Windows Vista: The Facts

sladesurfer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
1,142
http://neowin.net/news/main/08/01/20/windows-vista-the-facts

When choosing a new operating system, the first thing many people ask is, "What will it help me do?" In answer, much of this site shows you the great experiences Windows Vista helps you have. The second thing many people say is, "Prove that it's better." In particular, many of you have asked about performance and safety improvements. The following information provides specific proof that Windows Vista is faster and safer.

  • The majority of Windows Vista-based PCs boot in less than a minute, which can be an improvement over Windows XP boot times. And the new Windows Vista sleep and resume features can bring your PC to life in a snap—in fact, the vast majority of all Windows Vista-based PCs resume from sleep in less than 6 seconds.
  • PCs running Windows Vista that are equipped with 512 MB memory experience a performance boost of up to 40 percent with Windows ReadyBoost. Just plug a USB flash drive into your computer, and Windows Vista will automatically start using it to speed up memory access to important data.
  • Out of the box, Windows Vista performs as well, or better, than Windows XP on common home and business tasks.
  • Windows Vista users generally experience 20 percent fewer application "hangs" than those running Windows XP
  • Superfetch helps your computer adjust to your schedule, so your apps are ready to go before you even launch them. Use Microsoft Outlook every morning? Superfetch will serve it up just in time for breakfast. Play the same game every night? Superfetch gets your computer ready for the next big win. Waiting less means you can do more
  • Based on their first 180 days of availability, Windows Vista has been shown to have fewer vulnerabilities than Windows XP or MacOS X 10.4. PCs running it are 60 percent less likely to be infected with viruses, worms, and rootkits than PCs running Windows XP SP2. Windows Vista-based PCs are over 90 percent less likely to be infected than systems running Windows XP without a Service Pack. And the experts agree: "Windows Vista is arguably the most secure closed-source OS available on the market."
  • The more people use Windows Vista, the more they like it. So dig in and learn even more about the new features in Windows Vista. Once you've tried it, you'll see
 

Elementnz

n00b
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
38
rubbish. I mean i use Vista and get MORE slowdowns. and of course with such a small amount of ram your gonna get such "huge" increases.
 

tacosareveryyummy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
5,301
I have had no problems with Vista. But then again I never had any problems with XP, 98, 95, or Linux. Alot of people complain simply because it is different from what they are used to. Kinda like old people. :)
 

Scyles

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
1,191
OP left off the last line: News source: Microsoft

Thanks for the ad spam.
 

XboxodX

Gawd
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
704
rubbish. I mean i use Vista and get MORE slowdowns. and of course with such a small amount of ram your gonna get such "huge" increases.
Well, for me, I get no slowdowns. My PC is snappier compared to XP SP2. But I also have 4gb of ram and a 64bit OS.
 

DeaconFrost

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
11,493
...Okay? I am confused at the point of this thread.
As am I. At one point these threads were locked immediately because of the inciteful nature. I think by this point, everyone has made up their mind on Vista, and no article is going to convince them otherwise. Some still feel it doesn't work well, and still cling to the idea it has problems. Others are happily running it without issue, and can't quite understand why there's so much bashing.
 

Finn

Gawd
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
888
Well, for me, I get no slowdowns. My PC is snappier compared to XP SP2. But I also have 4gb of ram and a 64bit OS.

You mean your latest hardware 4 gig box is snappier than your old Pentium II XP SP2 installation.. With the same hardware XP will run circles around your Vista.
 

mustang_steve

c[H]ewbacca
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Messages
10,756
  • The majority of Windows Vista-based PCs boot in less than a minute, which can be an improvement over Windows XP boot times. And the new Windows Vista sleep and resume features can bring your PC to life in a snap—in fact, the vast majority of all Windows Vista-based PCs resume from sleep in less than 6 seconds.
Windows XP boots in under a minute on my laptop, and has sleep and suspend....2000 had sleep/suspend as well.


  • PCs running Windows Vista that are equipped with 512 MB memory experience a performance boost of up to 40 percent with Windows ReadyBoost. Just plug a USB flash drive into your computer, and Windows Vista will automatically start using it to speed up memory access to important data.
I can't help it....bragging about band-aid fixes just irks me....this is like duct-taping a gascan to the side of a camaro.

  • Out of the box, Windows Vista performs as well, or better, than Windows XP on common home and business tasks.
...but on games you need an extra 512mb o ram and an extra .4ghz of CPU power, HUZZAH!

  • Windows Vista users generally experience 20 percent fewer application "hangs" than those running Windows XP
Wait until the crapware authors start making Vista garbage...then I shall laugh heartily.

  • Superfetch helps your computer adjust to your schedule, so your apps are ready to go before you even launch them. Use Microsoft Outlook every morning? Superfetch will serve it up just in time for breakfast. Play the same game every night? Superfetch gets your computer ready for the next big win. Waiting less means you can do more
Renamed task scheduler FTW!!!!! :rolleyes:

  • Based on their first 180 days of availability, Windows Vista has been shown to have fewer vulnerabilities than Windows XP or MacOS X 10.4. PCs running it are 60 percent less likely to be infected with viruses, worms, and rootkits than PCs running Windows XP SP2. Windows Vista-based PCs are over 90 percent less likely to be infected than systems running Windows XP without a Service Pack. And the experts agree: "Windows Vista is arguably the most secure closed-source OS available on the market."
Is this based on the first 180 days of XP or MacOS being on the market as well? I am doubtful.

  • The more people use Windows Vista, the more they like it. So dig in and learn even more about the new features in Windows Vista. Once you've tried it, you'll see
This is delicious crack, you must smoke it.
 
Z

Zinn

Guest
i like vista and all, but this thread fails at life and should be executed.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
I guess I never tire of this subject because I think Vista rocks, and I just haven't had that many issues with it, no more than XP and prior versions of Windows. Drivers were a problem early on, but that's well taken care of now. That's not to say that there are a few quirks still, but Vista is solid, stable, performs well on the four machines I have it on, and just works for me.

Having installed it on a variety of hardware, I installed Vista Basic last month on a five year old laptop for my nice-in-law and she's not had any problems, works as well as XP did she's told me, I just don't get why so many seem to have all sorts of major problems.

What troubles me more has been the information is cyberspace, even major IT media outlets that speak out of both sides of their head when it comes to Vista. If I were trying to decide if Vista is any good, I wouldn't know what to think. Even in forums like these with expert users, it’s very hard to discern the real truth of Vista.

For me Vista works. In fact, we’re beginning to deploy it at work across the whole enterprise, a very major bank that you all know. We’re actually having as much if not more difficulty with deploying Office 2007. We have countless apps and documents in Office and some things are proving to be more challenging than one may have thought at first.
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
I havent had any major issues either but it is much slower than my 5 year old XP machine with Athlon 2400+, ide 5400 rpm hd and 384mb ram at many things. For example copying files and boot up time is much slower on Vista even though my hardware is much much faster. Last night for example I installed a on old game a hell of lot faster on the XP comp than on my Vista. Even things like opening folders is painfully slow compared to the old XP comp. It takes me 30-35 seconds to fully open "uninstall a program" on Vista as opposed to 5-7 seconds on XP. BTW I do have SP1 on Vista which seemed to help some things at first but now not so much. IMO there is still something seriously wrong with Vista.
 

mustang_steve

c[H]ewbacca
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Messages
10,756
To me, I'd use it if the new computer came with it, but I just don't see enough real value to buy the os for a pc that already has xp on it.
 

msny

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Messages
2,197
I havent had any major issues either but it is much slower than my 5 year old XP machine with Athlon 2400+, ide 5400 rpm hd and 384mb ram at many things. For example copying files and boot up time is much slower on Vista even though my hardware is much much faster. Last night for example I installed a on old game a hell of lot faster on the XP comp than on my Vista. Even things like opening folders is painfully slow compared to the old XP comp. It takes me 30-35 seconds to fully open "uninstall a program" on Vista as opposed to 5-7 seconds on XP. BTW I do have SP1 on Vista which seemed to help some things at first but now not so much. IMO there is still something seriously wrong with Vista.

No major issues with Vista.

I'm in IT and we will start deploying it companywide in about 2 months time.

If you were to go back to the release date of win XP and put it on a machine
that was 5 years prior to that date, you would probably have a worse result.

It simply takes more HP to run and the newer machine the better.

But is it really a lot better?

Out of the box performance wise I think it it, compared to win XP after 1 year.
And we have yet to see a SP, which I understand looks quite good.

Does it really offer anything new?
Application wise no, not really.
But as a programmer I've yet to use VS2005 and VS2008 is coming
so for me, that may change.

Overall its a very good OD IMHO.
 

oboyco

Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
533
cannondale06
"It takes me 30-35 seconds to fully open "uninstall a program" on Vista as opposed to 5-7 seconds on XP."

I think you may have more problems than Vista OS. My Control panel, Programs, feature opens instantly, like in less than a couple of seconds
 

AMD_RULES

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 26, 2007
Messages
3,010
cannondale06
"It takes me 30-35 seconds to fully open "uninstall a program" on Vista as opposed to 5-7 seconds on XP."

I think you may have more problems than Vista OS. My Control panel, Programs, feature opens instantly, like in less than a couple of seconds
how much ram are you running? I can ipen "add/remove programs" in about 10 seconds with 4gigs of ram.
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
cannondale06
"It takes me 30-35 seconds to fully open "uninstall a program" on Vista as opposed to 5-7 seconds on XP."

I think you may have more problems than Vista OS. My Control panel, Programs, feature opens instantly, like in less than a couple of seconds
no I dont and its the same on the other peoples Vista comps I have looked at. my parents just got a new pc with Vista and they even commented on slow simple things were compared to their old XP comp. and yes they have 2 gigs of ram too.

how much ram are you running? I can ipen "add/remove programs" in about 10 seconds with 4gigs of ram.
well look at my sig and it says 2 gigs. you seem to be just guessing but I actually timed it and its not even close.
 

abudhu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
1,653
Strange Cannon. Could you link me to post or sources that describe your similar slow downs (as opposed to sites/forums just bashing in general). I have a similar rig in my sig, and I have another rig that is a bit less powerful (on the CPU side: AMD 4600+) and the Control Panel opens in 1.5 seconds on both. After which they open instantly. (Edit): Seeing as you mentioned the Uninstall Program section I just tested/Timed mine and it took 2 seconds to open it. Rig in Sig has 60 Programs installed, my other has 56.

Given that, since we run similar rigs I'd say there is something else slowing down your system.
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
Strange Cannon. Could you link me to post or sources that describe your similar slow downs (as opposed to sites/forums just bashing in general). I have a similar rig in my sig, and I have another rig that is a bit less powerful (on the CPU side: AMD 4600+) and the Control Panel opens in 1.5 seconds on both. After which they open instantly. (Edit): Seeing as you mentioned the Uninstall Program section I just tested/Timed mine and it took 2 seconds to open it. Rig in Sig has 60 Programs installed, my other has 56.

Given that, since we run similar rigs I'd say there is something else slowing down your system.
ok let me be clear..I said FULLY open. It opens immediately but takes well over 30 seconds to fully load. I just sit there waiting for the little icons to load and the green bar to finish going across the top of the screen. some guy in Best Buy argued with me one day about it until I went several comps right there in the store and showed him how slow it was.I know thats a bad example since those comps are pretty bloated but it still helped prove my point. My Fraps folder takes a little over 70 seconds to open on Vista but the exact same folder opens in less than 30 seconds on the old XP comp.:confused:

also just a "vista slow opening files" search on google shows Vista is slow at plenty of things for plenty of people http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...esult&cd=1&q=vista+slow+opening+files&spell=1
 

abudhu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
1,653
By Open, I meant Fully Open as well, to load all my programs and everything took those 2 seconds. :p Anywho odd man, really odd. I know my system takes a little while to fully display contents of my external drives, so I know where you are coming from saying: "Gosh this is slow." But to suffer that problem everyday, blah.

Perhaps you should test out the Refresh 2 of SP1 for Vista on a test box to see if it helps your problems out.
 

squares

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 25, 2007
Messages
474
For some reason my PC with vista (the one in sig) takes longer to load vista than my dell inspiron 6000 to load xp.
 

TechieSooner

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
7,601
FWIW, 6 seconds on 2GB of RAM, to get it fully open. But good gracious this is ridiculous, got tired of bitching about the old stuff, so now we bitch at petty things like the Uninstall Programs window?

Honestly, give it a rest.
 

oboyco

Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
533
I have 6gb right now, but never noticed any difference with 2gb, a bit ago, in uninstall
from control panel

Superfetch maybe? But then again it would be the memory hog Vista is, more than likely that is causing problems, right? Something is wrong with your system
 

cannondale06

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
16,180
FWIW, 6 seconds on 2GB of RAM, to get it fully open. But good gracious this is ridiculous, got tired of bitching about the old stuff, so now we bitch at petty things like the Uninstall Programs window?

Honestly, give it a rest.
it was a simple example of how sluggish it is in everyday use compared to my XP comp and I also mentioned more than just that. do you really want me to time everything on my comp? :rolleyes:
 
Top