Calculus - 3:39 pm on Feb 6, 2008 (gmt 0)

Surprise surprise, few people voting for Vista.

Well, not such a surprise because it's dreadful compared to XP so you're doing the right thing and going XP.

Interesting point re the file transfers and copying large files with Vista. This is 2008 but speed is most probably less than it was in 1995 with Windows 95 (is that the name, I forget, it's the first of the new breed of windows anyway).

I'm amazed that the whole speed thing has not got better over the last decade.

Another example, when I click on Hotmail.com it most probably takes a good 10 seconds if not 15 to fire up, and this is with a very high speed connection.

Why is Moore's law not working for us consumers?

1995 to 2008 is 13 years, so call that 9 x 1.5 years. Processor speed will double (and halve in price) every 18 months. That means that today's chip should be around 8,000 times more powerful than one installed in 1995 but still it takes my super computer about 5 secs to completely load something like Word. Reckon it took the same in 1995, maybe slighly quicker.

Yes, bloatware and all that but still how much bloat can one put in against the supposed processor speed?

Not sure if I've got my maths right above, but the concept is valid - we haven't really come that far have we?