Re: no problems ??? one year and running HHmmmm

DanS

"B. Smith" <> wrote in
news:.gbl:

> Don't lie.
> You don't like Vista ... so you make up stuff.
>
> I also triple boot Vista,XP, and a linux distro.
>
> Vista boot time 21 sec....linux 28 sec.
> Vista opening MS Word 3 sec....linux OO Writer 9 sec.
> Vista first opening of IE7 2 sec ... linux Iceweasel ... 7 sec.
>
> This goes on and on ... so obviously Vista is superior speed wise and
> with assigning resources.

All of that's just the 'SuperFetch' service. SF preloads your commonly used
programs, which is one reason a lot of RAM seemed to be used when you are
doing nothing.

The bigger question is, for instance, Word & OO Writer load speeds....what
does that 6 seconds do for you ? You open the progrma once, and then spend
a lot of time using it. That must be the increase in productivity MS claims
is gained by using Vista !

Of course, those are completely different programs as well, on different
platforms. What would be a better comparison would be to install OO Writer
in Vista, since there's both Windows and Linux versions, disable
superfetch, and then reboot Vista, and start Writer to get the time. Then
reboot into Linux, and start Writer there for a more accurate comparison.

B. Smith

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
news:Xns9B746ABF2250Cthisnthatroadrunnern@85.214.1 05.209...
> "B. Smith" <> wrote in
> news:.gbl:
>
>> Don't lie.
>> You don't like Vista ... so you make up stuff.
>>
>> I also triple boot Vista,XP, and a linux distro.
>>
>> Vista boot time 21 sec....linux 28 sec.
>> Vista opening MS Word 3 sec....linux OO Writer 9 sec.
>> Vista first opening of IE7 2 sec ... linux Iceweasel ... 7 sec.
>>
>> This goes on and on ... so obviously Vista is superior speed wise and
>> with assigning resources.
>
> All of that's just the 'SuperFetch' service. SF preloads your commonly
> used
> programs, which is one reason a lot of RAM seemed to be used when you are
> doing nothing.
>
> The bigger question is, for instance, Word & OO Writer load speeds....what
> does that 6 seconds do for you ? You open the progrma once, and then spend
> a lot of time using it. That must be the increase in productivity MS
> claims
> is gained by using Vista !
>
> Of course, those are completely different programs as well, on different
> platforms. What would be a better comparison would be to install OO Writer
> in Vista, since there's both Windows and Linux versions, disable
> superfetch, and then reboot Vista, and start Writer to get the time. Then
> reboot into Linux, and start Writer there for a more accurate comparison.


So, in essence, you want me to dumb down Vista to help linux catch up.
LOL.

I have open office in Vista...its faster in Vista ( I wanted to try
it...didn't like it over Office, so I never use it )
I also prefer MS software to linux ... I think it is way higher quality.
In order to keep such software coming, I back MS with my wallet.
I would never want to be at the mercy of linux and open source software.
And Apple is too "isolated" (I know they are becoming more
compatible...still not a boat I wanna sit in).

That's my opinion, and not likely to change (totally unlikely)

I responded to someone claiming Vista was slower than XP and Linux.
From my use of all three products on a desktop PC and laptop...I disagree.
For what I use my PC for...Vista is superior.
YMMV.

I see linux as slow, cumbersome, the GUI is ridiculous and unstable.
The latest round of updates caused title bars to flicker and disappear.
Programs constantly need to be Force Quit.
Its a nightmare.
I could never be productive in that environment.
And there is little incentive to tolerate linux, when I am simply a reboot
away from Windows.

B. Smith

"[signious] ^ 2" <> wrote in message
news:4945a06b$...
>> So, in essence, you want me to dumb down Vista to help linux catch up.
>> LOL.
>
> linux seldom needs reboots you idiot..
>
> remember no blue screens.. ??
>
> uptime is so good you really don't need to remember the cache between
> boots...
>
> the cache of linux is believe it or not faster than what superfetch is
>
>
> I have a triple boot with linux vista and xp... I can compare the 3 on
> the same hardware.
>
> the same applies to eboostr's implementation of ram cache that in the new
> beta is for vista as well..
>
> and its caching of ram is better than vistas.... lol
>
>
> no matter how you look at vista, it shows how inferior it is to all other
> modern OS's including XP that still shines.
>
>

LOL.
I rest my case.

DanS

"B. Smith" <> wrote in
news:#.gbl:

> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B746ABF2250Cthisnthatroadrunnern@85.214.1 05.209...
>> "B. Smith" <> wrote in
>> news:.gbl:
>>
>>> Don't lie.
>>> You don't like Vista ... so you make up stuff.
>>>
>>> I also triple boot Vista,XP, and a linux distro.
>>>
>>> Vista boot time 21 sec....linux 28 sec.
>>> Vista opening MS Word 3 sec....linux OO Writer 9 sec.
>>> Vista first opening of IE7 2 sec ... linux Iceweasel ... 7 sec.
>>>
>>> This goes on and on ... so obviously Vista is superior speed wise
>>> and with assigning resources.
>>
>> All of that's just the 'SuperFetch' service. SF preloads your
>> commonly used
>> programs, which is one reason a lot of RAM seemed to be used when you
>> are doing nothing.
>>
>> The bigger question is, for instance, Word & OO Writer load
>> speeds....what does that 6 seconds do for you ? You open the progrma
>> once, and then spend a lot of time using it. That must be the
>> increase in productivity MS claims
>> is gained by using Vista !
>>
>> Of course, those are completely different programs as well, on
>> different platforms. What would be a better comparison would be to
>> install OO Writer in Vista, since there's both Windows and Linux
>> versions, disable superfetch, and then reboot Vista, and start Writer
>> to get the time. Then reboot into Linux, and start Writer there for a
>> more accurate comparison.
>
>
> So, in essence, you want me to dumb down Vista to help linux catch up.
> LOL.

I don't want you to do anything. I was simply explaining that superfetch
preloads programs you commonly use, and by starting up faster, it gives
the perception that it performs better.


> I have open office in Vista...its faster in Vista ( I wanted to try
> it...didn't like it over Office, so I never use it )
> I also prefer MS software to linux ... I think it is way higher
> quality. In order to keep such software coming, I back MS with my
> wallet. I would never want to be at the mercy of linux and open source
> software. And Apple is too "isolated" (I know they are becoming more
> compatible...still not a boat I wanna sit in).
>
> That's my opinion, and not likely to change (totally unlikely)
>
> I responded to someone claiming Vista was slower than XP and Linux.
> From my use of all three products on a desktop PC and laptop...I
> disagree. For what I use my PC for

Just wondering, what do you use it for ?

B. Smith

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
news:Xns9B74E3BB81BC8thisnthatroadrunnern@85.214.1 05.209...
> "B. Smith" <> wrote in
> news:#.gbl:
>
>> "DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B746ABF2250Cthisnthatroadrunnern@85.214.1 05.209...
>>> "B. Smith" <> wrote in
>>> news:.gbl:
>>>
>>>> Don't lie.
>>>> You don't like Vista ... so you make up stuff.
>>>>
>>>> I also triple boot Vista,XP, and a linux distro.
>>>>
>>>> Vista boot time 21 sec....linux 28 sec.
>>>> Vista opening MS Word 3 sec....linux OO Writer 9 sec.
>>>> Vista first opening of IE7 2 sec ... linux Iceweasel ... 7 sec.
>>>>
>>>> This goes on and on ... so obviously Vista is superior speed wise
>>>> and with assigning resources.
>>>
>>> All of that's just the 'SuperFetch' service. SF preloads your
>>> commonly used
>>> programs, which is one reason a lot of RAM seemed to be used when you
>>> are doing nothing.
>>>
>>> The bigger question is, for instance, Word & OO Writer load
>>> speeds....what does that 6 seconds do for you ? You open the progrma
>>> once, and then spend a lot of time using it. That must be the
>>> increase in productivity MS claims
>>> is gained by using Vista !
>>>
>>> Of course, those are completely different programs as well, on
>>> different platforms. What would be a better comparison would be to
>>> install OO Writer in Vista, since there's both Windows and Linux
>>> versions, disable superfetch, and then reboot Vista, and start Writer
>>> to get the time. Then reboot into Linux, and start Writer there for a
>>> more accurate comparison.
>>
>>
>> So, in essence, you want me to dumb down Vista to help linux catch up.
>> LOL.
>
> I don't want you to do anything. I was simply explaining that superfetch
> preloads programs you commonly use, and by starting up faster, it gives
> the perception that it performs better.
>
>
>> I have open office in Vista...its faster in Vista ( I wanted to try
>> it...didn't like it over Office, so I never use it )
>> I also prefer MS software to linux ... I think it is way higher
>> quality. In order to keep such software coming, I back MS with my
>> wallet. I would never want to be at the mercy of linux and open source
>> software. And Apple is too "isolated" (I know they are becoming more
>> compatible...still not a boat I wanna sit in).
>>
>> That's my opinion, and not likely to change (totally unlikely)
>>
>> I responded to someone claiming Vista was slower than XP and Linux.
>> From my use of all three products on a desktop PC and laptop...I
>> disagree. For what I use my PC for
>
> Just wondering, what do you use it for ?


You got smoked.
Run along...make up more linux lies.

Linux sucks....15 years of BS can't get it above 1% usage.

I use my PC's for what I paid for them to do.

DanS

"B. Smith" <> wrote in news:#BMNnlmXJHA.2280
@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

>>> That's my opinion, and not likely to change (totally unlikely)
>>>
>>> I responded to someone claiming Vista was slower than XP and Linux.
>>> From my use of all three products on a desktop PC and laptop...I
>>> disagree. For what I use my PC for
>>
>> Just wondering, what do you use it for ?
>
>
> You got smoked.

No, I didn't get 'smoked'. I was supplied a valid reason why programs load
faster with Vista than XP (or Linux, if it's the same s/w, like OO Writer).

> Run along...make up more linux lies.

I made up no Linux lies to begin with, and my statement applies to XP as
well. I'm not using any form of Linux, and not pushing it. Try reading
exactly what was posted, instead of trying to read between the lines, or
what someone 'really' means. Sometimes, most of the time, what is said is
exactly what is meant, plain black and white.

> Linux sucks....15 years of BS can't get it above 1% usage.

Good for you....don't care.