Microsoft: XP vs. Vista Is the Same as Apples vs. Oranges
section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 14.5.2008
Tip: Click here to update all your PC's outdated driversMicrosoft has found the perfect cure for the now traditional Windows Vista vs. Windows XP smackdowns.
And no, it's not a new marketing strategy applauding the Wow's second coming, but a rather unsubtle tactic to rebuff any face-offs between the two operating systems. In order to discourage Vista vs. XP scenarios, Microsoft is claiming that the products are not even in the same league together and that a comparison is impossible. And at the root of the Redmond company's new Vista vs. XP revelation are nothing more and nothing less than claims of poor performance for the latest operating system in comparison (sic) to its predecessor.
Essentially, Microsoft is deaf to user complaints that generated a flood of feedback pointing out that Vista is slower than XP. Well, the company can hear users, but believing them is a different matter altogether. "We‘ve heard some of you say that Windows Vista runs slower than Windows XP on a given PC", Microsoft said, disputing such a possibility. "So what‘s really happening here?"
As far as Microsoft is concerned, Vista vs. XP is an impossibility. In this manner the Redmond company effectively throws out the window two performance studies that it has commissioned to Principled Technologies, one of Vista RTM vs. XP SP2 and the other of Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 and Vista RTM.
"First, we need to avoid comparing apples to oranges—Windows Vista is doing a lot more than Windows XP, and it requires resources to conduct these tasks. That said, it is important to make sure a PC running Windows Vista has enough horsepower to function properly, especially for older PCs running a minimal amount of RAM, since the Windows Vista footprint is larger, bottlenecks will occur", Microsoft argued.
But in fact there is a very good reason why Vista and XP are different fruits, which makes eventual comparisons useless. Especially when it comes down to assessing the performance that the two operating systems deliver and specifically in situations when Vista comes in short. The conclusion belongs to Microsoft and it was extracted from the benchmarks run by Principled Technologies, namely that there is no difference in speed between the two products.
source:
news.softpedia.com
>> Click Here to Run a Free Scan for PC Errors <<
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
MS: Nobody Wants to Pay $500 for Apples Logo These Days || Microsoft sued over Vista-XP downgrade || Microsoft sued over Vista-XP downgrade || Download Free Vista and XP from Microsoft as VHD Images || Windows 7, Vista, XP – There Will Be Blood
Comments(15)
linux
ms is in the happy position in being able to dictate to the market. vista is a crock of
shit, only newbie user will be forced to use it. long live xp pro.
i think m$ is becoming more and more desperate to the fact that their new os is not
selling.
do you think microsoft gives a crap what version of windows a given user is running? of
course not! to them the fact that they've sold so many vista licenses is proof that vista
is a success. the fact that a lot of people have switched back to xp and that oem's like
dell, etc., will do so for them after june 30th means that microsoft cares only about the
money.
vista vs. xp.... i still going to use xp insted of vista. but they who likes vista, best
of luck, and xp users... yes we know what we have and dont want to have :-p
ofcourse they sell more vista an its a success because u cant buy a new pc today with xp.
if people had a choise, i dont think that vista will have sold so mutch ;)
we are working with vista and xp and i must tell vista is not slower as xp, maybe the
illegal version's from vista so the can hack your computer and steal your data, tha will
make vista slower!
whotf cares about you guys with small d*cks telling us to not use vista only because you
can't afford to upgrade your hardware. you can't put a ferrari engine in a volvo car and
that's the same with operative-systems. i can't stop laugh about you idiots. it is the
same people talk about symantec's products that they totally sux and you should use some
free virus protection programmed by a few unsuccessful geeks. but keep on telling us smart
people to not use the best os in the world... windows vista! i love you guys you're
hilarious!
and by the way vista has sold over 140 million copies worldwide.
i can see xp as an orange and vista as an apple. it's easy to get juice from an orange,
getting juice from an apple is harder, more time consuming and you get less juice for more
effort. an orange also has less calories or bloat compared to an apple.
long
live xp
what the hell is everyone's problem with vista anyway? just because you don't want to
pay out to get a new computer doesn't mean that we should all suffer for it! sure, vista
has its ups and downs, but hey - at home, i have 3 computers running windows xp sp2, and
one laptop running windows vista. the vista laptop is sure as hell the most efficient
computer in the house, and i find many of the extra bits and pieces that ms has added in
quite a bit of fun.
basically, what i'm trying to say is... don't diss what
you can't afford!!!
that's not to say i don't miss windows pinball though!!!
i use vista and i have had it run as well or better with ut3, crysis, civ 4. i am a
gamer, and with dx10 i find everything not only looks better, but runs as well or better.
i have a 8800gt so it is dx10 ready, if i had a dx 9 im sure the performance would be less
on vista. x64 vista is miles better than xp 64. i have used both operating systems and im
sure some of you disagree. xp 64 was never meant to be a workstation os and it really
isnt. vista x64 was and runs well. that said, it is still a microsoft product which means
it is buggy, and has its own set of issues.
poop vs pee, one is shit other is fluid
i have two pcs, one installed with vista and the other with xp. both pcs are turned on
24/7. after a few days, xp became laggier in performance whereas vista did not lag.
let me see. vista has a larger footprint, right up everyones a$$hole. hmmmm. i guess i do
need new hardware to support microsofts partner intel. i simply must support that larger
bottleneck of drm and spyware. funny thing though is all my programs run great with xp, no
freezes, no slowdows. my senses tell me that an upgrade to vista is useless and
unecessary, despite the hype.
at guy_ad
s.uck my balls n00b
No new comments are allowed for this article.
For your questions use our KezNews Forum
Windows 7 RTM 7600.16385.090713-1255 HERE !
Microsoft: XP vs. Vista
By TC on 15.05.2008 - 05:05