After a disappointing showing by Windows Vista SP1 (see previous post), we were pleasantly surprised to discover that Windows XP Service Pack 3 (v.3244) delivers a measurable performance boost to this aging desktop OS. Testing with OfficeBench showed an ~10% performance boost vs. the same configuration running under Windows XP w/Service Pack 2.
Figure 1 - OfficeBench Completion Times
(In Seconds - Lower is Better)
Note: As with our Vista SP1 testing, we used the identical Dell XPS M1710 test bed with 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU, 1GB of RAM and discrete nVidia GeForce Go 7900GS video.
Since SP3 was supposed to be mostly a bug-fix/patch consolidation release - unlike w/Vista SP1, Microsoft made no promises of improved performance for XP - the unexpected speed boost comes as a nice bonus. In fact, XP SP3 is shaping-up to be a "must have" update for the majority of users who are still running Redmond's not-so-latest and greatest desktop OS.
Of course, none of this bodes well for Vista, which is now more than 2x slower than the most current builds of its older sibling. Suffice to say that performance-minded users will likely choose to stick with the now even speedier Windows XP - at least until more "Windows 7" information becomes publicly available.
Windows Vista = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge!
170 comments:
PLEASE! take this down until you re-run it with XP OEM and XP SP1.
Wouldnt hurt to do it on 2000 SP4 also.
I don't see this at all with Vista, RTM was faster then XP (both SP2 & 3). SP1 for Vista runs alot better then RTM.
I think that 10% of performance boost is due to the fixes they made in order to support Dual & Quad Core CPUs as it should be.
my Windows Vista RTM runs faster than XP on every scenery:
- startup is faster
- I'm ready to use Windows as the Vista desktop appears
- responsiveness is better
- multitasking, I/O and memomy managment is excellent
The real benchmark should be based on these: responsiveness, multitasking, memory managment, I/O managment!!!
Thanks for the insight!
Windows Vista equals Windows ME (reloaded) !
[E]
This is such FUD. I have no doubt that Vista is a little slower than XP, but this is ridiculous.
How about you rerun the benchmarks with Office 2003 on both Vista and XP. And the rerun them with Office 2007 on both Vista and XP.
Actually, we've run the same tests using Office 2003 on Vista SP1. The result? It went from being 2x slower than XP to 1.8x slower than XP. We've also tested with 2GB across the board and saw less than a 5% variance either way.
Of course, you don't need to take our word for it. All of our tools are publicly available through the exo.performance.network site. Simply register at www.xpnet.com, login to your private portal page and download DMS Clarity Studio.
RS
I am working on IT field for about ten years now, i worked with Both of Windows and *NIX OSs and i am against OS wars generally, i just like to pick the best features from each OS and to be honest till now i think Windows XP is the ideal OS for all users, its stable enough, famous enough to find drivers and powerful enough to compete with newer OSs and with some third party apps you can keep it shine, Well for me Windows Vista is another Windows ME i am staying with XP, ;)
Well I think if you have run the same tests how about you provide all the data to the public stating you added the 2 gig ram and that you leveled the playing field?
Regarding the request to re-run the test with XP OEM & XP SP1:
XP OEM (presumably with no service packs slipstreamed) and SP1 are unacceptable operating systems. The security and wireless capabilities -- among other things -- you lose by downgrading to pre-SP2 obviate any possible performance advantages... if they even exist.
XP SP2 is the production apex of Windows operating systems (leave OS X and ga-noo/Linux out of it, please!). Comparing SP3 only to SP2 is completely appropriate. Comparing SP3 to Vista merely compounds the embarassement. :-)
Thanks for the benchmarks, exo.blog!
Vista works better than XP on my PC.
All you are confirming is that your products runs slower on Vista.
I assume you are just a front for the FSF.
It'd be nice to have a reputable site run a standard benchmark to offer a comparison. The results in previous posts on this blog make it pretty clear the test methodology is flawed.
Anyone who claims that Vista boots faster than XP is a liar. There is not a single benchmark that has ever shown Vista to boot faster than XP. How gullible do you think we are, bearluke?
> Windows Vista equals Windows ME (reloaded) !
Sheesh, what an idiot....
Vista, Windows ME, or "Microsoft Bob".
Now there's a tough choice...
Many will agree that 6.x are not nearly as nice to use as 5.x. [I am sure kernel could be much better but who cares when the environment that users see sucks.]
I played with 2008 server CTP. Many useful features. For example terminal services received application publishing and there a gateway and load balancing... Great!
However, administration is very different from 4.0 and 5.x. Annoying! The OS is also slower.
To me: give me a hypervisor (veridian or what-have-you) and the new TS features with 2003 server experience and I could not be happier. :)
Microsoft made such an effort in the past to keep software backwards compatible and now running IE in a shell is breaking everything.
I would say Redmond should drop most new features above kernel from 6.x and make 7.x based on 5 UI, except that by 2012 or whenever users and ISVs might finally adopt to Vista.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/default.asp
Try disabling superfetch on Vista RTM and Vista SP1, even if you don't think it will make a difference.
You never know, superfetch could be doing more harm than good.
Thanks for taking the time to benchmark.
I'd love to see it compared to win2k sp4 also as I'm still running that :D
Can't find any motivation to "upgrade" to XP unless somehow xp.sp3 is finally faster than win2k.
Vista is twice slower because every click and key press must be reported to the MS :). Try to read the document that come on Vista install DVD to convince yourself.
Dear trolls:
He doesn't hate Vista. Recently, he DEFENDED Vista against claims that Aero Glass reduces notebook battery life (it doesn't unless you have REALLY BAD drivers).
He has merely confirmed what we already know. Windows Vista needs a couple of service packs to get to XP-SP2 levels of performance + security goodness. Yet, Microsoft is telling us to buy Vista NOW when everyone with sense knows better -- unless it comes pre-installed wait for the service packs.
This is how it goes with nearly EVERY MS operating system release since Windows NT 4.0 (which was poo until SP3).
I am not an MS hater, but I know that no OS maker ever gets it right the first time. EVER. However Windows XP eventually got it nearly right. So, I shall wait for MS to get Vista nearly right. Many of my Macintosh using friends are waiting for Apple to get Leopard right and my free software using friends generally avoid "x.00" releases of Linux distributions, *BSD or Solaris for the same reasons.
Actually, using the "power saver" profile, which disable transparent glass while on battery power - can provide a signficant battery life improvement.
That article, which was as much BS as this one, was about him claiming that battery life in Vista sucks no matter what you do... not that disabling "glass" is ineffective.
The testing methodology was also flawed. He disabled the DWM, which isn't what power-conscious users do. They disable transparency, not composition - and the Power Saver profile does this by default for a reason.
Unfortunately, the power saver settings aren't ideal when plugged in - so it's best to tweak that profile a bit if you're going to use it.
Yes, this is really very cool.
We are going backwards in the Microsoft OS evolution. The company should have been on a path to refinement and performance, but in any ral world business sense at this office, I can say without hesitation that the Vista OS installed on our Lenovo laptops is an almost unusable situation.
I have wiped them off and installed XP, and am running Ubuntu on one, even though I am not such a Linux maven.
Without stability and drivers, there can be no talk of performance.
SO the cold say in hell has come where I, an XP power user, feel comfortable with a Mac Mini, and now, although gun shy of Linux, am ready to take the plunge - anything not to use Vista.
MS is far more concerned with collecting every dime they think they are owed than producing the best products.
1) Buy OS
2) After install register OS
3) Activate OS within spec time period or else get reduced functionality
4) Allow MS to load spyware onto OS (after registration and activation) to "validate it"
5) Pay MS or other vendor to fix security issues MS should have sorted out to begin with.
No wonder IT people are fed up with Redmond.
If Mac OS X would have been in the test, if would have made a straight line: Vista --> XP --> Mac
1Gb of RAM on XP is great, but not on Vista. Vista really needs 4x the recommended minimum.
Granted, I'm using Vista x64, but my system boots up at about 850MB with no apps loaded except AV. I've also got a lot of services turned off, such as Windows Search.
Also, everything runs a little heavier on Vista both in x86 and x64.
I've run Vista on a machine with 512MB and with 2048MB. Knowing what both ends of the curve feel like, and look like in taskmgr, any benchmark of Vista doesn't mean much with out at least 1.5 - 2GB of RAM.
Ouch. That doesn't look good for Vista. Though I'm actually half-way happy with Vista right now.
Does anyone realize that what slows down XPSP2 is installing the 1000+ patches released since 2004. This site should test XPSP2 without patches (obviously just for comparison) and XPSP2 with patches alongside XPSP3.
I think in machine code.
Actually, we *did* test XP SP2 w/o all of the patches. We used the updated XP w/SP2 CD image from MSDN as our installation source. This was a straight SP2 vs. SP3 comparison, with no intermediate patches applied to SP2.
RS
I think the benchmarks are probably correct from use. While the author is open minded and accurate from what I can tell, I on the other hand, think MS is pure dog crap. Vista is everything that I switched to Linux for.
The OS is supposed to enable you to do things without exploding or rebooting right? How many Millions are made leeching off of MS's OS non-architecture? In any case, at home, I got my life back. I use windows xp/vista at work sometimes, and it ticks me off to no end. XP SP3 does boot up quite fast though. Not Linux pre-compiled kernel fast, but for windows it screams. But that doesn't mean it's not a joke for what it's supposed to do.
For windows systems, I will agree that Windows XP SP3 is the fastest for doing work and getting up and running. XP is simply something that MS hasn't broken for you yet. Don't kid yourself, or if you are a kid, then pay attention. Here is my prophecy. XP will be broken and you will be MADE to use Vista. That's a promise. Enjoy your temporary speed bump. When you see the blue screen after the latest patch in 2008 remember the idiot spouting off(me) on that blog site.
From my own experience, the benchmarks seem fairly accurate. I'm quite looking forward to SP3 now.
I'd love to know how the people reporting greater speed and responsiveness in Vista are running their tests. A fresh Vista install vs. the malware-ridden, three-year-old XP installation they were using previously?
I wonder how relevant it is that the hardware used is more recents than SP2.
SP2 could have improvements/enhancement by Intel and nVidia for that particular hardware setup that were not included in SP2.
To all those people calling this speed comparison BS: Please make the test yourself and prove Vista is faster, thank you very much.
well, I,m a gamer and riscing beeing the laughing stock here; According to my own private HL2 test, Vista sucks
"If Mac OS X would have been in the test, if would have made a straight line: Vista --> XP --> Mac"
Are you saying Office on the Mac is faster than on XP? I'm a Mac user (although until recently I've been using versions of Windows since 3.1) and I'm always pleased to see MS bashing, but only if it's based in some kind of reality.
Office 2008 isn't out for OS X yet, and Office 2004 isn't a Universal app so runs in emulation on newer Macs. Office on the Mac is fast enough but it is noticeably slower than on the two year old Dell I have from work (everything else is dog slow on the Dell, but that's because I can't be bothered maintaining something I barely use.)
Yep bearluke. Vista's I/O is greatest :-D
http://www.tech-hounds.com/
article29/ArticlesPage1.html
(warning. eof in the middle of the link)
Excellent. Its nice to see good things coming from Redmond. They're track record hasn't been that grand lately.
Vista and ME are uncomparable.
A lot of people have been saying that Vista is the new ME since it came out, but those people probably never ran ME, or just don't know what ME actually was.
ME was a release of Windows 98 that tried to incorporate usablility advances made in Windows 2000. It was written during the tail end of the Windows 2000 development cycle, and had little support.
AS much or mode of the Windows base code was rewritten in Windows Vista as in Windows 2000. It is not an upgrade, or downgrade, of Xp as ME was of WIndows 98, it is a totally new OS.
Me was totally unusable due to it's instability, where as Vista is as stable or more than XP. I've been using Vista for about a year now and I have never seen a BSOD. I'm a developer so the system isn't used mildly. There were bugs on RTM, but nothing like ME or even OS X 10.5, which is just an incremental OS X update, not a total reworking of the Mac OS.
The biggest problem with Vista is compatability with older software and drivers. This is due to Vista's code and design being much different than XP, and backwards compatability is often an area of bloat and insecurity in an OS. Much of the compatability issues have been fixed since release however, and everything except some pretty old hardware is compatable.
Windows Vista is not the new ME, it is the new XP. No one liked XP when it first came out. There were compatability issues and bugs. Most of the people who didn't like XP at the time though hadn't actually used it, as is the case now with Vista.
After using XP since beta 3, I couldn't go back to it after using Vista. Vista isn't the new ME, XP is the new Windows 98.
Excellent fud. It is no secret 1GB is too little for vista to run well, but XP can run pretty well on 1GB.
You only managed to show that swapping kills performance. but failed to see it.
hell yeah test it with win2k sp4 also
Vista with only 1 GB of RAM is terrible - (use XP with 128MB and you will see a similarity) this article is HEAVILY slanted against Vista (for whatever reason) - Vista works very well - very well with games also - you just need RAM (3+GB). 1GB is WAY TO LITTLE!!!
note: I have used Vista for many months and would not go back to XP by choice... but I also have RAM in my machine (and it is within 2 years of age)
YES xp is faster and more stable then vista but i think that XP will work maybe 1-2 year more then vista will be better like comparing SKODA= XP WITH BMW= VISTA ehhehehe have a nice day BULLEN ROCKS
Vista performances sucks a lot... I tried it just 1 day than I erased it.
I still remain with XP until Haiku and/or ReactOS succeed !!!
www.reactos.org:
Well one has to be honest.
Yes vista may be slower than XP with similar hardware configuration but wouldn't NT4 be faster than XP ? - because as such the OS were built on foundation of available hardware of the time.
Comparing Vista to ME is not the proper approach. Vista is not perfect - so was XP when it went out. Vista is bringing new features that was on request of the community - do you want it or not?
Oh my i didn`t see so much defenders of Vista on one place in my life :D Microsoft probably get the best commercials for brainwashing.
Ok let`s hit the hot news.My comment "Bravo" for the MS team that is about to release the SP3 for XP.Let`s get back with 10 years and start with Windows 98.It was fast OS very unstable but very fast , very unsecure but fast , next step 98SE same shit i didn`t feel any difference.Next Step Windows ME and Windows 2000 (2k , NT5 call it how you like) Windows Me was little more slower than 98 but in times more unstable if you ask me , Windows 2000 the first realease was very slow and got many problems with the drivers but when you managed to configure it it is paying you back.It was very stable OS (talking about MS OS`s).With the next Service Packs the 2k become realy fast and stable but still Win98 was at least 2 times faster (and 10 times unstable).Coming Up Windows XP ahh yeah i remember when i saw this colorfull themes they stamped in my mind to the moment whe i`ve started benchamrking and do some job.I hopped that XP will be just 2K with just new interface but it wasn`t XP for me personaly sucked , and in 2003 God sayed Let there be light , And there was a light , Windows 2003.Windows 2003 was presented as server OS but after loosing alot of nerves of activating and installing all needed stuff and all corect drivers it was about 10-20% even 30% more faster than XP sp1(and i`m talking and about games not only software because i`ve readed enough stupid coments in the net that the games are performing realy slow , that was`nt true).When MS released the SP2 for XP and SP1 for 2003 the difference remain almost the same.In the mean time i`ve touched with the first alpha versions of Longhorn there was no very big difference between first alphas and XP i even feel that the first alpha version that was in the web was more faster than XP.But with the latest Alpha`s everything changed they become more slower and more slower and more full with bugs until the beta where i`was amased it was more slower than the alpha versions i hopped that microsoft will be able to repair this.Until the RC version i was tottaly disapointed from MS it was and the Final version is still more than 2 time slower than XP SP2 in big part of the tasks.Someone Sayed that Vista is loading faster on boot ok possible.Windows 98 will load 2 times slower from Vista if the computer is connected to LAN but it will be 10 times faster and more than 20 times less hardware consumption.I don`t care that the OS will load for 20sec or will load for a minute.But i care when the OS start scraching on my HDD and all the RAM is full,with what ?! no body knows. I`m shure that MS are not shure what exactly Vista is doing to consume so much RAM and CPU time in idlle.For the moment for the best choice between performance,security and stability is Windows 2003 SP2.The performer is well known that is the old buggy Win 98 it is very hard to find drivers for it but still it is possible to be used.If you want more user frendly os and good performer i think we all know XP.If you like crystal interfaces cool animations use Vista but the price is too high to much performanse for nothing.Win XP , Win 2003 and Win 2K will be still used in the next 6-7 years more than Vista.I don`t know what is going on with Win 2008 i`ve lost interest of the Longhorn Platform and i`dont have hope that it will perform fast soon.I will wate for the next Gen MS OS.
To be quite fair who gives a flying toss that office 2003 runs 10% faster on SP3...
For a start its an office suite and hardly system intensive.
Secondly if your gonna benchmark the latest SPs at least use the latest office 2007.
Thirdly all these bandwagonners saying ZOMG VISTA SUCKS... This benchmark proves absolutely jack for gamers/users of photoshop and other applications that arent office based.
All the independant game sites show Vista is slower than XP.
I've seen it first hand. Vista was not just slower than XP but also jerked unevenly on the same machine for playing DoD:Source, HL2:DM and CS:Source.
Please test windows XP with dx10 functions while ur at it.
Cant do that?
Oh, to old system?
I use my computer to play games and surfing.
I also sused both OS and I guess for me Vista is both nicer, visually more appealing and faster than the machine I had using with win XP.
Its subjectivly faster which i care about, not the e-penis world record testing with syntetic or similiar benchmarks.
I can bench my card really high overclocking in 3dmark06, when I play my games with the same settings it crashes due to more load from not optimizing for the games but an old benchmark as 3dmark is a lying and missleading benchmark today.
Win xp has a best before used date, I guess I stick with Vista ;)
The real benchmarks should be done using games, first person shooter games. Noone's interested how fast office starts, seriously the people who use office are "office people" who have no interest in such geeky matters, do you think they go home and tell their partner "office" ran 10% better today, please. They just turn on their pc at work, type a few letters and what not and play a basic windows card game.
I dual boot Vista and XP SP2 on my system. X2 5400 4 GB DDR2 Geforce 8600 512 mb video (dx10 on vista 9 on xp) I have found that vista boot time is much less than XP. Office 2007 runs fast on both. The difference I see is in gaming. COD2 runs great on both vista taking a bit of an edge, but WOW runs way better on XP. Vista is very choppy where XP runs smooth as can be.
Everything I have ever tried video editing wise on Vista has made me cry. I might well be willing to try it again, but until someone can show me that my personal editing software choices are faster on Vista, I'll give it until at least SP2 comes out.
It boggles my mind to say Vista is running slow. For me it's faster than XP on everything. WoW runs a bit faster. CoD4 is smooth. All of my apps launch quickly. Just yesterday I created a DVD and it encoded quickly.I haven't encountered a single bug. It's fast and stable.
I do have a high end system though. C2D e6600, 4gb PC6400 Corsair XMS, DFI Infinity 975x, ATI Radeon x1900xtx
It's important to note that Vista is a self tuning OS and does get faster over time. Superfetch learns your computer habits and caches programs and games to ram, which is why you are seeing a higher ram usage. This is a good thing. And when an app launches the OS releases the ram to it.
There are also several updates for vista that aren't on windows update. Extremetech did an article entitled "4 must have vista updates" that has the link to them. They do make a difference.
Buuhuu! I already upgraded to vista and its slower... Well your loss why did you buy OS that's still in beta stage.
DX10? ... Rofl!
btw I changed from 2k to XP in 2005-2006. why? 2k was better and all my games run on it too.
Vista is definitely not worth its price if you'd ask me. Don't need this test to get that idea, using it for two days already got me convinced. Sad excuse for an OS.
I think that vista is the best OS yet. Personaly I am willing to work on a slower computer to get vistas new features. Either way, my laptop with vista runs faster and better than my computer with XP. It depends a lot on your configuration. FOr example, if you run the transparent windows (aero) then it runs slower, but that is easaly turned off and it improves your performence a lot.
so. hows vista for actual intense processes? who cares how it performs with games, thats what you have consoles for. how does it perform for say, video editing, programming/modeling, or if used as a DAW? (provided you do have the right drivers)
Haha... tested with 1gb of ram. GJ!
You folks who ware requesting all of these follow-on test scenarios are missing the point: We created the exo.performance.network (www.xpnet.com) so that *anyone* can do their own testing and system monitoring. In fact, the more systems you test/monitor, the larger the exo.repository data set becomes, yielding even more authoritative conclusions.
Come on, guys, sign-up today and help us build this thing!
RS
Author "Bualdoot"
For thoes who said Vista is faster and better, and for who ever said the following statement, Your WRONG!
"Windows Vista is not the new ME, it is the new XP. No one liked XP when it first came out. There were compatability issues and bugs. Most of the people who didn't like XP at the time though hadn't actually used it, as is the case now with Vista.
After using XP since beta 3, I couldn't go back to it after using Vista. Vista isn't the new ME, XP is the new Windows 98."
I personally loved the first realease of XP Pro, upgrading from 98. It was alot less buggy for me.
Take a look at the requirments for ANY ANY ANY game. The requirements for Vista are ALWAYS higher than XP, normally twice that of XP's requirements.
So there you have it. Every single dang game developer agrees that Vista is more system intensive...and there for slower. I have personally used Vista, and yeah, sure I agree it has some cool new features and may seem to run pretty smoothly and not many bugs at first. But, any game ran on it is choppy, unless you go play Starcraft: BW (which is awesome no matter how many times you play it!!).
Comparing a new computer you bought with Vista on it to a computer you had XP on, isn't a fair comparison. The new PC has a newer CPU, either 64bit, Dual core, or both, and since it has Vista on it from the factory they said hey, gotta put more RAM in it or its gonna fall flat on its face. So of course it runs better than the old system. Now put XP on the new system and XP is once again faster.
And to those of you still running Pre- XP operating systems......UPGRADE TO XP ALREADY YOU MORONS! Unless you are running 98 in order to play Red Alert.
For those who said they want to see reputable sites. How about CNET news, which did one? There was also a couple from the more reputable magazines(things like maximum pc, as I recall). Their results had a little variance, but it was minor. for the most part they were homogenous.
I believe the initial response was of "anonymous MS" employees who were told to post comments backlashing the hack and slash of vista.
I believe vista requires 3X the power in random access memory to run 'usable'
I believe MS has much too much control over the end user via vista and will never allow MS to exercise the control they so desire over me.
I will use XP till they decide to change their protocol.
I believe you are paranoid.
Currently using XP SP2 will be getting SP3
I've booted Vista 32bit on my system and played few games + image edit. I must say I don't notice much difference in anything I do except in older games like Guild Wars, the frame rates get a bit choppy, must be the dx10 :\ these older apps weren't designed for dx10.
jason,
But that doesn't mean they're not out to get him! Or you! Or me! (:gasp!)
:-)
RS
Personally, I would like Microsoft to release a new OS that appears like Windows 2000 Professional, but has the Windows Server 2008 back-bone.
I.e. Vista without the nagging and shiny stuff nobody really needs.
I still pick the 2000 interface over that candy-store thick blue child-GUI that is XP. If you *really* want to get work done on a PC, you'll go with the classic look, maybe with the black vista theme, but not the 3D and UAC. It might be safe for some, but there is a large audience that prefers the 1 user has all the rights OS.
I don't understand the people who say it's unfair to benchmark Vista on a system with twice the RAM that Microsoft says Vista needs.
I think I am missing something. 6 months ago I had a reply from M% that Vista Ultimate in 32 or 64 guise, would play best with at least 2 GB RAM and preferably 4 GB
Am I incorrect?
I think it's important to realize what has happened with almost every OS released by MS. It shoots out of the gate slow...and after a couple SPs people are praising it. In a year and a half or so, people will be using a workable, slick Vista and looking back at XP. Currently, however, it's a mixed basket between XP and Vista. Those with better performance on Vista are usually those with the either new or good high-end systems. Have fun "debating." :)
Im sorry im gonna have to agree with the post at the top of the page. Vista should not have been released so early.
its a total dissapointment.
a good few business are reverting back to xp cos of incomaptabilty issues and as for bug fixes vista has had more fixes than i have had hot dinners.
vista = windows me (all over again) roll on windows 7
untill then i will give up windows xp and dont seem the need to get vista
phil croxford
Well, im usin both Xp n Vista,
Xp is always the best compared to vista in performance vise, but graphically Vista has a better presentation and eye catching stuff...
I have a own customize PC, which runs
Core 2 Extreme 2.4GHz, 4 GB RAM, Nvidia Geforce 7950 SLI, n other stuff...
I try both OS in this PC,
Vista was not bad, its startup was obviously a bit slower, but then the aplication still runs great.
then i tried the Xp, n it was really fast!
But Xp has some weakness, if u want to create a Wireless Network, u need to go through all kinds of settings n transfer using USB Pendrive or floppy... but Vista has cool feature to directly create a Wireless Network in just a minute..
Coz, me n my friends love to play LAN games, and we like the easy setup connection of the Vista Wireless Network creation,
So, Xp is not the Best, but is still the Best curently depending on the user choice...
For performance I'm goin for Xp, but for Cool features, I'm goin for Vista...
So, hope Bill Gates n his cooperation will come out with some new OS that combines both the Vista n Xp capabilities to form a High End OS...
thats all...
:)
and for others softwares than microsoft ? comparison is done on
only one software grin !
Sorry guys but Vista is pretty and slow - there are no two ways about it.
Yes Vista is stable - I have had no crashes due to driver conflicts but have had multiple shut-downs on some services like schost.exe caused by driver conflicts/or software conflicts, no different to XP.
However XP now is also very stable, I can't recall the last time I had a BSOD - I think it was when I forgot to turn off my antivirus when updating my Nvidia card drivers.
I also run Linux Mint 4 which I have also found to be very stable, so from a stability standpoint I think they are all very good.
But the fact remains Vista is slower then XP, and no one regardless of whatever benchmark they use can deny this. Vista needs 2gig to run correctly, XP will run on 512meg just fine - hell it used to run on my old laptop with 256meg & a 1.2gig CPU just fine, I'm 100% sure Vista would not even install on that system!!!!
Also the whole DX10 argument is a moot point at the moment, few games actually support it - and you also need a new gen video card which I suspect few people except gamers have lashed out for.
I have applied SP3 aswell. I can't say if my win is faster, cause I just installed it as separate windows from previous and it's fast anyway.
I guess SP 3 might be even better when it's full release and integrated to OS. So I would install xp with SP 3 already added.
could u test the differences between sp2 and sp3 on a n older system? for example amd athlon xp 1800+ or such...
does it support default powernow and such for power saving? what about features in general...
oh btw.. windows is good for games, it has directx... as for everything else, linux is superior in every single possible way.
here's one tiny example of why... 3 million zombie bot computers infected with a single trojan, sending spam to your inbox everyday and drugging the internet. all of them have windows. poised to destroy the internet in 2011. THANKS M$!
I'm getting the feeling that some people here are paid by microsoft (or work there) to say that vista works better then xp..
Everyone know's it aint true...
For those who claim that a 10% increase in the speed Microsoft Office runs is inconsequential... you obviously haven't been looking at this from a business standpoint.
I work in the IT department of a medium sized business. If we get a 10% increase in the speed Office runs, that will likely save each of our office workers a good 15 minutes a day of work. Assuming we have 30 office workers, that's 450 minutes, or almost 8 hours a day. That 10% increase in the speed of Microsoft Office effectively gives us another employee.
That's inconsequential?
We've reviewed Vista vs. XP. Our conclusion - yes, Vista can run fine, if we want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars upgrading every computer in our network to a top of the line machine. And in the end, our employees will do the same work on prettier desktops and not save any time. And yes, those same upgraded machines would run XP even faster than they run Vista.
Yes, Vista will eventually be better for gaming, not because of it's inherent qualities, but because things such as DirectX 10 will force you to use Vista by not releasing XP versions. But I think we'll update to Vista when enough of our computers die or become obsolete enough that they are replaced by machines that run it well. That won't be any time soon.
man, this is not the big thing. 10% of performance boost are little compared to hardware-borne enhancements over the last few years.
I tell you what: the 10% performance increase will be annihilated within six or seven OS patches (1-2 month).
And I suppose that the perfomance increase by 10% was possible by fixing performance brakes brought with previous bad quality patches. Yeah what a surprise! Make something bad and offer improvements afterwards. Hell, this sucks!
Simply it bores me!
Microsoft long were sucessful due to good market knowlwdge. Nowadays they seem to miss the opportunities. Maybe they became dull over the years...
...10% pfff!
I hate that Vista requires 3+ B ram just to open notepad. I tried it out in a store demonstration while shopping for a new pc. I am telling you that thing was dogged out and slow as grandma in a checkout line.
holy crap lets compare apples to apples and make it a true fair comparison, put 2 or 3 GB of RAM in the test PC and then see the benchmarks.
Vista gets a heartbeat on 1GB but 2GB is the true minimum.
EVERYONE doing test benchmarks keeps doing this, RAM IS CHEAP!!
I can buy 1GB of DDR2 RAM for $30 and a 2GB piece for $68.
YOur tests just piss me off and once again try to bash Vista more. I have ran it since release and had 0 problems.
I think there are some misunderstandings about this situation. Since the release of Windows 95, the new operating systems have always improved performance out of the box; as it should be. The operating system is supposed to expose the hardware to the applications in an easy, efficient, secure and controlled way so that they get the most out of it; With Vista, for the first time this is not the case. Except for windows dressing and some badly and user unfriendly implemented security improvements, Vista will in broad terms decrease your performance significantly on any given hardware. Why anyone would choose to suffer this consequence voluntarily is beyond my comprehension. Anyone thinking that this problem will disappear over time with service packs is in for an unpleasant surprise. In my opinion, M$ has completely misfired on this particular development project, the people in charge of defining the scope were completely out of touch with the future users, especially the business users, who basically gets the absolute opposite of what they would like in this release. I suspect that the "technical" people at M$ went unchecked and got to develop the operating system they would like to play with, instead of producing the operating system based on the needs of the actual users out there. At the same time, M$ had a mishap during development that made it necessary to scrap the development work midway, because of escalating complexity that made it impossible to build the pieces together. All of these things has led to a "pretty looking" inefficient resource hog, packed with compromises and half measures and forced through a time frame compacted by the failed development effort. Vista will never progress into a swan from the ugly duckling it is now, but hopefully M$ has learned enough (or been re-reminded, because I believe they knew all this once up on a time in Redmond), so that the next Windows (Windows 7) will be an efficient little compact thing that will run circles around any of their previous versions: The way it should always be. M$ has in one quick scoop, absorbed all the hardware improvements that other companies have spend the last many years providing us with, this is a sin, just like Intel, AMD, ATI, Nvidia and so many other technology companies work hard everyday to improve the performance of their products, SO SHOULD M$. Instead they reap all these performance gains and set us right back where we were. Sure their product looks alot better, but others have paid the price for it, and that’s just plain unfair!
In my opinion, vista is not that worse but u need to have the perfect hardwares for it at least 2 Gb RAM, 3-series intel chipset Mobo and essentially a dedicated 128 MB graphic card: Vista then is as fast as XP But XP (sp2 or 3) i must say is very much a reliable OS with all drivers and compatible softwares, most widely used with minimum hardware requirement.GEEKS jump to the next levelt with vista update some hardwares and ventures into vista as much as u did with XP you will be more than satisfied.
Windows 95 is faster than Windows XP... Let's all go back to Windows 95 if speed is all we care about.
-_-
It might be more informative if some quad core cpu's with 4gb ram were used to measure performance.
As with my specs I obviously outperform those SP3 results using Vista.
My general testing also seems to confirm that SP3 is quicker than SP2, maybe on par with SP1. I'm going to do some benchmarks to see for sure though.
hey guys for you people wanting vista well here is some news vista is slower than xp and eats up disk space for people who upgrade their pcs
vista eats up like 15-17 Gbs of memory while xp only eats up about 2-5
i have a 4.5 Ghz AMD processor with 8 gbs of ram and a 40 gb drive vista eats half the hardrive and xp starts up within 10 secs for me
vista: about a min guys choose for yourslef is vista or xp better
"i have a 4.5 Ghz AMD processor with 8 gbs of ram and a 40 gb drive"
40? Forty gig?! 4.5ghz processor and ONLY 40 gig? UR takin the pish dude!
BTW I don't like Vista either.
@ anonymous above you gatta be shittin me you have 8gig of ram and a 4.5Ghz cpu coupled with a lousy 40gig Hdd (wait dont tell me its UDMA33 aswell) your an idiot, loose the 40gig and replace it with a speedier 250/320gig sataII Hdd and you'll proly see a huge differance in performance
Here, Vista x64 RTM completes Officebench benchmark in 31 seconds.
Q6600, 4GB RAM, X1950XTX GPU, GB-965-DQ6 mobo.
Let's see some XP benchmarks on similiar hardware :)
I can remember when people whined about winXP slowing their systems and gaming with "unnecessary" gui improvement "bells and whistles". Hardware scales up far beyond what people are running at the OS release in no time. Running XP on todays hardware is nothing like the hardware most people were using when xp was released. Also, don't forget that a lot of people have probably upgraded two or three times by the time the successive service packs came out.
So xp can run a little faster on todays hardware. So win98 prob much faster. How about win 3.11 and DOS? It probably screams.
God some of you are idiots. Anyway, what is this choppyness of games? I run Vista Ultimate 64bit with 4gb of memory, 4400x2 @ 2.7ghz, 8800gt, 2x200gb in stripe and this machine is never slow.
I run the latest games as well, so don't pull that crap.
I ran the same setup on xp 64bit and vista 64bit shits on xp 64bit. Simple as that. Benchmark the 64bit oses.
btw, test completed in 58 seconds on my setup.
I've made my tests, and Vista with 4 GB of memory dont even get close to the gaming perfomance of XP with 1 GB!!!
All of you that come here to write lies should be shame: everyone see's that you dont know what your talking about.
You should form the club of the 'hardware ungry people', a club for those rich bastards that think normal and natural that a new OS demands more and more ressources, more than de double of its predecessor.
I bet this club could also call himself the 'online gaming zombies', because for shure your taking a hell of a beating on online gaming! hehehehe
all we need is a OS that not is bloated xp is ok it's like acar only we need is fine and running one we dn't need a car with lots of light bells to ring vista is a bloated os xp is a fine one
Vista is a self tuning OS. Superfetch needs time to learn your computing habits. The more you use it the faster it gets.
You also need good drivers. Nvidia has pretty crappy ones out for both thier motherboard chipsets and their video cards.
I have an Intel chipset and ATI video card and my gaming performance in Vista is no worse than XP. In some cases it's even better. A recent Maximum PC review confirmed this.
Vista with 2/4 or 8GB RAM combined with a dual/quad core CPU is within 4% of Windows XP in modern games. To say otherwise is a downright XP-fanboyistic lie.
First none of these so called self benchmarks mean a thing! You just cant benchmark one app or one game etc...you need to run a suite of benchmarks to get even remotely meaningful results. Indutry wide on identical hardware XP benches faster than VISTA!!! Period!
Im so sick of ppl posting half-baked comments with an obviously lack of any provable results.
The people that benchmark systems and OS's all agree on ONE fact XP is faster across the board.
Microsofts view of the world is that it is one big office network.....well MS it isnt.
Entire governments are reverting back to XP, hell even the Olympic committee tossed Vista.
What does it take for ppl to realize and except the truth???
Microsoft has continually releas