Detailed comparison of Windows Vista, Xp SP2 and Vista SP1

http://www.computerworld.com/action...ArticleBasic&articleId=9065458&intsrc=hm_list

In the second page of the article they include the original reports of the test.

 

Yeah most of the updates planned for SP1 were released as regular updates.

Like said, the difference between XP & Vista is negligible is most cases

 

I agree, and what most people don't know, and why they have problems is because vista is supposed to be bought with a new computer. Not put on an old one.

 

That's funny, cause so many people that have bought new pc's have had problems.
Still anxiously waiting for SP1 to be officially released.

 

It's usually driver problems though.

 

Well, drivers are the responsibility of Microsoft and the vendor. And MS hasn't pushed enough for quality drivers.

At one point, MS was going to have a driver quality control system that "rated" manufacturers based on how many crashes/problems were reported with their drivers. If drivers fell below a certain threshold, we would know about it. If they improved again, we would know it.

Anyway, MS is responsible for the entire Vista experience. Even if they aren't directly responsible for drivers, they need to push companies to make quality drivers and not just slack on them.

 

I guess i'll have to agree with you on that one, they need to pick that quality driver checker project back up and get working on it.

 

MS also relaxed their vista certification to support for intel's low level chips too. This issue was made publicly available (MS private e-mails) a couple of days ago.

Microsoft is having a very bad time with vista. Most of the blame is on the part of microsoft and not on the hardware manufacturers for the driver support.

 

What a blatantly partial and biased article! The headline relates to testing as both systems come out of sleep/stand bye mode?

That is the most laughable thing I have ever heard.

Oh but we did get in that Vista 'from a cold boot' was faster than XP. Wow!

Oh hey, I have an idea. Why don't we test systems right from the cold boot and the decide on the headline? Nope, sorry...that sounds like something any credibly author would do.

 

Vista requires roughly double the memory that XP does to achieve equivalent performance. Period.

I like Vista, and run Vista x64 on my primary machine. But Vista is a hog. SP1 made it a bit snappier, but I am amazed every time I work on a 2 GB older XP machine that it responds far better than a comparable 2 GB Vista x86 machine.

 

Not quite double, but 2GB is the minimum these days and people shouldn't have problems with running Vista.

 

You should remember that Vista is an advanced OS. RAM modules are so inexpensive these days.

XP doesn't always make use of the RAM fully. But vista does. Vista has many advanced features like superfetch, and more.

 

And XP requires 8x the RAM of Win98

 

And Win98 needs 10x the amount of RAM for Windows 3.1.

 

98 = 10 times of ram use of 3.1
XP = 8 times of ram use of 98
vista = 2 times of ram use of xp
so, is microsoft making an improvement here?

 

Looks like it.

 

Maybe ram size and technology is just moving faster haha. 0 credit to MS

 

That makes ZERO sense. If it weren't for Windows having "requirements" we'd be stuck on 256 MB RAM and Pentium 3 processors.

 

As I read the test, they are comparing systems that have just started (cold) to systems that have been running for a while, not necessarily after returning from standby (warm). As the vast majority of work gets done in the "warm" state, I'd think that's the better comparison. I doubt most people are rebooting regularly. If the goal is to check the speed a user is more likely to experience, warm is the better test.

See the definitions of cold and warm at the top of page 2 of the pdf.

In any event, as others have pointed out (including on the Vista blog) many feel the test is overly biased in favor of Vista.

 

So you're saying we should give all credit to MS for all the improvements in hardware?

 

I work offshore and I run into new people all of the time. Many of them don't know much about computers when they go to buy them.
They end up with something that won't do what they want because a salesperson said it would.
I have seen numerous people out there with laptops that have 512mb ram and a sticker that says "Vista Compatible" or " Built for Vista", ect...
Vista will not run properly on the minimum specs.
I would have to say 90% of the people I run into that have gotten Vista regret it.
Yes, that may change later after the release enough service packs.
There is a very good argument that Vista is not a good choice for a Gamers. It has to many things running in the background and uses up a lot of resources.

I saw an interview on YouTube with Bill Gates. He was asked "Which product do you wish you could have polished a little more?"
His response was, "Ask me after we ship the next version of windows."
Doesn't that say a lot!

 

While Vista may be ok for most users there is still a lot of specialized software that seems to have trouble with it. As an example our hospital (and Agfa, a large player in the imaging business) cannot get the PACS program (to view Xrays from outside the hospital) to run on Vista. This is causing major headaches for many docs since it isn't widely known and it is becoming hard to buy a computer with XP (at least retail). Sure it's only one program but if you're a doctor counting on using that computer to pull up medical images you are out of luck and seriously annoyed. That's why I just ordered a new Thinkpad with XP Pro ...get it while I can.

 

These days no one even sells laptops with 512 MB RAM. The basic spec is 1 GB of RAM. Even those who get XP get 2 GB of RAM even though this is not needed.

Regarding memory management vista is more advanced than XP. Vista always utilizes the RAM fully unlike XP, which goes to page file even if plenty or RAM is left. The future of gaming will DirectX 10 and this will work only with Vista.

The reply Bill Gates made in that interview was a joke.

 

The guy bought a HP/Compaq 6 months ago in New York. He says it was new. It came with 512mb ram.

Vista is a resource hog. Games that require ram don't like vista. Yes DX10 is the future, but games take a long time to make and many companies have held back on utilizing DX10 because it's common knowledge that MS puts out software before it's really ready. If I'm paying $200 to $300 for software it had better work as intended, out-of-the-box!

I'm in no hurry to buy Vista. It will be a long time before the games I play will need it.

IMHO-I don't think a operating system should take up so many resources.

 

That is the best comment I`ve read so far.
It`s the OS for christ sake,not your everyday application.
If I run Winamp, Yahoo messenger,IE or Opera,some background downloads and background AV, i would hit 1.2, 1.3 gb of RAM usage.
Scary thought that half of my RAM went to ViSTA when I used it...
Maybe SP1 is the answer,maybe not.We`ll see.
I`m sticking to XP until then.

 

That doesn't mean he hates it.....

 

He meant it as a joke, even though people make it out to say that Vista is bad.

 

Vista is the future. What will you do in 5 yrs from now?

 

Be on Windows 7. Duhh.

 

Lol vista is the basis for windows 7

 

Do you guys really expect Windows 7 to use less recources than vista?

Then only difference is that a few years from now, the standard ammount of ram will be higher, so people won't complain that Windows 7 is a ram hog.

But then there will be the same people saying that Vista is better because it doesn't use as much RAM as Windows 7.

 

Isn't Vista just a piece of what Vienna was suppose to be, and Seven just another chopped up piece that will be added on? Just my unfounded thought

 

Vienna is the same thing as Windows 7. Also known as Blackcomb.

 

That's what I think too. There's no way it will use less. MinWin made them think that, minwin was a no GUI HTTP server....

 

I have never been about the latest and "greatest". I know people that refuse to use any other Windows software than 2000. My wife will not upgrade her Pent 3, 30GB HD and 384mb ram. I had to push her to get SP2 for XP.

These people will always exist. That's why Linux and other OS's will always have a niche market.
Yes, I agree that Vista is the future but, That doesn't mean it has to be part of mine any time soon.
Heck, I still play Fallout and Baldur's gate. I don't play FPS's. I know of no RPG's that interest me that require DX10. If I do have to move to Vista eventually, that will be the only reason. Most likely it will be on a separate partition or HD.

Again this is just my opinion. Everybody has their own. I am not trying to convince anybody what program is better because everybody has different needs.

 

Actually, MinWin is a lightweight version of the Windows kernel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7#MinWin

 

Vista utilizing RAM fully is great. But that does not mean it should REQUIRE more ram.
Linux is so much better, I can have the same version of linux on a dual core 2Ghz with 3GB of ram; and also on a 500Mhz celeron with 128MB of ram. On the slower computer I just dont run 3d desktop and other heavy duty apps. But both are the same system at the core with the same security level.

Why is this so hard for MS to do ? What is the kernel doing that is taking so much resources ? I want the option of turning off eye-candy and other unnecessary programs and have vista require minimal resources.

 

That may very well be what Windows 7 will be, who knows. If it fails however, i will most likely be switching to Linux fully as i have no worries about that.