Windows XP SP3. Much better than Vista SP1


Recommended Posts

Because Microsoft's own reccomended hardware specifications mention 1GB of RAM.

Obviously, when Microsoft were making Vista, their goal was to make it look good because they know that it works for Apple's OSX. Their priorities weren't set on performance. If they were, why the hell would Vista run best at 2GB ram? OSX runs perfectly fine on 1GB and the same goes to the new KDE4 with Plasma on Linux. dwm.exe has a working set of memory of 60-100MB just for Aero's effects, and here I thought the videocard would be used to draw the effects.

I'd say though, that a fair comparison would be XP with/without SP1 with Vista with/without SP1. At least compare the first service pack's impact on the OS. Right, from what I remember, SP1 was mainly fixes, just like Vista's SP1. Bad comparison.

Good point but Microsoft's Required ram for XP is 256mb, good luck running XP with 256mb of ram and have it be anywhere near as fast as Vista running with it's recommended 1gb of Ram. Sure it's more, sure 1GB or ram these days costs less then 256mb of ram did when XP came out, sure more is better...

Doesn't Matter, what matters is what you like what you use, what your preferance is...

Your OS is like your woman, you are the one that has to look at it everyday, which one makes you happy?

If it doesn't make you happy...get a new one...lol

Here's some interesting info about why XP apps run worse in Vista than XP.

It is because of GDI+. Vista no longer uses GDI+ for the GUI, it uses DirectX instead. That means the GUIs of XP-compatible apps must be remapped into DirectX in realtime. This causes all sorts of problems.

"Existing graphics interfaces, such as GDI, GDI+, and older versions of Direct3D, continue to work on Windows Vista, but are internally remapped where possible. This means that the majority of existing Windows applications will continue to work." - Microsoft

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb173477.aspx

There's more info about it here:

http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/12/04/vista_vs_xp_tests/

That's not quite correct. Yes, with the DWM running, the desktop is rendered using Direct3D. But applications that render using GDI / GDI+ for their client areas still render with those technologies. The difference with the DWM is that they now render to an off-screen buffer, which is then composited onto the screen.

The performance issue that I think you're getting at is entirely unrelated to those things. That issue is the fact that in Vista, with WDDM drivers, GDI is no longer hardware accelerated. For the most part, this isn't noticeable to anyone, since today's CPUs are perfectly capable of doing that work with as much effort as it takes you to blink your eyes. That said, there are cases where it can make a slightly noticeable impact... mainly around resizing applications that make heavy use of GDI/GDI+ drawing and have complicated layouts.

You forgot the awful implementation of the principle of least privilege (a.k.a UAC). Why on earth do I have to click through 3 dialogs just to rename a exe-file and its extension in the Program Files directory? The last dialog even has to redraw the entire screen in order to shade everything but the dialog darker and unclickable.

Only one of those dialogs is UAC, the others are shell dialogs, and their numbers are reduced in SP1.

The UAC dialog doesn't redraw the entire screen in order to shade everything and make it unclickable. For security purposes, those dialogs are displayed on an entirely different desktop. The other windows are unclickable (and dimmed) because they aren't really there. It's just a screenshot of your actual desktop, copied to the Secure Desktop - where the UAC dialog is displayed. This prevents other applications/windows from messing with the UAC dialog or manipulating its rendering.

This makes trustworthy consent prompts possible, something that doesn't exist on other operating systems (Mac and Linux, for example, require you to enter a password to elevate - which is more work and more disruptive to the user).

i hope i will never have to install vista on my PC machine

I can bet you said that for XP...... please, if don't have something good to say just shut up please

I have used Vista, liked what I saw, love all the new features and improvements. My configuration just fits the recommended requirements, problem is ... no proper hardware/driver support for the X-Fi from Creative :crazy:

My next PC will contain a Vista ready 8 channel sound card :D Sorry Creative, you guys are just (insert own thought) ! Maybe the Asus one can do better ;)

I have used Vista, liked what I saw, love all the new features and improvements. My configuration just fits the recommended requirements, problem is ... no proper hardware/driver support for the X-Fi from Creative :crazy:

My next PC will contain a Vista ready 8 channel sound card :D Sorry Creative, you guys are just (insert own thought) ! Maybe the Asus one can do better ;)

I have an X-Fi and have no problem with it.

I just had to download the audio console launcher seperately to make it work...

I have an X-Fi and have no problem with it.

I just had to download the audio console launcher seperately to make it work...

I've tried just about everything, maybe I'm doing something wrong, I've tried different PCI slots, reloading with lesser peripherals, tried different versions of drivers, including the audio consle, etc. I have to reboot at least 3 times a day as the sound keeps disappearing. On XP, my record is 3 weeks and 2 days, before rebooting. Surely this has to do with driver support?

I love doing all things audio on my PC :devil:

You guys don't seem to understand. Macs use a Core 2 Duo just like a PC, they use the same memory, they use the same hard drives, they use the same chipsets (just a different layout on the motherboard) and they mostly use the same graphics processors (onboard or ATI).

No, you don't seem to understand. The point being made was clearly that ALL Macs run on the same hardware (Intel Core / Core 2) with the same Intel chipsets, etc. They don't have to support AMD chips. They don't have to support chipsets from Nvidia, Via, SiS, etc. They don't have to worry about other OEMs who may combine chipset A with processor B with sound card C with video card D. It certainly makes things much easier for them.

Compatibility rarely results in performance problems

Hahahahahaha. I'll pass that along to the Windows perf guys, they'll get a kick out of that one :p

It has now been about a year since Vista's release and SP1 is close, yet we are not seeing any performance improvements.

Are you kidding me? You obviously don't play games. Or copy files. Or have a computer on a corporate network.

I think it is safe to say by now that Vista's performance is not down to compatibility issues. If you take a look under the hood, it's performance issues are obvious. If you load a car down with a body that weights twice as much as another car with the same engine, the car that weights less is going to outperform it's competitor. Vista, while certainly having some improvements over XP, has alot more going on than XP. I honestly don't understand how people can dilute themselves into believing otherwise, there is nothing really to argue here. You can argue Vista's usefulness and features, since much of it comes down to personal taste and individual uses, but you cannot argue pure performance.

That's partially right. Yes, there is a performance penalty for new features and functionality. Heck, there are performance trade-offs for compatibility, security, and reliability as well. The new display driver model has a strong emphasis on quality and reliability (moving things out of the kernel, where they can crash and be restarted without bringing down the whole system), and that comes with a performance cost, albeit a small one in the grand scheme.

But there are countless compatibility problems that affect performance. That can lead to one system performing much slower than another with similar specs. Bad driver, bad add-in, misbehaving program, etc. Heck, there are some anti-virus programs (like outdated eTrust versions) that can bring a system to its knees, just because the USN change journal is enabled by default on Vista (and compounded by the indexer monitoring the journal). Their app would go nuts just randomly flipping attributes on every file in your system endlessly. On XP (without WDS and with the USN journal off) it's not terribly noticeable, even though it's still a terribly wrong and evil thing for the app to be doing. And that's just one of countless examples. Adobe Reader before the latest version included an IFilter that would return a success code when queried for functionality that it didn't actually support. Then it would crash when you tried to use it. Worse yet, I've seen some OEMs ship Vista machine with Reader 7.0 installed (though I can't imagine why they'd do that). We put a check in the indexer that prevents the busted version from ever being used, but unfortunately there are some situations (PDFs that come as e-mail attachments, mainly) where it still gets invoked and causes performance problems because every time it tries to index a PDF attachment, it crashes the protocol host and it needs to be restarted.

So yeah, compatibility issues can and do impact performance. And probably always will, in some way.

I've tried just about everything, maybe I'm doing something wrong, I've tried different PCI slots, reloading with lesser peripherals, tried different versions of drivers, including the audio consle, etc. I have to reboot at least 3 times a day as the sound keeps disappearing. On XP, my record is 3 weeks and 2 days, before rebooting. Surely this has to do with driver support?

I love doing all things audio on my PC :devil:

Maybe you have a faulty card in your rig or maybe a Nforce chipset......

Your expectations are too damn high.. all of you

Sooner or later ALMOST ALL of us will have Vista installed in their PC....

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.

With only 1 GB of memory, no wonder XP was that much faster... Maybe try using the correct "recommended" amount of memory in each test. If you are going to quadruple XP's minimum ram amout, then quadruple Vista's to 2gb and run it again.

Maybe you have a faulty card in your rig or maybe a Nforce chipset......

Hmmm. Ok, some research by me regarding Nforce shipsets won't hurt ;) As for a faulty card, I never considered that, being that it doesn't fault under XP :blush:

Maybe you have a faulty card in your rig or maybe a Nforce chipset......

Sooner or later ALMOST ALL of us will have Vista installed in their PC....

What makes you say that? Thats not true at all. Vista is ME reloaded whether you like it or not. It can easily be skipped until the next Windows release. Especially as Vista doesn't really offer anything over and above xp aside from a newer GUI and dx10 (which so far has been a joke).

Sooner or later ALMOST ALL of us will have Vista installed in their PC....

I doubt that... I doubt that even Vista can hit 60% usage before Windows 7 comes out. They said no more 5 year releases. It's likely to see Windows 7 in 2009 or 2010.

That's not quite correct. Yes, with the DWM running, the desktop is rendered using Direct3D. But applications that render using GDI / GDI+ for their client areas still render with those technologies. The difference with the DWM is that they now render to an off-screen buffer, which is then composited onto the screen.

The performance issue that I think you're getting at is entirely unrelated to those things. That issue is the fact that in Vista, with WDDM drivers, GDI is no longer hardware accelerated. For the most part, this isn't noticeable to anyone, since today's CPUs are perfectly capable of doing that work with as much effort as it takes you to blink your eyes.

Under a standard Vista install, you have GDI apps that are "remapped" to DirectX through software rendering instead of hardware acceleration and buffered off-screen using system memory instead of GPU memory. Are you saying GDI can be hardware accelerated in Vista if WDDM drivers aren't used? But then won't Vista revert back to DX9?

But, if as you say, the GDI to DirectX remapping doesn't cause a noticeable slowdown of XP apps and increased RAM usage in Vista, what is causing the slowdown in so many apps?

Under a standard Vista install, you have GDI apps that are "remapped" to DirectX through software rendering instead of hardware acceleration and buffered off-screen using system memory instead of GPU memory. Are you saying GDI can be hardware accelerated in Vista if WDDM drivers aren't used? But then won't Vista revert back to DX9?

GDI apps aren't "remapped" to DirectX. If they were, they would be hardware accelerated. The off-screen buffer for a window exists in both system memory and GPU memory.

My understanding is that if an XDDM driver (XP driver) is used, GDI will be accelerated. But the DWM won't run, and DirectX 10 won't work. Basically you'll be running XP as far as display and window management goes.

But, if as you say, the GDI to DirectX remapping doesn't cause a noticeable slowdown of XP apps and increased RAM usage in Vista, what is causing the slowdown in so many apps?

Still not sure what DirectX remapping you're talking about. Direct3D is responsible for getting things onto the screen, but not for drawing the client areas of GDI apps into their respective window buffers.

geez ! I'm sick of all those tests comparing Vista to XP and saying that XP is faster than Vista on the same rig . I say let's go back to DOS coz it's the fastest OS M$ ever brought to us !!!! And all those dudes saying that Vista=Win Me should shut their mouth !

I'm using Vista since Beta3 and I'm never going back to XP !

My 2 cents

P.S. : Brandon you rocks :D

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • It's amazing that anyone still uses this bloated trash.
    • @Sayan...I have defended you at various points as I hope you know. This headline however is utter trash...shame on you sir!
    • An actual cosmic "Eye of Sauron" had been looking straight at us all along by Sayan Sen Image by Kovin P. Vasquez via Pexels | Not representative An international team of researchers has solved a long-standing mystery surrounding a distant blazar known as PKS 1424+240, helping explain why it produces some of the brightest high-energy gamma rays and cosmic neutrinos ever observed despite appearing to have a relatively slow-moving jet. The findings were published on June 6 in Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters. The study addresses a broader challenge in astrophysics: understanding how extreme cosmic objects accelerate particles to very high energies and produce very high-energy (VHE) photons and neutrinos. PKS 1424+240 is located billions of light-years from Earth. It has attracted attention for years because it is both a powerful source of VHE gamma rays and the brightest known neutrino-emitting blazar in the sky, according to observations by the IceCube Neutrino Observatory. It is also associated with one of the strongest peaks in IceCube's nine-year neutrino sky map A blazar is a type of active galactic nucleus powered by a supermassive black hole that pulls in surrounding matter and launches jets of plasma moving close to the speed of light. What makes blazars unique is their orientation. One of their jets points almost directly toward Earth, making them appear exceptionally bright across the electromagnetic spectrum and allowing scientists to study some of the most extreme physical processes in the Universe. The scientists exclaimed it's like the 'Eye of Sauron' in deep space. Usually, the brightest gamma-ray-emitting blazars are expected to have jets that appear to move very quickly. However, radio observations of PKS 1424+240 suggested that its jet was moving much more slowly, creating a contradiction that became part of a long-running problem known as the "Doppler factor crisis." To investigate, researchers analyzed 15 years of observations from the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA), a network of 10 radio antennas spread across the continental United States, Hawaii and St. Croix. Using a technique called Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI), astronomers combine signals from widely separated radio telescopes to create a virtual Earth-sized telescope capable of revealing extremely fine details. The team combined 42 polarization-sensitive radio images collected between 2009 and 2025, creating a much deeper and more detailed view of the jet than had previously been possible. The observations were carried out as part of MOJAVE (Monitoring Of Jets in Active galactic nuclei with VLBA Experiments), a long-running program that studies the brightness, polarization and magnetic field structures of jets produced by active galaxies. The project aims to better understand how activity near supermassive black holes is linked to high-energy radiation and neutrino emission. “When we reconstructed the image, it looked absolutely stunning,” said Yuri Kovalev, lead author of the study and Principal Investigator of the European Research Council-funded MuSES project at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy. “We have never seen anything quite like it — a near-perfect toroidal magnetic field with a jet, pointing straight at us.” The image revealed an unusual geometry. The researchers found that Earth lies almost directly in line with the jet, with a viewing angle of less than 0.6 degrees. In simple terms, astronomers are looking almost straight down the jet. This turned out to be the key to the mystery. Because the jet is aimed almost directly at Earth, a relativistic effect called Doppler boosting dramatically increases its apparent brightness. The study found that this effect boosts the emission by a factor of about 30 while also making the jet appear slower than it actually is. “This alignment causes a boost in brightness by a factor of 30 or more,” said Jack Livingston, a co-author at the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy. “At the same time, the jet appears to move slowly due to projection effects — a classic optical illusion.” The nearly head-on view also gave scientists a rare look at the jet's magnetic field. Using polarized radio signals, they detected a clear toroidal, or doughnut-shaped, magnetic field component. The observations suggest the jet carries an electric current and that its magnetic field helps launch, shape and stabilize the flow of plasma. Researchers believe this magnetic structure may also play a key role in accelerating particles to energies high enough to produce both gamma rays and neutrinos. “Solving this puzzle confirms that active galactic nuclei with supermassive black holes are not only powerful accelerators of electrons, but also of protons — the origin of the observed high-energy neutrinos,” Kovalev said. The research was conducted under the MuSES (Multi-messenger Studies of Energetic Sources) project, which investigates how active galactic nuclei accelerate particles and generate different cosmic signals, including light and neutrinos. Scientists say understanding how protons are accelerated and linked to neutrino production remains one of the major unanswered questions in astrophysics. The findings help explain why some blazars can appear to have slow jets while still producing extremely bright high-energy emissions. More broadly, the study strengthens the link between relativistic jets, magnetic fields, gamma rays and high-energy neutrinos. Researchers say the results provide new clues about how some of the Universe's most powerful natural particle accelerators work and offer important insights for multimessenger astronomy, which combines different types of cosmic signals to study extreme events in space. Source: European Research Council, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Gotenks98 is right... Outlook (new) is absolute trash. Doesn't Mozilla have an Enterprise Version of Firebird?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      lamborghiniv10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      X-No-file earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      pestcontrol46 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      pestcontrol46 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      511
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      273
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      75
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!