WinXP SP3 Yields Performance Gains Over Vista SP1 Again

exo.blog has at the request of their members re-run the original OfficeBench test, this time with 2GB of RAM in the test system. Unfortunately the outcome is unchanged bar a 4% improvement on the previous score. One can argue that Windows XP system requirements are quite a bit lower than its successor, and thats probably got a lot to do with it. This, coupled with claims that Vista SP1 will not improve on performance but will in fact be all about stability and reliability instead, doesn't offer much hope for those people on older systems.

Make of it what you will, I personally don't have performance issues at all. I use Vista with 2GB of RAM and I have a Sandisk 2GB memory stick that is used for the "Ready Boost" feature, maybe they should re-run the test with that scenario.

Chris Pirillo had this to say on all those negative articles surrounding Windows Vista, enjoy!


Revised OfficeBench Completion Times (Seconds)

Note: The Windows XP (SP3) results have been added to the chart to add further context to the Vista results. As before, all tests were conducted on the same Dell XPS M1710 system w/2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and DDR-2 667MHz RAM.

For those interested, they also ran the test using Office 2003 instead of Office 2007, you can view the results by following the link below to the source.

News source: Update: Re-Testing Vista w/2GB RAM, Office 2003 @ exo.blog

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Experts warn of hacking 'cold war'

Next Story

O2 and Nokia to trial mobile phone Oyster

41 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

what a bunch of idiots.

i don't know since when (and started by which freaking idiots) service packs are tied to performance gain, but that was not service packs are for.

if you get some performance gain, well good for you. now spread your ass cheek and yodel like tarzan ...

Jesus Christ...This has absolutely the least to do with Windows Vista vs. XP. By comparing Windows Vista to XP is like asking a Grade One student to solve a Grade Seven maths problem. Simple and stupid as that.

While there may be a few reasons to compare Vista SP1 to RTM and XP SP3 to SP2, I don't see much relelance in those comparisons, either. Service packs were meant to be bug fixes anyway so stepping up to the new service pack release from the previous one, a person should not expect a gain in performance. Except for XP SP2 in which more features were added to the operating system but were not optimized where SP3 simply optimized and fixed the issues within those features. There would obvious be a gain in performance.

Duh...LOL

Maybe it's me but I'm going to take any benchmark from some guy running a blog on Blogger with a grain of salt. Just like 90% of the opinions of self proclaimed tech guys who can't tell their processor socket from a hole in ground.

Opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one and they all stink. What really stinks are people grasping for straws to "prove" Vista sucks compared to XP. What really gets me are the dumb nerds of the neckbeard brigade who repeat this trash to your average user and then they go on and parrot what they said.

Pirrillo's piece was satire but to be honest, I would say a good number of Vista problems are caused by bad hardware or some dolt trying to shoehorn the OS in their crappy 6 year old computer.

XP is fine but I like the fact that Vista is much more secure, uses memory efficiently (unused RAM is wasted RAM), and to me has shown a considerable performance difference over the past several months.

Thank you. I tried to point this out last week when the original article was posted but no one wanted to discuss this. I thought that Neowin had the policy of not quoting blogs for articles but I guess when it comes to vista bashing, there are exceptions.

Everyone has a blog....Hell I have a blog, bet no one cares about it though. Why does anyone give a rats ass what this person says?

Hmm funny I have a dell xps 410 running vista that originally came with xp media center and vista is more stable and handles my dual core processor much better.

MioTheGreat said,
Now that's just low. Why the hell would they do that?

So some morons doesn't bitch about the fact that they tested software which is not written for Vista. Well, Office 2007 is. Anyway, they tested Office 2003 on both machines and Vista is crappola.

So he tested Vista with the minimum RAM (1GB) in the first test, but not XP's minimum RAM, which is 64MB. This one, he bumps Vista up to the recommended level, but still didn't run the XP test on it's level, which is 128MB.

Vista is self tuning OS and gets faster over time. On my system it screams. Yesterday I built a computer for a friend that has slightly higher specs than mine but was noticably slower. Which is to be expected after a fresh install. In a few weeks it will be faster.
The site that did the benchmarks said they make their tools available for anyone to test with, just register on their site and download the tools to do your own testing. Which I did, however they never sent me my password to actually download the tools. Seems alittle fishy.

archer75 said,
Vista is self tuning OS and gets faster over time. On my system it screams.

Well, it's been out for a year and it still doesn't seemed to have tuned too well for most people. Maybe it's self-tuning, but it's also self-BSODing. Nor has it tuned itself to be faster for gaming.

This argument is pointless. Vista's performance is well-known and it is not exactly "wow." You load any OS on modern hardware with 2GB of RAM and it's going to run pretty well! I mean, does XP run slow on your system?

i want the world to know about my blog and my life...

wait..isn't it easier just to open the house door and smell the fresh air?

Azmodan, did you skip the class in elementary school about 'net etiquiete?
In case you didn't know, typing in all caps is considered to be rude.
Bumping a whole line of text up to some ridiculous font size is also generally frowned upon.
Oh, and uttering thinly veiled machoistic threats is just childish and dumb.

If you were trying to be funny, it didn't work.

Croquant said,
Azmodan, did you skip the class in elementary school about 'net etiquiete?
In case you didn't know, typing in all caps is considered to be rude.
bull****, CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.

in b4 reeses for breakfast.

i've made my own benchmarks and that is what i recommend people do.
MAKE your own benchmarks, be it clocking video converting, file copying, audio encoding, movie editing, etc.

this will provide the only insight you need to know if Vista or XP performs better with your current hardware configuration.

In my case, Vista equals and almost on every clocking i made exceeds XP performace with my hardware.
So, for me there is no discussion at all...

Here's one big thing in Vista's favor, 64 bit Vista is light years ahead of 64 bit XP and I just bought 8GB of DDR2 800 for $250 and a Quad Core processor for $220.

I think I'll take Vista 64 over XP or XP 64 running on the same Hardware.

Gawd... I want to start running my own performance benchmarks and reporting on the results without bias... too bad most of the good benchmark programs are expensive... and Officebench oh wow ONE benchmark... while the OS does SO many other things... how about benchmarking GDI performance, DirectX performance, IO performance... things that do matter a LOT not just one office suite

Chris Pirillo had this to say on all those negative articles surrounding Windows Vista, enjoy!

That says it all. I really didn't expect that towards the ending. Funny stuff. XP rules, and you know it.

Angry_Badger said,
heh yeah that was pretty good. I wonder if that is his opinion despite the the tongue in cheek nature of the video?

You do know that that, at the end, is the renowned BSOD Screensaver right?

And most Vista users complaining about it being slow in games are office workers??

Also, could someone quietly go out and shoot Chris Pirillo. The guy is as much of a journalist as Nostradamus.

7Dash8 said,
And most Vista users complaining about it being slow in games are office workers??

Also, could someone quietly go out and shoot Chris Pirillo. The guy is as much of a journalist as Nostradamus.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Some of you who read this will think games will fly with SP3, I don't need to reply to this, because most of you know what i mean.

Then, XP needs Security improvements and stability, specially in Explorer.EXE

This is like games (the way some people think about Windows), most of Gamers think Games means Graphics, but for me Games means Gameplay > Stability > Graphics.

Well, im my opinion here's what should be implemented in XP and Vista:

Vista: Stability > Reliability > Performance

XP: Security > Stability

P.S: If Vista SP1 will not improve Performance why the results show a small improvement? (1GB).