Subject: Newly built comp is laggy and begins to hangs
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Posted by SteveH on May 11, 2008, 9:03 am
Please log in for more thread options >
But Vista does definitely boot faster. This is one I've seen levelled at XP/Vista, ME/XP, 98/ME etc. over the years. And ususally the difference turns out to be a few seconds. Even of the difference was say a minute or so, does it /really/ matter? As most people seem to leave their PC's on all day (or even 24/7), even if the boot takes a couple of minutes, it hardly seems relevant. Personally, I'm more concerned with how well the PC performs when its up and running than whether it takes 30secs or 2 mins to boot up. -- SteveH | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by kony on May 11, 2008, 8:28 pm
Please log in for more thread options >>>
>>> Of course. But if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP >>> is faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by >>> claiming that the hardware is identical. But then if they were >>> dual-booting or triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be stupid enough >>> to post that they believe XP is faster than Vista. It's simply not >>> rue. -Dave >>
>> There are thousands of people who disagree with you. >
>And that's exactly why newsgroups like this are so popular. There are >thousands of people who can fuck up a simple OS install. Which is obviously what you have done if you managed to make XP slow enough that Vista seems equal, let alone faster. >If XP and Vista
>are both properly installed and configured, Vista boots faster, Which isn't running faster. >and the two
>operating systems run the same speed, False and completely illogical. You might mean you can't tell the difference, meaning you assume so. >you can't say that one is faster than
>the other. We can not only say it, it has clearly been proven. Tell us this, are you not even aware of the basic fundamental overhead involved with shuffling around hundreds of MB more code? Did you get tricked by MS marketing fluff about things like superfetch, not recalling XP has more memory left to cache more? If you like Vista, great... but it doesn't magically change it into something it's not which is a more resource intensive and slower OS on the same hardware. By the same token Win9x is faster than XP, though most won't want to use it for other reasons like less support for modern hardware, capacities, and that annoying tendency it had to crash the OS instead of being able to gracefully shut down misbehaving apps. | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by kony on May 11, 2008, 8:33 pm
Please log in for more thread options wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course. But if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP >>> is faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by >>> claiming that the hardware is identical. But then if they were >>> dual-booting or triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be stupid enough >>> to post that they believe XP is faster than Vista. It's simply not >>> rue. -Dave >>
>> There are thousands of people who disagree with you. >
>And that's exactly why newsgroups like this are so popular. There are >thousands of people who can fuck up a simple OS install. If XP and Vista >are both properly installed and configured, Vista boots faster, and the two >operating systems run the same speed, you can't say that one is faster than >the other. But Vista does definitely boot faster. -Dave Also, it's not actually clear that Vista does boot faster because having an appearance of the desktop isn't a sign that booting is finished, Vista is still doing quite a lot in the background meaning you don't actually have full use of all system resources yet, and Vista then stays busier in the background continually so some could even argue Vista never really finishes booting because the things it keeps doing areinbuilt functions that start each time it boots, refilling memory because of it's design, things not desirable to the user in all cases, just more overhead involved in doing the same things people have done for years. I do hope you aren't comparing a system that has a now aged XP installation on it, thinking /that/ somehow equates to a far younger installation of Vista... since everyone knows half the bootup time ends up resulting from things installed after the clean OS installation. | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by John Doe on May 11, 2008, 1:14 pm
Please log in for more thread options
>> ... if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP is
>> faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by >> claiming that the hardware is identical. But then if they were >> dual-booting or triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be >> stupid enough to post that they believe XP is faster than Vista. >> It's simply not rue. -Dave >
> There are thousands of people who disagree with you. It certainly goes against experience. With every new version of Windows comes a hugely greater number of files. Faster hardware is needed to run a new version at the same speed. There's nothing insightful about that, that is true for successive applications too. A decent test would be to do a clean install of both operating systems and then use Performance Monitor to look at CPU usage. If Vista uses a higher percentage of the CPU, then it's probably slower especially when the CPU is fully used. I too vaguely recall the "boots faster" claim associated with new versions of Windows. I also remember touting Windows Millennium for being able to shut down errant programs, but that infatuation didn't last very long. Fortunately, after lots of experience I can say with certainty that Windows XP is able to cleanly shut down programs. I think Windows XP was partly a product of the big antitrust trial, in that era Microsoft was under lots of pressure to do good. But Microsoft has been worry free since the year 2000 and Windows Vista is a big question mark to me. It's not worth trying until XP is broken. | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by kony on May 11, 2008, 8:23 pm
Please log in for more thread options wrote:
>
>>
>>> You're talking out your ass, DaveW. I triple-boot WinXP, Vista
>>> and linux on the same system. >>
>> Speaking of blowing. >> >>> Linux blows the doors off of both Microsoft Operating Systems.
>>> But XP is NOT faster than Vista. >>
>> I'm sure you realize that Linux "blowing the doors off of Microsoft >> operating systems" has nothing to do with whether XP is faster than >> Vista. >
>Of course. But if someone is going to make the ridiculous claim that XP is >faster than *Vista*, they'd better at least try to back it up by claiming >that the hardware is identical. But then if they were dual-booting or >triple-booting like I am, they would NOT be stupid enough to post that they >believe XP is faster than Vista. It's simply not true. -Dave XP is faster than Vista, on same system, dual booted. Perhaps you need to do a clean install to undo what you'd malconfigured on XP because the entire world knows XP is faster, it is a bit silly to wait till this late date to try to reargue what the world has proven over and over. | |||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Subject: Newly built comp is laggy and begins to hangs | May 10, 2008, 2:33 pm |
| Am I ok with these CPU TEMPS and FAN Speeds? Newly Built comp?? Help | April 3, 2006, 3:55 pm |
| Problem with newly built system | March 1, 2006, 10:19 am |
| Newly Built Computer Won't Stay On | December 14, 2006, 10:30 pm |
| Intermittent hangs | May 7, 2005, 6:22 pm |
| A recent epidemic of hangs? | February 23, 2005, 8:16 am |
| why my system hangs after some beaps | September 14, 2005, 4:44 pm |
| PC completely locks/hangs up | June 3, 2007, 12:29 pm |
| A7V133 - Boot hangs at "PCI device list" | March 19, 2006, 3:57 pm |
| Power Supply Died..Machine now Hangs Partway Through Bootup | April 26, 2005, 7:56 pm |
| Is a DVD-RW comp. with Win 98? | April 11, 2006, 10:28 am |
| Newly assembled computer gives message | December 2, 2006, 9:22 pm |
| First DIY comp, need help in selections | December 27, 2005, 2:32 pm |
| building a new comp | July 25, 2007, 6:51 pm |
| Comp restarts. | May 30, 2008, 11:42 am |