Prroof of Vista Fasteness. FINAL

I hope Augustus will see it. I want to know his opinion.

A test conducted today.

Home computer
System: Dell GX280
Processor Type; Intel Pentium 4 CPU: 3.8 GHz
Clock speed: 3.80 GHz
Bus Speed: 800 GHz
Processor L2 Cash 1 Mb
Processor ID: 0F41
Hyperthreading: Yes
64-Bit - No
Memory Slots: Memory Speed: 533 MHz. Technology: DDR2 SDRAM
DIMM 1 1 GB
DIMM 2 empty
DIMM 3 1 GB
DIMM 4 empty
Drives: SATA - 2

Vista Ultimate on C:, XP Pro on D:
Vista XP
Boot time: 44"" 1'24"
************************************************** *****
Office machine GX-280, pretty much the same configuration.
Vista XP
Boot time: 56" 1'11"
Shutdown 1'05" -----

Another machine at the office:
OEM DELL T7400
223-4704 1 Dell Precision T7400 Mini-Tower, Quad Core Xeon Proc X5450,
3.00GHz, 2X 6MB L2 Cache,1333MHz
311-7681 1 4GB, DDR2 ECC SDRAM Memory 667MHz, 4X1GB, Dell Precision T5400
320-5868 1 nVidia Quadro FX1700 512MB dual DVI Graphics Card, Dell Precision
T3400
341-5353 1 250GB SATA 3.0Gb/s, 7200RPM HardDrive with 8MB DataBurst Cache,
Dell Precision T7400/5400
341-5374 1 C6 All SATA Hard Drives RAID 0 for 2 Hard Drives Dell Precision
T7400
420-6645 1 Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Edition, English with Media,
Dell Precision Workstation
430-1680 1 Broadcom NetXtreme 10/100/1000Gigabit Ethernet controller PCI
Express,Dell Precision 490/690
313-5937 1 16XDVD AND 16XDVD+/-RW w/Cyberlink Power DVD,Roxio Digital
Creator Dell Edition Dell Precision T7400
313-5883 1 Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic(D), w/Dolby Digital 5.1 Vista,
Dell Precision T7400/5400
341-5359 1 250GB SATA 3.0Gb/s, 7200RPM Additional NCQ HardDrive with 8MB
DataBurst Cache, DellPrecision T7400/5400
For some reason the box came in with an extra 16XDVD+/-R which I did not
order and it is not in the documentation.

Vista OEM boot: 1'46" Shutdown 34.9"

Methodology:

Trolls around here quote various questionable "scientific" evidence in
support of their very biased opinions. Of course, they have no idea what an
accurate measurement is. It involves a lot of factors to control and
defining parameters carefully.

It is hard to make sure that the software on both XP and Vista are
equivalent but this seems to be roughly the case in my systems. I migrated
from XP to Vista taking all software with me and the projects continues for
years. Obviously on Vista now I have more source code for the same projects
than on XP.

All thing considered I am confident Vista is faster in boot than XP. I am
confident the man who posted that caricature result yesterday made a bogus.

I do have to mention the methodology.

In Vista the boot time was measured with a stop watch from the moment I
pressed the power button to the moment the sign in window with the globe
appeared and the music played. The step when I entered the password was
excluded. After that Vista dwindles a bit with the ring (counterpart of the
hour glass) rolling. It probably takes about 10 sec. That can be added to
the measurement. I doubt it is more than that.

In XP the situation is slightly different. At work XP shows a PW window
which is closed by a mouse click then the system proceed to load services.
This takes about 2 secs. The stopwatch is running. The hourglass is there to
see. You cannot do anything until it disappears. Once it disappeared THE
FIRST TIME I press the stopwatch. I know it is not the end of the story. In
about 5 secs it shows up again, then disappears, then appears again.

I think the whole thing takes roughly 20". Thus this time may be added to
XP. It is somewhat similar at the home system which has markedly less
software.

I was surprised that a much faster Vista (in terms of the app run) boots
slower than the ones on slower computers.

I hope Augustus will comment.

"AlexB" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I hope Augustus will see it. I want to know his opinion.
>
> A test conducted today.
>
> Home computer
> System: Dell GX280
> Processor Type; Intel Pentium 4 CPU: 3.8 GHz
> Clock speed: 3.80 GHz
> Bus Speed: 800 GHz
> Processor L2 Cash 1 Mb
> Processor ID: 0F41
> Hyperthreading: Yes
> 64-Bit - No
> Memory Slots: Memory Speed: 533 MHz. Technology: DDR2 SDRAM
> DIMM 1 1 GB
> DIMM 2 empty
> DIMM 3 1 GB
> DIMM 4 empty
> Drives: SATA - 2
>
> Vista Ultimate on C:, XP Pro on D:
> Vista XP
> Boot time: 44"" 1'24"
> ************************************************** *****
> Office machine GX-280, pretty much the same configuration.
> Vista XP
> Boot time: 56" 1'11"
> Shutdown 1'05" -----
>
> Another machine at the office:
> OEM DELL T7400
> 223-4704 1 Dell Precision T7400 Mini-Tower, Quad Core Xeon Proc X5450,
> 3.00GHz, 2X 6MB L2 Cache,1333MHz
> 311-7681 1 4GB, DDR2 ECC SDRAM Memory 667MHz, 4X1GB, Dell Precision T5400
> 320-5868 1 nVidia Quadro FX1700 512MB dual DVI Graphics Card, Dell
> Precision T3400
> 341-5353 1 250GB SATA 3.0Gb/s, 7200RPM HardDrive with 8MB DataBurst Cache,
> Dell Precision T7400/5400
> 341-5374 1 C6 All SATA Hard Drives RAID 0 for 2 Hard Drives Dell Precision
> T7400
> 420-6645 1 Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Edition, English with Media,
> Dell Precision Workstation
> 430-1680 1 Broadcom NetXtreme 10/100/1000Gigabit Ethernet controller PCI
> Express,Dell Precision 490/690
> 313-5937 1 16XDVD AND 16XDVD+/-RW w/Cyberlink Power DVD,Roxio Digital
> Creator Dell Edition Dell Precision T7400
> 313-5883 1 Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic(D), w/Dolby Digital 5.1 Vista,
> Dell Precision T7400/5400
> 341-5359 1 250GB SATA 3.0Gb/s, 7200RPM Additional NCQ HardDrive with 8MB
> DataBurst Cache, DellPrecision T7400/5400
> For some reason the box came in with an extra 16XDVD+/-R which I did not
> order and it is not in the documentation.
>
> Vista OEM boot: 1'46" Shutdown 34.9"
>
> Methodology:
>
> Trolls around here quote various questionable "scientific" evidence in
> support of their very biased opinions. Of course, they have no idea what
> an accurate measurement is. It involves a lot of factors to control and
> defining parameters carefully.
>
> It is hard to make sure that the software on both XP and Vista are
> equivalent but this seems to be roughly the case in my systems. I migrated
> from XP to Vista taking all software with me and the projects continues
> for years. Obviously on Vista now I have more source code for the same
> projects than on XP.
>
> All thing considered I am confident Vista is faster in boot than XP. I am
> confident the man who posted that caricature result yesterday made a
> bogus.
>
> I do have to mention the methodology.
>
> In Vista the boot time was measured with a stop watch from the moment I
> pressed the power button to the moment the sign in window with the globe
> appeared and the music played. The step when I entered the password was
> excluded. After that Vista dwindles a bit with the ring (counterpart of
> the hour glass) rolling. It probably takes about 10 sec. That can be added
> to the measurement. I doubt it is more than that.
>
> In XP the situation is slightly different. At work XP shows a PW window
> which is closed by a mouse click then the system proceed to load services.
> This takes about 2 secs. The stopwatch is running. The hourglass is there
> to see. You cannot do anything until it disappears. Once it disappeared
> THE FIRST TIME I press the stopwatch. I know it is not the end of the
> story. In about 5 secs it shows up again, then disappears, then appears
> again.
>
> I think the whole thing takes roughly 20". Thus this time may be added to
> XP. It is somewhat similar at the home system which has markedly less
> software.
>
> I was surprised that a much faster Vista (in terms of the app run) boots
> slower than the ones on slower computers.
>
> I hope Augustus will comment.


*******s

ss.

Just curious. Why the interest in boot time? The Vista sleep mode wakes up in
just over 5 seconds (with wireless network) with SP1. Powering down or
hibernating is so XP.

"AlexB" wrote:

> I hope Augustus will see it. I want to know his opinion.
>
> A test conducted today.
>
> Home computer
> System: Dell GX280
> Processor Type; Intel Pentium 4 CPU: 3.8 GHz
> Clock speed: 3.80 GHz
> Bus Speed: 800 GHz
> Processor L2 Cash 1 Mb
> Processor ID: 0F41
> Hyperthreading: Yes
> 64-Bit - No
> Memory Slots: Memory Speed: 533 MHz. Technology: DDR2 SDRAM
> DIMM 1 1 GB
> DIMM 2 empty
> DIMM 3 1 GB
> DIMM 4 empty
> Drives: SATA - 2
>
> Vista Ultimate on C:, XP Pro on D:
> Vista XP
> Boot time: 44"" 1'24"
> ************************************************** *****
> Office machine GX-280, pretty much the same configuration.
> Vista XP
> Boot time: 56" 1'11"
> Shutdown 1'05" -----
>
> Another machine at the office:
> OEM DELL T7400
> 223-4704 1 Dell Precision T7400 Mini-Tower, Quad Core Xeon Proc X5450,
> 3.00GHz, 2X 6MB L2 Cache,1333MHz
> 311-7681 1 4GB, DDR2 ECC SDRAM Memory 667MHz, 4X1GB, Dell Precision T5400
> 320-5868 1 nVidia Quadro FX1700 512MB dual DVI Graphics Card, Dell Precision
> T3400
> 341-5353 1 250GB SATA 3.0Gb/s, 7200RPM HardDrive with 8MB DataBurst Cache,
> Dell Precision T7400/5400
> 341-5374 1 C6 All SATA Hard Drives RAID 0 for 2 Hard Drives Dell Precision
> T7400
> 420-6645 1 Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Edition, English with Media,
> Dell Precision Workstation
> 430-1680 1 Broadcom NetXtreme 10/100/1000Gigabit Ethernet controller PCI
> Express,Dell Precision 490/690
> 313-5937 1 16XDVD AND 16XDVD+/-RW w/Cyberlink Power DVD,Roxio Digital
> Creator Dell Edition Dell Precision T7400
> 313-5883 1 Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic(D), w/Dolby Digital 5.1 Vista,
> Dell Precision T7400/5400
> 341-5359 1 250GB SATA 3.0Gb/s, 7200RPM Additional NCQ HardDrive with 8MB
> DataBurst Cache, DellPrecision T7400/5400
> For some reason the box came in with an extra 16XDVD+/-R which I did not
> order and it is not in the documentation.
>
> Vista OEM boot: 1'46" Shutdown 34.9"
>
> Methodology:
>
> Trolls around here quote various questionable "scientific" evidence in
> support of their very biased opinions. Of course, they have no idea what an
> accurate measurement is. It involves a lot of factors to control and
> defining parameters carefully.
>
> It is hard to make sure that the software on both XP and Vista are
> equivalent but this seems to be roughly the case in my systems. I migrated
> from XP to Vista taking all software with me and the projects continues for
> years. Obviously on Vista now I have more source code for the same projects
> than on XP.
>
> All thing considered I am confident Vista is faster in boot than XP. I am
> confident the man who posted that caricature result yesterday made a bogus.
>
> I do have to mention the methodology.
>
> In Vista the boot time was measured with a stop watch from the moment I
> pressed the power button to the moment the sign in window with the globe
> appeared and the music played. The step when I entered the password was
> excluded. After that Vista dwindles a bit with the ring (counterpart of the
> hour glass) rolling. It probably takes about 10 sec. That can be added to
> the measurement. I doubt it is more than that.
>
> In XP the situation is slightly different. At work XP shows a PW window
> which is closed by a mouse click then the system proceed to load services.
> This takes about 2 secs. The stopwatch is running. The hourglass is there to
> see. You cannot do anything until it disappears. Once it disappeared THE
> FIRST TIME I press the stopwatch. I know it is not the end of the story. In
> about 5 secs it shows up again, then disappears, then appears again.
>
> I think the whole thing takes roughly 20". Thus this time may be added to
> XP. It is somewhat similar at the home system which has markedly less
> software.
>
> I was surprised that a much faster Vista (in terms of the app run) boots
> slower than the ones on slower computers.
>
> I hope Augustus will comment.
>
>

"AlexB" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I hope Augustus will see it. I want to know his opinion.
>
> A test conducted today.

Your methodology is flawed. Your post is in all probability a deliberate
troll . The specs show the workstation with two SATA drives in RAID0. Which
presumable has your Vista Ultimate on it. So where's the XP Pro installed?
The same partition? A separate drive that's unlisted? You seriously expect
people to believe that your XP Pro partition in RAID0 takes 50% longer to
boot? Yesterday it was 400% longer.
http://www.mathies.com/weblog/?p=889

PNutts wrote:
> Just curious. Why the interest in boot time? The Vista sleep mode
> wakes up in just over 5 seconds (with wireless network) with SP1.
> Powering down or hibernating is so XP.

Because to save face, AlexB is desperate to prove that Vista is better,
faster, more "whatever" than XP. He messed up his XP installations so badly
that he could't make anything work, so he decided that installing Vista
would solve his problems. His only choices were to reinstall XP or to go to
Vista, because he doesn't know anything about imaging drives (he thinks
Acronis True Image is malware). He doesn't know how to use anti virus apps
(He thinks Spybot S&D is all he needs to stay clean).
Reinstalling XP was too daunting for him and now he thinks he is the
knowledge master of Vista because it is still functioning on his machines.
He did say he has reinstalled it 15 times though.

You are nuts Augustus.

I have four (four) DELL computers. 3 of them are GX-280 with the
specification I showed. They ALL have Vistas on C: ALL. All except one have
Ultimate. The last one is Business.

I purchased recently a new DELL T7400. I copied the specification from their
email and pasted it below the GX-280 specs. This machine has one OS
installed: Vista Ultimate. It has no other OS, period. I brought it up for
comparison, Just FYI. It is an interesting result.

All other three machines (GX-280) which originally came with just one HDD
have a second SATA drives installed.

Machine 1: C: - Vista, D: - XP
Machine 2: C: - Vista, D: XP
Machine 3: C: Win2K, D: Vista Business

I ran comparative tests on machines 1 and 2. I also gave you a result of
Vista boot on OEM Vista Ultimate and the boot appeared to be longer than on
older DELL GX-280. I now understand why.

So, what is that you could not figure out? That I installed an extra HDD I
purchased at Best Buy into my three machines? Isn't it that impossible? That
I installed my MSDN licensed Vistas on all there of them?

I do not understand you question about RAID0? Ask DELL or you can go to
their website and put together an exact config I did. I did not talk to any
reps. I did it myself. I am beginning to doubt that you are an expert.

OK, My conclusion is: Vista IS FASTER in boot than XP. I had this intuitive
feeling before, now I got accurate measurements. If you add those additional
delays with hourglass in XP and ring in Vista, the result will; be even more
skewed in favor of VISTA.

Now, this is my explanation for that provocative and sarcastic post that
caused all this stir. I have two explanations:

(1) The guy is a crook, he never put together the machine he claims he did.
he simply made it up. the reason I think so is what you said about RAID0.
You said that with all your experience you do not touch RAID. Thus I am
suspicious.

(2) Perhaps he did build this machine and his Vista is slower than his XP. A
few factors must be considered. When I first installed my Vistas they took a
very long time to boot. Sometimes I was scared. Over time, in about a week
or so, the boot improved markedly and now it is FASTER than XP. I explain it
be the fact that perhaps when I installed my MSDN Vistas from a DVD which
was dated Jan 2007 or May, I do not quite remember, that install did not
have all the latest upgrades and it took time for the OS to scout for them,
etc. Also the OS must fill up all internal databases as to the computer
environment to run efficiently. It also takes time. Even if I turned the
indexing off there are internal databases the OS must build before it can
run efficiently.

This guy may find to his embarrassment that in a week his Vista will boot 15
times faster than on the first day (assuming, there was that first day). But
he will never come back and say that he was wrong. His goal is to divert
other people's interest from Vista, to scare them.

My test and methodology is not prefect due to many circumstances always
inherent in comparing software such as OS. it is a working set and I cannot
equalize the machines perfectly, however, I think it is as good as one can
get. If that guy said that he had a second HDD with XP installed, properly
tuned up and that XP booted much faster than it would have been a bit closer
to what I have.

Now, my configuration with 2 or 3 OS on every machine is not a fanciful
arrangement to play with OS. I am an application programmer. This
configuration arose historically while I was searching for the best
performance. If I had time now I would have gotten rid of all OS on all
partitions except Vista. On the other hand I keep them for the same reason
that it is very good to have an extra partition in case of emergency because
at times I can go to the other partition and tinker with the default one, to
load some files, etc.

Now this is the most interesting part of all but it is not related to the
subject at hand. I mentioned in my post I attached to the other guys OP that
when I went to my XP (a couple of days prior to the measurement) XP took
like 4 times longer to boot. It was not the case when I took the
measurement. I could not explain it until yesterday when I clocked the XP on
that partition I opened the IE mechanically. I lost in on August 15 and it
prompted me to switch to Vista. I could not repair it. I reinstalled XP from
another CD, this time a retail on teacher's license. Had to call MS for the
activation code. No Internet.

Yesterday when I clicked the IE, as I said, mechanically, I saw the home
page open for the first time in seven months. What the heck is that? The
machine somehow repair itself! then I saw XP downloading a couple of
upgrades. I think that when I turned it on first time a couple of days ago
it downloaded and installed the first batch of upgrades and it took so long
to boot. I did allow it to install those two upgrades, turned the machine of
and ran the test.

XP IS SLOWER THAN VISTA.


"Augustus" <> wrote in message
news:hZ9qj.9225$w57.5083@edtnps90...
>
> "AlexB" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>I hope Augustus will see it. I want to know his opinion.
>>
>> A test conducted today.
>
> Your methodology is flawed. Your post is in all probability a deliberate
> troll . The specs show the workstation with two SATA drives in RAID0.
> Which presumable has your Vista Ultimate on it. So where's the XP Pro
> installed? The same partition? A separate drive that's unlisted? You
> seriously expect people to believe that your XP Pro partition in RAID0
> takes 50% longer to boot? Yesterday it was 400% longer.
> http://www.mathies.com/weblog/?p=889
>
>

You must be an idiot! I have an experience of working as a systems
programmer in maintaining and writing add-ons for OS for a major IBM
mainframe 4341, I believe its name was at that time, among other things. It
had the size of a tennis court.

Vista is faster then XP.

"RA" <> wrote in message
news:...
> PNutts wrote:
>> Just curious. Why the interest in boot time? The Vista sleep mode
>> wakes up in just over 5 seconds (with wireless network) with SP1.
>> Powering down or hibernating is so XP.
>
> Because to save face, AlexB is desperate to prove that Vista is better,
> faster, more "whatever" than XP. He messed up his XP installations so
> badly that he could't make anything work, so he decided that installing
> Vista would solve his problems. His only choices were to reinstall XP or
> to go to Vista, because he doesn't know anything about imaging drives (he
> thinks Acronis True Image is malware). He doesn't know how to use anti
> virus apps (He thinks Spybot S&D is all he needs to stay clean).
> Reinstalling XP was too daunting for him and now he thinks he is the
> knowledge master of Vista because it is still functioning on his machines.
> He did say he has reinstalled it 15 times though.
>
>
>

AlexB wrote:
> You must be an idiot! I have an experience of working as a systems
> programmer in maintaining and writing add-ons for OS for a major IBM
> mainframe 4341, I believe its name was at that time, among other
> things. It had the size of a tennis court.

Once again, every word in your post makes no sense and has nothing to do
with anything I said. I got all my information from reading old posts of
yours. Are you a liar?

In article <#>,
AlexB <> wrote:
>You must be an idiot! I have an experience of working as a systems
>programmer in maintaining and writing add-ons for OS for a major IBM
>mainframe 4341, I believe its name was at that time, among other things. It
>had the size of a tennis court.
>

Bullshit. The 4341 was a compact model designed to offer more
power and storage in less space than the 370 (which itself was more the
size of a small truck than of an entire tennis court). A typical 4341
installation consisted of two rows of waist-high cabinets.

The reason you don't know this is because you did all your data
entry from your college computer room using Wylbur and never saw a machine
room until you got your first job as operator in 1995.

In article <>,
RA <> wrote:
>AlexB wrote:
>> You must be an idiot! I have an experience of working as a systems
>Are you a liar?
>

I believe the word is "poseur".