more of: Vista is better than XP...

I've only had this build running for a few days (new Vista install and SP1
right on top of it) I can still dual boot to XP, but I don't need to.

It DOES learn as it goes! Both FF and Tbird now start up VERY quickly -
MUCH faster than XP, and I usually have over 30 tabs on FF.

All in all, it is noticeably snappier than XP.

It does make better use of my dual core CPU - almost always balanced, per
SI Meter.

Played NWN2 game quite a bit and absolutely no problems, though for some
reason when it installs it doesn't set up the start shortcut, so just make
a shortcut to NWN2launcher.exe and all is fine.


IMHO most of the problems that are showing up on this forum are due to
folks trying to add SP1 to a Vista that has been somewhat modded. A fresh
install is ALWAYS better, in my experience.

They still haven't got that "serve me breakfast and espresso in bed" option
working... ) Damn!

Onward!
--
Kris
------------
DFI Infinity Blood-Iron P35-T2RL | E2200Alen 2.2@2.86 TtP0310 |
| 2x1gb Mushkin HP 800@1040 | MSI NX8600GTS-OC 256mb |
| Raidmax RX530-SS psu | Vista Ult 32 SP1

so you are comparing a new install of vista with an old install of XP.. lol
gee whiz...


format and install XP fresh again, then come back and ask for forgiveness
for the crap you spilled in here about vista being faster.. LOL

vista is never faster, no matter what you do, its just your imagination



"Kris" <> wrote in message news:1u31xraqhyqhu$....
> I've only had this build running for a few days (new Vista install and SP1
> right on top of it) I can still dual boot to XP, but I don't need to.
>
> It DOES learn as it goes! Both FF and Tbird now start up VERY quickly -
> MUCH faster than XP, and I usually have over 30 tabs on FF.
>
> All in all, it is noticeably snappier than XP.
>
> It does make better use of my dual core CPU - almost always balanced, per
> SI Meter.
>
> Played NWN2 game quite a bit and absolutely no problems, though for some
> reason when it installs it doesn't set up the start shortcut, so just make
> a shortcut to NWN2launcher.exe and all is fine.
>
>
> IMHO most of the problems that are showing up on this forum are due to
> folks trying to add SP1 to a Vista that has been somewhat modded. A fresh
> install is ALWAYS better, in my experience.
>
> They still haven't got that "serve me breakfast and espresso in bed"
> option
> working... ) Damn!
>
> Onward!
> --
> Kris
> ------------
> DFI Infinity Blood-Iron P35-T2RL | E2200Alen 2.2@2.86 TtP0310 |
> | 2x1gb Mushkin HP 800@1040 | MSI NX8600GTS-OC 256mb |
> | Raidmax RX530-SS psu | Vista Ult 32 SP1

on the Bridge wrote:
> so you are comparing a new install of vista with an old install of XP.. lol
> gee whiz...
>
>
> format and install XP fresh again, then come back and ask for forgiveness
> for the crap you spilled in here about vista being faster.. LOL
>
> vista is never faster, no matter what you do, its just your imagination

To be fair, Bridge, one must compare XP SP2 with Vista SP2. Either that
or compare XP SP1 with Vista SP1. Of course, for most things, Ubuntu is
faster than both of them :-) The only thing slower with Ubuntu is the
boot up time, a grand total of 3 or 4 seconds slower than XP SP2. The
Internet download is 20 to 40% faster. Copying to and from an external
drive or partition is MUCH faster with Ubuntu, like three times faster.

Not only that, if you post here, Frank and the driveling Vista fanboys
are *really* quick to stalk you and hurl lies, insults, profanity and
bluster every time you post <eg>

Alias

i cannot compare a product from the future..
(vista sp2)
unless you have a time machine I can borrow.. lol



"Alias" <> wrote in message news:fs3g90$vu$...
> on the Bridge wrote:
>> so you are comparing a new install of vista with an old install of XP..
>> lol
>> gee whiz...
>>
>>
>> format and install XP fresh again, then come back and ask for forgiveness
>> for the crap you spilled in here about vista being faster.. LOL
>>
>> vista is never faster, no matter what you do, its just your imagination
>
> To be fair, Bridge, one must compare XP SP2 with Vista SP2. Either that or
> compare XP SP1 with Vista SP1. Of course, for most things, Ubuntu is
> faster than both of them :-) The only thing slower with Ubuntu is the boot
> up time, a grand total of 3 or 4 seconds slower than XP SP2. The Internet
> download is 20 to 40% faster. Copying to and from an external drive or
> partition is MUCH faster with Ubuntu, like three times faster.
>
> Not only that, if you post here, Frank and the driveling Vista fanboys are
> *really* quick to stalk you and hurl lies, insults, profanity and bluster
> every time you post <eg>
>
> Alias

on the Bridge wrote:
> i cannot compare a product from the future..
> (vista sp2)
> unless you have a time machine I can borrow.. lol

No, you'll have to wait. You *can* compare XP SP1 to Vista SP1, though.

Alias
>
>
>
> "Alias" <> wrote in message news:fs3g90$vu$...
>> on the Bridge wrote:
>>> so you are comparing a new install of vista with an old install of XP..
>>> lol
>>> gee whiz...
>>>
>>>
>>> format and install XP fresh again, then come back and ask for forgiveness
>>> for the crap you spilled in here about vista being faster.. LOL
>>>
>>> vista is never faster, no matter what you do, its just your imagination
>> To be fair, Bridge, one must compare XP SP2 with Vista SP2. Either that or
>> compare XP SP1 with Vista SP1. Of course, for most things, Ubuntu is
>> faster than both of them :-) The only thing slower with Ubuntu is the boot
>> up time, a grand total of 3 or 4 seconds slower than XP SP2. The Internet
>> download is 20 to 40% faster. Copying to and from an external drive or
>> partition is MUCH faster with Ubuntu, like three times faster.
>>
>> Not only that, if you post here, Frank and the driveling Vista fanboys are
>> *really* quick to stalk you and hurl lies, insults, profanity and bluster
>> every time you post <eg>
>>
>> Alias
>
>

Join Mark Russinovich and a panel of experts for a discussion on adopting
Windows Vista into a desktop infrastructure. The panel features subject-matter
experts and IT pros from around the world who have tackled Windows Vista deployment-
hear about the challenges, workarounds, and tips & tricks they have learned along the way.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/w...?ITPID=an3980g

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience -
Windows System & Performance

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

"Kris" wrote:

I've only had this build running for a few days (new Vista install and SP1
right on top of it) I can still dual boot to XP, but I don't need to.

It DOES learn as it goes! Both FF and Tbird now start up VERY quickly -
MUCH faster than XP, and I usually have over 30 tabs on FF.

All in all, it is noticeably snappier than XP.

It does make better use of my dual core CPU - almost always balanced, per
SI Meter.

Played NWN2 game quite a bit and absolutely no problems, though for some
reason when it installs it doesn't set up the start shortcut, so just make
a shortcut to NWN2launcher.exe and all is fine.


IMHO most of the problems that are showing up on this forum are due to
folks trying to add SP1 to a Vista that has been somewhat modded. A fresh
install is ALWAYS better, in my experience.

They still haven't got that "serve me breakfast and espresso in bed" option
working... ) Damn!

Onward!
--
Kris
------------
DFI Infinity Blood-Iron P35-T2RL | E2200Alen 2.2@2.86 TtP0310 |
| 2x1gb Mushkin HP 800@1040 | MSI NX8600GTS-OC 256mb |
| Raidmax RX530-SS psu | Vista Ult 32 SP1

Kris;657454 Wrote:
> I've only had this build running for a few days (new Vista install and
> SP1
> right on top of it) I can still dual boot to XP, but I don't need to.
>
> It DOES learn as it goes! Both FF and Tbird now start up VERY quickly
> -
> MUCH faster than XP, and I usually have over 30 tabs on FF.
>
> All in all, it is noticeably snappier than XP.
>
> It does make better use of my dual core CPU - almost always balanced,
> per
> SI Meter.
>
> Played NWN2 game quite a bit and absolutely no problems, though for
> some
> reason when it installs it doesn't set up the start shortcut, so just
> make
> a shortcut to NWN2launcher.exe and all is fine.
>
>
> IMHO most of the problems that are showing up on this forum are due to
> folks trying to add SP1 to a Vista that has been somewhat modded. A
> fresh
> install is ALWAYS better, in my experience.
>
> They still haven't got that "serve me breakfast and espresso in bed"
> option
> working... ) Damn!
>
> Onward!
> --
> Kris
> ------------
> DFI Infinity Blood-Iron P35-T2RL | E2200Alen 2.2@xxxxxx TtP0310 |
> | 2x1gb Mushkin HP 800@xxxxxx | MSI NX8600GTS-OC 256mb |
> | Raidmax RX530-SS psu | Vista Ult 32 SP1


I've had the same experience having installed SP1 right after a clean
install of Vista RTM. Ok, so that's not entirely true. I installed all
drivers first, then I installed SP1.

It took a bit longer than anticipated, but the process worked
flawlessly, and the system is generally more responsive than it was
before SP1.

Seriously, though, Kris, you're asking for a world of hurt by posting a
thread saying that Vista is better than XP. I'm on your side here, but
be prepared for a barrage of trolls claiming otherwise...


--
Dzomlija

Peter Alexander Dzomlija
-Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as
you die, so shall I be Reborn...-

_*Prometheus*_
MOBO: ASUS MB-M3A32-MVP Deluxe/WiFi-AP
CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Quad
RAM: 2 x A-Data 2GB DDR2-800
GPU: ASUS ATI Radeon HD 2400PRO, 256MB
BOX: Thermaltake Tai-Chi Water Cooled
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate x64

I think the best comparison is comparing xpsp3 with vistasp1

you are comparing both OS updated as much as possible, and updated around
the same time...


"Alias" <> wrote in message news:fs3goh$2qi$...
> on the Bridge wrote:
>> i cannot compare a product from the future..
>> (vista sp2)
>> unless you have a time machine I can borrow.. lol
>
> No, you'll have to wait. You *can* compare XP SP1 to Vista SP1, though.
>
> Alias
>>
>>
>>
>> "Alias" <> wrote in message
>> news:fs3g90$vu$...
>>> on the Bridge wrote:
>>>> so you are comparing a new install of vista with an old install of XP..
>>>> lol
>>>> gee whiz...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> format and install XP fresh again, then come back and ask for
>>>> forgiveness for the crap you spilled in here about vista being faster..
>>>> LOL
>>>>
>>>> vista is never faster, no matter what you do, its just your imagination
>>> To be fair, Bridge, one must compare XP SP2 with Vista SP2. Either that
>>> or compare XP SP1 with Vista SP1. Of course, for most things, Ubuntu is
>>> faster than both of them :-) The only thing slower with Ubuntu is the
>>> boot up time, a grand total of 3 or 4 seconds slower than XP SP2. The
>>> Internet download is 20 to 40% faster. Copying to and from an external
>>> drive or partition is MUCH faster with Ubuntu, like three times faster.
>>>
>>> Not only that, if you post here, Frank and the driveling Vista fanboys
>>> are *really* quick to stalk you and hurl lies, insults, profanity and
>>> bluster every time you post <eg>
>>>
>>> Alias
>>

on the Bridge wrote:

> so you are comparing a new install of vista with an old install of XP.. lol
> gee whiz...
>
>
> format and install XP fresh again, then come back and ask for forgiveness
> for the crap you spilled in here about vista being faster.. LOL
>
> vista is never faster, no matter what you do, its just your imagination
>
>
So here we have capin' crunch, who can't get one little install of Vista
to run properly, telling a user who evidently knows how to properly
setup and run Vista, that he doesn't know what he's talking about...hahaha!
I'm amazed on a daily basis at just how fukkin stupid you really are
cc...LOL!
A real idiot!
Frank

I dont undestand your logic.

I say we should test it.

Let me post here that XP is faster than Vista and THEN you will see a hoard
of TROLLS coming and attacking.. lol


"Dzomlija" <> wrote in message
news...
>
> Kris;657454 Wrote:
>> I've only had this build running for a few days (new Vista install and
>> SP1
>> right on top of it) I can still dual boot to XP, but I don't need to.
>>
>> It DOES learn as it goes! Both FF and Tbird now start up VERY quickly
>> -
>> MUCH faster than XP, and I usually have over 30 tabs on FF.
>>
>> All in all, it is noticeably snappier than XP.
>>
>> It does make better use of my dual core CPU - almost always balanced,
>> per
>> SI Meter.
>>
>> Played NWN2 game quite a bit and absolutely no problems, though for
>> some
>> reason when it installs it doesn't set up the start shortcut, so just
>> make
>> a shortcut to NWN2launcher.exe and all is fine.
>>
>>
>> IMHO most of the problems that are showing up on this forum are due to
>> folks trying to add SP1 to a Vista that has been somewhat modded. A
>> fresh
>> install is ALWAYS better, in my experience.
>>
>> They still haven't got that "serve me breakfast and espresso in bed"
>> option
>> working... ) Damn!
>>
>> Onward!
>> --
>> Kris
>> ------------
>> DFI Infinity Blood-Iron P35-T2RL | E2200Alen 2.2@xxxxxx TtP0310 |
>> | 2x1gb Mushkin HP 800@xxxxxx | MSI NX8600GTS-OC 256mb |
>> | Raidmax RX530-SS psu | Vista Ult 32 SP1
>
>
> I've had the same experience having installed SP1 right after a clean
> install of Vista RTM. Ok, so that's not entirely true. I installed all
> drivers first, then I installed SP1.
>
> It took a bit longer than anticipated, but the process worked
> flawlessly, and the system is generally more responsive than it was
> before SP1.
>
> Seriously, though, Kris, you're asking for a world of hurt by posting a
> thread saying that Vista is better than XP. I'm on your side here, but
> be prepared for a barrage of trolls claiming otherwise...
>
>
> --
> Dzomlija
>
> Peter Alexander Dzomlija
> -Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? And as
> you die, so shall I be Reborn...-
>
> _*Prometheus*_
> MOBO: ASUS MB-M3A32-MVP Deluxe/WiFi-AP
> CPU: AMD Phenom 9600 Quad
> RAM: 2 x A-Data 2GB DDR2-800
> GPU: ASUS ATI Radeon HD 2400PRO, 256MB
> BOX: Thermaltake Tai-Chi Water Cooled
> OS: Windows Vista Ultimate x64