Is it just me, or is Vista remarkably faster?

[XMan]

XP was relatively snappy for me . . . but man, Vista just seems to be easily twice as fast.

This is all on the same hardware - with a day-old installation, so I'm fairly certain that pre-caching hasn't become a factor yet.

 

[pulse8]

I've found the same. I haven't decided if it is placebo or not.

 

[Shawn]

It's faster as long as you have enough ram.

 

[Pwnbroker]

Actually, the indexing starts within a few minutes of installing, according to Microsoft, and should only take 15-30 minutes.

 

[fyleow]

..

 

[spherrod]

Yep, on my installs it's been at least as fast as XP but usually much snappier.

 

[Stumps]

yep, it's snappier than XP...until you run a game that is...

 

[egale]

Or click the Start menu

 

[nerp]

It's not you. Vista is noticably faster for me. Games aren't any slower either now that the NVIDIA driver situation is starting to shape up.

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: fyleow

Originally posted by: Pwnbroker
Actually, the indexing starts within a few minutes of installing, according to Microsoft, and should only take 15-30 minutes.

Superfetch and indexing are two different things. OP was probably talking about superfetch which keeps regularly used programs in memory so they launch quicker. Indexing is for faster searching.

Fixed. I got burned for that the other day, too. too -> two.

I've noticed since I've upgraded to a new system with 2GB of ram, that Vista is a little bit faster than XP.

Except for copying files. I won't go there. But just know this. IT SUCKS.

 

[juktar]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Except for copying files. I won't go there. But just know this. IT SUCKS.

call and get the patch, why wait?

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: juktar

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Except for copying files. I won't go there. But just know this. IT SUCKS.

call and get the patch, why wait?

Care to link it?

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: InlineFive

Originally posted by: juktar

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Except for copying files. I won't go there. But just know this. IT SUCKS.

call and get the patch, why wait?

Care to link it?

Please link. No one should have to call and get a patch for a big mistake on MS's part.

 

[Smilin]

On big-gun hardware Vista should outrun XP on most (not all) things. It's especially noticable if you are loading the box down with lots and lots of simultaneous tasks.

On lesser hardware the added "weight" of Vista hurts and XP will tend to outrun it.


A typical use for me:
WoW on one monitor pulling 60-80fps at 16x12. On the other (14x9) monitor: dreamscene wallpaper(mpeg video), zune music playing, IE with about a dozen tabs, Ventrillo for voicechat, couple IM windows, minimized outlook, gadget bar with cpu gadget indicating ~75% cpu (I think I'm gpu bound).

This stuff crushed my XP install. Switching between apps would also cause convulsions on my 3d card. You've alt-tabbed in an out of a 3d app so you've seen it. No such issues on Vista since it's all 3d.

Full rig in sig but briefly:
Athlon 4600 dual core
2gig ram
7950gx2 video

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: InlineFive

Originally posted by: juktar

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Except for copying files. I won't go there. But just know this. IT SUCKS.

call and get the patch, why wait?

Care to link it?

Is it ok to link here?

 

[Solema]

Please link Blaze, or PM me and I can host the file and link it. The data transfer rate for copies is killing me!

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: Solema
Please link Blaze, or PM me and I can host the file and link it. The data transfer rate for copies is killing me!

If you can, PM me too. I would appreciate it. TIA...

 

[crispy2010]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Originally posted by: Solema
Please link Blaze, or PM me and I can host the file and link it. The data transfer rate for copies is killing me!

If you can, PM me too. I would appreciate it. TIA...

 

[the Chase]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: InlineFive

Originally posted by: juktar

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Except for copying files. I won't go there. But just know this. IT SUCKS.

call and get the patch, why wait?

Care to link it?

Is it ok to link here?

Pretty sure it's OK.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Smilin
On big-gun hardware Vista should outrun XP on most (not all) things. It's especially noticable if you are loading the box down with lots and lots of simultaneous tasks.

On lesser hardware the added "weight" of Vista hurts and XP will tend to outrun it.

This is absolutely right in my experience. It just depends on the computer.

I tried Vista on two machines one was a year-old P4 machinee and the other was spankin' new C2D machine. On the P4 rig XP was snappy and Vista was nearly unusably slow. On the C2D rig, XP of course was still snappy, but not really snappier than the P4 machine; Vista on the other hand felt noticeably faster than XP on that machine.

The C2D had 2 GB dual channel RAM and the P4 had 512 MB of some DDR Ram.

I own Vista Ultimate but it's on a shelf now until SP1, when I will try it again. It is just too buggy for me now. The C2D is my machine and the speed difference (or maybe just the impression of speed) is one of a few reasons I wish Vista worked better for my needs.

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: the Chase

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: InlineFive

Originally posted by: juktar

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Except for copying files. I won't go there. But just know this. IT SUCKS.

call and get the patch, why wait?

Care to link it?

Is it ok to link here?

Pretty sure it's OK.

Yeah, as long as it's not illegal or anything. I don't see a problem with it.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

this is all the vista hotfixes: http://hotfix.xable.net/download/index.php?dir=Language%20Neutral/Vista/


Heres a direct link to kb931770: http://hotfix.xable.net/download/downlo...tral/Vista/Windows6.0-KB931770-x86.msu

 

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze
this is all the vista hotfixes: http://hotfix.xable.net/download/index.php?dir=Language%20Neutral/Vista/


Heres a direct link to kb931770: http://hotfix.xable.net/download/downlo...tral/Vista/Windows6.0-KB931770-x86.msu

Thank you Sir!

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: XMan
XP was relatively snappy for me . . . but man, Vista just seems to be easily twice as fast.

This is all on the same hardware - with a day-old installation, so I'm fairly certain that pre-caching hasn't become a factor yet.

Its definitely been a lot faster, outside of a few game frame rates, which are a tad slower.

2GB of ram really helps. Not that Vista *needs* the ram, but because it can really put it to good use.

On boot, it uses about 700mb of RAM. Superfetch loads up all my apps, which pretty much load instantaneously. With everything I usually have running (opera, trillian, outlook, word, sidebar, WMP, a few utilities) it takes up about 1gb resident.

Maybe 200mb or so of the remaining 1gb cache is other frequently used apps/files. The other 800mb are pretty much dedicated to the games I've been playing recently, and the load times are really much noticibly faster under Vista.

It's also been remarkably stable. Good stuff. :thumbsup:

 

[juktar]

Originally posted by: JonnyBlaze

Originally posted by: InlineFive

Originally posted by: juktar

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Except for copying files. I won't go there. But just know this. IT SUCKS.

call and get the patch, why wait?

Care to link it?

Is it ok to link here?

I do not know if it is OK to link. MS has a policy about patches that have not been fully tested. There is a thread here that points to the KB article. If you want to get the patch early, you have to call MS and they will send you it. If you really need it, I suggest you do that. The only thing from stopping you is not owning the product. It is painless. If youcan wait for it to get to windows update for mass deployment, then do that.

Here is the link to the KB article:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/931770/en-us