Is Vista really slower than XP?

[NEVER85]

I've noticed XP's performance seems to just "top out" at around 1-2 GB. Anything more than that and I haven't noticed ANY speed increase. Vista x64 is much faster on my system (see sig) than XP ever was.

[Tech Star]

One word: No.

People think it is slow because they run it on their old crappy 2001 PC's. They think that their system is capable to handle Vista, but it is not. On my P4 3.0 Ghz I ran Vista Ultimate and it ran GREAT! Just as good as XP, but I switched back because nVidia had crappy drivers for Vista.

So in short, Vista is slow if you have a crappy computer. Vista is NOT slow if you have a decent or good/great computer.

[39 Thieves]

A lot of people have no idea what they are talking about.

+1 (Y)

[Reacon]

Many people say that Vista is a RAM hogger and that it's much slower than XP. I tend to disagree. My new computer that I bought a few months ago really flies. It only has a Core 2 Duo processor and 2 GB of RAM and that thing is extremely fast. I can even do a virus scan and surf the internet at the same time without any lag. On my older XP computer, a virus scan would slow down the computer tremendously. Not to mention that Vista seems to boot up much faster as well. I just type on my password and poof! The computer is up and running in no time. My friend bought a new computer that's just as powerful as mine and he reformatted it and installed XP. His computer seems to be MUCH slower than mine. Boot up time is slower and there is noticeable lag when multi-tasking.

So tell me, why do people claim that Vista is slower? From my experience, it seems to be much faster.

Vista is slower, but not slow. Not since SP1 at least. It does a good job at covering up its lag by performing actions in different orders and such.

2GB of RAM is recommended because it does tend to eat up memory, but features can be tweaked and disabled as usual. Vista was designed to make full use of newer hardware, it's not meant to run on 10 year old tech - that's for certain.

I think it might be his version of XP that's slowing him down. When Vista came out, the thing that everyone complained about (besides UAC) is the boot-up time. XP should be superior in that plus many other fields. Make sure that he doesn't have anything runnign in the background and check for malware. Also, boot times and problems such as that can be caused by faulty/slow Hard drives.

Currently, I am running 25 processes: System functions, Zonealarm, Steam, and Firefox. Try opening Task Manager and if he has over 45 processes, try closing some.

[Skulltrail-old]

I don't consider Vista a "resource-hogger", I consider an operating system that uses resources more efficiently.

And yes, Vista CAN be faster than XP; really depends on the applications you are running. If it is a Vista-compatible application, it will run faster even if both computers have the same specs. There are a lot of benchmarks online that show the difference between the two and Vista wins on most of them but with a slightly higher score.

Windows XP doesn't use as much resources so people believe it is faster; not true. Vista RTM is relatively slow, which is where all the criticisms of the entire operating system broke out. When SP1 came out, Vista became faster than XP yet everyone still noticed it as RTM's performance, which is where the Mojave Experiment comes from; to remind people Vista was updated and is faster than ever.

[bbfc_uk]

I agree. Vista's AERO window animations maybe quick (when enabled), but are indeed time-consuming against the instant ones on XP. To the "untrained" eye, that point will seem slower on Vista than on XP.

I disagree. Windows on Vista load a lot more quicker than they do on XP (unless your using Home Basic).

Aero utilises the graphics processor rather than the CPU so it doesn't slow down the system that much, if at all. Plus it doesn't suffer from the re-draw effects that XP does, i.e. a blank window will appear then the contents will load and the same when you close a window, the contents will disspear but the window frame takes longer to dissapear - a very annoying issue with XP.

My new Dell laptop (Core2Duo T5475, 2GB Ram) runs Vista perfectly and I'm sure XP would also run quick on it but why would I want to step back in time and use an outdated OS. I LOVE VISTA!!

which is where the Mojave Experiment comes from; to remind people Vista was updated and is faster than ever.

That was brilliant marketing from Microsoft. The Mojave experiement proved that when people here negative things about Vista they just assume its a crap OS, but they are wrong, as proved in the experiements! Friends of mine say it all the time, even know they don't use Vista. When some of them used it on my new laptop they were amazed and took back everything they said!

Edited September 21, 2008 by bbfc_uk

[TEX4S]

Vista X64 is flying on my E8400 machine with 8GB ram..

might be the dumbest comment Ive heard...if its true its nothing more than a blatant attempt to brag about something you think makes you unique....guess what ? its more common that you think

__________________________________________

I am running XP64 and Vista Ultimate64 on my main computer - and I have always laughed at people who talk crap about Vista and have never even even seen it, much less use it. Ask any person who says Vista sucks, and you'll get an answer like, "Cuz it does !" - or something as intelligent.

Granted I have a very fast computer as my main system , and yes Vista runs flawlessly with Dreamscene running, burning a DVD and doing a Virus scan... people with lesser hardware can still benefit from Vista, just dont have to run Aero... but my question is, what is that benefit ?

For the majority of people they couldnt tell the difference between XP, Vista, and Win2K - lets face it - most people are clueless about such things and use a computer for a couple of things and dont know about anything else...

Edited September 21, 2008 by TEX4S

[bbfc_uk]

might be the dumbest comment Ive heard...if its true its nothing more than a blatant attempt to brag about something you think makes you unique....guess what ? its more common that you think

8GB RAM!!!! Is there a need for that much RAM? It is true that Vista only recognises up to 4GB, or is it more on x64?

[TEX4S]

8GB RAM!!!! Is there a need for that much RAM? It is true that Vista only recognises up to 4GB, or is it more on x64?

with x64 I think the limit is 127 Terabytes of RAM -- or whatever 2^64th power is .....

But I dont think there is a use for 8 Gigs unless youre running alot of Virtual PCs....

Ive never seen my computer use more than 2 Gb....

I have it , but Im insane :)

I suffer from upgradeaholism. I just switched from a Raptor-X to a Velociraptor - I cant help myself. !

[valhalla_rk]

I am not a very strong PC but not so weak for an OS as well

Athlon 64 2Ghz 1.8GB ram, Geforce 6200.

Vista (pre-sp1) was VERY slow compare to the flying XP.

the vista was 64bit.

after a month or so i switched back to XP.

if you have dual core and a new PC, yes vista will be fine. anyway the fact is that VISTA is slower.

if the on the same system - one is operating slower and one is faster, absolutely, the first IS slower.

[bbfc_uk]

with x64 I think the limit is 127 Terabytes of RAM -- or whatever 2^64th power is .....

Is that all? :D

[Skulltrail-old]

I recently changed from XP to Vista and to be honest, I haven't noticed much of a change. The only thing I have noticed is I can run more programs than usual, this more than likely going from a 2.6Ghz to a 3 Ghz dual core.

Ripping CDs and writing mp3 files is a lot quicker indeed.

Still gte this error with internet explorer though:

Could that just be a keyboard glitch? Maybe CTRL and N are glitching? I don't see how this would happen on a clean install. Perhaps it is a keyboard driver problem or maybe a recently installed application is causing it. Retrack what applications and drivers you installed before this started to happen.

Is that all? :D

You need more? Lol.

I haven't found one computer on the face of the earth with 127 terabytes of RAM. Maybe a couple dozen but not 127 terabytes. That's 130,048GB of RAM. :pc:

[bbfc_uk]

if you have dual core and a new PC, yes vista will be fine. anyway the fact is that VISTA is slower.

if the on the same system - one is operating slower and one is faster, absolutely, the first IS slower.

Is it not FACT. Not sure I understand your last comment.

[TEX4S]

I am not a very strong PC but not so weak for an OS as well

.......

if the on the same system - one is operating slower and one is faster, absolutely, the first IS slower.

Uhhh...... what ? :|

[Ci7]

might be the dumbest comment Ive heard...if its true its nothing more than a blatant attempt to brag about something you think makes you unique....guess what ? its more common that you think

__________________________________________

I am running XP64 and Vista Ultimate64 on my main computer - and I have always laughed at people who talk crap about Vista and have never even even seen it, much less use it. Ask any person who says Vista sucks, and you'll get an answer like, "Cuz it does !" - or something as intelligent.

Granted I have a very fast computer as my main system , and yes Vista runs flawlessly with Dreamscene running, burning a DVD and doing a Virus scan... people with lesser hardware can still benefit from Vista, just dont have to run Aero... but my question is, what is that benefit ?

For the majority of people they couldnt tell the difference between XP, Vista, and Win2K - lets face it - most people are clueless about such things and use a computer for a couple of things and dont know about anything else...

but next time he wont have anythig to brag about cuz i will have a minimum of 10GB of ram ;P

and you most people are clueless about this stuffs and the are scared from something called "vista" just cuz some nix or AFBs said so !

[TEX4S]

but next time he wont have anythig to brag about cuz i will have a minimum of 10GB of ram ;P

LOL

Please God make it stop !!!! :)

We cant help ourselves !

[Neoauld]

how is it FACT that vista is slower

its not

Maybe cause as OS's progress..they get heavier..MAYBE

but from the user point of view i find vista faster actually

My programs load instantly..i feel like my user experience is better than xp's, vista looks nicer, performs better, i can customize my interface more, it has a better feel

I cant ever go back to xp..id feel naked

[bbfc_uk]

but next time he wont have anythig to brag about cuz i will have a minimum of 10GB of ram ;P

and you most people are clueless about this stuffs and the are scared from something called "vista" just cuz some nix or AFBs said so !

8GB 10GB!!!!! Is there a need for that much RAM?? :D

[stevember]

Intel Core 2 Duo, Nvidia 7900 GS, 4GB of DDR-2 RAM. Not the greatest, but good enough.

Should fly.

[Ci7]

8GB 10GB!!!!! Is there a need for that much RAM?? :D

yea i do a lot of thing

i work with Virtual machines , programming ... , encoding stuffs , gaming ofc

and also some secret stuffs :shiftyninja:

[bbfc_uk]

yea i do a lot of thing

i work with Virtual machines , programming ... , encoding stuffs , gaming ofc

and also some secret stuffs :shiftyninja:

Didn't know looking at 'that sort of stuff' required a lot of RAM? ;)

[Ci7]

Didn't know looking at porn required a lot of RAM? ;)

;P

oh and i failed to mention it wont be soon , >.< when i graduate most likely , which is a year and half off

and oh i use a pc *which is fast *.... and i am slow replayer

[shockz]

A lot of people have no idea what they are talking about.

I'm using 41% of my ram on vista... XP would have used 20... and I notice no performance increases.

2.4GHz E6600

2GB of RAM.

Pretty annoying...

[bbfc_uk]

;P

oh and i failed to mention it wont be soon , >.< when i graduate most likely , which is a year and half off

and oh i use a pc *which is fast *.... and i am slow replayer

Surely by that time 10GB will be inadequate! ;)

I'm using 41% of my ram on vista... XP would have used 20... and I notice no performance increases.

2.4GHz E6600

2GB of RAM.

Pretty annoying...

I'm using 51% on Vista, and I haven't noticed any performance issues. Though I am using iTunes and we all know what that is like with resources!

Edited September 21, 2008 by bbfc_uk

[portauthority]

I downgraded from Vista to XP, already had 3 BSODs, random lockups, all kinds of nonsense, etc.

Running back to Vista now. Yes it feels snappier but not worth the headache XP is giving me (weird, right? my system is certified for both OS)