Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any
significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to run.
A better question would be asked of those who dual boot. I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter which operating system I use. I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to update the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and use Vista. I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition so that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete the XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to carrying out that option. So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would be doing just the opposite. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question. Are
you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a single core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance? I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day. When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very disappointed. There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous laptop with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new system and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same machine. Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing power over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.) The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is? So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are you using? For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying, but I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista, it's awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from those who are using single core processors. "Richard Urban" wrote: Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to run. A better question would be asked of those who dual boot. I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter which operating system I use. I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to update the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and use Vista. I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition so that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete the XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to carrying out that option. So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would be doing just the opposite. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same
hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be the same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM). Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2 gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question. Are you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a single core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance? I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day. When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very disappointed. There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous laptop with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new system and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same machine. Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing power over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.) The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is? So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are you using? For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying, but I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista, it's awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from those who are using single core processors. "Richard Urban" wrote: Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to run. A better question would be asked of those who dual boot. I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter which operating system I use. I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to update the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and use Vista. I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition so that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete the XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to carrying out that option. So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would be doing just the opposite. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
Any upgrade like that will improve performance, but it may not show directly
in the things that you want to see improved.. where applications are more reliant on CPU performance than RAM, sure you will see an improvement.. whether it is as much as you would have hoped is another ball park.. if you are just looking for lightning fast boot ups et al, then fit the meanest, fastest, most expensive parts you can afford or that can be bought.. "black clouds" wrote in message ... Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question. Are you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a single core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance? I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day. When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very disappointed. There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous laptop with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new system and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same machine. Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing power over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.) The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is? So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are you using? For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying, but I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista, it's awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from those who are using single core processors. "Richard Urban" wrote: Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to run. A better question would be asked of those who dual boot. I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter which operating system I use. I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to update the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and use Vista. I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition so that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete the XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to carrying out that option. So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would be doing just the opposite. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 -- Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
Scary, isn't it.. yesterdays top systems are today's budget line.. I don't
care if my video card only stumps up 3.7 on the Vista scale.. and the fact that I keep looking for something really cheap that will at least show a 4 is totally immaterial.. "Richard Urban" wrote in message ... I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be the same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM). Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2 gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question. Are you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a single core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance? I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day. When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very disappointed. There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous laptop with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new system and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same machine. Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing power over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.) The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is? So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are you using? For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying, but I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista, it's awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from those who are using single core processors. "Richard Urban" wrote: Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to run. A better question would be asked of those who dual boot. I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter which operating system I use. I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to update the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and use Vista. I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition so that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete the XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to carrying out that option. So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would be doing just the opposite. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 -- Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
Thanks again Richard, but that's still only half the question. You still
haven't told me if you've noticed a significant overall system performance on your single core with Vista or does it run pretty much the same as XP. I want to know if single core users are seeing much of a performance improvement over XP. You'll notice there are a lot of people (like myself) who say their system is screaming now that they've switched to Vista, while others aren't seeing much improvement. I want to know if this is at all linked to dual cores. That is, Vista may be far better in taking advantage of dual core technology then XP meaning people with dual cores who are switching would notice a sudden increase in performance while those using single core would see as much of a change. That's what the article suggests. I know there are other factors, such as driver issues, but I was curious to see if anyone out there using a single core has noticed SIGNIFICANT performance improvement since switching to Vista, obviously if they did hardware upgrades, I couldn't be sure if the improvement was due to switching to Vista, while in the case of my computer, I know all that I changed was the OS, and I saw a significant improvement; was that only because I have a dual processor? "Richard Urban" wrote: I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be the same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM). Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2 gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question. Are you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a single core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance? I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day. When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very disappointed. There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous laptop with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new system and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same machine. Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing power over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.) The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is? So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are you using? For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying, but I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista, it's awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from those who are using single core processors. "Richard Urban" wrote: Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to run. A better question would be asked of those who dual boot. I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter which operating system I use. I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to update the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and use Vista. I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition so that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete the XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to carrying out that option. So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would be doing just the opposite. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
I used to run XP in classic mode on a single core.. it performed better that
way.. for me, Vista runs as well or better even running the full Vista graphics on exactly the same machine.. I quit booting into my Vista installation long ago because there is no point other than to update it, and I don't even have XP wireless card drivers installed such that I could even do that anymore.. "black clouds" wrote in message ... Thanks again Richard, but that's still only half the question. You still haven't told me if you've noticed a significant overall system performance on your single core with Vista or does it run pretty much the same as XP. I want to know if single core users are seeing much of a performance improvement over XP. You'll notice there are a lot of people (like myself) who say their system is screaming now that they've switched to Vista, while others aren't seeing much improvement. I want to know if this is at all linked to dual cores. That is, Vista may be far better in taking advantage of dual core technology then XP meaning people with dual cores who are switching would notice a sudden increase in performance while those using single core would see as much of a change. That's what the article suggests. I know there are other factors, such as driver issues, but I was curious to see if anyone out there using a single core has noticed SIGNIFICANT performance improvement since switching to Vista, obviously if they did hardware upgrades, I couldn't be sure if the improvement was due to switching to Vista, while in the case of my computer, I know all that I changed was the OS, and I saw a significant improvement; was that only because I have a dual processor? "Richard Urban" wrote: I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be the same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM). Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2 gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question. Are you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a single core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance? I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day. When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very disappointed. There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous laptop with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new system and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same machine. Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing power over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.) The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is? So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are you using? For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying, but I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista, it's awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from those who are using single core processors. "Richard Urban" wrote: Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to run. A better question would be asked of those who dual boot. I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter which operating system I use. I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to update the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and use Vista. I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition so that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete the XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to carrying out that option. So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would be doing just the opposite. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 -- Mike Hall MS MVP Windows Shell/User http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
I don't know if you read the article but it claims that a duo core system
under Vista can expect a 5 to 30 percent improvement in performance while single core systems may actually see a slight slow down under some circumstances. I'm curious as to how true this is. Are there users who have found otherwise? "Richard Urban" wrote: I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be the same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM). Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2 gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question. Are you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a single core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance? I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day. When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very disappointed. There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous laptop with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new system and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same machine. Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing power over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.) The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is? So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are you using? For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying, but I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista, it's awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from those who are using single core processors. "Richard Urban" wrote: Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to run. A better question would be asked of those who dual boot. I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter which operating system I use. I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to update the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and use Vista. I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition so that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete the XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to carrying out that option. So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would be doing just the opposite. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
I thought that I stated as much when I said I boot into Windows XP every 2-3
days just to do maintenance and then immediately reboot into Vista to do any work. If XP were better/faster - it would be the other way around. I am extremely happy with Vista, even on my single core processor. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... Thanks again Richard, but that's still only half the question. You still haven't told me if you've noticed a significant overall system performance on your single core with Vista or does it run pretty much the same as XP. I want to know if single core users are seeing much of a performance improvement over XP. You'll notice there are a lot of people (like myself) who say their system is screaming now that they've switched to Vista, while others aren't seeing much improvement. I want to know if this is at all linked to dual cores. That is, Vista may be far better in taking advantage of dual core technology then XP meaning people with dual cores who are switching would notice a sudden increase in performance while those using single core would see as much of a change. That's what the article suggests. I know there are other factors, such as driver issues, but I was curious to see if anyone out there using a single core has noticed SIGNIFICANT performance improvement since switching to Vista, obviously if they did hardware upgrades, I couldn't be sure if the improvement was due to switching to Vista, while in the case of my computer, I know all that I changed was the OS, and I saw a significant improvement; was that only because I have a dual processor? "Richard Urban" wrote: I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be the same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM). Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2 gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question. Are you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a single core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance? I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day. When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very disappointed. There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous laptop with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new system and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same machine. Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing power over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.) The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is? So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are you using? For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying, but I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista, it's awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from those who are using single core processors. "Richard Urban" wrote: Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to run. A better question would be asked of those who dual boot. I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter which operating system I use. I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to update the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and use Vista. I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition so that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete the XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to carrying out that option. So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would be doing just the opposite. -- Regards, Richard Urban MVP Microsoft Windows Shell/User "black clouds" wrote in message ... I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 |