November 27, 2007 5:13 AM PST

Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test

New tests have revealed that Windows XP with the beta Service Pack 3 has twice the performance of Vista, even with its long-awaited Service Pack 1.

Vista's first service pack, to be released early next year, is intended to boost the operating system's performance. However, when Vista with the Service Pack 1 (SP1) beta was put through benchmark testing by researchers at Florida-based software development company Devil Mountain Software, the improvement was not overwhelming, leaving the latest Windows iteration outshined by its predecessor.

Vista, both with and without SP1, performed notably slower than XP with SP3 in the test, taking over 80 seconds to complete the test, compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP's 35 seconds.

Vista's performance with the service pack increased less than 2 percent compared to performance without SP1--much lower than XP's SP3 improvement of 10 percent. The tests, run on a Dell XPS M1710 test bed with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 1GB of RAM, put Microsoft Office 2007 through a set of productivity tasks, including creating a compound document and supporting workbooks and presentation materials.

In response to the test, a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement that although the company understood the interest in the service packs, they are "still in development" and will continue to evolve before their release. "It has always been our goal to deliver service packs that meet the full spectrum of customer needs," the spokesperson said.

If SP1 does not evolve sufficiently, it could be another setback for Vista, with many businesses waiting to adopt the operating system until the service pack is released.

A year after its launch, only 13 percent of businesses have adopted Vista, according to a survey of IT professionals.

Microsoft admits that the launch has not gone as well as the company would have liked. "Frankly, the world wasn't 100 percent ready for Windows Vista," corporate vice president Mike Sievert said in a recent interview at Microsoft's partner conference in Denver.

Microsoft has not done enough to make users aware of the benefits of Vista, NPD analyst Chris Swenson said at the conference. "The problem is that there are a lot of complex new features in Vista, and you need to educate consumers about them...much like Apple educating the masses about the possibilities of the iPhone or focusing on a single feature or benefit of the Mac OS in the Mac-versus-PC commercials. Microsoft should be educating the masses about the various new features in a heavy rotation of Vista in TV, radio, and print ads. But the volume of ads (for Vista) has paled in comparison to the ads run for XP."

XP has proved to be more popular than its younger sibling, with the first six months of U.S. retail sales of box copies of Vista 59.7 percent below those of XP's in the equivalent period after its release.

Microsoft has had to allow PC manufacturers to continue to sell XP on new PCs, setting a deadline for the last sale at January 31. However, the pressure from manufacturers and consumers has been so great that Microsoft has been forced to extend the deadline another five months, until June.

According to Microsoft, sales of Vista have been picking up, with the software giant reporting 88 million units sold.

Suzanne Tindal of ZDNet Australia reported from Sydney. CNET's Ina Fried contributed to this article.

See more CNET content tagged:
service pack, benchmarking, spokesperson, Microsoft Windows Vista, Microsoft Office 2007


Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Unfair test
The test of Vista was conducted on a machine with 1 GB RAM. That's not enough! XP will certainly run on 1 GB RAM, but Vista needs 2 GB to run well.

Ideally, the test would be done on machines that were optimized for each OS. XP could be run on a 2 GHz single core machine with 1 GB RAM and Vista could be run on a 2 GHz dual core machine with 2 GB RAM, then it would be equal.
Posted by OmegaWolf747 (431 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not unfair.
In a way, it's not. It just shows that people are getting tired of software bloat.

If they both had two gig of ram Windows XP would still run faster, and if the Vista computer had two gig of ram when the XP computer only had one I imagine it will still run faster.

But Windows XP takes only 128 megabyte minimum. You're telling us that Vista takes 1600 percent more ram to run correctly.

Certainly, Vista isn't 16 times better then Windows XP is it? It's certainly not 16 times faster. Where?s the justification?
Posted by matthewcsims (19 comments )
Link Flag
Unfair test to be sure.
Actually, a more fair test would be to run the benchmark for Vista on a machine with 4 GB of RAM. 1 GB is FOUR TIMES the recommended system requirements for Windows XP (256 KB). 1 GB just meets the recommended system requirements for Vista. That is beyond an unfair test.
Posted by SkippyDM (8 comments )
Link Flag
2 GB ain't any better
I've got 2GB of RAM on my new Dell PC and Vista is an absolute dog compared to XP on my 4 yr old Dell PC w/ 1 GB of RAM.

Ergo, I'm putting my 'dump Vista for XP' effort on a fast track.

Keep putting lipstick on that sow - but a pig is still a pig.

*PETA Note - no animals were harmed in the use of these analogies.
Posted by ejevo (134 comments )
Link Flag
Fair test, same hardware is used...
The fact is, Vista is slower than XP, even with all the bells & whistles turned off....

I would rather use XP than Vista if the retailer had gave me that option for my laptop.

Saying its equal to do a test with a twice as powerful PC shows that you do not have the appropriate knowledge or training to make a truly informed opinion.

Software bloat like this is whats caused the performance of machines to stay almost the same while speeds have increased.

I recently 'upgraded' from a 2Ghz Single Core running XP with 1GB Ram to a 2Ghz Dual core with 2GB ram running Vista.

In general usage there is very little in performance increase, even though I in theory have twice the computing power at my disposal.
Posted by MrXavia (4 comments )
Link Flag
Re: Unfair test
You're absolutely right but you miss the whole point of what this
tests proves. The article's main theme is based on a quote found
mid way which states:
"A year after its launch, only 13 percent of businesses have
adopted Vista".
The question is obviously answered in that (very fair) real world
test. I'll use my company's stance to explain my point. At my
desk I have a 2 year old computer with XP on it that continues to
run as it was designed to. It has a 2GHz single core processor
with only 512mb of ram and a graphic card which works
perfectly for XP but is far below Vista's needs. So in order to
"adopt" Vista either half of my comp's components need to be
replaced or better yet the whole computer needs to be chucked.
That's one hell of an investment just to upgrade to Vista and for
what...? XP has no problems surfing the Internet or using Office
so seriously.. why would my company want to toss money out
the window when the Windows it uses already on a non-Vista
compliant computer works perfectly as it is..??
Posted by imacpwr (456 comments )
Link Flag
RE: Unfair test
You're funny. So you are really saying that Vista is about the only
desktop OS on the planet that can't run nicely in 1 GB of RAM.
How is that an unfair test?

And the guy had it backwards when he said the world wasn't
ready for Vista. What he should have said was that Vista wasn't
ready for the world.
Posted by protagonistic (1868 comments )
Link Flag
In other words . . .
. . . Vista is even more of a memory hog than XP. Somehow that seems like a big shortcoming for Vista.
Posted by Bob H in NPR (39 comments )
Link Flag
This test only shows that Office is not fully tuned for Vista yet
People should remember that Office has been tuned for years for XP and is not fully leveraging Vista's new APIs and features. The melding of Office and Vista will take time.
Posted by zebearbear (1 comment )
Link Flag
Not unfair at all...
Why does an OS need 2GB of RAM? OSX, Linux, and all other OSes out there can get by happily on 512 or less... far less.

They were testing equal hardware specs, and [b]1GB[/b] of RAM is allegedly [b]double Vista's minimum memory requirement[/b].
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
You got your wish:
Just on complaints like yours, they ran a test w/ 2GB of RAM for Vista instead of one:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

Result: Vista still sucks hind teat, and by a large margin.

Lesson: Be careful what you wish for, because when you get it things are likely to look just as bad (or worse, in this case).

Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
See more comment replies
Get real!
When has Microsoft ever released an OS that has improved performance relative to current hardware performance. Give them a break!
Vista is not just developed for today, it will grow with future hardware developments - as has every other OS launch with MS. Windows 95 runs quicker than XP on my old machine, but nobody from the news says anything about that, do they?
Posted by willihg (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
upgrade in the future then...
so what your saying is that Vista is so ahead of it's time we should upgrade when a new OS comes out...? lol
Posted by rnieves1977 (105 comments )
Link Flag
When they released Windows XP
I was running Windows 98SE and thought that Windows XP was going to load it down, but it ran faster!
Games ran faster, everything ran faster.
Get your facts straight.

I am an IT Analyst in the Desktop Enterprise Management group where we manage 5000+ systems and I have been testing Vista since beta and even have Vista Enterprise on one of my systems at work A dual core OptiPlex 620 and the only way to get it to "play nice" is to tweak the system through the local group policy and turn off UAC, etc. By the time you get it to a point where it will not drive our helpdesk staff to the brink you have stripped off pretty much what MS says is so good about it, short of the "eye candy" Aero interface.
Like the man said "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

My recommendation along with the vast majority of fortune 500 companies is going to be "skip it",
We'll wait and see how Windows 7 turns out then make some hard decisions as to whether Microsoft is truly listening to their Enterprise user base.
Posted by fred dunn (793 comments )
Link Flag
That's gold
I love the bit where the MS guy says 'The world was not ready for Vista'. What a joke. Vista was not ready for the world.

No OS is perfect, but Vista really was a let down.
Posted by a85 (104 comments )
Reply Link Flag
re: That's gold
He also forgot to mention that the world was not ready for Vista's absurd tiered releases and pricing schemes.
Posted by J_Satch (571 comments )
Link Flag
Vista = ME Second Edition
Vista = ME Second Edition
Posted by Cmos4081 (3 comments )
Link Flag
This was by far the biggest screwup if cnets history. As an industry professional I personally setup over 500 systems a year and have had the chance to PROPERLY benchmark both Vista and XP on identical machines and in every instance when the OS was properly installed the Vista systems out performed XP in every catagory. I feel that it is irresponsible for people to post incorrect bechmarking data simply because the people who are testing these systems and OS's don't know how to properly install an OS.
Posted by rbslack (4 comments )
Link Flag
They have it backwards
"Frankly, the world wasn't 100 percent ready for Windows Vista," corporate vice president Mike Sievert said in a recent interview at Microsoft's partner conference in Denver.
They have it backwards, I think Microsoft was NOT 100% ready to release Vista. Yes the test was fair. It's just like Windows ME, man did we get ripped off on that one.
Posted by Timcal (21 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thanks, CNET
Now MS will be sure to cripple the SP3 service pack to ensure XP runs slower than Vista. You all SUCK! :)
Posted by umbrae (1073 comments )
Reply Link Flag
would be interesting to check...
It would be interesting to have CNet run same benchmark on released SP3 vs. beta to see if performance stayed the same. MS has been known to modify code (ie: Win31 installer) for other than required purposes.
Posted by tbuccelli (115 comments )
Link Flag
LOL I was thinking the exact same thing.
Posted by Kissmyne (27 comments )
Link Flag
OK. this is really stupid. Of course any newer OS will run slower compared to older one on the same set of hardware.

If you test Windows 95, it will work even faster. This is a no-brainer.

And all you MS bashers out there, compare the system requirements of latest versions of Mac OS and Ubuntu and compare it to the versions released five years ago.
Posted by cary1 (924 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not entirely true ...
You are right with regards to Windows, but that doesn't make it right.

For the most part each upgrade of OSX has been faster than the previous version. Windows seems to be the opposite.
Posted by driven01 (36 comments )
Link Flag
RE: Duh!
"And all you MS bashers out there, compare the system
requirements of latest versions of Mac OS and Ubuntu and
compare it to the versions released five years ago."

And then compare those requirements to the Vista requirements
and ask yourself, if they can do it why can't Vista? Vista seems
to be the only OS on the planet needing at least 2 GB to get any
decent performance out of it.

And for the record, it took a lot of years being abused and
ripped off by MS to turn me into a MS basher. But at least I
learned from my experience. Some people never do learn.
Posted by protagonistic (1868 comments )
Link Flag
Actually if you stick windows 95 on a big machine (i've done it, with a single core 2.6 ghz and a duel core 2.6 ghz 64 bit:). Windows 95 totally bombs. On the 32 bit sigle CPU it detected it but the kernel couldn't handle it, overflow errors ran rampent, and it didn't understand that 3 gigs of RAM. it knew it was there but it could only utilize 1 gig. The video worked fine for AGP, but bombed on PCIe (no supprise there). USB's worked fine but I have Win95C.
The bootup time was of course basically instant, POST finished and BAM you were at your desktop. But after that there was not much of a performance difference compared to XP.
The duel core, didnt work at all, it would not install Windows 95. SATA Drives, don't even think about it :).
Posted by Slayer___2 (6 comments )
Link Flag
1 GB RAM??
I know 1 GB is the recommended minimum for Vista, but running benchmarks with that configuration is like driving a Mercedes with a Volkswagon engine in it!
Posted by roger.d.miller (41 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Have to agree
I have to agree that 1GB is NOT a realistic memory minimum to be running Vista. They should have had at least 2 GB of memory in both the Windows XP and Vista machines, if they were using two different machines.
Posted by Leria (585 comments )
Link Flag
I run Vista
at work all day with 1 GB of RAM and I have a TON of documents open at a time, etc. Also, I'm using it on a 3-year old P4 (about 2 GHz). Quit whining. If you don't want to use it then don't use it but what's the point of lying about it??? It's just an OS and it's perfectly OK not to like it. Lying about it is lame though.
Posted by sanenazok (3449 comments )
Link Flag
They ran it with 2...
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>

Still sucks.

Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
IMO, Vista wasn't ready for prime time when it was released, and
apparently won't be after SP1.

As a MSFT stockholder I hope MS is hard at work on a Vista
replacement, and a plan to keep offering XP for a few more
years until "AfterVista" is ready.

Otherwise they should expect a slow but steady migration of
customers to other operating systems.
Posted by rcrusoe (1305 comments )
Reply Link Flag
"Windows-XP-outshines-Vista-in-benchmarking-test"; maybe, just maybe IBM should come up with a Convenience Pack # something (now that there are newer hardware requirements...) that would outshine both Windows and Vista. After all Code-Base OS/2 will always be Code-Base OS/2. Read the subject line! Don't be "blinded" and get "trapped" folks in those "BOXES" while you have got to come up with those "mortgage payments". It is a good thing that LOTUS SYMPHONY is for free so that there will be a saving on the "OFFICE" cost.
Posted by Commander_Spock (3123 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Test is unfair? Only irrelevant
I have 6 PCs at home, 5 desktops and one notebook. Four of them have XP Pro; the notebook and one of the PCs (my own...) have Vista.

All of them run smoothly (my 15 year old kid last week asked me what is a "blue screen of death" - because he NEVER saw one!). However, I really prefer Vista over XP.

The question, for me, is not "performance", as in "speed", but rather, "performance" as in "functionality". And "security". And "ease of use". And... Well, you get my point (I hope).

I didn't run the tests, but I can only guess that Windows 98SE RUNS FASTER ON A 1 GB MACHINE THAN XP! Duh... That's why the point raised by another poster here about "unfairness" is a good one.

As for myself, my machine has 4 GB of RAM (RAM is REALLY cheap nowadays) and I don't complain. In fact, Vista actually *uses* the 4 GB of RAM; I doubt that XP benefits as well by adding more RAM above 2 GB.

In the end, nothing of this really matters, because one year from now, Vista will rule (more than now) and XP will have fade into oblivion.

P.S.: So let me get this straight: for years, XP was a bad OS; now that we have a better one (Vista), it suddenly it is a good OS? Oh dear...
Posted by aemarques (162 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Actually you are incorrect
Win98SE and Win98 both start to bog down with more memory (over 128MB). As for the BSOD, I have been testing Vista since beta and the only BSOD I ever got was on a brand new Dell OptiPlex 620MT with Vista Enterprise. Mind you it only happened once but that is more than my XP production system has encountered and I have most of the same programs and networked printers attached.

So Vista for home...Great. Vista for the Enterprise...I think we'll wait and see what Windows 7 has to offer.
Posted by fred dunn (793 comments )
Link Flag
Nice, but...
* XP can do everything Vista can, functionally. Yet, XP is faster by a wide margin.

* "oooh, RAM is cheap!" Sure, if your definition of "cheap" is: "a couple of hundred bucks".

You know? I'd like to see the pricetags and performance of Vista, XP, Leopard, and Ubuntu all on the same exact hardware specs for a given application native to all three major types (like, say, Unreal Tournament?) I'm more than willing to bet that Vista sits at dead last, and that MSFT would crap its pants in haste to try and shut down any website that did such a test.

Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
XP Good Old Friend Useable and Dependable Setup Running. Vista New Eye Candy Fun Progressive Challange New Frontier? Problem or Opportunity. Is the fear of something new causing the entrenched to think about something to complain about. From 3.11 to 95 to 98 or NT 3.51 to NT 4.0. This has already been hashed out before. Get over it progress will occur whether it runs you over or you jump onboard. IMHO
Posted by chris029 (1 comment )
Link Flag
Okay, we year later.
Guess what -- Vista still sucks, even after SP1.
Guess what else -- XP is here to stay, while Vista is on its way out.
Microsoft is pretty much admitting defeat, and is accelerating development on Windows 7.
Posted by tuyen99 (1 comment )
Link Flag
minimal migration
That migration would take YEARS... Especially since some resellers still don't give you a choice on XP over Vista. Personally I wouldn't ever move over to Apple's OS (too limiting) but other could but I don't think in enough numbers, ubuntu(and other untu's) while cool looking and functional doesn't have the apps that I need and the rest of the OS's are too complicated for average users to figure out. While I think Vista is a bloated OS with pretty GUI, it won't go down in a ball of flames. It is a wake-up call for microsoft though.

An OS shouldn't need to use a tremendous amount of system resources to run... It's supposed to be a platform for my apps not THE APP. It should also be intuitive which XP wasn't really and Vista is less.
Posted by rnieves1977 (105 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Backwards Thinking
"Frankly, the world wasn't 100 percent ready for Windows Vista," is exactly backwards.

Vista wasn't 100% ready for the world. MS could actually fix Vista long before they could fix the world. Maybe.
Posted by Renegade Knight (13748 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I would rather have a more secure OS than speed
Vista has been re-built from the ground up with security in mind. Windows XP harks back to NT with all its insecure or open processes, ports, etc.
Posted by WJeansonne (480 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Secure? You got to be kidding.
Microsoft has become a jack-of-all-trades. They do a lot of things ok, but are the master of none. If they would just concentrate on making a great Operating System, and leave the security to companies that specialize in secuity like Norton or whoever, we'd have the best of both worlds. Speed and Security, like we had before the operating systems became gloated monsters.
Posted by cstuder (5 comments )
Link Flag
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)...
... will always be Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) anyway you put it; and, the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) will always be the the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). Hope you get ISO "Office Standards" functionality drift... Got "milk" for the "coffee"!
Posted by Commander_Spock (3123 comments )
Link Flag
You do realize that when Windows XP came out they gave us the same line right. Upgrade because it?s more secure. Come to find out, it wasn?t secure. Vista is no different. It?s not secure. A hole is a hole and a hacker only needs to find one. There?s no reason to believe that Vista won?t be hacked just as often as Windows XP is.
Posted by matthewcsims (19 comments )
Link Flag
How do you know Vista is secure?
Posted by HlLLARY CLTON (382 comments )
Link Flag
RE: I would rather have a more secure OS than speed
Then you should be using OpenBSD. It would actually give you
both. :-)
Posted by protagonistic (1868 comments )
Link Flag
Faster > Secure
I can (for the most part) secure my own OS. What I want is blazing fast speeds... I switched from an XP machine with a 2.0 GHz P4 with 2GB of ram to a 2.2 GHz core2 duo with 1GB of ram running Mac OS X.5 and I can easily say that the machine is so blazing fast that it blows my mind. Given that the machine's weren't evenly matched it was not a fair test on my part and I love XP but I'd like to see it's performance after SP3.

Posted by DamDisIsShiznats (2 comments )
Link Flag
No it hasn't
It is still based on NT and 98 code

It is slow AND insecure
Posted by The_Decider (3097 comments )
Link Flag
Not More Secure
According to a report in ComputerWorld it is estimated that Vista will see approximately 40 to 45 security issues in 2008. Vista is currently enjoying the same benefit as Mac OSX in terms of hacks. It isn't a big enough target to warrant their full attention.

Vista is still below 10% market share. When it reaches 10% market share it should become a lucrative enough target for the hackers to really start focusing on it.

What I found more interesting was this tidbit of information. "The National Vulnerability Database reports 19 Windows Vista vulnerabilities in the first nine months," stated Avert Labs' just-published top 10 threat predictions. "This compares with 16 Windows XP vulnerabilities during a comparable period." (The comparable period being the first nine months of XP's release.)

So comparing the first nine months of XP to Vista and Vista has had three more vulnerabilities then XP. How is that more secure?
Posted by mknopp (28 comments )
Link Flag
"Harks back to NT"?!
Version 6.0, to be exact. See?
<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>
Posted by handydan918 (35 comments )
Link Flag
I get both ;)
...see also Fedora, Ubuntu, OSX...

Windows isn't the only game in town anymore. IF MSFT wants to
compete, it damned well better learn to do so on merit for once.

Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
See more comment replies
Vista like DOS V4, is a dog. Let it die and move on.
Everyone is entitled to blow it once in a while. Vista is just like Dos v4 was, and the company should learn from that. People pulled back to DOS V.3.3 until Microsoft dumped the trash in V4, and created DOS V5.
It's time for Microsoft to admit that Vista is DOA. The only reason Vista is selling at all, is to people that are buying new PCs and don't know better.
Microsoft, It's time to cut your loses, Dump the crap, and create a new operating system that works. One that does not require anyone to update the hardware, allows you to startup with only the applications that we select, and not the kitchen sink. Do You Think You Remember How To Do That?
Posted by cstuder (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE: Vista like DOS V4, is a dog. Let it die and move on.
And the only reason DOS 5.0 was good was because DR-DOS 5
came out first and MS had to at least match it. Isn't competition
great. :-)

You are right, MS needs to do what Apple did and do a complete
rewrite. Until they do that they are going to be saddled with bad
code that has accumulated over the years. And they will be stuck
with the design choices they made in the earlier versions.
Posted by protagonistic (1868 comments )
Link Flag
The joke here is that Vista not only out performs XP but is vastly more secure. People should know what they are talking about before they speak.
Posted by rbslack (4 comments )
Link Flag
Remember last week when British Authorities Cracked XP in 11 Minutes?
Security is much more important than speed these days and Vista has it. And besides, if you have a late model PC with Intel dual-core processors, 2GB's of RAM Vista is just fine. This study was a bunch of hooey anyway, since the beta isn't done. Apples to Oranges my friend!

Here's the CNET article on XP from last week in case you all missed it:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="" target="_newWindow"></a>
Posted by WJeansonne (480 comments )
Reply Link Flag
XP SP2 *not* Cracked in 11 Mins
This demonstration was just marketing show, my friend. The
technique is called "FUD" for "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt". It's
how companies make you buy things you don't really need.

Windows XP SP1 was widely recognized as being insecure, which
is why XP SP2 was a "forced upgrade" until some corporations
complained the security was too secure for them to manage the
workstations. Testing XP SP1 for security now is a joke.

Windows XP SP2 was the first consumer Windows to set security
enabled by default instead of disabled by default. If you're up-
to-date with your Windows Updates, that "demonstration" won't
Posted by Skeuomorph (1 comment )
Link Flag
old and meaningless..
you obviously don't work in the IT field and don't know much about security testing...
Posted by ar99 (1 comment )
Link Flag
XP Outshines Vista in actually WORKING!!
I don't have to buy new hardware and software with "old reliable". Making Vista incompatible with 50% of everything I own was just dumb move on Microsoft's part. They've effectively stalled their home user business and turned alot of people on to Macs.
Posted by frankz00 (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You Got That Right
There is absolutely no compelling features or reason to go to Vista (any of the versions).
It is slow, bloated, AND yes I have gotten a BSOD on Vista. I haven't seen one of those on my XP systems in a long long time.

Like you said XP just works, why mess with success? Because MS wants you to.
Posted by fred dunn (793 comments )
Link Flag
That isn't Microsoft's fault
That is the problem of lazy hardware developers who didn't want to go back and rewrite even a BASIC driver for their stuff that they sold only 5 years ago..... Put the blame for that where it actually rests, on the hardware manufacturers.

Microsoft warned the hardware manufacturers that they were changing the way drivers were loaded in order to make the operating system more robust and not let a flaky driver crash the whole system..... the hardware manufacturers didn't listen, which I am pissed at THEM for, not Microsoft, because Microsoft warned them, as I stated earlier.
Posted by Leria (585 comments )
Link Flag
Mirosoft has spread itself to thin.
Microsoft has become a jack-of-all-trades. They do a lot of things ok, but are the master of none. If they would just concentrate on making a great Operating System, and leave the security to companies that specialize in secuity like Norton or whoever, we'd have the best of both worlds. Speed and Security, like we had before the operating systems became gloated monsters..
Posted by cstuder (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
CNET Should Report Better Here
A few points:
1. Where is the link to the test results?
2. What version of Vista was used? Was Aero turned on?
3. It is EXPECTED that the OS that has less features/processes running would run faster. This is why MS recommends A LOT MORE computing power for Vista. This is true for every new OS.
4. Why was only one system configuration used? To have a scientifically sound benchmark, you need multiple computers with different hardware configurations in order to get rid of the variables. For all we know, Dell's hardware configuration could be affecting the outcome, positively or negatively.
5. Because of point #4, we don't know WHY XP is faster. It likely is a RAM issue, but we would need to test to be sure.

Therefore, this "benchmark" study is basically useless, which tells us nothing new.
Posted by Bevo4138 (20 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Was it a fair comparison?
I'm not yet a Vista fan, but would be nice if CNet would provide a few details about the test. Were all of Vista's enhancements running, or had they been turned off?

Too be honest it make since that a newer OS would be slower than an older one. You would expect there would be additional features with a new OS that would require additional recourses.... New OS are designed to take advantage of the advancements in the newer hardware available today.
Posted by scalemaster34 (22 comments )
Reply Link Flag
RE: Was it a fair comparison?
"Too be honest it make since that a newer OS would be slower
than an older one."

It only makes sense if you live in a Windows only world. I make
a point of never buying anything but high end systems so I can
usually survive the jump to the next release.

I have two systems here. A powerMac G5 and an IBM. The four
year old Mac will be upgraded shortly to Leopard and I fully
expect it to have similar performance to what it is presently. The
two year old IBM has been regularly upgraded with the latest
Ubuntu and PC-BSD offerings and I can say I have not noticed
performance slow downs like you speak of going from XP to

The real problem here is that people have been conditioned to
expect each new OS from MS to require ever more advanced
HW. And MS takes full advantage of this idea. This will continue
until people demand better from them. Perhaps with Vista MS
will realize they need to do better.
Posted by protagonistic (1868 comments )
Link Flag


Man, for a technology webpage there are a lot of idiots on here....more features, more eye candy = less performance. Windows XP was out when 800MHZ PC's were the norm and 512 Memory was the norm. Now we are talking about DUAL CORE/QUAD CORE processors running at least 2GB of RAM, come on people!!!! OF COURSE XP will be's common sense!!!!
Posted by rage1605 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Yeah... try opening more than 3 windows...
Try opening more than 3 windows in 3.1. You'll crash and burn. The "new features" argument is a bunch of crap because with those so-called "new features" I lost alot of existing features... Namely, 50% of my hardware and software. I think I can afford to miss out on glossy windows without having to sacrifice my existing investment.
Posted by frankz00 (196 comments )
Link Flag
Using your line of reasoning my present version of OS X should
be a real dog on my PowerMac. And I should not be able to
install Leopard at all with this outdated hardware. Here's a flash
for you. it runs just as quickly as it ever did.

And I use this only as an example to show that other OS's seem
to be able to do what MS apparently cannot. Actually improve
the performance over time with each new OS release. And yes,
there will come a time when my equipment will not be able to handle the latest and greatest OS X, but that point will not come
nearly as quickly as it would have if I were still running
Windows. And the same holds true with most of the Linux
distributions out there.
Posted by protagonistic (1868 comments )
Link Flag
XP a 6 yr old OS beating everyone
Although XP been out for 6 yrs and still cannabilizing Vista sales. They fail to mention that XP is beating out Mac and Linux too! At the end of the day XP/Vista, its both Windows and MS could care less.
Posted by mailbox001 (68 comments )
Reply Link Flag
... more could you have expected ("XP a 6 yr old OS beating everyone") Why do you think that race horse owners go the extent to secure a "chip of the block" - genealogy (OS/2) counts; and, none better than Bill Gates knows this only too well!
Posted by Commander_Spock (3123 comments )
Link Flag
Get a Mac
and get out of your dark ages of computing.
Posted by MaLvaDo39 (365 comments )
Reply Link Flag
This is a joke right?

Sure get a Mac if you have the IQ of a monkey and cannot figure out Microsoft Windows...there is a reason it's kicking Mac's ass all over the place :)

Now were are the Linux fan boys to chime in?
Posted by rage1605 (2 comments )
Link Flag
What's funny is that once upon a time Macs were near worthless, the users were treated like idiots and you were lucky when applications didn't randomly crash for no apparent reason. Now that they stuck a Unix kernel into the os, that somehow gives all these unemployed nerds bragging rights?

I'm writing this from Linux actually, but your claim for moving to a Mac will rid you of the "dark ages of computing" made me chuckle. Apparently you think that times have changed and for whatever reason the Mac platform is superior to Windows. I hate to tell you but there's nothing farther from the truth. Not only is Windows XP/Vista a superior os to Mac OS X, but also to any os on the market right now. Until software vendors start pumping out real Mac-based software, Mac OS can't touch Windows. Even the preferred office suite for OS X is Microsoft Office. Ironic, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Microsoft fan, but for the sake of reality, get your head out of your ass and stop talking trash.
Posted by selfkill (43 comments )
Link Flag
Unfair - Yes and No most of you are idiots
Simply put the testing computer was your average computer that mrs jones or mr smith would have bought some time in the last year on a normal budget. The test was fair and unfair, unfair because vista requires more then the average person had and has a bare minimum of overkill for most peoples computers, alot of people sit out there with their 2ghz amd athlon processors or their 2ghz p4 and do nothing but word processing some internet and maybe some power point stuff, email blah blah blah. that is a majority of use for your average computer owner. so when it takes them 80 seconds compared to 35 to do the same thing on the same computer that is already over kill for their needs. its obvious that XP will win. and the reason why people dont use windows 98 and windows 95 is because it was slow as dirt compared to windows xp. people dont start up windows 98 and say HEY THIS IS FASTER THEN XP because if they did windows 98 would still be the dominating OS and XP would have died out just like windows ME.

Posted by gric111 (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Wasn't a fair test
This was not a fair test as 1gb of ram for XP is considered top of the line for that OS where 1gb for Vista is considered the bare minimum. A better test would be to either run them both with 2 gb of ram or 1gb with the XP OS and 2gb with the Vista OS. This test has no weight or value as it was not fair but know basic consumer is going to understand the differences I have shown here.
Posted by hype8912 (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Forget fair, it was realistic
Vista will be the greatest thing since Windows 95!! Bull****. All these people get suckered into buying these machines "Ready for Vista"....that ONLY CAME WITH 1GB RAM AT LAUNCH! And had Vista PREMIUM installed. So shut the hell up with your fair or unfair....this shows that people got screwed, got a slower OS and then had to go pay for computer upgrades. I'm not a conspiracy theory junkie....but how much hardware did the RAM makers push through the door so Vista would actually work right?

Yep, your computer was ready for Vista....ready to be a paper weight of slowness
Posted by ittesi259 (727 comments )
Link Flag
Mac OS is faster than Vista as well
I have tested Vista Home Basic and Mac OS X 10.4.8 on the
same hardware, and there is no doubt that OS X is faster. In
daily use, just browsing through folders or browsing the web,
Mac OS is about twice as fast. Vista is just too staggeringly

This observation was on a work machine, and when shown the
difference everyone in the office reached the same conclusion -
get rid of Vista. So I formatted the 2nd partition and loaded XP
SP2 and it's a much happier machine.
Posted by menotbug (93 comments )
Reply Link Flag

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot



RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.