Is Vista really slower than XP?

By DaDude
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

stevember

Posted
Posted (edited)
That's an interesting question and a valid position. I can see why it would be considered slowing down user interaction.

The windows fade so fast for me that I don't really have time to even try. Does someone know how long those animations last? One-tenth of a second, perhaps?

On the short-term, that's a really small "delay", but on the long run, yes, it might slow down the user interaction. Animating (minimizing, restoring, closing, opening) 1000 windows, when considering 1/10 of a second for each one, that sums up about 1.67 minutes of interaction the user could be utilizing for other things. Not much time at all, but still time.

Yeah after 5 years you could take tea break. Btw this reply not sarcastic to you just follows your post perfect, its aimed at ones moan window don't close fast enough etc.

In actual fact I'm opening and closing windows so I can gain some time. Dam this post means I gotta do another 345,960,122 (number made up) to get back lost time.

Edited by stevember
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

hagjohn

Posted
Posted

If you have good hardware, Vista should be quick on your computer.

I have Vista on my laptop from day one and it's fast.

Today I installed Vista x64 on my desktop computer. And it's dead slow. HDD is constantly doing something when I'm running other apps (and I disabled indexing and boost) Starting Visual Studio takes 10 times more than XP. And I have 2.2 core2duo with 2gb ram.

So it depends on the computer?

Vista does this for some reason. Give it a day or 2 on your desktop and make sure your using good drivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proficient

Apple-a-Day

Posted
Posted
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.

As a former XP support tech I'll tell ya how I see it. Vista appears to boot faster due to the whole process, it monitors what you use the most and loads them first then loads the other stuff while you are happy with the boot process. Yes vista is fast, when it works right. XP is what it is, its the win 2000 of the next step. Very realiable and predictable. I have a XP, Vista, Server 2008, 2003 OSX, Vista, and Unubtu on my home domain. None is better than the other over all. They all have there plus and minus attributes. the whole OS fanboy thing is totaly over rated. I see it as people finding a confort zone, I test and try anyting that comes my way. Have no faves, will not root for any OS over another.

PS my nick is not my OS of any fave its just what I use for my Neowining

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Roger H. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
I have Vista on my laptop from day one and it's fast.

Today I installed Vista x64 on my desktop computer. And it's dead slow. HDD is constantly doing something when I'm running other apps (and I disabled indexing and boost) Starting Visual Studio takes 10 times more than XP. And I have 2.2 core2duo with 2gb ram.

So it depends on the computer?

You should have double the amount of RAM on x64 because of all the redundancies especially for X86 applications. it needs the RAM for the compatible layer involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
All this talk that vista is slower than xp was started by people who upgraded to vista with a 800mhz cpu and expected it to run fine. :\

You mean, in other words, "people who have used both XP and Vista on the same system". :shifty:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Mando

Posted
Posted

im still a sp3 xppro user, but only cos i use checkpoint secure remote to vpn to work in emergencies and there one thing I am noticing on an identical machine running vista 64 and same hardware as mine (Q6600,9800GTX+,4gbram 1066,sata2s) his usage of cpu 3+4 is much higher than my machine in XP pro.

the machine also seems to be a lot smoother than my machine overall.

Having Dx10, media centre extensions and better CPU usage and everything in this sub-topic has prompted me to buy Vista. Should be here Monday :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

betasp

Posted
Posted

Stick to the question... Is Vista slower than XP??? On the same system, the answer is YES. It does not matter the hardware (unless we are talking over 4GB RAM). It does not matter what your specs are, or how Vista runs on your system, if I go and put XP on it and benchmark it, overall it will be faster with XP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Stick to the question... Is Vista slower than XP??? On the same system, the answer is YES. It does not matter the hardware (unless we are talking over 4GB RAM). It does not matter what your specs are, or how Vista runs on your system, if I go and put XP on it and benchmark it, overall it will be faster with XP.

As a counter-point, if you are very happy with your Vista performance, does it matter much if XP would benchmark a little faster?

Like I said earlier, Vista's security improvements (down to the kernel) make it worth-while. (again, as long as you have a system it runs well on)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Roger H. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Stick to the question... Is Vista slower than XP??? On the same system, the answer is YES. It does not matter the hardware (unless we are talking over 4GB RAM). It does not matter what your specs are, or how Vista runs on your system, if I go and put XP on it and benchmark it, overall it will be faster with XP.

I don't care what some benchmark says. I run Office 2007 on my laptop doing work (and homework for friends i might add) and i defintiely rather doing it on my machine even when compared to theirs (IBM Thinkpad T61 with a Core 2 Duo 2.2Ghz and XP). They always notice how Vista performs better, even when just browsing the internet.

You did say overall it will be but it hasn't been in that case for me. Vista has always been faster in the things i do. So much so that the above machine (and my girlfriends Dell Inspiron 6000 with a Pentium M 1.8Ghz, 2GB RAM) is now running Vista Business instead of XP. She (GF) laughs at her friends that still use XP and she's even gotten her mom to buy a Vista PC cuz she hates her mom interupting our time together to come to her house to fix her PC cuz it's riddled with spyware :) Surely it can happen on Vista too but that's where the built in security comes in handy :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Sir Topham Hatt

Posted
Posted

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:

post-39459-1221849796_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

DaDude

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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:

post-39459-1221849796_thumb.jpg

I had that same problem. I started that topic a while ago and people though it was unusual. So people here came to the conclusion that it was a virus or some spyware. One of my friends had the same problem as well and so did you. Also, my computer was new at the time, so it can?t be a virus or spyware, especially if other people are experiencing the exact same thing.

Solution: Switch to Mozilla Firefox. Ever since I switched, I never had that problem again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

+Gary7 Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted
Stick to the question... Is Vista slower than XP??? On the same system, the answer is YES. It does not matter the hardware (unless we are talking over 4GB RAM). It does not matter what your specs are, or how Vista runs on your system, if I go and put XP on it and benchmark it, overall it will be faster with XP.

Not on my machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

xpgeek

Posted
Posted

All depends on the hardware you run it on.

I run Vista x64 on a dual core Pentium D with 3gb of ddr2 5300 ram, and it really flys. Some things were faster in XP for me, like booting up, XP booted up wayy faster then Vista for me, but, once it is booted Vista is just so much more stable for sooo much longer that never have to reboot anyway.

If have decent hardware, Vista all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Shadrack

Posted
Posted

I couldn't tell any difference in speed between XP Pro and Vista Home Premium 32bit on my Pentium 4 3.0Ghz w/ 2GB of ram. I think if you have less ram, you'll notice it more as Vista does require more. If your disk has to make up the difference, and therefore you get endless thrashing of the hard drive than that will slow you down substantially.

I get about the same frame rates for games in Vista as I did in XP on that machine. I would consider a P4 to be the bare minimum anyone should consider installing Vista on.

My Quad-Core runs Vista Ultimate 64 like a dream.

I'm not sure what all the "Vista is slower than XP" fuss is. Probably stemming from people who chose to do an "upgrade" install ontop of XP as oppose to a clean install. I wish Microsoft would figure out how to get that right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.