Windows XP SP3 Twice as Fast as Windows Vista – Leaves Vista SP1 in t

[PGHammer]

I think the buggy nature of classic UI is caused by the fact they decided for whatever reason to remove GDI acceleration from Vista.

Windows Server 2003 SP1/R2 lacks GDI acceleration because it is a *server OS*. It is also the codebase for Windows Vista.

Also, Vista (in all its iterations) and Server 2003 lack the driver issues present in Windows XP (on common hardware) because things that are not only permissible, but *expected* in Windows XP's driver model, are barred in the driver models in Server 2003, Server 2008, and Vista. Also, how many of Windows XP's many early graphical driver woes were caused by faulty writes to the GDI acceleration layer?

Given equal acceleration support (and so far, other than utility applications, I have not run into a single application or game that will run in XP but won't in Vista) why should I be forced to give up security for performance? While XP *does* force exactly that tradeoff, Vista does not, even on older hardware.

[JustGeorge]

Windows Server 2003 SP1/R2 lacks GDI acceleration because it is a *server OS*. It is also the codebase for Windows Vista.

Also, Vista (in all its iterations) and Server 2003 lack the driver issues present in Windows XP (on common hardware) because things that are not only permissible, but *expected* in Windows XP's driver model, are barred in the driver models in Server 2003, Server 2008, and Vista. Also, how many of Windows XP's many early graphical driver woes were caused by faulty writes to the GDI acceleration layer?

Given equal acceleration support (and so far, other than utility applications, I have not run into a single application or game that will run in XP but won't in Vista) why should I be forced to give up security for performance? While XP *does* force exactly that tradeoff, Vista does not, even on older hardware.

So you're basically saying there was no way to accelerate the Classic GUI without compromising security? They could've used features that even older cards possessed to to speed the UI up.

[Aaron Olive]

I never said Vista SP2 will fix everything, but it will fix most of the annoying issues just like SP2 did for XP and no, it is not a different set of circumstances because they are both the same. One just has more eye candy and features than the other so it shouldn't take MS much effort to find and fix its bugs, especially when people like us are using it and testing it everyday and sending them input. 1 year from now I estimate SP2 will come out and it will fix a lot of things and even speed it up.

4GB of RAM won't do you any good on Vista 32bit my friend. Don't waste your money. Stick with 3GB.

Hey what services did you disable? I am curious. Please tell us.

I am using 64 bit on an AMD Turion 2.00Ghz processor and as to what services i have disabled i have disabled alot of stuff have a look

[Scorbing]

I am using 64 bit on an AMD Turion 2.00Ghz processor and as to what services i have disabled i have disabled alot of stuff have a look

Hey by disabling those services you show me there, are you still able to play games online, browse, email and use Media Player?

[LUTZIFER]

Old doesn't mean a thing if it still works fine, newer isn't always better. I have GOOD hardware yet I don't use vista

Exactly. Vista may look better, kinda, but definitely ain't better than XP. But then again, is pretty easy to make XP look exactly like Vista. So then ya got Vista look, without the millions of bugs.

I have a friend that bought a new laptop, with Vista Ultimate, and he formatted and put XP on it, cuz Vista blew. Was no good for his heavy duty gaming. After awhile, he set up a dualboot, but very seldom even boots into Vista.

I don't plan on upgrading to Vista. XP rocks, so why change.

Besides, there's probably millions of people still running Windows 98, lol

Also, people saying... get a new computer, buy better hardware, etc. etc. I bet Vista will run on almost anything old anyways.

I had XP on a 450 mhz comp, and it absolutely rocked with XP. Faster and better on resources than when it originally had Win 98.

[Aaron Olive]

Absolutely positively yes you can but if you use media sharing don't disable the extender service or the WMP sharing service but you will notice that your computer will definitely run faster so try it.

[soldier1st]

after awhile xp would slow down for no reason while vista does not and changing services in vista is a bad idea as it will cause problems,also xp is old and to me vista runs better than xp did but of course i leave vista alone to do it's thing,service packs are not meant to add speed only to fix things.

[teka]

God, Windows XP is so old now. GET-OVER-IT!

Buy yourself GOOD hardware and you wont have any problems with Windows Vista.

Amen!

[Aaron Olive]

after awhile xp would slow down for no reason while vista does not and changing services in vista is a bad idea as it will cause problems,also xp is old and to me vista runs better than xp did but of course i leave vista alone to do it's thing,service packs are not meant to add speed only to fix things.

changing services in vista is not a bad idea IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR DOING it actually speeds up the computer. by disabling the services that you don't use frees up memory and reduces cpu usage and speeds up login and boot times.

[frogger]

this is probably already resolved, but i skimmed through the thread and saw people saying that comparing xp and vista on "old" hardware is not fair.

Are you trying to tell me that vista should not be backwards compatible?

If you're going to make a new OS and tell people its better than what they have, then you should make it better than what they have. not better after buying new equiptment or upgrading things.

Just my 2 cents, and for the record, i have used XP, server 2003 and vista.

[LUTZIFER]

Well there's always gotta be some n00bs, dissin somethin old to them, lol.

Like someone satarting off with their cool new PC or laptop, with Vista, thinkin it's the ****, and everything older is crap. Oh well.

[DELTETHISACCOUNT]

Windows Vista...

[Scorbing]

Absolutely positively yes you can but if you use media sharing don't disable the extender service or the WMP sharing service but you will notice that your computer will definitely run faster so try it.

Tried it and so far, Vista is working fine. 32 processes running - compared to 48 before. Its running much better. Not as slow as before. More memory available.

[Aaron Olive]

Tried it and so far, Vista is working fine. 32 processes running - compared to 48 before. Its running much better. Not as slow as before. More memory available.

i told ya it would work :rolleyes:

[Iridium]

Vista turns good hardware into old hardware. You need good hardware to get the performance in Vista you'd get with XP, Linux or OS X with old hardware. Clearly there is a problem with Vista that these other OSes do not have.

Ill tell you to do one thing, look at the hardware specs of a leopard machine. OSX is as bad as vista and definately does not come under the banner of XP or linux in performance.

[dewaaz]

what I don't get is that say if computers are 6x faster than they were 7 years ago (when XP reared its head), then why isn't my computer 6x faster?

or say to be conservative, 4x faster?

XP performs certain functions. Vista SUPPOSEDLY performs the same functions, but better. So this means Vista should be faster (even if only slightly) than XP.

Sure Vista might have 'more features', but for the average person who types documents, listens to music, plays games and stuff, they use the same 'features' they could have had in XP.

Now if Vista was supposed to rework and improve on XP's ability to do these things, why isn't Vista at least 2x as fast as XP? Remember, it does the SAME THINGS XP does, and it's meant to do them BETTER and in an IMPROVED way.

So it shouldn't just match XP, but go one up and be FASTER.

The people who say Vista is fine have been hoodwinked into thinking NO LAG = FINE.

Which is NOT TRUE. If XP was 60% efficient with resources, and Vista is 80% efficient, then Vista should be able to do more in less time - PLUS you add on to this fact with the point that computers are like 4x faster than they were in 2001.

THIS is the problem. No lag does not mean OK. What it means is that all the advancements in computer speed over the last 7 years have been POINTLESS... because as soon as we make computers faster, we find something else to keep them functioning at the same speed for the last 7 years.

And don't tell me "OMG Vista does so much more than XP (btw... get new hardware)"

Last time I checked, Vista lets me type documents, play games, listen to music... same sorta crap I was doing 7 years ago. Except I'm doing it with an OS that has eaten up all the speed increases that have been made in the last 7 years.

I can't wait for ANOTHER 7 years, when DESPITE faster hardware, we're still looking at 40-60 second boot times, and a responsiveness in general use similar to what we have now. Pathetic. Until Vista starts cooking me dinner, I won't accept the excuse that "it does more". I do the same crap I did 7 years ago and I don't WANT it to do more. I want it to do the same things, but faster.

And XP is the closest we have come to that ideal situation so far. Maybe SP3 will or will not improve performance, but at least it doesn't fool me into thinking that getting more of the same is somehow magically better.

/end rant

[NEVER85]

I had to laugh at these "XP is better than Vista" comments. Guaranteed 90% of you clowns never actually used Vista and are going by some year old article you read online.

[Scorbing]

what I don't get is that say if computers are 6x faster than they were 7 years ago (when XP reared its head), then why isn't my computer 6x faster?

or say to be conservative, 4x faster?

XP performs certain functions. Vista SUPPOSEDLY performs the same functions, but better. So this means Vista should be faster (even if only slightly) than XP.

Sure Vista might have 'more features', but for the average person who types documents, listens to music, plays games and stuff, they use the same 'features' they could have had in XP.

Now if Vista was supposed to rework and improve on XP's ability to do these things, why isn't Vista at least 2x as fast as XP? Remember, it does the SAME THINGS XP does, and it's meant to do them BETTER and in an IMPROVED way.

So it shouldn't just match XP, but go one up and be FASTER.

The people who say Vista is fine have been hoodwinked into thinking NO LAG = FINE.

Which is NOT TRUE. If XP was 60% efficient with resources, and Vista is 80% efficient, then Vista should be able to do more in less time - PLUS you add on to this fact with the point that computers are like 4x faster than they were in 2001.

THIS is the problem. No lag does not mean OK. What it means is that all the advancements in computer speed over the last 7 years have been POINTLESS... because as soon as we make computers faster, we find something else to keep them functioning at the same speed for the last 7 years.

And don't tell me "OMG Vista does so much more than XP (btw... get new hardware)"

Last time I checked, Vista lets me type documents, play games, listen to music... same sorta crap I was doing 7 years ago. Except I'm doing it with an OS that has eaten up all the speed increases that have been made in the last 7 years.

I can't wait for ANOTHER 7 years, when DESPITE faster hardware, we're still looking at 40-60 second boot times, and a responsiveness in general use similar to what we have now. Pathetic. Until Vista starts cooking me dinner, I won't accept the excuse that "it does more". I do the same crap I did 7 years ago and I don't WANT it to do more. I want it to do the same things, but faster.

And XP is the closest we have come to that ideal situation so far. Maybe SP3 will or will not improve performance, but at least it doesn't fool me into thinking that getting more of the same is somehow magically better.

/end rant

+1....You got my vote.

[Randolph]

I have a Vista SP1 disc right here....but I dont feel like siting here and backing up 50 gigs of music onto DVD-R's. Until then its XP SP2/SP3. :no:

damnit lol :s

[Aaron Olive]

I have a Vista SP1 disc right here....but I dont feel like siting here and backing up 50 gigs of music onto DVD-R's. Until then its XP SP2/SP3. :no:

damnit lol :s

use an external drive best buy got a western digital 320 for $99 on sale

[waruikoohii]

Wait, people take Devil Mountain seriously? I thought everybody knew their benchmarking scripts were highly flawed.

[frogger]

I have a Vista SP1 disc right here....but I dont feel like siting here and backing up 50 gigs of music onto DVD-R's. Until then its XP SP2/SP3. :no:

damnit lol :s

its called partitions...

[waruikoohii]

Windows Server 2003 SP1/R2 lacks GDI acceleration because it is a *server OS*. It is also the codebase for Windows Vista.

Also, Vista (in all its iterations) and Server 2003 lack the driver issues present in Windows XP (on common hardware) because things that are not only permissible, but *expected* in Windows XP's driver model, are barred in the driver models in Server 2003, Server 2008, and Vista. Also, how many of Windows XP's many early graphical driver woes were caused by faulty writes to the GDI acceleration layer?

Given equal acceleration support (and so far, other than utility applications, I have not run into a single application or game that will run in XP but won't in Vista) why should I be forced to give up security for performance? While XP *does* force exactly that tradeoff, Vista does not, even on older hardware.

Server 2003 includes GDI acceleration. That's why the interface doesn't lag to hell and back.

You just need to install a graphics driver and enable acceleration in Display Properties. It is disabled by default for stability reasons. Most servers aren't used as workstations, and as such, graphical acceleration isn't a big deal. It just adds another point of possible instability.

Vista also includes GDI acceleration. It doesn't use it if it can use DWM, but again, there's a reason why Vista's UI doesn't lag to hell and back when not using DWM.

[Mikee99]

Wait, people take Devil Mountain seriously? I thought everybody knew their benchmarking scripts were highly flawed.

Don't bother using logic, it's obviously not working with the majority of posters in this thread.

[Doli]

THIS is the problem. No lag does not mean OK. What it means is that all the advancements in computer speed over the last 7 years have been POINTLESS... because as soon as we make computers faster, we find something else to keep them functioning at the same speed for the last 7 years.

Or find a way for computers to do more then they could seven years ago at a decent speed.

Last time I checked, Vista lets me type documents, play games, listen to music... same sorta crap I was doing 7 years ago. Except I'm doing it with an OS that has eaten up all the speed increases that have been made in the last 7 years.

The loss of speed might just be your hardware setup because Vista flies on my PC. As soon as the OS loads up into explorer I can go straight to IE7, on XP using the same hardware I had to wait around for IE7 to load up.