• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If Microsoft OS'es keep going the way they are....

techs

techs

Lifer
I remember how fast my Pentium 233mmx with 32 mb ram was running Windows 95. Then I upgraded to Windows 98 and I liked the features but it was sloowww. So I upgraded to an athlon 500 with 64 mb ram. It still wasn't as fast as Windows 95.
So I tried Windows Me and it was slower than Win98. And it just sucked so I kept running Win98.
Windows XP came out and I needed to run it for business reasons. I liked the features, but it was sloowww. So I upgraded to an athlon 2000+. It still wasn't as fast as Windows 98.

Then Vista came out and I needed to run it for business. And I didn't even find the new features to be that much of an improvement over Windows XP. And it was sloowww. So I upgraded to a E6750 with 2gb ram and a pci express video card with 512 mb ram. It still wasn't as fast as Windows XP.

My point? Each new Microsoft OS is SLOWER than the previous one. Despite an upgrade in hardware. How much longer will people tolerate each new OS being slower? And at what point will the OS be so slow as to be unusable?

Just for fun I loaded a Windows 95 on a Pentium 800 mhz. I had laying around. It was so umbelieveably fast that it really showed the difference between the speed I had running Windows 95 and the speed of Windows Vista.
 
But plug in a USB flash drive into the 98 machine and compare how long it takes to actually use it (ie copy files to it) compared to the XP machine, or Vista machine.

With 98 most of the time you had to provide drivers on a CD
 
New O/S = new features = more code = bigger. USB, Bluetooth etc all require code to work! If MS wrote an OS from scratch without needing to support every device under the sun like some poor mother's 10 year old printer it would be much faster than Vista. This is before you get on the hold managed/unmanaged code and stability points.
 
Originally posted by: techs
I remember how fast my Pentium 233mmx with 32 mb ram was running Windows 95. Then I upgraded to Windows 98 and I liked the features but it was sloowww. So I upgraded to an athlon 500 with 64 mb ram. It still wasn't as fast as Windows 95.
So I tried Windows Me and it was slower than Win98. And it just sucked so I kept running Win98.
Windows XP came out and I needed to run it for business reasons. I liked the features, but it was sloowww. So I upgraded to an athlon 2000+. It still wasn't as fast as Windows 98.

Then Vista came out and I needed to run it for business. And I didn't even find the new features to be that much of an improvement over Windows XP. And it was sloowww. So I upgraded to a E6750 with 2gb ram and a pci express video card with 512 mb ram. It still wasn't as fast as Windows XP.

My point? Each new Microsoft OS is SLOWER than the previous one. Despite an upgrade in hardware. How much longer will people tolerate each new OS being slower? And at what point will the OS be so slow as to be unusable?

Just for fun I loaded a Windows 95 on a Pentium 800 mhz. I had laying around. It was so umbelieveably fast that it really showed the difference between the speed I had running Windows 95 and the speed of Windows Vista.
Click to expand...

Try running Apple OSX on a Mac from 1995 and let me know if it's SLOOOOW.
 
My Vista x64 is lightning fast. That's on a quad with 4GB of RAM. Can't see myself going back to XP for whatever reason (though I have to use XP at work...).

It took some time for Vista to 'learn' my routines and what I use mostly, but once it did it's extremely responsive and fast.

And yeah, I did the whole Win95 -> Win98 -> Win2k -> WinXP and now Vista x64 route. Skipped WinMe as it was a huge pos. Best system yet in my eyes (though jumping to Win2k was also a huge step).
 
My point? Each new Microsoft OS is SLOWER than the previous one. Despite an upgrade in hardware. How much longer will people tolerate each new OS being slower? And at what point will the OS be so slow as to be unusable?
Click to expand...

On the same hardware, sure. But the OS's actually lag a bit behind the hardware growth curve. All of my machines are MUCH faster than the previous generation. I can't even run XP with this compatibility on my current rig, and Vista is right at home (8 procs, 32gig ram)
 
Interesting. I've been using MS OS's since DOS 2.11 basically and I find that they become more stable, powerful and faster as I've upgraded my computer. Back when midrange was the difference between an old 286 and a 386-sx, you were talking $1,000 and a lot of effort to get just about _anything_ done. Windows 3.11 was cumbersome and iffy at best. Windows 95 was chuggy on midrange gear and was never really stable in the way we take Windows today for granted.

Today, midrange is $300 for a box that can run Vista and flip through apps while streaming movies and HD content in the blink of an eye, etc. For the same price as a fistfull of SIMMS some years ago you can have a COMPLETE workstation with gaming capabilities, surround sound 500GB space.

I don't really get why people are bitching and moaning about slow hardware and bloated OSs considering what a few hundred dollars can get you.
 
If you want to make all the comparisons you are trying to make you really need to keep everything constant except for the OS. Otherwise any logical statement about being slower or faster goes out the window(no pun intended).
 
My laptop running a Core Duo 2.0Ghz w/ 2GB ram runs a bit slow on Vista. My friend's computer 3.0Gh dual core w/ 4GB ram runs wonderfully.

Microsoft has always had a mentality of "just make it run and computers will catch up". Back in the days when computers were doubling in speed every year, this worked great. Now, it leaves computers a bit slow at first until the hardware catches up.
 
Originally posted by: Leros
My laptop running a Core Duo 2.0Ghz w/ 2GB ram runs a bit slow on Vista. My friend's computer 3.0Gh dual core w/ 4GB ram runs wonderfully.

Microsoft has always had a mentality of "just make it run and computers will catch up". Back in the days when computers were doubling in speed every year, this worked great. Now, it leaves computers a bit slow at first until the hardware catches up.
Click to expand...

Odd, my 3 year old Laptop with an old Pentium M and 2 GB runs very well. As does the Desktop I rebuilt for my Dad running an AMD 3000+ single core with 1GB of RAM.

Granted Vista 64 absolutely Flies on my high end rig, but the other machines I have mentioned are running Vista every bit as fast as they ran XP.

 
Originally posted by: Griffinhart
Originally posted by: Leros
My laptop running a Core Duo 2.0Ghz w/ 2GB ram runs a bit slow on Vista. My friend's computer 3.0Gh dual core w/ 4GB ram runs wonderfully.

Microsoft has always had a mentality of "just make it run and computers will catch up". Back in the days when computers were doubling in speed every year, this worked great. Now, it leaves computers a bit slow at first until the hardware catches up.
Click to expand...

Odd, my 3 year old Laptop with an old Pentium M and 2 GB runs very well. As does the Desktop I rebuilt for my Dad running an AMD 3000+ single core with 1GB of RAM.

Granted Vista 64 absolutely Flies on my high end rig, but the other machines I have mentioned are running Vista every bit as fast as they ran XP.
Click to expand...

Well, my laptop takes a 1/2 a second to open a new window, where the other computer opens it instantly. Its a smoother ride for sure.
 
Originally posted by: Leros

Well, my laptop takes a 1/2 a second to open a new window, where the other computer opens it instantly. Its a smoother ride for sure.
Click to expand...

Probably the result of a 5400 rpm or slower hard drive vs a 7200 rpm drive. The differences in latency alone could be the direct cause of a 30 second pause on windows opening. I don't think this is really an Vista issue per se.
 
Vista 64 blazes on my new E8400, 4GB RAM system. It runs much faster than XP Pro ran on my P4 2.8C, 1GB RAM system.
 
Originally posted by: techs
I remember how fast my Pentium 233mmx with 32 mb ram was running Windows 95. Then I upgraded to Windows 98 and I liked the features but it was sloowww. So I upgraded to an athlon 500 with 64 mb ram. It still wasn't as fast as Windows 95....
Click to expand...


Hence the industry 'rule' saying "What Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away"

It's always been like that. Depending on your point of view, either <New OS> is yet another pile of bloated pigsh*t in a long line, or MSFT is simply designing for future usage.

 
Originally posted by: LS8
Originally posted by: techs
I remember how fast my Pentium 233mmx with 32 mb ram was running Windows 95. Then I upgraded to Windows 98 and I liked the features but it was sloowww. So I upgraded to an athlon 500 with 64 mb ram. It still wasn't as fast as Windows 95.
So I tried Windows Me and it was slower than Win98. And it just sucked so I kept running Win98.
Windows XP came out and I needed to run it for business reasons. I liked the features, but it was sloowww. So I upgraded to an athlon 2000+. It still wasn't as fast as Windows 98.

Then Vista came out and I needed to run it for business. And I didn't even find the new features to be that much of an improvement over Windows XP. And it was sloowww. So I upgraded to a E6750 with 2gb ram and a pci express video card with 512 mb ram. It still wasn't as fast as Windows XP.

My point? Each new Microsoft OS is SLOWER than the previous one. Despite an upgrade in hardware. How much longer will people tolerate each new OS being slower? And at what point will the OS be so slow as to be unusable?

Just for fun I loaded a Windows 95 on a Pentium 800 mhz. I had laying around. It was so umbelieveably fast that it really showed the difference between the speed I had running Windows 95 and the speed of Windows Vista.
Click to expand...

Try running Apple OSX on a Mac from 1995 and let me know if it's SLOOOOW.
Click to expand...
heh try running 10.5 on a non-intel Mac 😀



 
Originally posted by: LS8
Originally posted by: techs
I remember how fast my Pentium 233mmx with 32 mb ram was running Windows 95. Then I upgraded to Windows 98 and I liked the features but it was sloowww. So I upgraded to an athlon 500 with 64 mb ram. It still wasn't as fast as Windows 95.
So I tried Windows Me and it was slower than Win98. And it just sucked so I kept running Win98.
Windows XP came out and I needed to run it for business reasons. I liked the features, but it was sloowww. So I upgraded to an athlon 2000+. It still wasn't as fast as Windows 98.

Then Vista came out and I needed to run it for business. And I didn't even find the new features to be that much of an improvement over Windows XP. And it was sloowww. So I upgraded to a E6750 with 2gb ram and a pci express video card with 512 mb ram. It still wasn't as fast as Windows XP.

My point? Each new Microsoft OS is SLOWER than the previous one. Despite an upgrade in hardware. How much longer will people tolerate each new OS being slower? And at what point will the OS be so slow as to be unusable?

Just for fun I loaded a Windows 95 on a Pentium 800 mhz. I had laying around. It was so umbelieveably fast that it really showed the difference between the speed I had running Windows 95 and the speed of Windows Vista.
Click to expand...

Try running Apple OSX on a Mac from 1995 and let me know if it's SLOOOOW.
Click to expand...

lol
 
Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
the slowness of windows 2000 and windows xp is worth it, for stability.

vista isn't .. 🙁
Click to expand...

Really?

Vista's Despised UAC Nails Rootkits, Tests Find

Here is legitimate proof that Vista is far more secure than XP or 2000. The extra up time due to the lack of infection compared to XP is a huge deal.


Vista is far more stable out of the box than either XP or 2000 due to the driver stack and the sound stack being moved to the user space. If a driver crashes, in most cases Vista recovers elegantly without a reboot. Both XP and 2000 will blue screen every time, equating in less stability, not more. So if by your logic, XP and 2000 are worth the little extra slowness due to stability and up time, then Vista is also worth a little extra slowness (Recent benchmarks show Vista is on par or faster than XP on modern hardware since SP1 was released.) due to increased stability.

Just be honest and say you prefer XP over Vista instead of typing misinformation to make it look bad so you can justify your preferences. You don't need to justify anything if you prefer XP over Vista. There is nothing wrong with liking XP more.

Edited for clarity.
 
If WHS is any indication of their direction, I'm all for the direction they are going. I just want a 64-bit version damn it.
 
My 2nd PC has P4 2.4, 1Gb ram and Vista runs faster than XP (It's not that fresh-install effect as I've installed all the software/crapwares on Vista as well)

Anyway, you'd be better off using dos 3.1.
 
I don't get it. Yesterday, I performed my first-ever Vista installation; Home Premium (full) on 4+ year-old hardware and it runs fine with full Aero Glass goodness:

- ECS 755-A2 Socket 754 (SIS 755/964L)
- Athlon 64 3200+ 512K (single core)
- 1.0GB DDR333 RAM (single channel)
- ATI Radeon 9600 256MB DDR AGP
- Seagate 200GB SATA 1.5Gbps HDD
- 8x DVD-RW ATAPI
- Onboard Audio and LAN

Vista + SP1, all outstanding Windows Updates, latest drivers, DirectX runtimes, and the bare essentials like Adobe Reader, Flash, Shockwave, Sun Java, .NET 3.0 SP1, and Ad-Aware 2008 weighs in at 13GB disk space, after cleaning temp files and all but the latest restore point (restore points accounted for > 3GB). WEI score = 3.5 (gaming graphics being the weakest link).

Granted, the overhead associated with initial building of search indexes, prefetch and readyboost plans, baselines for reliability and performance metrics, and all that stuff could sometimes get downright excessive during the first few hours of cumulative up-time. But after rebooting a dozen times, running defrag with boot optimization, and a couple essential tweaks like disabling UAC, I don't see how any rational person would not find performance completely acceptable on this lowly hardware configuration.

I haven't tested any contemporary games but then most people pissing and moaning about gaming performance on Vista would reject the performance level of Radeon 9600 AGP even on Windows XP. Besides, I'm referring specifically to those who claim Vista is unacceptably slow in the most basic tasks like file browsing, web surfing, menu navigation, window switching, and light application performance on a current-generation dual core CPU, 2GB or more dual channel RAM, a fast hard disk and graphics card. Ridiculous.

This isn't the first time I've worked with Vista, just my first install that I'm using to really scrutinize Vista. I've worked on approx. a dozen Vista systems before this. The more experience I gain with Vista running on a wider range of hardware, the more evidence I find to conclude that ideological views toward Microsoft, bandwagon jumping, lack of technical knowledge, or placebo effects are behind a whole lot of negative statements on Vista's performance.

I am inclined to believe Vista probably deserved everything that was said about it the first six months after release. But I've seen nothing in the past six months that remotely resembles the continuing cacaphony.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top