Guest Tiberius Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm
Guest Shenan Stanley Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Tiberius wrote: > Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison > > A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed > that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. > The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the > minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the > operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU > requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. > > http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask for help... however ... What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP, Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much processor/memory they require? -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Guest Bob I Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP And the problem is exactly what? BFD! Tiberius wrote:
Guest Tiberius Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup, rather it is a general newsgroup, I will tell you how I am helping people. By informing people that vista is a power hungry hog, even more people will avoid getting vista. Its better to avoid a problem (vista) altogether than trying to correct the probles afterwards. I am saving them. If you want to be considered a serious IT person, you should warn them too... most people are avoiding vista anyway. "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message news:uHdbOcfAIHA.5960@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Tiberius wrote: >> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison >> >> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed >> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. >> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the >> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the >> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU >> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. >> >> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm > > Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask for > help... however ... > > What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year > Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? > > What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP, > Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much > processor/memory they require? > > -- > Shenan Stanley > MS-MVP > -- > How To Ask Questions The Smart Way > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >
Guest Tiberius Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP you must also know if you are computer literate that back when XP came out there was still a double of CPU speed every few months.. then that increase stopped for a looonnng time.. now we have dual cores.. but 2 cores are not twice as fast as 1.. in other words the speed increase has been slower.. thus Vista is actually even worse now, since it hogs up too much resources... the solution that everybody is doing *accept the ignorant and the vistaboys* is installing XP on the new hardware and it flies! "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message news:uHdbOcfAIHA.5960@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Tiberius wrote: >> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison >> >> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed >> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. >> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the >> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the >> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU >> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. >> >> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm > > Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask for > help... however ... > > What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year > Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? > > What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP, > Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much > processor/memory they require? > > -- > Shenan Stanley > MS-MVP > -- > How To Ask Questions The Smart Way > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >
Guest Bob I Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP OH MY! And where did you come up with that?!?!?!? This is the primary destination of the self-help link in Microsoft Support pages. Please don't delude yourself that your pasting of irrelevant links and articles is the least bit helpful. Tiberius wrote: > shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup,
Guest Tiberius Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Sorry...not few months.. it was more like several months.. Moore's law says 18 months... but it still was climbing in speed... while for a long time we were stuck under 3. something gigs due to heat limiatations. "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:46fd4270$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... > you must also know if you are computer literate that back when XP came out > there was still a double of CPU speed every few months.. > > then that increase stopped for a looonnng time.. now we have dual cores.. > but 2 cores are not twice as fast as 1.. > > in other words the speed increase has been slower.. thus Vista is actually > even worse now, since it hogs up too much resources... > > the solution that everybody is doing *accept the ignorant and the > vistaboys* is installing XP on the new hardware and it flies! > > > "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:uHdbOcfAIHA.5960@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Tiberius wrote: >>> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison >>> >>> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed >>> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. >>> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the >>> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the >>> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU >>> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. >>> >>> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm >> >> Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask >> for help... however ... >> >> What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year >> Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? >> >> What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP, >> Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much >> processor/memory they require? >> >> -- >> Shenan Stanley >> MS-MVP >> -- >> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way >> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >> > >
Guest Tom Porterfield Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Tiberius wrote: > you must also know if you are computer literate that back when XP came out > there was still a double of CPU speed every few months.. > > then that increase stopped for a looonnng time.. now we have dual cores.. > but 2 cores are not twice as fast as 1.. > > in other words the speed increase has been slower.. thus Vista is actually > even worse now, since it hogs up too much resources... > > the solution that everybody is doing *accept the ignorant and the vistaboys* > is installing XP on the new hardware and it flies! Shouldn't you be applying time to the equation. How long after 2000 was released did XP come out? How long after XP did Vista come out? This speaks somewhat to the point Shenan brought up. What is the relation to the increase in requirements to the increase in available CPU performance. That helps make a better comparison. -- Tom Porterfield
Guest Seven Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:46fd38ee$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... > Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison > > A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed that > Vista > will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. The report claimed > that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the minimum CPU requirements > were > 75 percent greater than those for the operating system it replaced, > Windows > 2000. Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than that of > XP. > > http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm > > > > > What insight! Higher CPU requirements! Guess that's why Intel and AMD have been making faster CPU's. Take a Chicken survey. I bet more chickens get eaten today then 20 years ago. More HD TV's get sold today than 10 years ago. More toilet flushing occurs today than any other time in human history. More birth's, more death's. It's like some king of Mathematical thingy
Guest John John Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Moore never said every 18 months, he said "about every 2 years". John Tiberius wrote: > Sorry...not few months.. it was more like several months.. > > Moore's law says 18 months... > > but it still was climbing in speed... > > while for a long time we were stuck under 3. something gigs due to heat > limiatations. > > "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:46fd4270$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... > >>you must also know if you are computer literate that back when XP came out >>there was still a double of CPU speed every few months.. >> >>then that increase stopped for a looonnng time.. now we have dual cores.. >>but 2 cores are not twice as fast as 1.. >> >>in other words the speed increase has been slower.. thus Vista is actually >>even worse now, since it hogs up too much resources... >> >>the solution that everybody is doing *accept the ignorant and the >>vistaboys* is installing XP on the new hardware and it flies! >> >> >>"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:uHdbOcfAIHA.5960@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> >>>Tiberius wrote: >>> >>>>Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison >>>> >>>>A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed >>>>that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. >>>>The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the >>>>minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the >>>>operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU >>>>requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. >>>> >>>>http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm >>> >>>Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask >>>for help... however ... >>> >>>What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year >>>Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? >>> >>>What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP, >>>Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much >>>processor/memory they require? >>> >>>-- >>>Shenan Stanley >>> MS-MVP >>>-- >>>How To Ask Questions The Smart Way >>>http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >>> >> >> > >
Guest Shenan Stanley Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Tiberius wrote: > Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison > > A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed > that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. > The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the > minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the > operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU > requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. > > http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm Shenan Stanley wrote: > Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people > ask for help... however ... > > What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the > year Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? > > What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the > OSes (XP, Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained > stagnant in how much processor/memory they require? Tiberius wrote: > shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup, rather it is a > general newsgroup, I will tell you how I am helping people. By > informing people that vista is a power hungry hog, even more people > will avoid getting vista. > Its better to avoid a problem (vista) altogether than trying to > correct the probles afterwards. > > I am saving them. If you want to be considered a serious IT person, > you should warn them too... > > most people are avoiding vista anyway. You are welcomed to your opinion. I do not personally recommend Vista to anyone at this time and I do not install it in a business environment at this time either. That is my choice and those with whom I work tend to agree. This does not mean I actively voice my opinion against it, as it seemingly works well for some - and each person/groupo has their own needs and experiences. Your point is taken, this is an online threaded discussion group in which people converse asynchronously to exchange ideas and information - so, I concede, your posting that here is not disruptive and could be considered a discussion topic. However - it being a discussion group and you having presented a discussion topic - I did try to continue the conversation you began by your posting. In your response to me you seemingly ignored the two questions completely. Those questions are ones that would have continued the thread in a productive manner - the comment I made about the relevance of the posting was just that - a comment that required no response. In case you just missed the questions that would continue this discussion in this newsgroup, I will repeat them for you... What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? What about the requirements of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP, Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much processor/memory they require? The answers to those questions from you (or anyone wishing to participate in this discussion) could be quite telling in the development of computers as a whole, software and hardware-wise. -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Guest Carey Frisch [MVP] Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Please read and reread the Rules of Conduct before posting in a Microsoft newsgroup. If you cannot abide by the rules, please refrain from posting. Rules of Conduct http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx -- Carey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Microsoft Community Newsgroups http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/ "Tiberius" wrote: > shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup, rather it is a general > newsgroup, I will tell you how I am helping people. By informing people that > vista is a power hungry hog, even more people will avoid getting vista. > > Its better to avoid a problem (vista) altogether than trying to correct the > probles afterwards. > > I am saving them. If you want to be considered a serious IT person, you > should warn them too... > > most people are avoiding vista anyway. > > > "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:uHdbOcfAIHA.5960@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > Tiberius wrote: > >> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison > >> > >> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed > >> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. > >> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the > >> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the > >> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU > >> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. > >> > >> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm > > > > Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask for > > help... however ... > > > > What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year > > Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? > > > > What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes (XP, > > Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how much > > processor/memory they require? > > > > -- > > Shenan Stanley > > MS-MVP > > -- > > How To Ask Questions The Smart Way > > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html > > > > >
Guest Frank Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Tiberius wrote: > you must also know if you are computer literate that back when XP came out > there was still a double of CPU speed every few months.. > > then that increase stopped for a looonnng time.. now we have dual cores.. > but 2 cores are not twice as fast as 1.. > > in other words the speed increase has been slower.. thus Vista is actually > even worse now, since it hogs up too much resources... > > the solution that everybody is doing *accept the ignorant and the vistaboys* > is installing XP on the new hardware and it flies! > There is truly something wrong with you isn't there? What in the world do you think (if thinking is possible for you) that you are accomplishing by posting all of your Vista hatred diatribes in this ng? Please tells us and get it over with cause all you're doing is sucking up bandwidth with your useless ignorant personal opinion Vista diatribes. IOW, you're now looking like a mentally deranged FOOL! Frank
Guest Jupiter Jones [MVP] Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "...I am helping people." We see how this happens with examples in other posts of yours. You need to attack those you disagree while contributing NOTHING to help an OP. "most people are avoiding vista anyway" Some do as some resisted Windows XP and also resisted the previous operating system. But NOTHING suggests "most" other than your rants. Of course when you post the source for that statistic that proves "most people are avoiding" we will know your facts. But I suspect it is nothing more than the typical vapor from another post of yours. Your agenda is clearly not in helping as much as it is in attacking those who disagree with you. Your blind agenda against Microsoft and anyone you perceive supports them is clear. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services http://www3.telus.net/dandemar "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:46fd40ad$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... > shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup, rather it is a general > newsgroup, I will tell you how I am helping people. By informing people > that vista is a power hungry hog, even more people will avoid getting > vista. > > Its better to avoid a problem (vista) altogether than trying to correct > the probles afterwards. > > I am saving them. If you want to be considered a serious IT person, you > should warn them too... > > most people are avoiding vista anyway.
Guest Shenan Stanley Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP Tiberius wrote: > Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison > > A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed > that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. > The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the > minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the > operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU > requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. > > http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm Shenan Stanley wrote: > Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people > ask for help... however ... > > What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the > year Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? > > What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the > OSes (XP, Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained > stagnant in how much processor/memory they require? Tiberius wrote: > you must also know if you are computer literate that back when XP > came out there was still a double of CPU speed every few months.. > > then that increase stopped for a looonnng time.. now we have dual > cores.. but 2 cores are not twice as fast as 1.. > > in other words the speed increase has been slower.. thus Vista is > actually even worse now, since it hogs up too much resources... > > the solution that everybody is doing *accept the ignorant and the > vistaboys* is installing XP on the new hardware and it flies! At one point it was stated by someone (I am sure) that the processing power of the computer doubled every X number of months - and X was below a year I believe. That is usually a misquotation of Moore's Law, that the number of transistors that can be inexpensively placed on an integrated circuit is increasing exponentially, doubling approximately every two years. That was stated way back in 1965. No one in this discussion (other than your implication) said anything about a dual core being twice as fast as the equivalent single core processor either. It is perceptionally faster *if* the underlying OS and subsequent applications can take advantage of multiple cores - but does little to nothing if the operating system and applications cannot take advantage of that fact - just like multi-threading, etc. However - Windows XP was released in 2001 (we'll go with LATE 2001) and at that time, the processing power was just getting into the area between 1 and 2 GHz range for the P4s and if I rememeber. Processors are common now in the 3+GHz ranges and have been for well over a year (maybe two?) However - it is not only the speed of the processor that determines the speed of a computer. The bus speed, the memory speed, the hard disk drive speed, the video card memory/processor power, etc - all contribute to the full potential of a computer. However - these same arguments have been made time and time again with each release of a new Windows OS. It is a resource hog. It is usually a reaction by most people because they do not want to spend the money on a whole new computer - specifically hardware (since theirs is working fine) - but they somehow feel the operating itself is worth having and within reach. Yet it will likely perform horribly on their current system (one of my home systems - a 1.8GHz with 640MB memory - would choke on Vista with everything turned off...) It's the same reaction many gamers have when a new PC game is released that would require a more powerful video card or more memory over the years. Human nature really. It happened with people and their Pentium III 450s with 64MB memory when XP came out, it will happen again when the next mass marketed OS (from whomever) comes out. I am not saying that Windows Vista isn't a bit bloated. I said (still do) that Windows XP is a bit bloated. OS X is a bit bloated too. Many of the Desktop Envirnments for *nix are bloated. It's because people want pretty pictures and easy to click on icons and self-updating crap so that they don't have to learn anything to utilize the basic (and sometimes more advanced) features. As far as 'accepting' anything - I believe that is up to the individual. When people come to me and ask - I still recommend they find a vendor that will sell them Windows XP with the OS and get a 4-5 year warranty on it as well. They can take my advice or they can skip by it and go out on their own. I cannot control that. I just believe they should have the knowledge they need to make the decision wisely. If they choose to not do what *I* consider the wise choice - so be it. As far as your logic that 'vista is worse because the advances in hardware have not stayed the course'... That seems a bit broken to me. Vista is bloated, no doubt. On a brand new, $2000 computer (put together by someone who knows their components) - Vista does run fine - as fast as Windows XP for the most part. Some applications may not work - but that would fall to the creators of said application - not the OS. After all, their application may not work on OS X or *nix at all. In 2001, if you purchased a brand new $2000 computer with your Windows XP, windows XP not only ran fine then - but is likely STILL running fine now. Should everyone *have* to purchase new hardware to use their computers? No. But *who* is making them? Only themselves. Some desire they have to do something that their current system cannot. A game, a way to record video or music, some application that the producer only decided to make for a certain OS, etc... I know people who are still happy with Pegasus running on their Windows 95 machine connected via dialup for email... I know others who buy a new component or two everytime a new game comes out just so they can play it. Vista may be bloated. Many people may not recommend it. It's still spreading because of human nature and the desire to have the 'next thing' and be able to 'keep up with the neighbor'... So it has been, so it remains. -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Guest Adam Albright Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:48:28 -0700, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote: >"...I am helping people." >We see how this happens with examples in other posts of yours. That's the first time you admitted you like to sit in judgment of others. How precious. >Your agenda is clearly not in helping as much as it is in attacking those >who disagree with you. >Your blind agenda against Microsoft and anyone you perceive supports them is >clear. LOL! The flip side is Bozos like you, most obvious is some MVPs where you have some misplaced loyalty where you feel you must defend Microsoft even when you know some of their policies are harmful and in general their software sucks. I guess you're not familiar with the word creditability. Because doing that you have done.
Guest Tiberius Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP good reply and thanx for taking the time to answer in such a detailed manner. My main reason for posting such information is that many in here claim that vista is FASTER than XP. This is totally incorrect. Vista cannot be faster on the SAME hardware unless some new perhaps technology becomes mainstream that only vista can use.. but that is not the case yet. "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message news:eZapODgAIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Tiberius wrote: >> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison >> >> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed >> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. >> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the >> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the >> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU >> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. >> >> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm > > Shenan Stanley wrote: >> Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people >> ask for help... however ... >> >> What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the >> year Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? >> >> What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the >> OSes (XP, Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained >> stagnant in how much processor/memory they require? > > Tiberius wrote: >> you must also know if you are computer literate that back when XP >> came out there was still a double of CPU speed every few months.. >> >> then that increase stopped for a looonnng time.. now we have dual >> cores.. but 2 cores are not twice as fast as 1.. >> >> in other words the speed increase has been slower.. thus Vista is >> actually even worse now, since it hogs up too much resources... >> >> the solution that everybody is doing *accept the ignorant and the >> vistaboys* is installing XP on the new hardware and it flies! > > At one point it was stated by someone (I am sure) that the processing > power of the computer doubled every X number of months - and X was below a > year I believe. That is usually a misquotation of Moore's Law, that the > number of transistors that can be inexpensively placed on an integrated > circuit is increasing exponentially, doubling approximately every two > years. That was stated way back in 1965. > > No one in this discussion (other than your implication) said anything > about a dual core being twice as fast as the equivalent single core > processor either. It is perceptionally faster *if* the underlying OS and > subsequent applications can take advantage of multiple cores - but does > little to nothing if the operating system and applications cannot take > advantage of that fact - just like multi-threading, etc. > > However - Windows XP was released in 2001 (we'll go with LATE 2001) and at > that time, the processing power was just getting into the area between 1 > and 2 GHz range for the P4s and if I rememeber. Processors are common now > in the 3+GHz ranges and have been for well over a year (maybe two?) > However - it is not only the speed of the processor that determines the > speed of a computer. The bus speed, the memory speed, the hard disk drive > speed, the video card memory/processor power, etc - all contribute to the > full potential of a computer. > > However - these same arguments have been made time and time again with > each release of a new Windows OS. It is a resource hog. It is usually a > reaction by most people because they do not want to spend the money on a > whole new computer - specifically hardware (since theirs is working > fine) - but they somehow feel the operating itself is worth having and > within reach. Yet it will likely perform horribly on their current system > (one of my home systems - a 1.8GHz with 640MB memory - would choke on > Vista with everything turned off...) It's the same reaction many gamers > have when a new PC game is released that would require a more powerful > video card or more memory over the years. Human nature really. It > happened with people and their Pentium III 450s with 64MB memory when XP > came out, it will happen again when the next mass marketed OS (from > whomever) comes out. > > I am not saying that Windows Vista isn't a bit bloated. I said (still do) > that Windows XP is a bit bloated. OS X is a bit bloated too. Many of the > Desktop Envirnments for *nix are bloated. It's because people want pretty > pictures and easy to click on icons and self-updating crap so that they > don't have to learn anything to utilize the basic (and sometimes more > advanced) features. > > As far as 'accepting' anything - I believe that is up to the individual. > When people come to me and ask - I still recommend they find a vendor that > will sell them Windows XP with the OS and get a 4-5 year warranty on it as > well. They can take my advice or they can skip by it and go out on their > own. I cannot control that. I just believe they should have the > knowledge they need to make the decision wisely. If they choose to not do > what *I* consider the wise choice - so be it. > > As far as your logic that 'vista is worse because the advances in hardware > have not stayed the course'... That seems a bit broken to me. Vista is > bloated, no doubt. On a brand new, $2000 computer (put together by > someone who knows their components) - Vista does run fine - as fast as > Windows XP for the most part. Some applications may not work - but that > would fall to the creators of said application - not the OS. After all, > their application may not work on OS X or *nix at all. In 2001, if you > purchased a brand new $2000 computer with your Windows XP, windows XP not > only ran fine then - but is likely STILL running fine now. > > Should everyone *have* to purchase new hardware to use their computers? > No. But *who* is making them? Only themselves. Some desire they have to > do something that their current system cannot. A game, a way to record > video or music, some application that the producer only decided to make > for a certain OS, etc... I know people who are still happy with Pegasus > running on their Windows 95 machine connected via dialup for email... I > know others who buy a new component or two everytime a new game comes out > just so they can play it. > > Vista may be bloated. Many people may not recommend it. It's still > spreading because of human nature and the desire to have the 'next thing' > and be able to 'keep up with the neighbor'... So it has been, so it > remains. > > -- > Shenan Stanley > MS-MVP > -- > How To Ask Questions The Smart Way > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >
Guest Tiberius Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP I have helped thousands of people in the other Microsoft newsgroups for years... and from time to time I give advice even here.. take a look at some of my posts before concluding incorrectly to some erroneous conception of distorted truth. In the case of the vista.general newsgroup however my help is making clear to everyone that vista is a flop. I don't often offer solutions to problems, because the problem is vista itself. That is not some agenda.. that is my opinion and a strong one.. and of course I am correct. You on the other hand who WANT to help and like vista, never really helps.. I have seen how you post.. you insult most posters and try to tell them off that they dont know much about comptuers or they did something wrong.. and its never vistas fault. You are a sad person and you are incapable of giving ME any advice of value. "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message news:OE3juAgAIHA.4956@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > "...I am helping people." > We see how this happens with examples in other posts of yours. > You need to attack those you disagree while contributing NOTHING to help > an OP. > > "most people are avoiding vista anyway" > Some do as some resisted Windows XP and also resisted the previous > operating system. > But NOTHING suggests "most" other than your rants. > Of course when you post the source for that statistic that proves "most > people are avoiding" we will know your facts. > But I suspect it is nothing more than the typical vapor from another post > of yours. > > Your agenda is clearly not in helping as much as it is in attacking those > who disagree with you. > Your blind agenda against Microsoft and anyone you perceive supports them > is clear. > > -- > Jupiter Jones [MVP] > Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services > http://www3.telus.net/dandemar > > > "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:46fd40ad$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >> shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup, rather it is a general >> newsgroup, I will tell you how I am helping people. By informing people >> that vista is a power hungry hog, even more people will avoid getting >> vista. >> >> Its better to avoid a problem (vista) altogether than trying to correct >> the probles afterwards. >> >> I am saving them. If you want to be considered a serious IT person, you >> should warn them too... >> >> most people are avoiding vista anyway. >
Guest Tiberius Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X I suggest you do the same... Sorry to see you go... "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message news:F693AF60-411C-4EE4-9A96-A3EE7B187EAA@microsoft.com... > Please read and reread the Rules of Conduct before posting in a > Microsoft newsgroup. If you cannot abide by the rules, please > refrain from posting. > > Rules of Conduct > http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx > > -- > Carey Frisch > Microsoft MVP > Windows - Shell/User > Microsoft Community Newsgroups > http://news://msnews.microsoft.com/ > > > > "Tiberius" wrote: > >> shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup, rather it is a general >> newsgroup, I will tell you how I am helping people. By informing people >> that >> vista is a power hungry hog, even more people will avoid getting vista. >> >> Its better to avoid a problem (vista) altogether than trying to correct >> the >> probles afterwards. >> >> I am saving them. If you want to be considered a serious IT person, you >> should warn them too... >> >> most people are avoiding vista anyway. >> >> >> "Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:uHdbOcfAIHA.5960@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> > Tiberius wrote: >> >> Repost from archives: Vista - XP cpu usage comparison >> >> >> >> A survey in December by US IT services company Softchoice claimed >> >> that Vista will be the most power-hungry Windows desktop so far. >> >> The report claimed that at Windows XP's launch, for example, the >> >> minimum CPU requirements were 75 percent greater than those for the >> >> operating system it replaced, Windows 2000. Vista's minimum CPU >> >> requirements are 243 percent larger than that of XP. >> >> >> >> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft_goes_on_green_Vista_offensive/0,130061733,339274460,00.htm >> > >> > Not sure why this is a relevant post to any newsgroup where people ask >> > for >> > help... however ... >> > >> > What is the percentage difference in CPU power available from the year >> > Windows XP was released to when Windows Vista was released? >> > >> > What about the requirments of all the software that runs on the OSes >> > (XP, >> > Vista, *nix, etc?) Have these applications remained stagnant in how >> > much >> > processor/memory they require? >> > >> > -- >> > Shenan Stanley >> > MS-MVP >> > -- >> > How To Ask Questions The Smart Way >> > http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html >> > >> >> >>
Guest Seven Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:46fd5ee4$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >I have helped thousands of people in the other Microsoft newsgroups for >years... > > and from time to time I give advice even here.. take a look at some of my > posts before concluding incorrectly to some erroneous conception of > distorted truth. > > In the case of the vista.general newsgroup however my help is making clear > to everyone that vista is a flop. I don't often offer solutions to > problems, because the problem is vista itself. > > That is not some agenda.. that is my opinion and a strong one.. and of > course I am correct. > > You on the other hand who WANT to help and like vista, never really > helps.. I have seen how you post.. > > you insult most posters and try to tell them off that they dont know much > about comptuers or they did something wrong.. > > and its never vistas fault. > > You are a sad person and you are incapable of giving ME any advice of > value. > > > > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message > news:OE3juAgAIHA.4956@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> "...I am helping people." >> We see how this happens with examples in other posts of yours. >> You need to attack those you disagree while contributing NOTHING to help >> an OP. >> >> "most people are avoiding vista anyway" >> Some do as some resisted Windows XP and also resisted the previous >> operating system. >> But NOTHING suggests "most" other than your rants. >> Of course when you post the source for that statistic that proves "most >> people are avoiding" we will know your facts. >> But I suspect it is nothing more than the typical vapor from another post >> of yours. >> >> Your agenda is clearly not in helping as much as it is in attacking those >> who disagree with you. >> Your blind agenda against Microsoft and anyone you perceive supports them >> is clear. >> >> -- >> Jupiter Jones [MVP] >> Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar >> >> >> "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:46fd40ad$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >>> shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup, rather it is a general >>> newsgroup, I will tell you how I am helping people. By informing people >>> that vista is a power hungry hog, even more people will avoid getting >>> vista. >>> >>> Its better to avoid a problem (vista) altogether than trying to correct >>> the probles afterwards. >>> >>> I am saving them. If you want to be considered a serious IT person, you >>> should warn them too... >>> >>> most people are avoiding vista anyway. >> > > Why don't you add Caesar to your nic and complete the fantasy. Helped thousands...haha
Guest Jupiter Jones [MVP] Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "you insult most posters" Where? You can NOT prove this statement of yours. More fabricated fiction in a feeble effort to fed your agenda "and its never vistas fault" I NEVER said that either. More fabricated fiction in a feeble effort to fed your agenda. Take the fiction out of your posts and there is often little or nothing left. However you seem to need to misrepresent what others say. As demonstrated by your own need of projection: "You are a sad person and you are incapable..." -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services http://www3.telus.net/dandemar "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:46fd5ee4$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >I have helped thousands of people in the other Microsoft newsgroups for >years... > > and from time to time I give advice even here.. take a look at some of my > posts before concluding incorrectly to some erroneous conception of > distorted truth. > > In the case of the vista.general newsgroup however my help is making clear > to everyone that vista is a flop. I don't often offer solutions to > problems, because the problem is vista itself. > > That is not some agenda.. that is my opinion and a strong one.. and of > course I am correct. > > You on the other hand who WANT to help and like vista, never really > helps.. I have seen how you post.. > > you insult most posters and try to tell them off that they dont know much > about comptuers or they did something wrong.. > > and its never vistas fault. > > You are a sad person and you are incapable of giving ME any advice of > value. > > > > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message > news:OE3juAgAIHA.4956@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> "...I am helping people." >> We see how this happens with examples in other posts of yours. >> You need to attack those you disagree while contributing NOTHING to help >> an OP. >> >> "most people are avoiding vista anyway" >> Some do as some resisted Windows XP and also resisted the previous >> operating system. >> But NOTHING suggests "most" other than your rants. >> Of course when you post the source for that statistic that proves "most >> people are avoiding" we will know your facts. >> But I suspect it is nothing more than the typical vapor from another post >> of yours. >> >> Your agenda is clearly not in helping as much as it is in attacking those >> who disagree with you. >> Your blind agenda against Microsoft and anyone you perceive supports them >> is clear. >> >> -- >> Jupiter Jones [MVP] >> Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services >> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar >> >> >> "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:46fd40ad$1@newsgate.x-privat.org... >>> shenan, although this is not a help newsgroup, rather it is a general >>> newsgroup, I will tell you how I am helping people. By informing people >>> that vista is a power hungry hog, even more people will avoid getting >>> vista. >>> >>> Its better to avoid a problem (vista) altogether than trying to correct >>> the probles afterwards. >>> >>> I am saving them. If you want to be considered a serious IT person, you >>> should warn them too... >>> >>> most people are avoiding vista anyway. >> > >
Guest Jupiter Jones [MVP] Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than XP "many in here claim that vista is FASTER than XP" Some have claimed it and NO ONE has been able to prove those claims false. No one ever suggested it applies in all or even most situations, but it seems clear it is true in some. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] Windows Server System - Microsoft Update Services http://www3.telus.net/dandemar "Tiberius" <Tibery@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:46fd5d85@newsgate.x-privat.org... > good reply and thanx for taking the time to answer in such a detailed > manner. > > My main reason for posting such information is that many in here claim > that vista > is FASTER than XP. > > This is totally incorrect. Vista cannot be faster on the SAME hardware > unless some new perhaps technology becomes mainstream that only vista can > use.. > > but that is not the case yet.
Guest Frank Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanX Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanX Tiberius wrote: > I suggest you do the same... > > Sorry to see you go... > We're not at all sorry to see you go...again! Frank
Guest William Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger thanXP I have vista and its great! Not a days problem hows that Mugabe? go water your garden or your brain if you have one... you obviously have nothing better to do
Guest Tiberius Posted September 28, 2007 Posted September 28, 2007 Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Re: Vista's minimum CPU requirements are 243 percent larger than X Frank you have an advantage... you swing from your tail wrapped on a branch on the tree... and have 2 hands and 2 feet that can also function like hands to type on the keyboard below all the usless crap you do... good show... :-) "Frank" <fb@osspan.clm> wrote in message news:eJWHe3gAIHA.464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Tiberius wrote: >> I suggest you do the same... >> >> Sorry to see you go... >> > > We're not at all sorry to see you go...again! > Frank
Recommended Posts