No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to have
Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.
Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb
HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP
installed on both.
The difference in performance is just amazing.
Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins 5
secs on Ave
XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =
50secs on ave
Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins
Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.
Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4 times
longer than on XP.
How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose their
thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much faster
previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.
cliff wrote:
> No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to
> have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.
>
> Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb
> HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP
> installed on both.
>
> The difference in performance is just amazing.
>
> Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins
> 5 secs on Ave
> XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =
> 50secs on ave
> Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins
> Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.
>
> Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4
> times longer than on XP.
>
> How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose
> their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much
> faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.
I'm no expert, but I was given to understand that Office XP does not run
on Vista.
Avraham
Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)
"cliff" <broadcemhlm@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:C6BFF0FD-E455-428D-A20A-90D79421983C@microsoft.com...
> No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to
> have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.
>
> Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb
> HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP
> installed on both.
>
> The difference in performance is just amazing.
>
> Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins 5
> secs on Ave
> XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =
> 50secs on ave
> Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins
> Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.
>
> Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4 times
> longer than on XP.
>
> How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose
> their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much
> faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.
* Avraham:
> cliff wrote:
>> No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to
>> have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.
>>
>> Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb
>> HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP
>> installed on both.
>>
>> The difference in performance is just amazing.
>>
>> Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins
>> 5 secs on Ave
>> XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =
>> 50secs on ave
>> Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins
>> Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.
>>
>> Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4
>> times longer than on XP.
>>
>> How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose
>> their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much
>> faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.
>
> I'm no expert, but I was given to understand that Office XP does not run
> on Vista.
> Avraham
OfficeXP works fine on Vista, for the most part.
Outlook 2002 doesn't remember email server passwords.
There may be another quirk or two, but most everything
in OfficeXP works well on Vista.
Microsoft mainstream support for Office XP ended July 11, 2006.
Vista has three advantages over XP: it boots faster and both Solitaire and
Hearts are the best versions ever in a Microsoft OS.
Apart from that Vista is slow, incompatible with many programs, useless for
gaming and high end graphics, unstable for internet steraming media and has
no security advantages over Win XP.
If you need to network Vista with XP computers be prepared for inexplicable
incompatibilities and unstable connections.
When will Microsoft and its henchman who reply to some of these posts get
it?
Vista is just bad and needs a total rewrite.
Microsoft should show character and withdraw Vista from the market until
they can make it usable.
Unfortunately Microsoft can force feed Vista via new computer sales to
individual buyers. Governments and businesses, whose IT pros know better,
are not switching to Vista.
Richard Urban should devote his time to improving this kludge turkey of an
OS and less time replying to this newsgroup.
Desperately poor video drivers do not help gaming or streaming video..
While network performance is not stunning either, instability is not a
universal problem..
Incompatibility with some programs is not a new issue on the release of a
new OS.. we have all seen it before..
Many can and have a reasonable Vista system running, and it will get better
still..
"babaloo" <fac187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yXOii.3264$rL1.1905@newssvr19.news.prodigy.ne t...
> Vista has three advantages over XP: it boots faster and both Solitaire and
> Hearts are the best versions ever in a Microsoft OS.
> Apart from that Vista is slow, incompatible with many programs, useless
> for gaming and high end graphics, unstable for internet steraming media
> and has no security advantages over Win XP.
> If you need to network Vista with XP computers be prepared for
> inexplicable incompatibilities and unstable connections.
> When will Microsoft and its henchman who reply to some of these posts get
> it?
> Vista is just bad and needs a total rewrite.
> Microsoft should show character and withdraw Vista from the market until
> they can make it usable.
> Unfortunately Microsoft can force feed Vista via new computer sales to
> individual buyers. Governments and businesses, whose IT pros know better,
> are not switching to Vista.
> Richard Urban should devote his time to improving this kludge turkey of an
> OS and less time replying to this newsgroup.
>
Is this a honest question ? with the intention to help ?
Or is it a nasty teaser, a challenge ?
Be more specific when you ask this kind of things to CUSTOMERS please.
"Richard Urban" wrote:
> And your time to a usable desktop is?
>
> --
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard Urban
> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>
>
>
> "cliff" <broadcemhlm@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:C6BFF0FD-E455-428D-A20A-90D79421983C@microsoft.com...
> > No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to
> > have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.
> >
> > Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram, 80gb
> > HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP
> > installed on both.
> >
> > The difference in performance is just amazing.
> >
> > Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page = 3mins 5
> > secs on Ave
> > XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =
> > 50secs on ave
> > Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins
> > Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.
> >
> > Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4 times
> > longer than on XP.
> >
> > How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose
> > their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much
> > faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.
>
>
Many report better performance with Windows Vista and others report
worse with identical hardware and software.
Differences in specific hardware and software apparently favor one OS
for another.
"How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me"
The same applies to previous versions.
Generally a newer OS requires more power than the previous and as in
the past, the older OS will perform faster than the new on identical
hardware.
this is nothing new.
Go back to any previous OS and do a similar comparison, Windows 98
will similarly perform faster on hardware designed for Windows XP.
Some use that as a reason for stating with Windows 98.
While your experiment is valid, it ignores the new features in Windows
Vista.
As drivers and software mature, performance will continue to improve
as it did with previous operating systems.
Try this.
You already have a state of the art laptop for Windows Vista.
Now get one that was new at about the release of Windows XP.
Perform the same experiment except this time install Windows Vista on
both.
Which performs better?
That is largely a nature of technology, at it progresses, more is
needed similar as you home probably requires more of just about
everything than your grandparents home.
A modern car requires more power than a car available 50 years ago.
The list goes on and computer technology is no different.
"cliff" <broadcemhlm@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:C6BFF0FD-E455-428D-A20A-90D79421983C@microsoft.com...
> No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one
> to have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.
>
> Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram,
> 80gb HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS
> Office XP installed on both.
>
> The difference in performance is just amazing.
>
> Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =
> 3mins 5 secs on Ave
> XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home
> page = 50secs on ave
> Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins
> Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.
>
> Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4
> times longer than on XP.
>
> How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but
> suppose their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget
> how much faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.
"babaloo" <fac187@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yXOii.3264$rL1.1905@newssvr19.news.prodigy.ne t...
> Vista has three advantages over XP: it boots faster and both Solitaire and
> Hearts are the best versions ever in a Microsoft OS.
> Apart from that Vista is slow, incompatible with many programs, useless
> for gaming and high end graphics, unstable for internet steraming media
> and has no security advantages over Win XP.
> If you need to network Vista with XP computers be prepared for
> inexplicable incompatibilities and unstable connections.
> When will Microsoft and its henchman who reply to some of these posts get
> it?
> Vista is just bad and needs a total rewrite.
> Microsoft should show character and withdraw Vista from the market until
> they can make it usable.
> Unfortunately Microsoft can force feed Vista via new computer sales to
> individual buyers. Governments and businesses, whose IT pros know better,
> are not switching to Vista.
> Richard Urban should devote his time to improving this kludge turkey of an
> OS and less time replying to this newsgroup.
Upgrading to Vista seems to be a fairly general problem. Probably due to
early generation hardware and software. I built a new system and I love it.
The only software incompatibilities was an old 'Paperport' and Nero 6.
Other old software problems only occured with UAC on, such as backing up
Quicken 2002 and my old Canon download software. Turning off UAC solved
those problems.
Your solution of a total rewrite is unreal. I can understand why businesses
would not upgrade to Vista. Why fix something that is not broken and expose
yourself to incompatibilities . But Vista in a new system with proper
components is the only way to go.
I am asking for a specific reason. If you must know Internet Explorer in
Vista has protected mode on by default. Windows XP does not even offer
protected mode for IE. Therefore, IE in Vista takes longer to bring up
certain web pages.
HAPPY!
--
Regards,
Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)
"MS-Adict" <MSAdict@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:59819C17-7A48-4EC2-B217-40932D61F8E3@microsoft.com...
> Is this a honest question ? with the intention to help ?
> Or is it a nasty teaser, a challenge ?
> Be more specific when you ask this kind of things to CUSTOMERS please.
>
>
> "Richard Urban" wrote:
>
>> And your time to a usable desktop is?
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Richard Urban
>> Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
>> (For email, remove the obvious from my address)
>>
>>
>>
>> "cliff" <broadcemhlm@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:C6BFF0FD-E455-428D-A20A-90D79421983C@microsoft.com...
>> > No contest here, I have just bought 2 Laptops from Dell, I chose one to
>> > have Vista Home Premium, and the Other to have Windows XP Home.
>> >
>> > Both Laptops are identical in terms of hardware, Duo CPU, 2meg Ram,
>> > 80gb
>> > HDD. All junk software on the Laptops was removed, and MS Office XP
>> > installed on both.
>> >
>> > The difference in performance is just amazing.
>> >
>> > Examples: Vista Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =
>> > 3mins 5
>> > secs on Ave
>> > XP Laptop from cold start to accessing IE Home page =
>> > 50secs on ave
>> > Installing MS office on Vista Laptop = 8 mins
>> > Installing MS Office on XP = 4min 15 sec.
>> >
>> > Starting any programme on Vista takes on ave 3-4
>> > times
>> > longer than on XP.
>> >
>> > How MS can distribute this Operating System is beyond me, but suppose
>> > their thinking is that if you use it long enough you forget how much
>> > faster previous versions of Windows are, and live with it.
>>
>>
Vists versus XP 
Linear Mode
