This guy got it right

http://4sysops.com/archives/vista-sp1-vs-windows-xp-sp2-file-copy-performance/

 

So is he saying that XP on a six year old PC would be slower than Vista on a new PC? Please enlighten me.

 

No, I think he's trying to say that some crappy say Pentium III box from 6 years ago with XP installed runs its OS faster than a 1 year old say Athlon 64 X2 or Core 2 Duo Vista box with Vista installed on it. The old machine with less code runs faster than the new faster machine loaded with tons of code.

-J.B.

 

So... what's his point ?
We give up dual cores and stop inventing better and better systems, stick with windows 98, play Doom or Wolf 3D for entertainment, and use supercomputers with the specs of a 4 year old system for weather forecasting and such ?
Hurray for lesser code!!

 

Oh. I get it. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

What he is trying to say is that complaints from users regarding Vista's slow performance are pointless as you can't add extra functionality without adding to the operating system. This issue of Windows bloat may become a serious problem for MS in the future.

 

What he suggests is that he is an idiot.

 

Not really. You're just being polite

 

No, he means people should stop complaining about how slow vista is and be happy with the new features.

 

Less coding is faster but it doesn't do anything else extra. With today's new softwares and hardwares it won't function properly. Vista works fine for me dunno why it gets berated every time I read an article on how it's NOT XP. I don't get the point. XP is XP and Vista is Vista. Apples, oranges, both fruits, different tastes.

 

Now heres the guy that actually got it right.

 

He's saying that XP was made for 2001 computer and Vista for 2007 computers.

 

He's saying that we all should Shut up.

 

Probably so. People are forgetting the fact that XP is six years old and Vista just one. XP is going to school while Vista still ****s in the diapers...consider that.

 

Wonder why Leopard still runs decently on older Powerbooks/iBooks then.... hmmmmmm. Sounds like excuses to me. But anyway, I have no problem with Vistas speed.... it's pretty snappy for me.

 

Because those older CPUs were not bad at all and because Apple has only a few things to worry about. That and because Mac people usually don't have old stuff.

 

Hardware is getting faster, OS's are having more functionality. They compensate each other for the most part.

Put an old OS on a new computer, its gonna be a lot faster than a new OS on a new computer.

Put a new OS on an older computer, it's not gonna be as fast as an old OS on an old computer.

People complained the same way when XP was released. "XP is too slow on my system! I want windows 2000 forever!"

Thats because when XP was released most PCs still only had 256-512mb of ram.

XP is able to run fine on older PCs with 512-1gb of ram, while Vista is not.

XP runs faster on newer PC's than Vista does because XP was designed for lesser PC's and now it has "leg room" and can flourish. That doesn't mean that XP is a better operating system, it just means that XP can run faster with the same hardware, but everyone is forgetting the different and vast improvement of functionality that Vista gives you. (DX10, Aero, Superfetch, desktop search, etc)

If you wanna stick with XP but sooner or later your gonna have to move on. Welcome to Evolution.

 

. Most computers shipped with 256MB during XP SP0. Games had the XP memory requierement at 128 minimum and 256 recommanded). My win98 computer with 128MB was freaking slow though. Uprading to 384MB was W.O.W. With SP2, it really is 512mb minimum and 1GB recommanded imo though

 

Personal I have no need for more features, which to me means more worthless bloat. I'm just looking for normal OS functionality, stability, and speed. If M$ would focus more on these key areas I'd be much happier with their products.

 

Except he doesn't:

Not true. It depend son what that line of code does. In particular, there's no reason why it should *slow down* your software for no particular reason.

And once again, we fall into the "It's not fair to compare Vista to contemporary alternatives" trap. Flawed logic. Just like the last 20 times people trotted out this make-believe logic in Vista's defense.

It doesn't matter how Vista compares to the situation 6 years ago, or 20 years ago, or last century. All that matters is how it compares to today's alternatives. Today's alternative is not "XP on a 6 year old machine". It's "XP on today's hardware".

If Vista can't beat that, it's a failure.
Just like when a new car model is launched, it is compared to other of *today's* cars. It doesn't matter if it's better than the *first* of any given model 2, 20 or 80 years ago. "Hey, it's better than the first Ford T, so it's a huge success". No, sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not a success unless it's competitive when compared to today's alternatives.

So, how come XP *does* function properly with today's hardware? (And as I said above, less code is *not* necessarily faster)

Yes and no. Different tastes, sure, and if some people are willing to take the performance hit in return for 3d graphics on the start menu, more power to them. But some things *can* be compared, so it's not entirely "apples vs oranges". We *can*, for example, compare compatibility, or file copying performance, or games performance. If Vista takes longer to copy a file, then Vista is simply inferior in that area. That doesn't mean Vista as a whole sucks, but it does mean that it sucks in that respect. It's not "different", it's just "inferior". That's an apples to apples comparison. If Vista chops 10 FPS off your performance in a game, that too is apples to apples, and Vista sucks. On the other hand, if Vista looks better, that's fair game too, and Vista wins that one. If Vista is better at configuring your wireless network, that too is a clear win.

It's not *just* an apples to oranges comparison, because that implies that no comparison can be *made*, that they're just "different". If you compare the entire OS, true, they're different, not better or worse. But when you compare individual features, you can easily judge which one is better.

Is software improving over time?
Taking the example of file copying, *how* is Vista better than XP? It's slower, but you say that's because it's better. Is it? Does it copy files "better"? How does that work, exactly?
As far as I've seen, it sucks just as badly as file copying under Windows has *always* done. With the exception that now it's needlessly slow *as well*

Not true. Advances are possible in many ways. Sometimes new possibilities arise because hardware improves, yes. But often, people just get better, learn new tricks, come up with new ideas.

True. But nor does it mean that X is an *inferior* OS (which Vista zealots often seem to imply. That *because* Vista is more demanding, it must be better)

Weeeeell....
Desktop search has nothing to do with the higher system requirements. Same for superfetch, that's simply a better implementation of the same old technology. It could have been made in XP too, and it wouldn't make XP any more sluggish. DX10 is the same story. Sure, when DX10 is running, it might bring the machine to its knees, but it's not at fault for Vista's overall higher requirements.
In other words, these features do not excuse Vista's excessive hardware requirements. They're completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether Vista is too slow. They could be removed and it wouldn't make Vista run any faster.

Sure, they're useful distractions if you have a pathological need to justify your investment, to defend Vista. But they're completely unrelated to the problem in question. Bringing them into a discussion of whether Vista is "too slow" just serves to confuse the matter and distract people from what they're complaining about. It's about as meaningful as saying "Yeah, this car might not be very fast, but look, isn't it a pretty red color?" Yeah, it might be, but that has nothing to do with its speed. It wouldn't get any faster if I painted it yellow, and I could buy a different, and faster, car and paint it with the same red, without losing any speed.

That leaves Aero. Yes, that slows Vista down quite a bit. It's not the only offender, but it definitely plays a part. And true, that can't be helped. If you think Aero is important, then yes, it justifies Vista's higher hardware requirements.





But what if you don't?
What if you don't think an OS is better just because it can do 3d effects when you alt-tab? What if you don't consider it a "vast improvement of functionality"?

Then it's suddenly not much of an excuse, is it?
And that's where the problem lies. Vista is a lot slower because they added new features, yes. But those features are not essential, and while some people appreciate them, others would gladly trade them for better performance.

 

As always Jalf, you bring a well thought out, valid arguement to the table. I must say, I agree with what you say.

Vista and XP is more then just "apples and oranges." Essentially, Vista is a "newer" model in the Windows line. Just because it's new doesn't make it better, as Jalf demonstrated with verious comparisons of features.

Say you buy a car that performs an X amount, but costs a Y amount of gas. You buy a new model of the same car that performs an X amount more then the older model, but costs a Y amount more in gas then the original. The newer model is "better," but because of the *increased* cost in gas, is it really worth it? Is it really *better*?

 

eitherway microsoft is having their way, 99% of all laptops come with vista.

lots of people have trouble rolling back to xp and some just want to avoid the hassle so they stick with vista

whatever your reason are for loving vista or XP its really each to their own preference. as i type this on my xp dell my vista gateway is playing my favorite music and working on photoshop.

new or old this year or the next vista will be a standard

 

I think both sides have valid points in this debate. Vista does have a lot of new features, and some of them do necessarily have a cost in terms of performance and resource usage. However, I still think that Vista seems a little bit bloated.

If you want Vista to perform more like XP, try this:
Turn off Aero.
Disable the search indexing service.
Turn off the sidebar.
Disable Volume Shadow Copy Service.
Turn off Defender (unless you were running it in XP).
Disable Remote Differential Compression.
Turn off automatic checking under Problem Reports and Solutions.
Turn off automated defrag.
Disable the ReadyBoost service (if you're not using that feature).

Now, I haven't done all that (because I actually like some of these features) but I think if I did it would bring the performance a bit closer to XP's performance. Probably not all the way there... but probably a good part of the way.

So yeah, I think there's a bit of bloat too. I think MS should make all its Windows developers work on 500 MHz Pentiums with 128 mb of RAM... then Windows might be efficient.

For me, with my hardware and my usage, the features in Vista are worth the performance hit. I like the better visuals, better security (UAC, protected-mode IE, and ASLR), more tools (desktop search, taskbar thumbnails) and toys (sidebar) built in, more things automated by default (such as defrag), more bundled programs (calendar, photo gallery). And there are a lot of nice touches like nicer icons, better audio mixer, improved task manager, more power management settings.

But yeah, if you want a little bit better performance and less resource usage and don't care too much about any of the new features, then XP wins.

 

I really don't like people who lectures on which OS I should use and the merits of their choice, giving examples and berating others who don't follow their recommendations. It's all a mute argument since my choice fits my needs well. The comparisons though valid is insignificant to me. Speed wise is a millisec speed difference really matters? <rolling eyes> There's more to life than arguing between XP and Vista! Sheesh!!!

 

I think there's a lot of ways to look at the Vista vs. XP debate.

The guy who wrote the original article talked about "lines of code", but didn't do a good job of that explanation. Or at least, in my mind he didn't. Coding is all about efficiency. Remember the Commodore 64 twenty-five years ago? Programmers did some pretty amazing stuff with hardware of that vintage, including speech synthesis, and incredible audio and graphics (considering the hardware of the day) and they did it in about 38 kilobytes of RAM, which was about what the C64 had after its OS was loaded from ROM. Programmers were efficient --they had to be, considering the amount of resources.

Today's programming, IMO, has become much less efficient. What with a larger amount of system resources in most home users' systems, plenty of dev teams don't go for the leanest, meanest program they can. Some of this is also because the team is pushed by the publisher to have it out the door as soon as possible. The result is that an OS or application isn't always as optimized as it used to be for performance. And optimization should be a good thing --the more machines you can run on, the better, including older machines.

In the case of Vista, Microsoft also faced massive delays, eventually stripping features and changing focus in order to get Vista out within even a semi-reasonable timeframe. Even Bill Gates (and other higher-ups at MS) admit that Vista was rushed out the door. As such, some things were overlooked. Some of those things can be cured in the maturation of the OS with a service pack, but some issues may be the result of an initial design decision, and aren't so easily changed once you have the product out the door.

I guess I measure Vista by whether it can do anything for me beyond what XP could. In the area of Group Policies (when paired with Server 2008), and in improved font rendering (making it easier for me to read Vista on an LCD even over XP with the ClearType Tuner Powertoy), it can, and I like its new visuals. However, there are a lot more instances in which Vista SP1 cannot do anything more for me than Windows XP SP2 could, nor can it do them as fast on newer hardware. In the areas where it can do more, I can usually find an open-source app for XP that will add the missing functionality. So while I'm using Vista Business on my laptop, I don't plan to switch my other machines any time soon, and I may consider downgrading the laptop when SP3 for XP is released. And I wonder how many people feel the same way --probably the easiest way to compare is how many "off-the-shelf-sales" there are for Vista for older hardware (i.e., P4, Athlon XP, Athlon 64 single-core) compared to how many there were of XP for, say P3/Athlon systems across a similar time period.

I don't hate Vista --I just consider it an OS that doesn't live up to the potential it had when it was on the drawing board. Hopefully, Microsoft will make Windows 7 "what Windows Vista should have been", similar to what Windows 98 Second Edition turned out to be.

 

You two win first and second prize. Your arguments are on point, as far as I'm concerned. Vista's new features aren't worth it to me at all. I have been forced to use it for while now and I remain unimpressed with it. Give me an operating system I can turn on everyday and not worry about, and I'll be the happiest camper here. Frankly, I worry about my system stability everytime I turn my computer on (that's not an exaggeration). I really get nervous each time I go to run a really intensive task too. I never had that concern with XP. I would like to know what that confidence in an operating system feels like again without having to revert to XP.

 

You guys do understand that this is what Microsoft wants right? They know that some dudes will want performance over visuals so they make XP, and then right after that, they make Vista to give normal consumers eye candy and everything they need out of the box to survive.

They want you guys to have different opinions as it keeps the discussion of Vista and XP going so people don't get bored and start thinking about alternatives.

That's how this "amount of code" discussion came into play, they know most consumers won't see a problem with the features and "slowness" of vista but the techies, and gaming geeks will and they'll buy vista to install XP over it. As long as you use windows they're happy.

 

Microsoft makes their money by sales of new product. Once a product reaches "market saturation" like Windows XP has, it is difficult to make more sales of the product; most people own it already. Sales of computers are somewhat tied to the operating system, so if everyone has a system that runs XP fine, they are unlikely to purchase a new system.

Windows Vista was intended to do what Microsoft's main goal is --to replace Windows XP with a new product that everyone would want. If Vista is more attractive than XP and works well, people will likely either buy a copy, or buy a new PC with it installed, benefitting both Microsoft and the hardware manufacturers, driving new sales as befits their goal.

In this case, Vista has not turned out to be what Microsoft hoped. New sales of Vista are happening largely because in the home market, that's what you can buy on a PC --only on business PC's is XP still widely available. Retail copies of Vista often require more hardware than someone with an existing PC has to be truly effective, and there is no compelling argument for the home user to run Vista over XP in terms of applications, networking, or multimedia other than eye candy. There is even less compulsion for businesses, who can run Office, Adobe apps, and use the Internet just fine with XP on lesser hardware than Vista (with Aero turned on) requires.

I would argue that it isn't just about "as long as you use Windows, they're happy". At some point, the XP market fills, and when sales of that grow sluggish, how is Microsoft making profit? Sure, there are some additional licensing fees, and some other Microsoft products that run on top of Windows, but if the OS stagnates and people feel comfortable not upgrading, why would they feel the need to upgrade their version of Microsoft Office, or other applications Microsoft sells? There is definitely some psychology to this for the average user, since not all of us are techies.

 

Ok, let me rephrase what i said. "As long as you buy windows they're happy."

 

I never said Vista was better. Each one has it's own merits and take it from there. Like I said it's apples and oranges and fortunately I like both so I have a dual booting laptop. Stay with XP but you know it's eventually going to be phased out like previous versions and then what are you going to do? MS does have a monopoly but there's no major rivals except Apple to compete with. And please don't mention Linux either, the promises they made didn't materialized.

I also owned a C64 and it was a wonder. The 128 was even better and in fact still in use today for sound synthesizing. XP has matured and it took more than 7 years to do so. Vista is still in it's infancy and like it's sibling will also mature. People think Vista should've outshown XP from the very beginning but remember when XP first came out it didn't hold a candle to Win2K!

 

Why not have the best of both worlds? I´m typing this in Win XP home which I use mostly for gaming. On my other partition I have Vista

 

HP doesnt offer XP support.
They have deleted all XP drivers from their website.

 

It's a bit strange to argue that Vista is better because MSFT and hardware vendors can kill XP if they want.

I think of operating systems as having core functions (running programs and the like) and extra functions that can be implemented outside the OS. The advantages people list for Vista seem things that could be outside the OS - appearance, indexing, sidebar, defrag, etc.

The actual Vista core OS seems slower than XP, without an offsetting OS benefit.

Vista x64 may have an advantage - addressing more memory - but that argument doesn't help 32-bit Vista and it's not clear addressing more memory matters for the vast bulk of users.

 

That's exactly what the guy said in the article. The 5.1 Windows Kernel has less codes, so it is faster on today's computer. A Pentium IV 1.0GhZ with 256MB of memory probably will run XP not as a good as a Core 2 Duo 1.8 + 1GB would run Vista

 

Hehe. I did pretty much all of those...

 

Look at sorting programs. A simple bubble sort, which you can implement in relatively few lines of code, is much slower than more sophisticated sorting algorithms, which take many more lines to code.

More lines of code does not necessarily mean slower programs.

 

But with Vista it DOES mean that. And I don't need the new "features", nor do I want them.

 

You may not like what's in Vista but brother you'll have no choice in the future. You can make Vista look like XP by disabling those eye candies under classic look. Sooner or later you'll have to change OS. Buy/hoard all the XP compatibles softwares and hardwares now because those are starting to disappear. With new systems coming out in Vista developers have no choice but to modify their thinking and go with the flow. The writing is on the wall. Scary huh?

 

I think it depends a lot on when Windows 7 comes out. There are quite a number of businesses that held on to Windows 2000 until it was end-of-lifed for support, which wasn't that long ago. In the same vein, it's unlikely Microsoft will discontinue support for Windows XP for the forseeable future, and will even extend their support period for it (much like they did with Windows Me and Windows 2000). You may not be able to buy a copy easily soon, but as long as it is listed under their supported OSes, updates will continue to be provided, and it is likely that SP3 will give it an even longer lease on life.

Due to the large number of people still running XP, I don't see compatible hardware/software disappearing soon, especially from third parties. It isn't in major vendors' best interests to lock out a large target market (although there are exceptions). And any vendor who wants to be taken seriously by small/medium/enterprise business will make sure their hardware is supported on XP, since that's what the majority of businesses are still using.

 

Yeah, I know my school still runs 2000, and I know a couple other people who still prefer it. I have no doubt some people will hang on to XP at least until Win 7.

 

Yup.. the Hospitals still run 2000.

Imagine they working on a patients MRI scan & the program Crashes!

 

That's horrible.

 

My work (a hospital) uses Win2K and it's unstable at times with lock-up and what nots. Always having downtime to fix a problem. I asked the IT department why Win2K and they said it was cheaper but in the long run it's actually more expensive with lost productivity. Our support is contracted in another state where the mainframe is located. It also has to do with specialized softwares which will work in other department.. CT/MRI/Radiology/Labs. Eventually they will change to Vista.

Yes XP has a large consumer base but when Vista equals it then MS will slowly and eventually cease support. It won't be anytime soon but it will happen.

 

By the time Vista's base equals XP, I think MS will have Windows 7 close to release. The current rumor is that they're pushing hard to get it out in 2009 instead of 2010.

While MS wouldn't admit it (they still have product to sell), I think they really want Vista behind them as soon as possible, and are hoping they can make Windows 7 into the "Vista that should have been". Vista has been quite a learning process for them, and I hope they can apply those lessons into making Windows 7 a really good product. (one example: I hope Bitlocker gets added to the new Business version of MS' next OS; I don't think it should have been limited to Ultimate/Enterprise).

In the meantime, I'm really eager to see Service Pack 3 for XP. At least you will be able slipstream that into an earlier copy of XP, something you cannot easily do with SP1 for Vista.

 

If what u say is true..i ll move to MAC OSX + Linux

 

Is that a challenge to my statement, to Microsoft, or a true initiative?

I like OS X a lot as well. Just can't justify ponying up $1500(price of a refurb-ed MacBook Pro) to $2000 (price of a new one) when I can pay a grand for something like the Lenovo ThinkPad T61 I just got.

I've run a few versions of Ubuntu, though I'm not a Linux adept, just have enough knowledge to keep myself out of trouble with it. For the average user some spots would be a little daunting, but for folks like you and I, I find it works fairly well when one's hardware is supported.

 

Windows 7 will not be a new OS because it'll be backwards compatible and thus will be bloated just to accomodate the "old" system. What MS have to do is to shed those extra pounds (compatibility) and make the new OS totally new without the 16/32 bit excess baggage but you and I know it's not going to happen. Windows 7 is more of an upgrade. Vista was supposed to be new too but MS made it backwards compatible with 32bits but did shed the 16bit part and this is where most people complain about, their 16bit programs.

 

Only 64-bit Vista shed the 16-bit compatibility. 32-bit Vista (which is what the vast majority of Vista users are running) still has the 16-bit stuff.

However, with Windows 7, I expect that most (if not all) users will be running a 64-bit version of Windows 7, which will not have the 16-bit code.

Also, I believe I heard that they're streamlining the kernel to make it small and efficient for Windows 7.

 

That'll be great. Hopefully it will shed the 32bit and go full on 64. With new faster computers it's sad that it'll be tied down with the "old" system. Now if developers get off their duff and make some 64 bit programs/drivers to make it work but I have a feeling it's not going to happen.

 

A lower level language would make everything fly but pain for developers