XP is faster than Vista. So says Research company.

Florida-based development and research company, Devil Mountain
Software, compared performance benchmarks between the two operating
systems XP and Vista. The end result? Windows XP outperformed Vista in
every single test. Of course professionals already knew that. Only
fools are stupid enough to try to pretend otherwise.

http://www.romow.com/computer-blog/i...er-than-vista/

http://www.custompc.co.uk/features/6...sta/page4.html

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ta-performance

http://www.crn.com/software/207001890

Plus hundreds more tests...

You are just frustrated because you have no idea what is wrong with your
system and you have no idea how to fix your system. Take your computer to
any Best Buy in the Country as they have Geeks who have tons more knowledge
of Vista than YOU.

They can copy files, they can use UAC, they can navigate around the desktop.
Something that is way over your thick head.

All you do is insult everyone every day. That is
your M.O. You copy and paste answers all over the place but one thing you
love to do is call people ****wits and mention Frank in your posts. Oh, I
see you mentioned Frank again. You have a serious problem.

What is best for you to do is start using Ubuntu. Talk to the other
****tard Alias and maybe he can help you with Ubuntu.

You should get a book on "Vista for Retards" and take about 6 months of
reading and trying to comprehend the contents of the book. I think you just
might be able to handle the basics within 6 months. Even a Monkey can do
that. Hell, look at our other resident retard, kevpan815. Even he knows
what the Icons are for.

hehehe...nice try you moron! pre-SP1 and bench testing does not accurately
represent real world usage.
No go have bubba drive you around the room!...LOL!
<> wrote in message
news...
> Florida-based development and research company, Devil Mountain
> Software, compared performance benchmarks between the two operating
> systems XP and Vista. The end result? Windows XP outperformed Vista in
> every single test. Of course professionals already knew that. Only
> fools are stupid enough to try to pretend otherwise.
>
> http://www.romow.com/computer-blog/i...er-than-vista/
>
> http://www.custompc.co.uk/features/6...sta/page4.html
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ta-performance
>
> http://www.crn.com/software/207001890
>
> Plus hundreds more tests...

"gerooky" <> wrote in message
news:48d8281c$...
>I have done many good tests myself, but I can actually feel the
>difference..
> I have been saying this litteraly for YEARS since the release of vista.
> But no one seemed to believe me. Whats worse there were some dopes that
> claimed vista was faster than xp.
> Something totally impossible, unless they are comparing a bloated
> installation of xp on an old machine with vista on a new machine.
> (yes there were people comparing the 2 on different machines... lol vista
> fanboy users aren't that bright ya know!)
>
> I can feel the difference even on very high end machines like 4 cores.
>
> But I don't care anymore.. I will only use 4 cores with 4+++ ram from now
> on
> for my own needs... Even if its slower vista can still be used... I need
> to use it on a daily basis because Im writing content about it now.
>

I use Vista on a PD 3.2Ghz, 2Gb RAM, and a Nv6800 ...you are so friggen
full( fool) of it !




> Know thy enemy? You know!
>
> as for the poor folk that got conned into getting vista with lower spec
> machines...
> well... what can I say?
>


Don't say anything !
People love it ( not the bloggers that get paid to hate...no, not them)


--
Ens causa sui
Fit caedes omnibus locis

"gerooky" <> wrote in message
news:...
> >pre-SP1 and bench testing does not accurately represent real world usage.
>
> I remember very well.
> Frank you claimed Vista was faster than XP or at least the same even
> BEFORE SP1 too.
> You insisted on this again and again and again like a broken record
> player.

Indeed I did and I still do.
Bench testing does not take into consideration how many more "mouse clicks"
one need to execute in XP vs Vista, in doing the same tasks or seeking the
same end result.
If you actually use Vista you'd know that Vista often will get the same
proceedure done while XP is still in need of more mouse clicks.

Sorry if you're confused about raw speed vs actually completing a task.

>
> Now that SP1 is out.. you say ahhh that was before sp1...

No you idiot. I read the date of the first test which was November '07,
which is as I stated, pre-sp1.
>
> hypocrisy is not a virtue.

And you thought is was?

Lies are for those who are weak.

Then stop your lying!
>
>
> "Frank" <> wrote in message news:gb99bn$5kd$...
>> hehehe...nice try you moron! pre-SP1 and bench testing does not
>> accurately represent real world usage.
>> No go have bubba drive you around the room!...LOL!
>> <> wrote in message
>> news...
>>> Florida-based development and research company, Devil Mountain
>>> Software, compared performance benchmarks between the two operating
>>> systems XP and Vista. The end result? Windows XP outperformed Vista in
>>> every single test. Of course professionals already knew that. Only
>>> fools are stupid enough to try to pretend otherwise.
>>>
>>> http://www.romow.com/computer-blog/i...er-than-vista/
>>>
>>> http://www.custompc.co.uk/features/6...sta/page4.html
>>>
>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ta-performance
>>>
>>> http://www.crn.com/software/207001890
>>>
>>> Plus hundreds more tests...
>>

"gerooky" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Like for example deleting a file :-)
>
> In XP> you click the delete icon on the toolbar
> in Vista, you click on Organize and then on delete... that's 100% more
> clicks :-)

Like in Vista. You highlight the file you want to delete. Then hit the
delete key.


>
> I have many many examples frank... its bad design but I know you wont
> listen so just ignore me like you always do.
>
>
>
> "Frank" <> wrote in message news:gb9bam$cq9$...
>>
>> "gerooky" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> >pre-SP1 and bench testing does not accurately represent real world
>>> >usage.
>>>
>>> I remember very well.
>>> Frank you claimed Vista was faster than XP or at least the same even
>>> BEFORE SP1 too.
>>> You insisted on this again and again and again like a broken record
>>> player.
>>
>> Indeed I did and I still do.
>> Bench testing does not take into consideration how many more "mouse
>> clicks" one need to execute in XP vs Vista, in doing the same tasks or
>> seeking the same end result.
>> If you actually use Vista you'd know that Vista often will get the same
>> proceedure done while XP is still in need of more mouse clicks.
>>
>> Sorry if you're confused about raw speed vs actually completing a task.
>>
>>>
>>> Now that SP1 is out.. you say ahhh that was before sp1...
>>
>> No you idiot. I read the date of the first test which was November '07,
>> which is as I stated, pre-sp1.
>>>
>>> hypocrisy is not a virtue.
>>
>> And you thought is was?
>>
>> Lies are for those who are weak.
>>
>> Then stop your lying!
>>>
>>>
>>> "Frank" <> wrote in message news:gb99bn$5kd$...
>>>> hehehe...nice try you moron! pre-SP1 and bench testing does not
>>>> accurately represent real world usage.
>>>> No go have bubba drive you around the room!...LOL!
>>>> <> wrote in message
>>>> news...
>>>>> Florida-based development and research company, Devil Mountain
>>>>> Software, compared performance benchmarks between the two operating
>>>>> systems XP and Vista. The end result? Windows XP outperformed Vista in
>>>>> every single test. Of course professionals already knew that. Only
>>>>> fools are stupid enough to try to pretend otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.romow.com/computer-blog/i...er-than-vista/
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.custompc.co.uk/features/6...sta/page4.html
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ta-performance
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.crn.com/software/207001890
>>>>>
>>>>> Plus hundreds more tests...
>>>>
>>

I'll trade my "fast" XP laptop for your "slow" Vista laptop.

I have a HP laptop and a Toshiba XP laptop. Both are efficient, clean OS
and fast. Will trade up even with any Vista laptops that is made by same
manufacturers.

I will respond to serious inquiries only.


--
oscar

....Right click is your very good friend...


"" wrote:

> Florida-based development and research company, Devil Mountain
> Software, compared performance benchmarks between the two operating
> systems XP and Vista. The end result? Windows XP outperformed Vista in
> every single test. Of course professionals already knew that. Only
> fools are stupid enough to try to pretend otherwise.
>
> http://www.romow.com/computer-blog/i...er-than-vista/
>
> http://www.custompc.co.uk/features/6...sta/page4.html
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ta-performance
>
> http://www.crn.com/software/207001890
>
> Plus hundreds more tests...
>

<> wrote in message
news...
> Florida-based development and research company, Devil Mountain
> Software, compared performance benchmarks between the two operating
> systems XP and Vista. The end result? Windows XP outperformed Vista in
> every single test. Of course professionals already knew that. Only
> fools are stupid enough to try to pretend otherwise.
>
> http://www.romow.com/computer-blog/i...er-than-vista/
>
> http://www.custompc.co.uk/features/6...sta/page4.html
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ta-performance
>
> http://www.crn.com/software/207001890
>
> Plus hundreds more tests...

It's all relative. Win2k is faster than XP on the same hardware,
Win98 is faster than Win2k, Win3.1 was faster than Win95 back
then, and of course, DOS 6.22 was, and is the fastest, but it
doesn't do much.

There are still those who swear by Win98SE, and wouldn't touch
that bloated Win2k, or worse yet, WinXP.

"gerooky" <> wrote in message
news:48d8281c$...
>I have done many good tests myself, but I can actually feel the
>difference..
> I have been saying this litteraly for YEARS since the release of vista.
> But no one seemed to believe me. Whats worse there were some dopes that
> claimed vista was faster than xp.
> Something totally impossible, unless they are comparing a bloated
> installation of xp on an old machine with vista on a new machine.
> (yes there were people comparing the 2 on different machines... lol vista
> fanboy users aren't that bright ya know!)
>
> I can feel the difference even on very high end machines like 4 cores.
>
> But I don't care anymore.. I will only use 4 cores with 4+++ ram from now
> on
> for my own needs... Even if its slower vista can still be used... I need
> to use it on a daily basis because Im writing content about it now.
>
> Know thy enemy? You know!
>
> as for the poor folk that got conned into getting vista with lower spec
> machines...
> well... what can I say?
>
>
>
> <> wrote in message
> news...
>> Florida-based development and research company, Devil Mountain
>> Software, compared performance benchmarks between the two operating
>> systems XP and Vista. The end result? Windows XP outperformed Vista in
>> every single test. Of course professionals already knew that. Only
>> fools are stupid enough to try to pretend otherwise.
>>
>> http://www.romow.com/computer-blog/i...er-than-vista/
>>
>> http://www.custompc.co.uk/features/6...sta/page4.html
>>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...ta-performance
>>
>> http://www.crn.com/software/207001890
>>
>> Plus hundreds more tests...
>


All of the articles were dated back 12 months.. no longer relevant..


--
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

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 23:06:23 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
<mikehall@remove_mvps.com> wrote:

>All of the articles were dated back 12 months.. no longer relevant..
>
>
>--
>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

Speaking of "dated" articles... your "How to use..." reference could
use an update.