Carol, look at the time difference between windows xp and windows vista. Of course XP is going to be faster.
Why does it have to be this way, though?
Sure thing, NT requires more than 9x which requires more than win3.x, because a lot of things has happened... both to the GUI and under the hood. The enhanced security of NT + advanced features don't come for free, and I'm OK with that. But I fail to see why things must inevitably become heavier and heavier... It's a shame that all the cool things the kernel developers do (lock-free algorithms, better heap data structures + algorithms, prioritized I/O et cetera) are swallowed up by incompetent usermode developers. If you can't make something new that runs better than the old, don't fscking do it!
(yeah, I'm thinking about stuff like WPF
XP might be faster but it also does not take advantage of newer hardware like vista does.
Taking advantage of newer hardware is good, but requiring faster hardware for no good reason is plain stupid. I didn't buy a quadcore CPU to facilitate lazy developers, I bought it because I want to utilize the CPU power for other stuff.
Now, I'm not saying Vista is so bad performance-wise, and my experience with it has been pretty positive so far. But there's no denying it requires more Oomph than XP, and not necessarily for very good reasons.
Compatibility with old and out of date hardware/software is what drives down Window's performance.
I do agree that Microsoft shouldn't have OS hacks to support broken software and instead require vendors to fix their darn codebases, but backward compatibility doesn't really drag down performance. Takes up disk space, yeah, but that's about it.
Microsoft needs to do like Apple and cut the cord and say "Sorry, you're applications need to be updated".
In the case of fixing things like Vista incompatibilites (which, really, are issues that have been there since the NT4 (or earlier) days, when running with non-admin privileges), I agree. In the case of "you must update your apps to use the latest dotNET" I couldn't disagree more.
I guarantee resource usage would go down with removal of support for the creative labs 16-bit sound card or the original audigy series stuff. Support for Rage 128 graphics adapters is no longer needed.
Bullshit. Again, you might save some disk space, but unused drivers aren't loaded, and thus don't take up RAM or CPU resources.
You say explorer is ruined, I say it is far better than it ever has been.
I'll have to agree with Carol, I find that new explorer sucks++. I'm glad xplorer2
works with Vista.
I like the new start menu and a number of other things about Vista (more ramblings here
), but I do find that I need more clicks when going through the control panel. Fortunately, it's not something I have to do much, so it's not that much of an issue. But I'd be pissed about if it I had to do a lot of computer support. I don't find UAC to be a problem, though, since you can temporarily disable it while doing a fresh system setup, and then re-enable it afterwards. It could be smarter, though.
You also say you need a bigger hard disk. Are you really worried about using 4-6GB of space? That is all vista takes for me on a fresh install.
Weird, x64 Vista Business version took up 12 gigabyte on a fresh install. Excluding page- and hibernation files... and that's, imho, too much for a base OS, excluding applications. "Buy a larger harddrive", yaddayadda. Nope. I want to use my disk space for my
needs, not for Microsofts sloppyness. They need to make the OS more modular and give users some choice of freedom. And do keep solid-state disks in mind, 6 gigabytes of extra OS consumption is a lot on a 64gig disk.