Performance Data Point for Vista 5308

[Ed Dixon]

This is a simple performance comparison for Vista. Not claimed to be
scientific, but just a data point. It may have little to do with the final
Vista release.



System is a Dell P4 2.4 GHz with 1G RAM and lots of disk space. Vista is
5308.



Install Size



Win98 280 MB and 3100 files

Win2000 625 MB and 6400 files

WinXP 1130 MB and 10,100 files

Vista 6700 MB and 36,000 files



Boot time. Measured from final boot option until all is loaded and task
manager shows idle processing level.



Win98 35 sec

Win2000 60 sec

WinXP 67 sec

Vista 5+ min



Ed

 

[Andre Da Costa [Extended64]]

Are those prior versions of Windows BETA 1 releases?
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

 

[Ed Dixon]

Clearly not. They are the current versions of each version of Windows. As
I said, this data point shows us where we are today.

Ed

 

[Ed Dixon]

Two other simple tests

1. Start Windows Explorer

Vista 15 sec
XP 2 sec

2. Open Control Panel
Vista 20 sec
XP 3 sec

The XP times are best guess, as both happen pretty quickly. XP is standard
XP Pro and Vista is 5308. Nothing else running in either system, same PC.

Ed

 

[Jason]

Some have said in the latest update, Vista boots a lot faster. Guess we
will have to wait till the Public Beta to find out.

--
Jason

Applied but still waiting to be accepted for the Vista Beta Testing group.
Can't wait to be able to play and help make it even better.

http://www.orderpcs4free.com/?r=878

MS Windows XP Pro, IE 7.0.5335.5 Beta 2

 

[AJR]

We may be comparing apples and oranges (with some pears thrown in) - did not
use a stop watch - Vista access here had same approx times as for XP. Vista
boot (several boots) was consistently 2 - 3 minutes not "5+". Explorer and
Control panel loads within seconds.
As for Vista's size - consider the considerable "add-ins" not included with
XP e.g. Windows Defender, Media center, Diagnostic/management console.,
reworked IE, etc. For a simple comparison include with XP's size the
"add-on" programs versus Vista's (Add-in".

 

[Ed Dixon]

The times shown are measured with a ticking wall clock.

Don't know why, only know that Vista is a performance dog on this Dell test
PC. Clearly it has a problem, but no clue as to what. This is a vanilla
install directly from DVD.

The difference in size is currently about 5.5 GB. Virtually every tool I
have ever owned would fit in 5.5 GB. Windows Defender, which I have on my
XP system, measures 6.5 MB. Many other third party add-ons have sizes
measures in 10s of MB. If you figure the average third party add-on is 20
MB (clearly a WAG), then it would take 275 such tools to take up the space
difference.

I'm sure it will change some more, but I'm not convinced it will change that
much. Many of the features advertised for Vista are not there yet, and
their inclusion may not help cutting the size down.

Ed

 

[Ed Dixon]

The reality is that the size bloat is the least of their problems. To be an
acceptable OS upgrade, they are going to have to fix the performance issues,
and the UI issues.

Many of the new features advertised are likely below the "Do I really care"
line for many rank and file upgrade customers. Things like DVD/CD burning
and Music file management are catchy phrases that will ring to many ears.
However UAP and diagnostic tools are lower down the food chain.

For me Windows Explorer is a complete waste and virtually useless for how I
work. I also dislike the new IE, as fixed toolbars reduce the total white
space available for web page results.

Ed

 

[mamamia]

We may be comparing apples and oranges (with some pears thrown in) - did not
use a stop watch - Vista access here had same approx times as for XP. Vista
boot (several boots) was consistently 2 - 3 minutes not "5+". Explorer and
Control panel loads within seconds.

What are your test machine's specs?

 

[Puppy Breath]

I have 5308 and my times are nowhere near that slow. Everything is running
pretty close to the speed it runs on XP. A little slower, but not to the
extremes I saw posted here. My Performance Rating is only 2.