Originally posted by Ghosth
Your suprised that XP runs AH 30% faster than Vista? LOL I'm not, vista bites.
If your thinking that vista is ever going to outperform XP, well, I'd be very very suprised. There were reasons for building vista, but outperforming XP was not a consideration. Almost the reverse is true.
Humble is correct in that you should ordinarily load the older OS first.
I used to run duel boot Win98SE and XP and in that case needed 98se in first.
I had no problem doing Vista, XP, ubuntu in that order, my laptop which has Ubuntu as main OS, XP media center secondary.
Honestly I dont see any reason one way works better then other, Ive done both types of Dual Boot.
I was suprised AH runs slower in Vista being Vista allocates memory alot better then XP and still turns out slower, i've tested Vista Basic and ultimate edition and Ultimate is extremely horrible, 40% slower then XP, where Vista basic comes in around 10% Slower, im still suprised the SP1 for Vista only grants 1% performance boost in Microsoft Office, terrible indeed.
I do remember when Windows 98 was horrible in performance untill 98 SE came out, same for XP, Sp1 and Sp2 granted alot more perform then origional XP in my opinion, but I go back far as Quake 2 trying to tweak out opperating systems and video cards and Its a never ending thing: I never buy an Operating system untill least SP1, but in Vista's case I think Microsoft turned away from gaming (the big 4.5 billion dollar industry that drives computers today) which is why most companies (Gateway, Dell) Turned to selling Vista only to going back and selling XP. <--PWNING bill gates 1 operating system at a time.
