XP SP3 vs Vista SP1 - Which is faster?
- Thread starter SrDriver
- Start date
- Status
XP with SP3 beta of course. Heck XP SP2 will crush Vista SP1 like a make truck hitting a 100lbs chess geek! Do not worry though you will only have to suffer through vista until thenext operateing system comes out wich wont be long! Me I am XP and XP Pro all the way!!! Now that Vista is out though the good thing is that 64 bit drivers are common from vendors so XP-64 Bit edition is easy to adapt to anything now! XP-64 Bit is blistering fast compared to Vista. Who needs Direct X10 any ways????
Oh and I am baseing it on what I have seen in the real world not bench marks just to clarify. Every I know that haas Vista on an OEM system hates it!!! My lap top is running XP SP2 and 1 GB of ram and it blows laptops running Vista and 4 GB of Ram out of the water on almost every thing important like booting up, finding a file, downloading files, saveing business applications etc...... I am not a gamer so that is not an issue. If I add another GB of ram I only get faster. Most laptops will not handle more then 4 GB of ram and even if they would Vista would just load it full of garbage for "better file indexing" etc......like that does anything for anyone???
What are you talking about? Vista is way faster than XPSPX. And I do some large graphic files, have open office running two or three aps, watching videos, listening to CD's, downloading drawing files, etc. I don't know you, but I certainly don't hate Vista. Get over it.
Pablo - Yup, its all in how you have it setup.
Mircroft certed tech\ HP Master Tech
Mircroft certed tech\ HP Master Tech
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Agreed. Vista hauls [censored] on this box (Core2Quad Q6600 OC'd to 2.94Ghz) 2GB of RAM and also on any of the ASUS laptops I have deployed to clients in recent months, all of which have been of the Intel Core2Duo family. Battery life is superb and the machines perform extremely well.
Whilst my primary OS on this box is Gentoo Linux, I do boot into Windows to game, and I have had no issues with Vista whatsoever.
On QUALITY hardware, Vista functions quite well, and the 3D-accelerated desktop and "Unix-style" memory model indeed make it a more "efficient" OS, it simply has more overhead, which is why it likes RAM.
In my experience, those who dislike Vista, are running it on sub-par hardware, with an OEM pre-load so laden with [censored] that it would bring any machine to it's knees. Hardly the OS's fault.
If I had ANY doubts as to Vista's capabilities, I would not be deploying it to my business clients........ But I am, and they love it.
Network Engineer/MCP
Whilst my primary OS on this box is Gentoo Linux, I do boot into Windows to game, and I have had no issues with Vista whatsoever.
On QUALITY hardware, Vista functions quite well, and the 3D-accelerated desktop and "Unix-style" memory model indeed make it a more "efficient" OS, it simply has more overhead, which is why it likes RAM.
In my experience, those who dislike Vista, are running it on sub-par hardware, with an OEM pre-load so laden with [censored] that it would bring any machine to it's knees. Hardly the OS's fault.
If I had ANY doubts as to Vista's capabilities, I would not be deploying it to my business clients........ But I am, and they love it.
Network Engineer/MCP
Last edited by a moderator:
^My thoughts exactly. Chances are when major computer vendors like Hp\Dell\Gateway etc first started tinkering with Vista on the hardware they use which would fall into "half-decent, to performance" (HP markets some decently powerful home boxes) they realized it was faster out of the box clean so they could easily put more [censored] to preload onto them. If you put the same amount of preloaded [censored] onto a XP box and watch it crash more often.
LIKE HP-Service\Support Monitor, and Dells unique "Dellsoft Monitor" that start up and give "Unique support" blah blah blah.
When buying a computer IMHO, if you dont have the smarts, shop out a retail store that has a person who has some certs, or intelligence and have them setup the computer....
or
If you have teh smarts, wipe the box clean and start from scratch. Make sure you have the latest drivers and do some research into how to "tweak" the OS a bit better for your needs with services and what not.
I could probably do a better job at describing what I mean but its 2 am, and im decently sloshed.
Sleep now.
LIKE HP-Service\Support Monitor, and Dells unique "Dellsoft Monitor" that start up and give "Unique support" blah blah blah.
When buying a computer IMHO, if you dont have the smarts, shop out a retail store that has a person who has some certs, or intelligence and have them setup the computer....
or
If you have teh smarts, wipe the box clean and start from scratch. Make sure you have the latest drivers and do some research into how to "tweak" the OS a bit better for your needs with services and what not.
I could probably do a better job at describing what I mean but its 2 am, and im decently sloshed.
Sleep now.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Don't forget the Norton Security Suite which uses more memory than Windows itself! LOL!
XPP at home, Vista Business at work. Vista makes XP look like a snail.
Interesting to see the different opinions on Vista.
Same hardware: Vista x64 is faster than Vista 32-bit. Quite noticeable. The same is true of XP x64 vs XP 32-bit.
No one I work with wants Vista. Everyone who buys a laptop or home computer asks if they could put the "real" version of Windows (XP) on their system. Given a choice, the customer would have chosen XP. Since MS is removing that choice like a politician at the Kremlin, Vista is their only option. The people are NOT happy. 2 folks bought Macs as a result of seeing Vista as the only option.
In a corporate world, XP is the only way to go as there are too many applications that do not run on Vista. However, THAT'S the option the consumer wants as noted above. Ironic. Yet, Microsoft counts every XP license we install as a Vista license. Ahh, the Kremlin again. LOL
Bottom line: some peeople like it, some people love it, most people are yawning.
Same hardware: Vista x64 is faster than Vista 32-bit. Quite noticeable. The same is true of XP x64 vs XP 32-bit.
No one I work with wants Vista. Everyone who buys a laptop or home computer asks if they could put the "real" version of Windows (XP) on their system. Given a choice, the customer would have chosen XP. Since MS is removing that choice like a politician at the Kremlin, Vista is their only option. The people are NOT happy. 2 folks bought Macs as a result of seeing Vista as the only option.
In a corporate world, XP is the only way to go as there are too many applications that do not run on Vista. However, THAT'S the option the consumer wants as noted above. Ironic. Yet, Microsoft counts every XP license we install as a Vista license. Ahh, the Kremlin again. LOL
Bottom line: some peeople like it, some people love it, most people are yawning.
You know its funny, its just like when XP came out and everyone cried Wolf.
Nothing worked with XP out of the box, it was slow, took huge memory over 98se which most people wouldn't move up from, and was slow.
After there was some support released for it from other manufactures it did well extremely well!
I own a MacBook, use linux and like my Windows Flavors. Just my humble opinion.
Nothing worked with XP out of the box, it was slow, took huge memory over 98se which most people wouldn't move up from, and was slow.
After there was some support released for it from other manufactures it did well extremely well!
I own a MacBook, use linux and like my Windows Flavors. Just my humble opinion.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
[censored], even 2K Pro! XP consumed literally TWICE the RAM of 2K Pro out of the box. A huge deal for lots of people at the time, now people are going on about how little memory XP uses?
Windows 3.1 had like a 2MB memory footprint!
Windows 3.1 had like a 2MB memory footprint!
Sure, a 2MB footprint, but Win3.1 crashed like a squad car driven by Frank Drebbin.
So Vista is faster than XP, although Vista doesn't run well on machines shipped with XP.
Just wait until the public is finished Beta testing Vista. Let them do all the work and when they are done then it will be time to upgrade. Give me one good reason why I should not let everyone else do their testing before I upgrade.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Oh, 3.1 was FUN! Remember WFWG 3.11? The NETWORKED version! And NT 3.51...... Those were the days!
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
No, Vista is faster on GOOD HARDWARE. My laptop shipped with XP, but runs Vista just fine. A computer that was setup to run XP out of the box, doesn't typically ship with 2GB of RAM, which is really necessary to get the most out of Vista. Most of these machines were shipped with 512MB, yet I've seen many of the "big box" stores selling laptops with Vista and 512MB and I simply shake my head. Those machines are absolute TURDS.
3GB in work Vista machine. Core2 Duo of course.
- Status
Similar threads
