Is Vista really slower than XP?


Recommended Posts

Welcome to the technology world, just like software, hardware should eventually be upgraded too. Technology is a constantly advancing field in all aspects, you can't expect old hardware to always be able to run the newest software. You also can't bash every OS that comes out in the next 50 years because you are too stubborn to upgrade from your 200Mhz IBM thinkpad.

Welcome to the technology world, just like software, hardware should eventually be upgraded too. Technology is a constantly advancing field in all aspects, you can't expect old hardware to always be able to run the newest software. You also can't bash every OS that comes out in the next 50 years because you are too stubborn to upgrade from your 200Mhz IBM thinkpad.

Condescend much?

XP may be marginally faster. Some apps open up faster on XP, but some don't. (especially Firefox, it's sometimes faster on Vista)

What really got me back to Vista on my laptop was the clumsy wireless experience in XP:

A balloon says: Wireless networks not available.

Me: The wireless switch's off, you idiot.

A balloon says: Local Area Connection's not connected.

Me: Because I'm on a wireless network, you idiot.

A balloon says: Now connected to (home wireless network).

Me: ...

:pinch:

On top of that, no isolating networking settings between different networks.

Also contrary to what I thought earlier, the FPS drop for games in XP and Vista wasn't as high as I thought it was. I was going by benchmarks of Half Life 2 in XP. Then I saw how low the FPS was in Vista for Portal and thought it was Vista's fault. :p

Well on my rig with Vista sp1 it smokes my XP partition. The only thing slow, is the boot time. I always leave my computer in standby so its not an issue unless I have to reboot for patch Tuesday. I have now moved away from XP all together except for in VM land where I strip drm off songs I bought. =P

Edited by Mikee4fun

At work we deal with many hardware specs. I have machines that are 300mhz with 64Mg ram to C2D running at 2.33Ghz with 2Gb ram.

Vista SP1 makes a huge difference.

I run the following:

Home:

Intel C2D E8400

Gigabyte P35 DS3

4 Gig Patriot 800mhz

NV8800GT

Vista Ultimate x64

Laptop:

Dell Latitude D630

Intel C2D Memron @ 2.13

Intel P965

2 gig Kingston 667mhz

Vista Ultimate x32

Laptop2:

Dell Latitude D620

Intel C2D 2.13

Intel 945

1gig Kingston 667

Vista Business

My home machine screams. There it runs everything as fast or faster than XP

Laptop is fast I have no complaints everything is responsive and I wait for nothing on it.

Laptop2 is the shocker... It is the fast machine I have vs specs. It runs vista surprisingly fast. Having only 1 gig of ram does not seem to effect its performance at all. It actually "feels" faster than my main laptop with 2 gig ram.

I believe that vista has some built in scaling or self tuning for speed and specs. I was astounded when I installed vista on laptop 2 and its performance was = to a laptop that was a year newer and had double the ram. I will admit that Vista pre SP1 was not that great but SP1 did make a huge difference. Ive run side by side comparisons on identical hardware vista sp1 vs xp pro sp3 and found that vista performed on par and in some regards it was faster than XP. What I have found to be even better however is Server 08 converted to work station. It out shines them all. It runs better on my various platforms better than vista and XP both. It out performed XP on my athlon 3200+ workstation with 2gig ram which really surprised me. The only reason I don't run it completely is that certain multimedia plug-ins don't work in the server OS yet, wont even install.

and Bobbytomorow... Ill put my vista gaming rig up against any equal machine running XP. Tuned my vista gaming rig is a beast... I play lots of CSS and un-tuned under stress test... 292 fps: in game @ 1680x1050 all settings high with 8xaa 16xaf I average 160+fps and will top out at 299fps

and Bobbytomorow... Ill put my vista gaming rig up against any equal machine running XP. Tuned my vista gaming rig is a beast... I play lots of CSS and un-tuned under stress test... 292 fps: in game @ 1680x1050 all settings high with 8xaa 16xaf I average 160+fps and will top out at 299fps

Funny that Vista out performs XP for you yet every other benchmark on the web says otherwise. Its also common sense that an os with a much higher overhead will perform slower on the same hardware configuration as an os with a low overhead. Its not rocket science.

btw I run Vista Ultimate and Business as well as XP across a variety of configurations myself.

Funny that Vista out performs XP for you yet every other benchmark on the web says otherwise. Its also common sense that an os with a much higher overhead will perform slower on the same hardware configuration as an os with a low overhead. Its not rocket science.

btw I run Vista Ultimate and Business as well as XP across a variety of configurations myself.

Omg the intarwebz sez XP is faster!!1

Yes, if you have the right machine (modern and in the last 1-2 years), you are pretty much set to run a great Vista machine (though, XP might just run faster on certain tasks).

That is my only other complain about not running Vista, old hardware (my PC) would be slaughtered if I ran it. My other is that I'm just familiar with XP (which is my main reason), and I know where almost everything is and how to tweak it to my liking.

Vista's not bad (I've used it, liked it, but also had really aggravating experiences with it, though I'm sure I can tweak it to my liking if I had the chance). Always could be better.

Vista's memory and process management, from what I know, is just different. With more, the better and efficient the system is. With less, it is buggy.

I just really hope Windows 7 is optimized with 32-bit single cores, for those who are coming from the early XP ages. (Hoping for a separate version dedicated to us.) I want to keep up to date, but with how things are looking, I might just have to stick with XP (not bad until 2014) and work around with *nix environments afterwards...

I simple test i did to prove it, I have a Dell Optiplex GX 260 with Pentium 4 2.00Ghz and 768MB ram. Under XP it runs fine, under vista boot time was around 5 minutes. Point proven.

To be honest, that only "proves" a specific setup. I would expect to see similar results on other systems < 1GB of RAM. Especially if some is removed by shared memory for video.

And boot time, while a good indicator here, is not a very good metric for a booted, running OS. Some benchmarks can be run to get a better idea.

Testing on a quad-core 64-bit system with 8GB+ of RAM would also be interesting - even if such systems are not "mainstream" today, in another 5 years, I think those will be pretty common.

I simple test i did to prove it, I have a Dell Optiplex GX 260 with Pentium 4 2.00Ghz and 768MB ram. Under XP it runs fine, under vista boot time was around 5 minutes. Point proven.

All that proves is that the PC you installed on needs a newer BIOS, chipset driver or just isn't a good candidate for Vista. Honestly, the 2.0gHz P4 is from August of 2001, not shocking it doesn't run a new OS as fast as it ran XP SEVEN years ago.

Now if you ran XP on your Core 2 Duo and it was snappy, but Vista took 5 minutes to boot you might have a point.

vista is only slow if you got dog hardware but if vista has pretty new hardware it will perform better than xp,i like the fact that vista does not slow down afterawhile unlike xp which does.

MaximumPC just did an apples to apples comparison of XP and Vista...

overall XP SP3 was faster on 90% of the tests -- goto Maximum PC

I would have thought this was common sense - but apparently people are not as smart as I give them credit

Like mentioned above, more overhead = slower performance -- no way to get around that

If XP is "slower" at something than Vista -- there is another factor youre not considering - plain and simple

MaximumPC just did an apples to apples comparison of XP and Vista...

overall XP SP3 was faster on 90% of the tests -- goto Maximum PC

I would have thought this was common sense - but apparently people are not as smart as I give them credit

Like mentioned above, more overhead = slower performance -- no way to get around that

If XP is "slower" at something than Vista -- there is another factor youre not considering - plain and simple

Honestly I did a quick search and found no such comparison. I have tested XP SP3 and Vista SP1 on my laptop. Difference is negligible in all tests assuming you actually do apples to apples. Meaning you don't test Vista with all its services enabled. Added functionality ALWAYS comes at a price. Enable the same services as the ones you have in XP and Vista will perform the same. You can even enable most of the useful features and still see almost no performance difference. Remember unless the difference is >5% it is within the margin of error.

With Vista drivers having matured to a point where their quality is comparable to their quality under XP, we see Vista performing (under apps such as games) pretty much the same as XP (give or take a frame here and there).

Proof: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp

Personally, I find Vista to be much snappier than XP was on the same hardware. It may not be "faster" but it responds much better to user input. This is because XP liked having free RAM, which was desirable back when RAM was expensive. Vista doesn't like having free RAM, because RAM is cheap.

With Vista drivers having matured to a point where their quality is comparable to their quality under XP, we see Vista performing (under apps such as games) pretty much the same as XP (give or take a frame here and there).

Proof: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp

Personally, I find Vista to be much snappier than XP was on the same hardware. It may not be "faster" but it responds much better to user input. This is because XP liked having free RAM, which was desirable back when RAM was expensive. Vista doesn't like having free RAM, because RAM is cheap.

+1

One thing vista is defiantly faster with is the time from inserting a new removable device (like a thumbstick) to when its ready to be used.

Xp takes a 20 or so seconds, vista is almost blink!.

Vista is also a ram ###### in a good way. It loves ram. Given that Ram is 100x faster than your hard drive, why not store everything in ram if you aren't using it. I have Vista 64bit with 5 gigs of ram and once everything is up and running there is Zero slow downs. Every application is blink!. or as Steve jobs would say "And Boom!"

One thing vista is defiantly faster with is the time from inserting a new removable device (like a thumbstick) to when its ready to be used.

Xp takes a 20 or so seconds, vista is almost blink!.

Vista is also a ram ###### in a good way. It loves ram. Given that Ram is 100x faster than your hard drive, why not store everything in ram if you aren't using it. I have Vista 64bit with 5 gigs of ram and once everything is up and running there is Zero slow downs. Every application is blink!. or as Steve jobs would say "And Boom!"

agreed !!! im loving vista more and more now that sp1 is out. i look forward to sp2 & windows 7 too.

I find Vista just as fast, if not faster than XP, with comparable equipment. My apps load faster on Vista, thanks to the

tweak they did with prefetch. What's the use of having tons of ram, if you don't use it?

I can't remember when I've had a blue screen on Vista, or XP for that matter. Just as those "Mojave" commercials

show, Vista (at least now) is getting a bad rap. But I still say it is overpriced. :yes:

people need to move on from xp, it won't be supported forever. vista is very fast & stable on the right pc or laptop.

+100. I was a vista hater to the tenth power before SP1. It was slow and clunky. But then HP came out with a chipset drivers update and then SP1 was released at the same time that Vista IS worth the time now.

my only con to vista right now is, it takes up too much harddrive space. the kernel is like 15GB if memory serves me.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The proportion (or number of iterations) has nothing to with this aspect of Copyright I am describing. In short, it doesn't matter how many times the manager tells you to change something or how. Your work product is always YOURS until and unless you then assign that to the person representing the client/company, usually for financial compensation -- either in salary or as a subcontract work for hire payment. if iterations determined copyright, then businesses would have learned to just keep making changes until they could claim they owned the copyright, without having to compensate the artist for their work. And that would be BAD. The only place where the amount of changes does have a role is in how much does a human modify a previous public domain work (from any source) before it is considered fair use or their own work, etc. For example, if a human makes substantial changes to a public domain (re: AI, by definition) work, then they can then claim that derivative work as their own...but NEVER the original version, of course. That's why anyone can make a movie about Dracula, for example, as long as it is based on the public domain novel, but not if they take new ideas from copyrighted movies made afterwards. As one of the people who personally advised the US Copyright Office on their recent ruling on these very issues, be assured that I specifically used the terminology precisely -- though I made it simple enough for laymen to understand it. If I made this confusing by doing so, I apologize. But, to be clear regarding your assumption that I would agree to your second statement that I quoted above -- the answer is NO. If AI does the work, no matter how much "direction" you give it, it cannot be copyrighted. All AI generated content is in the Public Domain and therefore the copyright cannot be assigned to ANYONE, even you -- until and unless substantial modifications are made to it BY A HUMAN BEING (yourself or a contracted artist/writer/etc.) and then that copyright on the derivative work is legally (in writing) transferred to you. This is a critical distinction. And it is important that people, especially AI sloppers, understand this. For example, YouTube is not paying AI slop generators for the copyright, etc. of their AI slop. What YouTube is doing is sharing AD REVENUE for permission to publish your AI slop. Copyright/ownership/rights never come into it. Importantly, that means that anyone can copy any AI slopware on YouTube, etc. and rehost it anywhere they want, even back on YouTube, and there is nothing legal that YouTube can do about it with regards to copyright protections, ownership, DMCA, etc. Anyone is legally free to use any AI slopware in any way they want. When this ruling was pending, I warned Disney legal of all of this before they did their OpenAI deal -- that it would literally dilute their entire IP portfolio forever. They ignored that warning for the PR and stock bump. But that is why, when the ruling came down last year, Disney quickly extricated themselves from that OpenAI deal, even eating the initial upfront fees -- followed closely by OpenAI ending their entire AI video generating business model. They adjusted their PR release dates to make this less obvious to shareholders, of course. Phew. I hope that this clears up the key distinctions for you and anyone reading. If you have any additional questions or even hypotheticals about AI and Copyright, please feel free to ask.
    • Each of the devices displayed on this page now has a little volume meter next to it to show if there is audio actively playing. About time.
    • Owing to the nature of Windows feature enablement updates, it was distributed over Windows Update services as a complete system upgrade rather than as an ordinary cumulative update
    • Microsoft confirms Windows 11 26H2, urges IT admins to prepare for release by Usama Jawad Windows 11 typically follows an annual update cycle, but Microsoft recently broke that tradition a bit by releasing a "26H1" version in the first half of this year as a "scoped" build for select new silicon PCs only. This version was not available for customers using 24H2 and 25H2 builds, as Microsoft is busy preparing version 26H2 for them, confirmed officially for the first time. In a Windows IT Pro blog, Microsoft has urged IT admins to prepare for the upcoming release of Windows 11 version 26H2. The company has confirmed that this will be a small enablement package (eKB) that will simply light up certain disabled features that are already present in the operating system's code base. This means that the "refined" Windows update and deployment experience will be simpler and quicker, with minimal disruptions, as the feature update will simply toggle a few flags rather than performing a complete replacement. Microsoft has explained that this is all possible because the standard Windows 11 releases share the same servicing branch and hence, the same source code. However, this also means that Windows 11 26H1 users won't be able to upgrade to 26H2 as that is a different branch, but this is something we have known for a while now. Similar to previous annual feature updates, Windows 11 26H2 will offer the following support cycles: 24 months of support for Home, Pro, Pro EDU, and Pro for Workstations editions 36 months of support for Enterprise, Education, IoT Enterprise, and Enterprise Multi-session editions Microsoft has not confirmed a concrete release date for Windows 11 26H2, but noted that it is "coming soon". If we go by the ongoing release cadence, we can expect it to begin rolling out in early October 2026. As such, IT admins have been encouraged to begin validating Windows Insider releases in the Experimental Channel, plan rollout rings, and strategize the utilization of their existing deployment tools.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Week One Done
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Skeet Campbell earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Sharbel earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      576
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      188
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      79
    4. 4
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      78
    5. 5
      neufuse
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!