Everything just works faster on XP, its snappier the apps launch very
>> fast...
>> I was working almost a day on vista.... and when I booted back to XP,
>> it was like a totally different machine!
>> The specs of this machine are cpu single core 2600 mhz, 1.25 gb ram.
>> I have had no problems with drivers or blue screens...
>> I just multitask very fast with lot of programs... so the speed
>> difference is evident.
>>
>> Perhaps with a dual or quad core vista will work ok.. but with this
>> single core its too slow for my tastes.. I prefer snappy lightning fast
>> performance than the little new things vista has to offer.
>> But then on the other hand if you were to install XP on the quad, it
>> would be even faster... :-)
>>
>
Linear Mode
