1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Way slower than XP

Discussion in 'Windows 7' started by Metspitzer, Mar 27, 2010.

  1. Metspitzer

    Metspitzer Flightless Bird

    Win7 takes foever to find network drives.

    It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written
    too.

    They are only changing it. They are not improving it.
     
  2. LD55ZRA

    LD55ZRA Flightless Bird

    This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than Win95
    which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.

    Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than its
    predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate but the
    weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take advantage
    of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment and
    software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!!

    hth


    Metspitzer wrote:
    >
    > Win7 takes foever to find network drives.
    >
    > It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written
    > too.
    >
    > They are only changing it. They are not improving it.


    --

    LVTravel <noone@none.com> is a convicted paedophilia from Johnstown, USA
    and has been outed under Megan's Law. Please report him to your local
    authorities if you see him near your kids.
     
  3. ray

    ray Flightless Bird

    On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:23:26 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:

    > Win7 takes foever to find network drives.
    >
    > It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written
    > too.
    >
    > They are only changing it. They are not improving it.


    Sounds like the health care reform bill.
     
  4. Andrew

    Andrew Flightless Bird

    "LD55ZRA" <LD55ZRA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    news:4BAEB3A3.F10E7C7B@discussions.microsoft.com...
    > This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than Win95
    > which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.
    >
    > Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than its
    > predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate but the
    > weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take advantage
    > of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment and
    > software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!!
    >


    I'd like to see some proof of this.
    I'm sure if you believe this you must have some documentation to back up
    your belief.
    Any whitepaper or research will do.
    How about posting some benchmarks.

    --

    Andrew
     
  5. Leythos

    Leythos Flightless Bird

    In article <home5p$v93$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
    >
    > "LD55ZRA" <LD55ZRA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:4BAEB3A3.F10E7C7B@discussions.microsoft.com...
    > > This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than Win95
    > > which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.
    > >
    > > Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than its
    > > predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate but the
    > > weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take advantage
    > > of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment and
    > > software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!!
    > >

    >
    > I'd like to see some proof of this.
    > I'm sure if you believe this you must have some documentation to back up
    > your belief.
    > Any whitepaper or research will do.
    > How about posting some benchmarks.


    Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one,
    running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    each new one comes out.

    How about you, on your own, try testing exact same hardware with
    different version of OS's, like almost all of us have for decades, and
    then you will know for sure, without any question, that it's true.

    --
    You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
    voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
    Trust yourself.
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
     
  6. Joel

    Joel Flightless Bird

    Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote:

    >Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one,
    >running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    >each new one comes out.



    7 was faster than XP when I first installed it, except for specific
    things that used a lot of RAM rapidly (I only had the minimum
    1 G8) - and when I upgraded my RAM, those things were faster, too.

    --
    Joel Crump
     
  7. Andrew

    Andrew Flightless Bird

    "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.26188920e0b43ba798a227@us.news.astraweb.com...
    > In article <home5p$v93$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    > yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
    >>
    >> "LD55ZRA" <LD55ZRA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> news:4BAEB3A3.F10E7C7B@discussions.microsoft.com...
    >> > This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than Win95
    >> > which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.
    >> >
    >> > Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than its
    >> > predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate but the
    >> > weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take advantage
    >> > of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment and
    >> > software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!!
    >> >

    >>
    >> I'd like to see some proof of this.
    >> I'm sure if you believe this you must have some documentation to back up
    >> your belief.
    >> Any whitepaper or research will do.
    >> How about posting some benchmarks.

    >
    > Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one,
    > running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    > each new one comes out.
    >
    > How about you, on your own, try testing exact same hardware with
    > different version of OS's, like almost all of us have for decades, and
    > then you will know for sure, without any question, that it's true.
    >


    I have different experience and benchmark data to back up my experience.


    --
    Andrew
     
  8. Leythos

    Leythos Flightless Bird

    In article <qdgtq5tmf1qb6sjddgusohc4mv53idinrh@4ax.com>,
    joelcrump@gmail.com says...
    >
    > Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one,
    > >running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    > >each new one comes out.

    >
    >
    > 7 was faster than XP when I first installed it, except for specific
    > things that used a lot of RAM rapidly (I only had the minimum
    > 1 G8) - and when I upgraded my RAM, those things were faster, too.


    I've got dozens of boxes, everything from 3.2ghz 32bit machings without
    hyper-threading, with hyper-threading, Core 2 (not Duo), Core 2 Duo,
    Quad Core, and even Xeon based Quad core systems.

    In every case, using the same box, same memory, same exact hardware, no
    hardware changes at all, XP fresh install with all updates/patches is
    faster than Vista or Win 7 with app updates/patches.

    I did make one mistake in my reply about ALWAYS - Win 7 is faster than
    Vista in almost every case.

    --
    You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
    voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
    Trust yourself.
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
     
  9. Leythos

    Leythos Flightless Bird

    In article <homfun$3n5$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
    >
    > "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.26188920e0b43ba798a227@us.news.astraweb.com...
    > > In article <home5p$v93$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    > > yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
    > >>
    > >> "LD55ZRA" <LD55ZRA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > >> news:4BAEB3A3.F10E7C7B@discussions.microsoft.com...
    > >> > This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than Win95
    > >> > which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.
    > >> >
    > >> > Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than its
    > >> > predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate but the
    > >> > weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take advantage
    > >> > of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment and
    > >> > software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!!
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> I'd like to see some proof of this.
    > >> I'm sure if you believe this you must have some documentation to back up
    > >> your belief.
    > >> Any whitepaper or research will do.
    > >> How about posting some benchmarks.

    > >
    > > Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one,
    > > running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    > > each new one comes out.
    > >
    > > How about you, on your own, try testing exact same hardware with
    > > different version of OS's, like almost all of us have for decades, and
    > > then you will know for sure, without any question, that it's true.
    > >

    >
    > I have different experience and benchmark data to back up my experience.


    Read my reply to Joel, I have dozens of actual test machines to back up
    my statement.

    --
    You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
    voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
    Trust yourself.
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
     
  10. Stewart

    Stewart Flightless Bird

    "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.26188920e0b43ba798a227@us.news.astraweb.com...
    > In article <home5p$v93$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    > yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
    >>
    >> "LD55ZRA" <LD55ZRA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> news:4BAEB3A3.F10E7C7B@discussions.microsoft.com...
    >> > This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than
    >> > Win95
    >> > which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.
    >> >
    >> > Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than
    >> > its
    >> > predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate
    >> > but the
    >> > weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take
    >> > advantage
    >> > of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment
    >> > and
    >> > software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!!
    >> >

    >>
    >> I'd like to see some proof of this.
    >> I'm sure if you believe this you must have some documentation to
    >> back up
    >> your belief.
    >> Any whitepaper or research will do.
    >> How about posting some benchmarks.

    >
    > Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
    > one,
    > running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    > each new one comes out.


    Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old
    286 ran fine.....

    >
    > How about you, on your own, try testing exact same hardware with
    > different version of OS's, like almost all of us have for decades,
    > and
    > then you will know for sure, without any question, that it's true.
    >
    > --
    > You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
    > voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to
    > that.
    > Trust yourself.
    > spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
     
  11. Andrew

    Andrew Flightless Bird

    "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.26189122862d60e698a228@us.news.astraweb.com...
    > In article <qdgtq5tmf1qb6sjddgusohc4mv53idinrh@4ax.com>,
    > joelcrump@gmail.com says...
    >>
    >> Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one,
    >> >running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    >> >each new one comes out.

    >>
    >>
    >> 7 was faster than XP when I first installed it, except for specific
    >> things that used a lot of RAM rapidly (I only had the minimum
    >> 1 G8) - and when I upgraded my RAM, those things were faster, too.

    >
    > I've got dozens of boxes, everything from 3.2ghz 32bit machings without
    > hyper-threading, with hyper-threading, Core 2 (not Duo), Core 2 Duo,
    > Quad Core, and even Xeon based Quad core systems.
    >
    > In every case, using the same box, same memory, same exact hardware, no
    > hardware changes at all, XP fresh install with all updates/patches is
    > faster than Vista or Win 7 with app updates/patches.
    >
    > I did make one mistake in my reply about ALWAYS - Win 7 is faster than
    > Vista in almost every case.


    Here are some benchmarks posted around the web.
    http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,0
    http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/
    http://www.paulspoerry.com/2009/08/13/windows-7-benchmarks-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/

    There are more I can post. Most all of them show very close results between
    XPSP3 and Win7 (some were pre RTM tests.)
    There are great performance upgrades in networking and processing speed with
    Win7. Same hardware, etc.
    My testing shows similar results (perf on IIS, SQL, etc.) between Server 03
    R2 and Server08.

    Basically, I'll take all the new features in Win7 and Server08 and there is
    no noticeable decline in performance across the board.
    What I would really like to see is a new benchmark comparison with all the
    latest WHQL approved drivers for video, controllers, mobo, etc.
    It is my assertion that Win7 will blow XPSP3 away in those instances.


    --
    Andrew
     
  12. Leythos

    Leythos Flightless Bird

    In article <homq1q$qau$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
    >
    > "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.26189122862d60e698a228@us.news.astraweb.com...
    > > In article <qdgtq5tmf1qb6sjddgusohc4mv53idinrh@4ax.com>,
    > > joelcrump@gmail.com says...
    > >>
    > >> Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one,
    > >> >running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    > >> >each new one comes out.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> 7 was faster than XP when I first installed it, except for specific
    > >> things that used a lot of RAM rapidly (I only had the minimum
    > >> 1 G8) - and when I upgraded my RAM, those things were faster, too.

    > >
    > > I've got dozens of boxes, everything from 3.2ghz 32bit machings without
    > > hyper-threading, with hyper-threading, Core 2 (not Duo), Core 2 Duo,
    > > Quad Core, and even Xeon based Quad core systems.
    > >
    > > In every case, using the same box, same memory, same exact hardware, no
    > > hardware changes at all, XP fresh install with all updates/patches is
    > > faster than Vista or Win 7 with app updates/patches.
    > >
    > > I did make one mistake in my reply about ALWAYS - Win 7 is faster than
    > > Vista in almost every case.

    >
    > Here are some benchmarks posted around the web.
    > http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,0
    > http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/
    > http://www.paulspoerry.com/2009/08/13/windows-7-benchmarks-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/
    >
    > There are more I can post. Most all of them show very close results between
    > XPSP3 and Win7 (some were pre RTM tests.)
    > There are great performance upgrades in networking and processing speed with
    > Win7. Same hardware, etc.
    > My testing shows similar results (perf on IIS, SQL, etc.) between Server 03
    > R2 and Server08.
    >
    > Basically, I'll take all the new features in Win7 and Server08 and there is
    > no noticeable decline in performance across the board.
    > What I would really like to see is a new benchmark comparison with all the
    > latest WHQL approved drivers for video, controllers, mobo, etc.
    > It is my assertion that Win7 will blow XPSP3 away in those instances.


    Instead of reading "Benchmarks" that are often flawed, try using it in a
    Production Environment where you can see REAL examples of the
    difference.

    --
    You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
    voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
    Trust yourself.
    spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
     
  13. Andrew

    Andrew Flightless Bird

    "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.26192c2633d263c698a22b@us.news.astraweb.com...
    > In article <homq1q$qau$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    > yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
    >>
    >> "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
    >> news:MPG.26189122862d60e698a228@us.news.astraweb.com...
    >> > In article <qdgtq5tmf1qb6sjddgusohc4mv53idinrh@4ax.com>,
    >> > joelcrump@gmail.com says...
    >> >>
    >> >> Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
    >> >> >one,
    >> >> >running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    >> >> >each new one comes out.
    >> >>
    >> >>
    >> >> 7 was faster than XP when I first installed it, except for specific
    >> >> things that used a lot of RAM rapidly (I only had the minimum
    >> >> 1 G8) - and when I upgraded my RAM, those things were faster, too.
    >> >
    >> > I've got dozens of boxes, everything from 3.2ghz 32bit machings without
    >> > hyper-threading, with hyper-threading, Core 2 (not Duo), Core 2 Duo,
    >> > Quad Core, and even Xeon based Quad core systems.
    >> >
    >> > In every case, using the same box, same memory, same exact hardware, no
    >> > hardware changes at all, XP fresh install with all updates/patches is
    >> > faster than Vista or Win 7 with app updates/patches.
    >> >
    >> > I did make one mistake in my reply about ALWAYS - Win 7 is faster than
    >> > Vista in almost every case.

    >>
    >> Here are some benchmarks posted around the web.
    >> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,0
    >> http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/
    >> http://www.paulspoerry.com/2009/08/13/windows-7-benchmarks-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/
    >>
    >> There are more I can post. Most all of them show very close results
    >> between
    >> XPSP3 and Win7 (some were pre RTM tests.)
    >> There are great performance upgrades in networking and processing speed
    >> with
    >> Win7. Same hardware, etc.
    >> My testing shows similar results (perf on IIS, SQL, etc.) between Server
    >> 03
    >> R2 and Server08.
    >>
    >> Basically, I'll take all the new features in Win7 and Server08 and there
    >> is
    >> no noticeable decline in performance across the board.
    >> What I would really like to see is a new benchmark comparison with all
    >> the
    >> latest WHQL approved drivers for video, controllers, mobo, etc.
    >> It is my assertion that Win7 will blow XPSP3 away in those instances.

    >
    > Instead of reading "Benchmarks" that are often flawed, try using it in a
    > Production Environment where you can see REAL examples of the
    > difference.
    >


    I just can't quote you our numbers because of NDA, but I do use this stuff
    in a production environment every day. Therefore I posted benchmarks.

    --
    Andrew
     
  14. Stephen Wolstenholme

    Stephen Wolstenholme Flightless Bird

    On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:23:26 -0400, Metspitzer <kilowatt@charter.net>
    wrote:

    >Win7 takes foever to find network drives.
    >
    >It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written
    >too.
    >
    >They are only changing it. They are not improving it.


    I had problems with Windows 7 and XP systems sharing the same network
    but since upgrading everything to Windows 7 the problems are gone. It
    seemed that Windows 7 was slower than XP but now it's faster.

    Steve

    --
    Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com

    Neural network applications, help and support.
     
  15. Thip

    Thip Flightless Bird

    "Metspitzer" <kilowatt@charter.net> wrote in message
    news:8pbtq5p53p1s9cjc6i04lj0o7arv6jf3pc@4ax.com...
    > Win7 takes foever to find network drives.
    >
    > It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written
    > too.
    >
    > They are only changing it. They are not improving it.
    >


    Mine's been faster from Day One.
     
  16. JEDIDIAH

    JEDIDIAH Flightless Bird

    On 2010-03-28, Stewart <gortamus@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.26188920e0b43ba798a227@us.news.astraweb.com...
    >> In article <home5p$v93$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    >> yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
    >>>
    >>> "LD55ZRA" <LD55ZRA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:4BAEB3A3.F10E7C7B@discussions.microsoft.com...
    >>> > This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than
    >>> > Win95
    >>> > which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.


    [deletia]

    >> Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
    >> one,
    >> running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    >> each new one comes out.

    >
    > Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old
    > 286 ran fine.....


    A lot of the cited examples for "the new being slower" involved rather
    large architectural changes and functional improvements and sometimes lots
    of new features. From XP to Vista to Win7 there really isn't so much of that.

    [deletia]

    --
    ....as if the ability to run Cubase ever made or broke a platform.
    |||
    / | \
     
  17. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 3/29/2010 12:57 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > On 2010-03-28, Stewart<gortamus@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Leythos"<spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
    >> news:MPG.26188920e0b43ba798a227@us.news.astraweb.com...
    >>> In article<home5p$v93$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    >>> yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
    >>>>
    >>>> "LD55ZRA"<LD55ZRA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:4BAEB3A3.F10E7C7B@discussions.microsoft.com...
    >>>>> This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than
    >>>>> Win95
    >>>>> which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.

    >
    > [deletia]
    >
    >>> Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
    >>> one,
    >>> running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    >>> each new one comes out.

    >>
    >> Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old
    >> 286 ran fine.....

    >
    > A lot of the cited examples for "the new being slower" involved rather
    > large architectural changes and functional improvements and sometimes lots
    > of new features. From XP to Vista to Win7 there really isn't so much of that.
    >
    > [deletia]
    >

    How do you know?
    Well...?
     
  18. JEDIDIAH

    JEDIDIAH Flightless Bird

    On 2010-03-29, Frank <fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
    >
    >
    > On 3/29/2010 12:57 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >> On 2010-03-28, Stewart<gortamus@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Leythos"<spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:MPG.26188920e0b43ba798a227@us.news.astraweb.com...
    >>>> In article<home5p$v93$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    >>>> yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "LD55ZRA"<LD55ZRA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4BAEB3A3.F10E7C7B@discussions.microsoft.com...
    >>>>>> This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than
    >>>>>> Win95
    >>>>>> which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.

    >>
    >> [deletia]
    >>
    >>>> Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
    >>>> one,
    >>>> running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    >>>> each new one comes out.
    >>>
    >>> Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old
    >>> 286 ran fine.....

    >>
    >> A lot of the cited examples for "the new being slower" involved rather
    >> large architectural changes and functional improvements and sometimes lots
    >> of new features. From XP to Vista to Win7 there really isn't so much of that.
    >>
    >> [deletia]
    >>

    > How do you know?
    > Well...?


    So I managed to miss a transition there as significant as DOS or DOS
    shell to NT? Do tell. An no, extra eye candy doesn't count. Neither does
    a poorly thought out variation on sudo or breaking everyone's old drivers.

    --
    I was format shifting in the 70s. |||
    / | \
     
  19. Frank

    Frank Flightless Bird

    On 3/29/2010 2:44 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    > On 2010-03-29, Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> On 3/29/2010 12:57 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>> On 2010-03-28, Stewart<gortamus@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> "Leythos"<spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:MPG.26188920e0b43ba798a227@us.news.astraweb.com...
    >>>>> In article<home5p$v93$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    >>>>> yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "LD55ZRA"<LD55ZRA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:4BAEB3A3.F10E7C7B@discussions.microsoft.com...
    >>>>>>> This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than
    >>>>>>> Win95
    >>>>>>> which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.
    >>>
    >>> [deletia]
    >>>
    >>>>> Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
    >>>>> one,
    >>>>> running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    >>>>> each new one comes out.
    >>>>
    >>>> Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old
    >>>> 286 ran fine.....
    >>>
    >>> A lot of the cited examples for "the new being slower" involved rather
    >>> large architectural changes and functional improvements and sometimes lots
    >>> of new features. From XP to Vista to Win7 there really isn't so much of that.
    >>>
    >>> [deletia]
    >>>

    >> How do you know?
    >> Well...?

    >
    > So I managed to miss a transition there as significant as DOS or DOS
    > shell to NT? Do tell. An no, extra eye candy doesn't count. Neither does
    > a poorly thought out variation on sudo or breaking everyone's old drivers.
    >

    Thanks for proving that you are nothing but clueless linturd troll.
     
  20. JEDIDIAH

    JEDIDIAH Flightless Bird

    On 2010-03-29, Frank <fb@tbb.moz> wrote:
    >
    >
    > On 3/29/2010 2:44 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >> On 2010-03-29, Frank<fb@amk.cmo> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> On 3/29/2010 12:57 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
    >>>> On 2010-03-28, Stewart<gortamus@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Leythos"<spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:MPG.26188920e0b43ba798a227@us.news.astraweb.com...
    >>>>>> In article<home5p$v93$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
    >>>>>> yogig@no.spam.hotmail.com says...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "LD55ZRA"<LD55ZRA@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:4BAEB3A3.F10E7C7B@discussions.microsoft.com...
    >>>>>>>> This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than
    >>>>>>>> Win95
    >>>>>>>> which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.
    >>>>
    >>>> [deletia]
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
    >>>>>> one,
    >>>>>> running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
    >>>>>> each new one comes out.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old
    >>>>> 286 ran fine.....
    >>>>
    >>>> A lot of the cited examples for "the new being slower" involved rather
    >>>> large architectural changes and functional improvements and sometimes lots
    >>>> of new features. From XP to Vista to Win7 there really isn't so much of that.
    >>>>
    >>>> [deletia]
    >>>>
    >>> How do you know?
    >>> Well...?

    >>
    >> So I managed to miss a transition there as significant as DOS or DOS
    >> shell to NT? Do tell. An no, extra eye candy doesn't count. Neither does
    >> a poorly thought out variation on sudo or breaking everyone's old drivers.
    >>

    > Thanks for proving that you are nothing but clueless linturd troll.


    I wasn't trolling but you clearly are.

    --
    Apple: Because the world doesn't have enough peasants. |||
    / | \
     

Share This Page