MICHAEL said:
* Lang Murphy:
"Vista works as fast on most tasks here than XP, and is some cases
faster."
Lang,
Your statement above really says it all, and is my biggest complaint
about Vista. After more than 5 years, a supposed $6 billion spent, and
more powerful computers- we get an OS that performs "as fast on most
tasks than XP" and in "some cases faster". So, Vista's performance is
mostly about equal to that of XP, except there are times when it's not,
and then there are a few times when Vista might be faster. That basically
sums it all up.
-Michael
Well... Vista is new. XP's been around for 5 years. Given that fact, I think
Vista's performance can only improve as 3rd party drivers catch up and MS
tweaks Vista accordingly (one hopes, anyway...).
I understand what you're saying, believe me. I have two boxes here that I
won't upgrade to Vista because they require new hardware to do what I need
them to do under Vista. Yes, that frustrates me. Hmm... just like I was
frustrated when XP was released and my scanner wouldn't work with XP and I
had to buy a new scanner.
And I don't remember XP being all that much faster than W2K when XP was
initially released. I do remember that, as usual, MS's requirements for XP
were understated. (I can only assume that the engineers say something along
the lines of "well, the minimal amount of RAM should be X." and then Ballmer
or one of his stooges says, "No effin' way are we saying that's the minimum!
Halve it!" and so it goes...) Point being: Vista surely is not the first
version of Windows to have anemic minimal requirements claimed by MS.
At any rate... having gotten away from the original poster's complaint...
Vista 50% slower than XP? Maybe on file copies, although I hear that's one
of the fixes in SP1, but overall? Not here.
Lang