Windows XP SP3. Much better than Vista SP1

[Borimol]

After a disappointing showing by Windows Vista SP1, 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!

Windows XP SP3 Tests

Edited November 24, 2007 by Borimol

[(Spork)]

i did think windows vista sp1 was for performance only fixes ? if thats true how was the test fair ?

[D!rtySh@dy]

It's normal........Aero with transparency, etc..........need more performance but better look. Windows Vista need also more space on hard disk.

I think also Win98 is better than XP, because Win98 is small than XP.

Not surprise.

[and1direct]

Windows Vista = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge!

This is very very 2006 and we are almost at 2008. Drop it. Its getting very old please. It is not ME. It is the best OS that Microsoft has came out with. If your drivers are buggy, it is not MS's fault. If you don't know how to use a PC, it is not MS's fault. If you love Macs/Linux/etc, it is not MS's fault.

[strotee]

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS

2) buyer's remorse

[hjf288]

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS

2) buyer's remorse

3) People who know how to use/maintain their computers and with up to date current hardware...

[Fourjays Veteran]

Wouldn't a fairer test be to test both OSs on the hardware "of the time"? So use a computer which meets, but doesn't exceed, the recommend system requirements for each OS.

Using a modern computer, XP will be faster than Vista. Add Windows 98 to the test and XP will be shown to be slower too...

I don't want Vista anytime soon, but the speed argument is pretty null.

[Malisk]

If it's only about performance, Windows 2000 is probably faster than XP, and so on. No theming engine bloat, no services for system recovery kicking in, and so on. Each successive OS use to have worse performance and higher system requirements than its predecessor, with perhaps the exception being 16 vs 32-bit OS's. Even in this case, the system requirements will be higher, but when they're met I guess they're at least faster. Still, anyone remember running Windows 95 well on 0.016 GB RAM? I don't think you should place your hopes in Windows 7 as for performance. Especially since MS has officially said about that OS that they learnt a few things with Vista, and that they should in the future not change the OS as much at once. So I believe W7 will look and play much like Vista. I'm not at all sure the new mini kernel experiment they're working on will end up in Windows 7. And even if it does, even Vista use a microkernel. All NT operating systems do. The size of the kernel doesn't necessarily affect the heaviness of the OS much. It's rather a lot of the middleware that do. If Windows 7 ends up being big on .NET, you'll long for the days of Vista in comparison, at least as for performance.

No, what makes people switch is rather about if the new features are better, not the performance. If people feel they can pay the new features with performance as the currency, they switch.

That people have to occasionally upgrade systems for new operating systems haven't been news since the development of operating systems begun. That's not the newsworthy thing about Vista. Not at all. In that case, you just have an incredibly poor memory.

Edited November 24, 2007 by Jugalator

[chrispinto]

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS

2) buyer's remorse

Buy, Learn, Use, Enjoy.

We adapted to XP, we'll adapt to Vista.

OVer a year and i've yet to format my Vista install, it's still stable, and solid, and fast.

And no, i'm not a paid Microsoft employee

[zhangm Supervisor]

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS

2) buyer's remorse

What was that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of your knuckles dragging on the ground.

I haven't bought Vista. I've only used it in passing, mostly while servicing machines. It looks nicer than XP, has much better networking support, better support for devices out of the box, much improved instant searching, more powerful security features, a more powerful task manager, better audio management, a better laid out updating utility, versioning in the way of Shadow Copies, etc. I also don't get paid by Microsoft - more specifically, this is a Mac-oriented university campus. So what was the point of your post again?

[Dick Montage]

Windows Vista = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge!

Your post = posted by a moron? You be the judge!

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS

2) buyer's remorse

Or actually know what they are talking about.

[kaiwai]

3) People who know how to use/maintain their computers and with up to date current hardware...

Hang on, you're the same people who claim that Linux is 'too complex' for Joe average, and yet, you expect that very same Joe to acquire all the same knowledge you have to run Windows Vista 'properly'. Interesting double standards.

Black kettles, glass houses and all that jazz I guess.

[Neo-Phi]

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS

2) buyer's remorse

Oh Yeah??....you're completely wrong Mr. Vista is received now like the way Xp has been in it's early days.....Vista is a lot better than Xp, no one would disagree......:cool:

[MGS4-SS]

Oh Yeah??....you're completely wrong Mr. Vista is received now like the way Xp has been in it's early days.....Vista is a lot better than Xp, no one would disagree......:cool:

No one, just 90% of people with a brain.

[Lindkvist]

There's no way you can convince Vista users that this OS is ****, and they can't convince you that it's not.

So why keep playing the same old song? it's getting ridiculous.

There's alot of people that have zero problems with the OS and actually enjoy using it.

Your assumptions just makes you sound uninformed.

[TruckWEB]

Why the hell would they want to test Vista or XP with a computer that only hold 1Gig of memory?? Most computers now comes with 2Gig and even some with 3Gig (i've seen that on HP computers).

Even the computer we use at work have 2Gig of memory! Is not rare anymore, it's common.

[enroh]

There's no way you can convince Vista users that this OS is ****, and they can't convince you that it's not.

So why keep playing the same old song? it's getting ridiculous.

There's alot of people that have zero problems with the OS and actually enjoy using it.

Your assumptions just makes you sound uninformed.

Agreed.

I love my Vista x64 install. I dual-booted with XP x32 for the longest time but since x64 now does 99% of everything I need to do at albeit similar speeds (yes I agree XP is faster but I understand why) I only have a single boot setup now.

Come time (and me overcoming my own laziness) I will tweak Vista to boot with a smaller RAM footprint than I have now, knowing it will not be the 248MB RAM footprint my XP install had.

Love my install. One day, you may too.

[Pupik]

Thanks for that interesting and informative "article" (how do I bury this **** as "blog spam"?).

Now excuse me, as I get back playing games and working on Vista, without any problems nor hiccups.

[daniel_rh]

When Microsoft said that Vista SP1 will convert Vista into XP in performance matters? :rolleyes: , forget it! that will never happen! :whistle:

Vista is a big resource consumer, if your PC have some problem with the hardware, Vista will put it out those problem easyly than XP

Anyway, Happy with Vista and playing Crysis! wohooo! :p

-AthlonX2 4800

-2GB DDR PC3200

-Geforce 7900GT 256MB PCI-E

-Dell 20" widescreen w/DVI

Edited November 24, 2007 by daniel_rh

[The Right Guy]

If you dont like or its not running on your pc why bother all the people that run it fine on their pc like mine??

Plz shut up and stick with XP or buy a better PC...

[WhatWarning]

My Vista machine works fine. The only problem I have with it lately is the new Zune software. It seems to work better in my Windows XP machine.

[Janitor]

This is very very 2006 and we are almost at 2008. Drop it. Its getting very old please. It is not ME. It is the best OS that Microsoft has came out with. If your drivers are buggy, it is not MS's fault. If you don't know how to use a PC, it is not MS's fault. If you love Macs/Linux/etc, it is not MS's fault.

Course it is, course it is. Vista is basically a jab at Mac with all of it's shiny graphics. The best OS is Windows 2000, or if you want a little newer, XP.

[s.L.m]

didn't xp use more RAM than the older versions ? ... I think it's the same think every time we have a new OS ... since the days of windows 3.11 --> windows 95 ...

(are you crazy !!? ... why does this crap use 64MB of RAM :p !!? ...) or was it even less ^^; !?

[Janitor]

didn't xp use more RAM than the older versions ? ... I think it's the same think every time we have a new OS ... since the days of windows 3.11 --> windows 95 ...

(are you crazy !!? ... why does this crap use 64MB of RAM :p !!? ...) or was it even less ^^; !?

Hardly, i got by on 256 of RAM which came with the old computer, 2GB for decent performance in Vista is a joke

[strotee]

I know my original post came off ignorant and trollish, that wasn't my intent. In my opinion, people who use Vista prior to SP1 (possibly SP2) are unknowingly beta testers for corporations/people who are waiting for it to stabilize.

A lot of people, including me, are waiting for MS to do to Vista what SP2 did to XP, make it mature and stable for a much wider crowd. I am confident MS will make Vista much more efficient and usable (without buying a brand new PC) that it is now. Question is, will they already be working on 7? Vista will be a flop if corporations don't heavily invest in it. So far, they're not; hence the expedited release of SP1.