No Surprise in XP Outperforming Vista, the Same Is Valid for Windows 2000, 95 and 3.11
section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 3.4.2008
With the advent of Windows Vista in 2007, the latest Windows client, and the product that could have done with a tad more refinement according to Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, a barrage of criticism started orbiting the operating system.
In this respect, one of the areas where Vista took most of the fire was intimately connected with its performance. As the comparison with its predecessor, Windows XP, was inevitable, fingers were pointed at Vista, while the contrast revealed a consistent difference in performance. Microsoft’s official position was to explain the matter by emphasizing the evolution of the hardware infrastructure of Vista-ready PCs and the system requirements for Windows XP.
"One of the other things I often get questions about is performance. People often say to me that XP out performs Vista on their new machine. Well that should be no surprise really. Guess what, if you run Windows 2000 on that machine - it will be extremely quick! Quicker still will be Windows 95 and Windows 3.11 will be faster still. So would you install Windows 3.11 on your machine? No of course not, because although performance is great, you sacrifice security and functionality. Windows XP will continue to run faster on newer and faster hardware - it's no surprise - but so will Windows Vista," revealed James Senior, Microsoft U.K. Partner Technical Specialist.
At MIX08 in Las Vegas in early March, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer acknowledged the fact that Vista suffered from application and driver compatibility issues, but at the same time he failed to mention performance issues. As far as performance is concerned, Microsoft’s position was that the latest Windows client brought to the table "revolutionary memory management" as well as "support for innovative hardware advances" and that the operating system delivered in this manner advanced performance. But of course Senior is right. XP simply flies on a Vista-ready machine since it was designed to run on hardware configurations dating back to 2001. The same will happen with Vista when it will be run on computers from 2013, for example. Still, Microsoft promises better performance today following the release of Windows Vista SP1.
"SP1 further improves Windows Vista performance in response to customer feedback. For example, SP1 improves file-copy performance. In some scenarios, SP1 reduces by half the time required to copy large file collections. Power transitioning is another example. SP1 improves the speed of resuming computers from standby mode. Performance improvements vary from system to system, depending on hardware, environment, scenarios and usage; therefore, different customers will experience different benefits," Microsoft revealed in the Vista SP1 Product Guide.
source:
news.softpedia.com
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Windows Vista vs. Windows 9x/Me, NT Server, 2000 and XP || From Windows 95 to Windows Vista SP1 RC1 - the Evolution of the Start Menu Button || Chinese Windows 2000 attack crashes PCs || Will the Windows 7 Launch Be Like Windows 95? || MagicTweak 4.11
Comments(45)
"one of the other things i often get questions about is performance. people often say to
me that xp out performs vista on their new machine. well that should be no surprise
really.
o.k where are all the rock apes now who claim that vista runs faster
for them than xp . are they still gazing open mouthed at their shiny aero interface ?
clowns!!!!!!!! : )
well with newer mememory management features with vista such as superfetch i do find
vista loading programs a lot quicker than xp, even on startup and shutdown.. it depends
some things xp is better at, others vista
vista is snappier on my setup than xp was, and no i didn't upgrade just for aero,
although it is more pleasant to look at than xp.
it took me all of 30 minutes
to learn the new interface, and overall i find it to be slightly more intuitive than xp.
same goes for office 2007 vs. 2003.
the thing you gotta remember is that
hardward costs way less now than when xp came out, ie. ram. so all you nay-sayers who are
too cheap to cough up $60-70 for more ram aren't making a very convincing argument.
xp's minimum ram was like 256mb. try running it on that little ram, and upgrading to
at least 512mb in 2001 cost waaaaay more than sticking an extra gig in your system in
2008.
an operating system is merely a tool, not an end unto itself. an improved os would do
everything the previous one does, except it would do it faster and take up less space, as
well as being more seccure.
it should never be necessary to buy new hardware
just to run your old programs on a new os.
if you that way, every new os that ships should run as fast even on old hardware. so in
the future the new windows should still cater to those who are running old p3s and p4s,
there would be no reason for those people to upgrade.. technology is moving too fast for
those ppl who complain about having to buying new hardware..
the person who wrote this article is either very iliterate or a flat out liar. the claim
is that quote 'because although performance is great, you sacrifice security and
functionality' unquote bs! ( i won't coment on 2k, 98, no one uses them hardly)
vista ultimate comes with ie 7's protected mode, windows defender, uac,
and thats
it! both (xp and vista) os need a real antivirus and spyware protection. xp can do
anything vista can do smoother and faster. vista has no reason to exist other than to make
microsoft extra cash period, and to please their hollywood friends by choking us with drm.
anyone who says that 'vista is snappier than xp" is a s.hit faced liar,
plain and simple. and that inclueds you 'yoyomama, what a c.unt you must be...lol i'll
bet you love to bend over for microsoft right?
bob wrote "if you that way, every new os that ships should run as fast even on old
hardware ..."
no, that's not quite what i wrote. i said that an --improved--
operating system would run faster on the same hardware than the old os did. for me,
that's one of the definitions of improvement. having been a computer programmer for more
that 20 years, i know that you can review that code you wrote and see how to make it
better the next time.
it stands to reason that if you installed your programs
on a newer system with a faster processor & bus, they would run faster still.
there are always people who can find a reason to upgrade, but not everyone needs the
"latest & greatest" to run simple tasks. consumers need not buy into the "planned
obsolescence" strategy that some are foisting onto us.
m$ is just talking bullsh!t, vista is just plain annoying and makes computer slow too. i
don't see how vista is any better in performance, and windows 2000 obviously doesn't
copy files as fast as xp, and vista is obviously slower than 2000 so, windows xp wins
here.
when it comes to aero, vista wins the price here. it is nice looking, nice eye
candy, and thats it. no offense to blonde girls, but vista acts like dumb blonde, dumb,
but good looking.
wow some here must have really old pc's to claim vista is slow..
i am running
vista ultimate on a old p4 from 2004, and the os runs smooth. so there is no way in hell
i am going to take the word of people bashing vista, when vista runs great here.
i'm curious as to what kind of users are saying vista is slow, like are you the same
people who buy dells, and hp system with all that crapware installed, the ones with 20
programs loading on startup and using windows sidebar... because i consider myself a
"power user" and i do a lot of tweaking here and there, and i think vista ain't that
bad, i find it a bit more stable and secure than xp.. so what gives, are u ppl just
complaining cause everyone else is complaining? i know vista doesn't have any huge
innovations or redefining anything.. but camman it really ain't that bad.
if you want to dispute my arguments about vista, go ahead. but don't call me a c.unt who
likes to bend over for microsoft because i know what i'm talking about. why would i lie
about liking vista? if i didn't, i'd only say great things about xp and not shoot my
mouth off about vista.
i run fedora on one comp and used to dual boot xp and
vista on another. i recently dumped xp cuz vista has proven itself as very stable and
smooth with sp1 installed.
vista gold is s.hittier than xp, no doubt, but sp1
makes it better, which is why microsoft will not get rid of vista cuz they know hold-outs
have been waiting for sp1.
oh did i forget to mention i'm running the x64
version of vista ultimate? that's gotta be the single most stable and fastest windows to
have ever come out of redmond. i'm sure they intended for a lot of people to switch over
to x64, which i doubt will happen any time soon cuz the average user doesn't know the
difference between x86 and x64.
vista is noticeably faster on my system then xp. not only in bootup and shutdown time,
but in launching programs. i have yet to have vista lock up on me where in xp i can't
even remember how many times i've had to reset the computer it can crash so randomly.
vista however, on the downside is much slower at running games. but, anything
else it's a much better performer then xp.
e6600
2gb ocz
250gb wd
raid 0
8800gts 640mb oc
dx9 games will run slower on vista, no doubt there.. but so far the dx10 games do run
much better as intended..
if your pc is fast enough, you will not notice all
that much in game play with dx9 gamnes..
http://www.news.com/windows-xp-outshines-vista-in-benchmarking-test/2100-1016_3-6220201.h
tml
new tests have revealed that windows xp with the beta service pack 3 has
twice the performance of vista, even with its long-awaited service pack 1.
vista's
first service pack, to be released early next year, is intended to boost the operating
system's performance. however, when vista with the service pack 1 (sp1) beta was put
through benchmark testing by researchers at florida-based software development company
devil mountain software, the improvement was not overwhelming, leaving the latest windows
iteration outshined by its predecessor.
vista, both with and without sp1,
performed notably slower than xp with sp3 in the test, taking over 80 seconds to complete
the test, compared to the beta sp3-enhanced xp's 35 seconds.
vista's
performance with the service pack increased less than 2 percent compared to performance
without sp1--much lower than xp's sp3 improvement of 10 percent. the tests, run on a dell
xps m1710 test bed with a 2ghz core 2 duo cpu and 1gb of ram, put microsoft office 2007
through a set of productivity tasks, including creating a compound document and supporting
workbooks and presentation materials.
in response to the test, a microsoft
spokesperson said in a statement that although the company understood the interest in the
service packs, they are "still in development" and will continue to evolve before their
release. "it has always been our goal to deliver service packs that meet the full
spectrum of customer needs," the spokesperson said.
if sp1 does not evolve
sufficiently, it could be another setback for vista, with many businesses waiting to adopt
the operating system until the service pack is released.
a year after its
launch, only 13 percent of businesses have adopted vista, according to a survey of it
professionals.
microsoft admits that the launch has not gone as well as the
company would have liked. "frankly, the world wasn't 100 percent ready for windows
vista," corporate vice president mike sievert said in a recent interview at microsoft's
partner conference in denver.
microsoft has not done enough to make users aware
of the benefits of vista, npd analyst chris swenson said at the conference. "the problem
is that there are a lot of complex new features in vista, and you need to educate
consumers about them...much like apple educating the masses about the possibilities of the
iphone or focusing on a single feature or benefit of the mac os in the mac-versus-pc
commercials. microsoft should be educating the masses about the various new features in a
heavy rotation of vista in tv, radio, and print ads. but the volume of ads (for vista) has
paled in comparison to the ads run for xp."
xp has proved to be more popular
than its younger sibling, with the first six months of u.s. retail sales of box copies of
vista 59.7 percent below those of xp's in the equivalent period after its release.
microsoft has had to allow pc manufacturers to continue to sell xp on new pcs,
setting a deadline for the last sale at january 31. however, the pressure from
manufacturers and consumers has been so great that microsoft has been forced to extend the
deadline another five months, until june.
according to microsoft, sales of
vista have been picking up, with the software giant reporting 88 million units sold.
i did a clean install of vista over a year ago on my asus p4c800-e deluxe, p4 3.2 cpu, 2
gb ram, sata drive. i tweaked it per my previous extensive knowledge of xp and other
published articles avaiable on-line pertaining to vista and it runs very well. with the
correct services configuration it starts up fast and shuts down almost instantly. then i
started getting bsods. after having no luck getting the system stable i swapped the hd
with and identical new sata drive, reinstalled xp and fully tweaked it. shortly after
reinstalling all my apps i started getting the same random bsods under xp. the problem
turned out to be hardware related and has since been resolved. but the point of this is
that i have a vista installation and an xp installation on different identical hard drives
with the otherwise same hardware and bios configuration. i can honestly say that on my
system vista is faster than xp. i don't run games so i can't report gaming performance.
out of the box, vista is a real dog, but fully tweaked it runs great. the same can be said
about xp. please don't insult posters who say vista works for them. if xp is better for
you, then great. stick with xp. but vista can and does perform well when properly
configured.
anyone who states that vista is faster than xp pro 'tweaked' or otherwise is a flat out
liar, and will not be taken seriously, ever. its a fact of life that vista in the box or
out of it is a performance whore, guzzling memory and cpu resources to nothing, like a
cheap, cum drinking whore.
at mazera: look, you can bend over and let
microsoft have a go at your little twat, just don't come here writing micrsoft lies about
vista. sp1 can't save me2, sorry, nothing can save the 'train wreak known as vista'.
some of you vista worshipers need to stop talking to kreznew’s readers like to talk to
your cheap senile grand mom and grand pop.
we sale high-end workstations preloaded
with multi operating systems (linux/xp/vista). these hot-rod-machines are loaded with
$800 processor, $500 graphics card; nothing is less than 6 gig of ram. but doesn’t matter
how up to date our machines are the fact is
linux is a performance champion king
window xp is the charming performance prince
vista is the ultimate pos
performance joker even with sp1 installed.
don’t believe your microsoft propaganda
sale agents and listen to microsoft vice presidentmike nash commented:"i now have a
$2,100 e-mail machine”. some claimed that they also heard mike nash cursed at visa: “all
we got is a really sorry-ass pos after spending millions of dollars for 7 years?”
is xp faster than vista in what ares?
does it game or render video files faster? no.
does xp start up faster than vista? no. does xp shut down faster than vista? no.
how many times was my xp homepage or favorites highjacked by ad/malware? oh, about
once every 2-3 months. how many times has my vista been jacked in the last year? none.
i upgraded my machine significantly when installing vista, so it does run faster than
it did before upgrading to vista. so i'm happy. i don't want to run xp, or 98, or 95
faster either. i'm quite happy with my speed, and quite happy with vista (sp1 not
installed yet).
people seem to forget what a bitch xp was when it first came out. or
how much of a bitch it still was when sp1 came out. it didn't actually approach
"stable" until sp2.
is vista the end-all, be-all os? no. but i have enjoyed some
of the changes, and look forward to it's evolution into an even better os with coming
service packs.
i've yet to see an original gripe about vista. ya see, i've heard
the all before, word for word when 95 first came out, and again with 98, xp, ect.........
at yoyoma :
if you reckon it took you 30 minutes to learn the new interface you are
talking bolloxs and you are a wanker as suggested by kunti now go and suc m$'s c*ck some
more.
skully: what a noob you must be...you said: " xp homepage or favorites highjacked by
ad/malware? oh, about once every 2-3 months" unquote:
hahaha! what a dumba.ss
you are! a good firewall, antivirus, & spyware package would have protected you. i've got
news for you, vista does not come with any of these things, microsoft doesnt give a shi.t
to include any of those with vista ultimate. i guarantee if your dumb enough (sounds like
it!) to run any os with protection youre screwed!
so youre saying xp doesn't
render faster than vista? i am sorry to say it does, with everything. pull your head out
of your shi.tty arse and look at the facts. nothing can save the 'titanic disaster' of
me2, known as vista. the os is full of spyware and drm. there will be no 'evolution' of
vista....microsoft hopes windows 7 will fix their smeared reputation. well have to see
about that as i dont trust ms after me2.
funny, all those who are so die hard set against vista here have to resort to profane
name calling.
vista will be better then xp given the updates. it was a long
time before people finally dumped win98 for xp. most people even still debated that win98
was faster right up till about sp2 came out.
what makes you think the same
won't happen with vista?
at kc;
get a clue: windows 7 will be out and pooor vista will be shelved. its
a fact. deal with it. vista is a failure.
no sane it person will adopt it. home users
were duped into adopting it as they had no choice bc it is on all new pcs....its microsoft
spyware and drm...
jj the article you posted seriously outdated, they did not even test the final versions
of each sp, i'm sure xp sp3 will perform better than vista sp1, but not twice as much,
and only in some areas.... and im curious, have u ever used vista, and if so on what
hardware?
i got a core 2 duo e4300 oc'ed 3.2ghz
1 gb ram ddr2 800
nvidia 8500 gt (asus)
asus p5k mobo
and there is no way vista is more stable than xp!so much more bugs
in vista than xp!
i am a system builder and i know whats best for customers!
the reason why it took me no more than 30 minutes to get used to vista and office 2007
was cuz i knew what the differences were right off the bat. all i had to do was get
comfortable in using the features on a regular basis.
it's unfortunate that jj
is resorting to cursing at me and other people here who have made vista work for them, but
the fact of the matter is, i put in the effort to make vista work for me, and the result
is that it's working better than xp ever did. it's called being a responsible computer
user and responsible consumer.
i learned how to tweak my system on xp and have
tweaked vista even more so. that includes turning uac, windows defender, indexer off, and
a whole bunch of other useless services, not to mention having formatted my hard drive as
soon as i bought my system to get rid of all the trial bloatware that my oem put on it.
how about all you vista bashers first try it for longer than 5 minutes at your
local computer store, then come back and express an informed opinion.
do you
honestly think that windows 7 won't have drm?
xp is gone; damn it looks so boring. have tried linux, crap os x leopard, and vista.
vista is my choice. simply the best
at turbo:
look- i alpha and beta tested longhorn/vista for years-microsoft let
alot of people down with vista. i know everything about vista. years of inovation were
lost when longhorn was scraped, so they started over with server 2003 shell and created
vista. too many features were promised and dropped, like winfs, one of many. vista is an
overblown resource hog stuffed with drm and spyware. xp runs circles around it, thats a
fact!
my pc: 2 single core xeons at 3.8 ghz,
4 gigs ddr 2 ram 800 mhz
nvidia gforce 7950 video card,
no surprise vista outperform xp in the market. 160,000,000 copies licensed
macosx, linux, etc..are for major xxx users
we really don't care about your hardware problems here mazera. explaining your hardware
problems with 750 words on a software site is just wrong.
vista makes u think its faster. thats the trick. and i think its bullshiznat to go back
to win 3.11... xp can stand a comparison with vista. and i dont think win 2000 is faster
lol i've tested it on my system and takes minutes to login. so xp is the shiznat and will
be the shiznat 4 ever. vista sukz and im sure windows 7 suxor even more.
system builder my ass, i am glad i'm not a customer of yours...
if your
system is not stable then you are doing something wrong..
ok so some people dislike vista and some don't that no reason to use such foul language
is it?
everyone has a right to their own opinion, if you don't agree why
waste time swearing about it. ok so we know the comments here are always flame
bait/retaliation but come on, this is ridiculous!
there are more important
things in life than how good/bad the latest ms os is... honest :)
incredible,
i've managed a whole comment with not dodgy separators in the middle of words to avoid
any filters!
vista has its good and bad points, deal with it. there are plenty
of alternatives and that's a good thing for all sorts of reasons. if everyone thought the
same thing and agreed all the time then this world would be a sad place!
jj, i think you need to get a clue. people will have to use vista if they plan on
running all the hot title games coming out this year that are dx10 or even plan to use a
lot of the photo editing software programs that are about to be put out for 64bit vista
only.
ohdear,
we all have the right to use foul language on whatever subject, you know.
it's called freedom of speech.
yea, we'll have to deal with it eventually, but in
the way we have to deal with whatever the crap the government and its co-conspirators the
greedy corporations push down our throat. yea, it's your throat too, ohdear. you have a
choice of how to deal with it. you can simply go with the flow and accept all the crap no
matter how it deform you beyond recognition... or, you can put up a fight using whatever
resource available. it's your choice, really.
and don't boast about not having to
use foul languague.
yes i feel soooo sorry for anybody not on vista x64 ultimate sp1 ! it's much quicker in
everything than that toy os xp x32 pro sp2. xp can't even recognise anymore than 3mb ram
in your system !!! it's a joke, a toy. it's no wonder ms want to get rid of it. we will
leave the toys for the boys, meanwhile the real men will be using vista x64.
sneaky pete, ever used xp x64? and i just decided not to become a real man cause i wont
use vista x64.
and to mr. ohdear: its not foul language. there are no other
words to describe vista muahaha
come on guys... why complain so much about vista when you have a choice to accept (or not
accpet) it as a true desktop operating system?
note: the root of the problem
always exists between the chair and keyboard...
i think your agoraphobia shot is overdue, mate. use whatever the hell you want and stop
insulting people for not agreeing with you
its funny when people talk about the freedom of speech when told to use a nicer language.
freedom of speech is not about being allowed to curse but to be able to talk
about and criticize any subject or person,
bah talk about ot
anyway
vista isnt faster than xp on same machine configuration and isnt supposed to be that
either.
so if you use old hardware you dont need vista if you have proper
protection and dont need the specifik vista fetaures that as of now still doesnt exist on
xp dont know about linux maye exist there.
.
of course nothing can
protect the user from it self in the long run.
this is easily the most moronic argument that's been made in a tech article ever. "of
course vista is slower than xp, it's slower than all their other versions too!" even if
that argument actually made -sense-, it would still be an insult.
more of the endless crap posted on softpedia from the some idiot author who has had an
anti-vista attitude even before vista came out.
its just unbelievable what crap
they keep putting out. its not like softpedia is some big journalist or something either.
its a lame site to download crap.
idiotic said
"of course vista is slower than xp". the speed of any os very much
depends on its ram. xp needs a minimum 64 mb's of ram. use 256 mb and you are approaching
the sweet spot. use 512 mb ram and over is superfluous and you may see an 2% increase in
speed.
vista needs a minimum 512mb ram. 2-3gb the sweet spot and over 3gb no
noticeably speed increase.
on the same system (ram 4gb) xp is only optimally
using 512mb ram, and vista is optimally using 3gb ram.
in the real world vista
x64 boots faster than xp x32.
vista x64 copies a dvd using dvd fab much faster
than xp x32.
vista x64 opens adobe reader faster than xp x32.
vista
x64 opens office 7 faster than xp x32 and the list goes on and on.
any big
program needing resources will fly under vista x64.
when it comes to small
programs needing minimal resources such as notepad guess what its a tie ! they both open
in the blink of an eye.
ask yourself this ... if you had a system with ram 4gb,
would you chose an 32bit os that only optimally uses 512mb of it or would you chose an
64bit os optimally using over 3gb ???
n0pe, of course i've used xp x64 when i
had a amd 3200+ x64 cpu and ms brought out the very first xp x64 amd only. the win x32
emulation is much better under vista x64.
i remember when win 95 first came
out. there was the same hysteria. all the magazines where full of how to dual boot win
3.11 and win 95 lol. most of the dos commands where gone in win 95 oh noooo ... wait there
are still some left in %win dir%\command lol. the same hysteria/fear will of course again
happen when win 7 comes out.
if you are a system builder then surely you would know you need 2gb of ram for vista to
run well and not 1gb.
u mention dx10 as a vista plus.. uhm.. who needs that crap. vista is a slow turtle, and
xp can do anything better than vista.
i agree with ppl saying that a new os
should be an improvement over an old one, and not just a feature update. a new os kernel,
should be faster than the old one. this doesn't mean they can't update the interface and
add aero, but there should be more choices, and how much performance the individual wants
to sacrifice for eye-candy...
No new comments are allowed for this article.
For your questions use our KezNews Forum
Where are the wankers now .
By Kunti on 04.04.2008 - 01:04