XP is much quicker than Vista

I've been using Vista Ultimate now since the launch on one of my high end
PC's. If I switch over to the XP PC, which is a hp 3.2GHz P4, you realize
how slow Vista actually is. For example, if you open "Connect To" on a Vista
PC to connect to some of my VPN connections, it takes it's time. The XP PC
is instantaneous. I now find that there are allot of apps that exhibit the
same issues. I know Vista is pretty and all that, but it takes twice as long
to do the same thing as I did before.

PS, the high end PC's rating is 5, and that's because of the processor
having the lowest rating of 5 - (1.86 Core 2 Duo). Maybe it's going to take
time, SP1 might resolve these issues in the near future, but in my
professional opinion, Vista is slow compared to XP

How much RAM do you have?

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*


"aftermath" <gkidson@s11.co.za> wrote in message
news:%23RB73w3UHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I've been using Vista Ultimate now since the launch on one of my high end
> PC's. If I switch over to the XP PC, which is a hp 3.2GHz P4, you realize
> how slow Vista actually is. For example, if you open "Connect To" on a
> Vista PC to connect to some of my VPN connections, it takes it's time. The
> XP PC is instantaneous. I now find that there are allot of apps that
> exhibit the same issues. I know Vista is pretty and all that, but it takes
> twice as long to do the same thing as I did before.
>
> PS, the high end PC's rating is 5, and that's because of the processor
> having the lowest rating of 5 - (1.86 Core 2 Duo). Maybe it's going to
> take time, SP1 might resolve these issues in the near future, but in my
> professional opinion, Vista is slow compared to XP

2 X 1GB Kingston 1066MHz Modules


"Paul Smith" <Paul@nospam.windowsresource.net> wrote in message
news:1F5AEE3F-D672-4C68-93E9-6A8B01046573@microsoft.com...
> How much RAM do you have?
>
> --
> Paul Smith,
> Yeovil, UK.
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
> http://www.windowsresource.net/
>
> *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
>
>
> "aftermath" <gkidson@s11.co.za> wrote in message
> news:%23RB73w3UHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> I've been using Vista Ultimate now since the launch on one of my high end
>> PC's. If I switch over to the XP PC, which is a hp 3.2GHz P4, you realize
>> how slow Vista actually is. For example, if you open "Connect To" on a
>> Vista PC to connect to some of my VPN connections, it takes it's time.
>> The XP PC is instantaneous. I now find that there are allot of apps that
>> exhibit the same issues. I know Vista is pretty and all that, but it
>> takes twice as long to do the same thing as I did before.
>>
>> PS, the high end PC's rating is 5, and that's because of the processor
>> having the lowest rating of 5 - (1.86 Core 2 Duo). Maybe it's going to
>> take time, SP1 might resolve these issues in the near future, but in my
>> professional opinion, Vista is slow compared to XP
>

When XP was released, it would run on a Pentium 233. It would be slow. Heck,
it was slow on the top of the line PC's sporting the P3 550's with 512MB of
RAM. That was a top of the line machine. 5 years later, with a top of the
line machine, Vista runs ok. In 4-5 years, with new PC's and hardware, it's
going to fly.

You want to try something fun? Install DOS or Windows 98 on a Core 2 Duo.

Some things are slow because of driver issues, others because the software
is pushing the hardware (which is a good thing for progress!).

--
Dustin Harper
dharper@vistarip.com
http://www.vistarip.com

--
"aftermath" <gkidson@s11.co.za> wrote in message
news:%23RB73w3UHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I've been using Vista Ultimate now since the launch on one of my high end
> PC's. If I switch over to the XP PC, which is a hp 3.2GHz P4, you realize
> how slow Vista actually is. For example, if you open "Connect To" on a
> Vista PC to connect to some of my VPN connections, it takes it's time. The
> XP PC is instantaneous. I now find that there are allot of apps that
> exhibit the same issues. I know Vista is pretty and all that, but it takes
> twice as long to do the same thing as I did before.
>
> PS, the high end PC's rating is 5, and that's because of the processor
> having the lowest rating of 5 - (1.86 Core 2 Duo). Maybe it's going to
> take time, SP1 might resolve these issues in the near future, but in my
> professional opinion, Vista is slow compared to XP

"aftermath" <gkidson@s11.co.za> wrote in message
news:%23RB73w3UHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I've been using Vista Ultimate now since the launch on one of my high end
> PC's. If I switch over to the XP PC, which is a hp 3.2GHz P4, you realize
> how slow Vista actually is. For example, if you open "Connect To" on a
> Vista PC to connect to some of my VPN connections, it takes it's time. The
> XP PC is instantaneous. I now find that there are allot of apps that
> exhibit the same issues. I know Vista is pretty and all that, but it takes
> twice as long to do the same thing as I did before.
>
> PS, the high end PC's rating is 5, and that's because of the processor
> having the lowest rating of 5 - (1.86 Core 2 Duo). Maybe it's going to
> take time, SP1 might resolve these issues in the near future, but in my
> professional opinion, Vista is slow compared to XP


It's slow out of the box, but then so is XP. If you want it to run lightning
fast then you need to tweak it.

--
Jon

I agree. I have XP and Vista running side-by-side. The XP is installed on a
pre Dou Core loaded Dell 3.6 machine about 2 years old, and the Vista loaded
on the newest high powered Dimention Duo Core. I twiddle my thumbs waiting
for certain apps to load up on the Vista machine while the load is
instantaneous on the older XP machine. I've tweaked it as best as I could
with the info available and I am still very disappointed.
I'd like to hear more about the "tweaks" Jon mentions.



"aftermath" <gkidson@s11.co.za> wrote in message
news:%23RB73w3UHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> I've been using Vista Ultimate now since the launch on one of my high end
> PC's. If I switch over to the XP PC, which is a hp 3.2GHz P4, you realize
> how slow Vista actually is. For example, if you open "Connect To" on a
> Vista PC to connect to some of my VPN connections, it takes it's time. The
> XP PC is instantaneous. I now find that there are allot of apps that
> exhibit the same issues. I know Vista is pretty and all that, but it takes
> twice as long to do the same thing as I did before.
>
> PS, the high end PC's rating is 5, and that's because of the processor
> having the lowest rating of 5 - (1.86 Core 2 Duo). Maybe it's going to
> take time, SP1 might resolve these issues in the near future, but in my
> professional opinion, Vista is slow compared to XP

"William" <wyum@msn.com> wrote in message
news:456DFE6B-80B8-41A4-8F99-33FDD156C9C9@microsoft.com...
>I agree. I have XP and Vista running side-by-side. The XP is installed on a
>pre Dou Core loaded Dell 3.6 machine about 2 years old, and the Vista
>loaded on the newest high powered Dimention Duo Core. I twiddle my thumbs
>waiting for certain apps to load up on the Vista machine while the load is
>instantaneous on the older XP machine. I've tweaked it as best as I could
>with the info available and I am still very disappointed.
> I'd like to hear more about the "tweaks" Jon mentions.
>
>


I'll post some suggestions in. See above for a 'Speeding up Vista' thread.

--
Jon

Jon, I followed your post "Speeding up Vista" line-by-line and made the
modifications you suggested after running a fresh WEI. True, the changes did
not leave Vista looking pretty, it confirmed there was no reason to switch
from XP. Take out the Security Center, Defender, Update, Aero, Readyboost
plus the slick graphics and Vista is nothing!

My computer was hardly flying. I did not notice the slightest change in
performance and in fact a post mod WEI yeilded EXACTLY the same results and
before the changes. Kudos to Microsoft for the stability in Vista for that
much.

I clicked on a JPG file and it took 20 seconds for Microsoft Office Picture
Manager (Vista version) to load up before the photo showed up on the screen.
I moved over to my older XP machine and did the same thing using the same
program (XP version) and Picture Manager was loaded and running in a
fraction of a second. I did this and several other performance comparrisons,
all with similar results. Several more tests like this were done after your
suggested mods with no noticeable differences.

As a devout Microsoft fan, user and stockholder, I am very disappointed to
say (from my experience) Vista gets two thumbs down. I have no doubt
Microsoft will eventually get this thing right, but it could take a few
years. In the meantime, XP works well and for a few bucks extra, one can buy
most of the same add-on utilities and features as are in Vista.
William


"Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
news:uIPQNF7UHHA.4764@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> "William" <wyum@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:456DFE6B-80B8-41A4-8F99-33FDD156C9C9@microsoft.com...
>>I agree. I have XP and Vista running side-by-side. The XP is installed on
>>a pre Dou Core loaded Dell 3.6 machine about 2 years old, and the Vista
>>loaded on the newest high powered Dimention Duo Core. I twiddle my thumbs
>>waiting for certain apps to load up on the Vista machine while the load is
>>instantaneous on the older XP machine. I've tweaked it as best as I could
>>with the info available and I am still very disappointed.
>> I'd like to hear more about the "tweaks" Jon mentions.
>>
>>
>
>
> I'll post some suggestions in. See above for a 'Speeding up Vista' thread.
>
> --
> Jon

Can anyone honestly say Vista is the same, or quicker?


"William" <wyum@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ECB7E02B-6A19-41D3-AC51-3ADE1FB3F058@microsoft.com...
> Jon, I followed your post "Speeding up Vista" line-by-line and made the
> modifications you suggested after running a fresh WEI. True, the changes
> did not leave Vista looking pretty, it confirmed there was no reason to
> switch from XP. Take out the Security Center, Defender, Update, Aero,
> Readyboost plus the slick graphics and Vista is nothing!
>
> My computer was hardly flying. I did not notice the slightest change in
> performance and in fact a post mod WEI yeilded EXACTLY the same results
> and before the changes. Kudos to Microsoft for the stability in Vista for
> that much.
>
> I clicked on a JPG file and it took 20 seconds for Microsoft Office
> Picture Manager (Vista version) to load up before the photo showed up on
> the screen. I moved over to my older XP machine and did the same thing
> using the same program (XP version) and Picture Manager was loaded and
> running in a fraction of a second. I did this and several other
> performance comparrisons, all with similar results. Several more tests
> like this were done after your suggested mods with no noticeable
> differences.
>
> As a devout Microsoft fan, user and stockholder, I am very disappointed to
> say (from my experience) Vista gets two thumbs down. I have no doubt
> Microsoft will eventually get this thing right, but it could take a few
> years. In the meantime, XP works well and for a few bucks extra, one can
> buy most of the same add-on utilities and features as are in Vista.
> William
>
>
> "Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
> news:uIPQNF7UHHA.4764@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "William" <wyum@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:456DFE6B-80B8-41A4-8F99-33FDD156C9C9@microsoft.com...
>>>I agree. I have XP and Vista running side-by-side. The XP is installed on
>>>a pre Dou Core loaded Dell 3.6 machine about 2 years old, and the Vista
>>>loaded on the newest high powered Dimention Duo Core. I twiddle my thumbs
>>>waiting for certain apps to load up on the Vista machine while the load
>>>is instantaneous on the older XP machine. I've tweaked it as best as I
>>>could with the info available and I am still very disappointed.
>>> I'd like to hear more about the "tweaks" Jon mentions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'll post some suggestions in. See above for a 'Speeding up Vista'
>> thread.
>>
>> --
>> Jon
>

20sec to load a pic!!! My ystem took at the most 2sec and I'm running
Aero and all graphics jacked all the way up. Sounds like something
with your system, not Vista.


On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 12:05:14 +0200, "aftermath" <gkidson@s11.co.za>
wrote:

>Can anyone honestly say Vista is the same, or quicker?
>
>
>"William" <wyum@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:ECB7E02B-6A19-41D3-AC51-3ADE1FB3F058@microsoft.com...
>> Jon, I followed your post "Speeding up Vista" line-by-line and made the
>> modifications you suggested after running a fresh WEI. True, the changes
>> did not leave Vista looking pretty, it confirmed there was no reason to
>> switch from XP. Take out the Security Center, Defender, Update, Aero,
>> Readyboost plus the slick graphics and Vista is nothing!
>>
>> My computer was hardly flying. I did not notice the slightest change in
>> performance and in fact a post mod WEI yeilded EXACTLY the same results
>> and before the changes. Kudos to Microsoft for the stability in Vista for
>> that much.
>>
>> I clicked on a JPG file and it took 20 seconds for Microsoft Office
>> Picture Manager (Vista version) to load up before the photo showed up on
>> the screen. I moved over to my older XP machine and did the same thing
>> using the same program (XP version) and Picture Manager was loaded and
>> running in a fraction of a second. I did this and several other
>> performance comparrisons, all with similar results. Several more tests
>> like this were done after your suggested mods with no noticeable
>> differences.
>>
>> As a devout Microsoft fan, user and stockholder, I am very disappointed to
>> say (from my experience) Vista gets two thumbs down. I have no doubt
>> Microsoft will eventually get this thing right, but it could take a few
>> years. In the meantime, XP works well and for a few bucks extra, one can
>> buy most of the same add-on utilities and features as are in Vista.
>> William
>>
>>
>> "Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
>> news:uIPQNF7UHHA.4764@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "William" <wyum@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:456DFE6B-80B8-41A4-8F99-33FDD156C9C9@microsoft.com...
>>>>I agree. I have XP and Vista running side-by-side. The XP is installed on
>>>>a pre Dou Core loaded Dell 3.6 machine about 2 years old, and the Vista
>>>>loaded on the newest high powered Dimention Duo Core. I twiddle my thumbs
>>>>waiting for certain apps to load up on the Vista machine while the load
>>>>is instantaneous on the older XP machine. I've tweaked it as best as I
>>>>could with the info available and I am still very disappointed.
>>>> I'd like to hear more about the "tweaks" Jon mentions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll post some suggestions in. See above for a 'Speeding up Vista'
>>> thread.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jon
>>