Comments on: Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test
Vista with the beta Service Pack 1 fails to keep pace with its predecessor in a series of productivity tasks using the Office 2007 software.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- The $199 tablet according to Freescale
January 3, 2010 9:30 PM PST
- Bono risks becoming next Lars Ulrich
January 3, 2010 4:40 PM PST
- Dell laptop using Intel Core i3
January 3, 2010 3:10 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
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].
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/update-re-testing-vista-w2gb-ram-office.html
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?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
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:
http://www.news.com/Microsoft-exec-calls-XP-hack-frightening/2100-7349_3-6218238.html?tag=item
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.
- Was it a fair comparison?
- by scalemaster34 November 27, 2007 8:16 AM PST
- 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?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- RE: Was it a fair comparison?
- by protagonistic November 27, 2007 9:23 AM PST
- "Too be honest it make since that a newer OS would be slower
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 6 pages (330 Comments)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.