Is Vista faster than XP

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 did a clean install of RC1 - happy with the performance. I haven't timed
it against XP, but my isn't-this-nice-all-things-considered satisfaction
level is real high. - Your level may vary.


"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

In article <12g03vggak3m64@corp.supernews.com>, Charlie says...

> 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?

Non.

> Would apps load faster, how about boot time and shutdown times?
>

It "feels" like it does.


--
Conor

How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the
stupidity-problem solve itself?

Exactly "Your level may vary"!
Have you noticed that when you buy a new PC and it's nice and speedy, then
after installing all your app's it slows down? So a lot depends on your
software too! That's why I hate Norton! It's a resource HOG! I'm going
OneCare all the way this time.
Paula

"Bill" <not@available.com> wrote in message
news:uOvciNo0GHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>I did a clean install of RC1 - happy with the performance. I haven't timed
> it against XP, but my isn't-this-nice-all-things-considered satisfaction
> level is real high. - Your level may vary.
>
>
> "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 agree Paula...................................I live in a Norton-Free-Home


"Paula" <NoSpam@none.com> wrote in message
news:%23FX60go0GHA.1548@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Exactly "Your level may vary"!
Have you noticed that when you buy a new PC and it's nice and speedy, then
after installing all your app's it slows down? So a lot depends on your
software too! That's why I hate Norton! It's a resource HOG! I'm going
OneCare all the way this time.
Paula

"Bill" <not@available.com> wrote in message
news:uOvciNo0GHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>I did a clean install of RC1 - happy with the performance. I haven't timed
> it against XP, but my isn't-this-nice-all-things-considered satisfaction
> level is real high. - Your level may vary.
>
>
> "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
>
>
>

"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.

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
>> >
>> >

>>