Vista RTM has been faked...

[dAbReAkA]

it also takes longer to load a pic then for it not to

it also takes less time if it doesnt render any progress bars on the bootscreen, or even showing the windows logo and playing the welcome sound after that..

[grafx1]

Paul Thurrott:

"Microsoft tells me that the new boot screen reduces Vista's boot time by an average of 6 seconds compared to the graphical screen they were originally planning to use. 6 seconds may not sound like a lot of time, but in the context of a PC booting, it's the difference between a near-appliance and an aging 286 that last wheezed its way along with Windows 3.1.

As a result, Windows Vista should boot much more quickly on the same hardware than does Windows XP. And in my own experience this is quite definitely the case. (There are other Vista technologies that help this system boot more quickly as well, of course.)"

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_04.asp

[MagicAndre1981]

set noGui-Boot and you have the aurora-BootScreen I like this one

[LeveL]

only 1 of your points makes any sense, and that is the boot screen.

the scrollbar is fine, the sidebar is fine, and that tray is how its suppose to be. just b/c you dont like how vista looks doesnt mean you should be spreading false news.

Exactly my thoughts. One persons idea of ugly is another persons preference.

To be honest folks if these are the kind of things you're having to

complain about, then this must be a good operating system. Its

that simple.

correction: "Vista RTM has been rushed".

A year and a half late is rushed? lol

It is amazing really how its been 5 long years since XP was released.

From 1995 to 2001 (6 years) they released Windows 95, Windows 98,

Windows 98se, Windows 2000, Windows Millennium and Windows XP.

Since Windows XP in 2001 there have been no official releases and

it is going to be January 2007 before Vista hits the shops.

I used the Beta2 of Vista and I think it is a vast improvement over

any other Windows OS. Maybe its taken ages to get to the RTM

stage it is at now but look at it this way - it has been worked on

for the last what... 3 or 4 years? What was the first build of

Longhorn? First I ever tried was 4008 but I am sure there

were ones before that. Remember the sidebar and explorer

crashes? Heh, it has become a million miles more advanced

now as "Vista 6000"

[Camarade_Tux]

Paul Thurrott:

"Microsoft tells me that the new boot screen reduces Vista's boot time by an average of 6 seconds compared to the graphical screen they were originally planning to use. 6 seconds may not sound like a lot of time, but in the context of a PC booting, it's the difference between a near-appliance and an aging 286 that last wheezed its way along with Windows 3.1.

As a result, Windows Vista should boot much more quickly on the same hardware than does Windows XP. And in my own experience this is quite definitely the case. (There are other Vista technologies that help this system boot more quickly as well, of course.)"

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_04.asp

^200000000

I benchmarked boot times with and without GUI, at least 3 times each on a clean vmware install with VMWare Tools of course. There was absolutely no difference : not a single second, not half a second and not even a quarter of a second.

[dAbReAkA]

u measured the default and the noGUI boot screen?

i guess microsoft would've used another, more colorful and animated bootscreen, not the noGUI one..

[Camarade_Tux]

u measured the default and the noGUI boot screen?

Exactly and to be more precise (I looked for my original post on another forum), it takes 10 seconds after selecting the OS you want (multi-boot : XP/XP) to the moment the screen seems to shut down (it is just before you get a 32-bit color screen).

And with normal GUI, it maybe takes +.5seconds but certainly not more.