Error - template LAYOUT-DATA-WRAPPER not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the LAYOUT-DATA-WRAPPER template could not be found.

Error - template STYLE-SHEET not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the STYLE-SHEET template could not be found.

Error - template SUB-TOP-BANNER not found

A configuration error was detected in the CGI script; the SUB-TOP-BANNER template could not be found.
Subject:
From:
Peter Ekkerman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
PCSOFT - Personal Computer software discussion list <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:44:41 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (69 lines)
Hi Christopher,

A lot depends on the hardware of the machine Vista is installed on.
It may or may not boot faster than XP depending on which programs are installed.
At best,the difference is only marginal.

As to the faster install: That's comparing apples to oranges.
Vista uses an image transfer,whereas XP (from the CD) uses the copy and install 
method.Actually even then,install times are fairly close,although many people
experienced very long install times for Vista.
Regardless,if one was to use an image of a clean install of XP,
install time for XP would be a fraction of that of Vista.
There is lots of info about that on the web - I just picked one example:Re Vista
http://webserver.computoredge.com/online.mvc?zone=SD&issue=2502&article=in2

Again,some of the many examples:
http://www.tech2all.com/2006/02/26/how-to-windows-xp-image-restore-in-a-snap/
http://blog.hishamrana.com/2006/02/22/how-to-image-windows-xp-with-ghost-and-sysprep/

Dean Kukral is correct when he says:
Quote:Also, Chris, it may  be true that Vista will load faster, but how fast
it runs is much more important.I would rather have it load slower but run faster!!
Dean

Some tests (one out of many)
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2089952,00.asp
With the upcoming SP3 for XP, early results show a marked increase
over Vista.

This is like the argument of Windows vs MAC vs Linux etc
Fans will defend anything regardless of true facts.

In the end, a user's preference,type of usage,finances and many more factors
will decide what's best for them.

As to finance:Vista will require lots of RAM - double that of XP.
When you come to replace a stick,it will cost you double.
This is only one example.There are many more.

Since Vista is so "great", I wonder why so many hundreds of thousands,
maybe millions of people "upgrade" to XP.
Why businesses are not adopting Vista just yet.
Why sales are lagging for Vista.
The answers are right on the internet for anyone to be read.

Peter.



-------- Original Message  --------
Subject: Re: [PCSOFT] XP Vs Vista
From: christopher Charles <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: 14-Jan-2008 4:18:54 AM

> Actually Vista Boots faster than XP!
> 
> Vista installs faster too!  and it has most of the drivers for motherboard devices.
> 
> There are about 12 services you could stop or disable.
> 
> Also use 2 GB of virtual ram on your HD.
> 
> Christopher C. Charles

             PCSOFT maintains many useful files for download
                     visit our download web page at:
                  http://freepctech.com/downloads.shtml

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV