You all suspected it but could not prove it. Well as they say the proof is in the pudding Information week reports that vista is slower by more then half to process the same functions in XP.
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.
Well, in Vista's defense, when you are trying to replicate graphics from other, well performing Operating Systems, & then run that on-top of a pre-existing & insecure Operating System, it's going to be a bit sluggish. As well, when your answer to security issues is to prompt the user 3 times rather than fix the holes in the swiss-cheese, it'll lag from time to time.
My question is this. Were these test performed with a fresh XP install, or one that has been running on the internet for more than say, 10 minutes, & has search hooks & other Malware installed? Because fair is fair. If it's M$ watching your activities, or some clearing house, either way your bandwidth has to give!
i just read on digg that SP3 is supposed to have a 10% performance boost also in terms of speed.
They should release it as SP33D
i second that motion
With the time i've had to work with XP, it can be stripped and forced to run quickly on machines never intended to run the OS, while Vista, i've had issues keeping it going smoothly under 500MB of RAM. It is always up for debate as to what the standard is, and what's good enough. Personally I am still not impressed with Vista all that much, if they were to put the (essentially stolen) searching engine from Vista in XP, I might never switch
MS, give us DX10 in XP, and Vista is literally doomed (however it's still not clear if there is anything that really needs DX10, but I'll only install Vista because of that).
About the benchmark: it's a bit unfair, because it is well known, that 1GB RAM is simply not enough for Vista. Running at 2 would have made much more sense. Anyway, it's pretty much the same that happened when XP was introduced, a standard computer could simply not run it at reasonable speeds.
Anyway, I don't think that I would do my everyday things on Vista(Linux and XP are just Ok for that), but I'll put it onto my gaming rig for DX10.
Actually, I've heard that PCs running cutting edge dual core processors with 2GB RAM are still sluggish under Vista, compared to XP. It's anecdotal evidence, obviously, unless I can find the site where I read it (which I'm not likely to bother with).
OK, I bothered. Says here that they ran tests with 2GB and 1GB of RAM and "...it didn't make a difference."
This post has been edited by Programmist: 28 November 2007 - 11:08 AM
I guess there's no way to know for sure unless one tries it. I wanted to try it. Heck, I can get a $20 copy of Vista Utilmate or a free copy of Vista Business through my university. And I have a laptop that is Vista ready. However, with all of the negative reports I've been hearing (mostly from people, not news agencies) I'm staying away from it for a while. I'm way too impatient to put up with even a small slowdown, given the modest gains Vista is supposed to provide. They lost me back when it was still called Longhorn and they ditched all of the cool features that were supposed to be included (e.g. WinFS)
I understand you, I was exactly the same way. There was simply no reason to try it at all (Aero somewhat didn't got me going, I even use XP with the classic settings).
However these damned games, buggy 64bit XP drivers and DX10 got me to install it as a secondary/gaming OS, and definitely not on the comp I use for developing. (However I don't know if 32bit Vista makes any sense)