I have full installs on different hard drives of Vista and XP on my
640m laptop.
Without a doubt, things run faster on Vista. Word 2007 is very fast
on Vista -- it probably runs in about 2 seconds, while on XP it takes
about 5 seconds to start up.
It's great to be able to open programs and have them come up almost
instantly.
For anyone considering a laptop who wants that kind of performance, I
suggest any Core 2 Duo that has 4M cache, and a 7200 rpm hard drive.
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:04:49 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>I have full installs on different hard drives of Vista and XP on my
>640m laptop.
>
>Without a doubt, things run faster on Vista. Word 2007 is very fast
>on Vista -- it probably runs in about 2 seconds, while on XP it takes
>about 5 seconds to start up.
>
>It's great to be able to open programs and have them come up almost
>instantly.
>
>For anyone considering a laptop who wants that kind of performance, I
>suggest any Core 2 Duo that has 4M cache, and a 7200 rpm hard drive.
So which is it yesterday you posted you were about ready to remove
Vista on the laptop because on corrupted data and a wireless card and
today Vista is the one.
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:42:18 +1000, Star@*.* wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:04:49 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>
>>I have full installs on different hard drives of Vista and XP on my
>>640m laptop.
>>
>>Without a doubt, things run faster on Vista. Word 2007 is very fast
>>on Vista -- it probably runs in about 2 seconds, while on XP it takes
>>about 5 seconds to start up.
>>
>>It's great to be able to open programs and have them come up almost
>>instantly.
>>
>>For anyone considering a laptop who wants that kind of performance, I
>>suggest any Core 2 Duo that has 4M cache, and a 7200 rpm hard drive.
>
>So which is it yesterday you posted you were about ready to remove
>Vista on the laptop because on corrupted data and a wireless card and
>today Vista is the one.
>
>Art
Reminds me of the joke about the pilot who said I have some good news
and some bad news.... the good news is we're ahead of schedule but
the bad news is we're going to crash.
So Art I guess he likes the speed of Vista vs. XP but Vista is
problems and XP is fine ?????? For me, speed won't matter if it
messes up my files.
Hopefully Journey can explain all of this better <g>.
Well Word starts up in a couple of seconds for me... on 98.
"RnR" <rnrtexas@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c7f83lu3asg42l4nhe7cueeph1e440uqp@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:42:18 +1000, Star@*.* wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:04:49 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I have full installs on different hard drives of Vista and XP on my
> >>640m laptop.
> >>
> >>Without a doubt, things run faster on Vista. Word 2007 is very fast
> >>on Vista -- it probably runs in about 2 seconds, while on XP it takes
> >>about 5 seconds to start up.
> >>
> >>It's great to be able to open programs and have them come up almost
> >>instantly.
> >>
> >>For anyone considering a laptop who wants that kind of performance, I
> >>suggest any Core 2 Duo that has 4M cache, and a 7200 rpm hard drive.
> >
> >So which is it yesterday you posted you were about ready to remove
> >Vista on the laptop because on corrupted data and a wireless card and
> >today Vista is the one.
> >
> >Art
>
> Reminds me of the joke about the pilot who said I have some good news
> and some bad news.... the good news is we're ahead of schedule but
> the bad news is we're going to crash.
>
> So Art I guess he likes the speed of Vista vs. XP but Vista is
> problems and XP is fine ?????? For me, speed won't matter if it
> messes up my files.
>
> Hopefully Journey can explain all of this better <g>.
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:42:18 +1000, Star@*.* wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:04:49 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>
>>I have full installs on different hard drives of Vista and XP on my
>>640m laptop.
>>
>>Without a doubt, things run faster on Vista. Word 2007 is very fast
>>on Vista -- it probably runs in about 2 seconds, while on XP it takes
>>about 5 seconds to start up.
>>
>>It's great to be able to open programs and have them come up almost
>>instantly.
>>
>>For anyone considering a laptop who wants that kind of performance, I
>>suggest any Core 2 Duo that has 4M cache, and a 7200 rpm hard drive.
>
>So which is it yesterday you posted you were about ready to remove
>Vista on the laptop because on corrupted data and a wireless card and
>today Vista is the one.
>
>Art
I was in the process of moving back to XP but at that time noticed
that things were slower on XP. If things were the same, or as I
expected faster on XP, then I would be using that now. It was the
speed difference with Vista being faster that is keeping me on Vista
right now.
The corrupted "Add / Remove" problem is still a big concern though.
The two things I installed since the time that I last noticed the data
was OK, are 1) True Crypt, and 2) Zone Alarm Free.
So, I removed those two programs, will Google them, and if they are
not known to cause problems I will reinstall them. I will also use
Acronis True Image on a weekly basis so that I will have a good point
to restore to.
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 11:48:40 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:42:18 +1000, Star@*.* wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:04:49 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have full installs on different hard drives of Vista and XP on my
>>>640m laptop.
>>>
>>>Without a doubt, things run faster on Vista. Word 2007 is very fast
>>>on Vista -- it probably runs in about 2 seconds, while on XP it takes
>>>about 5 seconds to start up.
>>>
>>>It's great to be able to open programs and have them come up almost
>>>instantly.
>>>
>>>For anyone considering a laptop who wants that kind of performance, I
>>>suggest any Core 2 Duo that has 4M cache, and a 7200 rpm hard drive.
>>
>>So which is it yesterday you posted you were about ready to remove
>>Vista on the laptop because on corrupted data and a wireless card and
>>today Vista is the one.
>>
>>Art
>
>I was in the process of moving back to XP but at that time noticed
>that things were slower on XP. If things were the same, or as I
>expected faster on XP, then I would be using that now. It was the
>speed difference with Vista being faster that is keeping me on Vista
>right now.
>
>The corrupted "Add / Remove" problem is still a big concern though.
>The two things I installed since the time that I last noticed the data
>was OK, are 1) True Crypt, and 2) Zone Alarm Free.
>
>So, I removed those two programs, will Google them, and if they are
>not known to cause problems I will reinstall them. I will also use
>Acronis True Image on a weekly basis so that I will have a good point
>to restore to.
Journey, is the ZoneAlarm version that you removed suppose to be the
Vista version or an earlier version? I'm hoping it's not the Vista
version or else they really haven't got a Vista version based on your
problems IMO.
Also, I'm not familiar with True Crypt but just in case I do use it
when/if I use Vista, basically the same question as above? thanks.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 06:51:09 -0500, RnR <rnrtexas@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 11:48:40 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:42:18 +1000, Star@*.* wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:04:49 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have full installs on different hard drives of Vista and XP on my
>>>>640m laptop.
>>>>
>>>>Without a doubt, things run faster on Vista. Word 2007 is very fast
>>>>on Vista -- it probably runs in about 2 seconds, while on XP it takes
>>>>about 5 seconds to start up.
>>>>
>>>>It's great to be able to open programs and have them come up almost
>>>>instantly.
>>>>
>>>>For anyone considering a laptop who wants that kind of performance, I
>>>>suggest any Core 2 Duo that has 4M cache, and a 7200 rpm hard drive.
>>>
>>>So which is it yesterday you posted you were about ready to remove
>>>Vista on the laptop because on corrupted data and a wireless card and
>>>today Vista is the one.
>>>
>>>Art
>>
>>I was in the process of moving back to XP but at that time noticed
>>that things were slower on XP. If things were the same, or as I
>>expected faster on XP, then I would be using that now. It was the
>>speed difference with Vista being faster that is keeping me on Vista
>>right now.
>>
>>The corrupted "Add / Remove" problem is still a big concern though.
>>The two things I installed since the time that I last noticed the data
>>was OK, are 1) True Crypt, and 2) Zone Alarm Free.
>>
>>So, I removed those two programs, will Google them, and if they are
>>not known to cause problems I will reinstall them. I will also use
>>Acronis True Image on a weekly basis so that I will have a good point
>>to restore to.
>
>
>Journey, is the ZoneAlarm version that you removed suppose to be the
>Vista version or an earlier version? I'm hoping it's not the Vista
>version or else they really haven't got a Vista version based on your
>problems IMO.
>
>Also, I'm not familiar with True Crypt but just in case I do use it
>when/if I use Vista, basically the same question as above? thanks.
Hi RnR -- It was the Vista version of ZoneAlarm. TrueCrypt is a great
program (utility).
I don't know what corrupted my add/remove programs list. I doubt it
is Zone Alarm for Vista -- before reinstalling that I will Google to
see if others have had problems.
Same goes for TrueCrypt.
If I get any insights into what caused the problem, I will post again
under the thread that I brought it up in. Until then, I am going to
take regular Acronis images, something I should have been doing
anyway.
Vista faster than XP on my 640m 
Linear Mode
