I will say this: right now acronis is the only one remotely on the right path with vista in the cloning game imho. Acronis 10 still needs some work but its the right idea
Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless -----Original Message----- From: FORC5 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 06:07:48 To:The Hardware List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [H] Is Vista going to be that much better than XP Pro? if anything Vista is slower, needs at least 1gig ram etc. The first build I put in was a real dog and it came back out the same day. FWIW I am running it on a AMD 2400 and did bump the ram to 1 gig on a WD SATA 250gb drive. All of my systems are behind the power curve, <:-| successive builds have gotten a lot better and there are a few things I like ( and some I do no not ) They even inspect your system and adjust the extra slow down crap accordingly sort of like games do. INstall routine is more mature. That said, I see no improvement in Vista for getting actual work done ( like they claim ) Best I can say is right now making a backup bootable clone is difficult. I am beta testing standby disk and it works on the x86 version but IMO Vista is more about piracy then anything else. I would say to MS the same thing I say to phone company's, make the product better,. I need to be able to backup my system and/or at least be able to move it to a new HD when that need arises. fp At 11:14 PM 10/7/2006, Raul Limos Poked the stick with: >>Veech wrote: >>I guess what I'm asking is, is Vista going to demonstrate a big improvement >>in >>performance over XP Pro? > >Looks like not yet, see: >http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2850 -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- If the family skeleton must remain, make it dance.
