Is Vista faster than XP

"Montreal MCT" <MontrealMCT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5CA71011-3125-436B-9D90-0490A9180A66@microsoft.com...

> If you want to go one step further (speed-wise) you can try using a USB
> key
> to ReadyBoost your system... it acts as a Prefetch which will cache your
> most
> frequently accessed programs and processes into the USB key which
> essentially
> gives your computer a shot of adrenaline.

Does this really work? I can't imaging a USB key drive being faster than
system RAM, or even the hard drive.

"Chupacabra" <chupa@cabra.com> wrote in message news:u1Xx3oo0GHA.1588@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>
> "Montreal MCT" <MontrealMCT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5CA71011-3125-436B-9D90-0490A9180A66@microsoft.com...
>

>> If you want to go one step further (speed-wise) you can try using a USB
>> key
>> to ReadyBoost your system... it acts as a Prefetch which will cache your
>> most
>> frequently accessed programs and processes into the USB key which
>> essentially
>> gives your computer a shot of adrenaline.

>
> Does this really work? I can't imaging a USB key drive being faster than
> system RAM, or even the hard drive.

Yes, it works. However, the more RAM you have the less you will
notice.

http://blogs.msdn.com/tomarcher/arch...14/576548.aspx

http://blogs.msdn.com/tomarcher/arch...02/615199.aspx

-Michael

Have you found a USB Key that's fast enough?

My Hard disk gets about 120Meg Per Second (that's on a lappy) it peaks
higher than that.

My fast USB key gets about 12Meg Per Second, why would I prefect to it?

Its funny, I am sure MS have always stated that its each OS is faster than
the previous one but I cannot remember reading that for vista. But in
reality its not always that case, but... look at other things, like ASP,
ASP.NET is faster than ASP, ASP.NET 2 is faster than ASP.NET and ASP.NET 2
it does more, IIS6 is MUCH MUCH faster than IIS5. .NET2 is faster than .NET1
in most areas. I hear Vista paging algorithm is much better than XPs (I saw
Bill Gates say that years ago at a conference, he joked about the paging
algorithm not changing for years).

As for vista, I do see some things faster, like search and replace in
notepad, I don't do this often, but its is much faster, screen updates are
better in some cases, from a user point, shutdown is faster as you don't
have to keep clicking end task to end all the programs.

This is from some websites :

Launch applications 15 percent faster than Windows XP does
Boot PCs 50 percent faster than they boot currently and will allow PCs to
resume from standby in two seconds
Allow users to patch systems with 50 percent fewer reboots required
Reduce the number of system images required by 50 percent
Enable companies to migrate users 75 percent faster than they can with
existing versions of Windows.

Also from MS

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvist...rformance.mspx








"Montreal MCT" <MontrealMCT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5CA71011-3125-436B-9D90-0490A9180A66@microsoft.com...

> Hi Charlie,
>
> Never has Mirosoft released a newer OS with more features that was faster
> on
> the old features (same hardware & specs) than its predecessor. As well
> beta
> OSes are always going to be slower than RTMs.
>
> Having said that the latest releases of Vista (RC1 and pre-RC) show a huge
> performance improvement over their predecessors. I honestly see the same
> performance if not slightly better over the XP install I have which is
> probably cleaner as it is really only used for fall-back.
>
> If you want to go one step further (speed-wise) you can try using a USB
> key
> to ReadyBoost your system... it acts as a Prefetch which will cache your
> most
> frequently accessed programs and processes into the USB key which
> essentially
> gives your computer a shot of adrenaline.
>
> Have fun!
>
> M
> --
> MDG, MCT
> MCSA (2003), MCSA (2000), MCDST.
> Certified Small Business Specialist
> Visit my blog at http://www.mitpro.ca/Blogs/tabid/59/...2/Default.aspx
>
>
> "Charlie" wrote:
>

>> Assuming the same high-end PC is tested with XP and then Vista. What kind
>> of
>> performance advantages would one see with the Vista installation? IOW
>> what
>> kind of noticeable "seat-of-the-pants" performance gains would one see
>> with
>> Vista in this example?
>> Would apps load faster, how about boot time and shutdown times?
>>
>> --
>> Charlie
>>
>>
>>

Yes!
I just got the Apacer HT203 4 gig flash drive and it is very fast.
200X
Works great!
Paula

"Steve Drake" <steve_NS_._SN_Drakey.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e8JlK3o0GHA.4648@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Have you found a USB Key that's fast enough?
>
> My Hard disk gets about 120Meg Per Second (that's on a lappy) it peaks
> higher than that.
>
> My fast USB key gets about 12Meg Per Second, why would I prefect to it?
>
> Its funny, I am sure MS have always stated that its each OS is faster than
> the previous one but I cannot remember reading that for vista. But in
> reality its not always that case, but... look at other things, like ASP,
> ASP.NET is faster than ASP, ASP.NET 2 is faster than ASP.NET and ASP.NET 2
> it does more, IIS6 is MUCH MUCH faster than IIS5. .NET2 is faster than
> .NET1 in most areas. I hear Vista paging algorithm is much better than XPs
> (I saw Bill Gates say that years ago at a conference, he joked about the
> paging algorithm not changing for years).
>
> As for vista, I do see some things faster, like search and replace in
> notepad, I don't do this often, but its is much faster, screen updates are
> better in some cases, from a user point, shutdown is faster as you don't
> have to keep clicking end task to end all the programs.
>
> This is from some websites :
>
> Launch applications 15 percent faster than Windows XP does
> Boot PCs 50 percent faster than they boot currently and will allow PCs to
> resume from standby in two seconds
> Allow users to patch systems with 50 percent fewer reboots required
> Reduce the number of system images required by 50 percent
> Enable companies to migrate users 75 percent faster than they can with
> existing versions of Windows.
>
> Also from MS
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvist...rformance.mspx
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Montreal MCT" <MontrealMCT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:5CA71011-3125-436B-9D90-0490A9180A66@microsoft.com...

>> Hi Charlie,
>>
>> Never has Mirosoft released a newer OS with more features that was faster
>> on
>> the old features (same hardware & specs) than its predecessor. As well
>> beta
>> OSes are always going to be slower than RTMs.
>>
>> Having said that the latest releases of Vista (RC1 and pre-RC) show a
>> huge
>> performance improvement over their predecessors. I honestly see the same
>> performance if not slightly better over the XP install I have which is
>> probably cleaner as it is really only used for fall-back.
>>
>> If you want to go one step further (speed-wise) you can try using a USB
>> key
>> to ReadyBoost your system... it acts as a Prefetch which will cache your
>> most
>> frequently accessed programs and processes into the USB key which
>> essentially
>> gives your computer a shot of adrenaline.
>>
>> Have fun!
>>
>> M
>> --
>> MDG, MCT
>> MCSA (2003), MCSA (2000), MCDST.
>> Certified Small Business Specialist
>> Visit my blog at http://www.mitpro.ca/Blogs/tabid/59/...2/Default.aspx
>>
>>
>> "Charlie" wrote:
>>

>>> Assuming the same high-end PC is tested with XP and then Vista. What
>>> kind of
>>> performance advantages would one see with the Vista installation? IOW
>>> what
>>> kind of noticeable "seat-of-the-pants" performance gains would one see
>>> with
>>> Vista in this example?
>>> Would apps load faster, how about boot time and shutdown times?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>>
>>>

>

I have just done some tests.

I have tested a CHEAP USBKEY, it worked with ready boost, it got SEQ read
tests off about 9MB/s and RANDOM readtests of 0.9Mb for a range of 31719.

I got an expensive corsair that was faster, eg, look at the reviews and it
gets very good reviews, this did not pass the windows ready boost tests, it
got 16MB/s on SEQ reads, thats very good, but only got 0.6MB/s on the same
range for RANDOM reads.

On smaller ranges, the figures were closers but the cheap stick still won.

Interesting results, I think mem stick companies should post the random disk
performance figures not just the SEQ ones.

I used CHDDSPEED found at
http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/english.html?/be_hdd.html



"Paula" <NoSpam@none.com> wrote in message
news:%234Gc8Ip0GHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Yes!
> I just got the Apacer HT203 4 gig flash drive and it is very fast.
> 200X
> Works great!
> Paula
>
> "Steve Drake" <steve_NS_._SN_Drakey.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:e8JlK3o0GHA.4648@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> Have you found a USB Key that's fast enough?
>>
>> My Hard disk gets about 120Meg Per Second (that's on a lappy) it peaks
>> higher than that.
>>
>> My fast USB key gets about 12Meg Per Second, why would I prefect to it?
>>
>> Its funny, I am sure MS have always stated that its each OS is faster
>> than the previous one but I cannot remember reading that for vista. But
>> in reality its not always that case, but... look at other things, like
>> ASP, ASP.NET is faster than ASP, ASP.NET 2 is faster than ASP.NET and
>> ASP.NET 2 it does more, IIS6 is MUCH MUCH faster than IIS5. .NET2 is
>> faster than .NET1 in most areas. I hear Vista paging algorithm is much
>> better than XPs (I saw Bill Gates say that years ago at a conference, he
>> joked about the paging algorithm not changing for years).
>>
>> As for vista, I do see some things faster, like search and replace in
>> notepad, I don't do this often, but its is much faster, screen updates
>> are better in some cases, from a user point, shutdown is faster as you
>> don't have to keep clicking end task to end all the programs.
>>
>> This is from some websites :
>>
>> Launch applications 15 percent faster than Windows XP does
>> Boot PCs 50 percent faster than they boot currently and will allow PCs to
>> resume from standby in two seconds
>> Allow users to patch systems with 50 percent fewer reboots required
>> Reduce the number of system images required by 50 percent
>> Enable companies to migrate users 75 percent faster than they can with
>> existing versions of Windows.
>>
>> Also from MS
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvist...rformance.mspx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Montreal MCT" <MontrealMCT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:5CA71011-3125-436B-9D90-0490A9180A66@microsoft.com...

>>> Hi Charlie,
>>>
>>> Never has Mirosoft released a newer OS with more features that was
>>> faster on
>>> the old features (same hardware & specs) than its predecessor. As well
>>> beta
>>> OSes are always going to be slower than RTMs.
>>>
>>> Having said that the latest releases of Vista (RC1 and pre-RC) show a
>>> huge
>>> performance improvement over their predecessors. I honestly see the
>>> same
>>> performance if not slightly better over the XP install I have which is
>>> probably cleaner as it is really only used for fall-back.
>>>
>>> If you want to go one step further (speed-wise) you can try using a USB
>>> key
>>> to ReadyBoost your system... it acts as a Prefetch which will cache your
>>> most
>>> frequently accessed programs and processes into the USB key which
>>> essentially
>>> gives your computer a shot of adrenaline.
>>>
>>> Have fun!
>>>
>>> M
>>> --
>>> MDG, MCT
>>> MCSA (2003), MCSA (2000), MCDST.
>>> Certified Small Business Specialist
>>> Visit my blog at http://www.mitpro.ca/Blogs/tabid/59/...2/Default.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>> "Charlie" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Assuming the same high-end PC is tested with XP and then Vista. What
>>>> kind of
>>>> performance advantages would one see with the Vista installation? IOW
>>>> what
>>>> kind of noticeable "seat-of-the-pants" performance gains would one see
>>>> with
>>>> Vista in this example?
>>>> Would apps load faster, how about boot time and shutdown times?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

>>

>
>

For me, a clean install of WinXP Pro SP2 vs a clean install
of Vista, WinXP is "faster". Of course, comparing the seasoned
XP to a still beta Vista isn't quite fair. It may sound silly, but the
indexing and search functions in Vista are almost enough for me
to tell folks to go get it. XP's indexing service is really useless and
a drain on the system.

Also, if you turned off some services and special effects in Vista
and made the "contest" more even, the differences probably would
not be noticeable.

I think there are times some forget how long WinXP has been out,
code refined and user tweaked. If you need a refresher on just how
good XP is, do a clean install- no crap that's been accumulating for
years since a user last did a clean install. You might be surprised
at how good XP really is when "brand new". WinXP Pro is a great
OS, worthy of several more years of service.

-Michael

"Charlie" <charlie@aol.com> wrote in message news:12g03vggak3m64@corp.supernews.com...

> Assuming the same high-end PC is tested with XP and then Vista. What kind of
> performance advantages would one see with the Vista installation? IOW what
> kind of noticeable "seat-of-the-pants" performance gains would one see with
> Vista in this example?
> Would apps load faster, how about boot time and shutdown times?
>
> --
> Charlie
>
>

Michael,

I agree with almost everything that you say. I am not sure though which
would win a speed test if you used all of the advantages of Vista versus the
clean install of XPSP2 - I work on a lot of XP machines both clean and dirty
and I honeslty love the OS, but then I loved Windows 2000 too I will be
interested to see how much faster RC2 and RTM are but for now Vista is fast
enough (and certainly reliable enough!) for me to use it as my primary OS,
and leave the relatively clean (recent re-installed) XP SP2 as my fall back
OS

M
--
MDG, MCT
MCSA (2003), MCSA (2000), MCDST.
Certified Small Business Specialist
Visit my blog at http://www.mitpro.ca/Blogs/tabid/59/...2/Default.aspx


"MICHAEL" wrote:

> For me, a clean install of WinXP Pro SP2 vs a clean install
> of Vista, WinXP is "faster". Of course, comparing the seasoned
> XP to a still beta Vista isn't quite fair. It may sound silly, but the
> indexing and search functions in Vista are almost enough for me
> to tell folks to go get it. XP's indexing service is really useless and
> a drain on the system.
>
> Also, if you turned off some services and special effects in Vista
> and made the "contest" more even, the differences probably would
> not be noticeable.
>
> I think there are times some forget how long WinXP has been out,
> code refined and user tweaked. If you need a refresher on just how
> good XP is, do a clean install- no crap that's been accumulating for
> years since a user last did a clean install. You might be surprised
> at how good XP really is when "brand new". WinXP Pro is a great
> OS, worthy of several more years of service.
>
> -Michael
>
> "Charlie" <charlie@aol.com> wrote in message news:12g03vggak3m64@corp.supernews.com...

> > Assuming the same high-end PC is tested with XP and then Vista. What kind of
> > performance advantages would one see with the Vista installation? IOW what
> > kind of noticeable "seat-of-the-pants" performance gains would one see with
> > Vista in this example?
> > Would apps load faster, how about boot time and shutdown times?
> >
> > --
> > Charlie
> >
> >

>

I don't disagree with you, for the most part. :-)
Actually, the only part I do disagree is making Vista
my primary OS. I'm not ready to make that type of
commitment. There needs to be some more courting. :-)

I will say, and there's a chance it's just my perception, that
WinXP Pro seems a bit more stable than WinXP Home. Even
though there's more to XP Pro, I've always felt that the code
was in some ways "tighter" and "sturdier". WinXP Pro just
always seemed to more robust.

I do have a question, which may open up a can of worms.
Like, where I got it, so on and so forth. Anyway, back to
the question/observation. On this laptop, I have build 5552
installed. It was an upgrade install from 5536, which was a
clean install. On a desktop, I did a clean install of RC1. The
desktop is newer and more powerful than this laptop. Both
versions of Vista run great. However, build 5552 seems to
be a bit snappier. Was 5552 on the same "branch" as RC1
or did it sprout off somewhere else? Itself being a candidate
for RC1? Before I had RC1 installed on the desktop, I had
5552 installed on it, too. I then did the clean install of RC1.
IMO, build 5552 ran better on the desktop, too. I'm not talking
about a major difference. But, at times, I do notice.
Just curious. You may not have any answers for me, but maybe
someone else will speak up. I just asked you because you have all
those 3 and 4 letter acronyms after your name. ;-)


-Michael


"Montreal MCT" <MontrealMCT@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B7DCF42C-13CE-41E8-9544-6B80C2D40BCC@microsoft.com...

> Michael,
>
> I agree with almost everything that you say. I am not sure though which
> would win a speed test if you used all of the advantages of Vista versus the
> clean install of XPSP2 - I work on a lot of XP machines both clean and dirty
> and I honeslty love the OS, but then I loved Windows 2000 too I will be
> interested to see how much faster RC2 and RTM are but for now Vista is fast
> enough (and certainly reliable enough!) for me to use it as my primary OS,
> and leave the relatively clean (recent re-installed) XP SP2 as my fall back
> OS
>
> M
> --
> MDG, MCT
> MCSA (2003), MCSA (2000), MCDST.
> Certified Small Business Specialist
> Visit my blog at http://www.mitpro.ca/Blogs/tabid/59/...2/Default.aspx
>
>
> "MICHAEL" wrote:
>

>> For me, a clean install of WinXP Pro SP2 vs a clean install
>> of Vista, WinXP is "faster". Of course, comparing the seasoned
>> XP to a still beta Vista isn't quite fair. It may sound silly, but the
>> indexing and search functions in Vista are almost enough for me
>> to tell folks to go get it. XP's indexing service is really useless and
>> a drain on the system.
>>
>> Also, if you turned off some services and special effects in Vista
>> and made the "contest" more even, the differences probably would
>> not be noticeable.
>>
>> I think there are times some forget how long WinXP has been out,
>> code refined and user tweaked. If you need a refresher on just how
>> good XP is, do a clean install- no crap that's been accumulating for
>> years since a user last did a clean install. You might be surprised
>> at how good XP really is when "brand new". WinXP Pro is a great
>> OS, worthy of several more years of service.
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>> "Charlie" <charlie@aol.com> wrote in message news:12g03vggak3m64@corp.supernews.com...

>> > Assuming the same high-end PC is tested with XP and then Vista. What kind of
>> > performance advantages would one see with the Vista installation? IOW what
>> > kind of noticeable "seat-of-the-pants" performance gains would one see with
>> > Vista in this example?
>> > Would apps load faster, how about boot time and shutdown times?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Charlie
>> >
>> >

>>