• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Windows XP x64 vs Vista x64

Recommended Posts

TheJian    0
^ Those are old tests. Find ones that use Vista SP1 and you'll see that it does just as well as XP, if not better.

Where are they? The only site that has both is tweaktown.

Also, that IS VISTA SP1 in those benchmarks. Jesus, read the test setup page...ROFL. They are not that old either. Unless you call a 9800GX2 old. March 16th isn't that far back.

From August 6th (yeah, a few days ago...LOL) with SP1 on vista: 9800GTX+ review

XP Unreal Trouney 3 1280x124/1920x1200/2560x1600:

68 / 98 / 127

VISTA Unreal Trouney 3 1280x124/1920x1200/2560x1600:

60 / 97 / 121

I count 3 losses, how about you? :)

XP WORLD IN CONFLICT 1280x124/1920x1200/2560x1600 (minimum fps):

31 / 31 / 26

VISTA WORLD IN CONFLICT 1280x124/1920x1200/2560x1600 (minimum fps):

30 / 27 / 19

Again, I count 3 losses for VISTA. How about you? 3% /11% /30% roughly?

Those were the only 2 games they tested, but still...Max fps show the same:

XP 45/53/58

Vista 36/50/52

More losses eh?

After looking at all the cards I see ONE anomaly. 2560x1600 with GTX280 in unreal tourney3. Otherwise ALL losses with GTX9800 OCX, GTX9800+, GTX280 and 9800GX2.

http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/1532/8/as...card/index.html

You can feel free to bounce around in that review. Doesn't get much better than last week does it?

You got anything besides your opinion to back up your statements? It's pretty tough to find any XP vs. Vista benchmarks so I'm all ears. After owning a PC business for 8 years and another 2.5yrs in IT (pc technician) I have a pretty fair assessment of all Microsoft OS's out (64 and 32, server or not) and come to a few realizations with Vista:

DX10 is slow compared to DX9 (check extremetech.com for Alex St John (DX maker) and company benching the crap out of both in a dozen games or so) with not much to show for it (they even challenge you to see the difference in pics - let alone while rockets are flying by etc).

Vista costs more for the OS (in full flavors) and more to run it (hardware).

Vista costs more to support (helpdesk calls are a LOT higher with this OS than XP period, which is why all the places banned it (and security probs), see my dozen links or so in other post...LOL).

Vista is slower in almost all cases. Fire up an office 2007 benchmark on Vista vs. XP and Office 2007. Slower. Games...SLOWER. Check tweaktown's 3dmark06 scores in the above article. They show the same too, so it's in synthetics also (so to speak).

Vista is a pretty face (I admit it) with more bugs. There is a reason PC World called it crapware of the year (yeah they actually gave it an AWARD for sucking!). I'm not saying it doesn't work at all. But I don't want to own, or support an OS where the moons have to align perfectly for it to happen (in WAY too many cases). It's not that there aren't some happy customers out there (not many...heh), but that there aren't ENOUGH of them.

There's a real problem with pricing an OS higher (it takes ultimate to get everything we're promised, aero, bitlocker, media center etc), and getting nothing back but performance LOSSES. WTF? I expected more speed, better compatibility, easier to use, etc. We got none of these. HP just said a few weeks ago that VISTA sales are a lie and they will fight MS (again!) on the date of XP stoppage in Jan 09. BECAUSE OF CUSTOMER DEMAND OVER VISTA! You don't actually think they're lying do you? They may buy a vista lic, but they get XP installed.

Please, point me to your mysterious benchmarks that show Vista Sp1 faster than XP 64bit. MS must be paying a lot of money to keep XP64 from being benchmarked. I can't find any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raa    1,551
I just want to chime in only because I get sick of all this XP vs Vista crap.

I've been using Vista Ultimate 64-bit since it came out

<snip>

Okay, so you had no issues, that's GREAT!

I've got a few issues myself, and so have plenty of others.

TBH, i'd vote XP64 for most tasks.

I prefer Vista for MCE though, it's definately more advanced in what it can do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zhangm    1,333

Vista is better than XP, judging from personal experience. I don't particularly care what some benchmarks on the Internet say about it, I just find it a smoother, faster, more feature-rich experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reacon    135
As for gaming - yes, only Vista has DX10 (tho I've heard of a group of programmers trying to backwards port it to XP - can't remember name or link off hand). But right now only a a couple of games have native DX10 support.

I think the name of the group was Falling Leaf, the port was called the Alky Project. I use it today on my XP machine, it runs seamlessly with games like Crysis and Team Fortress 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raa    1,551
I think the name of the group was Falling Leaf, the port was called the Alky Project. I use it today on my XP machine, it runs seamlessly with games like Crysis and Team Fortress 2.

Considering Crysis and TF2 have dx9 capability and the former can be hacked to use Ultra High in dx9, your statement doesn't make sense :s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheJian    0
I use XP x64 and I love it. I couldn't get used to Vista x64 as much, so I came back.

However, Vista x64 definitely has more driver support and stuff (ahem, itunes). For XP x64, you need to use workarounds for a lot of things...

Google "itunes xp64" (without quotes).

iTunes v7.6 supports xp64 now. That's as of January 2008. So I'm not sure when you last tried it but it's been supported for 8 months.

http://blog.tiensivu.com/aaron/archives/14...ts-x64-now.html

Many more results come up on that topic also. I don't like itunes so no comment on it's functionality in X64, I haven't used it in a while in any OS.

http://appldnld.apple.com.edgesuite.net/co...unes64Setup.exe

Direct link to the install above. :) Hope that helps. Works in Vista also ;)

7.7.x is out but I see lots of problems so set a restore point before going forward...YMMV. Some can't seem to go back to 7.6 etc without one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reacon    135
Considering Crysis and TF2 have dx9 capability and the former can be hacked to use Ultra High in dx9, your statement doesn't make sense :s

Meaning, I can use ultra high (even though my computer will lag at 2 fps), And TF2 detects my software as DX10. It does work, I just had to tweak with it a little bit since it has been discontinued. Before anyone asks, it wouldn't detect it as directx10 because I never installed it properly (extracted a zip). So I had to use a "cracked" installer to make my computer THINK it has DX10, then I had to replace the file form the ones within the zip, and then get rid of the damn trojan (jet500.dll).

Again, if anyone asks: heres a screenshot.

*recon415 out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zhangm    1,333

Unfortunately on the PC side, iTunes is just bad software in general, and Apple has made some poor decisions recently with bundling surprises in their software updates (lets just call them Apple Ultimate Extras).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ixrousis    0

Vista 64bit is more stable, more acceptable by many hardware, much more featured and much better driver support than the XP 64bit. I was very pleased with the XP 64bit (even though i had to dismiss some of my hardware because i couldn't find the drivers) but in vista the experience is way different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_onion    13

this is so silly. more people use windows vista 64 bit than use windows xp 64bit. windows vista 64bit is a mainstream os that is offered by oems while windows xp 64bit was virtually never sold this way and this is only going to get worse as people change to vista.

therefore developers are more likely to write drivers for it. (this is desktop not server)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheJian    0
this is so silly. more people use windows vista 64 bit than use windows xp 64bit. windows vista 64bit is a mainstream os that is offered by oems while windows xp 64bit was virtually never sold this way and this is only going to get worse as people change to vista.

therefore developers are more likely to write drivers for it. (this is desktop not server)

XP64bit is NOT a server OS (even though 2003 drivers work if XP64 isn't specifically listed, I have yet to see them not). It's a desktop OS and I used to sell it this way. :) You're forgetting 64bit chips were out long before Vista (as in YEARS before). What exactly do you think I sold when someone asked for a 64bit OS to go with their 64bit chip? Before march07, actually longer as I didn't start selling vista for a while, virtually no demand and I wasn't in a hurry to foist basically a beta on people, I always sold a copy of XP64. I basically had no choice. Vista64 had no drivers for months, meanwhile XP64 had years under it's belt in this area as a workstation OS. As a business OS XP64 will be supported until 2014 by MS and anyone else wanting to sell large volumes of parts to business. Lets face it, business is a MUCH bigger market than consumer PC's.

XP is CHEAP to write drivers for. Vista is NOT, nor is it EASY compared to XP.

I'd like to see you point to a page where we can see Vista64 vs. XP64 stats, or even ANY USAGE stats on Vista64 for that matter. The only place I can find is steampowered.com's hardware survey which shows a 2.3% OS market share. Don't forget that's a GAMING hardware/software site that is giving you CONSUMER pc stats. If Vista64 only has a 2% share in home users, it's probably non-existent in business which, clearly from my previous post listing all of the countries/organizations etc that BANNED Vista's use (in 32bit OR 64bit flavors), is NOT in high demand. I even posted links to gartner showing a minuscule market share prediction for the next few years.

Where is the data backing up your statements?

Name a current part NOT supported by XP64. I'm waiting? Every time one of you comes out and says XP64 isn't supported, blah blah, you have NOTHING to back it up with. Did you read all those links I pointed to? The evidence I gave is HUGE, Voluminous. The best you've got is "it's not or won't be supported". Is that it? "This is silly" is the best you've got? 64bit XP was never sold this way? You're kidding right? 3 seconds on google pulls up this:

http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/topics/g...;l=en&s=pad

"we'll help you migrate to xp64..."...LOL. They even have a xp64 faq page...ROFL. Just punch in Dell XP64, HP XP64 etc. You get results. When you're on software assurance you have a legal right to install XP32/64 instead of Vista. Businesses everywhere are still doing it in droves. Knowing the failure of Vista in businesses (check the ban list, gartner numbers etc - Business is NOT adopting Vista in large numbers, or even small numbers...heh), what do you think gets imaged on a drive when someone wants 4GB+? Umm...Wait for it............XP64! We have a winner. Go ahead, check the Dell link, you can order XP64 today on your precision workstations...LOL. USA sells them too, I'm just too lazy to look them up, the euro link was top of google so that's what you get. HP has the same etc. They all do. A lot of businesses don't even order an OS installed on their PC's today. They image them the second they get in the door with XP, so no OS comes on the drive. Dell's boot to a Dell screen telling you there is NO OS installed and you'll need to take care of it yourself, which we promptly did with a ghost image as usual. Of course each PC had a code on the bottom for an OS, they just didn't come isntalled (and the code was never used). Note Dell euro charges $27 to downgrade your Vista install, but that's not the case when it's ordered without an install (which is why businesses do it).

If you've got any evidence for anything you say, please feel free to point me to it. :) I'm not saying Vista hasn't gotten better since it's release. Just that it's still not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SnowRanger13    27

If you own both install Vista x64 but if you only own XP x64 stick to that. I like Vista but I don't think it's worth upgrading.

Especially if you have XP x64 because that runs on Server 2003 core not the XP core and is very stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ViperAFK    797
XP is CHEAP to write drivers for. Vista is NOT, nor is it EASY compared to XP.

I'd like to see some proof of that claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Bryan R.    1,147

I will be completely un-biased and say the following:

XP is faster than Vista, I don't think anyone can argue this. I personally have had no issues runing either x64 edition of Windows. I personally also have Vista x64 as my OS. Why? Because I like it. With your hardware I really doubt you will see any noticeable difference in performance from XP to Vista. I would really go with Vista x64 with SP1, it is truely reliable and even fun to use for home use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NEVER85    248

Vista x64, no question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PermaSt0ne    1

xp x64 never really got off the ground, where as vista is getting major support from pretty much everyone now. the only reason why you'd stick with xp is if you were running 6 year old hardware

people have zero reason to complain about vista now days. yes in the beginning vista x64 had problems (i've been using it since day 1 it came out, so i definitely know) but with SP1 all those are fixed

go with Vista x64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Innuendo    21
XP is faster than Vista, I don't think anyone can argue this.

I can and will argue this. Granted, my experience is limited to 32-bit OSes, but it is entirely true. On my computer, 32-bit Vista runs faster than 32-bit XP ever did. I enjoy a level of snappiness and smoothness on the desktop and in apps that I did not achieve in XP. I attribute this to Vista's 3D-accelerated everywhere and I have an ATI 512MB X1900XTX in my PC providing plenty of both 3D horsepower and lots of video RAM to cache things.

A fast video card will do wonders for Vista where one won't do so much for XP (as it's only 2D-accelerated).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
episode    626
I can and will argue this. Granted, my experience is limited to 32-bit OSes, but it is entirely true. On my computer, 32-bit Vista runs faster than 32-bit XP ever did. I enjoy a level of snappiness and smoothness on the desktop and in apps that I did not achieve in XP. I attribute this to Vista's 3D-accelerated everywhere and I have an ATI 512MB X1900XTX in my PC providing plenty of both 3D horsepower and lots of video RAM to cache things.

A fast video card will do wonders for Vista where one won't do so much for XP (as it's only 2D-accelerated).

Did you run the same system on both XP and Vista? It simply doesn't make sense that Vista would run faster on the same system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S00N3R FR3AK    45

I started with XP 64 but could not find a 64bit driver for my linksys wireless card. I just picked up 32bit home prem and its not that bad. I will wait for vista 64bit untill Im ready to go 8gb of ram closer to christmas and then I will will get a 2nd HD and run xp 64 off that and do my gfx progams such as 3ds max off that and game off vista.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NEVER85    248
Did you run the same system on both XP and Vista? It simply doesn't make sense that Vista would run faster on the same system.

What are you on? Vista blows XP away on a modern machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PermaSt0ne    1
Did you run the same system on both XP and Vista? It simply doesn't make sense that Vista would run faster on the same system.

on and OLDER system, yes xp is faster

but if you have a current system and you compare xp to vista, then vista wins. for my example, my system was absolute top of the line 2 years ago but vista boots faster and launches programs faster than xp on it. i've never had a slowdown on vista like i used to get on XP

you seriously think they make a new OS and have it be slower? you think there's been no optimization or coding techniques to make things run faster in the 5 years XP was out on the market?

Edited by PermaSt0ne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Innuendo    21
Did you run the same system on both XP and Vista? It simply doesn't make sense that Vista would run faster on the same system.

Yes, I ran XP and Vista on the exact same system with nothing changed between the two configurations. I wouldn't have bothered replying if I had upgraded anything after installing Vista.

This is not a blazing fast new system, either. It's a 2 year old Dell XPS Gen 4 with 2 GB RAM, 3.4 GHz P4, and the 512MB ATI X1900XTX mentioned earlier. We've got a similar system here as well (a little slower with a 3.0 GHz P4, 256MB X850XT PE) and it ran faster after upgrading from XP to Vista as well.

I upgraded to Vista when it was in beta. The only things I hated about it after ugprading were 1) A lot of my programs needed upgrading before they'd work right with the new OS; and 2) the infamous slow file copying problem. Problem number one is definitely fixed and problem number two is for the most part fixed with only once in a blue moon am I copying something & I don't feel like it should be going as fast as it should.

There are hundreds (dare I even say thousands?) of fixes, tweaks, and optimizations in Vista over XP that were all enacted behind the scenes where the user cannot see them. For all the whining about UAC and the other security features MS put into Vista usability aside, it's a more secure OS than XP. And no, SP3 for XP did *not* put XP's security on a level with Vista's.

For the home user, today there is no reason to install a Microsoft operating system than Vista, Home Server, or Server 2008. XP is a 5 year old OS. The people recommending a person install XP now are probably the same ones insisting people stay with Windows 98 SE when Windows XP was released.

To sum up, computing as a hobby is one that's very hard to stay up to date with due to the quickness that new things are released and updated. It's difficult enough to keep your PC current without handicapping yourself by installing a 5 year old OS that has one foot in the grave & Microsoft considers to be obsolete. Soon enough there will be software released that will not run on XP. It's just the way the industry works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheJian    0
I'd like to see some proof of that claim.

I'm not sure what you want to hear to satisfy this. I'll say that it's much tougher to write a driver that must BEND to DRM crap than without it in XP. If that's too complicated for you to understand I don't know what to tell you. However, here are a few links (jeez, just google "vista drm drivers xp" and you'll get a good ton of hits to read about difficulty writing for DRM infested vista overhead.

Here:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Read the drivers sections (hell, the whole thing on why Vista costs more period - working with DRM sucks for device makers).

http://www.drmblog.com/index.php?/archives...dows_Vista.html

More on working with the content protection crap. There's a ton of this out there, face it, driver makers now have to think about and write for something they never had to before. It's tougher to write a driver for it because of all the things you have to do to make it work with DRM and make Hollywood etc happy. DRM is why Vista will ALWAYS be slower in pretty much everything than XP. You can check the gaming benchmarks I posted above for that info. Talk about a slaughter. XP dominated.

Again, just google vista and drm and you'll get tons of hits. Imagine two people writing drivers. One doesn't have to care what people do with the hardware, all he has to do is make it work correctly and fast. The second guy has to worry about everything working correctly yes, but also has to worry about following all the rules MS foisted on them so that no laws could be broken with said hardware...LOL. AS if that was even possible to begin with. Now who do you think will finish first? That's simple isn't it? The guy with no worries. The second guy has all this crap to deal with. He has to stop HD audio/video from coming out of any ports etc. It's NOT simple. Not cheap. I'm surprised you need this explained to you. When you complicate things it costs MONEY. PERIOD. Google it.

PRO Audio guys in here going to xp64...LOL. Stating Vista sucks for audio (gee, drm?):

http://www.itwriting.com/blog/272-audio-in...han-heaven.html

and my favorite from Leo Laporte and STEVE GIBSON (the man!) inverviewing Peter Guttman (another stud! He's a security expert and wrote the 1st article I linked):

http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-074.htm

Note the comments about the COST of vista in there, and writing around all the DRM crap. I could go on and on but google it.

It costs more. Sorry.

What are you on? Vista blows XP away on a modern machine.

Umm...Did you read the benchmarks I pointed to? Latest hardware out tested a week ago, VISTA SUCKS compared to XP. You don't call a GTX280 or ATI 4870x2's modern? GTX260? All tests show Vista loses to XP on the same machines. Sorry, check the tweaktown articles (any with vid card tests, all this year...All the same...Vista loses badly).

Nuff said.

Point me to benchmarks showing both, and a vista victory. I'm waiting...You won't find one. Vista is SLOWER. SP1 didn't help it either...LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan    5,232
I'm not sure what you want to hear to satisfy this. I'll say that it's much tougher to write a driver that must BEND to DRM crap than without it in XP. If that's too complicated for you to understand I don't know what to tell you. However, here are a few links (jeez, just google "vista drm drivers xp" and you'll get a good ton of hits to read about difficulty writing for DRM infested vista overhead.

Here:

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Read the drivers sections (hell, the whole thing on why Vista costs more period - working with DRM sucks for device makers).

http://www.drmblog.com/index.php?/archives...dows_Vista.html

More on working with the content protection crap. There's a ton of this out there, face it, driver makers now have to think about and write for something they never had to before. It's tougher to write a driver for it because of all the things you have to do to make it work with DRM and make Hollywood etc happy. DRM is why Vista will ALWAYS be slower in pretty much everything than XP. You can check the gaming benchmarks I posted above for that info. Talk about a slaughter. XP dominated.

Again, just google vista and drm and you'll get tons of hits. Imagine two people writing drivers. One doesn't have to care what people do with the hardware, all he has to do is make it work correctly and fast. The second guy has to worry about everything working correctly yes, but also has to worry about following all the rules MS foisted on them so that no laws could be broken with said hardware...LOL. AS if that was even possible to begin with. Now who do you think will finish first? That's simple isn't it? The guy with no worries. The second guy has all this crap to deal with. He has to stop HD audio/video from coming out of any ports etc. It's NOT simple. Not cheap. I'm surprised you need this explained to you. When you complicate things it costs MONEY. PERIOD. Google it.

PRO Audio guys in here going to xp64...LOL. Stating Vista sucks for audio (gee, drm?):

http://www.itwriting.com/blog/272-audio-in...han-heaven.html

and my favorite from Leo Laporte and STEVE GIBSON (the man!) inverviewing Peter Guttman (another stud! He's a security expert and wrote the 1st article I linked):

http://www.grc.com/sn/SN-074.htm

Note the comments about the COST of vista in there, and writing around all the DRM crap. I could go on and on but google it.

It costs more. Sorry.

Umm...Did you read the benchmarks I pointed to? Latest hardware out tested a week ago, VISTA SUCKS compared to XP. You don't call a GTX280 or ATI 4870x2's modern? GTX260? All tests show Vista loses to XP on the same machines. Sorry, check the tweaktown articles (any with vid card tests, all this year...All the same...Vista loses badly).

Nuff said.

Point me to benchmarks showing both, and a vista victory. I'm waiting...You won't find one. Vista is SLOWER. SP1 didn't help it either...LOL.

Ok so to sum up your post for those that don't need to read all that text: You have no dea what you're talking about.

I think you should find some real facts and not listen to every "Vista sucks" internet rumour and "tests" by users who've never even seen a vista disk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheJian    0
on and OLDER system, yes xp is faster

but if you have a current system and you compare xp to vista, then vista wins. for my example, my system was absolute top of the line 2 years ago but vista boots faster and launches programs faster than xp on it. i've never had a slowdown on vista like i used to get on XP

you seriously think they make a new OS and have it be slower? you think there's been no optimization or coding techniques to make things run faster in the 5 years XP was out on the market?

Yes....It's slower...Look at the benchmarks I provided (and linked to, go read them yourself). I suppose you think WinME was great too eh? How about MS BOB...ROFL. Some things are duds. It happens in hardware too. Take a look at the intro to Barcy from AMD...Slower than the last chips at launch and still today...LOL. Or how about the first P4, beaten to a pulp by P3's until it past a few revs to 1.7ghz or so. You must work for MS, you sound like an ad for them...LOL. "I have no proof it's not a turd, and despite all evidence pointing to it being a turd, I'll just ask you if you actually think we could make a turd after 5 years of development?"...ROFL. Dear god man...Mistakes happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.