Windows Vista vs. Windows XP?

[RedFlow]

I need to know which has better performance. Windows Vista or Windows XP?

I am debating whether to update to Vista or not. I have 1GB of RAM with a P4 Processor.

Will Vista run slower than XP? Are there performance tests to prove this?

[htwho]

Oh no, look what you have done! You just started another thread on XP vs Vista... There's going to be so much bashing here...

Anyways, stick with XP if you feel perfectly fine with it. Upgrade to Vista if you just want to have the latest OS. With those specifications, you CAN upgrade to Vista.

[Vettetech]

You couldnt pay enough to switch to Vista. XP is far better. If Vista was so good then why are so many people switching back. Hell even Dell is offering free downgrades from Vista to XP.

[Slimy]

^ Not because XP is just better, it's because XP is better for their current hardware.

With those specs, I would not bother (although you are missing out!). Just go Vista with your next computer, Vista will run better than XP on better hardware.

[WelshBluebird]

With an older PC, I'd stick to XP. With a new PC with 2GB RAM, vista.

So in your case, I would stick with XP.

[BlakByte]

It will run slower than xp, just stay at it.. vista runs slower on most computers, also good computers.. Even mine. I have nothing against vista tho, its just a mather of time before it will be better, and with SP1 coming, its looking good.

[htwho]

With those specs, I would not bother (although you are missing out!). Just go Vista with your next computer, Vista will run better than XP on better hardware.

Perfect response...now let's close the thread before people start bashing...

[bobbytomorow]

On any PC I would stick with XP. As a gamer anyway. XP performs better than Vista across the board for gaming.

[FATILA]

On any PC I would stick with XP. As a gamer anyway. XP performs better than Vista across the board for gaming.

Sure it does: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nv...pdate/page4.asp

[Avatar Viper]

xp is faster than vista, that's for sure...

[Hurmoth]

... Vista will run better than XP on better hardware.

That statement will never be true, it can't be. Newer doesn't always mean better. XP is much slimmer than Vista, doesn't require the hardware that Vista does; thereby allowing XP to always run better on better hardware.

Stick with XP and go with Windows 7 when it comes out. I have faith in the new guy running the Windows team. Jim Allchin was a joke :laugh:

[cork1958]

Just take everybody's word for it this time. XP is better and faster.

[Linkinfamous]

That statement will never be true, it can't be. Newer doesn't always mean better. XP is much slimmer than Vista, doesn't require the hardware that Vista does; thereby allowing XP to always run better on better hardware.

Stick with XP and go with Windows 7 when it comes out. I have faith in the new guy running the Windows team. Jim Allchin was a joke :laugh:

Complete nonsense.

Are you telling me that if I dumped Windows 95 on a brand new machine it would capable of the efficiently using the higher end resources for preemptive caching, intelligent multitasking, etc? What about newer instruction sets available on my processor that the OS may be capable of using to speed up certain tasks?

Newer software will always be capable of taking advantage of more powerful hardware in ways that the previous generation of hardware can't.

I won't deny that in most cases slimmer means faster, and for the current generation of hardware at the best-of-the-best, XP and Vista are probably about evenly matched (With each winning in certain tasks.) but as you continually get faster and faster hardware, eventually the newer software will beat it out just because the older wasn't written to take advantage of it.

[adsadsads]

That statement will never be true, it can't be. Newer doesn't always mean better. XP is much slimmer than Vista, doesn't require the hardware that Vista does; thereby allowing XP to always run better on better hardware.

Stick with XP and go with Windows 7 when it comes out. I have faith in the new guy running the Windows team. Jim Allchin was a joke :laugh:

You're extremely misled to think that is the case. Did you know that Windows XP can't utilize a processor's TPM module to any extent without huge amounts of third-party support. Depending on the hardware advances since the release the host OS can utilize more in those fields. It's like comparing an OS using SSE4 to parse large algorithms and one using the generic instructions, the latter will be much slower. Another good example is comparing Windows operating systems which didn't have 32-bit support as opposed to those coded for 32-bit.

Your argument's only validity comes into play if you give each computer the exact same features utilizing the exact same technology in the hardware and even then it's a fallacy.

[Hurmoth]

Complete nonsense.

Are you telling me that if I dumped Windows 95 on a brand new machine it would capable of the efficiently using the higher end resources for preemptive caching, intelligent multitasking, etc?

I never said that, read my comments again. I stated that newer isn't always better. To be exact, "Newer doesn't always mean better."

But there's nothing in Vista that allows a user to gain any performance (look at the benchmarks for SP3 vs SP1) that suggests it is faster on newer hardware. It doesn't make sense to even consider that performance on newer hardware would make Vista better than XP considering that Vista not as slim as XP.

[Julius Caro]

For one specific task, XP sure has better performance. But OS-wise, Vista is better,... or it should be.

[Hurmoth]

Did you know that Windows XP can't utilize a processor's TPM module to any extent without huge amounts of third-party support.

What the hell does TPM have to do with performance?

[The Scarecrow]

If you don't want to upgrade your memory stay with XP. Vista is very good at 2G of RAM. Other than that Vista is great, I have been running it since March on a laptop and my desktop on XP ... and I prefer Vista over XP now. This really comes down to people dont like change and Vista is a vast change from XP. Then there is the driver issue which is nothing new since the XP was introduced there were the XP haters then too that is was aweful cause of the driver issue etc. I am in IT and I have Vista running on several machines (most that didnt have vista to start with) without any problems. It turns out to be a personal opinion because I know people who are still on Windows 98 so to each his own.

[X'tyfe]

Windows XP can't utilize a processor's TPM module

do you even know what TPM is? you can not be serious

people should be THANKFUL that XP doesnt make use of it

[BlakByte]

For one specific task, XP sure has better performance. But OS-wise, Vista is better,... or it should be.

Well yea, it shuold be better but all it has is a pretty visual and some other functions that really arent that "most have"

[Thrawn]

On a system with 1GB ram, I've seen Vista dumping 400-500 MB of data in to SuperFetch. Applications load faster than XP. Also, IME, Vista has better thread management than XP, and the overall multitasking experience is smoother even on single core systems. To teh humbug poster: sorry, but software does advance.

[piehouserat]

lol just because vista can make use of TPM, doesnt make it better, in fact, quite the opposite.

[adsadsads]

I'm not sure how to feel about you ignoring my reply altogether, maybe I should cry :(

I never said that, read my comments again. I stated that newer isn't always better. To be exact, "Newer doesn't always mean better."

But there's nothing in Vista that allows a user to gain any performance (look at the benchmarks for SP3 vs SP1) that suggests it is faster on newer hardware. It doesn't make sense to even consider that performance on newer hardware would make Vista better than XP considering that Vista not as slim as XP.

You're trying to compare Windows XP SP3 which has been in development for over a year to Windows Vista SP1 which was only recently announced? The fact is that those so-called rock solid bench-marks were made by a program called OfficeBench which essentially does a series of macros in Microsoft Office applications. This has no relevance what-so-ever to the general performance of the system. I'm willing to bet that this is a single-threaded application which runs through these tests in a monolithic manner because Windows XP wasn't made to handle the train of such activity. Windows Vista has improved on virtually all areas, this is seen by general function improvements which you may not be aware of, simple things such as window rendering to advanced procedures such as thread synchronization. Furthermore, Windows Vista SP1 was made mainly to cater to bugs and introduce/support new functions. Read here for a list of changes:

http://apcmag.com/6929/vista_sp1_in_depth

Please also note the following excerpt;

"This service pack isn’t to be confused with two enhancement packs which were leaked to the public a few weeks ago, and then officially released by Microsoft with virtually no fanfare on the 8th and the 9th. These two updates address compatibility and performance features in Vista."

The main issue that I'm addressing is that Vista will be able to utilize newer hardware for specific things which will then generally give the user a better experience, this can come from better algorithms for file-parsing on the software level to a whole new file-system in the works catering to the hardware level and please don't even think of using the 'statistics' generated from a piece of garbage which runs a series of stupid macros as 'evidence'.

EDIT: It seems you responded while I was writing my response :p Anyway, before making yourself foolish again I highly suggest you read the first paragraph of the Uses sub-section.

[Kenji]

I use Vista on all of my PCs, The second lowest spec being a AMD Semperon 3200+ with 786MB RAM, 7300GS, I use that for work (Mobile DJ). It boots in roughly 15 seconds compared to the 2+ minutes with XP. Vista has been installed on it since January, and if anything, it has got faster thanks to superfetch.

[seta-san]

yes you will have issues. don't run vista on any less than 2 gigs of ram and a dual core processor

I need to know which has better performance. Windows Vista or Windows XP?

I am debating whether to update to Vista or not. I have 1GB of RAM with a P4 Processor.

Will Vista run slower than XP? Are there performance tests to prove this?

[Hurmoth]

You're trying to compare Windows XP SP3 which has been in development for over a year to Windows Vista SP1 which was only recently announced?

What the hell are you talking about? Both are RC1, it doesn't matter how long they've been in development if they're at the same milestone now. If we go by your logic of not comparing something that's been in development for a year, then we shouldn't compare XP and Vista at all :laugh:

The only thing Vista has that would ever interest me is DirectX 10 and none of the games I play use it, so it doesn't matter to me. There's nothing else in Vista that would benefit me or most users in general. I don't know anyone in my every day life that actually uses Vista and likes it, most hate it.

I say hold on to XP, there's nothing in Vista that is worth the cost of the upgrade.