What makes Windows Vista better than Windows XP?

Did you forget to take your medication again ? I assume that I am included in Everyone" ? Can not recall any random crashes with XP and certainly no data loss. So it's not a proven fact as far as I'm concerned.

As to the original Question - nothing makes Vista better than Xp and nothing makes Xp better than Vista. It really all depends upon the usual variables, hardware, software, how the system is used etc. In some circumstances one will be better than the other with another user getting completely different results - end of story.

 

Well, I have XP and Vista in FDISR snapshots. I boot frequently between them (a stripped down XP Pro for gaming) and to me Vista feels at least as fast or faster than XP in file copying, starting programs and all that I have as basis in my judgement of if a OS is faster or slower. I haven't done any benchmarking though, but why should I? If I feel that Vista is faster then that is what counts, right?

Amen! Couldn't agree more.

 

Back in the the window ME days and upgrading my ram to run XP was a great improvement overall but all the same it was no picknick either.After patches,Hot Fix and service packs Xp was and Is excellent IMO.I think vista first release was like XP in the beggining,Release first fix it latter as vista getting better with age.As far as performance my vista very fast from bootups and close downs,browsing and application.That said what I have on board as far as hardware with vista,I can only imagine XP.It would probably transform to a F-16 fighter perhaps not but who really cares as long as its secure runs fast and dont crash its all good.

 

The benchmarks for Vista and XP have nothing to do with the hardware requirements. The hardware requirements are what they are for Vista because it is more system intensive. Vista uses the exact same percentage of its system resources as XP does.

I actually dont have benchmarks of my system because I dont use XP and Im not paying for it. Nor do I use benchmarking software on my laptop which is basically a desktop replacement. Not to mention to make the benchmarks I ran relevant someone would have to have the exact same laptop with the exact same specs and system configuration. I would have to reimage their operating system with mine.

I did find some benchmarks thought.

The test system for both operating systems:

Intel Core 2 Duo E6750, ASUS Blitz Formula Motherboard, Corsair CM2X1024-9136C5D (1142MHz DDR2, 5-5-5-15) 2GB, WD6500AAKS, SoundBlaster XtremeGamer, AMD/ATI Radeon HD 3870

The conclusion from an online article I read:

Finally the proof is in the pudding.

 

vista is a resource and rag hog
i guess xp is better

 

I like how everyone expects the technology to become minimalistic. Technology is advancing and getting better and better so software is going to start having more features, eye candy, etc which in turn will make it use more resources.

My Vista install uses less than 20% of my RAM and less than 10% of my CPU when I boot to desktop. I have 3Gbs of RAM and a C2D T9300 2.5Ghz processor. Its hardly high end by todays standards. That is not system intensive and runs like a dream.

 

I fully agree.

Vista x64 with 4 Gigs of memory and decent dual core CPU, seems slower than my XP machine with 512mb memory and single core Celeron.

However my new motherboards features are designed around Vista, meaning I must use vista.

Hope Windows 7 goes back to the performance abilities of XP.

 

My Vista x64 actually uses most of my 4 gigs of ram when it can, it's a feature they copied from Linux, using excess available ram for buffers and caching and what not. Improves performance... I have seen it use up to 3.7 gigs of my 4 gigs ram. Fine with me. If I need it, it's released for use anyway.... And buffering and caching improves performance. CPU% is usually very low no matter what I'm doing, even burning DVDs and doing other stuff at the same time doesn't even get it to 10%. I'm happy with it...

 

I like how half of the people here are so damned arrogant that you can clearly post statistics proving that Vista is faster and they still argue it.

On another note: Kerodo is exactly right. Vista has great abilities in managing RAM. If another process needs it and one is idle it will remove the idle program to allow room for the other. It doesnt have the memory leak that XP has and always will.

 

There are stats that prove XPx64 to be faster, myriads of them infact from forums to various personal tests and its logical as the core is NT 5.2 used in MS's mission critical server OS namely the 2003.

 

Thats why I specifically posted a benchmark from software that was created for XP. Even thought it was created for XP, Vista still outscored it.

 

so why does vista lagg so majorly bad when running a simple virtual machine with 256mb of ram allocated out of my 2gb ram? not to start with but if very quickly if i do a few things in the virtual OS.
imo vista tries to copy linux and other unix based os's and fails.
if i had a penny every time a windows OS i have used had a issue i would be able to buy alot of expensive stuff.
if microsoft would just give in and use a unix base like everyone else then more people would be happy. just think the hours saved if microsoft os's worked better?
more time for family and friends.

 

What does comparing Linux or another Unix based system Vista have to do with Vista vs. XP?

 

the fact that unix and linux based os's are much better designed that windows based os's
windows xp has its problems to. the only difference between vista and xp is that xp has been out longer and has more service packs under its belt so i works better. people pay ms upfront for something that doesnt work and have to wait a few years for service packs before it works properly.

 

XP still has more problems than Vista. Vista is more stable than XP ever was and will be.

 

When you mention XP, is it x32 or x64, if you are mentioning x32, I would agree with you, OTOH, x64 rocks and is stable as a mountain irrespective of whats thrown at it.

 

All of the benchmarks are done with XP 32-bit Home Edition against Vista 32-bit Home Premium.

Even if we were comparing 64-bit editions, Vista is still more stable than XP. If it wasnt then why do all major computer manufacturers recommend Vista Home Premium or another flavor of Vista rather than XP?

 

because its what microsoft is telling them to advertise? btw its a rhetorical question. just because the dell website says dell reccomends vista home premium or w/e doesnt mean its the best. enough people have complained that they now do downgrades or "upgrades" to XP.
how many companies acually use vista as there main OS?

 

For those who love benchmarks.

http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/update-re-testing-vista-w2gb-ram-office.html
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2008/03/windows-2008-vista-done-right.html
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=4
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=5
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-5.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-6.html
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=11
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=12
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=18
http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=19

For those who claim that vista is faster I would remind that never in history microsoft released an OS which is faster of his ancestor, at least in the cosumer market.
from faster to slower:
95->98->Me
2000->XP->Vista

 

Yeah, I have to agree with you there. Win2k blows Xp away completely, and from my experience with XPx64 vs Vistax64, I really have to say that it seems XPx64 is faster than Vista. But my "observations" aren't scientific or benchmarks, so it's just a subjective judgement. But I'm gonna stand by it. There is no doubt 2k is faster than Xp. Fortunately, I don't remember 95 or 98 much, and I did my best to flush WinME from memory 1 month after I bought it on a new PC (replaced it with 2k).

 

I'll put my 2 cents in this thread and hopefully most will see the light.

I am running Windows Vista Business on this pc. I built this pc(replaced only mobo and psu due to failure last year) in 2003 and it ran XP like a race car. It ran XP until April of last year when I bought Vista and installed it. I am still running Vista on here because I could not install XP on this motherboard again for some reason unknown. I have been using pc's long enough to know how to install windows for sure. I only run Vista now because XP hangs on install with my hardware(I think its the crappy Via chipset, lol.

With that said, Vista runs OK on this P4 3ghz with 2GB RAM DDR 400. I would like to put my XP Pro back on here for the speed reasons. Alas, I cannot and am in no hurry to build a new one to run XP since my hardware is older than dirt in pc times. If my older pc can handle Vista just fine, there is no reason newer ones should have any trouble. This is all 32 bit btw.

Vista is better with its looks, security and now drivers(for my stuff).

If you think XP is better, by all means, it is for you. I won't knock it, because I like it also. I just feel that Vista is better, because I have to run it and it runs ok on here.

 

To be brutally honest, I like Vista cause I like how it looks better than Xp. So I'll even take a slight hit on performance, for the sake of a nicer looking OS. That plus the features overall suit me. I don't know how else to say it really, I just like Vista...... Some people will say that's idiotic, but it is what it is.....

 

I agree 100%.

 

Actually I don't think that the previous arguments were real arguments.
If you reread my posts you will see that I never bashed vista and never wrote that is a bad OS. I only wrote that I do not consider it better than xp and I do not believe that is not worth upgrading (at least until they fix some of the performance issues).

I only critised Microsoft for their decisions. They made a bloated OS and they released it before it was mature enough to go to public.

Depending on the version you install Vista is from 400% to 700% larger compared to xp. All the previous OSs where 30-40% larger than their ancestors. The reccomended ram is 800% greater than xp. The previous releases needed only 50% greater than their ancestors.

I'd like to see how the people that say ram and large hard disks are cheap nowadays would react, if windows 7 occupies 60GB on their hard disk and needs 8GB of ram!

They released a SP1 that cannot be integrated in a DVD (microsoft does not recommend it) and they do not give the integrated version as a download to the legitimate users (unless someone is a technet member).
Why should the legitimate users go in illegal torrent distributions to download the isos?

Panagiotis

 

Actually I do not think that you will find anyone that says that XP looks better than Vista.

Everyone likes the eyecandy but not everyone is willing to sacrifice the performance for it (companies for example).

Panagiotis