How fast is vista in your pc

[Leo Natan]

Faster than XP, and both are new installations. Programs load faster, system response is much faster, everything seems just better.

Only problem is driver support, but it will soon go away.

[reactionary007]

blazing fast... faster than xp for sure. and this is on a system that was upgraded from xp to vista. took forever but it performs like a freshly installed OS.

[BigCheese]

Vista is slower than XP for me. The startup takes twice as long and even a simple thing like locking the pc takes several seconds in Vista, when XP did it instantly.

I'm sure there'll soon be a good guide about what stuff to disable in Vista to make it faster.

[Black_Hole]

Faster/slower ? :huh:

Post some benchs (superpi,winrar,3dmark,...) and you will see if it is really faster.

How is memory usage with default settings ? :whistle:

[Ran Sagy]

Keep in mind you cannot compare memory usage between XP and Vista for obvious reasons (Refer to the wikipedia article on new Vista features if you aren't aware of what memory caching is).

Vista is very responsive here on my AthlonXP 2400+, 1GB DDR333 and 6600GT. It seems a bit faster on response, perheps due to DWM\Aero doing things on my video card, which is somewhat better than on my CPU in comparison.

From the games I've tried, i get an average performance the same as XP, With some issues related to nVidia's drivers being incomplete at the moment.

[Nightwind Hawk]

My computer wasn't as fast with Vista... XP x64 boots in about 10 seconds for me.

I liked the Vista interface, but after spending hours just finding where to put my Firefox and Gaim profile, I grew sick of it and decided to wait for programs to be actually compatible with it.

By the way, what the hell is up with "Access Denied" to Application Data? IT'S MY FOLDER! Why am I being denied access?!

[Black_Hole]

Keep in mind you cannot compare memory usage between XP and Vista for obvious reasons (Refer to the wikipedia article on new Vista features if you aren't aware of what memory caching is).

You cannot compare any OSes in that case ... :|

Take the same hardware,run a few applications on several OSes,you can compare !

Obviously,I suspect a PC with 256 MB of ram will be slower in Vista than it would have been in Windows 98.

[bobthecow]

Vista Ultimate x64 RTM is blazing fast on my computer.

The only weird thing is a 30 second black screen hang before the boot screen.

System Specs:

Mac Pro

Quad Core Intel Xeon 'Woodcrest' 2.66 GHz

3 GB DDR2 667 MHz FB RAM

ATI X1900 XT

2x NVIDIA Geforce 7300 GT

500 GB SATA II HDD

300 GB SATA II HDD

250 GB SATA II HDD

Two DVD/RW Superdrives

Airport Extreme

Bluetooth 2.0+EDR

Bluetooth Wireless Keyboard & Mouse

30 Inch Apple Cinema HD Display

[NoneAvail]

Ultimate is really good on the Macbook, The start up is the same, but the desktop feels much faster, more responsive.

I'll be uninstalling this later on.... I still want to keep WinXP on this...

[ManMountain]

For me, booting/startup was fairly quick in Vista Ultimate x64. Using the Aero desktop, copying GB's of files, extracting large files, surfing the net all were impressive, all equal and in some instances faster than my main OS. Vista did not thrash much at all, everything seemed really smooth to use. Office 2007 was exceptionally fast to launch/use.

I am comparing it's performance to using my XP x64 install, with all latest updates applied (IMO the fastest XP MS has ever made).

Sore points were lack of Vista x64 support for Speedfan and Rivatuner (Both of which run flawlessly in XP x64). Also in-game graphical glitches / failure to launch, but hopefully that's firmly down to Nvidia's lack of finalised Vista drivers. Shutting down the system also took forever, twice I had to manually power down the system.

For the few hours that I've played with Vista, it "feels" solid in use, slick/smooth in operation, in some instances quicker than my main OS and in other slower. I have to sit on the fence and say that I can't fairly critise Vista's performance as drivers (as when XP x64 first appeared) are an issue.

Will be trying the 32-bit Vista Ultimate tomorrow. Hopefully compatibility won't be an issue :)

Gigabyte 965P-DQ6 Motherboard

Intel Core 2 Duo 6400

GeIL 2GB PC6400C4 Ultra Low Latency DDR2 800MHz

2 x 320 GB SATA II Seagate Barracudas 16MB Cache

1 x Western Digital Raptor SATA 74GB 16MB Cache

BFG 256 MB 7900 GT OC

Edited November 18, 2006 by ManMountain

[simonlang]

damn fast ....

core duo t2400, 1 GB RAM, ati radeon x1400

i thought i had to buy another 1GB-Ram but now i don't think it's necessairy.

compared to xp: definitely faster, and the most interesting thing i noticed:

if many progs are open on vista, it starts swapping on hd too, but still you can open other programs and explorer windows quite fast, on xp i had to wait until the hd gave silence. :rolleyes:

[Ran Sagy]

You cannot compare any OSes in that case ... :|

Take the same hardware,run a few applications on several OSes,you can compare !

Obviously,I suspect a PC with 256 MB of ram will be slower in Vista than it would have been in Windows 98.

Vista does what every smart OS does - It caches memory. The scaled (yes, scaled - more used with more available) memory usage in Vista of, Lets say, 700MB out of 1GB, Is on purpose. Every bit of free memory is cached and held by windows for two reasons -

1) If nothing needs the memory right now, Use it for OS services\procedures\background operations.

2) When an application requests memory, It takes less time to give it to the application - Since windows already held on to it.

XP Simply shows the amount of memory actually used in total.

And THAT is why you can't compare. At least not by the simple figure you see in both respective OS' Task Manager.

I really wish people would understand that already.

[Aero Ultimate]

By the way, what the hell is up with "Access Denied" to Application Data? IT'S MY FOLDER! Why am I being denied access?!

It's no actual folder, it's just a shortcut. In Vista, the system folders are named differently (e.g. "Documents and Settings" is now named "Users"), and the old names are shortcuts, only there for compatibility's sake. If you click on them in Explorer, you'll get an "Access denied" message.

[Ran Sagy]

The %appdata% shortcut navigates to the correct place, \Users\<username here>\AppData\Roaming.

[BendeR1]

My PC:

Athlon 64 X2 3800+

2GB RAM

GeForce 7600 GS

Works great. :woot:

[Hiro of Time]

I am finding it a bit sluggish, even as i type this text into IE7 now, Its trailing, a slight delay while text appears onscreen. When I first boot into it it runs silky but its starting to get sluggish after a while. I made the uber mistake of switching to this as my primary OS, I don't think its ready at all, it doesnt feel like a finished OS. I might wait till Feb untill the consumer releases, maybe there will be better driver support then.

[:No-Frost:]

How do you people think it will go on a:

Sempron 64 2800+ @ 3400+ (2000 Mhz)

1 GB Corsair XMS @ 1T 2-2-2-5

Sapphire x800gto 256 pci-e

120 Seagate Sata 1 7200rpm

120 Maxtor IDE 7200rpm

Please, I need a hint :blush: :blush:

[?AK]

How do you people think it will go on a:

Sempron 64 2800+ @ 3400+ (2000 Mhz)

1 GB Corsair XMS @ 1T 2-2-2-5

Sapphire x800gto 256 pci-e

120 Seagate Sata 1 7200rpm

120 Maxtor IDE 7200rpm

Please, I need a hint :blush: :blush:

I have AthlonXP 2000+, 786 Ram, Gef FX5900XT, 60Gb HDD and it was damn fast! I just had to reinstall XP cos my VideoCAM Look webcam doesn't work in Vista yet :cry: Oh and I played Warcraft and CoD2 and it was just like in XP. No FPS drop or lagging, nothing!

[Ruti]

Mhh, Vista Starts running Faster after some weeks using it, prefetcher and super prefetch starts working, faster up boot and startup.games run faster though, and visuals doesnt have much impact in performance in vista.

[Nathanael]

How fast is Vista on your PC?

Very.

My experience index is 5.5.

[Menge]

Acer Aspire 3003LCi modded:

Turion64 MT-37

SiS M760GX with 32MB stolen from RAM

512MB of RAM (480MB, since 32MB is shared for video)

80GB Samsung 5200rpm HD

Running Vista x64.

Performance ratings:

Processor: 3.9

Memory: 2.0

Graphics: 1.0

Gaming Graphics: 1.0

Hard Disk: 4.2

i have to say that it runs pretty slow. it feels like it needs WAY more RAM. and to top it off, my HD isn't the fastest... so it kinda gets REALLY slow sometimes. but it's nice. i like vista.

The video driver that Windows Update downloaded is pretty crap, too... i got garbage onscreen last time i tried WMP11 fullscreen... and it does that, too, on the benchmark tool. bluescreened on me once (that specific driver) when trying to run the Mystify screensaver :p

[Ran Sagy]

I salute you for even trying with a SiS card :p

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

Seems to run quite well for me but I just couldn't say that its quicker than XP anywhere really. Far speedier than the RC's I tried though without doubt, and quick enough for me to be satisfied with performance - which, again, I was not with the RC's.

Here's my scores:

Overall: 3.5

CPU: 3.5

Memory: 4.1

Graphics: 4.9

Gaming: 4.6

Disk: 5.9

CPU is an oldish Athlon XP 2600+ hence the pants score.. in contrast a pair of RAID0 Seagate SATA drives help give me great disk performance. Really need to upgrade and get to 64bit.. hopefully early in the new year! :)

[username();]

On my system:

CPU : 3.6 (AMD Athlon XP 2700+)

Memory : 4.2 (1 gig DDR333)

Graphics : 5.9 (ATi Radeon X800 PRO)

Gaming : 4.9 (ATi Radeon X800 PRO)

Primary HD : 5.3 (forget what kind)

[ydoucare]

For people running vista rtm, how fast/slow and buggy is it compared to xp and what is your processor/memory?

Im considering if its worth to try vista or not

eVga nForce 3 250

Athlon 64 2800+ (s754)

1 GB PC3200

GeForce 6800 AGP

SB Audigy 1 + LiveDriveIR (functions completely minus the remote, haven't tried installing remote software yet)

160 GB Seagate (XP)

80 GB Hitachi

40 GB Western Digital (Vista - spare drive used for OS testing)

Runs very well.