Proof of vista fasteness!

I have seen numerous posts and complaints about how slow vista is..

but then I read a very smart post from some MVP that gave me an idea..!

He said " you must use hardware designed for vista for vista to be fast"

WOW! so what I did was this:

I bought a motherboard that can support 2 physical CPU and installed 2 four
core CPUs on it, for a total of 8 cores.
I installed Vista Ultimate 64 bit with 16 GB ram and 2 raptor disks 10.000
rpm in RAID mode so that everything will be fast...
then in installed 2 NVIDIA cards that have 512 mb each in SLI mode...

after all that I compared that machines performance with my old XP machine
(singe core 1 gig ram, 256 vga)

LOW AND BEHOLD Vista was NOT SLOWER AT ALL!

I got the same EXACT speed from the new machine as I did with XP!

That proves to everyone that Vista is not slower as long as you use the
proper hardware


Thanks MVP for enlightening me with your deep knowledge!




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

That proves you are just an IDIOT. Call your doctor and order more
medication. Just FYI.

Also, just FYI, call Kevpan815 and you guys could be right wing nutcases
together. Just FYI

"jxzkzwdlq" <> wrote in message
news:47a7aceb$0$31769$.. .
>I have seen numerous posts and complaints about how slow vista is..
>
> but then I read a very smart post from some MVP that gave me an idea..!
>
> He said " you must use hardware designed for vista for vista to be fast"
>
> WOW! so what I did was this:
>
> I bought a motherboard that can support 2 physical CPU and installed 2
> four
> core CPUs on it, for a total of 8 cores.
> I installed Vista Ultimate 64 bit with 16 GB ram and 2 raptor disks 10.000
> rpm in RAID mode so that everything will be fast...
> then in installed 2 NVIDIA cards that have 512 mb each in SLI mode...
>
> after all that I compared that machines performance with my old XP machine
> (singe core 1 gig ram, 256 vga)
>
> LOW AND BEHOLD Vista was NOT SLOWER AT ALL!
>
> I got the same EXACT speed from the new machine as I did with XP!
>
> That proves to everyone that Vista is not slower as long as you use the
> proper hardware
>
>
> Thanks MVP for enlightening me with your deep knowledge!
>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

You are Doris, aka Spankey de Monkey now Mrs Kevpan815

whatever name you choose you are still lame

"fridau" <> wrote in message
news:...
> You are Doris, aka Spankey de Monkey now Mrs Kevpan815
>
> whatever name you choose you are still lame

Maybe I'll call myself "fridau" - Just FYI. How about that? Just FYI

>
>

It is an interesting hardware config and I am going to copy it. I may build
a machine like this just for fun. It may be time to upgrade my 3 DELLs this
summer.

I have Vista ultimate on C: partition and XP on D: partition on my home DELL
XGX-280 2Gb RAM, 3.85 Hgz CPU (they do not make such CPUs anymore I
noticed).

Yesterday I decided to boot to my XP which I have't used for months. I
needed to check a couple of things. The partitions have pretty much the same
software.

XP was about 4 time slower to boot.

"jxzkzwdlq" <> wrote in message
news:47a7aceb$0$31769$.. .
>I have seen numerous posts and complaints about how slow vista is..
>
> but then I read a very smart post from some MVP that gave me an idea..!
>
> He said " you must use hardware designed for vista for vista to be fast"
>
> WOW! so what I did was this:
>
> I bought a motherboard that can support 2 physical CPU and installed 2
> four
> core CPUs on it, for a total of 8 cores.
> I installed Vista Ultimate 64 bit with 16 GB ram and 2 raptor disks 10.000
> rpm in RAID mode so that everything will be fast...
> then in installed 2 NVIDIA cards that have 512 mb each in SLI mode...
>
> after all that I compared that machines performance with my old XP machine
> (singe core 1 gig ram, 256 vga)
>
> LOW AND BEHOLD Vista was NOT SLOWER AT ALL!
>
> I got the same EXACT speed from the new machine as I did with XP!
>
> That proves to everyone that Vista is not slower as long as you use the
> proper hardware
>
>
> Thanks MVP for enlightening me with your deep knowledge!
>
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

What he is saying is that a $3000 dollar machine running vista
is as fast as a $500 dollar machine running XP.

But you didn't get the whole irony did you?

Smart as a rock that AlexB!


"AlexB" <> wrote in message
news:...
> It is an interesting hardware config and I am going to copy it. I may
> build a machine like this just for fun. It may be time to upgrade my 3
> DELLs this summer.
>
> I have Vista ultimate on C: partition and XP on D: partition on my home
> DELL XGX-280 2Gb RAM, 3.85 Hgz CPU (they do not make such CPUs anymore I
> noticed).
>
> Yesterday I decided to boot to my XP which I have't used for months. I
> needed to check a couple of things. The partitions have pretty much the
> same software.
>
> XP was about 4 time slower to boot.
>
> "jxzkzwdlq" <> wrote in message
> news:47a7aceb$0$31769$.. .
>>I have seen numerous posts and complaints about how slow vista is..
>>
>> but then I read a very smart post from some MVP that gave me an idea..!
>>
>> He said " you must use hardware designed for vista for vista to be fast"
>>
>> WOW! so what I did was this:
>>
>> I bought a motherboard that can support 2 physical CPU and installed 2
>> four
>> core CPUs on it, for a total of 8 cores.
>> I installed Vista Ultimate 64 bit with 16 GB ram and 2 raptor disks
>> 10.000
>> rpm in RAID mode so that everything will be fast...
>> then in installed 2 NVIDIA cards that have 512 mb each in SLI mode...
>>
>> after all that I compared that machines performance with my old XP
>> machine
>> (singe core 1 gig ram, 256 vga)
>>
>> LOW AND BEHOLD Vista was NOT SLOWER AT ALL!
>>
>> I got the same EXACT speed from the new machine as I did with XP!
>>
>> That proves to everyone that Vista is not slower as long as you use the
>> proper hardware
>>
>>
>> Thanks MVP for enlightening me with your deep knowledge!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>
>

"AlexB" <> wrote in message
news:...
> It is an interesting hardware config and I am going to copy it. I may
> build a machine like this just for fun. It may be time to upgrade my 3
> DELLs this summer.
>
> I have Vista ultimate on C: partition and XP on D: partition on my home
> DELL XGX-280 2Gb RAM, 3.85 Hgz CPU (they do not make such CPUs anymore I
> noticed).
>
> Yesterday I decided to boot to my XP which I have't used for months. I
> needed to check a couple of things. The partitions have pretty much the
> same software.
>
> XP was about 4 time slower to boot.

All Vista bashing by trolls aside, there must be something seriously wrong
with your install if XP is taking 4 times longer to boot than Vista. I have
never seen Vista boot faster than XP on the same box. It just does not
happen with a healthy XP install. My dual boot system is an Opteron 185
3.0Ghz, Twin Raptors in RAID0 ,2 Gig RAM. XP Pro loads in to a full desktop
with all systray apps at 37 seconds from the BIOS RAID array splash. Vista
Business takes 1 min 20 seconds from the same point to a full desktop.

No, I did not at that time but after I posted I did. I did not read it
carefully.

Nonetheless what I said is TRUE. My XP is much slower than Vista. It is the
same machine the same software. It means that he made the whole thing up.

It is also well documented that Vista is faster than XP. It is all over the
web.

I am trying to concentrate on substance and a bunch of hollering about
Doris, Just FYI, etc eludes me. In this sense I am not that attune to some
idiotic tunes around here. I don't mind to say something that is not quite
all right once in a while.

MICHAEL does it every day at least trice.

"Doug" <> wrote in message
news:47a7d416$...
> What he is saying is that a $3000 dollar machine running vista
> is as fast as a $500 dollar machine running XP.
>
> But you didn't get the whole irony did you?
>
> Smart as a rock that AlexB!
>
>
> "AlexB" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> It is an interesting hardware config and I am going to copy it. I may
>> build a machine like this just for fun. It may be time to upgrade my 3
>> DELLs this summer.
>>
>> I have Vista ultimate on C: partition and XP on D: partition on my home
>> DELL XGX-280 2Gb RAM, 3.85 Hgz CPU (they do not make such CPUs anymore I
>> noticed).
>>
>> Yesterday I decided to boot to my XP which I have't used for months. I
>> needed to check a couple of things. The partitions have pretty much the
>> same software.
>>
>> XP was about 4 time slower to boot.
>>
>> "jxzkzwdlq" <> wrote in message
>> news:47a7aceb$0$31769$.. .
>>>I have seen numerous posts and complaints about how slow vista is..
>>>
>>> but then I read a very smart post from some MVP that gave me an idea..!
>>>
>>> He said " you must use hardware designed for vista for vista to be fast"
>>>
>>> WOW! so what I did was this:
>>>
>>> I bought a motherboard that can support 2 physical CPU and installed 2
>>> four
>>> core CPUs on it, for a total of 8 cores.
>>> I installed Vista Ultimate 64 bit with 16 GB ram and 2 raptor disks
>>> 10.000
>>> rpm in RAID mode so that everything will be fast...
>>> then in installed 2 NVIDIA cards that have 512 mb each in SLI mode...
>>>
>>> after all that I compared that machines performance with my old XP
>>> machine
>>> (singe core 1 gig ram, 256 vga)
>>>
>>> LOW AND BEHOLD Vista was NOT SLOWER AT ALL!
>>>
>>> I got the same EXACT speed from the new machine as I did with XP!
>>>
>>> That proves to everyone that Vista is not slower as long as you use the
>>> proper hardware
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks MVP for enlightening me with your deep knowledge!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>>>
>>
>

I noticed you are an expert. I copied your yesterday's conversation with
that youngster. I want to continue this discussion because I also want to
learn from you.

I am already tired and want to go to bed. Tomorrow I will try to measure the
timing with a stop watch.

Also I will try to get a complete configuration for the machine but it seems
to be what I've said.

I have a SATA 80 Gbs perhaps for C: for Vista and a second SATA 160 Gbs for
XP (installed later my myself).

Thanks for your attention.


"Augustus" <> wrote in message
news:JCQpj.8758$w57.5585@edtnps90...
>
> "AlexB" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> It is an interesting hardware config and I am going to copy it. I may
>> build a machine like this just for fun. It may be time to upgrade my 3
>> DELLs this summer.
>>
>> I have Vista ultimate on C: partition and XP on D: partition on my home
>> DELL XGX-280 2Gb RAM, 3.85 Hgz CPU (they do not make such CPUs anymore I
>> noticed).
>>
>> Yesterday I decided to boot to my XP which I have't used for months. I
>> needed to check a couple of things. The partitions have pretty much the
>> same software.
>>
>> XP was about 4 time slower to boot.
>
> All Vista bashing by trolls aside, there must be something seriously wrong
> with your install if XP is taking 4 times longer to boot than Vista. I
> have never seen Vista boot faster than XP on the same box. It just does
> not happen with a healthy XP install. My dual boot system is an Opteron
> 185 3.0Ghz, Twin Raptors in RAID0 ,2 Gig RAM. XP Pro loads in to a full
> desktop with all systray apps at 37 seconds from the BIOS RAID array
> splash. Vista Business takes 1 min 20 seconds from the same point to a
> full desktop.
>

"AlexB" <> wrote in message news:#...
> No, I did not at that time but after I posted I did. I did not read it
> carefully.

Must be hard for you to read "carefully", when you
can barely read at all.

> MICHAEL does it every day at least trice.

I reckon you meant thrice and not "trice".

Yes, I soundly humiliate you at least three
times a day. But, you make it so easy.


-Michael