Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test

New tests have revealed that XP with the beta Service Pack 3 has twice the performance of Vista, even with its long-awaited Service Pack 1.

Vista, both with and without SP1, performed over two times 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 two percent compared to performance without SP1 — much lower than XP's SP3 improvement of 10 percent.

Source: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000...39291081,00.htm

 

Im not surprised. Vista does use more resources

 

not exactly news that vista is a slow buggy resource hog

 

In a clinical environment maybe they got XP to out perform Vista. But in the everyday real world on my computer Vista out performs the XP Pro it replaced easily. And Vista is much more stable than I ever found XP. I might be the exception but I don't really think so. you hear about the problems some are having with vista but seldom hear about the millions that are having no problems with Vista.

bigc

P.S.
How many people do you figure are having trouble with XP out of the millions that are useing it. I would imagine it is considerable also.

 

I have now both XP and Vista. I got Vista because it came with my new computer (couldn't get XP without paying extra). There are operations that are definitely faster with XP ( e.g. rebooting or shutting down) but over all Vista is also quite fast, and given the level of sophistication found in Vista, its speed is more than adequate (it's a bit like comparing a fast car and a luxurious one).

I should also add that I remember when XP first came out, it had dreadful reviews and was definitely plagued with vulnerabilities: Vista is by design quite safe, and can only improve in the near future.

The real problem is with the compatibility of many programs with Vista: Some programs I have with XP, either they are not compatible or one has to buy the latest version (MS Office and Photoshop are not exactly cheap to name a few).

But then again, when XP was first released it was exactly the same story.

So for me to have Vista on one computer and XP on another is probably the best compromise. I do work most of the time with Vista, I can't help it, it's the future.

 

A couple of weeks ago I went to purchase a new desktop on NewEgg. I always read the customer's reviews on a product to get a "feel" for it. These are actual quotes I came across:

“Vista is not that bad. I don't understand why people blow it up…”

“It works flawlessly even though I have heard bad things about windows vista, it gives me no problems.”

“Vista is much more user-friendly than everyone had told me.”

This clearly illustrates the FUD being spread around about Vista.

 

Win2000 outshines both WinXP and WinVista. And Win98 is faster even than Win2000. Old DOS 5.0 is definitely the fastest, especially on dual-cores. Oh well...

 

I sometimes wonder what is real. Is it the benchmarks or is it the users perception of the OS? Which one is the important thing really?
Maybe I am just trying to convince my self (since I spent alot of money on it )
I have Vista. I have all the settings to the highest, I have even tried dreamscene. It is a pointless feature though imo, but my experience is that Vista is at least as fast as XP in everything in what it does, (even with dreamscene).
Programs open lightning fast, it boots and shuts down as (slow) as XP did. But ime Ubuntu for example are not faster in booting and shutting down.
The copying of files and extraction of compressed files was slower than XP on my machine before SP1, but no problem any more. All the software I used on XP works flawless on Vista.

BUT I have experienced more BSOD´s in Vista than I have in XP for a long time. There are some software combinations that can break Vista. True.
Not a big problem for me since I dont need the software that caused them.

 

I was an unbeliever at first, but after actually using Vista properly for a few months, I am a convert.* I don't understand what people were complaining about Vista being rubbish. Two of my friends and I bought laptops with VHP a few months ago, and we've not had any major problems. All were C2D laptops with 2 -3 GB RAM.

Vista's stability is exceptional - not a single hard crash or BSOD so far, and I use the laptop for about 10 hours a day, since it's my main school+work machine. Backwards compatibility is great- it runs everything from Office XP to Photoshop 7, and old, esoteric engineering programs flawlessly, I like the great GUI too.

There are some small issues here and there, but overall, my Vista experience has been really positive.


* I still despise the annoying UAC

 

You can disable it

 

I agree with you,I avoided vista as long as I could just from things I have read and heard, But being in the market for a new laptop and was a little board with XP, I figured I try it for my self and so far I am happy with vista.IMHO XP was not that good at first but has become much better with service pack 2 and beside it was a great improvement over ME Well actually I think anything was better then ME.

 

Nothing new here. XP got the same reaction, pc mags and people on the internet were all screaming bloody murder about the color theme, the lack of drivers, it being a resource hog etc, and why the hell would anyone ever need it.

A few years later it wa sa paragon of stability and performance. Windows is far from perfect but it attracts an unbelievable amount of irrational hatred from seemingly sane people who then spread lies and FUD on forums.

Wait till late 2009/2010 when Windows 7 comes out - we'll all be pining for Vista

 

I always wonder about the average desktop user when I read these.

And I do believe that any new version of any product should perform "better" than it's predecessor. Whatever that means and however that is measured.

Still, I seriously doubt that most users (gamers, perhaps) ever come close to being resource constrained for any resource at any time.

So, I wonder and am puzzled. I mean, it is not like you can save up CPU cycles for use at a later time. They are very time dependent; if they are not used in the moment, they are forever gone.

Then I read on some of the forums where the talk is all about eye candy (Docks are all the rage, apparently), which is one way to help insure that fewer CPU cycles will be wasted at least.

Not meant as a defense of Vista nor of XP, nor as a condemnation of either, either. Just an observation.