So I found That XP is Faster Than Vista but ....

E

Ex-COC

I posted a week or so ago about the fact I noticed Vista was faster in disk
IO and about all said that was not that case.

I downloaded Dacris for a HD benchmark and found that:

XP - 140MB/s
Vista - 110MBs


So the benchmark proves that XP is faster in that respect but still I notice
Vista:

1. Under Vista in Media Player, all 200+ videos I have come up as
thumbnails. XP is still working on it and that is after deleting the Media
Player database and re-importing everything as well as letting it sit there
to try and create thumbnails. Also, when I add MP3s to Media Player and do a
'add to library it scans the same folders in about a third of the time as
XP.


2. I have one folder with 220GB of MP3 files. XP Explorer could never read
it so I got Opus. Vista Explorer and read the folder fine and sort all the
files in seconds. Using Opus under Vista it reads the file information
(artist, album, etc) in about a third of the time as XP.


Conclusion: XP may be faster for file IO, but Vista deals with NTFS at lot
quicker.


I spending a lot more time in Vista than XP at this point and have ordered
some upgrades I will need to use Vista full time.
 
N

non flammable on XP

1) thats all due to the codec that you have for AVI, the thumbnails need to
use the codec to be created.. so its not XP's fault

2) Files do not need time to "read" as you say unless you are extracting
meta data from them with a setting in the view of Windows Explorer (SEE THE
COLUMNS THAT HAVE INFO LIKE BITRATE? where do you think that data is coming
from? The sky? LOL, its hard to explain but all the things you are saying
are not related to the actual OS, but to either codecs or the way you
display the data in Windows explorer... the DISK itself is faster as you
have seen on XP.. and this is true...

Thus your conclusion is wrong.. XP is faster ALWAYS... as long as you
compare apples with apples...

Vista is very slow.. and whatever you are saying is not well documented...
You have to know more things in depth to really make a comparisson..

and I have done just that.. Vista is slower than XP in ALL functions.
PERIOD.
 
N

non flammable on XP

64 bit can be faster if you have 4 or more gigs..

under that, 32 bit is faster

have you compared 64 bit xp and 64 bit vista?

dont say no.. please dont say no...
 
F

Frank

non flammable on XP wrote:

....his usual demented delusional uninformed bullsh*t!
You are an idiot!
Frank
 
A

Alias

Frank said:
non flammable on XP wrote:

...his usual demented delusional uninformed bullsh*t!
You are an idiot!
Frank
Click to expand...

Sitting on a tack again, Frank?

Alias
 
D

DanS

I posted a week or so ago about the fact I noticed Vista was faster in
disk IO and about all said that was not that case.

I downloaded Dacris for a HD benchmark and found that:

XP - 140MB/s
Vista - 110MBs


So the benchmark proves that XP is faster in that respect but still I
notice Vista:

1. Under Vista in Media Player, all 200+ videos I have come up as
thumbnails. XP is still working on it and that is after deleting the
Media Player database and re-importing everything as well as letting
it sit there to try and create thumbnails. Also, when I add MP3s to
Media Player and do a 'add to library it scans the same folders in
about a third of the time as XP.


2. I have one folder with 220GB of MP3 files. XP Explorer could never
read it so I got Opus. Vista Explorer and read the folder fine and
sort all the files in seconds. Using Opus under Vista it reads the
file information (artist, album, etc) in about a third of the time as
XP.


Conclusion: XP may be faster for file IO, but Vista deals with NTFS at
lot quicker.


I spending a lot more time in Vista than XP at this point and have
ordered some upgrades I will need to use Vista full time.
Click to expand...

Are you using the same anti-virus program under XP and Vista ?

There are several CD's I have that each contain a 400+ MB single exe
file. For a time, it appeared as all of them were unreadable when I put
them in the CD drive.

They weren't. The problem was, when I went to access the CD, the AV
program, Norton, took a REALLY long time to scan the file. That is what
was causing it to appear that the CD couldn't be read with Explorer.

I only figured it out after a failed Norton update which crashed the
realtime scanning engine so it wasn't running. One of those CD's was
still in the CD tray, and I went back to Explorer for something else and
had realized that the CD Drive was now showing the disk label. Trying the
other 'bad' CD's which now worked, and then re-starting Norton, and going
thru the experiment again and finding that they didn't 'work' once again,
sealed Norton fate. It was gone from my machine shortly after.
 
N

non flammable on XP

you can have 64 bit with all vista editions, the send you the DVD for the
non ultimate versions
for free, and you use the same product key
 
N

non flammable on Vista

There is only one product that I could say is worse than norton..
and thats vista


vista and norton make the worse combination you could ever have!
 
D

DarkSentinel

non flammable on XP said:
1) thats all due to the codec that you have for AVI, the thumbnails need
to use the codec to be created.. so its not XP's fault

2) Files do not need time to "read" as you say unless you are extracting
meta data from them with a setting in the view of Windows Explorer (SEE
THE COLUMNS THAT HAVE INFO LIKE BITRATE? where do you think that data is
coming from? The sky? LOL, its hard to explain but all the things you are
saying are not related to the actual OS, but to either codecs or the way
you display the data in Windows explorer... the DISK itself is faster as
you have seen on XP.. and this is true...

Thus your conclusion is wrong.. XP is faster ALWAYS... as long as you
compare apples with apples...

Vista is very slow.. and whatever you are saying is not well documented...
You have to know more things in depth to really make a comparisson..

and I have done just that.. Vista is slower than XP in ALL functions.
PERIOD.
Click to expand...

Wrong again dimwit, I have disproven THAT personally.
 
D

DarkSentinel

Ex-COC said:
I posted a week or so ago about the fact I noticed Vista was faster in
disk IO and about all said that was not that case.

I downloaded Dacris for a HD benchmark and found that:

XP - 140MB/s
Vista - 110MBs


So the benchmark proves that XP is faster in that respect but still I
notice Vista:
Click to expand...

No, actually it proves that test was faster.

On my system, under Everest Disk Benchmark, with a Hitachi HDT725040VLA
SATA2 w/8MB buffer on the Buffered Read Test...

XP: 171.5MB/s
Vista: 192.3MB/s

It could all very well be the drivers for XP are better optimized, and you
got a better transfer rate.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

Some Vista/XP Observations 16
Is Vista faster than XP 23
Vista sp1 86% faster than vista RTM 17
Speed test confirm...Vista is faster than XP...! 6
found that Internet speed in Vista is slightly faster than XP 3
Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown 20
vista slow 4
Comparing Vista and XP with Performce Test- XP wins! 7

Top