Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP

Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison

A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed that Vista
will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. The report claimed
that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the minimum CPU requirements were
75 percent greater than those for the operating system it replaced, Windows
2000. Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than that of
XP.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwar...9274460,00.htm

Tiberius wrote:
> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison
>
> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed
> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far.
> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the
> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the
> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU
> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP.
>
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwar...9274460,00.htm

Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask for
help... however ...

What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year
Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released?

What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP,
Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much
processor/memory they require?

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

And the problem is exactly what? BFD!

Tiberius wrote:

shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup, rather it is a general
newsgroup, I will tell you how I am helping people. By informing people that
vista is a power hungry hog, even more people will avoid getting vista.

Its better to avoid a problem (vista) altogether than trying to correct the
probles afterwards.

I am saving them. If you want to be considered a serious IT person, you
should warn them too...

most people are avoiding vista anyway.


"Shenan Stanley" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Tiberius wrote:
>> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison
>>
>> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed
>> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far.
>> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the
>> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the
>> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU
>> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP.
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwar...9274460,00.htm
>
> Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask for
> help... however ...
>
> What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year
> Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released?
>
> What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP,
> Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much
> processor/memory they require?
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
> --
> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>

you must also know if you are computer literate that back when XP came out
there was still a double of CPU speed every few months..

then that increase stopped for a looonnng time.. now we have dual cores..
but 2 cores are not twice as fast as 1..

in other words the speed increase has been slower.. thus Vista is actually
even worse now, since it hogs up too much resources...

the solution that everybody is doing *accept the ignorant and the vistaboys*
is installing XP on the new hardware and it flies!


"Shenan Stanley" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Tiberius wrote:
>> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison
>>
>> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed
>> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far.
>> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the
>> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the
>> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU
>> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP.
>>
>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwar...9274460,00.htm
>
> Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask for
> help... however ...
>
> What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year
> Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released?
>
> What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP,
> Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much
> processor/memory they require?
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
> --
> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>

OH MY! And where did you come up with that?!?!?!?

This is the primary destination of the self-help link in Microsoft
Support pages. Please don't delude yourself that your pasting of
irrelevant links and articles is the least bit helpful.

Tiberius wrote:

> shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup,

Sorry...not few months.. it was more like several months..

Moore's law says 18 months...

but it still was climbing in speed...

while for a long time we were stuck under 3. something gigs due to heat
limiatations.

"Tiberius" <> wrote in message
news:46fd4270$...
> you must also know if you are computer literate that back when XP came out
> there was still a double of CPU speed every few months..
>
> then that increase stopped for a looonnng time.. now we have dual cores..
> but 2 cores are not twice as fast as 1..
>
> in other words the speed increase has been slower.. thus Vista is actually
> even worse now, since it hogs up too much resources...
>
> the solution that everybody is doing *accept the ignorant and the
> vistaboys* is installing XP on the new hardware and it flies!
>
>
> "Shenan Stanley" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Tiberius wrote:
>>> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison
>>>
>>> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed
>>> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far.
>>> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the
>>> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the
>>> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU
>>> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP.
>>>
>>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwar...9274460,00.htm
>>
>> Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask
>> for help... however ...
>>
>> What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year
>> Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released?
>>
>> What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP,
>> Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much
>> processor/memory they require?
>>
>> --
>> Shenan Stanley
>> MS-MVP
>> --
>> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>
>
>

Tiberius wrote:
> you must also know if you are computer literate that back when XP came out
> there was still a double of CPU speed every few months..
>
> then that increase stopped for a looonnng time.. now we have dual cores..
> but 2 cores are not twice as fast as 1..
>
> in other words the speed increase has been slower.. thus Vista is actually
> even worse now, since it hogs up too much resources...
>
> the solution that everybody is doing *accept the ignorant and the vistaboys*
> is installing XP on the new hardware and it flies!

Shouldn't you be applying time to the equation. How long after 2000 was
released did XP come out? How long after XP did Vista come out? This
speaks somewhat to the point Shenan brought up. What is the relation to
the increase in requirements to the increase in available CPU
performance. That helps make a better comparison.
--
Tom Porterfield

"Tiberius" <> wrote in message
news:46fd38ee$...
> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison
>
> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed that
> Vista
> will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. The report claimed
> that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the minimum CPU requirements
> were
> 75 percent greater than those for the operating system it replaced,
> Windows
> 2000. Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than that of
> XP.
>
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwar...9274460,00.htm
>
>
>
>
>


What insight!
Higher CPU requirements!
Guess that's why Intel and AMD have been making faster CPU's.

Take a Chicken survey.
I bet more chickens get eaten today then 20 years ago.

More HD TV's get sold today than 10 years ago.

More toilet flushing occurs today than any other time in human history.

More birth's, more death's.

It's like some king of Mathematical thingy

Moore never said every 18 months, he said "about every 2 years".

John

Tiberius wrote:
> Sorry...not few months.. it was more like several months..
>
> Moore's law says 18 months...
>
> but it still was climbing in speed...
>
> while for a long time we were stuck under 3. something gigs due to heat
> limiatations.
>
> "Tiberius" <> wrote in message
> news:46fd4270$...
>
>>you must also know if you are computer literate that back when XP came out
>>there was still a double of CPU speed every few months..
>>
>>then that increase stopped for a looonnng time.. now we have dual cores..
>>but 2 cores are not twice as fast as 1..
>>
>>in other words the speed increase has been slower.. thus Vista is actually
>>even worse now, since it hogs up too much resources...
>>
>>the solution that everybody is doing *accept the ignorant and the
>>vistaboys* is installing XP on the new hardware and it flies!
>>
>>
>>"Shenan Stanley" <> wrote in message
>>news:...
>>
>>>Tiberius wrote:
>>>
>>>>Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison
>>>>
>>>>A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed
>>>>that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far.
>>>>The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the
>>>>minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the
>>>>operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU
>>>>requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwar...9274460,00.htm
>>>
>>>Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask
>>>for help... however ...
>>>
>>>What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year
>>>Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released?
>>>
>>>What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP,
>>>Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much
>>>processor/memory they require?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Shenan Stanley
>>> MS-MVP
>>>--
>>>How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
>>>http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>>
>>
>>
>
>