Interesting comment about Vista vs XP vs ubuntu...

...." have done testing for CAD/CAM systems in both XP (32/64) and Vista
(32/64). Given the same hardware I have really found no major
differences in both synthetic and real world benchmarks. The majority of
Vista's performance issues were driver related or running it on a system
below minimum specifications (meaning real minimum specs not the ones
that MS said). By the time of SP1 the driver and performance issues had
largely been resolved for Vista. What is interesting is that people
forget that XP went through the same maturing process. When it was
released it was slower then 98 and there were plenty of people screaming
that they would never upgrade. I wonder how many of those are still
running 98?

Also, Vista just feels faster because of the background process that are
running. Superfetch makes a huge difference in the system feeling
faster. I have a Quad with Vista 64 and 8GB of RAM and it feels faster
than XP (dual booting) on the same system. It boots faster then XP and
best of all the sleep function works extremely well on Vista so I hardly
reboot other then for updates. Same goes for my laptop dual booting
Vista 32bit and ubuntu 8.10 32bit. I have struggled with the sleep
function on ubuntu but Vista's always works flawlessly. Ubuntu just
feels sluggish in use compared to Vista."

"FBonVistaX64" <> wrote in message news:gffk1u$odv$...
> ..." have done testing for CAD/CAM systems in both XP (32/64) and Vista
> (32/64). Given the same hardware I have really found no major differences
> in both synthetic and real world benchmarks. The majority of Vista's
> performance issues were driver related or running it on a system below
> minimum specifications (meaning real minimum specs not the ones that MS
> said). By the time of SP1 the driver and performance issues had largely
> been resolved for Vista. What is interesting is that people forget that XP
> went through the same maturing process. When it was released it was slower
> then 98 and there were plenty of people screaming that they would never
> upgrade. I wonder how many of those are still running 98?
>
> Also, Vista just feels faster because of the background process that are
> running. Superfetch makes a huge difference in the system feeling faster.
> I have a Quad with Vista 64 and 8GB of RAM and it feels faster than XP
> (dual booting) on the same system. It boots faster then XP and best of all
> the sleep function works extremely well on Vista so I hardly reboot other
> then for updates. Same goes for my laptop dual booting Vista 32bit and
> ubuntu 8.10 32bit. I have struggled with the sleep function on ubuntu but
> Vista's always works flawlessly. Ubuntu just feels sluggish in use
> compared to Vista."

I have found Vista to work well with my development software. I don't have
the problems that some of the clowns here say they have. Then there are
idiots like Ringmaster who doesn't know how computers work and couldn't get
a single copy of Vista to work if his life depended on it.