My 2.0GHz Core2Duo w/2GB Vista machine is definitely faster than my former
1.7GHz Pentium 4 w/512MB XP machine.

 

So yes, there is an increase in speed.  Now some people use boot-up time or
recover-from-hibernate or some other bogus benchmark to gauge system speed.
If that's what you do, expect to be disappointed that Vista starts up hardly
faster than XP even on much faster hardware.  What matters is how it does
after it's up and running.  You also have to adjust your habits to higher
performance in order to see a gain in productivity.  A user who only opens
one program at a time and closes it before opening the next won't see a
benefit from 2GB of RAM no matter what OS is in use.

 

Regarding security, are your users ...

(a) Able to browse the Internet with no restrictions?

(b) Allowed to download executable files off the web with no filtering other
than their antivirus?

(c) Operating with local administrator privileges?

 

If you said "yes" to all questions, then Vista's improved security can
reduce the chance that a user will contract something that your antivirus
doesn't catch.

 

Carl

 

From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 11:07 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed

 

No offense, but your post sounds like it was written bya MS Marketing Wiz.
Increased Security is a good thing. But define "increased security". Since
all our info is retained on servers, isn't that where I should be concerned
about security? Improved ease of management is another good thing, but I'm
not sure that Vista will improve management of my servers. Oh, and I'm not
clear just how Vista will improve the ease of workstation management.
Sleep/Hibernate isn't an issue here, but that's not to say it might not be
an issue some day, I just don't see it. If Vista is more reliable than XP,
that's a good thing, but we're not having a reliablity issue with our
workstations or servers for that fact. Finally, SPEED, now that's a hot
button for me. But what got me to respond the first time to this thread was
the fact that one individual had a faster laptop, but Vista wasn't running
any faster than XP on an older slower laptop. So, is there really an
increase in speed?

 

Murray

 

 

 

 

From: John Hornbuckle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:38 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed

 

If your organization doesn't need things like increased security, improved
ease of management, and better performance with offline files and folders,
then no-Vista probably wouldn't be of use to you. Ditto for improved
sleep/hibernate and increased speed through ReadyBoost and SuperFetch.

 

For my organization, these new features bring benefits over XP. In fact,
most organizations benefit from improved speed, security, and reliability.
But if yours doesn't, that's okay.

 

 

 

John 

 

 

From: Murray Freeman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 7:31 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed

 

Now let me understand this. I should spend the money to acquire a new FASTER
computer so that I can run Vista which runs at the very SAME speed that an
older slower computer did running XP, but Vista really has little if any to
offer in the way of benefits. Now I get it!!!!! I'm loving this thread,
because so far I don't hear any good reasons to upgrade to Vista. I've been
in IT for nearly 44 years. During that time I've seen a lot of changes, and
in most cases more productivity for smaller amounts of financial investment.
But I just have a real problem with spending MORE to get virtually nothing
for my investment......other than I can tell people that I have VISTA!!!  I
want to thank everyone for reaffirming the decision I had already made for
my organization.

Murray

 

 

  _____  

From: Graeme Carstairs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:29 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Why XP is doomed

I have 2.2 GHZ Centrino Duo laptop with 2GB of RAM and Vista works as fast
as my previous XP Machine which was a 1.8GHX Centrino Duo and 2GB RAM.

So your Pentium D 3 Ghz should be fine and dandy with or without the 4gb
obviously 4gb would be better but then that goes for xp too.

Graeme

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 8:59 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


"John Hornbuckle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/12/2008
03:53:29 PM: 



> Well, it's moot that a crappy system being sold by a vendor is good 
> enough to run XP. It's also good enough to run Windows for 
> Workgroups and DOS-but that's not the point.

 

>   
> Yes, Vista has higher hardware requirements. Just like XP has higher
> requirements than Win9x had, and just like Win9x had higher 
> requirements than Win3x had. Every OS that comes out is likely to 
> have higher requirements than the OS before it. 
>   
> But honestly, Vista's hardware requirements aren't crazy high. As I 
> mentioned before, I'm running it at home on a Pentium D processor-
> which is a very modest CPU by today's standards. Vista works just 
> fine with it. The biggest issue with the hardware vendors, as seen 
> in the ZDNet piece, is the crapware installed at the factory. The 
> author of the article got the Sony laptop working perfectly with 
> Vista without changing the hardware at all. 

Really ... I have a Pentium D, 3GHz, 2M RAM. You think if I bumped the RAM
to 4G that Vista would be OK with it? I mostly use this PC for photoediting
(Photoshop CS3), and video editing (which in my case is converting PAL to
NTSC, or making a DVD out of AVI files, using Nero 7). 

Feel free to reply offlist .... 


>   
>   
>   
> John Hornbuckle 
> MIS Department 
> Taylor County School District 
> 318 North Clark Street 
> Perry, FL 32347 
>   
> www.taylor.k12.fl.us 
>   
>   
>   
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 3:35 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: Why XP is doomed 
>   
> 
> Ken Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 05/11/2008 03:58:17 AM:
> 
> > If a vendor sells an underpowered machine, then perhaps the vendor 
> > should take some blame. 
> 
> I believe the point is that the hardware is not underpowered for Xp,
> but is underpowered for Vista. Especially if the vendor isn't (or 
> can't ... ) offer XP on that hardware. 
> 

> 
> 

> 
> 

> 




-- 
Carbon credits are a bit like beating someone up on this side of the world
and sponsoring one of those poor starving kids on the other side of the
world to make up for the fact that you're a complete shit at home. 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja!    ~
~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm>  ~

Reply via email to