Tom's Hardware regarding Vista

I thought this tidbit from "Tom's Hardware" was interesting enough to
post here regarding Vista:

=== quote ===

Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone.
First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our
32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for
more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the
better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and
because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP.

=== unquote ===

I bet some users will be disappointed if they read this. I was. My
interpretation is that MS wrote more code into Vista so more code has
to be crunched which takes longer but it looks nicer. Perhaps they
sacrificed the performance now knowing that quad chips will get it
back to XP performance later??

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:43:01 -0600, RnR wrote:

I thought this tidbit from "Tom's Hardware" was interesting enough to
post here regarding Vista:

=== quote ===

Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone.
First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our
32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for
more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the
better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and
because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP.

=== unquote ===

I bet some users will be disappointed if they read this. I was. My
interpretation is that MS wrote more code into Vista so more code has
to be crunched which takes longer but it looks nicer. Perhaps they
sacrificed the performance now knowing that quad chips will get it
back to XP performance later??

Microsoft has never produced a new OS that was faster than the pervious
version. If you consider Win 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, 2000, XP, Vista, each
version is slower than the last and only the increase in hardware
performance makes the OS seem faster.


--
Leythos
(remove 999 for proper email address)

RnR wrote in message ...
I thought this tidbit from "Tom's Hardware" was interesting enough to
post here regarding Vista:

=== quote ===

Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone.
First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our
32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for
more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the
better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and
because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP.

=== unquote ===

I bet some users will be disappointed if they read this. I was. My
interpretation is that MS wrote more code into Vista so more code has
to be crunched which takes longer but it looks nicer. Perhaps they
sacrificed the performance now knowing that quad chips will get it
back to XP performance later??

I never expected it to be faster. I'd be interested in their 64-bit tests,
though, as they would only be useful if they were testing with 64-bit
applications. Are there any ?

RnR wrote in message ...
I thought this tidbit from "Tom's Hardware" was interesting enough to
post here regarding Vista:

=== quote ===

Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone.
First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our
32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for
more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the
better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and
because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP.

=== unquote ===

I bet some users will be disappointed if they read this. I was. My
interpretation is that MS wrote more code into Vista so more code has
to be crunched which takes longer but it looks nicer. Perhaps they
sacrificed the performance now knowing that quad chips will get it
back to XP performance later??


There's another shocker. If you want it to run at comparable performance
levels to WinXP, then upgrade your hardware.

RC1 and RC2 were both horrid slothful beasts. I mean on an unimaginable
scale. The final RTM is tolerable, but for most pedestrian PC users the
answer will be to purchase new systems. Imagine that.

It's way too early to know how all of the new wonderful "features" will be
interpreted by end users, but to me the OS is devoid of any major "warm
fuzzies" that warrant any enthusiastic recommendations to upgrade right now.
It's just not all that. Nor the bag of chips.

Vista has some good things, some bad things but why would anyone move over
if/when they have WinXP right where they want it?

A lot of people will migrate only when forced to do so by some application
or device.

jmo

Stew

I'm puzzled as to why people seem so shocked that Visa doesn't run
faster than WXP. When has a newer OS *EVER* run as fast or faster on the
same hardware. It makes no sense that it would..... Also, I wonder about
the "tests" they did.... I'm not aware of many 64 bit programs...
Running a 32-bit program on a 64 bit OS isn't likely to make any
significant difference....

Regards,
Hank Arnold

S.Lewis wrote:
RnR wrote in message ...
I thought this tidbit from "Tom's Hardware" was interesting enough to
post here regarding Vista:

=== quote ===

Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone.
First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our
32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for
more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the
better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and
because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP.

=== unquote ===

I bet some users will be disappointed if they read this. I was. My
interpretation is that MS wrote more code into Vista so more code has
to be crunched which takes longer but it looks nicer. Perhaps they
sacrificed the performance now knowing that quad chips will get it
back to XP performance later??


There's another shocker. If you want it to run at comparable performance
levels to WinXP, then upgrade your hardware.

RC1 and RC2 were both horrid slothful beasts. I mean on an unimaginable
scale. The final RTM is tolerable, but for most pedestrian PC users the
answer will be to purchase new systems. Imagine that.

It's way too early to know how all of the new wonderful "features" will be
interpreted by end users, but to me the OS is devoid of any major "warm
fuzzies" that warrant any enthusiastic recommendations to upgrade right now.
It's just not all that. Nor the bag of chips.

Vista has some good things, some bad things but why would anyone move over
if/when they have WinXP right where they want it?

A lot of people will migrate only when forced to do so by some application
or device.

jmo

Stew

"Hank Arnold" wrote in message
...
I'm puzzled as to why people seem so shocked that Visa doesn't run faster
than WXP. When has a newer OS *EVER* run as fast or faster on the same
hardware. It makes no sense that it would..... Also, I wonder about the
"tests" they did.... I'm not aware of many 64 bit programs... Running a
32-bit program on a 64 bit OS isn't likely to make any significant
difference....

Regards,
Hank Arnold


Hank,

The only exception that comes to mind are the boot times of Win2K versus
WinXP. To me, Win2K seems to always take an eternity to reach desktop -
though it's fine once there.

I was surprised that (for me anyway) WinXP boots much faster.

Stew

On Feb 14, 7:20 am, "S.Lewis" wrote:
RnR wrote in messagenews:ev36t2lontamig6cackpnh8vve5ulccd9a@4ax .com...
I thought this tidbit from "Tom's Hardware" was interesting enough to
post here regarding Vista:

=== quote ===

Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone.
First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our
32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for
more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the
better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and
because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP.

=== unquote ===

I bet some users will be disappointed if they read this. I was. My
interpretation is that MS wrote more code into Vista so more code has
to be crunched which takes longer but it looks nicer. Perhaps they
sacrificed the performance now knowing that quad chips will get it
back to XP performance later??

There's another shocker. If you want it to run at comparable performance
levels to WinXP, then upgrade your hardware.

RC1 and RC2 were both horrid slothful beasts. I mean on an unimaginable
scale. The final RTM is tolerable, but for most pedestrian PC users the
answer will be to purchase new systems. Imagine that.

It's way too early to know how all of the new wonderful "features" will be
interpreted by end users, but to me the OS is devoid of any major "warm
fuzzies" that warrant any enthusiastic recommendations to upgrade right now.
It's just not all that. Nor the bag of chips.

Vista has some good things, some bad things but why would anyone move over
if/when they have WinXP right where they want it?

A lot of people will migrate only when forced to do so by some application
or device.

jmo

Stew

Rc1 and RC2 have all that debugging code to deal with. Debugging code
can really slow down a program. Once that's stripped out in the final
release, naturally you'd get a performance increase.

Further understand that Verizon On Line (VOL) does not work with Vista.

I will not buy a Dell Dimension if I cannot get XP. Looking into
Cyberpower.
Very configurable which Dell's are not.

"Nota Clu" wrote:
Further understand that Verizon On Line (VOL) does
not work with Vista.

I will not buy a Dell Dimension if I cannot get XP.
Looking into Cyberpower.
Very configurable which Dell's are not.


Have you guys noted the rise in RedHat and Novell stock
starting around December 21st? The slow ramp of Vista in
the enterprise market will leave a window for Linux to make
further inroads.

*TimDaniels*

Nota Clu wrote:

Further understand that Verizon On Line (VOL) does not work with Vista.

According to who? Because whoever said it dead wrong.

Bob