vista 50% slower than XP on same machine...

Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...

even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....

its irritating...

Care to give any specifics? How did you test? How did you ensure that the
testing situations were comparable?

Given the old adage that 85% of quoted statistcis are made up on the
spot.....


"vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
news:46db5e10$...
Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...

even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....

its irritating...

vista is far slower in everything...

I did not make this up on this spot.. I have been comparing the 2 extensivly
since vista was in beta!!

its just that now I tried to make vista into a "lite"version with
www.vlite.net but even with that its still far slower....




"Val" <> wrote in message
news:d-...
> Care to give any specifics? How did you test? How did you ensure that
> the
> testing situations were comparable?
>
> Given the old adage that 85% of quoted statistcis are made up on the
> spot.....
>
>
> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
> news:46db5e10$...
> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...
>
> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....
>
> its irritating...
>
>
>
>

"vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
news:46db5e10$...
> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...
>
> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....
>
> its irritating...
>
>
>

Have you tried Windows 98? It is FAR faster than XP.

faster not always... XP is better than windows 98
and XP is better than vista...


on complex high memory programs win98 had resource problems, XP might needed
more ram but it was better in taking advantange of more ram...

Vista is far worse in memory use than XP even though there are some smarty
pants that say that vista uses ram more intelligently....
those guys know skit about how memory should be used..

they are just following the leader and repeating the MS propaganda they hear
in the media and advertisments.


"Telstar" <none@none> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
> news:46db5e10$...
>> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...
>>
>> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....
>>
>> its irritating...
>>
>>
>>
>
> Have you tried Windows 98? It is FAR faster than XP.
>
>

Of course it is as it has a higher overhead requirement. Now, compare
Vista's performance on modern hardware against XP's performance on the
hardware from 2001, and you will see they are pretty much the same.
Operating systems are built for the hardware available at the time of their
release. Run Win2000 or Win 98 on today's hardware and it'll really fly.
That doesn't mean they're better, just that they have lesser requirements
because that's what was out there then.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
news:46db5e10$...
> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...
>
> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....
>
> its irritating...
>
>
>

On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:37:59 -0700, Telstar wrote:

> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
> news:46db5e10$...
>> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...
>>
>> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....
>>
>> its irritating...
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Have you tried Windows 98? It is FAR faster than XP.

About as stable, too.

Upgrade your machine or stay with XP. Vista does need a heavier duty
machine to work properly, but in my opinion is worth it. If yours truly is
50% slower, you have some seriously obsolete equipment. Functions like
copy and move are very much slower even with great equipment. If you do a
lot, stay with XP. Clue, complaining won't make it faster


"vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
news:...
> vista is far slower in everything...
>
> I did not make this up on this spot.. I have been comparing the 2
> extensivly since vista was in beta!!
>
> its just that now I tried to make vista into a "lite"version with
> www.vlite.net but even with that its still far slower....
>
>
>
>
> "Val" <> wrote in message
> news:d-...
>> Care to give any specifics? How did you test? How did you ensure that
>> the
>> testing situations were comparable?
>>
>> Given the old adage that 85% of quoted statistcis are made up on the
>> spot.....
>>
>>
>> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
>> news:46db5e10$...
>> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...
>>
>> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....
>>
>> its irritating...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

You could install Ubuntu on your machine and it would be about 200% faster
but you couldn't do anything with it !!!!!



"vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
news:46db5e10$...
> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...
>
> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....
>
> its irritating...
>
>
>
>

I dual boot XP Pro SP2 and Vista Ultimate.
With a bare/clean install of each on a P4-2.8Ghz/1,5GB Dual Channel DDR (and
actually working as dual channel)/512MB PCI-e 6200 Video/200GB SATA, the XP
install boots faster by about 15 seconds, the seat of the pants feel while
surfing, emailing, etc is faster in XP.
I use classic menmus and turn off all the visual effects. No shadowing,
slide out/fade menus etc.
I haven't had any trouble with the machine, I simply do not like the way
Vista looks and feels.
If they put the ignition/blinker/dimmer switch to my car in the trunk, I'd
buy a different brand.
Every prior version of MS OS from DOS to WIn3/3.1/95/98/2000/XP has felt
like an improvement.
This feels like a clunker. MS finally made their own Edsel.

"Val" <> wrote in message
news:d-...
> Care to give any specifics? How did you test? How did you ensure that
> the
> testing situations were comparable?
>
> Given the old adage that 85% of quoted statistcis are made up on the
> spot.....
>
>
> "vista terminal ator" <-> wrote in message
> news:46db5e10$...
> Thats what I have concluded from my dual boot...
>
> even hacking vista with vlite.net does not make it as fast as XP....
>
> its irritating...
>
>
>
>