No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to have

Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

 

Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb

HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP

installed on both.

 

The difference in performance is just amazing.

 

Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins 5

secs on Ave

XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =

50secs on ave

Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins

Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

 

Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4 times

longer than on XP.

 

How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose their

thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much faster

previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

cliff wrote:

> No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to

> have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

>

> Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb

> HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP

> installed on both.

>

> The difference in performance is just amazing.

>

> Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins

> 5 secs on Ave

> XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =

> 50secs on ave

> Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins

> Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

>

> Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4

> times longer than on XP.

>

> How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose

> their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much

> faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

 

I'm no expert, but I was given to understand that Office XP does not run

on Vista.

Avraham

And your time to a usable desktop is?

 

--

 

 

Regards,

 

Richard Urban

Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

 

 

 

"cliff" <broadcemhlm@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:C6BFF0FD-E455-428D-A20A-90D79421983C@microsoft.com...

> No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to

> have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

>

> Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb

> HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP

> installed on both.

>

> The difference in performance is just amazing.

>

> Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins 5

> secs on Ave

> XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =

> 50secs on ave

> Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins

> Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

>

> Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4 times

> longer than on XP.

>

> How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose

> their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much

> faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

* Avraham:

> cliff wrote:

>> No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to

>> have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

>>

>> Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb

>> HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP

>> installed on both.

>>

>> The difference in performance is just amazing.

>>

>> Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins

>> 5 secs on Ave

>> XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =

>> 50secs on ave

>> Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins

>> Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

>>

>> Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4

>> times longer than on XP.

>>

>> How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose

>> their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much

>> faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

>

> I'm no expert, but I was given to understand that Office XP does not run

> on Vista.

> Avraham

 

OfficeXP works fine on Vista, for the most part.

Outlook 2002 doesn't remember email server passwords.

There may be another quirk or two, but most everything

in OfficeXP works well on Vista.

 

Microsoft mainstream support for Office XP ended July 11, 2006.

 

 

-Michael

Vista has three advantages over XP: it boots faster and both Solitaire and

Hearts are the best versions ever in a Microsoft OS.

Apart from that Vista is slow, incompatible with many programs, useless for

gaming and high end graphics, unstable for internet steraming media and has

no security advantages over Win XP.

If you need to network Vista with XP computers be prepared for inexplicable

incompatibilities and unstable connections.

When will Microsoft and its henchman who reply to some of these posts get

it?

Vista is just bad and needs a total rewrite.

Microsoft should show character and withdraw Vista from the market until

they can make it usable.

Unfortunately Microsoft can force feed Vista via new computer sales to

individual buyers. Governments and businesses, whose IT pros know better,

are not switching to Vista.

Richard Urban should devote his time to improving this kludge turkey of an

OS and less time replying to this newsgroup.

babaloo wrote:

> Vista has three advantages over XP: it boots faster and both Solitaire and

> Hearts are the best versions ever in a Microsoft OS.

 

Hummm...that's wonderful!!!

 

> Apart from that Vista is slow,

 

slow in doing what...?

 

 

incompatible with many programs,

 

specifically which programs (not games) are you referring to...please

name them, ok?

 

 

useless for

> gaming and high end graphics,

 

Don’t do gaming but we do "high end graphics" (not sure though what

you're calling "high end graphics") daily meeting all production

schedules. We have no problems running Adobe CS3 Master Collection,

Corel Draw X3, etc., however we do have Quark 7 loaded on XP because

we've had problems with it not being compatible with Vista.

 

unstable for internet steraming media

 

we stream media from our server (WHS) to all of our Vista boxes with no

problems.

 

and has

> no security advantages over Win XP.

 

I don't think that's really true. You've had security problems with

Vista? Please explain...

 

> If you need to network Vista with XP computers be prepared for inexplicable

> incompatibilities and unstable connections.

 

It's very important that all of our boxes be able to fully interface

over our LAN. We don't use a domain but use a workgroup (we keep under

10 boxes on the workgroup) and haven't, as of yet experienced any problems.

 

> When will Microsoft and its henchman who reply to some of these posts get

> it?

 

I hear what you're saying but haven't experienced any unsolvable

problems using Vista Ultimate in a small business atmosphere

> Vista is just bad and needs a total rewrite.

 

Maybe you could offer to rewrite Vista for MS. I'd be glad to test it

for you when it's ready.

> Microsoft should show character and withdraw Vista from the market until

> they can make it usable.

 

Well, that's a very strange statement seeing as how proly millions are

using it on a daily basis.

 

> Unfortunately Microsoft can force feed Vista via new computer sales to

> individual buyers.

 

It that what you did? We clean installed all of our Vista seats

ourselves. We didn't buy any new hardware.

 

Governments and businesses, whose IT pros know better, are not switching

to Vista.

 

Yeah, some of them are still using DOS & W3.1. many are still on Win9X

and the rest are on either 2K or XP. They are always slow to make the

change.

> Richard Urban should devote his time to improving this kludge turkey of an

> OS and less time replying to this newsgroup.

 

And maybe you should actually get Vista and/or learn how to use it?

Happy 4th!

Frank

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

Desperately poor video drivers do not help gaming or streaming video..

 

While network performance is not stunning either, instability is not a

universal problem..

 

Incompatibility with some programs is not a new issue on the release of a

new OS.. we have all seen it before..

 

Many can and have a reasonable Vista system running, and it will get better

still..

 

 

"babaloo" <fac187@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:yXOii.3264$rL1.1905@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...

> Vista has three advantages over XP: it boots faster and both Solitaire and

> Hearts are the best versions ever in a Microsoft OS.

> Apart from that Vista is slow, incompatible with many programs, useless

> for gaming and high end graphics, unstable for internet steraming media

> and has no security advantages over Win XP.

> If you need to network Vista with XP computers be prepared for

> inexplicable incompatibilities and unstable connections.

> When will Microsoft and its henchman who reply to some of these posts get

> it?

> Vista is just bad and needs a total rewrite.

> Microsoft should show character and withdraw Vista from the market until

> they can make it usable.

> Unfortunately Microsoft can force feed Vista via new computer sales to

> individual buyers. Governments and businesses, whose IT pros know better,

> are not switching to Vista.

> Richard Urban should devote his time to improving this kludge turkey of an

> OS and less time replying to this newsgroup.

>

 

--

 

 

Mike Hall

MS MVP Windows Shell/User

http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

Is this a honest question ? with the intention to help ?

Or is it a nasty teaser, a challenge ?

Be more specific when you ask this kind of things to CUSTOMERS please.

 

 

"Richard Urban" wrote:

> And your time to a usable desktop is?

>

> --

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Richard Urban

> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)

>

>

>

> "cliff" <broadcemhlm@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

> news:C6BFF0FD-E455-428D-A20A-90D79421983C@microsoft.com...

> > No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to

> > have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

> >

> > Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb

> > HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP

> > installed on both.

> >

> > The difference in performance is just amazing.

> >

> > Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins 5

> > secs on Ave

> > XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =

> > 50secs on ave

> > Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins

> > Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

> >

> > Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4 times

> > longer than on XP.

> >

> > How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose

> > their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much

> > faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

>

>

Many report better performance with Windows Vista and others report

worse with identical hardware and software.

Differences in specific hardware and software apparently favor one OS

for another.

 

"How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me"

The same applies to previous versions.

Generally a newer OS requires more power than the previous and as in

the past, the older OS will perform faster than the new on identical

hardware.

this is nothing new.

Go back to any previous OS and do a similar comparison, Windows 98

will similarly perform faster on hardware designed for Windows XP.

Some use that as a reason for stating with Windows 98.

While your experiment is valid, it ignores the new features in Windows

Vista.

 

As drivers and software mature, performance will continue to improve

as it did with previous operating systems.

 

Try this.

You already have a state of the art laptop for Windows Vista.

Now get one that was new at about the release of Windows XP.

Perform the same experiment except this time install Windows Vista on

both.

Which performs better?

 

That is largely a nature of technology, at it progresses, more is

needed similar as you home probably requires more of just about

everything than your grandparents home.

A modern car requires more power than a car available 50 years ago.

The list goes on and computer technology is no different.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

http://www.dts-l.org

 

 

"cliff" <broadcemhlm@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:C6BFF0FD-E455-428D-A20A-90D79421983C@microsoft.com...

> No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one

> to have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

>

> Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram,

> 80gb HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS

> Office XP installed on both.

>

> The difference in performance is just amazing.

>

> Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =

> 3mins 5 secs on Ave

> XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home

> page = 50secs on ave

> Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins

> Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

>

> Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4

> times longer than on XP.

>

> How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but

> suppose their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget

> how much faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

"babaloo" <fac187@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:yXOii.3264$rL1.1905@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...

> Vista has three advantages over XP: it boots faster and both Solitaire and

> Hearts are the best versions ever in a Microsoft OS.

> Apart from that Vista is slow, incompatible with many programs, useless

> for gaming and high end graphics, unstable for internet steraming media

> and has no security advantages over Win XP.

> If you need to network Vista with XP computers be prepared for

> inexplicable incompatibilities and unstable connections.

> When will Microsoft and its henchman who reply to some of these posts get

> it?

> Vista is just bad and needs a total rewrite.

> Microsoft should show character and withdraw Vista from the market until

> they can make it usable.

> Unfortunately Microsoft can force feed Vista via new computer sales to

> individual buyers. Governments and businesses, whose IT pros know better,

> are not switching to Vista.

> Richard Urban should devote his time to improving this kludge turkey of an

> OS and less time replying to this newsgroup.

 

Upgrading to Vista seems to be a fairly general problem. Probably due to

early generation hardware and software. I built a new system and I love it.

The only software incompatibilities was an old 'Paperport' and Nero 6.

Other old software problems only occured with UAC on, such as backing up

Quicken 2002 and my old Canon download software. Turning off UAC solved

those problems.

 

Your solution of a total rewrite is unreal. I can understand why businesses

would not upgrade to Vista. Why fix something that is not broken and expose

yourself to incompatibilities . But Vista in a new system with proper

components is the only way to go.

I am asking for a specific reason. If you must know Internet Explorer in

Vista has protected mode on by default. Windows XP does not even offer

protected mode for IE. Therefore, IE in Vista takes longer to bring up

certain web pages.

 

HAPPY!

 

--

 

 

Regards,

 

Richard Urban

Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

 

 

 

"MS-Adict" <MSAdict@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:59819C17-7A48-4EC2-B217-40932D61F8E3@microsoft.com...

> Is this a honest question ? with the intention to help ?

> Or is it a nasty teaser, a challenge ?

> Be more specific when you ask this kind of things to CUSTOMERS please.

>

>

> "Richard Urban" wrote:

>

>> And your time to a usable desktop is?

>>

>> --

>>

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Richard Urban

>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

>> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)

>>

>>

>>

>> "cliff" <broadcemhlm@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

>> news:C6BFF0FD-E455-428D-A20A-90D79421983C@microsoft.com...

>> > No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to

>> > have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

>> >

>> > Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram,

>> > 80gb

>> > HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP

>> > installed on both.

>> >

>> > The difference in performance is just amazing.

>> >

>> > Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =

>> > 3mins 5

>> > secs on Ave

>> > XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =

>> > 50secs on ave

>> > Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins

>> > Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

>> >

>> > Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4

>> > times

>> > longer than on XP.

>> >

>> > How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose

>> > their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much

>> > faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

>>

>>

Mellowed wrote:

> But Vista in a new system with proper components is the only way to go.

 

Ubuntu on a new or old system is the only way to go. Why? No viruses or

malware. It's free and can be copied and installed on as many computers

as you like. No activation and no WGA. Beryl makes Aero look like some

amateur designed it.

 

Alias

Alias wrote:

 

> Ubuntu on a new or old system is the only way to go. Why? No viruses or

> malware. It's free and can be copied and installed on as many computers

> as you like. No activation and no WGA. Beryl makes Aero look like some

> amateur designed it.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey slime ball, you forgot to mention that nothing of value will run on

the POS toy you call an os.

So stop lying you side show freak!

Frank

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:04:57 -0600, Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

> Many report better performance with Windows Vista and others report

> worse with identical hardware and software.

> Differences in specific hardware and software apparently favor one OS

> for another.

>

> "How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me"

> The same applies to previous versions.

> Generally a newer OS requires more power than the previous and as in

> the past, the older OS will perform faster than the new on identical

> hardware.

> this is nothing new.

> Go back to any previous OS and do a similar comparison, Windows 98

> will similarly perform faster on hardware designed for Windows XP.

> Some use that as a reason for stating with Windows 98.

> While your experiment is valid, it ignores the new features in Windows

> Vista.

>

> As drivers and software mature, performance will continue to improve

> as it did with previous operating systems.

>

> Try this.

> You already have a state of the art laptop for Windows Vista.

> Now get one that was new at about the release of Windows XP.

> Perform the same experiment except this time install Windows Vista on

> both.

> Which performs better?

>

> That is largely a nature of technology, at it progresses, more is

> needed similar as you home probably requires more of just about

> everything than your grandparents home.

> A modern car requires more power than a car available 50 years ago.

> The list goes on and computer technology is no different.

>

 

Uhhh a modern care does not require more power than a car available 50

years ago. Quite the contrary. Today's car, while they may have more

power due to technology and greater efficiency, actually require less power.

 

Reason simply being that it's possible today to build much lighter cars

than it was 50 years ago.

 

And last time I checked, Mass is not subject to Microsoft bloat. Which

means that it still takes the same amount of energy to move an identical

amount of mass today than it took 50 years ago. So if today's cars are on

average lighter than cars 50 years ago, it takes less energy to move them

and therefore less power.

 

Also that each Operating system release has to be slower than the

previous is also complete crap that could only possibly come out of

Redmond. No it doesn't have to be. There's absolutely no technical reason

for it to be.

 

--

Stephan

2003 Yamaha R6

 

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯

å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message

news:Onl1n2lvHHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Many report better performance with Windows Vista and others report worse

> with identical hardware and software.

> Differences in specific hardware and software apparently favor one OS for

> another.

>

> "How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me"

> The same applies to previous versions.

> Generally a newer OS requires more power than the previous and as in the

> past, the older OS will perform faster than the new on identical hardware.

> this is nothing new.

> Go back to any previous OS and do a similar comparison, Windows 98 will

> similarly perform faster on hardware designed for Windows XP.

> Some use that as a reason for stating with Windows 98.

> While your experiment is valid, it ignores the new features in Windows

> Vista.

>

> As drivers and software mature, performance will continue to improve as it

> did with previous operating systems.

>

> Try this.

> You already have a state of the art laptop for Windows Vista.

> Now get one that was new at about the release of Windows XP.

> Perform the same experiment except this time install Windows Vista on

> both.

> Which performs better?

>

> That is largely a nature of technology, at it progresses, more is needed

> similar as you home probably requires more of just about everything than

> your grandparents home.

> A modern car requires more power than a car available 50 years ago.

> The list goes on and computer technology is no different.

>

> --

> Jupiter Jones [MVP]

> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

> http://www.dts-l.org

>

>

> "cliff" <broadcemhlm@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

> news:C6BFF0FD-E455-428D-A20A-90D79421983C@microsoft.com...

>> No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to

>> have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

>>

>> Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb

>> HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP

>> installed on both.

>>

>> The difference in performance is just amazing.

>>

>> Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins

>> 5 secs on Ave

>> XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =

>> 50secs on ave

>> Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins

>> Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

>>

>> Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4 times

>> longer than on XP.

>>

>> How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose

>> their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much

>> faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

 

Nope, something's wrong there mate. I have an Athlon 2.2 Gbyte CPU on an

Albatron mb with 1Gbyte RAM that's been running XP Pro SP2 for a couple of

years. The entire machine was built to be utterly bog standard in every way.

Recently I wiped it clean and clean installed Vista Home Premium. I was

thrilled with the results, and consider Vista an excellent OS. Regrettably I

have had to revert to XP. Why? My Palm is so old that the only version of

Docs to Go that it can talk to won't run on Vista. I am really disappointed

at having to go back to XP, fine OS though it is.

 

The thing is, the hardware is incredibly ordinary, nothing exotic or

special, and was always intended to run Vista when it became available.

There's something in your setup that is not right I am sure. I'm not trying

to score a point here - just wanting to encourage you that Vista is OK,

given the inevitable teething issues with a complete OS rewrite. Don't give

up on it just yet. Good luck.

 

--

Peter in New Zealand. (Pull the plug out to reply.)

Collector of old cameras, tropical fish fancier, good coffee nutter, and

compulsive computer fiddler.

"cliff" <broadcemhlm@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:C6BFF0FD-E455-428D-A20A-90D79421983C@microsoft.com...

> No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to

> have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

>

> Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb

> HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP

> installed on both.

>

> The difference in performance is just amazing.

>

> Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins 5

> secs on Ave

> XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =

> 50secs on ave

> Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins

> Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

>

> Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4 times

> longer than on XP.

>

> How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose

> their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much

> faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

 

I am on Vista for one reason. MS have me by the balls regarding DX10 games

and hardware.

 

I admit XP is a lot quicker in terms of operation. Vista has some nice stuff

which I am starting to rely on like thumbnails on the taskbar.

 

But, if DX10 could be fully compatible with XP I'd probably go back in a

flash.

cliff,

 

As I read this post, I'll call it a Rant. Never mind the Un-bunt-too nuts.

Are you a compentent tester with loads of software and hardware set up to

test these things? I'll answer the question, you aren't. Two machines, with

a couple of "timing" results. Read this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

Yep, both excell in certain aspects. I have throughly enjoyed my new (not

upgraded) Windows Vista System.

 

"cliff" <broadcemhlm@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:C6BFF0FD-E455-428D-A20A-90D79421983C@microsoft.com...

> No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to

> have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

>

> Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb

> HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP

> installed on both.

>

> The difference in performance is just amazing.

>

> Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins 5

> secs on Ave

> XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =

> 50secs on ave

> Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins

> Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

>

> Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4 times

> longer than on XP.

>

> How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose

> their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much

> faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.

I love having vista, shows XP up alot in my eyes, Only problem is

Compatabilty issues, but thats all. Everyone think back to how rubbish XP

was at the start, Now look Everyone loves it. We all need to give Vista a

chance, If you dont like it now. Wait till SP1 comes out, Will be a doddle

from there.

 

"cliff" <broadcemhlm@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:C6BFF0FD-E455-428D-A20A-90D79421983C@microsoft.com...

> No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to

> have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.

>

> Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb

> HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP

> installed on both.

>

> The difference in performance is just amazing.

>

> Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins 5

> secs on Ave

> XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =

> 50secs on ave

> Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins

> Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.

>

> Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4 times

> longer than on XP.

>

> How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose

> their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much

> faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.