Windows Vista SP1 outperforms Windows XP SP2 in file copy

By Avi
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mentor

Avi

Posted
Posted
Its interesting that people seem to think that Vista underperforms in every area of the system which is quite an incorrect perception. In this demo I show how Vista outperforms Windows XP and I show the under the covers process traces of just how it achieves it.

Demo environment consists of two images. One Vista SP1 and the other Windows XP SP2 both on the same HDD IO and communicating across my home wireless network to a Windows Server 2008 box on my main LAN. Once the two images get going latency gets introduced and things start to slow down....except Vista doesnt slow down. Watch and see!

View Video: http://edge.technet.com/Media/Windows-Vista-SP1-outperforms-Windows-XP-SP2-in-file-copy/

Source: Technet's Edge Blog via WinBeta

My take: Unlike other "dry" comparisons, this is a much more realistic one. It portrays a somewhat real-world situation- where latancy can be high at times. It clearly shows the advantages of the newer Vista/Server08 protocols (in this case SMBv2). Sorry for my English.

Grand Master

ShaneSparky_YYZ

Posted
Posted
Newsflash: SP3 doesn't provide any noticeable performance boosts.

It does for me, I benchmarked :) And I forgot what well known website did one too and said SP3 is faster than SP1 Vista.

Either way who cares.. lol

Mentor

zerologic

Posted
Posted
Newsflash: SP3 doesn't provide any noticeable performance boosts.

It does on my hardware. And I do get faster file transfer (copy) under Windows XP SP3 than I did under Windows Vista SP1.

I think this thread should be closed. The content is not up to date since Windows XP SP3 is released now.

Grand Master

Nashy

Posted
Posted
Newsflash: SP3 doesn't provide any noticeable performance boosts.

Ohh right. So based on that we'll still use SP2 as a benchmark to try and bignote Vista.

If that's the case, the test should have been with Vista vs SP2. But in saying that, why bother? Why compare the two, again, ones old, ones new. You would *expect* more from Vista shouldn't you?

Stupid test, stupid blog, stupid thread.

Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Ohh right. So based on that we'll still use SP2 as a benchmark to try and bignote Vista.

If that's the case, the test should have been with Vista vs SP2. But in saying that, why bother? Why compare the two, again, ones old, ones new. You would *expect* more from Vista shouldn't you?

Stupid test, stupid blog, stupid thread.

Huh? XP SP3 is just a collection of security fixes. There are no changes to the OS's functionality or performance. Vista SP1 contains a bunch of performance improvements handled by the Windows development team. No Windows developers worked on XP SP3, it's just a "sustained engineering" project that accumulates the hotfixes created to address specific issues (mainly security, occassionally major bugs hit by corporations).

It makes no difference if you compare XP using SP2 or SP3.

Grand Master

Doli

Posted
Posted

Windows XP Service Pack 3 Overview:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en

MajinDark is right about SP3 vs. SP2. SP3 is a good update for security.

Abstract

Windows? XP Service Pack 3 (SP3) includes all previously released updates for the operating system, and a small number of new updates to ensure that Windows XP customers have the latest updates for their system. Windows XP SP3 will not significantly change the Windows XP experience. This white paper summarizes what is new in Windows XP SP3, and how to deploy the service pack.

Grand Master

NEVER85

Posted
Posted
Ohh right. So based on that we'll still use SP2 as a benchmark to try and bignote Vista.

If that's the case, the test should have been with Vista vs SP2. But in saying that, why bother? Why compare the two, again, ones old, ones new. You would *expect* more from Vista shouldn't you?

Stupid test, stupid blog, stupid thread.

Stupid because there's visual proof of Vista outperforming XP? Whereas with every supposed benchmark saying XP outperforms Vista, it's just a bunch of graphs saying a bunch of stuff we're supposed to take at face value. If this test showed XP outperforming Vista, all the XP zealots would be praising this test saying how accurate it is, XP ftw and all that garbage, but since Vista outperformed XP, it must be stupid and inaccurate.

Mentor

zerologic

Posted
Posted
Stop ruining peoples fantasies with facts like that. ZOMG LOL SP3 is teh fastarr!!!

shrug.gif I don't care what others say.

I have used Vista and compared it to Windows XP. Windows XP is faster in copying files on my computer as opposed to Vista.

Microsoft totally screwed file copy on Vista Pre-SP1, and then did a good job fixing it in Vista SP1. But in my usage it's still not as fast as Windows XP - no matter what biased Microsoft employees might say.

Veteran

Vandalsquad

Posted
Posted
shrug.gif I don't care what others say.

I have used Vista and compared it to Windows XP. Windows XP is faster in copying files on my computer as opposed to Vista.

Microsoft totally screwed file copy on Vista Pre-SP1, and then did a good job fixing it in Vista SP1. But in my usage it's still not as fast as Windows XP - no matter what biased Microsoft employees might say.

Faster for me on Vista SP1, then again im running a quadcore that takes complete use of Vista. People winge Vistas to high in specs and runs slowww. Wait untill your next upgrade then and you'l deffiantly prefer Vista then.

Grand Master

Miuku.

Posted
Posted
Wait untill your next upgrade then and you'l deffiantly prefer Vista then.

So I guess the "Runs better.." and "Your working is now faster and.." slogans they always show during the installation aren't real after all? Darn and I thought every Windows was supposed to be better than the previous one.

Veteran

Preppy Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
shrug.gif I don't care what others say.

I have used Vista and compared it to Windows XP. Windows XP is faster in copying files on my computer as opposed to Vista.

It has been pointed out that your basic perception is probably wrong because XP's dialogs shut down before the copy is actually complete. I would suspect that there's much confusion in the XP vs Vista space in many areas where Vista is actually accurate about what's going on on the system, but XP is telling you happy lies. :)
Mentor

zerologic

Posted
Posted
It has been pointed out that your basic perception is probably wrong because XP's dialogs shut down before the copy is actually complete. I would suspect that there's much confusion in the XP vs Vista space in many areas where Vista is actually accurate about what's going on on the system, but XP is telling you happy lies. :)

Perhaps. ;) In the meantime Windows XP is just fine and Windows Vista SE (Windows '7'?) is only about two years away.

Experienced

alphaomegainfinity

Posted
Posted

After using both XP SP3 and Vista SP1, I can be assured of one thing irrespective of what "others" say. I have not found any difference between XP SP2 and SP3, absolutely nothing. Whereas SP1 is a vast improvement over Vista RTM, of course XP SP3 still leads over Vista SP1 in producing better fps in games but in doing the basic tasks, I feel more secure and safe with Vista SP1.

Grand Master

Bizkit

Posted
Posted

I think alot of it is your hardware. For me, when I only had 1 gig of ram, Vista ran sluggish. XP was still faster for me. When I finally got my replacement ram, now 3 gigs, Vista run incredibly faster. So some of you that are saying Vista is the king, I would say its more likely the king on higher end systems, as it should be. But I don't think you can say it is faster 100% of the time, because everyone's system is different.

Grand Master

Denis W. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

It would be helpful if the video specified how updated that copy of SP2 was. If it was SP2 gold dating from August 2004... :pinch:

But Vista's file copy performance is pretty good now. It's not as slow as some XP-only diehards make it out to be.

Stupid because there's visual proof of Vista outperforming XP? Whereas with every supposed benchmark saying XP outperforms Vista, it's just a bunch of graphs saying a bunch of stuff we're supposed to take at face value. If this test showed XP outperforming Vista, all the XP zealots would be praising this test saying how accurate it is, XP ftw and all that garbage, but since Vista outperformed XP, it must be stupid and inaccurate.

Agreed.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.