Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th May 2007 13:19 UTC
Windows Months go, I reviewed Windows Vista, and concluded: "All in all, I am impressed by Windows Vista [...]. Windows Vista is better than XP, and definitely more than just an improved look as many say." After 5 months of usage, it is time to put that statement into perspective.
Permalink for comment 238473
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Sorry, but..
by stare on Tue 8th May 2007 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Sorry, but.."
stare
Member since:
2005-07-06

Irrelevant, you avoided the statement. On the same hardware Vista is slower than XP, Ubuntu & OS X.

The statement is irrelevant. Who cares if its slower on P166MMX when dualcore CPU is $60 today?

Where did you pull this figure from??

Thats my own system stats. Granted its pretty fast, but even on four-year-old laptop with a 4200 RPM hard disk Vista boots in 40 seconds.

http://www.vistaclues.com/readyboost-performance-test/

I ran Vista on the same hardware (1.83GHzCD 1.5GB RAM) and it took 1:30 to boot up and far too long to shut down, compared to 45 seconds to start with XP

Definitely drivers or/and third-party software issue.

Yes big deal. Having to upgrade solely because your OS is slow and bloated is throwing good money away. Where is the value in having to buy Vista, new RAM and the game, or a new machine entirely? You seem to have decided to stop thinking because you have money to burn.

If you are gamer you have to upgrade not because of Vista (which itself uses just ~300mb), but because for upcoming games 2GB is minimum amount to play comfortably.

Reply Parent Score: 0