• 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

iZoom    2

I can't help but take a step back and laugh at the situation. Someone comes into a Vista Support forum and drops the "XP is better..." info and then a massive debate follows. This is bound to happen anywhere...imagine posting on a Counterstrike 1.6 forum that Counterstrike:Source is better. You are likely to get the same kind of reaction. My point is, I have a strong feeling that some action should probably be taken against postings such as this in the future. I might be mistaken, but I haven't seen many XP forums on the internet that have people dropping "Vista performs..." posts. I have Vista on my desktop and XP on my laptop and I'm happy with both because I truly have each doing what I need them to do for me. I doubt very much that there are many XP or Vista pro or con posts in the Linux forums for instance. No one is forcing anyone to use Vista OR XP. I know this will probably get ignored, but I akin this posting to inciting a flame war and I'm pretty sure thats against Neowin's policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unto Darkness    0
God, Windows XP is so old now. GET-OVER-IT!

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

That is YOUR opinion. I still prefer Windows XP's simplicity [whether or not XP is faster as compared to Vista].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
x3lumin8x    0

It's pretty stupid to compare XP SP3 with Vista SP1. Comparing XP SP1 to Vista SP1 makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unto Darkness    0
It's pretty stupid to compare XP SP3 with Vista SP1. Comparing XP SP1 to Vista SP1 makes more sense.

You know what is even more stupid? Your statement. Both SP3 [XP] and SP1 [Vista] would have just about the same impact on the respective OS and comparing it through numerical value is absolute stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soldier1st    40

dewaaz:it seems you dont understand much about technology n such,newer things obviously need newer stuff to run better and vista is no exception,when xp was released it was horrible but sp1 fixed that,sp2 mostly added security related stuff and that caused program compatability problems but after awhile the apps were updated to fix those problems,vista without sp1 isint very good IMHO but once you add sp1 to vista is it way better,newer apps usualy need newer hardware and more resources to work better,sometimes you can get by with older hardware on a newer os but eventualy you will need to upgrade if you want to keep using the newer stuff,and what brandon live said about the indexer is correct,i is low i/o so it WON'T Affect you and the resources that it does use are minimal,Mikee99:go away anti vista troll,benchmarks dont you you much or of anything,all systems are different.if technology didnt progress every 6 months we would still be with windows 1.0 and gaming and such would not be what it is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unto Darkness    0
dewaaz:it seems you dont understand much about technology n such,newer things obviously need newer stuff to run better and vista is no exception,when xp was released it was horrible but sp1 fixed that,sp2 mostly added security related stuff and that caused program compatability problems but after awhile the apps were updated to fix those problems,vista without sp1 isint very good IMHO but once you add sp1 to vista is it way better,newer apps usualy need newer hardware and more resources to work better,sometimes you can get by with older hardware on a newer os but eventualy you will need to upgrade if you want to keep using the newer stuff,and what brandon live said about the indexer is correct,i is low i/o so it WON'T Affect you and the resources that it does use are minimal,Mikee99:go away anti vista troll,benchmarks dont you you much or of anything,all systems are different.if technology didnt progress every 6 months we would still be with windows 1.0 and gaming and such would not be what it is today.

And who told you Windows XP was horrible when it was released? Most people would like Vista to stabilise first, like the XP SP2 before launching into it. It is purely based on opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thertrain    0
God, Windows XP is so old now. GET-OVER-IT!

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

I have to agree. While XP is a bit faster on my machine.. it should be, its a lot smaller. Anyone running a newer system with good specs will not complain at how fast Vista SP1 runs. Vista honestly flies on my computer and I'm running in through Bootcamp on an iMac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikee99    0
And who told you Windows XP was horrible when it was released? Most people would like Vista to stabilise first, like the XP SP2 before launching into it. It is purely based on opinion.

Dude, just about EVERYBODY ragged on XP when it first came out. And really, SP1 of XP didn't fix all the problems. The same issues that people have with Vista now, people had with XP when it first came out. XP was released so long ago that people easily forgot the initial reaction.

Vista is a major update to Windows, and is still a new OS. Windows XP is 7 years old now! You guys are suprised that a 7 year old OS has less bugs and (potentially) less problems? XP has had over 7 years to mature, Vista has had only 1.

OS X didn't fully mature really up until 10.3, which is the 4th release of the OS (Counting 10.0 as the first).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scorbing    517

Like I said before....Vista will get better after SP2 is released. SP1 was only made to make angry people happy by removing some of the annoying things from its first release. The real fixes in performance will come on SP2. Mark my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
x3lumin8x    0
You know what is even more stupid? Your statement. Both SP3 [XP] and SP1 [Vista] would have just about the same impact on the respective OS and comparing it through numerical value is absolute stupidity.

Dude, you're clueless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reactionary007    12

Vista is definitely running much better after the SP1 upgrade. I still seem to see that blue spinny a little bit more than I'd like - especially when logging on after a fresh boot. Going to sleep and coming out of sleep is like lightening though... I'm not using Vista primarily at the moment because Microsoft has not released the 2008 RSAT tools - and that just stinks. It has been plagueing Vista for me and my colleagues since it was released. The other reason I'm not using it is because Cisco or Lenovo or someone is behind the ball on getting LEAP support in to the Active Connections app - so no corporate wireless for me on Vista either.

The last thing I don't like on Vista is only Aero seems to look nice and performs well. Classic - which I like to use on my work machine - seems laggy. It's like the extra time to add Aero animations in when it is enabled is still there in Classic even though the animation isn't... so minimizing and maximizing and other such tasks seem to drag slowly accross the screen... ruining speed perceptions.

Not sure if it is just me or not - but turn on Aero and when you drag a window around you'll see those cool lines streaking though the transparent glass... I noticed the other day that for me one of them is ever so slightly jaggy on the edges - and now I keep noticing it... it's barely noticeable but kind of annoying... the same way a dead pixel is annoying. There are similar issues - like if you are in the Classic theme sometimes tabs in a tabbed interface will have discolored pixels in the corner of the tabs... and so on. Picky I know... but not there in XP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scorbing    517
Vista is definitely running much better after the SP1 upgrade. I still seem to see that blue spinny a little bit more than I'd like - especially when logging on after a fresh boot. Going to sleep and coming out of sleep is like lightening though... I'm not using Vista primarily at the moment because Microsoft has not released the 2008 RSAT tools - and that just stinks. It has been plagueing Vista for me and my colleagues since it was released. The other reason I'm not using it is because Cisco or Lenovo or someone is behind the ball on getting LEAP support in to the Active Connections app - so no corporate wireless for me on Vista either.

The last thing I don't like on Vista is only Aero seems to look nice and performs well. Classic - which I like to use on my work machine - seems laggy. It's like the extra time to add Aero animations in when it is enabled is still there in Classic even though the animation isn't... so minimizing and maximizing and other such tasks seem to drag slowly accross the screen... ruining speed perceptions.

Not sure if it is just me or not - but turn on Aero and when you drag a window around you'll see those cool lines streaking though the transparent glass... I noticed the other day that for me one of them is ever so slightly jaggy on the edges - and now I keep noticing it... it's barely noticeable but kind of annoying... the same way a dead pixel is annoying. There are similar issues - like if you are in the Classic theme sometimes tabs in a tabbed interface will have discolored pixels in the corner of the tabs... and so on. Picky I know... but not there in XP!

Vista no longer uses GDI+ that is why Classic UI is so laggy. Aero runs better than classic. Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cbosdell    4
Maybe if they tested it on a vista compatible machine they'd see different results. 1gb RAM should not be used with XP let alone Vista. Do the same test with 2-3gb RAM and I'm sure Vista will perform more equally against XP.

Wrong. XP Flies on 512MB Ram. I ran it like that from May 2004-July 2007. Never needed more and was always multitasking and gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brandon Live    232
Vista no longer uses GDI+ that is why Classic UI is so laggy. Aero runs better than classic. Amazing.

Huh? GDI+ is still there in Vista, and used just as much as in XP. But GDI+ isn't really about speed...

What I think you meant was that GDI acceleration is no longer present if you use a WDDM driver. However, when running the DWM, this only affects drawing inside the client area of the window. You might notice a slight difference when resizing certain GDI applications, for example. But really you're not likely to notice.

WPF / DirectX applications are obviously unaffected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trip21    23

Forget about which SP you have XP is better than Vista period!

For the record I use XP Pro (SP3) at work and Vista Ultimate (SP1) at home, I did run XP Pro at home since it was in beta but went to Vista in October because I wanted to run media centre on my 360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soldier1st    40

sp3 for xp aint even officaly been relased yet so what your seeing is from an unfinished product it may be slower or maybe a touch faster when officialy released,service packs are not meant to speed things up but to fix things and vista is no different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kravex    139

How is running Windows XP and Vista on the same spec PC a fair test? XP was designed to run on the hardware of its day so it's obviously going to perform better, pointless argument really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikee99    0
Wrong. XP Flies on 512MB Ram. I ran it like that from May 2004-July 2007. Never needed more and was always multitasking and gaming.

I have to disagree with you. Running XP with 512 these days is quite painful. Remember, it's not just the OS you're running, it's also the AV and anti-malware apps. Gaming you say? Other than minesweeper or solitare, and older games, what kind of gaming can you do on 512MB of RAM? Even on XP, 2GB of ram is pretty much the standard for gaming.

The whole argument of "this old OS runs better on the same hardware than this OS" is such a retarded and flawed argument. I'm pretty sure that Windows 98 runs faster on the same hardware than XP does. So, does that mean we should all downgrade to Win98? NO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stezo2k    0

I remember back in the day when XP was slated, trouble is i cant remember why now :p i spose its because everytime a new os comes out it requires more so with older machines they wont perform quite as well. Though i did try XP about 6 months after it was released and i was impressed, i didnt see what all the fuss was about.

I'm kind of half and half with vista, graphically its very pretty and it does have some nice security features. The only things that put me off it is peformance (compared to xp), stuff included which most users wont use and how a few things have been redesigned so advanced settings are well hidden away which makes it more fiddly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZombieFly    221
I'm pretty sure that Windows 98 runs faster on the same hardware than XP does. So, does that mean we should all downgrade to Win98? NO!

you fool! why would you suggest such idiocy! everyone knows windows 3.11 for workgroups runs faster on the same hardware than XP. You can even get it to earn you money by selling some of your RAM to a friend. n00b, sheesh :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scorbing    517

Back to XP for me. After playing with Vista for 3 weeks now, I am still not convinced. It needs work...a lot fo work...to be the OS that XP is. I like Vista's eye candy and some of its features but the performance sucks...even with Superfetch on. XP is definately better and faster, even at boot. Sorry Microsoft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seta-san    1,349

what a borish article.

don't go to classic through the normal route. Instead disable the "Themes" Process. This will knock you into a true-classic view.

Vista is definitely running much better after the SP1 upgrade. I still seem to see that blue spinny a little bit more than I'd like - especially when logging on after a fresh boot. Going to sleep and coming out of sleep is like lightening though... I'm not using Vista primarily at the moment because Microsoft has not released the 2008 RSAT tools - and that just stinks. It has been plagueing Vista for me and my colleagues since it was released. The other reason I'm not using it is because Cisco or Lenovo or someone is behind the ball on getting LEAP support in to the Active Connections app - so no corporate wireless for me on Vista either.

The last thing I don't like on Vista is only Aero seems to look nice and performs well. Classic - which I like to use on my work machine - seems laggy. It's like the extra time to add Aero animations in when it is enabled is still there in Classic even though the animation isn't... so minimizing and maximizing and other such tasks seem to drag slowly accross the screen... ruining speed perceptions.

Not sure if it is just me or not - but turn on Aero and when you drag a window around you'll see those cool lines streaking though the transparent glass... I noticed the other day that for me one of them is ever so slightly jaggy on the edges - and now I keep noticing it... it's barely noticeable but kind of annoying... the same way a dead pixel is annoying. There are similar issues - like if you are in the Classic theme sometimes tabs in a tabbed interface will have discolored pixels in the corner of the tabs... and so on. Picky I know... but not there in XP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ManMountain    56

For the last year, my only OS has been Vista. On my hardware, it performs extremely well.

If you have modern hardware, use latest drivers with latest games / applications - Vista is a great OS to use. Using Vista on a lesser PC will cause nothing but frustration.

Gazing into my crystal ball, I cannot see Windows 7 satisfying those who disliked Vista and consequently choose to remain with XP. To each their own I suppose, but Vista for me is definitely my permanent OS till Windows 7.

When the farcical Officebench results first appeared, for a laugh I tested my Vista install with it (link).

"Yes I know the original Officebench test was done on lesser hardware, but for the fun of it, I tested Officebench on my Vista install.

72817993ez2mh6.th.jpg

25111030wf5ea1.th.jpg

If I cared, with SP1, I'd predict I'd shave a few seconds of those previous benchmarks. Officebench, the definitive benchmarking tool .. don't make me laugh :)

Edited by ManMountain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seta-san    1,349

it won't satisfy a single one of them. i remember how much people bitched about windows xp. it didn't take long for people to come around.. Vista on the other hand i consider a whole new beast. A normal user might not find much to like about it but a programmer has all sorts of new toys in the APIs

For the last year, my only OS has been Vista. On my hardware, it performs extremely well.

If you have modern hardware, use latest drivers with latest games / applications - Vista is a great OS to use. Using Vista on a lesser PC will cause nothing but frustration.

Gazing into my crystal ball, I cannot see Windows 7 satisfying those who disliked Vista and consequently choose to remain with XP. To each their own I suppose, but Vista for me is definitely my permanent OS till Windows 7.

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.