Jon, I followed your post "Speeding up Vista" line-by-line and made the
modifications you suggested after running a fresh WEI. True, the changes did
not leave Vista looking pretty, it confirmed there was no reason to switch
from XP. Take out the Security Center, Defender, Update, Aero, Readyboost
plus the slick graphics and Vista is nothing!
If you just want to do the same things in the same way but faster,
then I'd agree with you. Vista's not a speed upgrade for XP.
For me, the slick graphics are the least compelling reason to go for
Vista, and there are things beyond those you mentioned, but the main
reason I'd use it is as a solid base for tomorrow's expanding hardware
and add-ons. So I'd not upgrade XP, but I'd want it on a new PC.
Your system is maxed enough for Vista to swim, and beyond the point
that XP would see much improvement with more - so I see your results
as reflecting a genuine best-case performance defecit. The only
factor that could tilt the table here, would be sucky drivers.
I clicked on a JPG file and it took 20 seconds for Microsoft Office Picture
Manager (Vista version) to load up before the photo showed up on the screen.
I moved over to my older XP machine and did the same thing using the same
program (XP version) and Picture Manager was loaded and running in a
fraction of a second.
Try Irfan View; it will prolly be way faster than both.
I did this and several other performance comparrisons,
all with similar results.
As a devout Microsoft fan, user and stockholder, I am very disappointed to
say (from my experience) Vista gets two thumbs down.
Speed is prolly the least important issue, in that it's the one issue
which will automatically improve from blind hardware progress.
The lesson has been: Do it RIGHT, even if it's slower. Think:
- Y2k
- innumerable HD capacity barriers
- RAM barriers
- timing ASSumptions invalidated by fast and different CPUs
- endless exploits due to poor or absent sanity-checking
When you take code that is "efficient" because it uses tiny bitfields
for addresses and performs no sanity-checks on inputs, and then add
kludges and protective layers to patch it up, you end up with
something that is not only slow, but flaky and a bitch to maintain.
OTOH, you may have new Vista drivers that are hopefully stable, but
which may not yet operate your hardware in the most efficient mode,
and they may still have debugging code and sanity-traps in place from
the development process. That, too, will improve with time.
I have no doubt Microsoft will eventually get this thing right
Maybe not. What's more likely to happen is that hardware will improve
to the point that the same-priced box in 2009 will be "fast enough".
What I hope is that with a more solid code base, we will have less
layers of paint and mascara barrier code added by that date.
In the meantime, XP works well and for a few bucks extra, one
can buy most of the same add-on utilities and features as are in Vista.
Sure, and that's what I'd do on an existing XP PC.
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
