After all this time...the OS Of choice?

Leopard FTW!

 

hehe cute

 

I have both Vista and XP at work and home - must say I'm preferring Vista - features, capabilities and certain functions. Just seems better/easier. Find myself looking for Vista commands on the old XP systems and realizing simply isn't there.

 

Er, for example 7GB Vista install (some people get to 20GB++, but they don't know about system rescue or caches etc) vs 1.5GB XP. I personally don't like the way prefetch works in the real world, always seems to have the wrong thing ready.

But something in Vista is eating away at it's performance - eg in games
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

Yes, whatever 'resource hogs' people find, there is always a way to trim at it, smooth over some of its effects, but my personal view is: why bother, when XP does all that out of the box? Also you can take a chainsaw to XP and then Vista will never stand a chance performance-wise whatever tweak you apply to Vista. That's just the DNA of the 2 OS's. Taking a performance hit on a notebook just for a fancy interface? No thanks, I'll keep XP for now and then go straight to 7 SP1.

 

This is flawed as there is no information how the tests were conducted.

Is it XP, XP SP1, XP SP2, XP SP3 or Vista, Vista SP1 or Vista SP2 Release Canidate something...

??

Also, what system?

There is a severe lack of information.

 

Did you even click on the link?

 

I did, and all I get is graphs with a game's title, resolution and % for Vista and XP.
That's all.

 

Here, let me use my magic tricks to get that information then!








Were you watching closely?

 

omg, i have files of my pc. what a resource hog. i actually like to be able to plug in tons of hw into my pc and have a driver allready.

stop reading tomshardware is the best solution i can suggest. or, reading up an actual article? as this is from the release of vista. and performance changed VERY MUCH with vista over the last two years and some months. it outperforms xp in most modern games or is on par, there where the os actually doesn't matter.

vista performs faster in an actual installation with no tweaking than an xp, even with tweaks. it provides better stability out of the box, more compatibility to modern hw, and a lot of usability features that make it much better as an os for day-to-day usage.

it has better energy-saving components for usage on notebooks that may actually prolong your batterylive (does so on my hw compared to xp, f.e.).

and it's more snappy and looks better, so, again, tell me one reason that is actual. vista had huge problems at start. but in the last over-two years, it evolved much.

 

the test is two years old. nvidia had terrible driver support back then, and both drivers and vista have improved a lot over the two years. where you watching closely?

 

My point was not whether or not the tests were conducted an hour ago, but that all the information was there in the link.

This step is called The Prestige.

Game over.

 

I've never liked Vista's interface. I prefer the more logical branching menu system of XP, but that's just me. Also you can make Windows XP just as pretty or prettier as Vista with Windowblinds and not take the performance hit of Vista. I'm using Windowblinds on my Dell laptop and Windows XP looks awesome and very glassy just like Vista. I also have a Windows 7 theme if I so choose to run it.

 

well, I am not detlev who stated the info is not there. I just stated the test is not important as a lot has changed since then.

 

I never said anything about the test, did I?

 

you quoted stuff from the test and even put printscreens in so technically, yes, you did.

but yes, i should have quoted varadero. My fault.

 

Technically, I talked about the link, and what it contains. Check again.

 

indeed. thanks for supporting my statement (i never said you're wrong. so, if you feel that way, i'm sorry).

 

Can you back the performance part of your statement up with some (non MS) links?

 

no. just experience from the systems i've worked with. but if you check for actual tests, you should see that it performs very well. as well as you can read up on a lot of places including tons of forum posts in here, sp1 helped very much in performance and stability.

i personally don't care about such benchmarks anyways, as i don't care about 5% or so difference, it's not something you ever would notice.

but it's common sence that gpu drivers evolved much since then, and the os did as well. just compare a an unpatched xp without any sp to the newest xp with sp3 and all updates...


so, a bit of googling. a more actual test, xp sp3 and vista sp1 apps and games. just a tiny one. no clue about creditibility

extreme tech

so actually, we're over a half year further right now

 

Yeah, think this is a bit pointless - we could just exchange links all week
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1390&page=2 According to this, even with SP1, we're still 6-9% or so down on the whole using Vista. Not sure about credibility of the author. But it's missing the point - people need a reason to actively choose Vista, not to see a study like the one in your post showing Vista is nearly as good as what we've had since 2001, give or take -1%.

I'm surprised by your comment about the HDD space. 7GB (to 20GB) Vista vs 1.5GB XP and your response is 'that's fine - I like it to come with drivers'? Do you connect 747 avionics via USB, or something? I dare say most people with notebooks prefer the OS to be slim so they can go for a 32GB SSD etc. As it is, Vista would commandeer a lot of that 32GB for its own use.

As to your 'command' to stop reading tomshardware.com - the phrase 'shoot the messenger' springs to mind. Maybe I should order you to stop reading 'extremetech.com' as the solution to your love of Vista.

 

you started with links. but yes, it's pointless. performance is indistiguishable, that's all those tests say. if your system is slow, it has a problem. you need to fix it. that was true since years.

i like that. i have vista on a 32gb ssd since half a year?

i just googled up some benchmarks, i never actively read extremetech. but toms hardware is known to have a lot of questionable benchmarks that often are false, and got proven so.

but other than that, no os is a big thing to switch actively to. some need active learning (like linux), some active changing (like osx), but none is worth it by itself. why? because all os of today work as far as startup-and-then-start-your-apps is. because that's what we use our os's for.

so there is no reason from xp users to switch to vista actively. and i never said there is. but people here try to actively switch back from vista to xp. and this is just as useless.

and if you have the active choise, then all i say is try vista. it's newer, better fitting on actual hw, having more modern options, and better overall stability and security.

i haven't suggested it to anyone at it's release. i do so now, two years later. why? because it's worth it.

 

I just bought a Gateway P-7811fx. A system *very* capable of running Vista! First thing I did when I got it was reformatted and reinstalled Vista SP. I've tried Vista (pre SP) in the past, and just hated it. Yes, hated it. It caused headaches, it was slow, it was quirky, and had some issues. When I got the new Gateway, I said to myself SP1 should have cleared everything up nicely. based on my experiences, I was wrong. Vista is a resource hog that does not feel anywhere near as snappy as XP (to me). So, I again reformatted, and installed XP Pro SP3. The differences are very noticeable to me, as well as my g/f who tinkers on my laptop... When I let her

I don't care much about benchmarks either. I care about real world performance, and FPS while gaming. I see a noticeable improvement in both when I use XP. For me, XP does everything that Vista does, it just does it smoother and faster.

I am awaiting a full release (and subsequent reviews) of 7, however. if the full-release proves to be as promising as the betas are, I'll have a new OS.

 

Just curious....

How many peope here know that Vista optmizes itself?

You need to keep it running for say a week, then leaveit running ovbernight once, and then its much, much faster.

 

besides what detlev stated, it's quite strange. i'd like to have your system for a week and try out if i experience the same. still, no need to hate it. and don't believe win7 will help much. so far, i haven't seen much speed improvement of clean installations of win7 over clean installations of vista. then again, i haven't seen a slow vista in a looong time.

 

I don't know what the issues were, but XP was just a more solid performer, IMO.

Again, while I'm not big in benchmarks, the ones I've seen put 7 as faster than both XP and Vista. It will be intresting to see what MS does to it between now and releases time, however.