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

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Tiberius, Sep 28, 2007.

  1. Tiberius

    Tiberius Guest

    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/softwa..._Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm
     
    Tiberius, Sep 28, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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, Sep 28, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tiberius

    Bob I Guest

    And the problem is exactly what? BFD!

    Tiberius wrote:
     
    Bob I, Sep 28, 2007
    #3
  4. Tiberius

    Tiberius Guest

    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.
     
    Tiberius, Sep 28, 2007
    #4
  5. Tiberius

    Tiberius Guest

    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!
     
    Tiberius, Sep 28, 2007
    #5
  6. Tiberius

    Bob I Guest

    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.
     
    Bob I, Sep 28, 2007
    #6
  7. Tiberius

    Tiberius Guest

    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, Sep 28, 2007
    #7
  8. 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, Sep 28, 2007
    #8
  9. Tiberius

    Seven Guest


    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
     
    Seven, Sep 28, 2007
    #9
  10. Tiberius

    John John Guest

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

    John
     
    John John, Sep 28, 2007
    #10
  11. You are welcomed to your opinion. I do not personally recommend Vista to
    anyone at this time and I do not install it in a business environment at
    this time either. That is my choice and those with whom I work tend to
    agree. This does not mean I actively voice my opinion against it, as it
    seemingly works well for some - and each person/groupo has their own needs
    and experiences.

    Your point is taken, this is an online threaded discussion group in which
    people converse asynchronously to exchange ideas and information - so, I
    concede, your posting that here is not disruptive and could be considered a
    discussion topic. However - it being a discussion group and you having
    presented a discussion topic - I did try to continue the conversation you
    began by your posting.

    In your response to me you seemingly ignored the two questions completely.
    Those questions are ones that would have continued the thread in a
    productive manner - the comment I made about the relevance of the posting
    was just that - a comment that required no response.

    In case you just missed the questions that would continue this discussion in
    this newsgroup, I will repeat them for you...

    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 requirements 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?

    The answers to those questions from you (or anyone wishing to participate in
    this discussion) could be quite telling in the development of computers as a
    whole, software and hardware-wise.
     
    Shenan Stanley, Sep 28, 2007
    #11
  12. Please read and reread the Rules of Conduct before posting in a
    Microsoft newsgroup. If you cannot abide by the rules, please
    refrain from posting.

    Rules of Conduct
    http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx

    --
    Carey Frisch
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows - Shell/User
    Microsoft Community Newsgroups
    news://msnews.microsoft.com/



     
    Carey Frisch [MVP], Sep 28, 2007
    #12
  13. Tiberius

    Frank Guest

    There is truly something wrong with you isn't there?
    What in the world do you think (if thinking is possible for you) that
    you are accomplishing by posting all of your Vista hatred diatribes in
    this ng?
    Please tells us and get it over with cause all you're doing is sucking
    up bandwidth with your useless ignorant personal opinion Vista diatribes.
    IOW, you're now looking like a mentally deranged FOOL!
    Frank
     
    Frank, Sep 28, 2007
    #13
  14. "...I am helping people."
    We see how this happens with examples in other posts of yours.
    You need to attack those you disagree while contributing NOTHING to help an
    OP.

    "most people are avoiding vista anyway"
    Some do as some resisted Windows XP and also resisted the previous operating
    system.
    But NOTHING suggests "most" other than your rants.
    Of course when you post the source for that statistic that proves "most
    people are avoiding" we will know your facts.
    But I suspect it is nothing more than the typical vapor from another post of
    yours.

    Your agenda is clearly not in helping as much as it is in attacking those
    who disagree with you.
    Your blind agenda against Microsoft and anyone you perceive supports them is
    clear.
     
    Jupiter Jones [MVP], Sep 28, 2007
    #14
  15. At one point it was stated by someone (I am sure) that the processing power
    of the computer doubled every X number of months - and X was below a year I
    believe. That is usually a misquotation of Moore's Law, that the number of
    transistors that can be inexpensively placed on an integrated circuit is
    increasing exponentially, doubling approximately every two years. That was
    stated way back in 1965.

    No one in this discussion (other than your implication) said anything about
    a dual core being twice as fast as the equivalent single core processor
    either. It is perceptionally faster *if* the underlying OS and subsequent
    applications can take advantage of multiple cores - but does little to
    nothing if the operating system and applications cannot take advantage of
    that fact - just like multi-threading, etc.

    However - Windows XP was released in 2001 (we'll go with LATE 2001) and at
    that time, the processing power was just getting into the area between 1 and
    2 GHz range for the P4s and if I rememeber. Processors are common now in
    the 3+GHz ranges and have been for well over a year (maybe two?) However -
    it is not only the speed of the processor that determines the speed of a
    computer. The bus speed, the memory speed, the hard disk drive speed, the
    video card memory/processor power, etc - all contribute to the full
    potential of a computer.

    However - these same arguments have been made time and time again with each
    release of a new Windows OS. It is a resource hog. It is usually a
    reaction by most people because they do not want to spend the money on a
    whole new computer - specifically hardware (since theirs is working fine) -
    but they somehow feel the operating itself is worth having and within reach.
    Yet it will likely perform horribly on their current system (one of my home
    systems - a 1.8GHz with 640MB memory - would choke on Vista with everything
    turned off...) It's the same reaction many gamers have when a new PC game
    is released that would require a more powerful video card or more memory
    over the years. Human nature really. It happened with people and their
    Pentium III 450s with 64MB memory when XP came out, it will happen again
    when the next mass marketed OS (from whomever) comes out.

    I am not saying that Windows Vista isn't a bit bloated. I said (still do)
    that Windows XP is a bit bloated. OS X is a bit bloated too. Many of the
    Desktop Envirnments for *nix are bloated. It's because people want pretty
    pictures and easy to click on icons and self-updating crap so that they
    don't have to learn anything to utilize the basic (and sometimes more
    advanced) features.

    As far as 'accepting' anything - I believe that is up to the individual.
    When people come to me and ask - I still recommend they find a vendor that
    will sell them Windows XP with the OS and get a 4-5 year warranty on it as
    well. They can take my advice or they can skip by it and go out on their
    own. I cannot control that. I just believe they should have the knowledge
    they need to make the decision wisely. If they choose to not do what *I*
    consider the wise choice - so be it.

    As far as your logic that 'vista is worse because the advances in hardware
    have not stayed the course'... That seems a bit broken to me. Vista is
    bloated, no doubt. On a brand new, $2000 computer (put together by someone
    who knows their components) - Vista does run fine - as fast as Windows XP
    for the most part. Some applications may not work - but that would fall to
    the creators of said application - not the OS. After all, their application
    may not work on OS X or *nix at all. In 2001, if you purchased a brand new
    $2000 computer with your Windows XP, windows XP not only ran fine then - but
    is likely STILL running fine now.

    Should everyone *have* to purchase new hardware to use their computers? No.
    But *who* is making them? Only themselves. Some desire they have to do
    something that their current system cannot. A game, a way to record video
    or music, some application that the producer only decided to make for a
    certain OS, etc... I know people who are still happy with Pegasus running
    on their Windows 95 machine connected via dialup for email... I know others
    who buy a new component or two everytime a new game comes out just so they
    can play it.

    Vista may be bloated. Many people may not recommend it. It's still
    spreading because of human nature and the desire to have the 'next thing'
    and be able to 'keep up with the neighbor'... So it has been, so it
    remains.
     
    Shenan Stanley, Sep 28, 2007
    #15
  16. That's the first time you admitted you like to sit in judgment of
    others. How precious.
    LOL! The flip side is Bozos like you, most obvious is some MVPs where
    you have some misplaced loyalty where you feel you must defend
    Microsoft even when you know some of their policies are harmful and in
    general their software sucks. I guess you're not familiar with the
    word creditability. Because doing that you have done.
     
    Adam Albright, Sep 28, 2007
    #16
  17. Tiberius

    Tiberius Guest

    good reply and thanx for taking the time to answer in such a detailed
    manner.

    My main reason for posting such information is that many in here claim that
    vista
    is FASTER than XP.

    This is totally incorrect. Vista cannot be faster on the SAME hardware
    unless some new perhaps technology becomes mainstream that only vista can
    use..

    but that is not the case yet.
     
    Tiberius, Sep 28, 2007
    #17
  18. Tiberius

    Tiberius Guest

    I have helped thousands of people in the other Microsoft newsgroups for
    years...

    and from time to time I give advice even here.. take a look at some of my
    posts before concluding incorrectly to some erroneous conception of
    distorted truth.

    In the case of the vista.general newsgroup however my help is making clear
    to everyone that vista is a flop. I don't often offer solutions to problems,
    because the problem is vista itself.

    That is not some agenda.. that is my opinion and a strong one.. and of
    course I am correct.

    You on the other hand who WANT to help and like vista, never really helps..
    I have seen how you post..

    you insult most posters and try to tell them off that they dont know much
    about comptuers or they did something wrong..

    and its never vistas fault.

    You are a sad person and you are incapable of giving ME any advice of value.
     
    Tiberius, Sep 28, 2007
    #18
  19. Tiberius

    Tiberius Guest

    I suggest you do the same...

    Sorry to see you go...



     
    Tiberius, Sep 28, 2007
    #19
  20. Tiberius

    Seven Guest


    Why don't you add Caesar to your nic and complete the fantasy.
    Helped thousands...haha
     
    Seven, Sep 28, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.