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.
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 News.com's Ina Fried contributed to this article.
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.
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?
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.
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.
OmegaWolf747, 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..??
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
<quote>"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.</quote> Translation: Frankly, we know that not everyone wants Vista.
If you don't re-translate, the original quote is just as incriminating. The release of Vista was delayed 2 years and the world still wasn't ready for it. Sounds like the world doesn't want it.
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.
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.
"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.
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 :).
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!
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.
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.
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.
<quote>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.</quote> Translation: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We'll be sure to add some arbitrary, performance-crippling code to XP SP3 before it gets out of beta.
"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.
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...
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.
* 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.
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
Okay, so...here we are...one 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.
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.
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.
... 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"!
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.
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.
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?
It IS NT! Version 6.0, to be exact. See? <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT</a>
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?
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.
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:
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 work.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
"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 Vista.
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.
Windows 3.1 OUTSHINES WINDOWS XP!!!! BREAKING NEWS!!
NO **** A 5 YEAR OLD OPERATING SYSTEM WILL OUTSHINE A 6 MONTH OLD OPERATING SYSTEM ON NEW HARDWARE.
IF I INSTALLED WINDOWS 3.11 ON MY CURRENT COMPUTER (OR ON A USB FLASH DRIVE) I BET THE BENCHMARKS WOULD SMOKE WINDOWS XP BY AT LEAST 10 FOLD......BUT YOU WOULDN'T USE WINDOWS 3.11 WOULD YOU????
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 faster...it's common sense!!!!
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.
RE: Windows 3.1 OUTSHINES WINDOWS XP!!!! BREAKING NEWS!!
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.
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.
... 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!
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.
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.
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.
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
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
A new Apple lawsuit takes aim at Motorola Mobility in the U.S. for breaking a contract both companies have with Qualcomm for the license of one of its wireless patents.
A study by Harlequin--yes, the romantic-book people--says more women are sending naughty texts (shocking) and that 27 percent have sent a nude picture via e-mail or text.
Tor's "obfsproxy" technology would make encrypted data look innocuous and let it dodge government censors. That could help citizens in Iran reach blocked sites as antigovernment protests reportedly loom.
Too busy planning the perfect Valentine's Day date to keep up with Crave? Well, we love you, so we've rounded up the week's top stories and geeky gift ideas right here.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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..??
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.
They were testing equal hardware specs, and [b]1GB[/b] of RAM is allegedly [b]double Vista's minimum memory requirement[/b].
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/update-re-testing-vista-w2gb-ram-office.html" target="_newWindow">http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/update-re-testing-vista-w2gb-ram-office.html</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).
Cheers!
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?
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.
No OS is perfect, but Vista really was a let down.
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.
Translation:
Frankly, we know that not everyone wants Vista.
If you don't re-translate, the original quote is just as incriminating. The release of Vista was delayed 2 years and the world still wasn't ready for it. Sounds like the world doesn't want it.
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.
For the most part each upgrade of OSX has been faster than the previous version. Windows seems to be the opposite.
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.
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 :).
Still sucks.
/P
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.
Translation:
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We'll be sure to add some arbitrary, performance-crippling code to XP SP3 before it gets out of beta.
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...
So Vista for home...Great. Vista for the Enterprise...I think we'll wait and see what Windows 7 has to offer.
* "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.
/P
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.
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.
Vista wasn't 100% ready for the world. MS could actually fix Vista long before they could fix the world. Maybe.
both. :-)
-Nate
It is slow AND insecure
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?
Version 6.0, to be exact. See?
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT" target="_newWindow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT</a>
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.
;)
/P
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?
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.
Here's the CNET article on XP from last week in case you all missed it:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.news.com/Microsoft-exec-calls-XP-hack-frightening/2100-7349_3-6218238.html?tag=item" target="_newWindow">http://www.news.com/Microsoft-exec-calls-XP-hack-frightening/2100-7349_3-6218238.html?tag=item</a>
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
work.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Vista.
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.
IF I INSTALLED WINDOWS 3.11 ON MY CURRENT COMPUTER (OR ON A USB FLASH DRIVE) I BET THE BENCHMARKS WOULD SMOKE WINDOWS XP BY AT LEAST 10 FOLD......BUT YOU WOULDN'T USE WINDOWS 3.11 WOULD YOU????
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 faster...it's common sense!!!!
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.
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?
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.
LONG STORY SHORT, VISTA = WINDOWS ME OF 2006
Yep, your computer was ready for Vista....ready to be a paper weight of slowness