Single vs Dual Core Performance

I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any
significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is
it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were
previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or
made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance
improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks

Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of
interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487

Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to run.

A better question would be asked of those who dual boot.

I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter which
operating system I use.

I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to update
the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and use
Vista.

I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition so
that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete the
XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to
carrying out that option.

So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would be
doing just the opposite.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User


"black clouds" <> wrote in message
news:05AFCB8D-1AE0-4307-B56F-...
> I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any
> significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or
> is
> it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
> improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were
> previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM
> or
> made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your
> performance
> improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks
>
> Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null
> of
> interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487
>

Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question. Are
you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a single
core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance?

I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop
with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day.

When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very disappointed.
There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous laptop
with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new system
and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a
difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same
machine.
Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual
processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing power
over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t
expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean
it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.)
The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing:
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is?

So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the
question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me
Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant
improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are you
using?

For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor
software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying, but
I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista, it's
awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a
dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from
those who are using single core processors.


"Richard Urban" wrote:

> Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to run.
>
> A better question would be asked of those who dual boot.
>
> I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter which
> operating system I use.
>
> I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to update
> the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and use
> Vista.
>
> I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition so
> that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete the
> XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to
> carrying out that option.
>
> So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would be
> doing just the opposite.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban MVP
> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "black clouds" <> wrote in message
> news:05AFCB8D-1AE0-4307-B56F-...
> > I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any
> > significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or
> > is
> > it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
> > improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were
> > previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM
> > or
> > made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your
> > performance
> > improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks
> >
> > Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null
> > of
> > interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487
> >
>
>

I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same
hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be the
same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM).

Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2
gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User


"black clouds" <> wrote in message
news:9DB16DE7-E7DA-4193-8504-...
> Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question.
> Are
> you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a
> single
> core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance?
>
> I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop
> with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day.
>
> When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very
> disappointed.
> There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous
> laptop
> with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new
> system
> and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a
> difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same
> machine.
> Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual
> processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing
> power
> over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t
> expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean
> it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.)
> The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing:
> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is?
>
> So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the
> question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me
> Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant
> improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are
> you
> using?
>
> For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor
> software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying,
> but
> I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista,
> it's
> awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a
> dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from
> those who are using single core processors.
>
>
> "Richard Urban" wrote:
>
>> Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to
>> run.
>>
>> A better question would be asked of those who dual boot.
>>
>> I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter
>> which
>> operating system I use.
>>
>> I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to
>> update
>> the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and
>> use
>> Vista.
>>
>> I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition
>> so
>> that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete
>> the
>> XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to
>> carrying out that option.
>>
>> So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would
>> be
>> doing just the opposite.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban MVP
>> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>>
>>
>> "black clouds" <> wrote in message
>> news:05AFCB8D-1AE0-4307-B56F-...
>> > I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed
>> > any
>> > significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista
>> > or
>> > is
>> > it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
>> > improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who
>> > were
>> > previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your
>> > RAM
>> > or
>> > made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your
>> > performance
>> > improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks
>> >
>> > Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher
>> > Null
>> > of
>> > interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487
>> >
>>
>>

Any upgrade like that will improve performance, but it may not show directly
in the things that you want to see improved.. where applications are more
reliant on CPU performance than RAM, sure you will see an improvement..
whether it is as much as you would have hoped is another ball park.. if you
are just looking for lightning fast boot ups et al, then fit the meanest,
fastest, most expensive parts you can afford or that can be bought..


"black clouds" <> wrote in message
news:9DB16DE7-E7DA-4193-8504-...
> Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question.
> Are
> you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a
> single
> core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance?
>
> I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop
> with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day.
>
> When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very
> disappointed.
> There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous
> laptop
> with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new
> system
> and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a
> difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same
> machine.
> Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual
> processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing
> power
> over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t
> expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean
> it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.)
> The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing:
> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is?
>
> So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the
> question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me
> Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant
> improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are
> you
> using?
>
> For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor
> software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying,
> but
> I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista,
> it's
> awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a
> dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from
> those who are using single core processors.
>
>
> "Richard Urban" wrote:
>
>> Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to
>> run.
>>
>> A better question would be asked of those who dual boot.
>>
>> I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter
>> which
>> operating system I use.
>>
>> I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to
>> update
>> the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and
>> use
>> Vista.
>>
>> I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition
>> so
>> that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete
>> the
>> XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to
>> carrying out that option.
>>
>> So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would
>> be
>> doing just the opposite.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban MVP
>> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>>
>>
>> "black clouds" <> wrote in message
>> news:05AFCB8D-1AE0-4307-B56F-...
>> > I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed
>> > any
>> > significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista
>> > or
>> > is
>> > it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
>> > improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who
>> > were
>> > previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your
>> > RAM
>> > or
>> > made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your
>> > performance
>> > improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks
>> >
>> > Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher
>> > Null
>> > of
>> > interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487
>> >
>>
>>

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

Scary, isn't it.. yesterdays top systems are today's budget line.. I don't
care if my video card only stumps up 3.7 on the Vista scale.. and the fact
that I keep looking for something really cheap that will at least show a 4
is totally immaterial..


"Richard Urban" <> wrote in message
news:%...
>I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same
>hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be the
>same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM).
>
> Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2
> gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban MVP
> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "black clouds" <> wrote in message
> news:9DB16DE7-E7DA-4193-8504-...
>> Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question.
>> Are
>> you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a
>> single
>> core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance?
>>
>> I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop
>> with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day.
>>
>> When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very
>> disappointed.
>> There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous
>> laptop
>> with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new
>> system
>> and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a
>> difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same
>> machine.
>> Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using
>> dual
>> processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing
>> power
>> over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors
>> shouldn’t
>> expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean
>> it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.)
>> The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing:
>> http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is?
>>
>> So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the
>> question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling
>> me
>> Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant
>> improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are
>> you
>> using?
>>
>> For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor
>> software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying,
>> but
>> I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista,
>> it's
>> awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a
>> dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from
>> those who are using single core processors.
>>
>>
>> "Richard Urban" wrote:
>>
>>> Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to
>>> run.
>>>
>>> A better question would be asked of those who dual boot.
>>>
>>> I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter
>>> which
>>> operating system I use.
>>>
>>> I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to
>>> update
>>> the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and
>>> use
>>> Vista.
>>>
>>> I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second
>>> partition so
>>> that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete
>>> the
>>> XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to
>>> carrying out that option.
>>>
>>> So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would
>>> be
>>> doing just the opposite.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Richard Urban MVP
>>> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>>>
>>>
>>> "black clouds" <> wrote in message
>>> news:05AFCB8D-1AE0-4307-B56F-...
>>> > I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed
>>> > any
>>> > significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows
>>> > Vista or
>>> > is
>>> > it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
>>> > improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who
>>> > were
>>> > previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your
>>> > RAM
>>> > or
>>> > made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your
>>> > performance
>>> > improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks
>>> >
>>> > Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher
>>> > Null
>>> > of
>>> > interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

Thanks again Richard, but that's still only half the question. You still
haven't told me if you've noticed a significant overall system performance on
your single core with Vista or does it run pretty much the same as XP.

I want to know if single core users are seeing much of a performance
improvement over XP. You'll notice there are a lot of people (like myself)
who say their system is screaming now that they've switched to Vista, while
others aren't seeing much improvement. I want to know if this is at all
linked to dual cores. That is, Vista may be far better in taking advantage of
dual core technology then XP meaning people with dual cores who are switching
would notice a sudden increase in performance while those using single core
would see as much of a change.

That's what the article suggests. I know there are other factors, such as
driver issues, but I was curious to see if anyone out there using a single
core has noticed SIGNIFICANT performance improvement since switching to
Vista, obviously if they did hardware upgrades, I couldn't be sure if the
improvement was due to switching to Vista, while in the case of my computer,
I know all that I changed was the OS, and I saw a significant improvement;
was that only because I have a dual processor?


"Richard Urban" wrote:

> I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same
> hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be the
> same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM).
>
> Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2
> gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban MVP
> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "black clouds" <> wrote in message
> news:9DB16DE7-E7DA-4193-8504-...
> > Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question.
> > Are
> > you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a
> > single
> > core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance?
> >
> > I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop
> > with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day.
> >
> > When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very
> > disappointed.
> > There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous
> > laptop
> > with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new
> > system
> > and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a
> > difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same
> > machine.
> > Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual
> > processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing
> > power
> > over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t
> > expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean
> > it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.)
> > The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing:
> > http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is?
> >
> > So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the
> > question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me
> > Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant
> > improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are
> > you
> > using?
> >
> > For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor
> > software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying,
> > but
> > I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista,
> > it's
> > awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a
> > dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from
> > those who are using single core processors.
> >
> >
> > "Richard Urban" wrote:
> >
> >> Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to
> >> run.
> >>
> >> A better question would be asked of those who dual boot.
> >>
> >> I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter
> >> which
> >> operating system I use.
> >>
> >> I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to
> >> update
> >> the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and
> >> use
> >> Vista.
> >>
> >> I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition
> >> so
> >> that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete
> >> the
> >> XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to
> >> carrying out that option.
> >>
> >> So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would
> >> be
> >> doing just the opposite.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Richard Urban MVP
> >> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
> >>
> >>
> >> "black clouds" <> wrote in message
> >> news:05AFCB8D-1AE0-4307-B56F-...
> >> > I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed
> >> > any
> >> > significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista
> >> > or
> >> > is
> >> > it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
> >> > improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who
> >> > were
> >> > previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your
> >> > RAM
> >> > or
> >> > made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your
> >> > performance
> >> > improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks
> >> >
> >> > Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher
> >> > Null
> >> > of
> >> > interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>

I used to run XP in classic mode on a single core.. it performed better that
way.. for me, Vista runs as well or better even running the full Vista
graphics on exactly the same machine.. I quit booting into my Vista
installation long ago because there is no point other than to update it, and
I don't even have XP wireless card drivers installed such that I could even
do that anymore..


"black clouds" <> wrote in message
news:7E639334-9884-446E-BE3F-...
> Thanks again Richard, but that's still only half the question. You still
> haven't told me if you've noticed a significant overall system performance
> on
> your single core with Vista or does it run pretty much the same as XP.
>
> I want to know if single core users are seeing much of a performance
> improvement over XP. You'll notice there are a lot of people (like myself)
> who say their system is screaming now that they've switched to Vista,
> while
> others aren't seeing much improvement. I want to know if this is at all
> linked to dual cores. That is, Vista may be far better in taking advantage
> of
> dual core technology then XP meaning people with dual cores who are
> switching
> would notice a sudden increase in performance while those using single
> core
> would see as much of a change.
>
> That's what the article suggests. I know there are other factors, such as
> driver issues, but I was curious to see if anyone out there using a single
> core has noticed SIGNIFICANT performance improvement since switching to
> Vista, obviously if they did hardware upgrades, I couldn't be sure if the
> improvement was due to switching to Vista, while in the case of my
> computer,
> I know all that I changed was the OS, and I saw a significant improvement;
> was that only because I have a dual processor?
>
>
> "Richard Urban" wrote:
>
>> I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same
>> hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be
>> the
>> same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM).
>>
>> Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2
>> gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban MVP
>> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>>
>>
>> "black clouds" <> wrote in message
>> news:9DB16DE7-E7DA-4193-8504-...
>> > Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my
>> > question.
>> > Are
>> > you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a
>> > single
>> > core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance?
>> >
>> > I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my
>> > laptop
>> > with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day.
>> >
>> > When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very
>> > disappointed.
>> > There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous
>> > laptop
>> > with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new
>> > system
>> > and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such
>> > a
>> > difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the
>> > same
>> > machine.
>> > Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using
>> > dual
>> > processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing
>> > power
>> > over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors
>> > shouldn’t
>> > expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't
>> > mean
>> > it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.)
>> > The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing:
>> > http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is?
>> >
>> > So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the
>> > question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling
>> > me
>> > Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any
>> > significant
>> > improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor
>> > are
>> > you
>> > using?
>> >
>> > For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor
>> > software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying,
>> > but
>> > I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista,
>> > it's
>> > awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using
>> > a
>> > dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback
>> > from
>> > those who are using single core processors.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Richard Urban" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to
>> >> run.
>> >>
>> >> A better question would be asked of those who dual boot.
>> >>
>> >> I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter
>> >> which
>> >> operating system I use.
>> >>
>> >> I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to
>> >> update
>> >> the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and
>> >> use
>> >> Vista.
>> >>
>> >> I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second
>> >> partition
>> >> so
>> >> that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete
>> >> the
>> >> XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close
>> >> to
>> >> carrying out that option.
>> >>
>> >> So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I
>> >> would
>> >> be
>> >> doing just the opposite.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Richard Urban MVP
>> >> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "black clouds" <> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:05AFCB8D-1AE0-4307-B56F-...
>> >> > I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed
>> >> > any
>> >> > significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows
>> >> > Vista
>> >> > or
>> >> > is
>> >> > it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing
>> >> > significant
>> >> > improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who
>> >> > were
>> >> > previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase
>> >> > your
>> >> > RAM
>> >> > or
>> >> > made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your
>> >> > performance
>> >> > improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks
>> >> >
>> >> > Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher
>> >> > Null
>> >> > of
>> >> > interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

I don't know if you read the article but it claims that a duo core system
under Vista can expect a 5 to 30 percent improvement in performance while
single core systems may actually see a slight slow down under some
circumstances. I'm curious as to how true this is. Are there users who have
found otherwise?

"Richard Urban" wrote:

> I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same
> hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be the
> same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM).
>
> Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2
> gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now.
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban MVP
> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>
>
> "black clouds" <> wrote in message
> news:9DB16DE7-E7DA-4193-8504-...
> > Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question.
> > Are
> > you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a
> > single
> > core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance?
> >
> > I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop
> > with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day.
> >
> > When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very
> > disappointed.
> > There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous
> > laptop
> > with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new
> > system
> > and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a
> > difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same
> > machine.
> > Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual
> > processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing
> > power
> > over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t
> > expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean
> > it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.)
> > The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing:
> > http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is?
> >
> > So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the
> > question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me
> > Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant
> > improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are
> > you
> > using?
> >
> > For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor
> > software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying,
> > but
> > I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista,
> > it's
> > awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a
> > dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from
> > those who are using single core processors.
> >
> >
> > "Richard Urban" wrote:
> >
> >> Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to
> >> run.
> >>
> >> A better question would be asked of those who dual boot.
> >>
> >> I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter
> >> which
> >> operating system I use.
> >>
> >> I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to
> >> update
> >> the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and
> >> use
> >> Vista.
> >>
> >> I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition
> >> so
> >> that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete
> >> the
> >> XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to
> >> carrying out that option.
> >>
> >> So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would
> >> be
> >> doing just the opposite.
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Richard Urban MVP
> >> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
> >>
> >>
> >> "black clouds" <> wrote in message
> >> news:05AFCB8D-1AE0-4307-B56F-...
> >> > I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed
> >> > any
> >> > significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista
> >> > or
> >> > is
> >> > it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
> >> > improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who
> >> > were
> >> > previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your
> >> > RAM
> >> > or
> >> > made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your
> >> > performance
> >> > improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks
> >> >
> >> > Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher
> >> > Null
> >> > of
> >> > interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487
> >> >
> >>
> >>
>
>

I thought that I stated as much when I said I boot into Windows XP every 2-3
days just to do maintenance and then immediately reboot into Vista to do any
work. If XP were better/faster - it would be the other way around.

I am extremely happy with Vista, even on my single core processor.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User


"black clouds" <> wrote in message
news:7E639334-9884-446E-BE3F-...
> Thanks again Richard, but that's still only half the question. You still
> haven't told me if you've noticed a significant overall system performance
> on
> your single core with Vista or does it run pretty much the same as XP.
>
> I want to know if single core users are seeing much of a performance
> improvement over XP. You'll notice there are a lot of people (like myself)
> who say their system is screaming now that they've switched to Vista,
> while
> others aren't seeing much improvement. I want to know if this is at all
> linked to dual cores. That is, Vista may be far better in taking advantage
> of
> dual core technology then XP meaning people with dual cores who are
> switching
> would notice a sudden increase in performance while those using single
> core
> would see as much of a change.
>
> That's what the article suggests. I know there are other factors, such as
> driver issues, but I was curious to see if anyone out there using a single
> core has noticed SIGNIFICANT performance improvement since switching to
> Vista, obviously if they did hardware upgrades, I couldn't be sure if the
> improvement was due to switching to Vista, while in the case of my
> computer,
> I know all that I changed was the OS, and I saw a significant improvement;
> was that only because I have a dual processor?
>
>
> "Richard Urban" wrote:
>
>> I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same
>> hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be
>> the
>> same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM).
>>
>> Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2
>> gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban MVP
>> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>>
>>
>> "black clouds" <> wrote in message
>> news:9DB16DE7-E7DA-4193-8504-...
>> > Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my
>> > question.
>> > Are
>> > you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a
>> > single
>> > core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance?
>> >
>> > I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my
>> > laptop
>> > with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day.
>> >
>> > When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very
>> > disappointed.
>> > There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous
>> > laptop
>> > with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new
>> > system
>> > and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such
>> > a
>> > difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the
>> > same
>> > machine.
>> > Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using
>> > dual
>> > processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing
>> > power
>> > over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors
>> > shouldn’t
>> > expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't
>> > mean
>> > it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.)
>> > The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing:
>> > http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is?
>> >
>> > So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the
>> > question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling
>> > me
>> > Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any
>> > significant
>> > improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor
>> > are
>> > you
>> > using?
>> >
>> > For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor
>> > software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying,
>> > but
>> > I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista,
>> > it's
>> > awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using
>> > a
>> > dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback
>> > from
>> > those who are using single core processors.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Richard Urban" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to
>> >> run.
>> >>
>> >> A better question would be asked of those who dual boot.
>> >>
>> >> I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter
>> >> which
>> >> operating system I use.
>> >>
>> >> I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to
>> >> update
>> >> the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and
>> >> use
>> >> Vista.
>> >>
>> >> I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second
>> >> partition
>> >> so
>> >> that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete
>> >> the
>> >> XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close
>> >> to
>> >> carrying out that option.
>> >>
>> >> So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I
>> >> would
>> >> be
>> >> doing just the opposite.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Richard Urban MVP
>> >> Microsoft Windows Shell/User
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "black clouds" <> wrote in
>> >> message
>> >> news:05AFCB8D-1AE0-4307-B56F-...
>> >> > I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed
>> >> > any
>> >> > significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows
>> >> > Vista
>> >> > or
>> >> > is
>> >> > it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing
>> >> > significant
>> >> > improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who
>> >> > were
>> >> > previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase
>> >> > your
>> >> > RAM
>> >> > or
>> >> > made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your
>> >> > performance
>> >> > improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks
>> >> >
>> >> > Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher
>> >> > Null
>> >> > of
>> >> > interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>