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?

[adsadsads]

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:

What the hell are you talking about? Windows XP SP3 isn't even comparable in any sense. Windows Vista SP1 was made to address the horde of initial bug-fixes whilst Windows XP SP3 was made to add some further functionality, a few new bug-fixes and a few new features. I suggest you read the official white-paper by Microsoft:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...ang=en#filelist

If we all go by your logic a service-pack for an operating system which has been in development for eight years whilst another operating system was even put into consideration after the first operating system's release.

/facepalm

EDIT: Addressing the edit to Hurmoth's post:

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.

You obviously know virtually nothing about Vista since you can't even list one thing which would benefit a generic user. I guess I can just cross you off as another 'Vista Basher/Troll'.

[Robbie Khan Reviews]

^ 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.

This is very true.

Components are cheap now so when you upgrade to a quad core, 4gb ram and a new gfx card everything will be so fast on vista and stable.

[Hurmoth]

What the hell are you talking about? Windows XP SP3 isn't even comparable in any sense. Windows Vista SP1 was made to address the horde of initial bug-fixes whilst Windows XP SP3 was made to add some further functionality, a few new bug-fixes and a few new features. I suggest you read the official white-paper by Microsoft:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...ang=en#filelist

If we all go by your logic a service-pack for an operating system which has been in development for eight years whilst another operating system was even put into consideration after the first operating system's release.

/facepalm

EDIT: Addressing the edit to Hurmoth's post:

You obviously know virtually nothing about Vista since you can't even list one thing which would benefit a generic user. I guess I can just cross you off as another 'Vista Basher/Troll'.

https://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/11/24/w...-over-vista-sp1

So I'm a Vista basher/troll because I don't like Vista and I don't see any reason to paying out money for something that I don't see any benefit to? I guess I can't have my own opinion, I'm sorry, let me bow down to you since your opinion is worth so much more than mine.

Components are cheap now so when you upgrade to a quad core, 4gb ram and a new gfx card everything will be so fast on vista and stable.

It will be just as fast and stable on XP too ;)

[Boeing 787]

On a quad core with 8 gigs of memory Vista is going to rock but with 1 gig stick with XP.

[Robbie Khan Reviews]

https://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/11/24/w...-over-vista-sp1

So I'm a Vista basher/troll because I don't like Vista and I don't see any reason to paying out money for something that I don't see any benefit to? I guess I can't have my own opinion, I'm sorry, let me bow down to you since your opinion is worth so much more than mine.

It will be just as fast and stable on XP too ;)

No your opinion is fine but the fact is people who have strong opinions against Vista seem to constantly try and pursuade others that it won't benefit them in any way whatsoever over XP and will be slow or crash or whatever.

This makes this type of person no more different than say a religious extremist trying to force his views onto others for example.

[Hurmoth]

No your opinion is fine but the fact is people who have strong opinions against Vista seem to constantly try and pursuade others that it won't benefit them in any way whatsoever over XP and will be slow or crash or whatever.

This makes this type of person no more different than say a religious extremist trying to force his views onto others for example.

:laugh: If I'm not mistaken, he asked for people's opinion. I'm not trying to persuade anyone. Everyone should take my opinion at face value. I'm not holding a gun to their head.

But some of you are doing the same thing though, just opposite. You defend Vista as if there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, and there is, a ton of things wrong with it.

[ViperAFK]

If you get 2 gb ram vista will run perfectly (And maybe even faster than XP) I actually have better framerates for some of my games in vista than in XP (Mainly Source games)

FEAR- Max settings Smooth framerates (High textures, 4xaa/6xAF/Full Volumetric Lighting)

CSS,HL2,Hl2:EP1,Lost Coast, Insurgency -Max settings Smooth framerates (6xaa,16xAF,HDR Full)

COD4 - Max settings Smooth framerates (4xAA/High Settings)

Bioshock - Max DX9 settings, No problems smooth.

Quake Wars - Max settings

Vista games perfectly for me, and it is fast and responsive. Programs seem to open much faster than in XP and boot time is about the same. It's been perfectly stable and I like the new features (And really miss things like search when I'm in XP)

Edited December 10, 2007 by ViperAFK

[The_Undead]

:laugh: If I'm not mistaken, he asked for people's opinion. I'm not trying to persuade anyone. Everyone should take my opinion at face value. I'm not holding a gun to their head.

But some of you are doing the same thing though, just opposite. You defend Vista as if there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, and there is, a ton of things wrong with it.

There is a ton load wrong with XP, in fact, probably more so than there is with vista.

[adsadsads]

https://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/11/24/w...-over-vista-sp1

So I'm a Vista basher/troll because I don't like Vista and I don't see any reason to paying out money for something that I don't see any benefit to? I guess I can't have my own opinion, I'm sorry, let me bow down to you since your opinion is worth so much more than mine.

I applaud and congragulate you for reading all of my posts... Oh wait, you obviously didn't even bother to read my previous posts :(

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=589049149

Impeccable work on making a fool out of yourself, again. Failing to read my post then providing me with a link which I specifically referenced is an amazing sight of unwitting self-defeat. Before you try to mock me again with your sarcastic superiority rhetoric I suggest you watch your mouth and try to be a bit nicer before you so ungraciously throw yourself into orbit. Hell, I'm so nice I'll even address your post after reading it (that's what logical people do, maybe you should follow suit :)).

No, you're a Vista basher because you indiscriminately decide to pick at negative points against Vista without checking to see if they have any validity at all, you're a Vista basher because you make comments about the general consensus' capacity to use the operating system due to your own liking (disliking in this case) of it. Normally I'd not respond to a sarcastic comment with a serious response but in this occasion I'll make an exception; yes, my opinion is worth "so much more" than yours, why? My opinion is based on fact, you didn't even bother to read my posts before posting a response.

[Hurmoth]

No, but you keep your finger on the ban button :)

There is a ton load wrong with XP, in fact, probably more so than there is with vista.

I couldn't ban someone even if I wanted to without approval from someone higher than me. ;) Need not worry about that.

But as for a "ton load wrong with XP," I'd like to know what is more wrong with XP than Vista? I don't get constant crashes with XP like I do with Vista. In fact, my system has never crashed with XP, the first time I installed Vista, I got a BSOD almost instantly and it wasn't my hardware, the hardware is fine.

[+Chsoriano Subscriber²]

https://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/11/24/w...-over-vista-sp1

So I'm a Vista basher/troll because I don't like Vista and I don't see any reason to paying out money for something that I don't see any benefit to? I guess I can't have my own opinion, I'm sorry, let me bow down to you since your opinion is worth so much more than mine.

It will be just as fast and stable on XP too ;)

I think the reason a few people are arguing with you is because you're being an IGNORANT IDIOT! If you would simply acknowledge that the newer software is/will be better able to efficiently handle powerful hardware with advanced architectures and capabilities, then other users wouldn't be calling you a BASHER!

Unfortunately, you're sticking to your close-minded little world where everything is fine and dandy in "bliss," whatever could be better? My assumption is that you have not used Vista for any extended period of time, for if you did you would be able to realize the performance gains it shows in everyday computing, which because of its nature, shows over time.

I am not arguing that you should love Vista and go spend $300-$400 right at this minute... I myself have 3 copies of Ultimate, and love every one of them, but I think if some people who constantly BASH Vista saying that it's even worse than its predecessor would instead say that for they're tiny little world of use, XP is much better and they don't want to deal with learning how a new operating system works and how to get around small issues when they occur.

I've used Vista for over 2.5 years, I love it, I game on it, I even had a system with a P4 w/HT @ 3.2Ghz and 1GB ram running it fine, much better than the system ever ran XP. My other systems with Vista on it run extremely well, and games run fine on it, I don't see any issues... but maybe I have a less-trained eye than you good sir and couldn't recognize that 2% difference in performance in FEAR.

All in all, it is up to opinion whether you like the new OS or not, but it is only the acceptance of the fact that this new software is in-and-of-itself more powerful, and capable of better performance than its aging predecessor that will allow you to have INTELLIGENT discussions with non-bashers unlike yourself, but since you're probably not going to listen to anything I just said.... Flame On!

have a good day, I just took 10 minutes out of my life to address this idiot, I have 2 final exams to take today so I better get moving

I couldn't ban someone even if I wanted to without approval from someone higher than me. ;) Need not worry about that.

But as for a "ton load wrong with XP," I'd like to know what is more wrong with XP than Vista? I don't get constant crashes with XP like I do with Vista. In fact, my system has never crashed with XP, the first time I installed Vista, I got a BSOD almost instantly and it wasn't my hardware, the hardware is fine.

BSOD during the install or post-install? BIOS updated? I've installed on many various hardware configs and have not had a problem a driver update/change would not fix.

[ViperAFK]

I couldn't ban someone even if I wanted to without approval from someone higher than me. ;) Need not worry about that.

But as for a "ton load wrong with XP," I'd like to know what is more wrong with XP than Vista? I don't get constant crashes with XP like I do with Vista. In fact, my system has never crashed with XP, the first time I installed Vista, I got a BSOD almost instantly and it wasn't my hardware, the hardware is fine.

May not be a hardware problem but sounds like a driver issue to me.. I've never got a BSOD in XP or Vista though (On my own computers; but my dads got one the other day)

[Robbie Khan Reviews]

There is a ton load wrong with XP, in fact, probably more so than there is with vista.

Aha yes this is what I was trying to think of but never could lol.

It's true, XP was only truly sorted in SP2 and that took years to come out. Vista is almost perfect out the box bar a few minor OS related issues being fixed in SP1.

[FATILA]

On a dual Octo core system with 32GB ram.... wait Vista has 1GB on all my systems except main desktop and runs fine. Ed Blott (ZDNet blogger who does a lot of Vista benchmarking) claimed that in some scenarios systems with 1GB were actually booting faster. I have installed Vista on a system virtually identical to the OP, I suggest that you dual boot to see if you even like Vista.

[Hurmoth]

I applaud and congragulate you for reading all of my posts... Oh wait, you obviously didn't even bother to read my previous posts :(

Sorry, I got a little ahead of myself. I apologize, but the personally attacking me because I have an opinion, regardless of whether or not you believe it is flawed, is stupid and petty. I will not tolerate being personally attacked anymore. If you disagree with me, then post your opinion, but without personal attacks.

[adsadsads]

Sorry, I got a little ahead of myself. I apologize, but the personally attacking me because I have an opinion, regardless of whether or not you believe it is flawed, is stupid and petty. I will not tolerate being personally attacked anymore. If you disagree with me, then post your opinion, but without personal attacks.

Oh I'm so sorry, it's not like you mocked me like this...

https://www.neowin.net/news/main/07/11/24/w...-over-vista-sp1

So I'm a Vista basher/troll because I don't like Vista and I don't see any reason to paying out money for something that I don't see any benefit to? I guess I can't have my own opinion, I'm sorry, let me bow down to you since your opinion is worth so much more than mine.

Oh wait...

[Slimy]

XP is much slimmer than Vista, doesn't require the hardware that Vista does; thereby allowing XP to always run better on better hardware.

I can't believe you said that. What utter BS.

[Hurmoth]

Oh I'm so sorry, it's not like you mocked me like this...

Oh wait...

I didn't personally attack you though. I was sarcastic, I didn't call you a fool or an idiot now did I?

[adsadsads]

I didn't personally attack you though. I was sarcastic, I didn't call you a fool or an idiot now did I?

That was a personal attack if nothing else, the whole point of it was to demean me and make it seem like I'm irrationally arguing due to some sense of superiority. I even gave you a fair warning about speaking without thinking, read the second paragraph of post #35.

Anyway, I highly suggest we stop going off-topic since this will spiral down until we need a thread necromancer.

Either admit that you were wrong or logically debate your stand-point in regards to Vista's supposed incompetence.

[ViperAFK]

Children Please :)

[Hurmoth]

Either admit that you were wrong or logically debate your stand-point in regards to Vista's supposed incompetence.

Apparently you can't read either, I did admit I was wrong: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=589049288

[adsadsads]

Hurmoth, if you wish to continue this debate then read the last post on page 3.

Now back to topic...

There are no tests to prove that Vista is any slower/faster than XP, any such tests are faceless unless they test all aspects of the OS and we've yet to see any of this manner.

Vista generally is an OS of higher demand due to the new features (aesthetic and in the background) but if your PC can handle that then you'll notice generally faster speeds in most tasks and more pleasant features. What it comes down to is your computer's power and your needs, from there it's solely your choice :)

EDIT: It seems Hurmoth posted right before I did and it also appears that he lacks the ability to be be gracious even with an apology. So I guess I'll do the mature thing and stop dealing with him before we get off on another tangent but I will leave him with this;

Apparently you can't read either, I did admit I was wrong: https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...amp;p=589049288

Apparently you can't differentiate posts or you're incredibly bad at wording. From my perspective it seems like you're referring to not reading the article. That means absolutely nothing because I'm asking for you to withdraw your original statement. Maybe I'm just bad at wording :p

Edited December 10, 2007 by x0r

[+Biscuits Brown MVC]

All I am going to add to this is this, I installed Vista Home Premium (full install, not upgrade) on my wife's system. Previously she was running XP Pro. She runs a 3GHz P4 (old Northwood core) and 1 gig of ram with an old 9600XT.

She is a very typical user. She uses Word, Outlook, surfs the web and plays a few non-system stressing games. On this system Vista runs about the same as XP (Vista may be a bit smoother but that is a very subjective determination). In essence she lost zero performance in the move. What did she gain for the 130 bucks?

• Media Center
  
• Integrated image tagging for photos she downloads from her camera
  
• A better experience in handling/processing digital images
  
• Improved system searching/indexing with virtual search result folders
  
• Out of the box support for our networked color printer/scanner
  
• Various Eye Candy (important to her...)
  
• A 'sandboxed' web browser
  
• Most importantly, increased system security
  

She is very happy with the system and her productivity is higher than it was before the upgrade. Once again, she is a typical user (that means she is a member of about 95% of the user base) not a power user like we are. For her, the upgrade had value.

[Hurmoth]

There are no tests to prove that Vista is any slower/faster than XP, any such tests are faceless unless they test all aspects of the OS and we've yet to see any of this manner.

Vista generally is an OS of higher demand due to the new features (aesthetic and in the background) but if your PC can handle that then you'll notice generally faster speeds in most tasks and more pleasant features. What it comes down to is your computer's power and your needs, from there it's solely your choice :)

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-...ista/page4.html

No tests prove it huh?

http://www.softwaretipspalace.com/tech_and...ion_systems.php <-- Although XP on most tests is only slightly better, but it still beats Vista. Which is the opposite of what you said it would do.

"...booting both Vista and XP on the same hardware, and Vista was between 15% and 25% slower than XP in benchmarks." --http://www.pctipsbox.com/is-windows-vista-...han-windows-xp/

Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test --http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outshines-V..._3-6220201.html

Edited December 10, 2007 by Hurmoth

[xendrome]

"These threads always end in tears...."