Windows XP Significantly Outperforms Vista, Tests Show

Information Week ^ | November 26, 2007 | Paul McDougall

[Zakeet]

Windows XP trounced Windows Vista in all tests, regardless of the versions used or the amount of memory running on the computer, says Devil Mountain Software.

In the latest Mac versus PC ad, that put-upon Windows guy quietly concedes he's "downgrading" from Vista to XP. He may have good reason: new tests show that the older XP runs common productivity tasks significantly faster than Microsoft's newest operating system.

Researchers at Devil Mountain Software, a Florida-based developer of performance management tools, have posted data from their most recent Windows performance tests -- and Vista, even after it's been upgraded to the new Service Pack 1 beta package, is shown to be a laggard.

"The hoped for performance fixes [from Vista SP1] that Microsoft has been hinting at never materialized," said Devil Mountain researchers, in a blog post summarizing their results.

The researchers compared patched and unpatched versions of Vista and XP running Microsoft Office on a dual-core Dell notebook. The results revealed the time taken to complete Office productivity tasks such as the creation of a compound document and presentation materials.

Devil Mountain researchers ran a mix of tests comparing existing versions of the operating systems -- the original Vista and XP SP2 -- and versions that had been patched with the latest updates -- Vista SP1 beta and XP SP3 beta. Tests were also run on machines with 1 Gbyte and 2 Gbytes of memory.

Windows XP trounced Windows Vista in all tests -- regardless of the versions used or the amount of memory running on the computer. In fact, XP proved to be roughly twice as fast as Vista in most of the tests.

[Paleo Conservative]

Hasta la Vista, baby!

[mbennett203]

Huh? Each new iteration of Windows gets more bloated and slower than before?

I could've told them that.

"A recent InformationWeek survey found that 30% of businesses have no plans to upgrade their computers to Vista -- ever."

Problem is, Microsoft will eventually stop selling/supporting XP, and they'll essentially have to "upgrade".

[Paleo Conservative]

Tech guy at Staples told me Vista needs 4 gigs memory to run faster than xp, but unfortunately no one offers a 3 or 4 gig pc.

Considering 32 bit processors can't access more than 4 GB, Vista will probably be Microsoft's last 32 bit operating system.

[romanesq]

And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your PC can do for you, but what you can do for your PC.

Thanks, I’ll stick with Apple’s rockin OS Leopard. Spaces just rocks.

[Constantine XIII]

I’ve been through that circus. They are pretty much impossible to get independently for a pre-constructed laptop, in my experience. It might be doable if you are making a homebrew lappy. However, you definitely know more than me about it in that case! :)

[Beagle8U]

I’m still using 98...lol

[Hacklehead]

“Windows is the Homer Simpson of the computing world. They just can’t ever get it right.”

Hmm, they have the internet on computers now. -Homer Simpson

[Impugn]

Friggin bloatware.

I used a Commodore 64 from 1981 through 1988 or so. A whopping 39k of usable memory. Never did a single upgrade to it...OS, RAM, disc...nothing.

And yet, the software and games for the system continually improved from year to year even though the platform, itself, did not improve.

This is the result of writting better, more optimized code as time went on. They were forced to squeeze everything they could out of what they had to work with and did it.

Now? Buy more RAM. Get a quad CPU. Get a $350 video card. Nobody optimizes anything anymore which is why Vista is garbage.

[PAR35]

Microsoft has a fix for that. They will stop supporting XP.

They quit supporting 98 years ago. It still runs, and is probably even faster than XP.

Can't run the latest Microsoft software? No problem, either run your old software, or go open source.

[roamer_1]

It's too bad because I thought Vista at least looked pretty cool.

LOTS of eye-candy, that is true, but there are also serious changes that really suck:

Your DVDR/CDR burning will default to MS's default POS new burning format- A dirty bugger it is, too, as no other OS can currently read the thing. It will do a standard burn, but that requires a fair bit of burrowing.

Windows Explorer is WAY different- not necessarily hard to master, but I am already getting calls about how to get around in the lousy thing...

Standard directories are drammatically changed- Where Windows "puts stuff" is much different. Don't expect any hard coded scripts to work.

And etc... I wouldn't say any of the above are critical (except the CDWriter, which will make me cuss if I am not careful), but the changes are there, and can be bothersome.

[1rudeboy]

I've actually found a couple cards that are better than the standard junk you find, but I'd still like to know if they're worth the additional cost. If anyone's curious, they are the:

NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GT, and
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 140M.

Way too many letters and numbers for me. :)

[roamer_1]

and they'll essentially have to "upgrade".

Unless they go sideways... Linux is pretty attractive anymore...

[moehoward]

“but unfortunately no one offers a 3 or 4 gig pc”

---

Apple’s Intel MacPro handles up to 16 gig.

[rocksblues]

I can count my system crashes with XP on one hand. There are not enough fingers, toes, hours in a day or minutes in an hour to count my system crashes running 98.

[o_zarkman44]

Let the hackers devote their time to hacking Vista. I think xp is just fine and have no intentions of upgrading.
My big concern is that the number of applications that no longer work with Vista. Also I hear of printer drivers etc that no longer work.
Installing Vista probably means less performance overall, plus none of the printer fax scan peripherals are guaranteed to continue working.

Just say no to Vista.

[Beagle8U]

I’ve been running 98, all day every day, since very early 2000 and never crashed once.

[ol painless]

I like Vista. I have 2 gigs and it runs faster than my xp machine. The key I think is to have a good video card, which most store bought computers don’t come with. I have a 8800 GTS (640mb dedicated video memory)and it runs great. If you are running with integrated graphics then stick with xp.

[Labyrinthos]

It's big, it's slow, and it's like driving an aircraft carrier after a speedboat.

Yes, VISTA is slow if used in the default mode, but there are lots of things that can be done to turn off 90% of the bells and whistles that really aren't needed and in my case, not wanted, so that VISTA runs as fast as XP. Start by getting rid of the transparencies that let you look through screen pages. Stupid, annoying, and a big, big drag on resources.

[roamer_1]

Thanks, I’ll stick with Apple’s rockin OS Leopard. Spaces just rocks.

Still a bit skittery when it comes to apple. Why buy apple when it is just BSD with a nice haircut? And I don't like proprietary hardware... I will probably go Linux, Ubuntu rocks too.

[romanesq]

Can’t help you with your skittishness. Leopard is excellent and the best OS that allows you to run XP and what consumers want. End of story.

If you are a Linux user, enjoy. But most people aren’t going to run Linux.