Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown

[Tiberius]

another benchmark that shows that vista is slower than XP

I see no one remarked on the other benchmark I posted...

when I provide proof, the vistaboys are silent! lol

Note: this article has 11 pages, press the next arrow on the bottom to see
the other pages

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/


PLEASE SEE THIS PAGE!!!! YOU HAVE TO!!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page6.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page7.html

THE TRUTH SHINES>>> XP is faster than Vista

 

[Rick Rogers]

And Win98 is even faster on the same hardware than WinXP. It's a no brainer.
Newer OS has more overhead, more services, more background processes. Run
Fedora core 4 on a new system, it flies, but core 6 will dog by comparison.
On newer hardware, the performance of Vista is comparable to or better than
XP/2000/98 were on the hardware available at the time of their release. Same
can be said of any OS.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

 

[Mike Hall MVP]

Do you ever read these things.. re. the two pages that 'prove' your point

"There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance.
Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite
SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL
graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we
clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need
to run professional graphics applications. Both ATI and Nvidia will offer
OpenGL support in upcoming driver releases, but it remains to be seen if and
how other graphics vendors or Microsoft may offer it."

So, for the many who do not run UT 2004 or professional graphics apps, this
will not affect them, and for those who do, there is help on its way..

another benchmark that shows that vista is slower than XP

I see no one remarked on the other benchmark I posted...

when I provide proof, the vistaboys are silent! lol

Note: this article has 11 pages, press the next arrow on the bottom to see
the other pages

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/


PLEASE SEE THIS PAGE!!!! YOU HAVE TO!!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page6.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page7.html

THE TRUTH SHINES>>> XP is faster than Vista

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Mr. Arnold]

<snipped>

You need to crawl back under the rock you crawled out from under.

 

[Dana Cline - MVP]

I noticed that too...aside from those benchmarks, the rest show only a
negligable performance difference...pretty amazing given all the new
security stuff at every level.

Dana Cline - MCE MVP

 

[DanR]

another benchmark that shows that vista is slower than XP

I see no one remarked on the other benchmark I posted...

when I provide proof, the vistaboys are silent! lol

Note: this article has 11 pages, press the next arrow on the bottom to see
the other pages

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/


PLEASE SEE THIS PAGE!!!! YOU HAVE TO!!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page6.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page7.html

THE TRUTH SHINES>>> XP is faster than Vista

Back in the day... the first thing I'd do with a new computer.. is from the
C: prompt type "dir". If the directory list flew by I'd think "boy this is a
fast computer".

 

[Tiberius]

Yes I know that.. of course I have read it

Do you ever read these things.. re. the two pages that 'prove' your point

"There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance.
Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite
SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL
graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and
we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you
need to run professional graphics applications. Both ATI and Nvidia will
offer OpenGL support in upcoming driver releases, but it remains to be
seen if and how other graphics vendors or Microsoft may offer it."

So, for the many who do not run UT 2004 or professional graphics apps,
this will not affect them, and for those who do, there is help on its
way..





--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Tiberius]

don't be so hasty to say that miss mvp.....

these are only benchmarks.. in reality, in real life situations,
vista is slow as a snail in the Sahara pulling a trailer (compared to xp of
course)

I can and will provide proof of this.... and what will you say then?
What will you say when you have it right smack in front of your face.

Will you accept it? I don't think so... and that is one of the reasons why I
have not
done this already! There seems to be a persistence for vistafans avoiding to
see the truth because
they have vista, they like the flashy new interface, and they don't want to
accept the truth that it has slower
performance...

No see, no hear, no speak. The 3 monkeys....of vista.

Of course there are also many true users, who have not been brainwashed,
that have bought vista
and absolutely hate it..... they come in here screaming that its crap...

The vista fans always have a list of excuses for them... but nooo its never
vista's fault.

Proof done in a scientific manner should be able to at least delay the
vistafan endless misconceptions,
about vista.... they will try to ignore it.... try to explain it off.. but
the rest will understand at least.

Another reason I have not done this yet is that, what would I have to gain
if I do it?
Prove something I already know to a bunch of people who are delusioned?
Why should I do it...? I dont have a motive....
To me it is so apparent that Im amazed how people could even think vista is
as fast or even faster than xp.

 

[Tiberius]

winXP was faster more reliable and more stable on a machine that had 512+
ram
compared to windows98.

Windows98 could not take advantage of more than 128 ram... it had big
problems.

There is no machine that exists today that vista can be faster more stable
and more reliable than XP.

The exact opposite is true.

On newer hardware, the performance of Vista is comparable to or better
than XP/2000/98 were on the hardware available at the time of their
release. Same can be said of any OS.

Gee, did you actually think that up all by yourself? LOL new hardware is
faster... gee....
I didn't know that.. thanks for telling. me.

Vista is slower than XP on the same hardware. Get new hardware and Vista is
still slower than XP if you install both on the same hardware. Why do some
people want to compare different OS's on different hardware? Its silly.. you
cant compare performance that way!

As many have said again and again, there is nothing in vista that really
makes it superior to XP.

While you cannot say that with other OS you try to compare, for example
win98 and XP.

Why do you guys resist the simple truth so much and try to stretch reality
to fit your paradigms?

 

[Angry_American]

I disagree, Windows 2000 is much faster than XP on the same machine, and
just as stable if not more stable. But then it doesn't matter as every OS
takes more hardware than the last to run, what's the big deal?

Dan

 

[Frank]

another benchmark that shows that vista is slower than XP

I see no one remarked on the other benchmark I posted...

when I provide proof, the vistaboys are silent! lol

Note: this article has 11 pages, press the next arrow on the bottom to see
the other pages

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/


PLEASE SEE THIS PAGE!!!! YOU HAVE TO!!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page6.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page7.html

THE TRUTH SHINES>>> XP is faster than Vista

You need to actually read the entire article, capin' crucnh as it does
not entirely support you hyperbole position on Vista vs. XP.
I also find it kind of ironic that a person like you, who lives in the
futuristic world of Kirk, clings to, for all intents and purposes, dead
technology like XP.
Vista is the future, like it or not.
Frank

 

[Mike Hall MVP]

If you had Vista, you would know otherwise.. it is not slow as snail in
general terms.. moving files across a network is known to be slow though..
nothing you post has so far substantiated the claim that Vista is noticeably
slower running the majority of programs..

The benchmarks show differences that would not be noticed by a Vista user at
all, apart from the one that you were so keen for us to see.. there, drivers
are the main culprit, as pointed out by the authors..

don't be so hasty to say that miss mvp.....

these are only benchmarks.. in reality, in real life situations,
vista is slow as a snail in the Sahara pulling a trailer (compared to xp
of course)

I can and will provide proof of this.... and what will you say then?
What will you say when you have it right smack in front of your face.

Will you accept it? I don't think so... and that is one of the reasons why
I have not
done this already! There seems to be a persistence for vistafans avoiding
to see the truth because
they have vista, they like the flashy new interface, and they don't want
to accept the truth that it has slower
performance...

No see, no hear, no speak. The 3 monkeys....of vista.

Of course there are also many true users, who have not been brainwashed,
that have bought vista
and absolutely hate it..... they come in here screaming that its crap...

The vista fans always have a list of excuses for them... but nooo its
never vista's fault.

Proof done in a scientific manner should be able to at least delay the
vistafan endless misconceptions,
about vista.... they will try to ignore it.... try to explain it off.. but
the rest will understand at least.

Another reason I have not done this yet is that, what would I have to gain
if I do it?
Prove something I already know to a bunch of people who are delusioned?
Why should I do it...? I dont have a motive....
To me it is so apparent that Im amazed how people could even think vista
is as fast or even faster than xp.

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

 

[Dana Cline - MVP]

That's Mister MVP to you...

My reality is...I have Vista on a new laptop, fresh install, tweaked and
optimized, and it's blazingly fast. No, I didn't measure it against XP on
the same hardware, because I had no desire to run XP on that hardware. I
have XP running on other hardware at home, and it'll remain XP forever
because the hardware isn't fast enough to run Vista.

Just for grins, I downloaded Ubuntu 7.04 the other day and tried to install
it on a PC I'm resurrecting. It died with a cryptic message and left me at a
Linux prompt pretty soon after the install started. Really useful there.
I'll be putting XP back on that box...

Since you seem to have a thing for performance, why are you even bothering
with Vista at all? You should be running command line Unix on a Cray or
something...

Dana Cline - MCE MVP

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"I can and will provide proof of this"
We are still waiting for proof of another apparently absurd statement
you made.
It seems to you all that is required to be a fact it it is something
you want to believe.

"and that is one of the reasons why I have not done this already!"
A very poor excuse.
We ask for a cite of other statements you make and you seem to ignore
them.
Now this poor excuse in a feeble attempt to explain why you do not
post the fact.
More likely the facts do not exist beyond your imagination.

"Im amazed how people could even think..."
That is more indicative of your own narrow thinking since it amazes
you other people have experiences different from your own.

 

[DanS]

Do you ever read these things.. re. the two pages that 'prove' your
point

"There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance.
Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking
suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for
the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we
expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with
Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications.
Both ATI and Nvidia will offer OpenGL support in upcoming driver
releases, but it remains to be seen if and how other graphics vendors
or Microsoft may offer it."

So, for the many who do not run UT 2004 or professional graphics apps,
this will not affect them, and for those who do, there is help on its
way..

I read the entire thing before I posted the Tom's Hardware link in a
different thread ealier today.

I read the paragraph's you pasted above. I also looked at all the graphs
and made sure I understood them.

I'll be damned, for all the graphs that say 'Higher is better', the Vista
score is lower than XP, and for all the one's that say 'Lower is better',
the Vista scores are higher.

Granted, not much in some of them, but faster none the less.

And that was the whole point......

To counter the people here that *continually* say that Vista runs
programs 'better' and 'faster' than XP does on the same hardware.


*********Very important**********

Interestingly enough, the CPU used in the test there is a $1000 processor
that will not be found in many people's setup, it was a Core 2 Duo
Extreme x6800 CPU. Maybe you would spend $1000 just on a processor, well
I would love to too, but......... more realistic is quite a bit slower
than that.

With a lower CPU, those small differences mean more. For instance, the
XVid encoding benchmark. XP = 48 sec. and Vista = 59 sec. for a
difference of 11 seconds. I think it said 18'ish %.

So now a slower processor, and to make it easy, that results in a system
1/2 that speed. That would be XP = 96 seconds and 118 seconds for Vista.
Sure, it's still roughly 18% slower, but now it's 22 seconds slower in
'realtime'.

 

[Guest]

another benchmark that shows that vista is slower than XP

I see no one remarked on the other benchmark I posted...

when I provide proof, the vistaboys are silent! lol

Note: this article has 11 pages, press the next arrow on the bottom to see
the other pages

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/


PLEASE SEE THIS PAGE!!!! YOU HAVE TO!!

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page6.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page7.html

THE TRUTH SHINES>>> XP is faster than Vista

AHHH SO WHAT!!!

I didn't buy Vista because it would run faster . NO new OS I ever bought did
and Vista is no different.

I'm glad this all make you so very happy and I suppose it also makes you
feel somehow very superior to us Vista users and that has to be good for your
mental health treatment .

Hope you get well soon.

bp

 

[Guest]

I too downloaded Ubuntu installed on my backup drive,Ubuntu asked if i wanted
to use the free space on my backup hd,so i clicked yes installed ok, i
thought? would not even boot my windows xp system, if that was not bad for me
i lost all my backup files on my backup hd,when it said use free space i
thought it would leave my backup programs alone
So people thinking of trying Ubuntu DONT I will stick with my vista & xp
Thank you
The only thing Ubuntu is good for is the old 386 & 486 box's LOL
Thanks
IQON

 

[Rosie]

I will drive my catalack slow thanks ..

You need to actually read the entire article, capin' crucnh as it does not
entirely support you hyperbole position on Vista vs. XP.
I also find it kind of ironic that a person like you, who lives in the
futuristic world of Kirk, clings to, for all intents and purposes, dead
technology like XP.
Vista is the future, like it or not.
Frank

 

[Frank]

I will drive my catalack slow thanks ..

:-D
Frank

 

[Tiberius]

I didn't buy Vista because it would run faster . NO new OS I ever bought

did
and Vista is no different.

So why do the vistaboys say lies that vista is faster?

us Vista users

I have vista too.. but I just don't have delusions that its faster than XP

But vista is also badly designed with a gui made from monkeys for monkeys.

Wanna banana?