Windows XP SP3 Yields Performance Gains Over Vista SP1

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.

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.


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.

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

News source: Exo.Blog
Link: Neowin Forum Discussion

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Qualcomm Wins a Round in Patent Battles with Nokia

Next Story

France unveils anti-piracy plan

109 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Why are people judging Vista so harshly when only SP1 has just been released??

Honestly, XP took longer then this to get to the level of stability Vista currently has. Vista runs absolutely fine if you have the right specs. Most people don't know hardware and THINK Vista will run fine on their machine just because XP did. WRONG.
If you're putting Vista on a machine that predates Vista, of course you're going to have problems with it!

Windows XP has SP3 because it's been around for 6-7 years. Vista has barely been around for 1 year. People need to be patient and give Vista time to grow. If it continues to progress the way it has, it will surely surpass XP.

People seem to forget a very large majority of computers are used to do menial tasks such as word processing, spreadsheets, web browsing and solitaire, and that this test is OfficeBench. Why would anyone get a computer better than the one used in the test for these tasks?

...?

And hey, if you do go out and get a low-end computer for such tasks, you will probably get lumped with Vista... so you get an OS that runs crap on your computer.

OK - my take on this is simple. Vista is bloated, and feature poor. Whilst I use it on my work laptop, and have rolled out to a few selected remote users, I will NOT be rolling out across our site if at all possible.

My main issue is that I cannot (for the life of me!!) find a benefit that provides a sufficient business case for me to push forward with deployment.

XP is the more polished. Whilst I fully expect Vista to get there....it is far of the mark currently.

EDIT: Furthermore, I think that Microsoft consulted the major h/ware manus before release and have been badly let down by the industry too. I am sure they would have had some info that projected faster uptake of new hardware developments than there has been. Unfortunately they have failed to factor in our fondness for our current OS. Windows XP has provided them with a huge issue now. With SP3 - who knows how much more than can pull from XP....it might well kill off it's sucessor?

Wow, what journalism!!! Did anyone think about comparing XP SP1 to Vista SP1 since SP3 is two generations ahead of SP1? Of course it's going to be faster! Let's wait to compare Vista SP3 with XP SP3.

let me remind you all that XP, when launched, was pretty much a mess with older applications and drivers.
to be truly fair, XP WAS a rellay good OS that set the measure bar high. Vista is like XP was, just an evolution, not revolutionary instead of all the hype it trailed...

Vista didn't had, by far, all the mess with apps and drivers like XP. This time around, only some companies either lagged behind to develop new drivers or ceased to support the new OS.

I'm a system builder and at the very least i can say that about 30-35 machines with various configurations using modern hardware (not necessarily high-end) runs smoothly and in the vast majority of things runs faster than XP (The only thing i grant XP for being faster is Windows drawing and older games and Vista is close behind). Example, photo editing, video encoding, video decoding, music editing etc...

I already started to hear all the whining when the next Windows come out. People will say that Vista was better and so on...

cork1958 said,
XP wasn't NEARLY the mess that VistaMe2 is, especially after all those delays from MS!

I beg to differ. I wouldn't touch XP when it was first released, I waited until service pack 2 before I installed it on mine or any one's PC. I would tell people (back when XP had 0 SPs) to stick to 2000. Vista is better with no service packs than XP with no service packs.

XP had a large advantage in that most drivers from Windows 2000 were also compatible with XP. This would be akin to Vista Business and Enterprise being launched when they were (with a dull name like Windows 2007 or just NT 6 Workstation), but the Home editions bearing the Vista title not showing up until SP1 is finished sometime early next year.

A different impression would be left, and I believe it would've been for the better.

XP is here to stay and Microsoft cant help but accept it. Their fate was decided for the next 3-4 years when they release Vista. I don't see myself upgrading to Vista - ever. My next upgrade will be Windows Seven. Vista is a shinier XP. XP can do everything Vista can, but only faster. Yes, you have all those shiny gadgets that come inbuilt with Vista..boohoo..big fuss, take 15mins out and install them(3rd party softwares), they're better than what Vista has to offer.

Microsoft has owned up to their mistake i.e. "Vista" and vow not to make the same mistake with Windows Seven.
As Microsoft wakes up to the statistics that XP is the preferred OS till date, and will remain so, its juicing up the XP support system. XP is the talk of the market. XP was a revolution in the world of OSs. And yes XP is here to stay!

XP was a revolution? Then what was Windows 2000? Chopped liver?

In case you didn't know, Windows 2000 is Version 5.0 and Windows XP is Version 5.1 There's a reason for only a 0.1 increase in the version number... namely that XP didn't really add much to what Win2K brought to the table. Yes, XP can do some things that Win2K can't, but don't claim that XP was a revolution when it was more like an evolution. :|

Continuing the analogy (if I may), WinME was a hideous mutation that should have never been allowed to see the light of day, and Vista is just retarded... a big, dumb and slow resource hog that has special needs and doesn't know how to play nice with any hardware you introduce it to and is always asking you if you really want to do what you just finished telling it you want to do. It should have been aborted, but Microsoft loved it too much to do that so they let it live. (Big mistake, Microsoft.)

Croquant said,
XP was a revolution? Then what was Windows 2000? Chopped liver?

In case you didn't know, Windows 2000 is Version 5.0 and Windows XP is Version 5.1 There's a reason for only a 0.1 increase in the version number... namely that XP didn't really add much to what Win2K brought to the table. Yes, XP can do some things that Win2K can't, but don't claim that XP was a revolution when it was more like an evolution. :|

Continuing the analogy (if I may), WinME was a hideous mutation that should have never been allowed to see the light of day, and Vista is just retarded... a big, dumb and slow resource hog that has special needs and doesn't know how to play nice with any hardware you introduce it to and is always asking you if you really want to do what you just finished telling it you want to do. It should have been aborted, but Microsoft loved it too much to do that so they let it live. (Big mistake, Microsoft.)

QFT. Credit where it's due.

Croquant said,
XP was a revolution? Then what was Windows 2000? Chopped liver?

In case you didn't know, Windows 2000 is Version 5.0 and Windows XP is Version 5.1 There's a reason for only a 0.1 increase in the version number... namely that XP didn't really add much to what Win2K brought to the table. Yes, XP can do some things that Win2K can't, but don't claim that XP was a revolution when it was more like an evolution. :|

Continuing the analogy (if I may), WinME was a hideous mutation that should have never been allowed to see the light of day, and Vista is just retarded... a big, dumb and slow resource hog that has special needs and doesn't know how to play nice with any hardware you introduce it to and is always asking you if you really want to do what you just finished telling it you want to do. It should have been aborted, but Microsoft loved it too much to do that so they let it live. (Big mistake, Microsoft.)

You got me there, 2000 was great. How could i let that skip my mind! I worked on 2000 for a long time, and loved every bit of it. But I guess evolution (like you said) took its toll, and XP was the next generation OS. I still know quite a few people who continue to use 2000, for all the right reasons and even I myself have thought about going back to it. But my gaming needs are more than what 2000 can provide. XP was a good upgrade from 2000, but thats not the same case for Vista.

Yes, ME was def. a mistake and to talk about it, I see Vista suffering the same fate as ME, not as bad but still going along the lines. Nobody really ever used WinME and those who did never really sticked to it.
Hence, XP was an Evolution that lived up to its hype. Didn't know about the version gig, thanks for the info!

Croquant said,
XP was a revolution? Then what was Windows 2000? Chopped liver?

Windows XP surely was a revolution.
Why? Because it brought the stability of the NT line to the home user. So for the home consumer market you should compare XP to Win9.xx/ME, and that was a major step forward.

Yes, I know we all ran Win2k but we really weren't supposed to. No way a lot of home users bought a legal copy of Win2k. Win2K was an OS for corporate use so XP shouldn't be compared to 2K in this way.

Yeah... ok.. That one program (since there are no other comparable statistics?).. Office bench is 10% faster in XP SP3... big deal

Croquant said,
Oh realllllly? :suspicious:

:AHEM!:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

In case you didn't know, it's been common knowledge for quite some time that everything runs faster on XP than it does on Vista (all else being equal). The OfficeBench statistics are just the latest nails in Vista's coffin.


Here's an idea, instead of timewarping back to January 2007 when the early Vista drivers were truly awful, how about we look at some modern performance benchmarks using significantly more mature drivers...

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...pdate/page4.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...pdate/page5.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...pdate/page6.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...pdate/page7.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...pdate/page8.asp
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...pdate/page9.asp

In 7 months, thats quite a benchmarking reversal

this type of news are getting more and more annoying...
let's face it once and for all. you can't compare apples with oranges.

as far as i can tell from this test is that XP is 2x faster than Vista. How the heck can you conclude this for overall and everyday use just by using a synthetic benchmark?? is like running 3DMark and other suites to claim that nvidia or ati performs better in games without testing the hardware in a real game scenario.

Vista, again, with modern hardware goes way beyond the performance XP had when was released and using modern hardware on those days.

If you install XP on high-end hardware now is like installing win98/me on a Pentium 4 HT with 1gb ram. they will blow you away with speed.

that being said, i just hope that this BS talk is over once and for all. I'm not a fanboy for anything, I'm just getting tired of hearing this over and over.

It really bugs me when people state that 'Windows Vista is the next Windows ME'. I am running Windows Vista Home Premium on 1GB of RAM and I have no problems with it. It is a fantastic operating system, and with features like search available from the start menu, the ability to partition drives in Management Console and the brilliant UI, I don't think I could go back to using Windows XP.

It appears that many are disputing the high system requirements for Windows Vista. Take a look at this page; it is a review of Windows XP, which states that one of the cons is its 'heavy system requirements'. This is just a mere loop of what we've seen in the past; a new operating system comes out, and people complain because the requirements are higher. After all, it has been approximately 5 years since Windows XP came out - do people just expect that the system requirements will be the same?

Just my 2 cents.

Smctainsh

How many in this thread grabbed the 'devils own' copy of XP when it came out and realized just how many bugs XP contained.

I for one went back to 2000 for a while. It just felt better. Now of course sp1 fixed a lot and XP worked like a charm.

For those of you that continue to sit there and bash on vista, I bet that you never were in the managed beta program, used only the public ones, have not tried it for a long period, have read only the internet reviews, and don't have the greatest computers.

I have 3 computers that run vista. Basic, home premium, and ultimate. They run in specs from an amd x2 4400+, c2d e6500, and a c2d t7500. Two have 1gb ram and the 3rd has 2gb ram. Two have integrated gfx and 1 has an ati card. But when properly done (just like XP), they all run great. I wouldn't go back.

How about you all actually try it for a while on a modern machine (which vista is actually intended for) and then make a statement about it. Otherwise you all just look like idiots with all these comments.

I bet if MS released a 3rd Edition of Win98, they can make it perform 20% faster than Win98SE in Officebench. Now does that make XP SP3 lame? Should we all downgrade to Win98?

You'd loose that bet. They DID release a third version of Win98. It was called Windows Mistake Edition (well, that what I called it, anyways.)

This is really not a fair comparison as many have commented. Vista is not designed to run on a computer with only 1 gig of RAM. I know a lot of us are upset, myself included, that Microsoft trying to force us to upgrade to an Operating system that should still be in BETA but you have to realize that Microsoft is a business trying to make a profit, just like all the hardware companies that manufacture the RAM you will need, the new CPU, and new graphics card that you will get when you decide your current computer isn't powerful enough to run the latest Vista only game. So really, I'm not surprised at all that Vista didn't perform as well as "SP3" on this test. Microsoft isn't making their new OS so that it can work on your 6 year old computer because that doesn't benefit any of their partner companies. They need you to go out and buy the latest and greatest to run their new OS at its full potential. And hey, it's their monopoly, they can do with it what they like :P

The "recomended" system requirements for Vista Home Premium/Business/Ultimate includes (and I quote) "1 GB of system memory." Looks like Microsoft was fudging those numbers, eh?

torkl,

I agree with your comments.

Re Vista vs XP memory usage in this article by Anandtech makes good reading:
Anandtech Vista review

They found in their testing that Vista ran much faster with 3gb than with 1 or 2gb. XP will always flog Vista on machines with only 1gb of ram so the test quoted above lacks credibility IMHO. I can confirm that on my main puter with 4gb of ram Vista really flies.

I have Vista x64 Business on both my puters and don't have any issues at all.

Croquant said,
The "recomended" system requirements for Vista Home Premium/Business/Ultimate includes (and I quote) "1 GB of system memory." Looks like Microsoft was fudging those numbers, eh?

and MS said XP is recomended for(and i quote) "128MB RAM"


XP got 8x its "recomended" that means the Vista test should had 8GB for the test.

RenderItBlue said,

and MS said XP is recommended for(and i quote) "128MB RAM"


XP got 8x its "recommended" that means the Vista test should had 8GB for the test.

That's a great point!

I've used and tried a lot of different operating systems and can say 1 thing: Windows Vista is not ready for the mainstream and (especially) the business desktop yet. First of all, it's much slower then Windows XP Professional is (both at boot time, and while working with it). Vista also has many compatibility issues.

A few (out of many) examples:
- Certain banking software simply refuses to run on Vista.
- OpenVPN has some minor issues setting up a VPN connection as a user.
- SAP/R3 doesn't run properly on Vista. It just crashes to the desktop without an error when accessing certain screens.

As a final I would like to add that I hear many users complaining about the speed of Vista.

olger901 said,
- OpenVPN has some minor issues setting up a VPN connection as a user.
- SAP/R3 doesn't run properly on Vista. It just crashes to the desktop without an error when accessing certain screens.

As a final I would like to add that I hear many users complaining about the speed of Vista.

1) Both OpenVPN and Cisco VPN client have this problem because THEY ARE NOT WRITTEN PROPERLY to support Vista's new networking stack, so they occasionally fail when trying to enable the virtual adapter. This is not a Vista problem, but rather a problem with the software providers offering lacklustre support and updates to their clients.

2) Are you kidding? What version are you using? We use SAP GUI 7.10 and even the unreleased NetWeaver Business Client on Vista Business x86 to do most of our development and production work and have no problems whatsoever. Have you tried upgrading to the latest Patch Level for SAP GUI? I haven't had any problems at all with it, but Patch Level 2 and about are supposedly more 'robust' since they are designed to support Vista properly.

3) People complaining about the speed of Vista are running it on antiquated hardware. As stated many times in the replies to this article's tripe, 1GB of RAM is simply not enough to run Vista properly. If you give Vista 2GB of RAM you will notice it booting and starting up much more quickly than XP, which doesn't take advantage of the additional RAM to cache the system effectively; feed Vista 3GB of RAM and it will load even faster than before - at a rate XP could never hope to accomplish. I've seen this with our own machines, and I believe people will change their tunes once that amount of RAM becomes more common in the mainstream PC world.

tbcarey said,
3) People complaining about the speed of Vista are running it on antiquated hardware. As stated many times in the replies to this article's tripe, 1GB of RAM is simply not enough to run Vista properly. If you give Vista 2GB of RAM you will notice it booting and starting up much more quickly than XP, which doesn't take advantage of the additional RAM to cache the system effectively; feed Vista 3GB of RAM and it will load even faster than before - at a rate XP could never hope to accomplish. I've seen this with our own machines, and I believe people will change their tunes once that amount of RAM becomes more common in the mainstream PC world.

No, I'm not.

Pentium D 3.0Ghz
2GB DDR2-SDRAM @ 533
SATA hard drive

My machine feels like my P4 1.8 with 512MB RAM felt on XP; usable, but not fast. It doesn't boot faster than XP on the same hardware, and it certainly doesn't run apps faster. I'm still running Vista though, because my wife likes it. I would probably have switched back by now if it was just me.

Exactly, so why is this being used as a source?

Plus...who is this company called exo performance network? I for one have never heard of them. Now of course that's just me.

Why not use an industry standard source of cnet/pcmag/pcworld/maximum pc/etc...

Why hasn't anyone else in the internet world picked this up but this little company?

Sounds weird and iffy to me.

AthleticTrainer1981 said,

Sounds weird and iffy to me.

It's not weird or iffy, it's just obvious. Vista won't perform better than XP on an old computer. It will perform better on a new computer, however.

Slimy said,

It's not weird or iffy, it's just obvious. Vista won't perform better than XP on an old computer. It will perform better on a new computer, however.

Point being though is that Vista wasn't built to be run on an old computer. It was made for the next generation of computers.

XP was built so that it could be run on the machines that were around from 2000-2001 and then into the future. That's why it worked fairly well on the older hardware.

Vista isn't made to do that. Sure I can run vista on a basic Pentium D dual core (a chip that is about 2 years old now) and it will run. But it won't run with any sort of speed or actual zest to it. Now put vista on a c2d e6500 or above or quad core machine and it is like a speed machine.

IF Vista is so much better, can any of you geniuses explain to me why I feel forced to use either XP or Linux on my fairly new laptop, because Vista Ultimate is too slow on a semi top of the line laptop.

I got fed up with Vista taking 5+ minutes to boot or shutdown, got tired of Vista sucking up 1.5 of my 2 gb of RAM just to get to a desktop, I got tired of MS forcing this Alpha quality software down consumers throats.

z0phi3l said,
IF Vista is so much better, can any of you geniuses explain to me why I feel forced to use either XP or Linux on my fairly new laptop, because Vista Ultimate is too slow on a semi top of the line laptop.

I got fed up with Vista taking 5+ minutes to boot or shutdown, got tired of Vista sucking up 1.5 of my 2 gb of RAM just to get to a desktop, I got tired of MS forcing this Alpha quality software down consumers throats.

Maby if you knew what the F you was doing when ya installed vista maby you would not have that issue. i have installed vista ultimate on 5 machines my system and a few friends systems and ya ko what does not at all take 5+ minutes to get to the desktop my system dual core AMd chip system 2gb ram takes maby the most not including password imput maby 8 secs to get to the desktop so eaither you Fed up the install or you Fed up and installed it on Well known Non supported Hardeware just so you can make Fing statements such as you did

z0phi3l said,
... why I feel forced to use either XP or Linux on my fairly new laptop ...
I rather enjoy using Linux, don't feel "forced" to use it in any way. I do, however, seem to have to buy a Windows license, except on a select (very) few PC models that come with Linux pre-installed. If only all PCs had optional OSes.

notuptome2004 said,
Maby if you knew what the F you was doing ... just so you can make Fing statements such as you did
Wow, you have anger issues, man. No need to go ape-crap all over someone else with personal attacks because you don't like what he has to say. Personal attacks are a no-no here.

z0phi3l said,
I got fed up with Vista taking 5+ minutes to boot or shutdown, got tired of Vista sucking up 1.5 of my 2 gb of RAM just to get to a desktop.

I agree that Vista startup/shutdown IS slow with the default settings. This seems to be caused by nothing else than MS repeating the same mistake they did with XP: Too many unnecessary services running on the "automatic" setting. After following SpeedyVista's service guide my Vista Home Premium 64-bit starts and shuts down faster than XP ever did.

Another thing MS totally ****ed up was the effects timing, again just like in XP. The minimize/maximize animation is just too slow compared to having it turned off. It makes the system feel slow. I wish they let people adjust the effects timing so we could have the eye candy fx without them interfering with using the OS efficiently.

Vista also uses memory a lot smarter than XP does. XP just lets it sit there doing nothing while Vista uses it for caching stuff etc. Since RAM is far faster than fetching stuff from the HDD this will result in faster startup for programs and overall a faster experience.

I've had Vista installed for about a month now and after some tweaking it runs just as well as XP (w/ tweaks) does. It's an improvement in many ways (but not so in some).

Does this really surprise you? Vista is a resource hog, it uses more ram than XP to start off with.
I truly believe Vista is Windows ME all over again, I wouldn't buy it or switch to it. Atleast yet.

thenay said,
Does this really surprise you? Vista is a resource hog, it uses more ram than XP to start off with.
I truly believe Vista is Windows ME all over again, I wouldn't buy it or switch to it. Atleast yet.

Yes...lets NEVER use our ram and have it sitting around doing nothing......If you know how an OS SHOULD handle memory you would never have made such a dumb comment.

Was this ran on a newly installed system? Because doesn't Vista's Superfetch help overtime with the speed of things?

I am using Vista and, other than the random disk usage/thrashing at times when I am not using it and the file sharing issues I have with it and Mac OS X, I find it quite faster and better than XP. I've been using it since March without a reinstall and so far it runs faster than XP did after 8 months of the same usage ...

I don't believe it. Vista for me has been faster. I admit that graphics cards probably do not perform as well, but the CPU and I/O subsystem performs faster, which I really notice in supreme commander. So did driverheaven.net

http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/Vista%20XP/index2.php

I think people just love to hate vista, everyone seems to.

I enjoy my array mic support, instant search, new look and feel, new audio stack, UAC ( I run as a limited user and can actually elevate to install easier, so now there is no reason to have an anti virus http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000803.html )

You know, I also think SP1 brings some performance advantages too, it feels snappier, a lot of other people have said that.

Those improvements were also mostly present in NT 5.2 as well, so running XP x64 or Server 2003 will net you most of the improvements in that regard, while maintaining XP's excellent graphical performance. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those adjustments are being backported to NT 5.1 for this new service pack.

You're right though; Vista SP1 seems a good deal better than its original incarnation. There are fewer pauses that leave you wondering "what the hell is this thing doing now?", and it's a shame that will never show up on a benchmark result that Microsoft can proclaim to the masses. I'll admit right now that if I had to go use the old NT 5.x Explorer shell (or even OS X's Finder) without having the years of experience in finding and avoiding every action that causes the UI to hang for 60 seconds, I'd be ragging on it every bit as hard as most people have been doing to Vista.

I'd say that the only significant problem with Vista now is that the UI is a cluttered mess. Cut it down, bring back the flyout Start Menu (keep the scroll bar, but let it expand to the full height of the screen!), do *something* about the network control applet (a larger WiFi connection box would be a start), and a "New Folder" button on that lovely bluey-green bar would be primo. Call it Vista Second Edition. Could even make it an optional download on Windows Update. Who knows; some people might even consider giving the thing a second shot.

And if someone could make an extension to elevate Explorer *windows* instead of individual actions, I might even turn UAC back on.

Just setting here reading all this hoo ha bickering, and I cant help but wonder, if this is a case of too much estrogen or not enough

i ran vista 17042 and i know that its way faster
it swaps and hits the hd noticably less in games, has almost no delay at all in explorer and file copy operations, i am totally impressed with it. i'm sorry your little 2 cent benchmark programs disagree but actually using a system versus benchmarking it might reveal something to you.

Dynames00 said,
vista isnt slow for everyone... its only slow for these idiots who write about how slow vista is...

No, it's slow for everyone with less than 2GB of RAM and a dual-core CPU.

Contrary to that, XP works very well with just 1GB of RAM and a $70 CPU. So does Linux.

This isn't going to matter much in coming months, with hardware and RAM prices hitting rock bottom, but people still would rather not upgrade to Vista for no apparent benefit. Why bother? MS still can't adequately answer that question, except to say that Vista has DX10 and some vague improvements that have not demonstrated themselves in real-world situations *without* hardware upgrades.

The problem is, MS added a bunch of useless bloat into Vista and people don't need this crap. If MS has made it optional by default, instead of installed and running by default, Vista would look good. Instead, it runs like an overloaded dump truck with a flat tire on hardware that could run XP pretty well. Consumers see this performance and wonder WTF? They don't know why it's like that, all they know is that it runs like crap and they're not going to bother wasting their time with it.

All SP3 is is a collection of all the past updates. That's it. Everyone already has all the patches that make up this service pack. Nobody is coming from SP2 with no windows update patches beyond that straight to SP3 so this comparison is somewhat unrealistic.
Even with a fully patches XP install on my machine Vista x64 feels faster to me. My apps load up faster and the entire OS is more responsive. Since Vista also gets faster the longer you use it and the more it learns your computing habits it's also unrealistic to compare anything against a fresh install of Vista. I think with faster hardware Vista becomes faster than XP. It's better able to make use of higher end hardware.

No ....you are wrong ,Windows XP Service Pack 3 not only include past Post SP2 Fixes,it contains new ones + 3 new features that increase system security.

It's a little more than past updates.

There really is a performance boost that comes with it. I was soo surprised to see that, that I honestly thought the computer was messing up somehow I just didn't expect the boost that came with it.

I was running Vista for a while on 1gig of RAM and it ran perfectly fine for me. Only reason I don't run it now is because a stick of RAM died and I haven't bought anymore yet.

I'm happy with both XP and Vista

That is like putting Windows 95 OSR2 in a test with Windows 2000, both running on a 150 Mhz system with 128 MB of RAM and saying Windows 95 ran better than Windows 2000. Try using a test machine comparable to today's standards and fair for both operating systems.

How many times was the test ran as well? Run the XP SP3 test on Officebench 5 times and see if you achieve the same results. You can't even begin to explain how a service pack with nothing but patches/fixes from the last X amount of years on it boasts an increase in performance because it just doesn't make sense. Try and convince the public of this "new finding".

This is a poorly made article. Although I have decided I will probably never move to Vista since my days of "I need the latest and greatest to keep up with the Jones'" have been replaced by "I need whatever works well", I'll still take some of their medicine and "be the judge" when SP3 comes out.

I agree...

As I said in the discussion thread, it's not news that succeeding operating systems have higher hardware requirements to run even on equal performance. That's the rule rather than exception.

The deciding factor rather use to be whether if a consumer feels it's worth it to pay the new features in terms of performance or not. For this to happen, the feature set needs to be improved enough, and it can be speculated whether it is in Vista.

But if Vista is slower than XP on the same hardware? Big deal. It's not like if Windows 95 didn't require less than 98. It did, and it therefore usually ran faster. But that's not what I think one should ask oneself. Few believe Windows 98 was because of this a worse OS.

Sheesh, Since when has Neowin turned into a Vista-Flamebait news channel.
Come on, This "article" is nothing more than trolling attempts.

Even the "Windows ME v2" comparison quote is just asking for it.

chaosblade said,
Sheesh, Since when has Neowin turned into a Vista-Flamebait news channel.
Come on, This "article" is nothing more than trolling attempts.

Even the "Windows ME v2" comparison quote is just asking for it.

Methinks you're ****ed off at the wrong people. The folks you should have a beef with are located in Redmond. They're the ones who released the lemon known as Vista SPwhatever...

(chaosblade said @ #4)
Sheesh, Since when has Neowin turned into a Vista-Flamebait news channel.
Come on, This "article" is nothing more than trolling attempts.

I'm really sick of the fact that you post one article about any possible downside of vista (or in this case, about how xp outperformed vista in a benchmark) and you're a troll or a flamer. It's like if you can't say something good about vista/bad about xp you shouldn't even bother posting or you'll get your head cut off

The problem is, people seem to be forgetting what happened with XP when it was first released.

I seem to remember people moaning about how "XP looks like it was made by fisher-price" and that it "Crashes all the time" and <Insert modern article that's had Vista Find&Replace'd with XP>.

I'm not denying Vista has it's flaws, every OS does and there is a lot of room for improvement in some areas, but right now it's all just mostly a load of bandwagon "HAY GUIZ M$ HAZ A NEW OS OUT LETZ BASH IT OLOLOL".

In b4 "Windows 7 = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge!"

@Davebo: You're a troll. Go back under your rock or something.
@mjdbb1: Read Athernar's reply. Every software has its flaws. You're just trolling around now, Like this article.

chaosblade said,
Sheesh, Since when has Neowin turned into a Vista-Flamebait news channel.
Come on, This "article" is nothing more than trolling attempts.

I'm sure XP users on Neowin were interested in hearing this news.

Athernar said,
The problem is, people seem to be forgetting what happened with XP when it was first released.

I seem to remember people moaning about how "XP looks like it was made by fisher-price" and that it "Crashes all the time" and <Insert modern article that's had Vista Find&Replace'd with XP>.

I'm not denying Vista has it's flaws, every OS does and there is a lot of room for improvement in some areas, but right now it's all just mostly a load of bandwagon "HAY GUIZ M$ HAZ A NEW OS OUT LETZ BASH IT OLOLOL".

In b4 "Windows 7 = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge!" :rolleyes:

Granted, but then XP SP1 was leaked, to great critical reviews. It was clear that with SP1 XP was fixed, and that XP was now ready for prime time.

Vista SP1 had been leaked - where's the clamour of millions of users suddenly satisfied with their OS? If your comparison to XP is true, Athernar, then why no relief with Vista SP1?

Best to compare Vista with ME, and no SP could every cure that dog...

Relief to what exactly?

I've been running Vista since shortly after its launch, and i've had no issues except for poor drivers from nVidia in the first couple of months.

Sure Vista needs some attention, some refinements to the amount of UAC dialogues, the odd tweak and fix here and there are happily accepted.

But no, i think i have to agree with #4.4 in this case now, you're just bandwagon trolling. And until such time you can provide a coherent (and factual) argument that is not heavily-biased or written by some clueless wannabe web-journalist trying to hop on the ole' bandwagon to look "cool", i think i'll just choose to ignore your poorly executed attempts at trolling.

Oh and just a FYI here, i've used every Microsoft OS since 3.1 and i also enjoy fiddling around with various Linux distros in my spare time, so don't waste your effort with the cliché "OMG UR A M$ FANBOI COZ <insert topic> UR GEY FOR BILL GAETS" routine.

(mjdbb1 said @ #4.2)

I'm really sick of the fact that you post one article about any possible downside of vista (or in this case, about how xp outperformed vista in a benchmark) and you're a troll or a flamer. It's like if you can't say something good about vista/bad about xp you shouldn't even bother posting or you'll get your head cut off

Relax dude. Opinions are like *******s, everyone has them. Some people seem to really think Vista is the **** in a lot of ways (which I agree with), other people are annoyed that Windows XP outperforms Vista on some applications (I agree with that too). Everyone wants to express their opinion and some come across as trolling or flaming. Take it all in with a grain of salt.

I think it's a bit unfair testing vista on Machines with just 1Gb of RAM. It IS a bit of a memory Hog, but if you have 2Gb of RAM it's not as bad by a long shot, perhaps then you'd see a measurable performance boost.

miguel_montes said,
What is this app, Officebench?

And 10% increase performance... where in XP?? Overall??

I agree. Although I'm happy that there is increased performance in XP (don't like vista yet) I'm not sure where these gains are.

miguel_montes said,
What is this app, Officebench?

And 10% increase performance... where in XP?? Overall??

No, only when running Officebench, which is what EVERYONE uses Windows for...

Windows Vista works fine on a dual core or quad core machine with 4 to 8 gig of memory. In time these machines will become average and available to everyone. I already see 3Gig machines for $800 with 22" LCD's being sold.

The test I would like to see is which is better for a quad core machine with 8 gigs of memory Vista 64 or XP 64?

hardgiant said,
Windows Vista works fine on a dual core or quad core machine with 4 to 8 gig of memory. In time these machines will become average and available to everyone. I already see 3Gig machines for $800 with 22" LCD's being sold.

Yeah but this is about the next service packings giving a boost to performance. It doesn't matter how fast your machine is, a performance boost is always, always welcome.

Personally, I hate this attitude of "most computers have 36436463GB of memory and at least a 452522564Ghz CPU, so we don't have to optimise our software as much" because it pretty much defeats the purpose of advancing the technology. If programmers kept the same attitudes they kept 10 or 20 years ago and applied them today, we'd probably see performance that's in line with what we'd expect 10 years in the future.

Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.

hardgiant said,
The test I would like to see is which is better for a quad core machine with 8 gigs of memory Vista 64 or XP 64?

Bingo! That's what's missing. A 1GB system isn't remotely suitable with Vista, that's the Vista equivalent of one of those cheap 2002 Win XP PC-specials that shipped with 256MB of memory. No one ships 256 anymore, but early in XP's life-cycle that was the "default" amount of memory. Everyone knows how XP performs with 256... Terribly, putting Vista in the same situation isn't fair to the OS.

I'd go so far as to say that Vista shouldn't have been a 32bit OS. The only problem is that it *had* to be because of the huge legacy installed base. My rule-of-thumb is that the memory sweet-spot is at least 4 times the base amount. Anything less than that, and it might be better to run a previous generation of OS.

This comparison to ME has to stop. It isn't anything like ME. The build quality isn't as good as XP SP2, however it is much better than XP RTM. MS did a decent job with the product. ME was a broken crash-prone OS, some days it had problems doing things that worked fine on other days. Vista isn't so flaky.

People need to stop being alarmists because they are pandering for page-views.

Swordnyx said,
Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.

Don't worry. He's well known for posting BS ;)

Also one thing that people seem to be forgetting is that the latest build of Vista SP1 has an issue with the Shell Hardware Detection routine that keeps the CPU running at about 50-75% all the time unless you shut down that service.

Shutting down that service nets a nice little performance gain.

Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.

internetworld7 said,
Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard. :cool:

This message brought to you by Apple Inc: Home of the fanboy.

internetworld7 said,
Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard. :cool:

...and people wonder why Mac fanboys get a bad rep.

internetworld7 said,
Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard. :cool:

*hangs head in shame from the desk of my iMac*

Axon said,

*hangs head in shame from the desk of my iMac* :ermm:

Seriously.

I've never understood the whole Mac fanboy mentality.

I know how they work and I like Mac's just fine, but Mac people just seem so rabid for the most part.
I think that's why I've never went out and bought an actual Mac.

"This message brought to you by Apple Inc: Home of the fanboy."

lol Croquant I can just imagine an Apple advertisement followed by a guy saying that in monotone.

internetworld7 said,
Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard. :cool:

no bloatware? how big is an osx install again?

internetworld7 said,
Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard. :cool:

+1

internetworld7 said,
Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard. :cool:

Make sure you post bigger next time so we can all see the the crap spewing from your keyboard.

How much for a mac? Can I play *games* on it? Oh, that's right.. I'd have to install XP or Vista. So... why don't I just build my own PC?

Apple makes computers for the technically handicapped. I know how to use (and troubleshoot) everything from DOS 3.0 up to Vista. How much money can you make fixing a mac? Oh, silly me.... they don't break. I prefer to use a OS that lets me make money, and have fun at the same time! kthxbye

PS: If they don't break and ARE SO EASY TO USE... why is there a Genius Bar?

Morpheus Phreak said,

Seriously.

I've never understood the whole Mac fanboy mentality.

I know how they work and I like Mac's just fine, but Mac people just seem so rabid for the most part.
I think that's why I've never went out and bought an actual Mac.


I've never bought a mac cos they're a friggin' rip off and I don't like to waste money.

Swordnyx said,
Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.

I'm not talking about just OS's, I'm talking about ALL software. I mean, why is it that an office program from 10 years ago can run on 16Mb of RAM with a 486 CPU, yet one from today that does exactly the same tasks (albeit with a nicer Interface or some such) requires 256Mb of RAM and a 500Mhz CPU? (Not to mention the huge jump in hard drive space). There's really no excuse for it, there's absolutely no reason why the requirements are so bloody high.

And you might think "but most computers these days more than meet those requirements" and that may be true, but think about that Vista set up. It only had 1Gb of RAM in it, a pretty typical amount these days, yet the office program has just robbed a quarter of it. That's going to slow down the whole OS and everything else you run.

Or if you want to look at it another way, one of Firefox's biggest flaws is it's stupidly high memory usage, it's so bad that it's one of the major selling points to version 3.0, so it IS an issue and there is no excuse for it.

P.S. Morpheus Phreak, get a life.

internetworld7 said,
Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard. :cool:
You guys don't think different. You just feel that you don't fit in. You know those Mac commercials? They always have the Mac user looking like a junky...so who is the glue sniffer, NOT use PC users. Junkies as-well-as the "low" class have never felt that they fit into society. My point is, Mac users do think different (In a negative way). They just can't get along with the rest of the non-Mac users.

PCs are way more flexible than Macs. Apple controls what goes into their computers. It’s a shame that you have to use a third party software program to hack your Mac (ApplicationEnhancer.prefpa) to get some software to work better. And you had to delete this Mac hacking program to get your so called Leopard to stay out of the BSD. Are those 3rd party programs working better now without the Mac-hack program?

Morpheus Phreak said,

Don't worry. He's well known for posting BS ;)

Also one thing that people seem to be forgetting is that the latest build of Vista SP1 has an issue with the Shell Hardware Detection routine that keeps the CPU running at about 50-75% all the time unless you shut down that service.

Shutting down that service nets a nice little performance gain.

I'm using the latest version of SP1 and my CPU is running at 5% average. The problem that I have is when I move my Pagefile to another drive and then do a "Check disk" (C drive only) it will crash after the second reboot and then I get the "Safe Mode" choice screen". Everything is fine after that untill I do another "Check Disk". My "Perfect Disk Program can "only" access the C Drive during an offline defrag.

Kushan said,

I'm not talking about just OS's, I'm talking about ALL software. I mean, why is it that an office program from 10 years ago can run on 16Mb of RAM with a 486 CPU, yet one from today that does exactly the same tasks (albeit with a nicer Interface or some such) requires 256Mb of RAM and a 500Mhz CPU? (Not to mention the huge jump in hard drive space). There's really no excuse for it, there's absolutely no reason why the requirements are so bloody high.

And you might think "but most computers these days more than meet those requirements" and that may be true, but think about that Vista set up. It only had 1Gb of RAM in it, a pretty typical amount these days, yet the office program has just robbed a quarter of it. That's going to slow down the whole OS and everything else you run.

Or if you want to look at it another way, one of Firefox's biggest flaws is it's stupidly high memory usage, it's so bad that it's one of the major selling points to version 3.0, so it IS an issue and there is no excuse for it.

P.S. Morpheus Phreak, get a life.

True, I understand your arguement, and I somewhat support it. But what I said does relate to ALL software. If you were to include applications such as modern games or video encoding/creation applications, your arguement would be far from true. But to these little applications such as web browsing and documenting, yes you are right there really isn't that much of a need for them to be as power hungry as they are.

Kushan said,

I'm not talking about just OS's, I'm talking about ALL software. I mean, why is it that an office program from 10 years ago can run on 16Mb of RAM with a 486 CPU, yet one from today that does exactly the same tasks (albeit with a nicer Interface or some such) requires 256Mb of RAM and a 500Mhz CPU? (Not to mention the huge jump in hard drive space). There's really no excuse for it, there's absolutely no reason why the requirements are so bloody high.

And you might think "but most computers these days more than meet those requirements" and that may be true, but think about that Vista set up. It only had 1Gb of RAM in it, a pretty typical amount these days, yet the office program has just robbed a quarter of it. That's going to slow down the whole OS and everything else you run.

Or if you want to look at it another way, one of Firefox's biggest flaws is it's stupidly high memory usage, it's so bad that it's one of the major selling points to version 3.0, so it IS an issue and there is no excuse for it.

P.S. Morpheus Phreak, get a life.


Nobody's stopping you from resurrecting a 486 and running Word 1.0 on it. They're just laughing at how slow that set-up would be. I'll throw a Pentium III 533 MHz and a copy of DOS 6.22 at you (Catch!)) and then race you with my Core 2 Duo E6600 w/WinXP Pro SP2 setup, OK? You can slot all the PC-133 SDRAM you want in there. Remember, though: DOS is 16-bit. XP is 32-bit. That means the DOS machine is limited to 2^16 bytes of RAM, and the XP machine is limited to 2^32 bytes of RAM. I will set processor affinity for the test to both cores on the XP machine just because I can. (Just be thankfully I'm not running a Quad-Core. ) Think the DOS/486 setup will outperform my Core 2 Duo? No? Neither do I.

You do have a point in that Microsoft keeps making their software more and more bloat-filled. (To be fair, they're not the only ones who do this. I'm looking at you, Symantec, Nero, et. al.). The thing is, the typical user can only type & click so fast (well, at least untill Microsoft has us all replaced by robots.... but that's another discussion for another time). So, in order to sell new software and new hardware, Microsoft has to convince people that the new stuff offers "better" features that the old stuff. Hence, the eye-candy that is in XP and isn't in Win2k.... the Aero Glass eyecandy that's in Vista and not XP... the interface that the iPhone tries to sell as the greatest thing since sliced bread, etc, etc, etc.

Of course, if you don't wanna pay the Microsoft Tax then there's always Linux to consider. ASUS's "Eee PC" mini-laptop runs Linux and it's only using a 900 Mhz Celeron ULV and 512 MB of RAM. You can surf the web with it (through Firefox) just fine. I might just get one once they release the upcoming model that comes with 8GB of SSD storage. That'd be sweet.

Croquant said,

Nobody's stopping you from resurrecting a 486 and running Word 1.0 on it. They're just laughing at how slow that set-up would be. I'll throw a Pentium III 533 MHz and a copy of DOS 6.22 at you (Catch!)) and then race you with my Core 2 Duo E6600 w/WinXP Pro SP2 setup, OK? You can slot all the PC-133 SDRAM you want in there. Remember, though: DOS is 16-bit. XP is 32-bit. That means the DOS machine is limited to 2^16 bytes of RAM, and the XP machine is limited to 2^32 bytes of RAM. I will set processor affinity for the test to both cores on the XP machine just because I can. (Just be thankfully I'm not running a Quad-Core. ) Think the DOS/486 setup will outperform my Core 2 Duo? No? Neither do I.

I think you missed the point a little, what I'm saying is if you ran Office 97 (that is, if it's possible to get it working on a modern machine) on a modern computer and benchmarked it against office 2007, it will be a lot faster because it was optimised for much slower hardware. It might not make a huge difference in office applications, but the ones you pointed out like Nero and Symantec's stuff would see a huge speed gain.
Sometimes new features are added that make the slower speed worth it, but in 99% of cases this never seems to happen. Nero is a great example of that one (it's supposed to burn CD's, not search files, edit wavs, etc.)

Kushan said,

I'm not talking about just OS's, I'm talking about ALL software. I mean, why is it that an office program from 10 years ago can run on 16Mb of RAM with a 486 CPU, yet one from today that does exactly the same tasks (albeit with a nicer Interface or some such) requires 256Mb of RAM and a 500Mhz CPU? (Not to mention the huge jump in hard drive space). There's really no excuse for it, there's absolutely no reason why the requirements are so bloody high.

And you might think "but most computers these days more than meet those requirements" and that may be true, but think about that Vista set up. It only had 1Gb of RAM in it, a pretty typical amount these days, yet the office program has just robbed a quarter of it. That's going to slow down the whole OS and everything else you run.

Or if you want to look at it another way, one of Firefox's biggest flaws is it's stupidly high memory usage, it's so bad that it's one of the major selling points to version 3.0, so it IS an issue and there is no excuse for it.

P.S. Morpheus Phreak, get a life.

I have a life, but thanks for noticing

Swordnyx said,
Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.

An OS is not an application, but a means to an application. Increase hardware performance is to address the new features that users want in their applications with decent performance. The more the OS uses the less that is available to the applications, which is really why the user is using their computer to begin with. If all anyone was interested in was the OS, then people would just turn on their computer, stare at the screen for awhile, and then turn it of. Think about it....

Shadrack said,

An OS is not an application, but a means to an application. Increase hardware performance is to address the new features that users want in their applications with decent performance. The more the OS uses the less that is available to the applications, which is really why the user is using their computer to begin with. If all anyone was interested in was the OS, then people would just turn on their computer, stare at the screen for awhile, and then turn it of. Think about it....


You made me laugh. Good points.

Shadrack said,

An OS is not an application, but a means to an application. Increase hardware performance is to address the new features that users want in their applications with decent performance. The more the OS uses the less that is available to the applications, which is really why the user is using their computer to begin with. If all anyone was interested in was the OS, then people would just turn on their computer, stare at the screen for awhile, and then turn it of. Think about it....

:) Sad you tried to incorporate humor into something that doesn't make much sense. An OS is a platform to run applications. The platform has to evolve to include newer features that make things possible the previous could not. (Ex. DX10, etc.) According to your arguement, you would rather use a set of useless applications rather than have the benefits of the newer technology. Its like installing Office 2000 when Office 2007 is out just because 2007 doesn't work on Win2k or something.

internetworld7 said,
Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard. :cool:

Who are you? *douses the flames with water*