Windows XP (sp3) outshines Vista (sp1) in benchmarking test

http://www.news.com/Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100-1016_3-6220201.html

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,139911-c,xp/article.html

lol.

 

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204203975


Its a big I Told You So. I kinda want to downgrade my vista but I would have to buy XP now. Im thinking 2gig ram on XP would smoke.

 

"...The tests, run on a Dell XPS M1710 test bed with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 1GB of RAM..."

Well, there's your problem right there. Anyone too cheap to spend 50 bucks on an extra Gig of RAM should know better than to expect decent performance from Vista .

Alright, I'm joking - but only a little . My own two weeks of Vista experience on my Asus G1S-A1 (with 2 GB RAM obviously) have been overwhelmingly positive.
No, I haven't done extensive benchmarking so I can't really say for sure if it's faster or slower at rendering a 3D image, compressing a video file or batch renaming a hundred thousand photos, than older versions of Windows - but my own experience so far has been that even with all the graphical bells and whistles turned on (plus ObjectDock from StarDock and assorted Sidebar Gadgets), Vista actually seems more responsive (task switching, window (re)drawing, memory management) under medium to heavy load than Windows 2000 SP4 (which is supposedly leaner than XP, and they both use virtually identical cores) was on my old desktop PC with a slightly faster Core 2 Duo CPU, also 2 GB RAM, a significantly faster graphics card and a faster harddrive (7200 vs. 5400 rpm).
Not that I ever considered 2000 slow over the six years I've been using it on a numer of desktop computers, but Vista still seems to have the edge in regular day to day use when it comes to "reponsiveness" - even though it obviously requires and uses more system resources.

 

It's too bad really. If it wasn't so bloated and clunky I'd be using it. I just can't get past the performance penalty of it. Oh well. XP will be usable for at least 5 more years and by then hardware should be along far enough that it wont matter anymore, just like with Windows' IE4 shell "upgrade" years ago. I used the pre IE4 windows 95c shell in combination with an alternate browser for years for the very same reason. 98Lite to this day remains the only piece of unprepackaged software besides an OS that I have ever bought. (With the exception of games.) But today I wouldn't think of reverting to the 95c shell because hardware has evolved to the point that it is no longer lagged by even Windows XP. Enter Vista.

4 or 5 years from now CPU's will probably be running 8 or 16 cores, motherboards will run tens of gigs of RAM, and software will be well optimized to take advantage it. Vista will be a cake walk for the hardware.

 

If you follow the dots, you see they tested with both 1 and 2 gigs. Vista was a little better with 2 (4%), but still well off XP's twice as fast.

 

10% speed increase in what, shutting down?

 

Yeah same here. I just switched from XP Pro SP2 (1.5gb) to Vista Home Premium (2gb) and Vista has not only been faster but also more stable - my Xp used to crash at least once a week. Vista has yet to crash in over two weeks I have had the laptop. My wife's was crashing but we found out it was faulty RAM. And even when it did crash it recovered itself - XP never did.

 

As above. I've had a far more enjoyable time with Vista than I ever had with XP and its love of spontaneously deleting system32 files... Also, on my laptop, I find that booting to Vista is quicker than booting to Ubuntu and that the former is the most stable out of all the OSes I've experimented with and performs quickest in standard tasks.

 

Being the 3rd service pack release, and the 2nd major one as well, i would be hard pressed not to find ANY speed increase for XP. XP's first service pack was to patch security updates, compatibility issues, hot fixes, and a few other small potatoes. I would expect Vista's first service pack release to do the same. I would also expect more in Vista's SP2 and SP3 updates, should they come out in the future.

 

I feel sorry about M$ Vista.They(M$) took so long time to develop vista & give us nothing

 

/sigh once again...

-no listing of what was tested other than hints at Office 2007
-no listing of complete specs on testing machine(s)
-no listings of patches or tweaks done/installed
-no results, only implications of "twice" as fast

I have both XP and Vista machines on over 100 different configs in the office.

Vista when tweaked performs easily within 5-10% of XP in games, and office apps(which most of the computers matching Vista's requirements are massively overpowered for) run just as well with a few odd bugs here and there.

I cannot see "twice" as fast as even being possible unless you are a measuring milliseconds it takes to open something in Office...

How exactly do you measure "twice as fast" in office 2007?

Don't get me wrong... Vista has its issues and does NOT outperform XP...
but "twice the performance" in office 2007? Who are we joking?

 

this "test" has already been partly discredited since the Windows XP machine had office 2003 and vista had 2007

And office suite like Office 2007 or 2003 inherently adds overhead to a system since it alters system files. Unless the two machines are identical in both hardware and software, there is little point in comparing the performance.

Furthermore, the driver model in Vista is far less mature and its to be expected that future Vista drivers will enhance performance significantly

 

They've updated their blog to reflect a comparison of Vista+Office 2003 & XP+Office 2003 with 2GB RAM. The benchmark they use is comparing OS and Office versions. I have recently reloaded XP on my e1505 and have noticed the overall MS Office experience (running Office 2003) to be quicker and more responsive in XP, as the article describes.

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/

I'm curious if I will notice a difference when SP3 is released.

 

Been using vista since beta 2 and never had any problems.

People also seem to forget that XP is almost 7 years old, + 4 years of devellpement means 11 years of tweaking. Vista is all new and stuff. XP at launched sucked hard. XP at first needed what? 256MB tu run fine? Now it needs 1-1.5GB.

Oh and, when they say that vista got a 4% boost with 2GB compared 1GB, I call BS on that. Upgrading from 1->1.5GB gave me a FREAKING BIG boost already. Now I have 2GB on this laptop and runs better than my XP in dual boot.

 

Im currently running Windows Xp SP3 RC1 build 3244 and I can honestly say you won't notice a difference. Although, shutting down and firing up the system is a lot quicker.

 

Everyone needs to remember what is being tested. The test XP labs was using was a program called OfficeBench. It tests a scripted list of functions for Word, Excel, Internet Explorer and PowerPoint. For other programs and such, Tom's Hardware had a descent review comparing Vista and XP using video encoders, audio encoders, and several 3D games. Every test I have seen so far show that XP is faster. Sometimes the difference is less than 5%, nevertheless faster. With Vista you're paying for the eye candy, not performance. That's my two cents.

 

XP been on the market for what ? 6-7 years ? And what about Vista ? it's brand new. Give them time to develop the OS and release SPs. I'm sure SP2 will be a major improvement. Currently I have no problem running Vista on my Zepto.

 

And a SIGNIFICANT improvement in memory managment and security, but then I guess those are just more eye candy, right???

Gary

 

Haven't they been working on Vista since XP came out?

 

well, not quite....about half way into it, I think I recall they tossed everything out and started from scratch. Furthermore, they made significant changes in some very basic features that might have yielded more impressive performance, namely WinFS as a file system

 

I hope no one is surprised by this. Debugging an OS to work with the multiplicity of Hardware/Software configurations takes quite a long time. Find something else to talk about, like the weather.

 

And hopefully we won't have a new OS out by then.

 

This comes as no surprise to me. Sure if they stripped down Windows and built it from the ground up to be Vista it would be something else. Vista is just XP with more bloat.

I do wish they strip down windows and rebuild it from the ground up. As expensive as it is, the kernel needs a serious rewrite.

 

You guys understand that DOS sp18945 runs 18x faster than XP and Vista right? All you guys using these newer, crappier OS's need to get with it.

 

Sure, but it won't let me surf the web, create my documents, etc. etc. In other words, it may be faster, but it's faster at nothing because it won't let me do anything anyway

Kidding aside, when can we expect to get XP SP3? Vista SP1? I mean final full release versions...

 

Absolutely not true. Vista is a major rework of the code base from Windows Server 2003 not XP. Here are some details: Vista Myths There are lots of other articles out there about this as well.

Gary

 

I call Shenanigans on this thread.

Vista has been much faster and a TON more reliable then when I had XP on this very same notebook(in sig).

 

Na, I personally support and use Vista - I find nothing wrong with it for me to bother to go back to XP. But it's well known that XP is slightly faster and performs better with the same configuration.

 

There ya go Gary ....Hey, I've still got XP on my old lappy...can you link me to SP3...missed it somehow(or maybe I should just go boot the machine up sometime lol)

 

SP3 isn't out yet. It is slated to be released either at the same time as SP1 foe Vista for a little while after.

 

Just use the windows update feature...at this link: http://www.update.microsoft.com/windowsupdate/v6/default.aspx?ln=en-us

Have fun!

 

Having just had to install all the updates to Windows on a new XP machine (couldn't do SP3) a few days ago, I was really reminded with how far XP has come since SP2. It really is like a completely different OS, along with a huge amount of performance increases. If Vista does the same, I think the OS will be fine. Especially by next year's computers.

 

SP3 is just a collective update to all the updates released after SP2 with some other additions. There will be no performance/reliability improvement with this service pack unlike Vista SP1.

 

No offence, I call BS.
SP3 did nothing in terms of performance for me.

 

Guys,

Please dont revive old threads. Continue discussion here:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=247312

Thanks.

-Kdawgca
NBR Mod