A Windows Vista forum. Vista Banter

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.

Go Back   Home » Vista Banter forum » Microsoft Windows Vista » Hardware and Windows Vista
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices)

Single vs Dual Core Performance



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 03:48 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
black clouds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default 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

  #2 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 04:05 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Richard Urban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,520
Default 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


  #3 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 05:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
black clouds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default 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



  #4 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 05:25 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Richard Urban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,520
Default 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




  #5 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 05:32 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Mike Hall - MS MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default 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/



  #6 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 05:43 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Mike Hall - MS MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default 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/



  #7 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 05:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
black clouds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default 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





  #8 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 06:01 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Mike Hall - MS MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default 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/



  #9 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 06:01 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
black clouds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default 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





  #10 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 06:08 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Richard Urban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,520
Default 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






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 10:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6
Copyright ©2004-2024 Vista Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.