Re: A correct "mojave" experiment for Vista

"+Bob+" <uctraing@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:0pmdd4li1n2pue28rm718d88llkgsn6046@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 09:44:27 -0700, "Kerry Brown"
<kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*a*m> wrote:

Try comparing apples to apples instead of apples to oranges (pun intended).
Here's the minimum and suggested minimum recommendations for XP.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865

What is the user experience like with that setup? It's about as good as
Vista with the suggested minimum recommendations. Microsoft has never been
very good with either minimum or suggested minimum requirements. Here's some
more that are way off.

The point is that Vista requires twice the hardware and still runs
slower.

I invite you (too) to tell me what improvements Vista has that merit
the increase in hardware.




Built in search, better firewall, service hardening, IE protected mode, better memory management, much better default user interface, 64 bit version has much better driver support, can set a jpg file as the desktop background without using active desktop, active desktop no longer exists, S3 sleep support, Windows sidebar, snipping tool, photo gallery, DVD maker, bitlocker, image based deployment, much better performance measuring and troubleshooting tools, directx 10, Mobility Center, Windows Calendar, Windows Contacts, scalable icons, breadcrumbs, usable parental controls, ASLR, better DEP support, integrity control of applications, credential providers instead of GINA, improved IPSEC support, better wireless encryption support, ...

There's a few I can think of. I'm sure I missed more than I could come up with off the top of my head. And before you say this can be added to XP - Yes some of it can, but at what cost in both money and performance?

Another point is that the minimum recommended system for Vista is considerably less expensive than the minimum recommended XP system was when both OS's were released. More importantly a decent Vista system is about 3/4 the price of decent XP system at a similar point in the timeline of XP development. If you take inflation into account it's actually less than 1/2 the cost.

I also take issue with your assertion that Vista runs slower than XP. If you compare like with like i.e. a decent Vista system from today with a decent XP system from 1 1/2 years after XP was released I think you'll find the Vista system a better performer. Saying XP outperforms Vista on the same hardware is like saying Windows 98 outperforms XP on the same hardware. Yes, in both cases this is true. What is also true is that a typical XP system would outperform a typical Windows 98 system and be much nicer to use. The same holds true with Vista vs. XP. The point is the typical system changes over time as hardware comes down in price and has better performance. Should we ignore hardware improvements and only program for old, outdated hardware. I don't know any OS that does that. Do you? I've been running Fedora since it was Redhat 5.2. My first Redhat system was a PII with 32 MB. Do you think Fedora 9 would run on it? Would Redhat 5.2 outperform Fedora 9 on a new system? How about OS X on my old PowerCenter Pro?

Things change. Life and OS's move on. It's too bad some people can't deal with this.

--
Kerry Brown
MS-MVP - Windows Desktop Experience: Systems Administration
http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/
http://vistahelpca.blogspot.com/




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: List of Applications Not Compatible with Leopard
    ... If there is an equal on Windows I truly would love to know about ... program on the Plasq frontpage was clearly taken on Vista. ... the product is on both Windows and Mac. ... hardware than Vista works on PC hardware is hardly "silly". ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: How workable is Vista?
    ... With Vista, the startup apps may take the same 2 or 3 minutes but you ... Avoiding Internet Explorer and Outlook Express is the most important step to avoiding malware on Windows. ... For people using a home PC mainly for web and email, cataloguing their digital photographs, playing music, and some light office apps, they are faster, safer and cheaper using Linux. ... Vista can and should be judged by how well it runs software that people need to run, and how well it supports hardware that people need to use. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Windows 7: Lets See How It Runs
    ... Dell hardware, the Dimension 2400 is busy with other stuff and I didn't want to take it down for this. ... I wanted to be particularly mean to Windows ... just to put Microsoft's claims of vastly improved performance (even for Beta 1) to the ultimate test*. ... The speed is just about night and day over Vista. ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
  • Vistas dead: Microsoft kills an OS and no one cares
    ... Now everyone including most of all microsoft itself is eager to forget it ever happened, to put it behind them, to bury it and to KILL THE PIECE OF SHIT THAT DID MORE harm to their sales than MAC OSX and linux combined! ... It may have looked pretty on the outside, but critics quickly pounced on it for driver incompatibility, sluggish performance on mainstream -- and sometimes even high-end -- hardware and enough bugs to fill a family-sized tent on a weekend camping expedition. ... Microsoft didn't help matters with its ill-fated "Vista Capable" designation -- a public relations debacle that convinced buyers who were too lazy to read the fine print that Vista would run just as well on hardware barely suited for XP. ... But last week's announcement of the Windows 7 Upgrade Option Program signals the likely death knell for Vista. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.vista.general)
  • Windows 7: Lets See How It Runs
    ... hardware, the Dimension 2400 is busy with other stuff and I didn't ... I wanted to be particularly mean to Windows ... The speed is just about night and day over Vista. ... RAM use with only the control panel open was steady at 420MB or so. ...
    (alt.sys.pc-clone.dell)
Loading