Windows Vista SP1 vs. Windows Vista RTM vs. Windows XP SP2
section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 28.2.2008
Feb 26th, 2008. Principled Technologies has released two Microsoft commissioned reports on Windows Vista SP1 performance. In these tests, Principled Technologies measured responsiveness of Windows Vista SP1 vs. Windows Vista RTM vs. Windows XP SP2 when performing a set of common business and home tasks.
The results show that SP1 performs on par with Vista RTM and Windows XP.
Though commissioned by Microsoft these are independent third party tests. These tests illustrate SP1 performing comparably to XP while follow the same strict methodology used by Principled Technology at Windows Vista RTM.
The test show that as with Windows Vista RTM, overall performance is on par with Windows XP. It’s important to remember that Windows Vista is a more advanced operating system, which includes many more capabilities than Windows XP. By default, Windows Vista includes antispyware, a search indexer, and the shadow copy service. All these work in the background, providing important services to customers, but they of course take up a portion of the PCs memory and processor resource.
Vista SP1 includes changes focusing on improving the performance of Windows Vi sta in several areas like, copying or moving files around your PC, your home network, or your corporate network, resuming faster from sleep, etc.
It may be recalled that Microsoft had during the release of Windows Vista RTM, in November 2006, commissioned Principled Technologies to develop and run a set of test that compared the responsiveness of Windows Vista and Windows XP SP 2 on common business and home tasks. The results revealed that Window Vista performance was on par with Windows XP. With the recent RTM of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 we commissioned Principled Technologies to do an update that compares those earlier test results to SP1. In their tests Principled Technologies found that Windows Vista SP1 and Windows XP SP2 performed comparably on most test operations.
Performance differences between the two operating systems on most tasks were insignificant, typically less than a half second.
On several common business and home operations Windows Vista SP1 was noticeably more responsive after rebooting than Windows XP.
source:
winvistaclub.com
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Vista SP1 RC1 Flies Past Vista RTM and Windows XP SP2 || Windows XP SP3 RTM and Windows Vista SP1 RTM – Just Around the Corner? || Vista SP1 RC Leaves XP SP2 in the Dust, but What About XP SP3? || Microsoft Makes Its Own Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2, Leaves XP SP3 Out || Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked
Comments(16)
if i don't see comparisons on a chart or graph, i'm not interested. who wants to read
your daily vs vs vs bullshit anyway!
i tootally agree! everyone knows vista is a turtle! its a no brainer! i play many games,
xp rules, vista ate all my memory and cpu.
do i doubt it very much , lets wait and see, maybe sp1 gives the needed boost wich would
bring vista up to par with xp.
get yourselves a decent machine, then vista will be more responsive.
i have
vista sp1. and the file copying is increased by 300% atleast, all daily tasks are better,
and more responsive than xp.
stop bashing the operating system which hundreds of
programmers worked on and millions of dollars spent, so you can come at the end with old
rigs and say vista is a turtle and xp is faster..
no brainers. children
seriously
amh wrote:
get yourselves a decent machine, then vista will be more responsive.
===
here's the no brainer: on any machine, i repeat any machine,
xp will always run faster than vista. i can show you 200 benchmarking test results to
prove that. install vista, benchmark. wipe the hard drive, install xp, benchmark. xp
always wins. (as long as it's an independent test not paid for by microsoft).
so, why get a "decent" machine to run vista when the same machine will run xp even
faster? vista doesn't bring anything killer to the table that i would endure a slower
computer for. i want the fastest computer with the best os. right now, xp gives me that.
sure windows 98 runs even faster, blah blah blah. but win98 and dos and all
that are outdated. windows xp is not outdated. every windows software apps made also run
on xp, and usually faster!
it's vista that has speed problems, hardware
problems, software problems. xp has no problems. and it's faster!
no
brainer, child.
guys when windows xp came out back in 2001, people used to say the exact same thing
theyre saying about vista.
people just upgrade you hardware
you are an idiot and/or a liar. that is all
and i feel sorry for you guys that run vista... you're being used as guinea pigs... :p
windows 98se is also way faster on any machine than vista and xp, so i don't get your
point.
xp is like a reliable old car that has been souped up with brand names
accessories over the years. its downside is that it's been painted over with layer upon
layer of paint meant to cover up all the rust. after so many years, the paint is starting
to flake off.
vista is like the latest sports car off the assembly line, but
even though the seat belts and air bags are more reliable than in the xp car, there is no
power steering and there are no disk brakes. there's just a bunch of fancy but mostly
buggy buttons that make the driver feel like an incompetent james bond.
compare a decent machine from 2001 with xp rtm with a decent machine from 2007 with vista
rtm - and you will have a result that we can use for something. using ancient software on
state of the art, current machinery is just stupid. vista works fine on my hardware, but i
did spend some money upgrading. if you want to live in the past, fine by me, but stop
bitching about your old and inferiour software working well. if everybody was like you
guys, we would still live in caves - because it works and its cheap.. :d
carry on its all bollocks but gives me something to wait for.....and when you get it its
shit too.......lol
here's what i have for a pc, average by today's standards, you could probably by a dell
with these specs for 1k maybe less, build you own even cheaper. never had a problem with
vista, did have lots of problems with xp, probably why i don't use it anymore.
asus p5k deluxe wifi
intel 6750 core 2 duo
dominator pc 8500 1066mhz
1 evga gts 8800 640mb gpu
thermaltake 750 sli psu,
zalman 8700 hs/cooler
1 wd 75gb raptor/1 wd 150gb raptor gb hd's
samsumg syncmaster 22"
antec
900 case
vista ultimate 32
my second pc has a 939 board with an amd cpu
4400 dual core, 2gbs memory, 7950 evga gpu, 1 320 seagate hd, runs vista as well never had
a problem, it's a little slower than my main pc but it's good enough for my daughter,
she's the one using it. my wife has a dell inspiron 1501 running xp, what a slow-assed
pos!!! maybe because it's a dell:) it's got a gig of ram and i think a 1.7 dual core amd
cpu it should have any problem with xp but it runs like sh/t!!! go figure!
whatcha gonna do when games require 4 gigs of ram ??? cry and complain wha wha
wha...sniff sniff xp is faster wha..
vista64 is the future period!
you know it is
i don't care about vista! even more: recently i installed linux and enjoy it more -
it's challenging, but you guys make a huge mistake. you compare 2 systems on one machine.
insane! why don't you compare xp on average computer from 2001 against vista on average
machine from 2007 and then say which system is faster, better, whatever bullshit you want
to say. that in my opinion would give you fair comparison.
my cousin has a computer from 2001 and i compared it to my laptop which was in the same
price range. his came with xp home my laptop came with windows vista home premium and i
can say safely that the xp machine is slower than the vista machine.
his came with
128 megs of ram mines came with 1 gig i believe thos are ner the bottom of the minimum
requirements for them both. oh well guess what they are both intel inside
No new comments are allowed for this article.
For your questions use our KezNews Forum
Who gives a shit
By your tests suk ! on 29.02.2008 - 01:02