This is not a video game, this is an operating system. Regardless of the reasons, the fact remains that PERFORMANCE in Vista is lower, significantly lower in some cases, than performance of applications in XP.
As a consumer, that's all you need to know. The whys, wherefores and excuses are immaterial. Fact remains that it is going to take me longer to uncompress or to compress a large amount of files in Vista than it is in XP. It's going to take me longer to convert video in Vista than it would in XP. Developers and analysts say that there isn't anything that can be 'optimized' third party wise to prevent this, this is the way it's always going to be and is a function of the Operating System, and not due to third party applications being unoptimized. A large reason for this is the pervasive DRM systems that exist in Vista. Other reasons include some of the security code which they added,how Vista handles memory, the rewrite of the graphics sub systems etc. Now it may very well be that Vista ITSELF needs to be further optimised. Performance did get better as the product matured, which indicated that there were obviously Operating System optimisations that were done to help Vista's performance in daily computing. The slow performance which people are experiencing is not what anyone expected on release, however, and is not the same as the performance differences between 98 and XP for example, these are much larger and more noticeable. Someone mentioned whether the OS is slower, or third party apps are slower. What do you use an OS for? Does Vista just sit on your desk and you click explorer and do file management? Of course not, you naturally run third party programs, or Microsoft programs. Those programs are Slower under Vista, and it is not because they are not 'optimised' for the system. People with High End dual Core processors are the ones complaining that it isn't performing as quickly. So purchasing a super fast processor really isn't the answer. This is your argument: 1. XP runs an application at a speed of 10 on my 500 series Processor. 2. Vista runs an application at a speed of 7 on my 500 Series Processor. 3. I purchase a 700 series Processor 4. Vista runs my application at a speed of 10 on the 700 series processor. 5. BUT XP runs my application at a speed of 15 on this new 700 series processor.Do I now go out and buy a 1000 series processor? No matter what: XP will be faster. The argument falls apart. The only way this works out for the consumer is IF and ONLY IF Vista offers benefits far above and beyond the performance deficit. Some people are saying that it does not. On 2/5/07, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, because they tie their harware and software upgrades together. > > You can't get that new OS you want, unless you also get that new machine you > might not want. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:226793 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
