Is everything faster in Vista?

Do programs open faster, and in general does everything respond to commands with greater speed?

 

No, in general Vista will be slower. Get a faster computer, more RAM, reinstall your OS or get a better operating system if you want commands to be faster.

 

and will it use core 2 duo faster and better than xp, i mean will good notebook run it faster with vista than Xp?

 

Again, no. The only place I can imagine you seeing a benefit is from the hybrid hard drives that're coming out sometime. Then you may percieve a performance improvement from Vista, as applications will be precached in the large flash cache, causing them to load very quickly.

 

Well, I'm going to disagree with everyone else here. If you have a fast dual-core processor and 2 GB+ of RAM, Vista is noticeably faster than XP. With a basic dual-core processor and 1 GB of RAM, they run about the same. Single-core processor or less than 1 GB of RAM and Vista is noticeably slower.

 

thats what i've heard from microsoft

 

One thing I noticed w/ Vista so far is file downloads from the internet are much faster, though I'm not sure why. Resume from sleep mode is also much quicker.

 

Surely that depends on your ISP quality, our Bandwith and your network management than the Operating System!?!?

 

No. XP's network stack sucks. It's finally getting to the state other OS's have been at for years.

I could also see vista theoretically being faster. But it's not going to be faster than Linux, or other operating systems that have adapted to new hardware sooner than Windows. Vista has done a lot under the hood. The main reasons I dislike it is because they're trying to get even more money out of it, when they've already delayed the hell out of the system, and that DRM is so intertwined with the system, it's even more "Do what we tell you that you can do today" rather than "Where do you want to go today?", even more so than their older versions.

 

Are we talking Superfetch type stuff? Application load times? I find it hard to accept the idea that Vista has less overhead than XP.

 

Vista most definitely has more overhead than XP. But it also takes much better advantage of multi-processor/core systems and large amount of memory. Superfetch is a part of this... the much-improved network stack (that Pitabred mentioned) also comes into play in some situations... and I honestly don't know all the other differences.

Basically, despite much steeper requirements, it isn't much of a surprise that a new OS designed around the latest hardware can take better advantage of that hardware than a five-year old OS designed when a killer system was a Pentium III with 512 MB of RAM.

But, as I said before, on a fast dual-core system with 2 GB of RAM, Vista is noticeably faster than XP... on boot-up, shutting down, launching applications, pretty much across the board.

 

I Have Turion x2 and 2GB RAM (look at sig) .........

I can tell you that Vista is MUCH faster than XP on my laptop. I only use XP now for my Bluetooth dongle and certain games, and I notice the really notice a big differ when using XP. It's like downgrading in my opinion.

In Vista, Programs work faster, Surfing is more stable, Just every thing in general is much mor smoother. Startup and Shutdown is very quick. And with the UAC and Tight Security ....Programs and Registry don't seem to have a mind of their own and cause slowness or errors or spyware. Copying files from differ partitions also seems to be faster.

I have no idea how good it runs on a 1GB or less machine. I'm a afraid to test it on my 1GB HP Desktop. I'm always at 500+ RAM and can easily hit 1.2 RAM Depending on What I'm doing. But on the positive side I never hit over 1.4GB RAM, even on heavy multitasking.

 

LIVEFRMNYC--If you've got an aero-supported graphics card and reasonably fast processor in that desktop, I wouldn't worry about installing Vista on it. It won't seem much faster than XP, but Vista definitely provides a better experience. And Vista has much better memory management than XP. You'll always be using between 1/2 and 2/3 of your memory on a 1 GB system, but Vista's is able to pretty quickly determine when you need more memory and for what, and adjust accordingly.

Edit: I just looked at your sig. With a 4200 rpm hard drive, Vista's enhanced caching system (moving data it thinks you may need soon into free memory) should provide a really nice speed boost. Don't expect it to be quite so dramatic on other systems.

 

How the heck do some of you have Vista RTM already?

On another note, could someone tell me how to get Vista RTM? My college's MSDNAA shuts off over winter break so I won't be able to play around with it when it first gets released.

 

Vista RTM was released a few days ago to subscribers of MSDN and TechNet, and OEMs have had it for a while.

 

Vista is much snappier than XP on my 1710. I'm running RTM Vista.

I'm running ReadyBoost with a 150x 4GB SD card but even without readyboost on it's still snappier.

 

i'm running Vista RTM too, on 1G RAM Aspire 5672 (laptop). the boot takes about 20 / 30 seconds, load the desktop after insert my password (and all the apps) takes about 10 sec. overall seems faster than XP, even if the ram used is at least 400/500MB, it seems that is able to release and give to the applications that require it (i'm using Eclipse, Visual Studio 2005, etc..., big applications that require 200 MB ram). CPU and RAM are always working, i'm not using ReadyBoost yet, but still faster than XP.

 

tech jargon asides, vista RC2 is currently beating the heck out of my XP Home SP2 - 3 partitions on my amd64.

Only hiccup is when there is some security/compatibility issue on some apps. Other than that, vista is zipping along quite well, especially in networking and surfing

can't say much for games since vista is still retarded in this area due to many manu not yet offering respective drivers.

cheers ...

 

ive got a T2500, 1GB RAM, 5400 RPM HD, nvidia go 7600.

Im planning on buying the vista premium version from future shop when it comes out. Call me stupid, call it a waste of time and money I dont really care what you think...but anyways Im wondering if my specs are enough to run it well??

I know it will run, I just dont know if itll run smoothly. I guess it depends on a lot of factors, but just wanted to get an opinion.

Also someone mentioned having a Fast Core Duo processor and a Basic Core Duo processor...what do they mean by that?? Are the Core 2 Duos the "Fast" ones and the reguluar Core Duos are the " Basic"???

 

Any dual core will be fine for Vista. Your machine should do it justice. Though, it may persuade you to updrage your ram in the future.

 

at the very least try to get an OEM license by buying some RAM or something. the thought of paying that much for an OS makes me cringe.

 

If you don't really care what we think, why should we answer your questions?
Did you run the Vista Upgrade Advisor yet and see what it had to say?

 

Thats because he knows how people like to quickly criticize positive reviews on Vista without hearing what you have to say.

But I been seeing nicer reviews in the past couple of days

Yea, the Upgrade Advisor is pretty Accurate.

 

I cant stand the security feature in vista.

Cant even work around it.

A dialogue box opens to run each program. Gets so old.

the interface itself is quite nice with the mini windows and the rotate of the windows though.

 

Just turn the feature off. You couldn't of looked very hard.

Security Center
Other Security Settings
User Account Control (Turn it off)

 

i thought u can dissable the UAC in the.... RC2+ i think...

 

@Stamar: you can turn it off with 1 click under User account manager in the control panel. plus, it doesn't asks at every program, only to these that requires to run as Administrator, or installation programs that are writing in system directories. Most of the applications start without asking anything (VS.NET, Office, Eclipse, MSN/ICQ/Skype), the only application i saw requiring to start as admin was Alchol 120% on the first start time, after that, never...