Cut the Crap: Classic is slower than Aero (*).

Cut the crap: classic is slower than aero (*)

Ahhh yes.. educating the vistaboys once more.. the cluless mvps and
vista-trolls alike.
What can I do.. its so ironic that I, who think vista is a bucket of crap,
know more than most fanboys about their OS.

So here is the lesson of the day:

(*) Classic is slower than aero on machines that are aero glass capable.
This is a clear fact that so many have gotten wrong is hilairious. Even tech
geeks give this as one of their tips to make vista faster.

If your card doesnt support aero then classic is as slow as with the aero
basic theme, and that means absolutly NO acceleration (compared to XP that
DID have GDI acceleration that was lighning fast!)
But its not faster with classic theme. Its slower.

Why? Well because basically vista renders the display differently than
windows XP.
XP used the display adaptor acceleraition to do 2d acceleration using GDI.

This all was RIPPED out of Vista making it a DEGRADE of XP.
What was then done was to make vista ONLY IN AERO MODE, to accelerate the
drawing of the display using the NEW DWM model, and not GDI.

But what happens when you have CLASSIC turned on Vista? THERE IS ABSOLUTLY
NO ACCELERATION!!!
NO GDI, NO DWM, NO NOTHING! In classic theme, Vista is SLOWER to render the
display of windows and program elements than xp.. FAR SLOWER!

And this surprises me because it is VERY apparent! I saw this after using
Vista on classic for 2 minuites!
I cannot imagine how anyone who claims to be a experienced user does not see
this.

ITS CRYING OUT: SLOWWWWW!!!!

Yet you see all the vista-fan-boys keep saying to people to switch to
classic to make vista more responsive.. LOL. Vista fanboys are not known for
their intelligence... but anyway.

Rule of the thumb is with vista: AERO= acceleration
Classic = no acceleration (dumber than XP_

XP had GDI acceleration (using the built in GDI accelerators of even cheap
display adaptors) on classic and with its themes and was very fast...
so classic on XP is FAR faster than Classic on VISTA.. Also if you compare
the rendering speed of vista with aero BASIC
and XP using one of its own Luna themes, XP IS FAR SUPERIOR AND FASTER!

I hope THIS IS CLEAR FROM NOW ON!!!!

Reference:
http://blogs.msdn.com/greg_schechter...02/588934.aspx

"laugh at fanboy in the box" <> wrote in message
news:48026a74$...
> Cut the crap: classic is slower than aero (*)
>
> Ahhh yes.. educating the vistaboys once more.. the cluless mvps and
> vista-trolls alike.
> What can I do.. its so ironic that I, who think vista is a bucket of crap,
> know more than most fanboys about their OS.
>
> So here is the lesson of the day:
>
> (*) Classic is slower than aero on machines that are aero glass capable.
> This is a clear fact that so many have gotten wrong is hilairious. Even
> tech geeks give this as one of their tips to make vista faster.
>
> If your card doesnt support aero then classic is as slow as with the aero
> basic theme, and that means absolutly NO acceleration (compared to XP that
> DID have GDI acceleration that was lighning fast!)
> But its not faster with classic theme. Its slower.
>
> Why? Well because basically vista renders the display differently than
> windows XP.
> XP used the display adaptor acceleraition to do 2d acceleration using GDI.
>
> This all was RIPPED out of Vista making it a DEGRADE of XP.
> What was then done was to make vista ONLY IN AERO MODE, to accelerate the
> drawing of the display using the NEW DWM model, and not GDI.
>
> But what happens when you have CLASSIC turned on Vista? THERE IS ABSOLUTLY
> NO ACCELERATION!!!
> NO GDI, NO DWM, NO NOTHING! In classic theme, Vista is SLOWER to render
> the display of windows and program elements than xp.. FAR SLOWER!
>
> And this surprises me because it is VERY apparent! I saw this after using
> Vista on classic for 2 minuites!
> I cannot imagine how anyone who claims to be a experienced user does not
> see this.
>
> ITS CRYING OUT: SLOWWWWW!!!!
>
> Yet you see all the vista-fan-boys keep saying to people to switch to
> classic to make vista more responsive.. LOL. Vista fanboys are not known
> for their intelligence... but anyway.
>
> Rule of the thumb is with vista: AERO= acceleration
> Classic = no acceleration (dumber than XP_
>
> XP had GDI acceleration (using the built in GDI accelerators of even cheap
> display adaptors) on classic and with its themes and was very fast...
> so classic on XP is FAR faster than Classic on VISTA.. Also if you compare
> the rendering speed of vista with aero BASIC
> and XP using one of its own Luna themes, XP IS FAR SUPERIOR AND FASTER!
>
> I hope THIS IS CLEAR FROM NOW ON!!!!
>
> Reference:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/greg_schechter...02/588934.aspx


Have you only just found that out? You seem rather excited about something
that everybody knew years ago.

ss.

I did not just find that you moron...

I can find you posts long ago that I explain this again in this very
newgroup.

Like this one
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/...ade-of-xp.aspx

Im just making this clear because I keep seeing posts and websites telling
people to switch to classic to make vista faster.

This is true only if your display adaptor is non aero glass capable.


"Synapse Syndrome" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "laugh at fanboy in the box" <> wrote in message
> news:48026a74$...
>> Cut the crap: classic is slower than aero (*)
>>
>> Ahhh yes.. educating the vistaboys once more.. the cluless mvps and
>> vista-trolls alike.
>> What can I do.. its so ironic that I, who think vista is a bucket of
>> crap, know more than most fanboys about their OS.
>>
>> So here is the lesson of the day:
>>
>> (*) Classic is slower than aero on machines that are aero glass capable.
>> This is a clear fact that so many have gotten wrong is hilairious. Even
>> tech geeks give this as one of their tips to make vista faster.
>>
>> If your card doesnt support aero then classic is as slow as with the aero
>> basic theme, and that means absolutly NO acceleration (compared to XP
>> that DID have GDI acceleration that was lighning fast!)
>> But its not faster with classic theme. Its slower.
>>
>> Why? Well because basically vista renders the display differently than
>> windows XP.
>> XP used the display adaptor acceleraition to do 2d acceleration using
>> GDI.
>>
>> This all was RIPPED out of Vista making it a DEGRADE of XP.
>> What was then done was to make vista ONLY IN AERO MODE, to accelerate the
>> drawing of the display using the NEW DWM model, and not GDI.
>>
>> But what happens when you have CLASSIC turned on Vista? THERE IS
>> ABSOLUTLY NO ACCELERATION!!!
>> NO GDI, NO DWM, NO NOTHING! In classic theme, Vista is SLOWER to render
>> the display of windows and program elements than xp.. FAR SLOWER!
>>
>> And this surprises me because it is VERY apparent! I saw this after using
>> Vista on classic for 2 minuites!
>> I cannot imagine how anyone who claims to be a experienced user does not
>> see this.
>>
>> ITS CRYING OUT: SLOWWWWW!!!!
>>
>> Yet you see all the vista-fan-boys keep saying to people to switch to
>> classic to make vista more responsive.. LOL. Vista fanboys are not known
>> for their intelligence... but anyway.
>>
>> Rule of the thumb is with vista: AERO= acceleration
>> Classic = no acceleration (dumber than XP_
>>
>> XP had GDI acceleration (using the built in GDI accelerators of even
>> cheap display adaptors) on classic and with its themes and was very
>> fast...
>> so classic on XP is FAR faster than Classic on VISTA.. Also if you
>> compare the rendering speed of vista with aero BASIC
>> and XP using one of its own Luna themes, XP IS FAR SUPERIOR AND FASTER!
>>
>> I hope THIS IS CLEAR FROM NOW ON!!!!
>>
>> Reference:
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/greg_schechter...02/588934.aspx
>
>
> Have you only just found that out? You seem rather excited about
> something that everybody knew years ago.
>
> ss.
>

One could only hope that you will demonstrate such "acceleration" as
you are leaving the premises................. oh and take the "crap" you
cut with you.

"laugh at fanboy in the box" <> wrote in message
news:48026a74$...
> Cut the crap: classic is slower than aero (*)
>
> Ahhh yes.. educating the vistaboys once more.. the cluless mvps and
> vista-trolls alike.
> What can I do.. its so ironic that I, who think vista is a bucket of crap,
> know more than most fanboys about their OS.
>
> So here is the lesson of the day:
>
> (*) Classic is slower than aero on machines that are aero glass capable.
> This is a clear fact that so many have gotten wrong is hilairious. Even
> tech geeks give this as one of their tips to make vista faster.
>
> If your card doesnt support aero then classic is as slow as with the aero
> basic theme, and that means absolutly NO acceleration (compared to XP that
> DID have GDI acceleration that was lighning fast!)
> But its not faster with classic theme. Its slower.
>
> Why? Well because basically vista renders the display differently than
> windows XP.
> XP used the display adaptor acceleraition to do 2d acceleration using GDI.
>
> This all was RIPPED out of Vista making it a DEGRADE of XP.
> What was then done was to make vista ONLY IN AERO MODE, to accelerate the
> drawing of the display using the NEW DWM model, and not GDI.
>
> But what happens when you have CLASSIC turned on Vista? THERE IS ABSOLUTLY
> NO ACCELERATION!!!
> NO GDI, NO DWM, NO NOTHING! In classic theme, Vista is SLOWER to render
> the display of windows and program elements than xp.. FAR SLOWER!
>
> And this surprises me because it is VERY apparent! I saw this after using
> Vista on classic for 2 minuites!
> I cannot imagine how anyone who claims to be a experienced user does not
> see this.
>
> ITS CRYING OUT: SLOWWWWW!!!!
>
> Yet you see all the vista-fan-boys keep saying to people to switch to
> classic to make vista more responsive.. LOL. Vista fanboys are not known
> for their intelligence... but anyway.
>
> Rule of the thumb is with vista: AERO= acceleration
> Classic = no acceleration (dumber than XP_
>
> XP had GDI acceleration (using the built in GDI accelerators of even cheap
> display adaptors) on classic and with its themes and was very fast...
> so classic on XP is FAR faster than Classic on VISTA.. Also if you compare
> the rendering speed of vista with aero BASIC
> and XP using one of its own Luna themes, XP IS FAR SUPERIOR AND FASTER!
>
> I hope THIS IS CLEAR FROM NOW ON!!!!
>
> Reference:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/greg_schechter...02/588934.aspx
>

Nah.. dont wait.. because
I will leave only when vista is replaced by the superior Windows7 aka "the
windows that vista should have been"


"Spirit" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> One could only hope that you will demonstrate such "acceleration" as
> you are leaving the premises................. oh and take the "crap" you
> cut with you.
>
> "laugh at fanboy in the box" <> wrote in message
> news:48026a74$...
>> Cut the crap: classic is slower than aero (*)
>>
>> Ahhh yes.. educating the vistaboys once more.. the cluless mvps and
>> vista-trolls alike.
>> What can I do.. its so ironic that I, who think vista is a bucket of
>> crap, know more than most fanboys about their OS.
>>
>> So here is the lesson of the day:
>>
>> (*) Classic is slower than aero on machines that are aero glass capable.
>> This is a clear fact that so many have gotten wrong is hilairious. Even
>> tech geeks give this as one of their tips to make vista faster.
>>
>> If your card doesnt support aero then classic is as slow as with the aero
>> basic theme, and that means absolutly NO acceleration (compared to XP
>> that DID have GDI acceleration that was lighning fast!)
>> But its not faster with classic theme. Its slower.
>>
>> Why? Well because basically vista renders the display differently than
>> windows XP.
>> XP used the display adaptor acceleraition to do 2d acceleration using
>> GDI.
>>
>> This all was RIPPED out of Vista making it a DEGRADE of XP.
>> What was then done was to make vista ONLY IN AERO MODE, to accelerate the
>> drawing of the display using the NEW DWM model, and not GDI.
>>
>> But what happens when you have CLASSIC turned on Vista? THERE IS
>> ABSOLUTLY NO ACCELERATION!!!
>> NO GDI, NO DWM, NO NOTHING! In classic theme, Vista is SLOWER to render
>> the display of windows and program elements than xp.. FAR SLOWER!
>>
>> And this surprises me because it is VERY apparent! I saw this after using
>> Vista on classic for 2 minuites!
>> I cannot imagine how anyone who claims to be a experienced user does not
>> see this.
>>
>> ITS CRYING OUT: SLOWWWWW!!!!
>>
>> Yet you see all the vista-fan-boys keep saying to people to switch to
>> classic to make vista more responsive.. LOL. Vista fanboys are not known
>> for their intelligence... but anyway.
>>
>> Rule of the thumb is with vista: AERO= acceleration
>> Classic = no acceleration (dumber than XP_
>>
>> XP had GDI acceleration (using the built in GDI accelerators of even
>> cheap display adaptors) on classic and with its themes and was very
>> fast...
>> so classic on XP is FAR faster than Classic on VISTA.. Also if you
>> compare the rendering speed of vista with aero BASIC
>> and XP using one of its own Luna themes, XP IS FAR SUPERIOR AND FASTER!
>>
>> I hope THIS IS CLEAR FROM NOW ON!!!!
>>
>> Reference:
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/greg_schechter...02/588934.aspx
>>
>

laugh at the incompetent idiot in the box wrote:

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


hehehe...you're upset at your own stupidity and computer incompetence cc.
IOW's you are a loser...LOL!
Frank

So when windows7 comes out and it has its own little quirks just like
EVERYTHING HUMAN MADE DOES you will come back with a apology right ?? ..
Nobody here will hold there breath for that one .You once again prove how
stupid you really are ..

"laugh at fanboy in the box" <> wrote in message
news:48027303$...
> Nah.. dont wait.. because
> I will leave only when vista is replaced by the superior Windows7 aka "the
> windows that vista should have been"
>
>
> "Spirit" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> One could only hope that you will demonstrate such "acceleration" as
>> you are leaving the premises................. oh and take the "crap" you
>> cut with you.
>>
>> "laugh at fanboy in the box" <> wrote in message
>> news:48026a74$...
>>> Cut the crap: classic is slower than aero (*)
>>>
>>> Ahhh yes.. educating the vistaboys once more.. the cluless mvps and
>>> vista-trolls alike.
>>> What can I do.. its so ironic that I, who think vista is a bucket of
>>> crap, know more than most fanboys about their OS.
>>>
>>> So here is the lesson of the day:
>>>
>>> (*) Classic is slower than aero on machines that are aero glass capable.
>>> This is a clear fact that so many have gotten wrong is hilairious. Even
>>> tech geeks give this as one of their tips to make vista faster.
>>>
>>> If your card doesnt support aero then classic is as slow as with the
>>> aero basic theme, and that means absolutly NO acceleration (compared to
>>> XP that DID have GDI acceleration that was lighning fast!)
>>> But its not faster with classic theme. Its slower.
>>>
>>> Why? Well because basically vista renders the display differently than
>>> windows XP.
>>> XP used the display adaptor acceleraition to do 2d acceleration using
>>> GDI.
>>>
>>> This all was RIPPED out of Vista making it a DEGRADE of XP.
>>> What was then done was to make vista ONLY IN AERO MODE, to accelerate
>>> the drawing of the display using the NEW DWM model, and not GDI.
>>>
>>> But what happens when you have CLASSIC turned on Vista? THERE IS
>>> ABSOLUTLY NO ACCELERATION!!!
>>> NO GDI, NO DWM, NO NOTHING! In classic theme, Vista is SLOWER to render
>>> the display of windows and program elements than xp.. FAR SLOWER!
>>>
>>> And this surprises me because it is VERY apparent! I saw this after
>>> using Vista on classic for 2 minuites!
>>> I cannot imagine how anyone who claims to be a experienced user does not
>>> see this.
>>>
>>> ITS CRYING OUT: SLOWWWWW!!!!
>>>
>>> Yet you see all the vista-fan-boys keep saying to people to switch to
>>> classic to make vista more responsive.. LOL. Vista fanboys are not known
>>> for their intelligence... but anyway.
>>>
>>> Rule of the thumb is with vista: AERO= acceleration
>>> Classic = no acceleration (dumber than XP_
>>>
>>> XP had GDI acceleration (using the built in GDI accelerators of even
>>> cheap display adaptors) on classic and with its themes and was very
>>> fast...
>>> so classic on XP is FAR faster than Classic on VISTA.. Also if you
>>> compare the rendering speed of vista with aero BASIC
>>> and XP using one of its own Luna themes, XP IS FAR SUPERIOR AND FASTER!
>>>
>>> I hope THIS IS CLEAR FROM NOW ON!!!!
>>>
>>> Reference:
>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/greg_schechter...02/588934.aspx
>>>
>>
>
>

Drew wrote:

> So when windows7 comes out and it has its own little quirks just like
> EVERYTHING HUMAN MADE DOES you will come back with a apology right ?? ..
> Nobody here will hold there breath for that one .You once again prove
> how stupid you really are ..
>

Yeah, and we all can't wait for that to happen...NOT!!!
Frank

to tell you the truth windows7 will not be different enoough from vista to
be good.. it will probably carry all the bad design of the vista UI, but at
least they will fix the bugs, at least some of them
windows7 will be vista service pack 2



"Drew" <> wrote in message
news:17EAAD38-F4B7-4A57-8C31-...
> So when windows7 comes out and it has its own little quirks just like
> EVERYTHING HUMAN MADE DOES you will come back with a apology right ?? ..
> Nobody here will hold there breath for that one .You once again prove how
> stupid you really are ..
>
> "laugh at fanboy in the box" <> wrote in message
> news:48027303$...
>> Nah.. dont wait.. because
>> I will leave only when vista is replaced by the superior Windows7 aka
>> "the windows that vista should have been"
>>
>>
>> "Spirit" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> One could only hope that you will demonstrate such "acceleration" as
>>> you are leaving the premises................. oh and take the "crap" you
>>> cut with you.
>>>
>>> "laugh at fanboy in the box" <> wrote in message
>>> news:48026a74$...
>>>> Cut the crap: classic is slower than aero (*)
>>>>
>>>> Ahhh yes.. educating the vistaboys once more.. the cluless mvps and
>>>> vista-trolls alike.
>>>> What can I do.. its so ironic that I, who think vista is a bucket of
>>>> crap, know more than most fanboys about their OS.
>>>>
>>>> So here is the lesson of the day:
>>>>
>>>> (*) Classic is slower than aero on machines that are aero glass
>>>> capable.
>>>> This is a clear fact that so many have gotten wrong is hilairious. Even
>>>> tech geeks give this as one of their tips to make vista faster.
>>>>
>>>> If your card doesnt support aero then classic is as slow as with the
>>>> aero basic theme, and that means absolutly NO acceleration (compared to
>>>> XP that DID have GDI acceleration that was lighning fast!)
>>>> But its not faster with classic theme. Its slower.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Well because basically vista renders the display differently than
>>>> windows XP.
>>>> XP used the display adaptor acceleraition to do 2d acceleration using
>>>> GDI.
>>>>
>>>> This all was RIPPED out of Vista making it a DEGRADE of XP.
>>>> What was then done was to make vista ONLY IN AERO MODE, to accelerate
>>>> the drawing of the display using the NEW DWM model, and not GDI.
>>>>
>>>> But what happens when you have CLASSIC turned on Vista? THERE IS
>>>> ABSOLUTLY NO ACCELERATION!!!
>>>> NO GDI, NO DWM, NO NOTHING! In classic theme, Vista is SLOWER to render
>>>> the display of windows and program elements than xp.. FAR SLOWER!
>>>>
>>>> And this surprises me because it is VERY apparent! I saw this after
>>>> using Vista on classic for 2 minuites!
>>>> I cannot imagine how anyone who claims to be a experienced user does
>>>> not see this.
>>>>
>>>> ITS CRYING OUT: SLOWWWWW!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Yet you see all the vista-fan-boys keep saying to people to switch to
>>>> classic to make vista more responsive.. LOL. Vista fanboys are not
>>>> known for their intelligence... but anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Rule of the thumb is with vista: AERO= acceleration
>>>> Classic = no acceleration (dumber than XP_
>>>>
>>>> XP had GDI acceleration (using the built in GDI accelerators of even
>>>> cheap display adaptors) on classic and with its themes and was very
>>>> fast...
>>>> so classic on XP is FAR faster than Classic on VISTA.. Also if you
>>>> compare the rendering speed of vista with aero BASIC
>>>> and XP using one of its own Luna themes, XP IS FAR SUPERIOR AND FASTER!
>>>>
>>>> I hope THIS IS CLEAR FROM NOW ON!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Reference:
>>>> http://blogs.msdn.com/greg_schechter...02/588934.aspx
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>

the idiot in the box wrote:

> to tell you the truth windows7 will not be different enoough from vista to
> be good..
-----------------------------------
How would you know? You far too stupid even get your one little install
of Vista to run properly so why bother worrying about 7?
Best you stick with XP.
Frank