Vista isn't THAT slow

Don't know why people complain about Vista being slooowwww. If the
hardware is up to scratch it should run OK.

Ran SuperPi Ver 1.5 on a dual boot XP Pro and Vista Ult 32.

Selected 4 million decimal places

Result:

XP 1 min 39.890 sec

Vista (Aero) 1 min 42.524 sec

Vista (classic) 1 min 40.168 sec (less than 0.3 sec slower than XP)

I know this doesn't prove much but I found that on a decent system
Vista is just as fast as XP

Graham

graham1cr wrote:

> Don't know why people complain about Vista being slooowwww. If the
> hardware is up to scratch it should run OK.
>
> Ran SuperPi Ver 1.5 on a dual boot XP Pro and Vista Ult 32.
>
> Selected 4 million decimal places
>
> Result:
>
> XP 1 min 39.890 sec
>
> Vista (Aero) 1 min 42.524 sec
>
> Vista (classic) 1 min 40.168 sec (less than 0.3 sec slower than XP)
>
> I know this doesn't prove much but I found that on a decent system
> Vista is just as fast as XP
>
> Graham

That's the role of the CPU. Have you tried to move files over a LAN or copy
large files to an external USB drive? Tell us how fast Vista is.

Cheers.

--
Vista will make you speechless!
http://tinyurl.com/38zv7x

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/war...tm/compost.htm

Hi, Graham:

The crux is what you indicated: one has to have the hardware to run Vista
efficiently. That's the problem. Who wants to rush out and buy/upgrade
their equipment, when XP works just fine on older machines?

I'm just pointing out, many people/small businesses can't afford and don't
see the "need" to upgrade. Word is out that Microsoft is working on
another O.S. to be released, from what I understand, within the next couple
of years.

Microsoft, in my layman's opinion, stubbed its toe on Vista for the sake of
its bottom line. MS should have waited and introduced a truly revolutionary
O.S. for the consumer. Without sounding Draconian, remember all the
promises of what Vista was supposed to be before it was finally introduced?
Well, the Vista we now see is a shell of what was promised back then.
Better? Maybe. Slower? Yes, especially on laptops.

Though I don't disagree with you on your findings, that's my read on Vista.

Ernie


"graham1cr" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Don't know why people complain about Vista being slooowwww. If the
> hardware is up to scratch it should run OK.
>
> Ran SuperPi Ver 1.5 on a dual boot XP Pro and Vista Ult 32.
>
> Selected 4 million decimal places
>
> Result:
>
> XP 1 min 39.890 sec
>
> Vista (Aero) 1 min 42.524 sec
>
> Vista (classic) 1 min 40.168 sec (less than 0.3 sec slower than XP)
>
> I know this doesn't prove much but I found that on a decent system
> Vista is just as fast as XP
>
> Graham
>
>

graham1cr;625989 Wrote:
> Don't know why people complain about Vista being slooowwww. If the
> hardware is up to scratch it should run OK.
>
> Ran SuperPi Ver 1.5 on a dual boot XP Pro and Vista Ult 32.
>
> Selected 4 million decimal places
>
> Result:
>
> XP 1 min 39.890 sec
>
> Vista (Aero) 1 min 42.524 sec
>
> Vista (classic) 1 min 40.168 sec (less than 0.3 sec slower than XP)
>
> I know this doesn't prove much but I found that on a decent system
> Vista is just as fast as XP
>
> Graham

New computers that are coming out with vista are up to scratch so there
will be no problems with them.

The problem arises when you have people with computers two or three
years old that go out and buy the new os. Because they already have an
os when they upgrade to find out that vista is a lot more complicated
and in turn more resource hungry than the old computer they get upset.
It is obvious that newer computers are going to be able to run vista
better, they have more power. I built my rig 6 months ago, run vista
and it works well. My old rig was 4 years old and I would not dream of
trying to run vista on it because I know the limitations of that
computer.


--
roy69

- Core 2 Quad Q6600
- Abit IP35 Pro
- 4 x 1GB OcUK PC2-6400 C5 800 MHZ Dual Channel
- Leadtek GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB GDDR3
- CiBox TFT 22" Widescreen LCD Panel. 1680 x 1050
- Creative X-Fi 7.1 PCI-E
- Antec 900 Ultimate Gaming Case
- Creative Inspire 7.1 T7900 Speakers
- Corsair HX 620W ATX2.2 Modular SLI Complient PSU

"roy69" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> graham1cr;625989 Wrote:
>> Don't know why people complain about Vista being slooowwww. If the
>> hardware is up to scratch it should run OK.
>>
>> Ran SuperPi Ver 1.5 on a dual boot XP Pro and Vista Ult 32.
>>
>> Selected 4 million decimal places
>>
>> Result:
>>
>> XP 1 min 39.890 sec
>>
>> Vista (Aero) 1 min 42.524 sec
>>
>> Vista (classic) 1 min 40.168 sec (less than 0.3 sec slower than XP)
>>
>> I know this doesn't prove much but I found that on a decent system
>> Vista is just as fast as XP
>>
>> Graham
>
> New computers that are coming out with vista are up to scratch so there
> will be no problems with them.
>
> The problem arises when you have people with computers two or three
> years old that go out and buy the new os. Because they already have an
> os when they upgrade to find out that vista is a lot more complicated
> and in turn more resource hungry than the old computer they get upset.
> It is obvious that newer computers are going to be able to run vista
> better, they have more power. I built my rig 6 months ago, run vista
> and it works well. My old rig was 4 years old and I would not dream of
> trying to run vista on it because I know the limitations of that
> computer.
>
>
> --
> roy69
>
> - Core 2 Quad Q6600
> - Abit IP35 Pro
> - 4 x 1GB OcUK PC2-6400 C5 800 MHZ Dual Channel
> - Leadtek GeForce 8800 GTS 640MB GDDR3
> - CiBox TFT 22" Widescreen LCD Panel. 1680 x 1050
> - Creative X-Fi 7.1 PCI-E
> - Antec 900 Ultimate Gaming Case
> - Creative Inspire 7.1 T7900 Speakers
> - Corsair HX 620W ATX2.2 Modular SLI Complient PSU


With all respect, XP didn't run too well on older computers either. What
exactly has changed here?

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default...help&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

The only thing I find slow is file transfers, especially across the network.
I believe this is something that SP1 addresses though so not really worried
about it. I just let things copy in the background - I've never in that much
of a hurry.

Lori

--
Shop for clothes, boots, gothic, jewelry, collectible, Egyptian and more!
LAB Enterprises -
Read our blog with links to all our stores at www.Labeshops.com

"graham1cr" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Don't know why people complain about Vista being slooowwww. If the
> hardware is up to scratch it should run OK.
>
> Ran SuperPi Ver 1.5 on a dual boot XP Pro and Vista Ult 32.
>
> Selected 4 million decimal places
>
> Result:
>
> XP 1 min 39.890 sec
>
> Vista (Aero) 1 min 42.524 sec
>
> Vista (classic) 1 min 40.168 sec (less than 0.3 sec slower than XP)
>
> I know this doesn't prove much but I found that on a decent system
> Vista is just as fast as XP
>
> Graham
>
>

LAB Enterprises wrote:
> The only thing I find slow is file transfers, especially across the
> network. I believe this is something that SP1 addresses though so not
> really worried about it. I just let things copy in the background - I've
> never in that much of a hurry.
>
> Lori
>

I hope you have a UPS protecting your computers ...

Alias

NoStop;666237 Wrote:
>
>
> That's the role of the CPU. Have you tried to move files over a LAN or
> copy
> large files to an external USB drive? Tell us how fast Vista is.
>
>

Fixed in SP1.

Great read about it here: 'Mark's Blog : Inside Vista SP1 File Copy
Improvements' (http://tinyurl.com/yqorr2)


--t


--
Technologist
Posted via http://ms-os.com Forum to Usenet gateway

Took your advice NoStop and you're right

Copied 4 large files total 25.5 GB from HDD to ext USB drive
XP 13 min 19 sec
Vista 14 min 11 sec
XP clear winner

copied 5 x 340 MB files to a 2 GB USB stick
XP 6m 51 sec
Vista 6m 55 sec
hardly a difference

But I found that moving, copying or deleting thousands of SMALLER
files (like jpgs) Vista is actually slightly faster.

I agree with you Ernie, Vista should have been a lot better, the only
difference is a "pretty?" interface which some people seem to like.
Not worth getting a new PC and OS for that.
Rumor has it that the new Windows 7 is bloatfree; a few hundred MB
compared to around 12 GB (like Linux but without without all the
command line crap and hardware that works).

The ONLY reason I upped my hardware and got Vista is for DirectX 10,
which I use for MS FlightSim X. The framerate under Vista is about 15%
lower but the graphics are better, so that evens out. Sometimes this
program locks up (Nvidia is still working on this), but Vista has an
advantage here with the TRD function.

Graham

my Vista PC is a standalone so can't comment on LAN file transfers