Spam ? - Re: An interesting view of the hidden cost of Vista

[Richard Barth]

The current edition of one of the PC mags is 
pretty much dedicated to a review of Vista.  They 
did tests of its performance running various 
kinds of software on various kinds of machines, 
and the conclusion was that whatever the hardware 
and software involved, NOTHING ran faster on 
Vista than on XP.  They ran the same at best, and often much more slowly.

My reaction is like yours:  I see no reason to go 
buy Vista at this point.  Maybe I'll find one later, but certainly not yet.

Dick

At 01:02 PM 1/15/2007, you wrote:
>André,
>
>I cannot summon the mental strength to read this 
>from end to end just yet.  Perhaps I should as 
>it looks like a detailed effort to ferret out the facts about Vista.
>
>However, some of the headings and partial 
>scanning suggests Vista is not a good operating 
>system to run my kind of things like signal 
>processing or Software Defined Radio under.
>
>As a matter of fact, it does not look like a 
>good system to run a word processor under.  Way 
>too many processor cycles seem to be devoted to 
>solving HD TV problems I don't yet know I 
>have.  Why should I be forced to go out and buy 
>a supercharged 3+ gig gaming machine just so I 
>can run Microsoft's latest word processing package?
>
>I have better options.
>
>Wallet Stuck in Pocket
>
>Frank K0BRA
>
>Andre Kesteloot wrote:
>>http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
>>_______________________________________________
>>Tacos mailing list
>>Tacos at amrad.org
>>http://www.amrad.org/mailman/listinfo/tacos
>_______________________________________________
>Tacos mailing list
>Tacos at amrad.org
>http://www.amrad.org/mailman/listinfo/tacos

Richard Barth *** W3HWN(at)ARRL.NET *** Silver Spring, MD