neowin.net

Children Please

Apparently you can't read either, I did admit I was wrong: http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=589049288

Hurmoth, if you wish to continue this debate then read the last post on page 3.

Now back to topic...

There are no tests to prove that Vista is any slower/faster than XP, any such tests are faceless unless they test all aspects of the OS and we've yet to see any of this manner.

Vista generally is an OS of higher demand due to the new features (aesthetic and in the background) but if your PC can handle that then you'll notice generally faster speeds in most tasks and more pleasant features. What it comes down to is your computer's power and your needs, from there it's solely your choice

EDIT: It seems Hurmoth posted right before I did and it also appears that he lacks the ability to be be gracious even with an apology. So I guess I'll do the mature thing and stop dealing with him before we get off on another tangent but I will leave him with this;


Apparently you can't differentiate posts or you're incredibly bad at wording. From my perspective it seems like you're referring to not reading the article. That means absolutely nothing because I'm asking for you to withdraw your original statement. Maybe I'm just bad at wording

This post has been edited by x0r: Dec 10 2007, 15:37

All I am going to add to this is this, I installed Vista Home Premium (full install, not upgrade) on my wife's system. Previously she was running XP Pro. She runs a 3GHz P4 (old Northwood core) and 1 gig of ram with an old 9600XT.

She is a very typical user. She uses Word, Outlook, surfs the web and plays a few non-system stressing games. On this system Vista runs about the same as XP (Vista may be a bit smoother but that is a very subjective determination). In essence she lost zero performance in the move. What did she gain for the 130 bucks?

• Media Center
• Integrated image tagging for photos she downloads from her camera
• A better experience in handling/processing digital images
• Improved system searching/indexing with virtual search result folders
• Out of the box support for our networked color printer/scanner
• Various Eye Candy (important to her...)
• A 'sandboxed' web browser
• Most importantly, increased system security

She is very happy with the system and her productivity is higher than it was before the upgrade. Once again, she is a typical user (that means she is a member of about 95% of the user base) not a power user like we are. For her, the upgrade had value.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-...ista/page4.html

No tests prove it huh?

http://www.softwaretipspalace.com/tech_and...ion_systems.php <-- Although XP on most tests is only slightly better, but it still beats Vista. Which is the opposite of what you said it would do.

"...booting both Vista and XP on the same hardware, and Vista was between 15% and 25% slower than XP in benchmarks." --http://www.pctipsbox.com/is-windows-vista-...han-windows-xp/

Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test --http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outshines-V..._3-6220201.html

This post has been edited by Hurmoth: Dec 10 2007, 15:43

"These threads always end in tears...."

Vista's drivers were the main problem for gaming performance, and they are getting better, all my games run perfectly. Vista has alot of changes under the hood that can improe performance, like better multi threading/handling of dual core processors, more advanced memroy management, and revised driver models. Also things like making explorer multi threaded alleviates alot of performance problems I had with in in XP (On window freezing freezes all other explorer windows) On High Performance computers with alot of RAM Vista probably can run faster than XP because it has new technologies to take advantage of that hardware power.

Also wasn't the SP3 vs SP1 test one ONE office benchmark (Correct me if I'm wrong), I wouldn't say better performance in one benchmark automgically makes sp3 way faster.

I'd say right now, whether or not Vista is faster or slower than XP largely depends on hardware configuration and driver quality.

I love how you've apologizing yet you still seemingly haven't read my posts.

Oh well, at least this time you're being a bit more rational so I can debate this.

The funny thing is that you're listing games as the testing criteria and ignoring exactly what I said about a test of all the operating system aspect. Most games are highly dependent on two things; framework and hardware. The framework being DirectX, this was recently 'beefed up' in Vista with the introduction of DirectX 10 which introduced mandatory changes to how DirectX does virtually everything. Even though a game may not be built for DirectX 10 if it's under Vista it will use the aforementioned framework eventually (through a series of proxies put in place for dX 10). Now I will concede that Vista will have a slight performance change due to inbuilt GPU acceleration. The rest is completely dependent on the host computer. This is not to mention that Vista has inept support for multiple core processors, it will handle multiple processors better thus resulting in faster and better game-play. Unfortunately most game developers seem to be adamant in thread usage when it comes to games, I'm assuming you didn't know that either.

Now let me make something abundantly clear to you since you seem to have selective vision; Vista can be better given the correct hardware. Why? Vista can utilize advances in hardware natively, this is like comparing Windows 95's third-party support for the PE4 format (32-bit) to XP's handling of it. Although XP may be able to accommodate for certain hardware advances after third party modification it will never be able to match Vista's inbuilt compatibility and system-wide utilization for such functions. This means that Vista will be able to handle things better due to hardware and coding advances, this does not necessarily mean it will be faster but in most cases where hardware is the issue, Vista will excel. The thing you seem to be failing to a acknowledge is that once a computer is good enough to make the OS' workings seamless the code and the hardware is all that's left.

You don't read either though. You keep bashing me, but you're doing the same thing.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-...ista/page6.html

There's more than one page there, which tests more than just games. I posted that link because you specifically said all areas of the OS (see I do read ).

It also tests Audio: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-...age5.html#audio and Video: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-...ista/page5.html.

I already read the other pages I've already made it clear where and why Vista can/is better. So please, you're saying you've actually started to read posts?

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=589049149

Oh wait...

EDIT: Mistake on my part in regards to the audio tab.

That is a very outdated comparison, many performance aspects suffered due to sub standard vendor support. Things are better now, who knows might be room for more growth especially in x64.

How exactly does the audio page give you credit? Maybe I'm missing something? The encoding time is higher, albeit not by much at all, than XP.

I'm tired of this argument, you're obviously not going to argue with facts either, just your opinion and your own personal experience. I've posted several benchmarks that show Vista performs poorly against XP and you still argue the same old thing.

Show me your benchmarks that prove otherwise. Without those, your posts are merely opinions and not fact.

[EDIT] I see your edit now. My mistake.

Use server2008. I'm sorry, what? no, shut up. use server2008. lol. look it up, and then, just try it, trust me, set it up right and, yeah, you'll be ok.

I don't think it's valid to use the tom's hardware benchmarks.... considering that they're nearly a year old.

Let's wait till we see some Vista SP1 comparisons..... btw the office benchmark wasn't valid since it's been stated that numerous extra checks have been added b/w operations, where under a normal environment the user wouldn't notice.

Now that is an argument I'll agree with to an extent. There are still benchmarks that prove XP is faster than Vista, on newer hardware. However, there is room to grow for Vista, there's no arguing that point and the 64-bit version will definitely be better than XP, even XP x64 (only because XP x64 had development hurdles that I think Microsoft just left band aided).

Everyone is arguing about what's currently happening with Vista vs XP and no matter how you try and spin it, Vista looses against XP every time (albeit in some tests by a small amount, it still looses). Future Vista (talking 6 months, maybe a year from now), Vista will probably out perform XP in certain situations. But I don't think Vista is going to win XP over on all things very often.

That's my opinion, and no one can argue that opinion with facts because the future isn't here yet. If I'm wrong in 12 months and Vista is blazingly faster then I'll apologize, but only then.