Subject: Newly built comp is laggy and begins to hangs

"Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote:

> You're talking out your ***, DaveW. I triple-boot WinXP, Vista
> and linux on the same system.

Speaking of blowing.

> Linux blows the doors off of both Microsoft Operating Systems.
> But XP is NOT faster than Vista.

I'm sure you realize that Linux "blowing the doors off of Microsoft
operating systems" has nothing to do with whether XP is faster than
Vista.

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
news:3CrVj.130$hJ5.111@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>
>> You're talking out your ***, DaveW. I triple-boot WinXP, Vista
>> and linux on the same system.
>
> Speaking of blowing.
>
>> Linux blows the doors off of both Microsoft Operating Systems.
>> But XP is NOT faster than Vista.
>
> I'm sure you realize that Linux "blowing the doors off of Microsoft
> operating systems" has nothing to do with whether XP is faster than
> Vista.

Of course. But if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP is
faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by claiming
that the hardware is identical. But then if they were dual-booting or
triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be stupid enough to post that they
believe XP is faster than Vista. It's simply not true. -Dave

"Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message
news:g05jlj$qhd$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3CrVj.130$hJ5.111@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>>
>>> You're talking out your ***, DaveW. I triple-boot WinXP, Vista
>>> and linux on the same system.
>>
>> Speaking of blowing.
>>
>>> Linux blows the doors off of both Microsoft Operating Systems.
>>> But XP is NOT faster than Vista.
>>
>> I'm sure you realize that Linux "blowing the doors off of Microsoft
>> operating systems" has nothing to do with whether XP is faster than
>> Vista.
>
> Of course. But if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP
> is faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by
> claiming that the hardware is identical. But then if they were
> dual-booting or triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be stupid enough
> to post that they believe XP is faster than Vista. It's simply not
> rue. -Dave

There are thousands of people who disagree with you.

Shadow36 wrote:
> "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message
> news:g05jlj$qhd$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:3CrVj.130$hJ5.111@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're talking out your ***, DaveW. I triple-boot WinXP, Vista
>>>> and linux on the same system.
>>>
>>> Speaking of blowing.
>>>
>>>> Linux blows the doors off of both Microsoft Operating Systems.
>>>> But XP is NOT faster than Vista.
>>>
>>> I'm sure you realize that Linux "blowing the doors off of Microsoft
>>> operating systems" has nothing to do with whether XP is faster than
>>> Vista.
>>
>> Of course. But if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim
>> that XP is faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back
>> it up by claiming that the hardware is identical. But then if they
>> were dual-booting or triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be
>> stupid enough to post that they believe XP is faster than Vista. It's
>> simply not rue. -Dave
>
> There are thousands of people who disagree with you.

And I'm another one. We've got a dual boot XP/Vista box, and especially in
gaming, XP is faster. The difference isn't so noticable in Office apps, and
TBH I'm not really bothered - the PC is always gonna be waaay faster than I
can type a document in Word, regardless of the O/S. And if an app opens a
couple of seconds faster in one O/S compared to another, who gives a ****?
--
SteveH

>>
>> Of course. But if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP
>> is faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by
>> claiming that the hardware is identical. But then if they were
>> dual-booting or triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be stupid enough
>> to post that they believe XP is faster than Vista. It's simply not
>> rue. -Dave
>
> There are thousands of people who disagree with you.

And that's exactly why newsgroups like this are so popular. There are
thousands of people who can **** up a simple OS install. If XP and Vista
are both properly installed and configured, Vista boots faster, and the two
operating systems run the same speed, you can't say that one is faster than
the other. But Vista does definitely boot faster. -Dave

Dave wrote:
>

But Vista does definitely boot faster.

This is one I've seen levelled at XP/Vista, ME/XP, 98/ME etc. over the
years.
And ususally the difference turns out to be a few seconds. Even of the
difference was say a minute or so, does it /really/ matter? As most people
seem to leave their PC's on all day (or even 24/7), even if the boot takes a
couple of minutes, it hardly seems relevant.
Personally, I'm more concerned with how well the PC performs when its up and
running than whether it takes 30secs or 2 mins to boot up.
--
SteveH

"Shadow36" <no@no.com> wrote:

> "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message

>> ... if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP is
>> faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by
>> claiming that the hardware is identical. But then if they were
>> dual-booting or triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be
>> stupid enough to post that they believe XP is faster than Vista.
>> It's simply not rue. -Dave
>
> There are thousands of people who disagree with you.

It certainly goes against experience. With every new version of
Windows comes a hugely greater number of files. Faster hardware is
needed to run a new version at the same speed. There's nothing
insightful about that, that is true for successive applications too.

A decent test would be to do a clean install of both operating
systems and then use Performance Monitor to look at CPU usage. If
Vista uses a higher percentage of the CPU, then it's probably slower
especially when the CPU is fully used.

I too vaguely recall the "boots faster" claim associated with new
versions of Windows. I also remember touting Windows Millennium for
being able to shut down errant programs, but that infatuation didn't
last very long. Fortunately, after lots of experience I can say with
certainty that Windows XP is able to cleanly shut down programs. I
think Windows XP was partly a product of the big antitrust trial, in
that era Microsoft was under lots of pressure to do good. But
Microsoft has been worry free since the year 2000 and Windows Vista
is a big question mark to me. It's not worth trying until XP is
broken.

On Sat, 10 May 2008 21:54:59 -0400, "Dave" <noway@nohow.not>
wrote:

>
>"John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote in message
>news:3CrVj.130$hJ5.111@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> "Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>>
>>> You're talking out your ***, DaveW. I triple-boot WinXP, Vista
>>> and linux on the same system.
>>
>> Speaking of blowing.
>>
>>> Linux blows the doors off of both Microsoft Operating Systems.
>>> But XP is NOT faster than Vista.
>>
>> I'm sure you realize that Linux "blowing the doors off of Microsoft
>> operating systems" has nothing to do with whether XP is faster than
>> Vista.
>
>Of course. But if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP is
>faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by claiming
>that the hardware is identical. But then if they were dual-booting or
>triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be stupid enough to post that they
>believe XP is faster than Vista. It's simply not true. -Dave


XP is faster than Vista, on same system, dual booted.
Perhaps you need to do a clean install to undo what you'd
malconfigured on XP because the entire world knows XP is
faster, it is a bit silly to wait till this late date to try
to reargue what the world has proven over and over.

On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:40:46 -0400, "Dave" <noway@nohow.not>
wrote:

>>>
>>> Of course. But if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP
>>> is faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by
>>> claiming that the hardware is identical. But then if they were
>>> dual-booting or triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be stupid enough
>>> to post that they believe XP is faster than Vista. It's simply not
>>> rue. -Dave
>>
>> There are thousands of people who disagree with you.
>
>And that's exactly why newsgroups like this are so popular. There are
>thousands of people who can **** up a simple OS install.

Which is obviously what you have done if you managed to make
XP slow enough that Vista seems equal, let alone faster.

>If XP and Vista
>are both properly installed and configured, Vista boots faster,

Which isn't running faster.


>and the two
>operating systems run the same speed,

False and completely illogical.
You might mean you can't tell the difference, meaning you
assume so.

>you can't say that one is faster than
>the other.

We can not only say it, it has clearly been proven.
Tell us this, are you not even aware of the basic
fundamental overhead involved with shuffling around hundreds
of MB more code? Did you get tricked by MS marketing fluff
about things like superfetch, not recalling XP has more
memory left to cache more?

If you like Vista, great... but it doesn't magically change
it into something it's not which is a more resource
intensive and slower OS on the same hardware.

By the same token Win9x is faster than XP, though most won't
want to use it for other reasons like less support for
modern hardware, capacities, and that annoying tendency it
had to crash the OS instead of being able to gracefully shut
down misbehaving apps.

On Sun, 11 May 2008 07:40:46 -0400, "Dave" <noway@nohow.not>
wrote:

>>>
>>> Of course. But if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP
>>> is faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by
>>> claiming that the hardware is identical. But then if they were
>>> dual-booting or triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be stupid enough
>>> to post that they believe XP is faster than Vista. It's simply not
>>> rue. -Dave
>>
>> There are thousands of people who disagree with you.
>
>And that's exactly why newsgroups like this are so popular. There are
>thousands of people who can **** up a simple OS install. If XP and Vista
>are both properly installed and configured, Vista boots faster, and the two
>operating systems run the same speed, you can't say that one is faster than
>the other. But Vista does definitely boot faster. -Dave

Also, it's not actually clear that Vista does boot faster
because having an appearance of the desktop isn't a sign
that booting is finished, Vista is still doing quite a lot
in the background meaning you don't actually have full use
of all system resources yet, and Vista then stays busier in
the background continually so some could even argue Vista
never really finishes booting because the things it keeps
doing areinbuilt functions that start each time it boots,
refilling memory because of it's design, things not
desirable to the user in all cases, just more overhead
involved in doing the same things people have done for
years.

I do hope you aren't comparing a system that has a now aged
XP installation on it, thinking /that/ somehow equates to a
far younger installation of Vista... since everyone knows
half the bootup time ends up resulting from things installed
after the clean OS installation.