The lie?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Jay Smith
  • Start date Start date
I suspect that if your running Windows XP or 2000, you will find it much
faster than Vista (on the same PC).
Yes that is disappointing in most cases. Once you spend more $ (double the
cost) for a graphics card and double your memory to 2 Gigs, you will see the
OS running faster for sure. But will it ever be as fast as the previous
OS.... not sure. I don't think it is possible.

In my house, I have 3-computers that run XP-Pro and one computer that runs
W2K-Pro. All in the AMD 2400 to 2800 range. So they have a few years on
them. I use the W2K for most of my work. I'm a Programmer and do a few
Websites. I don't need the extra features that XP provides. W2K is fastest
for me.

Bottom line: I guess that is the PC World we live in. Sometime next year I
will put together a new PC that is double my current speed, double the
memory, much faster graphics card, Vista OS. After all that, I may not
notice change in speed but my computer will have much more to offer me.
 
In my experience, Vista is far more efficient now than the earlier Betas.
So I suppose you are calling me a liar since I said Vista would be more
efficient now than it was earlier.
But it is, so I am not a liar.
What does that make you?
You need to read up on the meaning of "liar" before you go off ranting about
lies.

It was no "excuse" as you seem to like, but it was a reasonable expectation
based on past history, and the expectation has been met and may continue to
improve.
You need to read up on the meaning of "liar" before you go off ranting about
lies.

But then your own post is inconsistent.
You start off "People in here claimed...", that was probably a few or more
months ago where a lot has changed.
Now you say "I say that they are stupid, and that vista will have almost the
same speed as it has now, and the bloat wont go away"
Convenient of you to switch to the present where most is already done and
little improvement may be noticed.
As for you calling people "stupid", name calling is a tool used by those
insecure in their views.
They feel the need to prop up their position with irrelevant name calling in
the mistaken belief it strengthens their position.
In fact the opposite is true.
If you need prop up your position in that way, get someone else to post your
views.
There are many and they can do it without using irrelevant props.
 
at last! someone that understands what im talking about
I agree with you completely
 
As for you calling people "stupid", name calling is a tool used by those
insecure in their views.


no, im not even referring to iq

intelligent people can be deliberately be blind, and therefore stupid.

you are deliberately blind, you eat whatever MS throws at you.
 
RC2 is not really a Real Mile Stone Build at all, it is actually an EDW
Interim Build from the RTM Development Tree (type in WINVER at the Run
Command and you will see exactly what I mean).
 
John said:
I dont accept that excuse.. it does more therefore its entitled to 12
gb of disk space to install....lol
Click to expand...

Ok, so you've used a straw-man arguement to belittle my first point. You
also manage to ignore where I actually said that I agreed to some extent
with you, as I felt that things were a little excessive, just not quite as
much as you seem to feel.

Bravo sir, bravo. I notice you have not even attempted an answer for my
other points.
So its a matter of DESIGN... and bloat is not about hard disk space.. who
cares really about that...
but bloat means more ram and more resources to load it up....
Click to expand...

You may find the following article interesting.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html

I'll make it simple for you. Search the text of that article for the string
"Linus Åkerlund" and start reading from that point.

As for the rest of it, until you can debate reasonably, there seems little
point in debating with you at all.
 
My startup times in Vista have been cut in half between Beta 2 and RC2.
Beta 2 took 2 minutes to boot, and RC2 took 57 seconds to boot completely
up. XP takes around the same to start with *fewer* programs than my Vista
partition has. By the way, what happened to Moore's Law? ; )
 
Robert there is nothing to debate... vista is a hog.....

however new technology is coming. Intel has put a goal to make 80 core CPUs
in 5 years

I guess that with 4 cores that is scheduled in 2007 vista will work ok....

Someone posted that vista has more things... So I started looking, trying to
find where are the more things?
Found very little indeed... not enough to explain the huge inflation of this
OS...

Not to say to compare a LINUX distro... there you install thousands of
applications that come with the distro and still you cant reach the bulk of
vista!

You need talent to bloat so bad... and MS is a master of bloating! lol
 
You just proved my point.
When you lack, you attempt to make up for your shortcomings with insults.

Clearly you are incapable of addressing the issue without attacking those
who disagree with you.
 
as well as or better than XP Pro

You lie!!!! And you are not good at it either!

whats next? Pink elephants flying in a paper airplane you built?

See? you are the type of people for whom I posted this horrible post that
created this horrible thread in the first place!
 
forget about starting...

what about doing things? lol

Have you really tested it carefully? I have 3 machines here and have been
testing vista since day one
and yes I have RC2 now....

If you have ONE dual core machine with 4 gb of ram you wont see the lag...

but not everyone has such machines...

On a pentium4 1.8 Ghz with one gig of ram its slow.... too slow for comfort,
while with XP its speedy.
On my second test machine that is 2.6 Ghz with 512 ram its a bit better but
crashes into a wall when you need to do more memory intensive things.....

on a third machine....

must I go on?

If you really want to see how slow the os is ... make 2 VM clients, one is
XP and one is vista.. and compare!!! lol

Yes I have done that too...
 
Have you perhaps evvvveeerrrr thought that public betas may play another
role accept for the apparent
bug fix reason? Perhaps, just perhaps to get the tech people used to vista
before it explodes on their head like
an atomic weapon? See its working.. first you get a horrible vista then you
get a little better vista and you are soooo happy with it. Its crap man, its
bloat king.... its slow, problematic, irritating, stupid and BLACK, ugly,
unfriendly.

This is what microsoft has promised us? You got to be kidding....

You think that I am insulting you because Im telling you that you are smart
but blind on purpose?
If its not on purpose perhaps its by mistake then! Sorry that I have to
break it to you ....
but its better to be blunt even though you wont like me for it!
 
There are lots of reasons for most Betas.
What you assume about what I or others think is your limitation since your
assumption limits your view.

Good bye John.
Clearly you are incapable of staying on the issue.
Post back in this thread only if you need to feed your ego.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org
 
John Jay Smith said:
You lie!!!! And you are not good at it either!

whats next? Pink elephants flying in a paper airplane you built?

See? you are the type of people for whom I posted this horrible post that
created this horrible thread in the first place!
Click to expand...
Go away little troll. All you can do is shout "liar" when somebody disagrees
with you?
Grow up and get a life.
 
John said:
Robert there is nothing to debate... vista is a hog.....

however new technology is coming. Intel has put a goal to make 80
core CPUs in 5 years

I guess that with 4 cores that is scheduled in 2007 vista will work
ok....
Someone posted that vista has more things... So I started looking,
trying to find where are the more things?
Found very little indeed... not enough to explain the huge inflation
of this OS...
Click to expand...

It is amazing how people can look without seeing.

You don't think that enabling VSS for local files, virtualisation of
software installs and tricks like that can be done without using a lot of
disk space?

Things like Sync Centre moving into the OS to replace seperate downloads?

As I said earlier, I too think that the current footprint for the OS is a
little excessive, but certainly some increase is to be expected. I also
think its a shame you don't want to work out the ratio of space used to
space available for this OS and compare it to older OSes, as I think that
would be the most useful way of illustrating whether or not the system was
'bloated'.

Until you come up with some empirical evidence to support your position,
throwing "bloat" around is just a lot of noise that signifies nothing.
 
chriske911 said:
Vlad (DarkTrooper) expressed precisely :
try writing in simple english because I have no clue what you mean
Click to expand...
Ok, if you not very bright, i will:

I have AMD64 3000+, 2 Gb Ram, and 300Gb Hdd. (That simply enough?)
My video is old, and I replace it very soon. I have R9800 pro. I'v try
FarCry, WoW, Company of Heroes, FEAR, Settlers 2, CS source, and more on XP
and Vista simultaneously. Performance in this games - like in Vista, like in
XP - equal! Funny, but old "Idiana Jones, and the Infernal Mashine" dont
start on XP, but started on Vista.

People, who try to install Vista on old computers, with less then 1 Gb Ram -
make me laught! People, who play in modern games on computers less than 1 Gb
Ram - make me laugh. If you live in 2006, try to use games and OS 2006, why
didnt buy yourself a computer 2006 year? If you still living in 1998, why
dont use Windows 3.11 and DOS games? In year 2007, you must have 2 Gb RAM,
R1900 or Gf7800 to play games. On this computers, Vista shows equal
performance with XP or better.

P.S. I'v long works with Suse Linux 9. People, who try to tell, that Vista
is laggy - also make me laugh.
 
John Jay Smith said:
are you comparing a clean install of vista with a few programs on with
a XP installation with many programs, codecs, startup thingies that youhave
been using for a year???
Click to expand...

Windows Vista comes with a lot of programs and I have also installed the
same programs used in XP. And on my 5 years old PC Windows Vista runs faster
than XP.
 
John Jay Smith said:
On a pentium4 1.8 Ghz with one gig of ram its slow.... too slow for comfort,
while with XP its speedy.
Click to expand...

you lie!!!! because I have a pentium4 1.7Ghz 768MB of RAM and Vista RC1/RC2
runs faster than XP
 
It happens that Vlad (DarkTrooper) formulated :
Ok, if you not very bright, i will:
Click to expand...
I have AMD64 3000+, 2 Gb Ram, and 300Gb Hdd. (That simply enough?)
My video is old, and I replace it very soon. I have R9800 pro. I'v try
FarCry, WoW, Company of Heroes, FEAR, Settlers 2, CS source, and more on XP
and Vista simultaneously. Performance in this games - like in Vista, like in
XP - equal! Funny, but old "Idiana Jones, and the Infernal Mashine" dont
start on XP, but started on Vista.
Click to expand...
People, who try to install Vista on old computers, with less then 1 Gb Ram -
make me laught! People, who play in modern games on computers less than 1 Gb
Ram - make me laugh. If you live in 2006, try to use games and OS 2006, why
didnt buy yourself a computer 2006 year? If you still living in 1998, why
dont use Windows 3.11 and DOS games? In year 2007, you must have 2 Gb RAM,
R1900 or Gf7800 to play games. On this computers, Vista shows equal
performance with XP or better.
Click to expand...
P.S. I'v long works with Suse Linux 9. People, who try to tell, that Vista is
laggy - also make me laugh.
Click to expand...

hey, now was that so hard?
try adding a <sarcastic> header before you try to be so using extremely
poor english to express yourself

I am indeed using hardware that is 2 years old
and guess what, I am able to play all those games without too many
problems, and run Vista with no issues at all
likely because it has all the drivers onboard for this ancient hardware

fact is that there is a big diff between the gameplay on the same
machine using xp or vista, not just for pure FPS but also for how it is
presented
I am currently trying out the new ati drivers for vista

I'll be back

grtz
 
well if you fall asleep while waiting for vista, time passes faster that's
why it seems faster to you.

Sorry to tell you this, but you are wrong. If you have proof, please provide
it and I will provide my proof,
that will be very scientific measurements all aspects of the os.

Perhaps I must do this anyway.. because people in here have to see to
believe..
 
Back
Top