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

[zhangm Supervisor]

Vista is not bad. It works well for me.

[Scorbing]

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.

OK so if it includes GDI acceleration, why is the classic interface so laggy? it GDI turned off? If it is, how can it be turned on?

[Brandon Live Veteran]

OK so if it includes GDI acceleration, why is the classic interface so laggy? it GDI turned off? If it is, how can it be turned on?

GDI hardware acceleration is only enabled if you use an XP-style video driver. Vista drivers (WDDM) do not support GDI acceleration. However, you're unlikely to notice the difference, except that WDDM drivers are more reliable/robust and provide higher quality output.

Frankly, we should be moving away from GDI, not wasting time re-implementing hardware acceleration.

[Scorbing]

GDI hardware acceleration is only enabled if you use an XP-style video driver. Vista drivers (WDDM) do not support GDI acceleration. However, you're unlikely to notice the difference, except that WDDM drivers are more reliable/robust and provide higher quality output.

Frankly, we should be moving away from GDI, not wasting time re-implementing hardware acceleration.

I understand Vista Basic uses GDI acceleration.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvi...ff_basic_ux.asp

[Brandon Live Veteran]

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.

Vista is doing a lot more. Not only is it more secure, reliable, and robust - but it's simply doing more. You have shadow copy making backups of all your stuff and having your system state. You have indexing giving you a much greater shell experience and lightning fast searches. You have a lot of new APIs to support better software and new integration points.

You have anti-malware built-in, background optimizations (defragging and such), logging for diagnostic purposes. You have greater memory usage to support cool and useful features like window previews / thumbnails, animations, and so on. You have architectural changes like the rewritten display, network, and audio stacks - which in some cases do sacrifice a bit in terms of performance/resource usage in exchange for larger gains in reliability, security, and ease-of-use.

Sometimes OS releases need to push the hardware envelope a bit. Yes, it helps sell new PCs, which is good for OEMs and the industry. But doing that also helps drive down the cost of higher-end machines (and CPUs, RAM, etc), which is good for consumers. Windows 95 did it. Windows 2000 did. Vista is doing it now. It is the way of things.

I understand Vista Basic uses GDI acceleration.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvi...ff_basic_ux.asp

As I said, only with an XDDM driver.

[dewaaz]

Vista is doing a lot more. Not only is it more secure, reliable, and robust - but it's simply doing more. You have shadow copy making backups of all your stuff and having your system state. You have indexing giving you a much greater shell experience and lightning fast searches. You have a lot of new APIs to support better software and new integration points.

Brandon, I get your point... BUT I must say in testing out Vista I've disabled indexing, which uses a HUGE amount of resources, as well as disabling volume shadow copy, and a few other non-critical services. There is defnitely an improvement, but that still leaves me with a problem.

around 6 years ago when i used XP for the first time, it was OK. say for the sake of comparison, i would give it (back then) a 'responsiveness' score of 6.5-7 (nowadays with SP2/3, it would be about an 8 - but that's irrelevant for now).

now 6 years later, i actually tried out vista (and have been for a couple of months now, and a couple of weeks with SP1).

i would give it a 7-7.5 out of 10 for resonsiveness.

now the problem is this - if we talk about computer hardware as if they were engines, and we give computers 6 years ago a horsepower rating of 100, then computers today should be around 400HP (about 4 times as fast).

Now Vista is using 300HP more than XP was those days, yet it still feels ROUGHLY the same.

And you say this is because Vista does 'more'???

What does Vista do 'more' of? Seriously, I'm curious. I mean, exclude UI enhancements, which really are just better ways of laying out buttons, having more intuitive layouts and more features behind the scenes that I will never know are there, or that I never needed. I don't think UAC uses up much in the way of resources

Also, I think an important point is this - Vista might do things differently, but that doesn't mean it needs more processor power to do it... not necessarily. Increased efficiency through new designs and improvements should roughly weigh out increases in resources needed, and if not, then the differences should be relatively minimal.

so you have an extra 300HP and Vista lets me do 'roughly' the same things XP did so many years ago... except it does it 'prettier'.

Now you tell me if having things more pretty justifies using 300HP more, when I could do the same stuff on a 100HP engine.

If BMW released a new car that drank up 4 times as much petrol but hit the same top speeds (maybe even 5% slower) as a model they had released 7 years prior, the car world would go nuts.

LOL and BMW would counter their criticisms by saying "well, it has electronic cup holders, rain sensing wipers and xenon headlights - OF COURSE it needs a 400% bigger engine! how can it go faster when we need the power from the bigger engine to drive these new features!"

(note my point - nobody needs those fancy new features - they're nice to have, but not at such a high cost... which is the same situation with vista. some nice new features and improvements... but only fancy stuff, no meaty revolutionary improvements... yet we still need heaps more power for these tiny improvements)

now you tell me that that's good car design :rolleyes:

Edited March 5, 2008 by dewaaz

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Brandon, I get your point... BUT I must say in testing out Vista I've disabled indexing, which uses a HUGE amount of resources, as well as disabling volume shadow copy, and a few other non-critical services. There is defnitely an improvement, but that still leaves me with a problem.

The indexer does not use a significant amount of resources on any relatively modern machine. What led you to believe otherwise?

Now Vista is using 300HP more than XP was those days, yet it still feels ROUGHLY the same.

That's simply not true. The performance difference between XP and Vista on a baseline machine is pretty small. If things feel "roughly the same" on the same hardware - that means that both XP and Vista are using 400HP on that machine. Your attempt at an analogy doesn't even begin to make sense. Let me try to fix it:

The reason it's not faster is the same reason that a 100HP car from 2008 is usually a lot slower than a 100HP car from 20 years ago. That's because the car from 2008 is heavier, but it's safer, more comfortable, and can go a lot farther without needing a tune-up. So most people would prefer to have the 2008 model. Of course, an "average" car like a Camry or Civic now comes with more HP, so on the whole things are faster. Same with computers. A $600 PC running Vista today is several times faster than a $600 PC running XP five years ago.

The comparison you're making between XP and Vista seems to be just like saying you want to pay full price for a 2008 Accord, throw out everything but the engine, and put it inside your 1988 Accord... because it's faster than using the new one as it comes.

[SweetRiverBaynes]

Vista has been working perfect for me for about 5 Months now. I dual-boot Vista and XP and run some DJ software that doesn't work well in Vista. I have no problem switching if need be. With most of what I do I Vista. I will soon though be having a Vista/XP/MacOSx86/Ubuntu Quad-boot. I'll be invincible!

[Neoauld]

-1

I shouldn't have to buy a new graphics card, a better CPU, and more ram just to install an operating system. XP is just fine. And for the sake of this conversation, i'm running Vista SP1.

you're shouldnt be allowed to own a PC

that point is just plain stupid

vista is a newer OS, that looks better and has new capabilities

do you while and complain when newer videogames require a better cpu and videocard

do yous till run your 486?

im so sick of the vista bashers who know nothing of what theyer talking about

its obvious it will be slower at some things on the same hardware, its newer, the question really is whether its 'slow' to the user. Vista for me, does everything i want FAST, video editting and everything included

it actually uses my quad core alot better than xp did as well

I dont care about office bench and other things like that, cause as a user, it does what i want right away

if you sit and cry about benchmarks youll never enjoy using your pc.

[rootwiler]

I am running sp3, running really good. can't complain at all. I have vista dual booted, never use it though. ;p

[dewaaz]

If things feel "roughly the same" on the same hardware - that means that both XP and Vista are using 400HP on that machine.

That's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying 6 years ago, I would have given XP (on OLD hardware available 6 years ago) a responsiveness score 6.5-7.

And I know this because when testing Vista, I actually did install XP RTM on a reference Athlon XP 1700, then added anti-virus, a firewall and a few other apps. You know what? It wasn't bad! And it felt reasonably responsive. This on a 6 year old machine.

Now Vista feels 'roughly the same' - a newer OS on a newer PC. Go figure. I would have thought an 'improved' OS and faster hardware would result in huge performance gains... logic doesn't stand up to the reality test in this case. Now I know with the comparison, Vista could be pushed further, of course on newer hardware. But with general use, there is no large increase in 'snappiness' that should come with a 400% increase in raw power.

So I see your point, but my analogy WAS correct, and my claim still stands.

The reason it's not faster is the same reason that a 100HP car from 2008 is usually a lot slower than a 100HP car from 20 years ago. That's because the car from 2008 is heavier, but it's safer, more comfortable, and can go a lot farther without needing a tune-up. So most people would prefer to have the 2008 model.

Well I don't know what the cars are like in Redmond, but where I come from, there have been improvements in cars. Cars here are LIGHTER than they used to be, and improvements in technology have meant that with SMALLER and MORE efficient engines, they can perform equal to, if not BETTER than old cars.

This is because redesign and innovation has brought more efficient ways of performing the same function - the whole 'things get better as time goes on' concept.

Now why doesn't the same sort of thing happen with OS's? In this case we actually HAVE bigger engines (faster PCs), but there seems to be nothing to show for it, in terms of performance.

You hear about the kind of thing I'm talking about in the car industry all the time. A car manufacturer might claim that an engine redesign has resulted in in 10% more torque, 5% higher top speed while using 3% less petrol. This happens because old designs are looked at and IMPROVED. New sports cars can reach the same or higher top speeds with smaller engines, because technology increases and innovation results in new ways to do things, new ways which are better.

Now why didn't that happen with Vista? Why were old things looked at, and not changed so they operated better? All we got were new features which needed more resources - but no efficiency gains.

I think perhaps this is the trouble with the whole thing - with time, you can't just keep adding on things just because you're able to. You have to redesign things, rethink concepts and implement them so that new revised designs make better use of resources.

Yet everything about Vista that increases functionality results in increased resource usage... new features do NOT have to result in increased resource usage.

I mean if this claim about new things in Vista really is true, then Windows 7 will be much the same - and yet when that comes out, most people might still only be typing emails, watching youtube, playing games, browsing the net - yet on the path it's heading, MS will add on a ton more 'features' and 'rewrite' things - which will result in even MORE resource usage. Vista was supposedly meant to take advantage of newer hardware - but all it's done it taken advantage of it to increase the number of features supported, features most people don't need. It didn't take advantage of newer hardware to increase speed, which is a shame, and an an important point.

When something is taken out and replaced by something better, it CAN be smaller. It doesn't ALWAYS have to be bigger. Yet everything replaced in XP has been made bigger in Vista. If car manufacturers can do better, why can't MS?

[Erich]

you're shouldnt be allowed to own a PC

that point is just plain stupid

vista is a newer OS, that looks better and has new capabilities

do you while and complain when newer videogames require a better cpu and videocard

do yous till run your 486?

im so sick of the vista bashers who know nothing of what theyer talking about

its obvious it will be slower at some things on the same hardware, its newer, the question really is whether its 'slow' to the user. Vista for me, does everything i want FAST, video editting and everything included

it actually uses my quad core alot better than xp did as well

I dont care about office bench and other things like that, cause as a user, it does what i want right away

if you sit and cry about benchmarks youll never enjoy using your pc.

At this point (about 6 years ago) in Windows XP lifecycle, comparisons were still being drawn between Windows 98 and Windows XP. The big difference then was that XP (a better looking operating system) was also overtaking Windows 98 on the performance end of the spectrum. Obviously Microsoft failed to develop enough, if any, improved efficiency for this ailing operating system. There should have been included features that would improve the way we compute... and yes, there are a couple apps that come with Vista that are "nice"... but at work, I am required to be profficient with XP, Vista, OSX and ubuntu... aside from playing around with OSX, my preferred OS for a working environment is definitely XP... I would almost rather install Ubuntu than Vista, and I hate Ubuntu.

EDIT: BTW I should mention that I am a performance ######. I'm the type of person that won't run an Anti-virus because it slows my machine down too much. I know every service, process, and background application that is running on my computer, understand why it's running, and choose if it should run or not (and for this reason, I really don't need an anti-virus). I stuck with windows 98 for about 1.5 years after XP was released because of the performance gains. A large reason for XPs success was because of the rapid migration and (eventual) superior driver support. So take my opinion for what it is.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Erich

[Brandon Live Veteran]

That's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying 6 years ago, I would have given XP (on OLD hardware available 6 years ago) a responsiveness score 6.5-7.

And I know this because when testing Vista, I actually did install XP RTM on a reference Athlon XP 1700, then added anti-virus, a firewall and a few other apps. You know what? It wasn't bad! And it felt reasonably responsive. This on a 6 year old machine.

Now Vista feels 'roughly the same' - a newer OS on a newer PC. Go figure. I would have thought an 'improved' OS and faster hardware would result in huge performance gains... logic doesn't stand up to the reality test in this case. Now I know with the comparison, Vista could be pushed further, of course on newer hardware. But with general use, there is no large increase in 'snappiness' that should come with a 400% increase in raw power.

That's ridiculous. A modern machine running XP is much faster than a machine from 6 years ago. It's not even close. And running Vista is by-and-large the same as running XP, performance-wise (depending on the task).

Well I don't know what the cars are like in Redmond, but where I come from, there have been improvements in cars. Cars here are LIGHTER than they used to be, and improvements in technology have meant that with SMALLER and MORE efficient engines, they can perform equal to, if not BETTER than old cars.

You obviously don't know much about cars. The current Accord, for example, weighs about 1,300 lbs more than the original 2,000 lb Accord. Much of the year-to-year increase we keep seeing in most cars is due to government regulations and insurance-company-provoked safety improvements.

Now why doesn't the same sort of thing happen with OS's? In this case we actually HAVE bigger engines (faster PCs), but there seems to be nothing to show for it, in terms of performance.

This is where you're clearly confused. Yes, engines have gotten faster, but cars really haven't (except at higher price points). The current base Accord LX is 177HP and does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds, almost exactly the same as the 125HP Accord LX from 1992.

Now why didn't that happen with Vista? Why were old things looked at, and not changed so they operated better? All we got were new features which needed more resources - but no efficiency gains.

But there are tons of performance fixes in Vista. But just like in the Accord, the efficiency gains are easily offset by the added "weight" of additional features, safety, and reliability improvements.

I think perhaps this is the trouble with the whole thing - with time, you can't just keep adding on things just because you're able to. You have to redesign things, rethink concepts and implement them so that new revised designs make better use of resources.

That's why Vista was essentially a rewrite of huge sections of Windows, especially at the core / kernel layers. But the emphasis was on clean architecture, security, reliability, and robustness. In the past, those things were sacrificed for performance (like having the display driver run in the kernel).

[Crazysah]

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.

damnit lol

Put it on an external hard drive?

Also... yeah Vista works very well for me. No problems..

[kouhii00]

how the hell can you compare cars(mechanical engineers) to software/hardware coding(computer science/engineers), two completely different/unrelated field.....

[andy2004]

* raises hand slowly *

i have to admit i do have a problem with vista. Why is it that direct x 9 performance on 64 bit is on average 10 FPS less than the 32 bit version of vista. The 32 bit version on average is 30 to 40 fps less than windows xp 32 bit. No im not making these numbers up ive actually installed all 3 versions using the latest downloadable drivers from manufacturers websites and where needed filling in the gaps from windows update (the 64 and 32 bit versions of vista where the connect images with sp1 integrated) and tested using COD4, UT3 and itunes visualisation.

Apart from that vista is fine on 4gb ram but in terms of games no it aint there yet. Anyone who says vista is great for gaming is lying, if you say vista is great for anything else then yes it is a big improvement over windows xp.

[Borbus]

So just because Windows 95 is "old", you should waste your money and power on XP?

QFT

No, because XP is genuinely better than Windows 95, however, I might be inclined to agree if you had said 2000 and XP.

[Krome]

how the hell can you compare cars(mechanical engineers) to software/hardware coding(computer science/engineers), two completely different/unrelated field.....

Technology Advancement. You want to buy a vowel or some clue? LOL :p

[kouhii00]

Technology Advancement. You want to buy a vowel or some clue? LOL :p

How are those 2 technologies related? They are completely different in every aspect, buy yourself a clue.

[Borbus]

Technology Advancement. You want to buy a vowel or some clue? LOL :p

And how exactly does Vista advance technology...?

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

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.

Nonsense. Leopard ran superbly on my Mac Mini with 1GB of RAM and a laptop grade 4,200RPM HDD. Vista runs like pants on that same machine - I know cause i've tried it!

[Borbus]

OS X might be the fastest OS available apart from really minimal Linux/BSD systems. OS X runs exceptionally quick considering all the stuff it runs (aqua, gl desktop, indexing etc.)

[toadeater]

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

Explain that.

New Micro$oft OS = Higher requirements

MS believes in adding "features" and leaving it up to the user to catch up. They have always done this. But with Vista they may have gone a bit too far. Vista is filled with too much crap no one asked for and people are wondering why their PCs have to run so slow for something they don't even want.

[Julius Caro]

Vista has been working perfect for me for about 5 Months now. I dual-boot Vista and XP and run some DJ software that doesn't work well in Vista. I have no problem switching if need be. With most of what I do I Vista. I will soon though be having a Vista/XP/MacOSx86/Ubuntu Quad-boot. I'll be invincible!

A triple boot will cut it for me. Maybe I'll throw in a 32bit version of windows just in case :p

[abcdefg]

There's an old saying:

'What Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away'

This will keep going unless Micro$oft loses a significant amount of its marketshare or something miraculous happens that'll break M$ & OEMs relationship. :x

Anything that hurts those two, let it be either Apple, Linux or people who are building their own computers, is pro consumer. :)

What were those Intel/Micro$oft e-mails that emerged while ago? :rolleyes:

Are they worth your money?