Windows Vista SP1 vs. Windows Vista RTM vs. Windows XP SP2
Posted by HappyAndyK on 28 February 2008 - 09:14 · 20 comments & 11869 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: +HappyAndyK
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: +HappyAndyK
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(8 replies)
#1 Posted by dvb2000 on 28 Feb 2008 - 09:19
- haha, what a joketwo Microsoft commissioned
Everyone know Vista is much slower than XP. No amount of Microsoft FUD will ever dispel that fact.
Once they release SP1 we'll know whether it improves any over Vista RTM. -
#1.1 Posted by RealFduch on 28 Feb 2008 - 09:27
- Vista is more responsive than XP for me.
Just like XP was faster than 2000.
Athlon 64 3200+, 2Gb RAM, GF 7600GT
And especially for slowpokes: SP1 was released on 18 January. And on 6 February people learned that it RTMd. -
#1.2 Posted by +stevember on 28 Feb 2008 - 09:42
- Wrong... I find Vista faster then XP especially after few weeks using as its designed run improve over time.
-
#1.3 Posted by dvb2000 on 28 Feb 2008 - 11:51
- (RealFduch said @ #1.1)Vista is more responsive than XP for me.
And especially for slowpokes: SP1 was released on 18 January. And on 6 February people learned that it RTMd.
really?
Got a link where I can legally download it TODAY (without having any special or "paid for" additional services). -
#1.4 Posted by ToastedJellyBowl on 28 Feb 2008 - 15:05
- Vista is much faster than XP, unless you've got dated hardware. On my old computer and my dad's computer, I couldn't stand Vista. There was so much lag from how Aero rendered, responsiveness on how fast programs loaded, to the fact that games were just laggier in general.
On my new system, even without SP1 (just Vista with all the updates), Vista is a lot faster than what XP SP2 for me. Game performance is equal to XP SP2, but appplications launch faster, Vista is smarter at managing your memory, and Vista is all-around more supported than XP now. I will never go back to XP, especially considering Microsoft doesn't support the 64bit builds as much as the 32bit builds. -
#1.5 Posted by sonic331va on 28 Feb 2008 - 17:30
- (ToastedJellyBowl said @ #1.4)Vista is much faster than XP, unless you've got dated hardware. On my old computer and my dad's computer, I couldn't stand Vista. There was so much lag from how Aero rendered, responsiveness on how fast programs loaded, to the fact that games were just laggier in general.
On my new system, even without SP1 (just Vista with all the updates), Vista is a lot faster than what XP SP2 for me. Game performance is equal to XP SP2, but appplications launch faster, Vista is smarter at managing your memory, and Vista is all-around more supported than XP now. I will never go back to XP, especially considering Microsoft doesn't support the 64bit builds as much as the 32bit builds.
...What game are you playing? Quake II? And did you run XP SP2 on your new system before installing Vista?
I lost at least 15-20 FPS on most of the games I play after switching to Vista. After discovering that my frame rates had taken a swift kick to the nads, I drank a fifth of whiskey straight and severely beat my computer like I would a cheap, dirty whore that gave me VD. -
#1.6 Posted by RealFduch on 29 Feb 2008 - 01:06
- (dvb2000 said @ #1.3)(RealFduch said @ #1.1)Vista is more responsive than XP for me.
And especially for slowpokes: SP1 was released on 18 January. And on 6 February people learned that it RTMd.
really?
Got a link where I can legally download it TODAY (without having any special or "paid for" additional services).
From Microsoft of cource!
I thought evrybody knows about
reg add HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\WindowsUpdate\VistaSp1 /v Beta1 /t REG_SZ /d dcf99ef8-d784-414e-b411-81a910d2761d /f -
#1.7 Posted by toadeater on 29 Feb 2008 - 01:19
- Yeah, whatever. Here are real benchmarks.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1390&page=2
"... under copy load XP SP2 achieves a PassMark rating that’s fully 27.5% better than Vista SP1."
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1338&page=3 -
#1.8 Posted by nokiae70 on 03 Apr 2008 - 20:03
- (toadeater said @ #1.7)Yeah, whatever. Here are real benchmarks.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1390&page=2
"... under copy load XP SP2 achieves a PassMark rating that’s fully 27.5% better than Vista SP1."
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1338&page=3
On what system?
With what conditions?
What programs?
What drivers?
Vista is faster than XP SP2. I thought Neowin users knew how to configure and setup their system better than this...
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by ]SK[ on 28 Feb 2008 - 09:58
- I've gone from an AMD 64 something or other running XP SP2 to a Quad Core Intel running Vista.
Vista is alot slower than XP. I'm not saying thats a bad thing but I really don't expect new software to be faster than it's predecessors. Hardware capabilities are ever growing, why wouldn't MS write code to take advantage of this fact?
-
#3 Posted by El Sid on 28 Feb 2008 - 12:15
- This article isn't debating that Vista is slower than XP, it's saying that Vista is more responsive.
When I have a program doing something very processor intensive, XP slows down a lot, however vista running the same task, does do it more slowly (because as the blurp states the indexer etc is running in the background), but the Vista interface (i.e. start menu, etc) doesn't get affected, as it does in XP.
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by sibot on 28 Feb 2008 - 16:43
- who do they think they're fooling by coming out with some "official reports" what a bunch of crap. Everyone knows XP sp3 will be faster than XP SP2 and in no way would Vista SP1 match up to its speediness while delivering its performance. Take a hike with your cheap marketing gimmicks.
-
#4.1 Posted by RealFduch on 29 Feb 2008 - 01:09
- (sibot said @ #4)who do they think they're fooling by coming out with some "official reports" what a bunch of crap. Everyone knows XP sp3 will be faster than XP SP2 and in no way would Vista SP1 match up to its speediness while delivering its performance. Take a hike with your cheap marketing gimmicks.
What about Steeevie Jopps/Stallman/Leenuz with their "official reports"?
-
#6 Posted by +SirDarkness on 29 Feb 2008 - 17:48
- AHHHHhh I cant handle the milisec diff of xp and vista AHHHHHHhhh
Same machine I see no diff with the same stuff loaded
E8400
Nforce750i
4GB OCZ
512MB 8800GT
2 Rapter HD
and a partridge in a pear tree.
And I am talking about 64but-> I mean BIT Vindows ja.
And Have XP sp3 on my laptop and I SEE and FEEL no diff. OH except it shuts down fast.... BUT wait is that why we all are saying xp is faster cuz then I would agree it is faster than vista. BUt then again my comp is never off or I shut it down and leave cuz I am done with it. AHAHA THINK PPL Please.
-
#7 Posted by CyberWolf on 29 Feb 2008 - 18:48
- I get between 200 to 300 FPS in CS
ource and I can run Crysis in DX9 mode high detail 2xaa in Wide screen res. @40+fps
No complaints, Im sure I could get xp64 to be faster but at the moment I dont care.
E8400 C2D
Gigabyte P35 DS3L
4 Gig G.skill dd2800
MSI 8800GT 512
-
#8 Posted by Shopko on 01 Mar 2008 - 02:22
- As a developer, I've found Visual Studio 2008 compile times are very significantly slower under Vista than XP. I've also found that disk performance in general, while improved in Vista SP1, is still *a lot* slower than it is under XP.
I'm now running XP SP3. I challenge anybody who runs Vista and thinks it's fast to run XP SP3... I was absolutely FLOORED at how much faster my computer worked. Crysis is playable (and yes, I tried playing it in DX9 mode in Vista). Photoshop filters and effects run a lot quicker. And it seems like my applications generally all run better - I don't get that damned "[application] Has Stopped Working..." dialog anymore.
I'm sorry, but I do not think Vista is "advanced" enough to cost me the 10-15% drop in performance and application stability. I rarely use Instant Search, and Windows Defender is a piece of crap compared to tools like NOD32. I was excited for things like WinFS and the Windows SideBar (as it was previewed in 2003, not as it is in Vista). I was excited for application icon previews, for multiple desktops, for virtual folders, and so on. Vista sucks compared to what I started preparing for in October 2003.
I really like most of Microsoft's products, and I hate to bash the company. I really hope Windows 7 is done "right".
-
#9 Posted by Atlonite on 01 Mar 2008 - 07:00
- if you think vista is a slow old sow then perhaps you should try server 2k8 that os even with stuff added back in supposedly still kicks vista's but
The test show that as with Windows Vista RTM, overall performance is on par with Windows XP. It’s important to remember that Windows Vista is a more advanced operating system, which includes many more capabilities than Windows XP. By default, Windows Vista includes antispyware, a search indexer, and the shadow copy service. All these work in the background, providing important services to customers, but they of course take up a portion of the PCs memory and processor resource.
On several common business and home operations Windows Vista SP1 was noticeably more responsive after rebooting than Windows XP.