Vista Tips & Tricks !

Hidden tools will help you get maximum performance, Networking
Vista,Using USB keys to improve Vista performance ,What's Inside
Vista: The Best of Vista's New Tools, Tweak Security Settings in XP
and Vista and many more at...

http://vista-tricks-tips.blogspot.com

Is there a trick to get Vista to work as fast as XP?

"babaloo" <> wrote in message
news:IQ3Ci.22273$ et...
> Is there a trick to get Vista to work as fast as XP?

I'm thinking of formatting and going back to the lovely XP. Well, compared
to my findings of Vista, XP is more than lovely!

No trick really.
Like operating systems before including Windows XP, generally more
power is needed if you desire similar speed as the previous operating
system.
1 GB - to 2 GB RAM minimum.
1.5 GHz to 2 GHz Processor minimum.
A newer Windows Vista compatible video card.
Of course all other hardware should have Windows Vista drivers and
software Windows Vista compatible for best performance.
The list goes on and depends on your specific uses.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"babaloo" <> wrote in message
news:IQ3Ci.22273$ et...
> Is there a trick to get Vista to work as fast as XP?

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> No trick really.
> Like operating systems before including Windows XP, generally more power
> is needed if you desire similar speed as the previous operating system.
> 1 GB - to 2 GB RAM minimum.
> 1.5 GHz to 2 GHz Processor minimum.
> A newer Windows Vista compatible video card.
> Of course all other hardware should have Windows Vista drivers and
> software Windows Vista compatible for best performance.
> The list goes on and depends on your specific uses.
>


So you consider this a "Natural" progression, eh?

It is quite reasonable to consider that W2000 did much more than 98, and
reasonable to consider that XP did more than 2000, although by that
comparison you'd think that an OS doing less would run a bit faster (so
XP home might be a bit faster than XP Pro for example) except that
didn't seem to be the case. IOW there is a speed penalty for extra
functionality. Fair enough. Where is the extra functionality between XP
and Vista? Get lost did it?

Since there IS no extra functionality in Vista that we can see (As there
was between 98 and 2000 and XP) where do the extra resources go to? How
about WDM, WGA, Activation checks, driver signature checks etc etc.

Either it's doing something extra than XP on identical hardware or it's
full of bloat. So what is it doing?

You need to read my post again.
I am not sure where you get that quote "Natural" but it is not from
me.
Perhaps that is a quote from someone else and you are confusing posts.

But in the past newer operating systems have performed slower on the
same hardware than the previous.

As for extra functionality, if you see none, clearly Windows Vista is
not for you.
Stay where you are at and use what works for you.
Check Microsoft's website for details.

Since Windows XP will probably be supported for several more years,
the release of Windows Vista in itself is not a sufficient reason to
upgrade.
Most should stay with Windows XP until hardware, software or something
else requires a change of operating system.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Charlie Tame" <> wrote in message
news:...
> So you consider this a "Natural" progression, eh?
>
> It is quite reasonable to consider that W2000 did much more than 98,
> and reasonable to consider that XP did more than 2000, although by
> that comparison you'd think that an OS doing less would run a bit
> faster (so XP home might be a bit faster than XP Pro for example)
> except that didn't seem to be the case. IOW there is a speed penalty
> for extra functionality. Fair enough. Where is the extra
> functionality between XP and Vista? Get lost did it?
>
> Since there IS no extra functionality in Vista that we can see (As
> there was between 98 and 2000 and XP) where do the extra resources
> go to? How about WDM, WGA, Activation checks, driver signature
> checks etc etc.
>
> Either it's doing something extra than XP on identical hardware or
> it's full of bloat. So what is it doing?

"babaloo" <> wrote in news:IQ3Ci.22273$eY.17067
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net:

> Is there a trick to get Vista to work as fast as XP?
>
>

LOL!

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
> You need to read my post again.
> I am not sure where you get that quote "Natural" but it is not from me.
> Perhaps that is a quote from someone else and you are confusing posts.
>
> But in the past newer operating systems have performed slower on the
> same hardware than the previous.
>
> As for extra functionality, if you see none, clearly Windows Vista is
> not for you.
> Stay where you are at and use what works for you.
> Check Microsoft's website for details.
>
> Since Windows XP will probably be supported for several more years, the
> release of Windows Vista in itself is not a sufficient reason to upgrade.
> Most should stay with Windows XP until hardware, software or something
> else requires a change of operating system.
>


No I don't, you do. A "Natural" progression is something one takes for
granted, and I'm not the least bit confused, but perhaps you are because
once again all you seem capable of is repeating one of several tired old
mantras.

In the past newer OS have performed slower because they had greater
functionality, but Vista has little greater functionality that's visible
to the user so where is it? Don't be ashamed that you don't know the
answer because you're probably "Not supposed to know".


Now, tell me about the aero desktop, or the amazing "DreamScene"
animations and tell me why things are still slower than XP when I'm not
using either of them. XP can play a full movie with no glitches while
running office on another monitor and still go faster than Vista. One of
the key statements alleged to be made for SP1 is to improve performance,
and although I doubt it will by much there is an admission that MS
actually know and admit Vista leaves something to be desired. So instead
of advising me to stick with XP and advising "Most" to do the same AFTER
they have bought Vista and turned up here looking for answers why don't
you explain the situation. I'll tell you why you can't, because you
don't know is why, and because there is no logical reason for it except
perchance bloated programming or else the system doing things it maybe
shouldn't be doing.

Post a screen shot of your detailed windows experience rating. If you
are not getting better performance there is a problem, maybe we can
figure it out.


--
cmgxsolutions

"Is all this extra functionality hidden away somewhere..."
Not at all, if so it would not be easily available on Microsoft's
website.
As I have suggested before, if none of that is to your benefit, stay
with what you have.
There is no reason to upgrade from Windows XP in such a case.
If you want a sales pitch, which is what you are really asking, ask a
sales person, not me.
Salespeople can be found many places.

"I've yet to see anything in Vista..."
Then stay with Windows XP, it is your computer.
I have no desire to convince anyone to switch since that is their own
decision.

"Why do you guys take everything so literally?"
He placed "Natural" in quotes as if I said it.
There is no reason for the quotes if he knew I did not say it.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"GO" <> wrote in message
news:...
> How come the "friends of Vista" can never elaborate on this? Is all
> this
> extra functionality hidden away somewhere and only available to MVPs
> and
> Vista fanboys? I've yet to see anything in Vista that isn't
> doable/available in XP, without the extra need of more horsepower,
> more RAM
> and more hard drive space.
>
>>I am not sure where you get that quote "Natural" but it is not from
>>me. Perhaps that is a quote from someone else and you are confusing
>>posts.
>
> Why do you guys take everything so literally?! No, you didn't use
> the word
> "natural" but it certainly fits perfectly to what you said.
>
>
>
>