Vista matches XP performance since SP1

I posted this article in Hardware. Probably more useful here.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830,00.asp

I know there are a lot of people doubting Vista's capabilities for gaming, but you need worry no longer.

My, Vista must be trying to impress their consumers with SP1 since, quite number of people had switched back from Vista to XP. Speaking of which, I wonder how the general population get their hands on Vista with sloppy systems that can't match the latest games? Hmm, maybe torrents, as we all love it. Fascinating program isn't it? With that at hand, Bill Gates must be bankrupt.

It's good to hear that microsoft actually fixed some of those issues. purple_MAN1832

The video drivers is what determines how games perform.

Since it's release, I've not heard great praise for Vista. Rather, I've come across numerous articles and comments online regarding Vista's superfluous features compared to the proven usability of XP, notably with SP2 & SP3. And I read somewhere that the Vista OS represents the first Windows OS that has no real innovative features compared to the competitiion, i.e., Linux. I'm running XP pro with SP2 currently (with an eye to download SP3 in the near future), and I feel no urgency to bother going through the hassle of 'upgrading' to Vista.

Yea there's little which particularly makes it worthwhile completely switching.

However, for people purchasing new gaming PCs, it makes Vista a much more attractive option.

Yeah, Vista SP1 is great!!!! So great its driving people ot Macs in droves. Thanks Bill but no thanks. And for those MSoft lovers who're gonna start whining.

1. Yes I own and have used Vista Ultimate.

2 I installed it on my home machine, tried using it for a month.

3. At the time I tried it the lack of driver support was such that I could barely get on the internet much less do anything else with my puter.

4. I uninstalled it, wiped the HD and went back to XP Pro.

Wake me when Windows 7 arrives IF it's NOT simply a rehash of Vista.

Da Worfster

[QUOTE="purple_MAN1832"]It's good to hear that microsoft actually fixed some of those issues. Deihmos

The video drivers is what determines how games perform.

The preformances are determined mostly by the card but not only.

[QUOTE="purple_MAN1832"]It's good to hear that microsoft actually fixed some of those issues. Deihmos

The video drivers is what determines how games perform.

Indeed, Microsoft should sue Nvidia for all the bad publicity its crappy drivers have caused.

My problem is the fact that MS told fairy-tales about "6-8 times performance gain in DX10 games and insanely better graphics as a result" vs DX9.

So far I have not seen any significant differencies in gfx or performance between the two. Now, a little over a year since Vista's launch is not a long time when it comes to gamedevelopment, so I'm still an optimist. Maybe we'll see some change when games are made with DX10 in mind, but until I see some real improvements, I'm not upgrading.

By that time Windows 7 will be around the corner, so I guess I'm gonna have XP installed until then.

[QUOTE="Deihmos"]

[QUOTE="purple_MAN1832"]It's good to hear that microsoft actually fixed some of those issues. Gooeykat

The video drivers is what determines how games perform.

Indeed, Microsoft should sue Nvidia for all the bad publicity its crappy drivers have caused.

Nvidia was responsible for nearly 30% of the logged crashes in 2007 and ATI was 9%. Those tests were done with an ATI video card.

My problem is the fact that MS told fairy-tales about "6-8 times performance gain in DX10 games and insanely better graphics as a result" vs DX9.

So far I have not seen any significant differencies in gfx or performance between the two. Now, a little over a year since Vista's launch is not a long time when it comes to gamedevelopment, so I'm still an optimist. Maybe we'll see some change when games are made with DX10 in mind, but until I see some real improvements, I'm not upgrading.

By that time Windows 7 will be around the corner, so I guess I'm gonna have XP installed until then.

artur79

Where did you read this? Everything I read said DX10 is used for more effects with little stress on the video card. How can it perform better than DX9 with less effects.

[QUOTE="artur79"]

My problem is the fact that MS told fairy-tales about "6-8 times performance gain in DX10 games and insanely better graphics as a result" vs DX9.

So far I have not seen any significant differencies in gfx or performance between the two. Now, a little over a year since Vista's launch is not a long time when it comes to gamedevelopment, so I'm still an optimist. Maybe we'll see some change when games are made with DX10 in mind, but until I see some real improvements, I'm not upgrading.

By that time Windows 7 will be around the corner, so I guess I'm gonna have XP installed until then.

Deihmos

Where did you read this? Everything I read said DX10 is used for more effects with little stress on the video card.

Back in 2006 in an interview with one of the Epic dudes. He did not think that the performance jump would ever be that high. He was right.

I also read that DX10 would be able to render more effects and eye-candy with less stress on the CPU.

Yeah, Vista SP1 is great!!!! So great its driving people ot Macs in droves. Thanks Bill but no thanks. And for those MSoft lovers who're gonna start whining.

1. Yes I own and have used Vista Ultimate.

2 I installed it on my home machine, tried using it for a month.

3. At the time I tried it the lack of driver support was such that I could barely get on the internet much less do anything else with my puter.

4. I uninstalled it, wiped the HD and went back to XP Pro.

Wake me when Windows 7 arrives IF it's NOT simply a rehash of Vista.

Da Worfster

Worf101

okeedokee!

I really don't care. XP serves me well and I hear there are still some performance hitches for several games. I myself will be waiting for Windows 7 and hopefully there will be a DX10 hack released for either XP or Linux in the near future for games like Clear Sky. I shouldn't have to upgrade to a new OS for a new version of DirectX when it could easily be integrated into the current one.foxhound_fox

yea!!!what HE said...

My, Vista must be trying to impress their consumers with SP1 since, quite number of people had switched back from Vista to XP. Speaking of which, I wonder how the general population get their hands on Vista with sloppy systems that can't match the latest games? Hmm, maybe torrents, as we all love it. Fascinating program isn't it? With that at hand, Bill Gates must be bankrupt.

LGRSTPF

I'm sticking with Vista becaue it works well (in my hands) and it was the only OS offered on my NEW machine. Makes sense to stick with XP if you have an older system or even a newer one that is sub-par for using Vista. I remember when XP came out, people called it Windows Xperience Problems...Now I see a lot of people worship it. Oh well, to each his own, and whatever floats your boat. I love gaming but I don't really give a rat's @$$ about a 10% difference.

Where did you read this? Everything I read said DX10 is used for more effects with little stress on the video card. How can it perform better than DX9 with less effects.

Deihmos

Because, as they were always saying before its release, DX10 was supposed to render more efficiently, so it could either render more things than DX9 for the same performance, or fewer things for better performance.

[QUOTE="purple_MAN1832"]It's good to hear that microsoft actually fixed some of those issues. Deihmos

The video drivers is what determines how games perform.

Not entirely...

why would someone "upgrade" to Vista for gaming only to have it only match the perfomance of XP? where's the incentive?Qixote

Absolutely correct. Why would anyone use Vista if they're barely able to match XP? Wasn't Vista supposed to be way better? Why are you so happy that Vista finally matched XP? So, you spent a lot of money for something that is barely at par with what you already had, and you call it an "Upgrade"?:P

[QUOTE="Qixote"]why would someone "upgrade" to Vista for gaming only to have it only match the perfomance of XP? where's the incentive?Kuyt19

Absolutely correct. Why would anyone use Vista if they're barely able to match XP? Wasn't Vista supposed to be way better? Why are you so happy that Vista finally matched XP? So, you spent a lot of money for something that is barely at par with what you already had, and you call it an "Upgrade"?:P

You can't expect a brand new piece of software to perform BETTER than a 7 year old piece of software. Try putting XP on a typical PC from 7 years ago and so how it performs. Also, XP was nothing more than a superflous upgrade to windows 2000 that gave us the wonderfull windows activation. Now XP is God. lol

Well, just my 2 pennies, but I've had Vista for nearly a year now and while I can't say I've run into any real problems, it certainly hasn't helped me any. When I was on XP, I could run my machine with the OS sucking at most 300mb of RAM. Vista, on the other hand, hordes almost a gig. Now, yes, I'm going to be buying Vista x64 (and I have 4 gigs of ram in the wings, waiting), but the fact is I shouldn't have to do that just to feed my operating system :(. I don't mind doing it if it's for something neccessary, but it's not! It's for DRM (I thought the RIAA has proved rather conclusively that DRM is just = FAIL) and eye candy, neither of which I want or need. DRM = FAIL like I said, and eye candy I won't see because I'll be playing Bioshock fullscreen.

Well, at least I won't say Vista is horrible, and you CAN turn off the eye candy if you absolutely must. But it also isn't a must-upgrade either. If your computer has XP it's probably best to stick with it, which I think is the point a lot of people are making. See, Microsoft wants you to spend $100+ on Vista, even if you have XP already. I'm just saying, not so much.

Well, just my 2 pennies, but I've had Vista for nearly a year now and while I can't say I've run into any real problems, it certainly hasn't helped me any. When I was on XP, I could run my machine with the OS sucking at most 300mb of RAM. Vista, on the other hand, hordes almost a gig. Now, yes, I'm going to be buying Vista x64 (and I have 4 gigs of ram in the wings, waiting), but the fact is I shouldn't have to do that just to feed my operating system :(. I don't mind doing it if it's for something neccessary, but it's not! It's for DRM (I thought the RIAA has proved rather conclusively that DRM is just = FAIL) and eye candy, neither of which I want or need. DRM = FAIL like I said, and eye candy I won't see because I'll be playing Bioshock fullscreen.

Well, at least I won't say Vista is horrible, and you CAN turn off the eye candy if you absolutely must. But it also isn't a must-upgrade either. If your computer has XP it's probably best to stick with it, which I think is the point a lot of people are making. See, Microsoft wants you to spend $100+ on Vista, even if you have XP already. I'm just saying, not so much.

Opalescent

[QUOTE="Kuyt19"]

[QUOTE="Qixote"]why would someone "upgrade" to Vista for gaming only to have it only match the perfomance of XP? where's the incentive?Captain__Tripps

Absolutely correct. Why would anyone use Vista if they're barely able to match XP? Wasn't Vista supposed to be way better? Why are you so happy that Vista finally matched XP? So, you spent a lot of money for something that is barely at par with what you already had, and you call it an "Upgrade"?:P

You can't expect a brand new piece of software to perform BETTER than a 7 year old piece of software. Try putting XP on a typical PC from 7 years ago and so how it performs. Also, XP was nothing more than a superflous upgrade to windows 2000 that gave us the wonderfull windows activation. Now XP is God. lol

Why shouldn't we expect a brand new software to be better than a 7 year old one? Isn't that the whole point of upgrading? XP has been around for 7 years now and Vista is only about a year or so and we're already getting another "upgrade" next year. What does that say?:P I swear, sometimes i think people use Vista because it's "the new thing" and it looks "cooler than XP". Bleh.

[QUOTE="Captain__Tripps"][QUOTE="Kuyt19"]

[QUOTE="Qixote"]why would someone "upgrade" to Vista for gaming only to have it only match the perfomance of XP? where's the incentive?Kuyt19

Absolutely correct. Why would anyone use Vista if they're barely able to match XP? Wasn't Vista supposed to be way better? Why are you so happy that Vista finally matched XP? So, you spent a lot of money for something that is barely at par with what you already had, and you call it an "Upgrade"?:P

You can't expect a brand new piece of software to perform BETTER than a 7 year old piece of software. Try putting XP on a typical PC from 7 years ago and so how it performs. Also, XP was nothing more than a superflous upgrade to windows 2000 that gave us the wonderfull windows activation. Now XP is God. lol

Why shouldn't we expect a brand new software to be better than a 7 year old one? Isn't that the whole point of upgrading? XP has been around for 7 years now and Vista is only about a year or so and we're already getting another "upgrade" next year. What does that say?:P I swear, sometimes i think people use Vista because it's "the new thing" and it looks "cooler than XP". Bleh.

:| The main reason you can expect it to run better on older computers it's because it's made on new hardware and it has higher requirements, duh, think about win 95 :| XP uses a lot more than 95. I swear, sometimes people say Vista sucks because they know absolutely **** about what/how it does and what Vista really is. (like the dumb statement that Vista is nothing new, it is 90% new compared to Xp. Making something run and perform better doesn't mean it's nothing new);).

[QUOTE="Captain__Tripps"][QUOTE="Kuyt19"]

[QUOTE="Qixote"]why would someone "upgrade" to Vista for gaming only to have it only match the perfomance of XP? where's the incentive?Kuyt19

Absolutely correct. Why would anyone use Vista if they're barely able to match XP? Wasn't Vista supposed to be way better? Why are you so happy that Vista finally matched XP? So, you spent a lot of money for something that is barely at par with what you already had, and you call it an "Upgrade"?:P

You can't expect a brand new piece of software to perform BETTER than a 7 year old piece of software. Try putting XP on a typical PC from 7 years ago and so how it performs. Also, XP was nothing more than a superflous upgrade to windows 2000 that gave us the wonderfull windows activation. Now XP is God. lol

Why shouldn't we expect a brand new software to be better than a 7 year old one? Isn't that the whole point of upgrading? XP has been around for 7 years now and Vista is only about a year or so and we're already getting another "upgrade" next year. What does that say?:P I swear, sometimes i think people use Vista because it's "the new thing" and it looks "cooler than XP". Bleh.

Well yeah... The same reason people upgraded from 2000 to XP... And pretty much every new windows has been slower and more resource intensive than the last one. BTW, XP was only around so long is because of the massive problems it had and sp1 pretty much delayed Vista by a couple of years. Just look at the progression from 95, 98, 2000, XP. Vista was supposed to be here sooner, and no way Vista will last as long as XP as it was an exception.

[QUOTE="Kuyt19"][QUOTE="Captain__Tripps"][QUOTE="Kuyt19"]

[QUOTE="Qixote"]why would someone "upgrade" to Vista for gaming only to have it only match the perfomance of XP? where's the incentive?DanielDust

Absolutely correct. Why would anyone use Vista if they're barely able to match XP? Wasn't Vista supposed to be way better? Why are you so happy that Vista finally matched XP? So, you spent a lot of money for something that is barely at par with what you already had, and you call it an "Upgrade"?:P

You can't expect a brand new piece of software to perform BETTER than a 7 year old piece of software. Try putting XP on a typical PC from 7 years ago and so how it performs. Also, XP was nothing more than a superflous upgrade to windows 2000 that gave us the wonderfull windows activation. Now XP is God. lol

Why shouldn't we expect a brand new software to be better than a 7 year old one? Isn't that the whole point of upgrading? XP has been around for 7 years now and Vista is only about a year or so and we're already getting another "upgrade" next year. What does that say?:P I swear, sometimes i think people use Vista because it's "the new thing" and it looks "cooler than XP". Bleh.

:| The main reason you can expect it to run better on older computers it's because it's made on new hardware and it has higher requirements, duh, think about win 95 :| XP uses a lot more than 95. I swear, sometimes people say Vista sucks because they know absolutely **** about what/how it does and what Vista really is. (like the dumb statement that Vista is nothing new, it is 90% new compared to Xp. Making something run and perform better doesn't mean it's nothing new);).

I wasn't saying anything about Vista having the same features as XP. I was talking in reference to performance in the gaming area. Did i ever say that "Vista sucks" or that Vista is nothing new? Yeah it's probably 90% new compared to XP with all those shiny little new apps and nice UI blah blah, but that doesn't rule out the fact that it performs lower in games compared to XP...........for the time being.

[QUOTE="DanielDust"][QUOTE="Kuyt19"][QUOTE="Captain__Tripps"][QUOTE="Kuyt19"]

[QUOTE="Qixote"]why would someone "upgrade" to Vista for gaming only to have it only match the perfomance of XP? where's the incentive?Kuyt19

Absolutely correct. Why would anyone use Vista if they're barely able to match XP? Wasn't Vista supposed to be way better? Why are you so happy that Vista finally matched XP? So, you spent a lot of money for something that is barely at par with what you already had, and you call it an "Upgrade"?:P

You can't expect a brand new piece of software to perform BETTER than a 7 year old piece of software. Try putting XP on a typical PC from 7 years ago and so how it performs. Also, XP was nothing more than a superflous upgrade to windows 2000 that gave us the wonderfull windows activation. Now XP is God. lol

Why shouldn't we expect a brand new software to be better than a 7 year old one? Isn't that the whole point of upgrading? XP has been around for 7 years now and Vista is only about a year or so and we're already getting another "upgrade" next year. What does that say?:P I swear, sometimes i think people use Vista because it's "the new thing" and it looks "cooler than XP". Bleh.

:| The main reason you can expect it to run better on older computers it's because it's made on new hardware and it has higher requirements, duh, think about win 95 :| XP uses a lot more than 95. I swear, sometimes people say Vista sucks because they know absolutely **** about what/how it does and what Vista really is. (like the dumb statement that Vista is nothing new, it is 90% new compared to Xp. Making something run and perform better doesn't mean it's nothing new);).

I wasn't saying anything about Vista having the same features as XP. I was talking in reference to performance in the gaming area. Did i ever say that "Vista sucks" or that Vista is nothing new? Yeah it's probably 90% new compared to XP with all those shiny little new apps and nice UI blah blah, but that doesn't rule out the fact that it performs lower in games compared to XP...........for the time being.

Yep you said exactly what I didn't, that to you Vista is 90% new, but only UI. WRONG!!!!90% new as in all of it, the structure, all, not UI that isn't even 2% of Vista. What you said there is the main/only reason people say Vista is new, the UI. The UI has nothing to do with how good Vista is and how high it's requirements are. The only problem is RAM and it's a joke to call yourself a gamer and run decent games with less than 1gb(extreme minimum)and you can do wonders to the so called RAM hungry Vista. Since Vista doesn't need almost 10 times as much Ram as XP(just likeXP needs almost 10 times more RAM than 95/98 ) and if you deactivate what you don't need and make it much less of a system hog (things you can't do to this extent in XP) yeah Visa is better and the requirements should mean nothing for anybody that uses their PC for gaming.

Remember Vista is not new thanks to it's UI(that is what people who know **** about Windows in general think);) it's all about the system itself.;)

In recent games Vista is on par if not better, but yeah older games can lose a few or many frames compared to XP.

[QUOTE="Kuyt19"][QUOTE="DanielDust"][QUOTE="Kuyt19"][QUOTE="Captain__Tripps"][QUOTE="Kuyt19"]

[QUOTE="Qixote"]why would someone "upgrade" to Vista for gaming only to have it only match the perfomance of XP? where's the incentive?DanielDust

Absolutely correct. Why would anyone use Vista if they're barely able to match XP? Wasn't Vista supposed to be way better? Why are you so happy that Vista finally matched XP? So, you spent a lot of money for something that is barely at par with what you already had, and you call it an "Upgrade"?:P

You can't expect a brand new piece of software to perform BETTER than a 7 year old piece of software. Try putting XP on a typical PC from 7 years ago and so how it performs. Also, XP was nothing more than a superflous upgrade to windows 2000 that gave us the wonderfull windows activation. Now XP is God. lol

Why shouldn't we expect a brand new software to be better than a 7 year old one? Isn't that the whole point of upgrading? XP has been around for 7 years now and Vista is only about a year or so and we're already getting another "upgrade" next year. What does that say?:P I swear, sometimes i think people use Vista because it's "the new thing" and it looks "cooler than XP". Bleh.

:| The main reason you can expect it to run better on older computers it's because it's made on new hardware and it has higher requirements, duh, think about win 95 :| XP uses a lot more than 95. I swear, sometimes people say Vista sucks because they know absolutely **** about what/how it does and what Vista really is. (like the dumb statement that Vista is nothing new, it is 90% new compared to Xp. Making something run and perform better doesn't mean it's nothing new);).

I wasn't saying anything about Vista having the same features as XP. I was talking in reference to performance in the gaming area. Did i ever say that "Vista sucks" or that Vista is nothing new? Yeah it's probably 90% new compared to XP with all those shiny little new apps and nice UI blah blah, but that doesn't rule out the fact that it performs lower in games compared to XP...........for the time being.

Yep you said exactly what I didn't, that to you Vista is 90% new, but only UI. WRONG!!!!90% new as in all of it, the structure, all, not UI that isn't even 2% of Vista. What you said there is the main/only reason people say Vista is new, the UI. The UI has nothing to do with how good Vista is and how high it's requirements are. The only problem is RAM and it's a joke to call yourself a gamer and run decent games with less than 1gb(extreme minimum)and you can do wonders to the so called RAM hungry Vista. Since Vista doesn't need almost 10 times as much Ram as XP(just likeXP needs almost 10 times more RAM than 95/98 ) and if you deactivate what you don't need and make it much less of a system hog (things you can't do to this extent in XP) yeah Visa is better and the requirements should mean nothing for anybody that uses their PC for gaming.

Remember Vista is not new thanks to it's UI(that is what people who know **** about Windows in general think);) it's all about the system itself.;)

In recent games Vista is on par if not better, but yeah older games can loose a few or many frames compared to XP.

Yeah, well the rest was mentioned in the 'blah blah' part. I didn't wanna waste posting space listing every little new feature Vista has over XP, hence the 'blah blah'. Anyway, since XP users like me are so ignorant about Windows structure and functioning as compared to Vista users like you, I submit to your infinite wisdom, O great one.:P

No need :) stand tall and don't listen to all BS most XP users throw at Vista. You want to see how it is try it at a friend or somebody you know, that has it. If it isn't what you need, stick to XP it's a good OS too.

Remember why people say BS about Vista:

1)System requirements (sice most try it on obsolete PC's that only play CS at 60 frames - yeah I know about 6 examples and there are many more like that ;))

2)I don't want to learn it (because i'm stupid and I can't see that there is nothing to learn because it's mostly XP but more efficient)

3)they actually have some driver problems/games not working/compatibility issues, etc

4)Change not good @_@ meh stickz toh windowsz NT or maybe meh try change and go seez 95, oh noes XP too expensive why botherz meh not like (or something like that :)).

I owe Vista for getting me into Linux.

Keeping XP for gaming at the moment. I'll upgrade when there are games which demand it.

No need :) stand tall and don't listen to all BS most XP users throw at Vista.

DanielDust

I agree, Vista is awesome and lightning fast. I used to not like it because my laptop came with it. Then I built my gaming rig and now I love it. Vista is a champ, easily the best OS since Windows 98. Load times are virtually non existant during startup and games. There is no excuse to run XP unless your computer is a POS. Computer hardware is dirt cheap. Ram, Graphics cards, and Processors have come down in price bigtime. I remember a few years back when a Gaming processer cost $600+, now you get one of the best(e8400) for $189. Graphics cards? You don't need to spend $500 and get a 9800GX2, when a $200 8800GT or $164 9600GT will run any game currently out just fine and if your still not satisfied, just get another and run it in SLI. Ram unless your going DDR3 you can get 4GB for under $100. XP belongs on a Work computer IE for business purposes(Word, Excel, Photoshop). Vista is for gaming.

[QUOTE="DanielDust"]

No need :) stand tall and don't listen to all BS most XP users throw at Vista.

superkoolstud

I agree, Vista is awesome and lightning fast. I used to not like it because my laptop came with it. Then I built my gaming rig and now I love it. Vista is a champ, easily the best OS since Windows 98. Load times are virtually non existant during startup and games. There is no excuse to run XP unless your computer is a POS. Computer hardware is dirt cheap. Ram, Graphics cards, and Processors have come down in price bigtime. I remember a few years back when a Gaming processer cost $600+, now you get one of the best(e8400) for $189. Graphics cards? You don't need to spend $500 and get a 9800GX2, when a $200 8800GT or $164 9600GT will run any game currently out just fine and if your still not satisfied, just get another and run it in SLI. Ram unless your going DDR3 you can get 4GB for under $100. XP belongs on a Work computer IE for business purposes(Word, Excel, Photoshop). Vista is for gaming.

Yea.....no. I don't see how Vista can be called "lightning fast", when it's the slowest OS available.

[QUOTE="superkoolstud"][QUOTE="DanielDust"]

No need :) stand tall and don't listen to all BS most XP users throw at Vista.

GodLovesDead

I agree, Vista is awesome and lightning fast. I used to not like it because my laptop came with it. Then I built my gaming rig and now I love it. Vista is a champ, easily the best OS since Windows 98. Load times are virtually non existant during startup and games. There is no excuse to run XP unless your computer is a POS. Computer hardware is dirt cheap. Ram, Graphics cards, and Processors have come down in price bigtime. I remember a few years back when a Gaming processer cost $600+, now you get one of the best(e8400) for $189. Graphics cards? You don't need to spend $500 and get a 9800GX2, when a $200 8800GT or $164 9600GT will run any game currently out just fine and if your still not satisfied, just get another and run it in SLI. Ram unless your going DDR3 you can get 4GB for under $100. XP belongs on a Work computer IE for business purposes(Word, Excel, Photoshop). Vista is for gaming.

Yea.....no. I don't see how Vista can be called "lightning fast", when it's the slowest OS available.

On a PC with single core processor and 512MB of ram it will be slow. On a PC with multi cores and 2GB of ram it's really fast since it preloads applications to memory for faster loading. You can even use ready boost to speed things up even more. XP prefers to use the slow hard drive and leave Ram idling.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="superkoolstud"][QUOTE="DanielDust"]

No need :) stand tall and don't listen to all BS most XP users throw at Vista.

Deihmos

I agree, Vista is awesome and lightning fast. I used to not like it because my laptop came with it. Then I built my gaming rig and now I love it. Vista is a champ, easily the best OS since Windows 98. Load times are virtually non existant during startup and games. There is no excuse to run XP unless your computer is a POS. Computer hardware is dirt cheap. Ram, Graphics cards, and Processors have come down in price bigtime. I remember a few years back when a Gaming processer cost $600+, now you get one of the best(e8400) for $189. Graphics cards? You don't need to spend $500 and get a 9800GX2, when a $200 8800GT or $164 9600GT will run any game currently out just fine and if your still not satisfied, just get another and run it in SLI. Ram unless your going DDR3 you can get 4GB for under $100. XP belongs on a Work computer IE for business purposes(Word, Excel, Photoshop). Vista is for gaming.

Yea.....no. I don't see how Vista can be called "lightning fast", when it's the slowest OS available.

On a PC with single core processor and 512MB of ram it will be slow. On a PC with multi cores and 2GB of ram it's really fast since it preloads applications to memory for faster loading. You can even use ready boost to speed things up even more. XP prefers to use the slow hard drive and leave Ram idling.

and on my PC with 4GB of Ram its Lightning Fast

[QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="superkoolstud"][QUOTE="DanielDust"]

No need :) stand tall and don't listen to all BS most XP users throw at Vista.

superkoolstud

I agree, Vista is awesome and lightning fast. I used to not like it because my laptop came with it. Then I built my gaming rig and now I love it. Vista is a champ, easily the best OS since Windows 98. Load times are virtually non existant during startup and games. There is no excuse to run XP unless your computer is a POS. Computer hardware is dirt cheap. Ram, Graphics cards, and Processors have come down in price bigtime. I remember a few years back when a Gaming processer cost $600+, now you get one of the best(e8400) for $189. Graphics cards? You don't need to spend $500 and get a 9800GX2, when a $200 8800GT or $164 9600GT will run any game currently out just fine and if your still not satisfied, just get another and run it in SLI. Ram unless your going DDR3 you can get 4GB for under $100. XP belongs on a Work computer IE for business purposes(Word, Excel, Photoshop). Vista is for gaming.

Yea.....no. I don't see how Vista can be called "lightning fast", when it's the slowest OS available.

On a PC with single core processor and 512MB of ram it will be slow. On a PC with multi cores and 2GB of ram it's really fast since it preloads applications to memory for faster loading. You can even use ready boost to speed things up even more. XP prefers to use the slow hard drive and leave Ram idling.

and on my PC with 4GB of Ram its Lightning Fast

I think I have a rather decent PC. I don't have 4 GB, but I do have 2GB DDR2 800 in dual channel and an E8400 @ 3.6. Installing applications sometimes takes an upwards of 10+ minutes. Load times are 5-10 seconds longer on pretty much all of my games and the interface feels sluggish. It takes a few second to access my start menu, Firefox, Steam, etc. when it's completely seamless on XP.

[QUOTE="superkoolstud"][QUOTE="Deihmos"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"][QUOTE="superkoolstud"][QUOTE="DanielDust"]

No need :) stand tall and don't listen to all BS most XP users throw at Vista.

GodLovesDead

I agree, Vista is awesome and lightning fast. I used to not like it because my laptop came with it. Then I built my gaming rig and now I love it. Vista is a champ, easily the best OS since Windows 98. Load times are virtually non existant during startup and games. There is no excuse to run XP unless your computer is a POS. Computer hardware is dirt cheap. Ram, Graphics cards, and Processors have come down in price bigtime. I remember a few years back when a Gaming processer cost $600+, now you get one of the best(e8400) for $189. Graphics cards? You don't need to spend $500 and get a 9800GX2, when a $200 8800GT or $164 9600GT will run any game currently out just fine and if your still not satisfied, just get another and run it in SLI. Ram unless your going DDR3 you can get 4GB for under $100. XP belongs on a Work computer IE for business purposes(Word, Excel, Photoshop). Vista is for gaming.

Yea.....no. I don't see how Vista can be called "lightning fast", when it's the slowest OS available.

On a PC with single core processor and 512MB of ram it will be slow. On a PC with multi cores and 2GB of ram it's really fast since it preloads applications to memory for faster loading. You can even use ready boost to speed things up even more. XP prefers to use the slow hard drive and leave Ram idling.

and on my PC with 4GB of Ram its Lightning Fast

I think I have a rather decent PC. I don't have 4 GB, but I do have 2GB DDR2 800 in dual channel and an E8400 @ 3.6. Installing applications sometimes takes an upwards of 10+ minutes. Load times are 5-10 seconds longer on pretty much all of my games and the interface feels sluggish. It takes a few second to access my start menu, Firefox, Steam, etc. when it's completely seamless on XP.

If Apps take 10 mins to install(unless its huge), and seconds to access the start menu... Something is wrong with your computer or your Vista install, or something ni your computer doesn't work properly with Vista.