Permabanned
That long I try boot 1x per day and go for a pee while its booting every morning, far more than the 11secs they claim longer than XP.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Have Nvidia drivers matured yet for Vista?
- Thread starter triggerthat
- Start date
That long I try boot 1x per day and go for a pee while its booting every morning, far more than the 11secs they claim longer than XP.
Soldato
There's something very wrong with your machine. Mine boots as quick if not quicker than XP.
Permabanned
You know, I knew someone would say that, the offical facts are it cant, its far slower even though it is supposed to only load the needed services untill after the OS is up and running then load the rest.
You need compair a clean installed XP with no bloatware services installed by Programs to the same for Vista.
There is nothing wrong with my Machine.
XP was advertised as faster booting than any OS before it, Vista was not.
You need compair a clean installed XP with no bloatware services installed by Programs to the same for Vista.
There is nothing wrong with my Machine.
XP was advertised as faster booting than any OS before it, Vista was not.
Soldato
Not true at all.
The fact is I have no boot issues. Things are loaded and working damn quickly.
Permabanned
Good for you but again its slower than XP period.
You info about my Machine having issues is also Not True as you added above.
I do not have boot issues, simply slower as Vista is and thats offical from MS and 1000's of sites. (and I aint talking only boot times).
I dont know how much you know or dont know about Vista, but it was 2 years late and many aspects stripped out it to get it thrown out the door finally, thats why the next OS is supposed to be 2009 and was announced right after Vista hit RTM.
This copy Im on was free from MS (as tested Beta's), finally used it a few months ago as only then it was usuable as bit better support and i wanted to play some games that had some DX10 effects.
No skin of my nose as I never paid for it.
You info about my Machine having issues is also Not True as you added above.
I do not have boot issues, simply slower as Vista is and thats offical from MS and 1000's of sites. (and I aint talking only boot times).
I dont know how much you know or dont know about Vista, but it was 2 years late and many aspects stripped out it to get it thrown out the door finally, thats why the next OS is supposed to be 2009 and was announced right after Vista hit RTM.
This copy Im on was free from MS (as tested Beta's), finally used it a few months ago as only then it was usuable as bit better support and i wanted to play some games that had some DX10 effects.
No skin of my nose as I never paid for it.
Last edited:
Soldato
Right, here we go.
List these sites.
Mine is not slow, simple and fact. You're trashing vista for the sake of it. Sure it isn't perfect but it's no where NEAR as bad as you :/
List these sites.
Mine is not slow, simple and fact. You're trashing vista for the sake of it. Sure it isn't perfect but it's no where NEAR as bad as you :/
Caporegime
Vista is faster than XP in everything but games for me, quicker loading times and also boots quicker.
Permabanned
Try a Clean install of XP-SP2, dont compair to an old install, very rare if it was faster.
Soldato
For me boot times are roughly the same between Vista and XP, i have all unnecessary services disabled in XP and have 23 services running after boot, I have disabled most of the crap running in Vista like windows defender but still have about 44 services running in the background, one difference i do notice on boot is that Vista takes way longer to stabilise than XP does, understandable really as it loads up a lot more crap at boot. An optimised XP system will always be faster than Vista.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 4
I dual boot XP Home SP2 and Vista Home Premium x64. Comparing a mature install of XP (no bugs, stable, very well maintained) and a fairly mature Vista install (both running the same programs on startup), Vista boots faster. Whatever the official facts are, I can definitely count how long it takes to boot.
Also bear in mind here's a wealth of difference between Vista x86 and x64. I use x64 on mine and really have a hard time faulting it. Driver support is pretty good now - Creative still needs to get their finger out, but then their XP driver is mediocre anyway. Interface is fantastic, makes XP look something Fisher Price dreamt up...
I've not tried Crysis in XP yet (like someone said above, you'd have to force Vista to run it in DX9 mode at exactly the same settings to get a fair comparison), but most other games either run at the same speed or marginally faster in Vista for me. FEAR at identical settings is 3fps faster (average, with Alchemy enabled), and about 10fps faster on the max, NWN2 gained about 5fps, and TR Anniversary is also smoother. I can't give a 3dmark 06 comparison as XP defaults to a lower res than Vista (no, I'm not buying a pro license).
Part of the problem with Vista is people trying to run it on under spec hardware. We bought a laptop with 512mb ddr and a celery m (not my recommendation!). There were tears. Whacked XP on and all rosy.
I do agree on the service pack though - Vista SP1 is little more than a collection of Windows updates, whereas XP SP3 as another evolution of the OS. I can't see why M$ would do something this stupid (commercially), as they could have delayed XP SP3, and dumped the resources into Vista SP1...
Also bear in mind here's a wealth of difference between Vista x86 and x64. I use x64 on mine and really have a hard time faulting it. Driver support is pretty good now - Creative still needs to get their finger out, but then their XP driver is mediocre anyway. Interface is fantastic, makes XP look something Fisher Price dreamt up...
I've not tried Crysis in XP yet (like someone said above, you'd have to force Vista to run it in DX9 mode at exactly the same settings to get a fair comparison), but most other games either run at the same speed or marginally faster in Vista for me. FEAR at identical settings is 3fps faster (average, with Alchemy enabled), and about 10fps faster on the max, NWN2 gained about 5fps, and TR Anniversary is also smoother. I can't give a 3dmark 06 comparison as XP defaults to a lower res than Vista (no, I'm not buying a pro license).
Part of the problem with Vista is people trying to run it on under spec hardware. We bought a laptop with 512mb ddr and a celery m (not my recommendation!). There were tears. Whacked XP on and all rosy.
I do agree on the service pack though - Vista SP1 is little more than a collection of Windows updates, whereas XP SP3 as another evolution of the OS. I can't see why M$ would do something this stupid (commercially), as they could have delayed XP SP3, and dumped the resources into Vista SP1...
Don
Anymore insults from anyone, will earn themselves a holiday.
Jokester
Jokester
Vista boots faster than XP and loads apps much faster. Comparing a fresh install of Vista to a fresh install of XP is also not a very objective test because Vista needs time to optimize itself by learning how you use it, however a fresh install of Vista still boots faster than a fresh install of XP because it was designed to boot quickly regardless of how people use it.
Unsurprisingly Vista will not boot quickly on lacking or poorly configured hardware.
Edit: Gaming started out fairly badly with Vista but now things have levelled out and each driver release brings welcome improvements, at least Nvidia's do, I don't own an ATI card.
Last edited:
Permabanned
What you tallking about, Prefetch ?.
And your past part, what hardware is lacking or poorly configured (you mean mines), because without boosting I bet its a damn site better than yours.
Vista is slower than XP, MS know and admit it, most sites know it, what is so hard to grasp.
Compairing a clean install is FAIR, as a old XP install will be slower and messed up, any OS feels FAST as a new install.
If you go onto some hardcore sites and claim Vista is faster than XP you will get laughed at.
With 9 posts in 8 months and no Hardware Sig I think I can safely ignore your wisdom and comments about hardware lacklustness and optimisation.
Vista has 1 rather big bug in which it cant move or copy large files, this is not just for peeps doing video work but download a large file like a Game Demo and when it ends it moves from a Temp Folder to say your Desktop (if this is where you choose), well it takes forever, a 2GB Demo file takes me 5 times longer to move than download.
And before someone says its my PC, its a known issue in Vista, the SP 1 Beta Im on seems to 99% fix it though.
And your past part, what hardware is lacking or poorly configured (you mean mines), because without boosting I bet its a damn site better than yours.
Vista is slower than XP, MS know and admit it, most sites know it, what is so hard to grasp.
Compairing a clean install is FAIR, as a old XP install will be slower and messed up, any OS feels FAST as a new install.
If you go onto some hardcore sites and claim Vista is faster than XP you will get laughed at.
With 9 posts in 8 months and no Hardware Sig I think I can safely ignore your wisdom and comments about hardware lacklustness and optimisation.
Vista has 1 rather big bug in which it cant move or copy large files, this is not just for peeps doing video work but download a large file like a Game Demo and when it ends it moves from a Temp Folder to say your Desktop (if this is where you choose), well it takes forever, a 2GB Demo file takes me 5 times longer to move than download.
And before someone says its my PC, its a known issue in Vista, the SP 1 Beta Im on seems to 99% fix it though.
Last edited:
Permabanned
No but you shooting off about others having dodgy hardware and it not being set up right all because a buggy OS is offically slower gives you no CRED IMO. 
Your info is wrong and your outlook to others hardware or set up of that hardware is wrong and its personal.
Your info is wrong and your outlook to others hardware or set up of that hardware is wrong and its personal.
Last edited:
No but you shooting off about others having dodgy hardware and it not being set up right all because a buggy OS is offically slower gives you no CRED IMO.
Your info is wrong and your outlook to others hardware or set up of that hardware is wrong and its personal.
What???
I said....
and you think I am 'shooting off about others' having dodgy hardware? Are you serious??
Which info of mine is wrong?
Permabanned
Unsurprisingly Vista will not boot quickly on lacking or poorly configured hardware.
Who was that towards then, dont take a rocket scientist to work out its towards anyone in this thread thats saying Vista is slower, and why would XP run any better on this bad hardware ?.
Your story has no grounds and you really need go read some good hardware sites and MS type sites, not 1 sided ones.
As I have said even MS will admit Vista is slower.
The OP still asked a Q on a certain subject and the A is still its slower.
Who was that towards then, dont take a rocket scientist to work out its towards anyone in this thread thats saying Vista is slower, and why would XP run any better on this bad hardware ?.
Your story has no grounds and you really need go read some good hardware sites and MS type sites, not 1 sided ones.
As I have said even MS will admit Vista is slower.
The OP still asked a Q on a certain subject and the A is still its slower.
Last edited:
Associate
vista does boot to the desktop faster then xp (both clean installs) but vista cant be used right away once desktop opens as it spends another 5 mins playing with the hd blocking/slowing access to anything youd want to run . (even with indexing, superfetch and all the other crap turned off)
Permabanned
Thats what is meant to happens, if you read above you see I mentioned it, but it does not always happen for most users and nothing is wrong with their set ups.