That’s not a cite. Lame.
That’s not a snarky retort, lame. :dubious:
I suspect no matter HOW many people provide evidence or opinion, you’ll not be swayed, so what’s the point?
OK, a different point of view. Everyone here is going to have to upgrade their hardware eventually. Personally, I love getting the latest and greatest hardware and seeing how much faster it makes my system run.
Why on earth would I want to invest in a lot of hardware and then let all the performance advantages be eaten by the OS? I’m running 2000 Pro and XP Pro SP2 on a couple of systems that are getting old. I need to replace them and get something faster. When I do, I want to see the results in terms of performance on applications.
Regards
Testy
Try running Win95b. It’s amazing how fast it starts up and shuts down (seriously.)
I’ll take that as “I’m too lazy and dishonest to back up my unfounded assertions” for $200, Alex. Wikipedia.
I just bought a new laptop that came with Vista installed. After a couple of weeks of playing with it, I have to say I’m neither disappointed nor especially impressed. It’s basically Windows XP with some superficial graphical improvements and minor usability enhancements. Definitely more ‘evolution’ than ‘revolution.’ The only early-adoption hassle I’ve run into is the ongoing compatibility problems between Vista and iTunes. I’m glad my new computer came with Vista installed, but I wouldn’t bother upgrading an older computer with XP.
Does Parallels replace/patch the command shell for some reason? ( I haven’t used Parallels and probably should, but I’ve got an entire PC and Mac sitting here so it didn’t seem urgent. 
)
Just curious…what’s your RAM situation in this machine? And are you comparing it to another machine with the same or different RAM?
I only ask this because the word on the street is Vista takes double the amount of RAM XP does to provide similar functions & speed. Is that true, or a myth?
From the original google link:
Next you’ll say they’re not authoritative, but my personal experience is: The stuff runs better with newer versions, on older hardware. Why is this so hard to accept without an affidavit to back it up? (And I wonder if you’d call me a lazy dishonest jerk to my face?)
How did you open the command prompt? For years, XP has had the “feature” that Start->Run->“cmd” gives you an identical looking, but functionally different, command prompt than Start->Run->“command”. I don’t remember which of these matched the Start->Accessories->Command Prompt.
However, in Vista the last two don’t appear to work (Start->Run->“Command” gives me an error, and I can’t find Command Prompt in the menus at all), but there are probably other ways of opening either. My guess is that you just opened the less functional command prompt, by some method I didn’t think of. (The dir command you gave worked for me, too, under Start->Run->“cmd” on Vista 64).
I dunno. It DOES seem odd. I’m willing to pull that bulletpoint as it may have been user error. I just remember it not working at the time and thinking WTF. Plenty of other targets in Vista to shoot at though.
Did you upgrade Vista, or was it a new install?
Because Microsoft won’t sell the old versions that I need. If I want to buy a new PC (for a new employee, not to replace an existing PC) I want 2000 pro on it because I know all our software works with that operating system. I can’t buy a new PC and get it with Windows 2000 pro on it. That is Microsoft’s decision.
You need the extra Ram and Video Ram to power the new Vista interface {Aero Glass}. Once you shut that off, the additional Ram requirements goes down significantly.
However, there is still little reason to upgrade, Vista offers very little for your upgrade and demands a lot. 
Jim
I don’t recall, but it’s bugging me enough to throw Vista back on a test box and poke around…now I just need to dig the media back up. (MSDN membership really is kinda cool in that respect)
1 GB, and I find it perfectly quick and responsive, even with all of the visual bells and whistles enabled. I’ve heard that Vista is sluggish with anything less than that (some reviews even recommend 2 GB). I don’t have any basis for direct comparison though.
I used the command prompt seldom in XP. What were the differences?
CMD = XP command shell
COMMAND = DOS command shell; doesn’t recognize long names, no automatic command history, etc. Just like old DOS.
Well right now I’m finding out that for some reason altering files (move, rename, etc.) on a USB external drive requires me to right-click on my Command Prompt and pick Run as Administrator. Otherwise I get Access Denied, after a long delay.
You get used to running a lot of things as Administrator on Vista (even when your’e already logged into an Administrator account), like software setup.exe programs. And too many operations black out the screen and require confirmation that yes, you really want to do that action. I see why they do that, it’s to keep viruses and malware from altering things behind your back, but it’s SO TEDIOUS to keep having your windows/desktop taken away while you click YES, I REALLY WANT TO DO THIS!
Dunno. Do you act like one in person, or only on faceless message boards?