• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

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

Sign in to follow this  

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

Recommended Posts

JustGeorge    1,658
I haven't had a single issue with my Vista as far as problems, crashes or weird things is concerned. The only thing that annoys me is about is its performance compared to XP. I am sorry if this hurts some of your feelings, but XP is way faster than this piece of sh... Vista. Like I said before, its not going to get better until SP2 is released and for that we are gonna have to wait a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

What gives you the idea that SP2 for Vista will be the update that fixes everything? SP2 may have "done it" for XP but that was a different set of circumstances....

Anyway, I don't have any pressing issues with Vista now except for some idiotic usability choices MS made.

Edited by VRam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morphen    14
New operating systems usually require better hardware, people were saying these same things about xp.

ahh, yes, to good old days...august 2001... (anybody seeing the year? yes, XP IS 7 years old!)

"XP is the Fisherprice OS","XP is bloated", "XP won't run my games", "XP has 5 svchost.exe services, Win2k has 2!!! IT SUX",

"my parellellport scanner doesn't work, XP SUX!"

anybody who has more? these are the only one i can think of now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mr.r9    9

Guys.....This kind of discussion has been around for 2-3 years since Vista beta, although I am new to this form. Every Tech site had/has/will still have the same discussion of Vista vs. Xp. It's a matter of preference in the end. You like Vista (Gui-performance-OS in general) then use it, same applies for Xp. If it's a matter of "I like Vista's Gui but hate the performance" or vis versa then YOU should choose between the two (or alternatives for that matter). Nothing is absolute, each user has/had his own situation of both OS's.

In my case, I PREFERRED Vista sp1 since it gave me a good and reasonable performance out of my laptop (I felt a big difference between sp1 from the original vista). Yes Xp is better, but only in significant load (10 office documents+music+10 tabs in Firefox+.....), so in the end, the choice is up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morphen    14
I've wondered if Microsoft and Intel have an agreement, keep making your software larger and more resource hungry so we can continue to sell faster hardware.

oh, only intel, since you are thinking conspiracies, you would have to include GPU makers,HDD makers, ++

new os = higher requierments.

Why do always people walk around screaming conspiracies about software and hardware companies?

What about apple? should they just have stopped after making the first intel mac? "this is enough for all time"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KeeperOfThePizza    49
I learned a long time ago that just because something is old, doesn't mean you throw it away.

1. Yes Vista is pretty.

2. Yes Vista has its unique features.

3. Yes Vista is the ultimate in technology (although I think Ubuntu is way more advanced)

4. Yes Vista has its moments.

BUT

1. XP is faster in performance.

2. Has been around since 2001 so most of the bugs and problems have been fixed.

3. Has no issues with hardware drivers or software.

4. Can be made to look like Vista with the right tools.

5. Was hated and bashed and critisized just as much as Vista is right now.

My Point?

Give Microsoft a chance to fix Vista. It will get fixed, but it will take another service pack to do it, and of course more updates. Vista was thrown out the door before it was supposed to. Microsoft did not test the OS enough internally and hurried the product to us just to be ahead of the game...big mistake.

Before XP came out, I was using Windows 2000 and when XP finally came out, it took me 1 year and a half to switch to XP and I don't regret every bit of it. It took 1 year for me to dump XP and jump to Vista and I will be honest, sometimes I feel it was a mistake but then again, I thought the same thing about XP back in 2001.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ew2x4    4
So just because Windows 95 is "old", you should waste your money and power on XP?

QFT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aaron Olive    144

my vista works very well and i'm running vista ultimate SP1 and i disabled some services so it could boot faster and i'm running with 1Gb soon to be this week 4Gb then it will really fly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+warwagon    12,939

Fact of the matter is XP does everything that a normal individual needs to do in a nice fast and stable fashion. Thats the problem!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windam    0
Fact of the matter is XP does everything that a normal individual needs to do in a nice fast and stable fashion. Thats the problem!

lol QFT!

I remember all the hoopla XP was critisized for..

Time changes everything..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scorbing    517
What gives you the idea that SP2 for Vista will be the update that fixes everything? SP2 may have "done it" for XP but that was a different set of circumstances....

Anyway, I don't have any pressing issues with Vista now except for some idiotic usability choices MS made.

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.

my vista works very well and i'm running vista ultimate SP1 and i disabled some services so it could boot faster and i'm running with 1Gb soon to be this week 4Gb then it will really fly.

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

my vista works very well and i'm running vista ultimate SP1 and i disabled some services so it could boot faster and i'm running with 1Gb soon to be this week 4Gb then it will really fly.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustGeorge    1,658
Fact of the matter is XP does everything that a normal individual needs to do in a nice fast and stable fashion. Thats the problem!

Indeed. Honestly, the only reasons I moved to Vista are:

1. 64-bit support which squeezes a bit more power out of my PC for MAME :)

2. Sick of looking at XP

3. It was free (Power Together Promotion) and wanted to make use of it.

So basically, there wasn't a serious reason for me to upgrade at all and the same holds true for 99% of everyone out there. When people at work ask me about Vista, I tell them to be satisfied with XP until they get a new PC and then I promptly advise them to buy one with at least 2GB of RAM, a dedicated Video Card and Home Premium.

@Scorbing,

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.

When I said "fix everything" it was just a figure of speech. XPSP2 was a special case because XP had a ton of security issues that required some major overhauling to address. All SPs prior to SP2 were just basically rolled up patches. Vista was built with security in mind so this isn't an issue. Its far from perfect, but its not the same deal as it was with XP. I'm in agreement with you that they need to spend some serious time tweaking the performance issues that Vista suffers from.

Edited by VRam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
abcdefg    0
new os = higher requierments.

Why do always people walk around screaming conspiracies about software and hardware companies?

New OS = Ubuntu 7.10, runs better than XP on the same hardware.

Explain that.

New Micro$oft OS = Higher requirements

OEMs need to sell new hardware to make more money, Micro$oft needs OEMs to put Winblow$ in their crappy machines.

But of course the truth is that Vi$ta is just so advanced it needs more horsepower. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BajiRav    2,137

LOL. I really want to know how people who say XP is better than Vista use their computer. Vista beats XP in multitasking/memory management...hands down. I don't care if it boots 30 secs slow or takes longer to shutdown. I don't shutdown/reboot unless I have to. My Vista machines go for days without any slowdowns and even on heavily taxed machines Vista is very responsive. XP? not so much. (N)

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.

um_182500-90692-BloatwareGetaMac-1176603314_thumb2.jpg

Ironic that you have an Apple ad in that post (or your sign)...Leopard barely runs on my <4 year old iBook yet people assume that it is something magical. Wireless was unreliable (read: didn't work 99% of the time) and so on (I "upgraded" back to Tiger so to speak) ;) This when Apple knows the hardware inside out unlike Microsoft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scorbing    517
Indeed. Honestly, the only reasons I moved to Vista are:

1. 64-bit support which squeezes a bit more power out of my PC for MAME :)

2. Sick of looking at XP

3. It was free (Power Together Promotion) and wanted to make use of it.

So basically, there wasn't a serious reason for me to upgrade at all and the same holds true for 99% of everyone out there. When people at work ask me about Vista, I tell them to be satisfied with XP until they get a new PC and then I promptly advise them to buy one with at least 2GB of RAM, a dedicated Video Card and Home Premium.

@Scorbing,

When I said "fix everything" it was just a figure of speech. XPSP2 was a special case because XP had a ton of security issues that required some major overhauling to address. All SPs prior to SP2 were just basically rolled up patches. Vista was built with security in mind so this isn't an issue. Its far from perfect, but its not the same deal as it was with XP. I'm in agreement with you that they need to spend some serious time tweaking the performance issues that Vista suffers from.

VRam,

You are right. Vista is more secure than XP. That is why I like it. I do hate the performance of it which is why I hope MS concentrate their efforts in fixing the speed and performance issues soon, other than that I have no real problems with it. As far as games goes, all I care about is Halo and it runs like a charm. All my appz run fine. I am really hoping MS releases PowerToys for Vista soon and give us the options to tweak it a bit more to our taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustGeorge    1,658

Problem is they'll more than likely make the power toys an "Ultimate Extra" just to say they're making extras for it :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lee G.    234

I've been using Vista, and it's been great. The only thing I don't like about it is the UI. Sure, it looks good, but the feeling soon wore off for me; and Classic looks pretty awful, and is buggy. I dislike how menus and so forth take up more screen space than those on XP. And I know I'm in the minority, but I like XP's default interface (well, both Luna and Classic). And there is a general sense of things being a little bit slower on Vista (I'm mostly talking about opening apps, closing and minimizing) - whether that's the placebo effect or not, I do not know. I guess the Aero effects distort the impression. That may seem minor I guess, but it's just that I like XP's simplicity. But in terms of usability, security and general performance, Vista is great. I think I might be dual booting though, so I can get the best of both worlds. I'll try and install XP sometime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scorbing    517
I've been using Vista, and it's been great. The only thing I don't like about it is the UI. Sure, it looks good, but the feeling soon wore off for me; and Classic looks pretty awful, and is buggy. I dislike how menus and so forth take up more screen space than those on XP. And I know I'm in the minority, but I like XP's default interface (well, both Luna and Classic). And there is a general sense of things being a little bit slower on Vista (I'm mostly talking about opening apps, closing and minimizing) - whether that's the placebo effect or not, I do not know. I guess the Aero effects distort the impression. That may seem minor I guess, but it's just that I like XP's simplicity. But in terms of usability, security and general performance, Vista is great. I think I might be dual booting though, so I can get the best of both worlds. I'll try and install XP sometime soon.

I will agree with you that the classic UI on Vista is buggy. It responds slow. Amazingly enough, the Aero UI responds faster!!!....LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tsupersonic    1,793

I dual boot Vista/XP on some "older" hardware, but both OS's are very smooth (this laptop has integrated gfx, single core processor).

I sincerely doubt XP SP3 is "twice as fast" as Vista (even SP1).

This is just another boring Vista bashing article. :yawn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,460
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.

um_182500-90692-BloatwareGetaMac-1176603314_thumb2.jpg

As much as some folks (like the writers of the article and most Vista-bashers) are so stoked about XP's speed, I didn't move to Vista for speed reasons (any more than I moved to XP for speed reasons from Windows 2000 Professional). I moved to Windows Vista for reasons of operating-system *security*. There are vulnerabilities in Windows XP that will *remain* in XP, even after SP3 ships, due to the operating system's design (just as there are flaws that remain in Windows 2000, after Service Pack 4, that Windows XP never suffered from).

Operating-system speed doesn't mean crap without security; and neither matters worth a darn without application and hardware support. Linux, while plenty secure, lacks application support (compared to either XP or Vista). OS X? Commits the cardinal sin of being designed as a closed OS (hacks that allow it to run on more hardware are just that; hacks). As good as Windows XP is (remember, I came to Vista from XP, and on the same hardware, pretty much), it had (and still has) serious issues on the OS security front (especially driver behavior) that no amount of service packs and patches will ever be able to address (because the problem is, quite literally, part of the operating system's design; it was why Vista was moved *away* from the XP codebase to the Server 2003 SP1/R2 codebase in the first place).

I do not want to settle for a less-secure operating system, and with Vista, I don't have to. Even better, I give up nothing in terms of application support, either. (And I don't have new hardware; except for graphics and sound, which were bought by me since Vista, though both actually date back to the OS' launch, the system dates back to prior to MCE 2005. And, for the record, *none* of my hardware upgrades were Vista-driven, and there have only been three; boot drive [increased storage space], graphics [failure], and monitor [acquired larger CRT for $0].)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ToastedJellyBowl    1

Microsoft lacks 64bit support for Windows XP. They are saying "long time until 64bit SP3 for Windows XP"; Windows Live OneCare doesn't have 64bit Windows XP support--it only has 64bit support for Windows Vista; Windows XP 64bit does not have DVD-RW support; and 32bit only reads up to 2.5GB of memory--everything I've thrown at my computer with Windows Vista runs smooth as silk, so do I really want to gimp myself just for a few FPS?

What it boils down to is this: If you are having problems with Windows Vista then you're doing something wrong. With a new, next generation operating system, also comes more needed resources and higher minimum requirements. Windows Vista ran horrible on my old system, but on my newly upgraded system, it runs like a dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lyric    14
God, Windows XP is so old now. GET-OVER-IT!

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

My hardware is good enough for Vista, but will I ever upgrade to it? No, because Windows XP SP3 blows it out of the water even with both running on the same "awesome ****ing hardware".

XP > Vista.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Julius Caro    55

Vista has so many annoying things it's not even funny. I do use vista on all my computers now, basically, but still. It's as if it doesnt work the same way on all of them. I guess many things is because of the drivers. But not even with NT and the 95/98 branch were there that many problems with drivers. Sure, there needed to be different drivers for both platforms, but still, things either worked or didn't, instead of delivering a dreadful performance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JustGeorge    1,658
I will agree with you that the classic UI on Vista is buggy. It responds slow. Amazingly enough, the Aero UI responds faster!!!....LOL

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikee99    0

Ok, I did not read the majority of comments here, but from what I read, it really annoyed me.

Anything that has the words: "Devil Mountain Software", "OfficeBench", and "http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/" should be completely dis-regarded and thrown out the window.

For 1.) OfficeBench does not measure real world performance.

2.) Devil Mountain Software is known for providing very unfar, and un-equal testing. For example, when they first came out with their claims, they compared Vista running Office 2007 against XP running Office 2003. They didn't tell anyone that they did that at first. Yet, the internet went in an uproar that Vista SP1 was a "performance dud". Let's not forget that this test only performs unrealistic operations in MS Office, and nothing with the actual OS.

3.) Devil Mountain Software is using the anti-Vista press as leverage for their own product.

4.) Windows XP SP3 does NOT contain any performance improvements over SP2. Ask anyone who used it. If you are all expecting a performance boost out of SP3, then you will be VERY disappointed.

Not much more I need to say other than after using Vista and XP on the same hardware, Vista (for me) performs exactly on par with XP for all the applications I use. That also includes games.

Not only that, but this is really quite old news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,460
Read the specs on the test computer: "1gb of ram"

This benchmark is useless for me. I'm not running Vista on an old machine.

I actually *do* run Vista (Ultimate x86 with SP1, in fact) on an *old* machine (designed originally around Windows XP, not Vista); however, it runs Vista just fine (and not appreciably slower than XP). While it *is* slower than XP, it is not enough to offset the security gains that Vista has over XP.

CPU: Pentium 4 2.6 Northwood-C (dates back to 2004)

RAM: 1.5 GB

Motherboard: ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe (also dates back to 2004)

Graphics: ATI Radeon X1650PRO AGP (dates back to 2007; replaced failed ATI AIW 9700 Pro, also AGP)

Audio: Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer (two weeks old; replaced Audigy 2 ZS Gamer, which is now in mom's PC, which runs the same OS)

No, I don't run Crysis. However, I *do* run Supreme Commander (and the Forged Alliance expansion), Sins of a Solar Empire, C&C 3 (and almost certainly will add Kane's Wrath later on), Office 2007 Ultimate SP1, C&C Generals (and the Zero Hour expansion for that). What keeps me from adding even more applications and games isn't hardware or operating system capability, but lack of hard drive space. I uninstalled GalCiv II Gold to make room for SINS, for example.

I like new hardware as much as anyone. However, I operate within something called a *budget*, which does not permit wholesale upgrades these days (instead, I have to upgrade piecemeal). However, the upgrades I have made had nothing to do with Vista (in short, not one upgrade has been OS-driven). However, I find that benchmark not only equally useless, but largely pointless, as it solely addresses speed tradeoffs (and I have already said that my upgrade to Vista was not speed-driven). Equallly important (if not more important, when it gets down to it) as speed are the factors of operating system security and operating system stability (which some actually see as part of security) all other factors (such as hardware and application support) being equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.