Vista or XP ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Talal Itani
  • Start date Start date
On May 25, 4:00 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> Per Steve Thackery:
>
> >Although there are some impressive new technologies under Vista's hood, they
> >don't really result in a better user experience.
>
> Can somebody tell me what Vista has that will make it easier for
> me to do my basic office rat tasks like email, writing code,
> creating Word documents, and doing spreadsheets?
>
> I just spent almost an hour in front of my neighbor's new Vista
> box and, frankly, I didn't see anything of substance.
>
> In fact there was even a PITA actor as seemingly-identical
> functions as basic as "My Computer" have been moved so that
> somebody familiar with XP's UI is left groping.
>
> Vista didn't look like anything that I'd want to inflict on
> somebody's secretary.... or some IT guy who has to flip
> back-and-forth between OS's.
>
> "Intel givith.
> Microsoft taketh away".
> --
> PeteCresswell


No One has given a really good reason to use Vista instead of XP

Of the people I know who have looked at Vista Two major corporations
have said
" No Thanks".

Two friends bought new PC's with Vista on them both have had major
problems.

Both are computer illiterate( As are most of the population)

The universal cure for Vista Problems seems to be to " Roll It Back"
to reliable , stable Windows XP.

I'll wait for whatever Wintel presents years down the road, meanwhile

Windows XP does what I need.
 
All I can add is that windows vista was unstable on my system, the graphics quality in games was worse then XP and it booted slower aswell:My system when I tried WinVistaAMD 64bit X2 4800+ processora8R32-MVP DELUXE mainboard700w powersupplySaphire ATI 512MB cards in crossfire (2x512MB)4GB DDR2/800 memory2X raptor disks (10000rpm each)I haven't tried SP1 yet and I hope it will help fix the most important problems for a gamer like myself, and make vista into a better windows then XP.. but the stories I keep reading are disturbing.. especialy the one on Tomshardware.. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/xp-vs-vista-uk,review-2067.html


Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
 
SXTC wrote:
> All I can add is that windows vista was unstable on my system, the graphics quality in games was worse then XP and it booted slower aswell:My system when I tried WinVistaAMD 64bit X2 4800+ processora8R32-MVP DELUXE mainboard700w powersupplySaphire ATI 512MB cards in crossfire (2x512MB)4GB DDR2/800 memory2X raptor disks (10000rpm each)I haven't tried SP1 yet and I hope it will help fix the most important problems for a gamer like myself, and make vista into a better windows then XP.. but the stories I keep reading are disturbing.. especialy the one on Tomshardware.. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/xp-vs-vista-uk,review-2067.html
>
>
> Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums

That article is almost 6 months old and is pre-SP1.
Frank
 
On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:12:23 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstell88@live.com
wrote:

>On May 25, 4:00 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>> Per Steve Thackery:
>>
>> >Although there are some impressive new technologies under Vista's hood, they
>> >don't really result in a better user experience.
>>
>> Can somebody tell me what Vista has that will make it easier for
>> me to do my basic office rat tasks like email, writing code,
>> creating Word documents, and doing spreadsheets?
>>
>> I just spent almost an hour in front of my neighbor's new Vista
>> box and, frankly, I didn't see anything of substance.
>>
>> In fact there was even a PITA actor as seemingly-identical
>> functions as basic as "My Computer" have been moved so that
>> somebody familiar with XP's UI is left groping.
>>
>> Vista didn't look like anything that I'd want to inflict on
>> somebody's secretary.... or some IT guy who has to flip
>> back-and-forth between OS's.
>>
>> "Intel givith.
>> Microsoft taketh away".
>> --
>> PeteCresswell
>
>
>No One has given a really good reason to use Vista instead of XP
>
>Of the people I know who have looked at Vista Two major corporations
>have said
>" No Thanks".
>
>Two friends bought new PC's with Vista on them both have had major
>problems.
>
>Both are computer illiterate( As are most of the population)
>
>The universal cure for Vista Problems seems to be to " Roll It Back"
>to reliable , stable Windows XP.
>
>I'll wait for whatever Wintel presents years down the road, meanwhile
>
>Windows XP does what I need.
>
>

My experience has been a little nicer with Vista.
I've bought two computers since Vista was released. One was a local
shop-built machine, one was a laptop I configured on Dell's website.

Both run Vista extremely well, even the Laptop, which uses shared
video memory.

Both have excellent, non-buggy device drivers. My user experience has
been pretty much the same whether I had XP or Vista installed on them.

The secret to their performance (as far as I am concerned) is that
both have 4GB Dual-Channel memory, both have Intel motherboard/CPU
combinations (Core2 Dual CPUs), and both have SATA hard drives.

While the laptop only has a WPE of 3.5 or so (because of the Intel
X3100 on-board Graphics and use of shared memory), the desktop has a
WPE of 5.5, and would be 5.9 if the CPU were a little faster
(currently, it is running at 2.66GHz [native speed]).

NOTE that there are NO TWEAKS on either machine, other than a few
visual tweaks, such as removing the short-cut arrows from new
shortcuts, and the "shortcut to" prefix (or suffix, in XP).

The SECRETS to running Vista?
The "Three B's": "Bigger", "Badder", "Bleeding-edge."

DON'T expect to get the SAME performance from your 3-year old XP
machine as you would from a new-high performance machine running
Vista.

There is one more: Make SURE memory is PROPERLY CONFIGURED as
DUAL-CHANNEL memory. That in itself will double your memory's
effective speed, if properly configured.

To configure memory as dual-channel, a few things must be done:
1) Dual Channel memory must be recognized by the Motherboard BIOS.
NOTE that not all motherboards allow for Dual Channel memory,
especially older machines, as in "built-for-XP machines".
2) ALL memory must be matched in size and speed. I also add that
matching the manufacturer is a VERY GOOD IDEA.

If ANY Of the memory has a different size or speed, it cannot be
configured as Dual-Channel memory, and all memory willl default to the
speed of the SLOWEST stick.

3) The sticks must be inserted in the CORRECT way:
a) 1 x 512MB, 1x1GB, 1x2GB,1,4GB,1x8GB -- cannot be configured as
Dual-Channel
b) 2x 512, 2 x 1GB, 2 x 2GB, 2 x 4GB, 2 x 8GB -- can be configured as
Dual-Channel if inserted properly: If 4 slots, the first stick must be
in slot 0, channel A, the second stick must be in slot 0, channel B
(i.e., "slot 0, slot 2")
c) 3x512...3x8GB -- cannot be configured as Dual Channel
d) 4x512...4x8GB can be configured as Dual Channel.

IF one has 4 slots, and has only slot0 and slot1 filled, he cannot
configure it as Dual Channel memory.
IF one has 4 slots, and all 4 slots are filled with matching sticks,
all memory will show up as Dual Channel memory.
If he has 2 slots, then he may configure it as Dual Channel Memory, if
all other conditions are met, AND the BIOS allows for Dual Channel
memory.

That is, Dual Channel memory MUST be in matched PAIRS, one-half of
each pair in slot0 of each Channel.

I learned this when I brought my shop-built machine home. I told them
when I ordered it that I wanted 4GB in DUAL CHANNEL memory -- a total
of 2 matched sticks.

When I brought it home, one stick was in slot 0, and one stick was in
slot 1. As a result, my memory was running at 333MHz, and the BIOS
did not report it as "Dual Channel". When I removed the stick in slot
1 and put it in slot 2, it was reported as Dual Channel, with a memory
speed of 667MHz.

Just goes to show: Always count your change, and always check the work
of the technician who builds your machine. Which is why I don't
particulary care for machines from larger OEMs. Too hard to check and
send back if you find something not as you ordered.

Anyway, I hope this helps others.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
 
On Wed, 28 May 2008 04:34:51 -0700, SXTC wrote:

>All I can add is that windows vista was unstable on my system, the graphics quality in games was worse then XP and it booted slower aswell:My system when I tried WinVistaAMD 64bit X2 4800+ processora8R32-MVP DELUXE mainboard700w powersupplySaphire ATI 512MB cards in crossfire (2x512MB)4GB DDR2/800 memory2X raptor disks (10000rpm each)I haven't tried SP1 yet and I hope it will help fix the most important problems for a gamer like myself, and make vista into a better windows then XP.. but the stories I keep reading are disturbing.. especialy the one on Tomshardware.. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/xp-vs-vista-uk,review-2067.html
>
>
>Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums

That was your problem. You chose the WRONG CPU for Vista.

There is a simple reason for that: Vista just doesn't run as well (or
as stably) on AMD CPUs as it does on Intel CPUs. Use an Intel CPU if
you want the best performance with Vista.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
 
Anonymous (5/29/2008)
Post in reply to: SXTC That was your problem. You chose the WRONG CPU for Vista.There is a simple reason for that: Vista just doesn't run as well (oras stably) on AMD CPUs as it does on Intel CPUs. Use an Intel CPU ifyou want the best performance with Vista.Donald L McDanielPlease reply to the original newsgroup and thread.========================================================
Click to expand...
Why would I want to get myself an intel when its worth shit in gaming?Do you realy think I will switch to Bill gates loved Intell just because his OS attempts to force customers to get one from them?? think again! If it were a good OS, it would support ALL and not just one.


Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
 
I have to agree with Steve Thackeray. When one compares operating
systems one thinks of 95, 98, 98SE, XP and Vista. One forgets that there
was a complete dud in the middle of all that called ME. Anyone who
rushed to upgrade from 98 to ME must have regretted it. Most of us
jumped over it from 98 to XP. I believe that Vista will suffer the same
fate and you will be able to upgrade just fine from XP to Windows 7. I
too like messing with new stuff so I have installed Vista 64 in a dual
boot configuration with XP as I find that it still operates much faster
than Vista even with 8gbytes memory installed. Vista is OK to fiddle
with but not to do a real job of work. I also resent the loss of
priceless programs which will not run in Vista and find that the authors
do not plan on changing this any time soon.


--
Ormsby
 
On May 29, 4:36 am, Donald L McDaniel <orthocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:12:23 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 25, 4:00 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> >> Per Steve Thackery:
>
> >> >Although there are some impressive new technologies under Vista's hood, they
> >> >don't really result in a better user experience.
>
> >> Can somebody tell me what Vista has that will make it easier for
> >> me to do my basic office rat tasks like email, writing code,
> >> creating Word documents, and doing spreadsheets?
>
> >> I just spent almost an hour in front of my neighbor's new Vista
> >> box and, frankly, I didn't see anything of substance.
>
> >> In fact there was even a PITA actor as seemingly-identical
> >> functions as basic as "My Computer" have been moved so that
> >> somebody familiar with XP's UI is left groping.
>
> >> Vista didn't look like anything that I'd want to inflict on
> >> somebody's secretary.... or some IT guy who has to flip
> >> back-and-forth between OS's.
>
> >> "Intel givith.
> >> Microsoft taketh away".
> >> --
> >> PeteCresswell
>
> >No One has given a really good reason to use Vista instead of XP
>
> >Of the people I know who have looked at Vista Two major corporations
> >have said
> >" No Thanks".
>
> >Two friends bought new PC's with Vista on them both have had major
> >problems.
>
> >Both are computer illiterate( As are most of the population)
>
> >The universal cure for Vista Problems seems to be to " Roll It Back"
> >to reliable , stable Windows XP.
>
> >I'll wait for whatever Wintel presents years down the road, meanwhile
>
> >Windows XP does what I need.
>
> My experience has been a little nicer with Vista.
> I've bought two computers since Vista was released. One was a local
> shop-built machine, one was a laptop I configured on Dell's website.
>
> Both run Vista extremely well, even the Laptop, which uses shared
> video memory.
>
> Both have excellent, non-buggy device drivers. My user experience has
> been pretty much the same whether I had XP or Vista installed on them.
>
> The secret to their performance (as far as I am concerned) is that
> both have 4GB Dual-Channel memory, both have Intel motherboard/CPU
> combinations (Core2 Dual CPUs), and both have SATA hard drives.
>
> While the laptop only has a WPE of 3.5 or so (because of the Intel
> X3100 on-board Graphics and use of shared memory), the desktop has a
> WPE of 5.5, and would be 5.9 if the CPU were a little faster
> (currently, it is running at 2.66GHz [native speed]).
>
> NOTE that there are NO TWEAKS on either machine, other than a few
> visual tweaks, such as removing the short-cut arrows from new
> shortcuts, and the "shortcut to" prefix (or suffix, in XP).
>
> The SECRETS to running Vista?
> The "Three B's": "Bigger", "Badder", "Bleeding-edge."
>
> DON'T expect to get the SAME performance from your 3-year old XP
> machine as you would from a new-high performance machine running
> Vista.
>
> There is one more: Make SURE memory is PROPERLY CONFIGURED as
> DUAL-CHANNEL memory. That in itself will double your memory's
> effective speed, if properly configured.
>
> To configure memory as dual-channel, a few things must be done:
> 1) Dual Channel memory must be recognized by the Motherboard BIOS.
> NOTE that not all motherboards allow for Dual Channel memory,
> especially older machines, as in "built-for-XP machines".
> 2) ALL memory must be matched in size and speed. I also add that
> matching the manufacturer is a VERY GOOD IDEA.
>
> If ANY Of the memory has a different size or speed, it cannot be
> configured as Dual-Channel memory, and all memory willl default to the
> speed of the SLOWEST stick.
>
> 3) The sticks must be inserted in the CORRECT way:
> a) 1 x 512MB, 1x1GB, 1x2GB,1,4GB,1x8GB -- cannot be configured as
> Dual-Channel
> b) 2x 512, 2 x 1GB, 2 x 2GB, 2 x 4GB, 2 x 8GB -- can be configured as
> Dual-Channel if inserted properly: If 4 slots, the first stick must be
> in slot 0, channel A, the second stick must be in slot 0, channel B
> (i.e., "slot 0, slot 2")
> c) 3x512...3x8GB -- cannot be configured as Dual Channel
> d) 4x512...4x8GB can be configured as Dual Channel.
>
> IF one has 4 slots, and has only slot0 and slot1 filled, he cannot
> configure it as Dual Channel memory.
> IF one has 4 slots, and all 4 slots are filled with matching sticks,
> all memory will show up as Dual Channel memory.
> If he has 2 slots, then he may configure it as Dual Channel Memory, if
> all other conditions are met, AND the BIOS allows for Dual Channel
> memory.
>
> That is, Dual Channel memory MUST be in matched PAIRS, one-half of
> each pair in slot0 of each Channel.
>
> I learned this when I brought my shop-built machine home. I told them
> when I ordered it that I wanted 4GB in DUAL CHANNEL memory -- a total
> of 2 matched sticks.
>
> When I brought it home, one stick was in slot 0, and one stick was in
> slot 1. As a result, my memory was running at 333MHz, and the BIOS
> did not report it as "Dual Channel". When I removed the stick in slot
> 1 and put it in slot 2, it was reported as Dual Channel, with a memory
> speed of 667MHz.
>
> Just goes to show: Always count your change, and always check the work
> of the technician who builds your machine. Which is why I don't
> particulary care for machines from larger OEMs. Too hard to check and
> send back if you find something not as you ordered.
>
> Anyway, I hope this helps others.
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
> ========================================================

This expensive " Hardware Laundry List" of " Only Run Vista This Way"
adds to my concerns that this product ,
Vista,

still isn't ready for the average User.

I think the only reason PC's with Vista sell is because people don't
realize that Vista isn't universally better than XP
or that XP is sufficient, and faster,
or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
installed on it.

from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.

Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
than Windows XP when ,
one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.

Kindly post a link to the site that has this information.



Thank you.
 
SXTC wrote:
> Look online Frank, open your eyes, the proof is out there.It is you who doesn't want to see the truth.http://www.technewsworld.com/story/...ml?sid=6188289&amppart=rss&ampsubj=6188289And there's a lot more sites where these came from, sites like these don't just rise on the web like toadstools unless there's something seriously wrong with Vista. Proof enough wether you understand or not.
>
>
> Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums

Sorry pal, but I believe exactly what I see with my own eyes. My Vista
installs are faster than my XP installs. I certainly believe what I see
on my machines over what I read.
Frank
 
On Thu, 29 May 2008 07:31:57 -0700, Frank <fb@sto.clm> wrote:

>SXTC wrote:
>> Look online Frank, open your eyes, the proof is out there.It is you who doesn't want to see the truth.http://www.technewsworld.com/story/...ml?sid=6188289&amppart=rss&ampsubj=6188289And there's a lot more sites where these came from, sites like these don't just rise on the web like toadstools unless there's something seriously wrong with Vista. Proof enough wether you understand or not.
>>
>>
>> Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
>
>Sorry pal, but I believe exactly what I see with my own eyes. My Vista
>installs are faster than my XP installs. I certainly believe what I see
>on my machines over what I read.
>Frank

You wouldn't be trusted with your dying breath to tell the truth you
brainless Putz and Microsoft apologist.
 
On Thu, 29 May 2008 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstell88@live.com
wrote:

>On May 29, 4:36 am, Donald L McDaniel <orthocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:12:23 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 25, 4:00 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>> >> Per Steve Thackery:
>>
>> >> >Although there are some impressive new technologies under Vista's hood, they
>> >> >don't really result in a better user experience.
>>
>> >> Can somebody tell me what Vista has that will make it easier for
>> >> me to do my basic office rat tasks like email, writing code,
>> >> creating Word documents, and doing spreadsheets?
>>
>> >> I just spent almost an hour in front of my neighbor's new Vista
>> >> box and, frankly, I didn't see anything of substance.
>>
>> >> In fact there was even a PITA actor as seemingly-identical
>> >> functions as basic as "My Computer" have been moved so that
>> >> somebody familiar with XP's UI is left groping.
>>
>> >> Vista didn't look like anything that I'd want to inflict on
>> >> somebody's secretary.... or some IT guy who has to flip
>> >> back-and-forth between OS's.
>>
>> >> "Intel givith.
>> >> Microsoft taketh away".
>> >> --
>> >> PeteCresswell
>>
>> >No One has given a really good reason to use Vista instead of XP
>>
>> >Of the people I know who have looked at Vista Two major corporations
>> >have said
>> >" No Thanks".
>>
>> >Two friends bought new PC's with Vista on them both have had major
>> >problems.
>>
>> >Both are computer illiterate( As are most of the population)
>>
>> >The universal cure for Vista Problems seems to be to " Roll It Back"
>> >to reliable , stable Windows XP.
>>
>> >I'll wait for whatever Wintel presents years down the road, meanwhile
>>
>> >Windows XP does what I need.
>>
>> My experience has been a little nicer with Vista.
>> I've bought two computers since Vista was released. One was a local
>> shop-built machine, one was a laptop I configured on Dell's website.
>>
>> Both run Vista extremely well, even the Laptop, which uses shared
>> video memory.
>>
>> Both have excellent, non-buggy device drivers. My user experience has
>> been pretty much the same whether I had XP or Vista installed on them.
>>
>> The secret to their performance (as far as I am concerned) is that
>> both have 4GB Dual-Channel memory, both have Intel motherboard/CPU
>> combinations (Core2 Dual CPUs), and both have SATA hard drives.
>>
>> While the laptop only has a WPE of 3.5 or so (because of the Intel
>> X3100 on-board Graphics and use of shared memory), the desktop has a
>> WPE of 5.5, and would be 5.9 if the CPU were a little faster
>> (currently, it is running at 2.66GHz [native speed]).
>>
>> NOTE that there are NO TWEAKS on either machine, other than a few
>> visual tweaks, such as removing the short-cut arrows from new
>> shortcuts, and the "shortcut to" prefix (or suffix, in XP).
>>
>> The SECRETS to running Vista?
>> The "Three B's": "Bigger", "Badder", "Bleeding-edge."
>>
>> DON'T expect to get the SAME performance from your 3-year old XP
>> machine as you would from a new-high performance machine running
>> Vista.
>>
>> There is one more: Make SURE memory is PROPERLY CONFIGURED as
>> DUAL-CHANNEL memory. That in itself will double your memory's
>> effective speed, if properly configured.
>>
>> To configure memory as dual-channel, a few things must be done:
>> 1) Dual Channel memory must be recognized by the Motherboard BIOS.
>> NOTE that not all motherboards allow for Dual Channel memory,
>> especially older machines, as in "built-for-XP machines".
>> 2) ALL memory must be matched in size and speed. I also add that
>> matching the manufacturer is a VERY GOOD IDEA.
>>
>> If ANY Of the memory has a different size or speed, it cannot be
>> configured as Dual-Channel memory, and all memory willl default to the
>> speed of the SLOWEST stick.
>>
>> 3) The sticks must be inserted in the CORRECT way:
>> a) 1 x 512MB, 1x1GB, 1x2GB,1,4GB,1x8GB -- cannot be configured as
>> Dual-Channel
>> b) 2x 512, 2 x 1GB, 2 x 2GB, 2 x 4GB, 2 x 8GB -- can be configured as
>> Dual-Channel if inserted properly: If 4 slots, the first stick must be
>> in slot 0, channel A, the second stick must be in slot 0, channel B
>> (i.e., "slot 0, slot 2")
>> c) 3x512...3x8GB -- cannot be configured as Dual Channel
>> d) 4x512...4x8GB can be configured as Dual Channel.
>>
>> IF one has 4 slots, and has only slot0 and slot1 filled, he cannot
>> configure it as Dual Channel memory.
>> IF one has 4 slots, and all 4 slots are filled with matching sticks,
>> all memory will show up as Dual Channel memory.
>> If he has 2 slots, then he may configure it as Dual Channel Memory, if
>> all other conditions are met, AND the BIOS allows for Dual Channel
>> memory.
>>
>> That is, Dual Channel memory MUST be in matched PAIRS, one-half of
>> each pair in slot0 of each Channel.
>>
>> I learned this when I brought my shop-built machine home. I told them
>> when I ordered it that I wanted 4GB in DUAL CHANNEL memory -- a total
>> of 2 matched sticks.
>>
>> When I brought it home, one stick was in slot 0, and one stick was in
>> slot 1. As a result, my memory was running at 333MHz, and the BIOS
>> did not report it as "Dual Channel". When I removed the stick in slot
>> 1 and put it in slot 2, it was reported as Dual Channel, with a memory
>> speed of 667MHz.
>>
>> Just goes to show: Always count your change, and always check the work
>> of the technician who builds your machine. Which is why I don't
>> particulary care for machines from larger OEMs. Too hard to check and
>> send back if you find something not as you ordered.
>>
>> Anyway, I hope this helps others.
>>
>> Donald L McDaniel
>> Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
>> ========================================================
>
>This expensive " Hardware Laundry List" of " Only Run Vista This Way"
>adds to my concerns that this product ,
>Vista,
>
>still isn't ready for the average User.
>
>I think the only reason PC's with Vista sell is because people don't
>realize that Vista isn't universally better than XP
>or that XP is sufficient, and faster,
>or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
>installed on it.
>
>from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.
>
>Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
>than Windows XP when ,
>one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.
>
>Kindly post a link to the site that has this information.
>
>
>
>Thank you.

Cheseley, I'm not here to argue with you. I gave my experience. You
may take it or leave it, at your convenience.

All I know is that Vista Ultimate on my machines runs just as well as
XP does or better (I have them both dual-booted with XP, and I
experience absolutely no difference between the two, other than the
slowness in both OSes caused by the lack of a discrete graphics card
on the laptop.)

Vista is bigger and more bloated than XP, yet runs just as well.
At least on my machines.

I have no "scientific" test results, just my experience with using
both OSes.

How it runs on yours is your experience, not mine.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
 
On Thu, 29 May 2008 07:31:57 -0700, Frank <fb@sto.clm> wrote:

>SXTC wrote:
>> Look online Frank, open your eyes, the proof is out there.It is you who doesn't want to see the truth.http://www.technewsworld.com/story/...ml?sid=6188289&amppart=rss&ampsubj=6188289And there's a lot more sites where these came from, sites like these don't just rise on the web like toadstools unless there's something seriously wrong with Vista. Proof enough wether you understand or not.
>>
>>
>> Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
>
>Sorry pal, but I believe exactly what I see with my own eyes. My Vista
>installs are faster than my XP installs. I certainly believe what I see
>on my machines over what I read.
>Frank

I've found that Vista installs on my machines take pretty much the
same amount of time as XP takes (about 39 minutes, give or take a few
either way).

I've never actually timed a Vista install, but it certainly "feels" to
be about the same amount of time it takes to install XP.

Of course, if one does a FULL format, rather than a quick format, it
will definitely take longer on my 500GB SATA drives -- about 30-45
minutes longer, in fact.

This is true whether I use XP or Vista.

In fact, since Windows 9x, the installation time for any Microsoft OS
has been about the same amount of time with each iteration of Windows.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
 
On Thu, 29 May 2008 07:32:06 -0500, Ormsby <guest@unknown-email.com>
wrote:

>
>I have to agree with Steve Thackeray. When one compares operating
>systems one thinks of 95, 98, 98SE, XP and Vista. One forgets that there
>was a complete dud in the middle of all that called ME. Anyone who
>rushed to upgrade from 98 to ME must have regretted it. Most of us
>jumped over it from 98 to XP. I believe that Vista will suffer the same
>fate and you will be able to upgrade just fine from XP to Windows 7. I
>too like messing with new stuff so I have installed Vista 64 in a dual
>boot configuration with XP as I find that it still operates much faster
>than Vista even with 8gbytes memory installed. Vista is OK to fiddle
>with but not to do a real job of work. I also resent the loss of
>priceless programs which will not run in Vista and find that the authors
>do not plan on changing this any time soon.

I guess that really depends on where Win7's UPGRADE path starts.

Vista's upgrade path does NOT include Windows 9x. I suppose the same
will still be true with Windows 7. XP or Vista to Windows 7.

By the way, I did not find ME to be a "dud", as everyone loves to call
it. I found it to be a decent and very stable OS.

Example:
I installed my copy of ME on a machine for the residents where I was
working at the time. These folks were, to be kind, very irrational.
Yet the OS kept on keeping on for almost 3 years, all the time I was
employed there. My fellow employees did not know (or did not care to
know) how to keep the OS clean and working.

The residents, being basically insane, pounded this machine to death,
yet the OS kept on operating as it should, until finally, someone
renamed every file in the Windows folder, and the Windows folder
itself, upon which it died.

I restored the OS, and somehow, they were able to delete my BIOS
password, and replaced it with one they immediately forgot,
effectively shutting me out of the machine after that. The machine no
longer booted after that.

I did not try to restore it after that. I really didn't have the
time, as I was in the process of moving out of the area.

Much ME code was incorporated into XP, so really, XP is an upgraded
version of ME.

Because of this experience, in my opinion, OPERATOR errors were the
LARGEST cause of ME's demise, not its code.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
 
On Sun, 25 May 2008 13:06:53 GMT, "Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net>
wrote:

>A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista vs.
>XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question now. Is
>Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a business
>computer, with many types of applications. It will be a performance PC,
>with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.
>

I suggest that the best "performance" OS for a "performance" PC would
be Vista Ultimate, rather than XP. Especially if it is going to be
used for business applications.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
 
Anonymous (5/29/2008)
Post in reply to: Frank You wouldn't be trusted with your dying breath to tell the truth youbrainless Putz and Microsoft apologist.
Click to expand...
Don't you just hate it when people claim Vista is the best OS ever eventhough there have been 6 Versions of windows (vista included) and even WinME is more stable then WinVista :PI'd say that in performance, Vista is very comparable with WinME... but then again.. if you remove the layout.. you get the same layout on all versions of windows like the first windows ever had (Win3.11)..Makes me wonder if MS is going through all this effort to send people on the web to "Lie" about what their OS realy is worth, to persuade some ignorant people to buy Vista and then lateron find out they'll be scammed.. but at least they'll have their money like they have taken mine with their lies on their site about Vista :(And someone moaning about how there should be NO problem and that 75% of all complainers are therefor wrongly mistaken... nice strategy I'd say.. but quite weak since I know a lot of people stubborn enough to skip an OS just to get back at MS, or switch OS (linux or mac).It IS a fact that there IS a huge problem with Vista, wether you want to admit it or not. If you had no problems, you wouldn't be here herrassing people with problems right now, you'd be enjoying your OS and working on it, and instead your here..lying..but then again.. for a Vista employee, this kind of behavior is doing your work...


Post Originated from http://www.VistaForums.com Vista Support Forums
 
Vista is likely he way to go but check to ensure all apps are compatible
with Vista. If you go with XP do not install SP3 just install XP SP2 and use
the updates from the Windows Update Site.

--

Xandros


"Donald L McDaniel" <orthocross@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gd2u34t0c3cc32esa8rtbijbc1l0fm1our@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 13:06:53 GMT, "Talal Itani" <titani@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>A few months ago, I was building a PC, I asked the question abut Vista vs.
>>XP, and I ended up using XP. I would like to ask the same question now.
>>Is
>>Vista the way to go with a new PC? I will be using this for a business
>>computer, with many types of applications. It will be a performance PC,
>>with 4GB of memory and a 3 GHz processor. Thanks.
>>
>
> I suggest that the best "performance" OS for a "performance" PC would
> be Vista Ultimate, rather than XP. Especially if it is going to be
> used for business applications.
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
> ========================================================
 
On Thu, 29 May 2008 06:27:00 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstell88@live.com
wrote:

>On May 29, 4:36 am, Donald L McDaniel <orthocr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:12:23 -0700 (PDT), cheley_bonstel...@live.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 25, 4:00 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>> >> Per Steve Thackery:
>>
>> >> >Although there are some impressive new technologies under Vista's hood, they
>> >> >don't really result in a better user experience.
>>
>> >> Can somebody tell me what Vista has that will make it easier for
>> >> me to do my basic office rat tasks like email, writing code,
>> >> creating Word documents, and doing spreadsheets?
>>
>> >> I just spent almost an hour in front of my neighbor's new Vista
>> >> box and, frankly, I didn't see anything of substance.
>>
>> >> In fact there was even a PITA actor as seemingly-identical
>> >> functions as basic as "My Computer" have been moved so that
>> >> somebody familiar with XP's UI is left groping.
>>
>> >> Vista didn't look like anything that I'd want to inflict on
>> >> somebody's secretary.... or some IT guy who has to flip
>> >> back-and-forth between OS's.
>>
>> >> "Intel givith.
>> >> Microsoft taketh away".
>> >> --
>> >> PeteCresswell
>>
>> >No One has given a really good reason to use Vista instead of XP
>>
>> >Of the people I know who have looked at Vista Two major corporations
>> >have said
>> >" No Thanks".
>>
>> >Two friends bought new PC's with Vista on them both have had major
>> >problems.
>>
>> >Both are computer illiterate( As are most of the population)

I suggest that this was the problem.
Additionally, I would not use the word "most". Rather, I would write
"much" of the population is computer illiterate. But more and more are
gaining this necessary literacy. Most kids nowadays come out of
Elementary school with a great degree of computer literacy.

>>
>> >The universal cure for Vista Problems seems to be to " Roll It Back"
>> >to reliable , stable Windows XP.

I disagree with this. I believe that the "universal cure" for Vista
problems is "EDUCATION", not "just giving up."


>>
>> >I'll wait for whatever Wintel presents years down the road, meanwhile
>>
>> >Windows XP does what I need.
>>
>> My experience has been a little nicer with Vista.
>> I've bought two computers since Vista was released. One was a local
>> shop-built machine, one was a laptop I configured on Dell's website.
>>
>> Both run Vista extremely well, even the Laptop, which uses shared
>> video memory.
>>
>> Both have excellent, non-buggy device drivers. My user experience has
>> been pretty much the same whether I had XP or Vista installed on them.
>>
>> The secret to their performance (as far as I am concerned) is that
>> both have 4GB Dual-Channel memory, both have Intel motherboard/CPU
>> combinations (Core2 Dual CPUs), and both have SATA hard drives.
>>
>> While the laptop only has a WPE of 3.5 or so (because of the Intel
>> X3100 on-board Graphics and use of shared memory), the desktop has a
>> WPE of 5.5, and would be 5.9 if the CPU were a little faster
>> (currently, it is running at 2.66GHz [native speed]).
>>
>> NOTE that there are NO TWEAKS on either machine, other than a few
>> visual tweaks, such as removing the short-cut arrows from new
>> shortcuts, and the "shortcut to" prefix (or suffix, in XP).
>>
>> The SECRETS to running Vista?
>> The "Three B's": "Bigger", "Badder", "Bleeding-edge."
>>
>> DON'T expect to get the SAME performance from your 3-year old XP
>> machine as you would from a new-high performance machine running
>> Vista.
>>
>> There is one more: Make SURE memory is PROPERLY CONFIGURED as
>> DUAL-CHANNEL memory. That in itself will double your memory's
>> effective speed, if properly configured.
>>
>> To configure memory as dual-channel, a few things must be done:
>> 1) Dual Channel memory must be recognized by the Motherboard BIOS.
>> NOTE that not all motherboards allow for Dual Channel memory,
>> especially older machines, as in "built-for-XP machines".
>> 2) ALL memory must be matched in size and speed. I also add that
>> matching the manufacturer is a VERY GOOD IDEA.
>>
>> If ANY Of the memory has a different size or speed, it cannot be
>> configured as Dual-Channel memory, and all memory willl default to the
>> speed of the SLOWEST stick.
>>
>> 3) The sticks must be inserted in the CORRECT way:
>> a) 1 x 512MB, 1x1GB, 1x2GB,1,4GB,1x8GB -- cannot be configured as
>> Dual-Channel
>> b) 2x 512, 2 x 1GB, 2 x 2GB, 2 x 4GB, 2 x 8GB -- can be configured as
>> Dual-Channel if inserted properly: If 4 slots, the first stick must be
>> in slot 0, channel A, the second stick must be in slot 0, channel B
>> (i.e., "slot 0, slot 2")
>> c) 3x512...3x8GB -- cannot be configured as Dual Channel
>> d) 4x512...4x8GB can be configured as Dual Channel.
>>
>> IF one has 4 slots, and has only slot0 and slot1 filled, he cannot
>> configure it as Dual Channel memory.
>> IF one has 4 slots, and all 4 slots are filled with matching sticks,
>> all memory will show up as Dual Channel memory.
>> If he has 2 slots, then he may configure it as Dual Channel Memory, if
>> all other conditions are met, AND the BIOS allows for Dual Channel
>> memory.
>>
>> That is, Dual Channel memory MUST be in matched PAIRS, one-half of
>> each pair in slot0 of each Channel.
>>
>> I learned this when I brought my shop-built machine home. I told them
>> when I ordered it that I wanted 4GB in DUAL CHANNEL memory -- a total
>> of 2 matched sticks.
>>
>> When I brought it home, one stick was in slot 0, and one stick was in
>> slot 1. As a result, my memory was running at 333MHz, and the BIOS
>> did not report it as "Dual Channel". When I removed the stick in slot
>> 1 and put it in slot 2, it was reported as Dual Channel, with a memory
>> speed of 667MHz.
>>
>> Just goes to show: Always count your change, and always check the work
>> of the technician who builds your machine. Which is why I don't
>> particulary care for machines from larger OEMs. Too hard to check and
>> send back if you find something not as you ordered.
>>
>> Anyway, I hope this helps others.
>>
>> Donald L McDaniel
>> Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
>> ========================================================
>
>This expensive " Hardware Laundry List" of " Only Run Vista This Way"
>adds to my concerns that this product ,
>Vista,
>
>still isn't ready for the average User.

I disagree. "Expensive" is a RELATIVE word, and cannot be applied to
"the average user" anymore.

>
>I think the only reason PC's with Vista sell is because people don't
>realize that Vista isn't universally better than XP

That makes absolutely no sense at all. Perhaps you were trying to say
something else.

>or that XP is sufficient, and faster,

It is certainly "sufficient" for XP-era PCs. It is NOT for Vista
machines.

>or don't realize that they can even GET new computers with XP
>installed on it.

Not much longer, however.

>
>from everything I've read, XP still beats Vista.

Rather than just reading Pro-XP articles, start reading a few more
Pro-Vista articles, unless you always want to make lop-sided
decisions.

>Finally, there has been talk on this thread of Vista Now being faster
>than Windows XP when ,
>one would suppose, tested on Identical hardware.

One cannot put Vista on XP-era hardware and expect it to run as fast
or as well as it would on a Vista machine.

You are judging Vista by XP standards, not Vista standards, much like
comparing apples and oranges.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================
 
Back
Top