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.

[rage1605]

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!!!!

[frankz00]

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.

[protagonistic]

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install Leopard at all with this outdated hardware.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.

[mailbox001]

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.

[Commander_Spock]

What...

... 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!

[MaLvaDo39]

Get a Mac

and get out of your dark ages of computing.

[rage1605]

LOL!

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?

[selfkill]

Irony

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.

[gric111]

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.


LONG STORY SHORT, VISTA = WINDOWS ME OF 2006

[hype8912]

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.

[ittesi259]

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

[menotbug]

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
bloated.

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.

[bobby_brady]

Vista is slower because of all the embedded DRM

Heck, is it even possible to watch a movie on Vista without some sort of DRM program checking to make sure you actually own it? Then the software has to do all the decoding, check with the MPAA, download more DRM codecs, triple check with the MPAA, re-code, transfer to the HDMI port, decode, recode, check...blah blah blah.

[sanenazok]

Which OS runs faster than

What OS runs faster than its predecessor from FIVE years ago? Hell Windows 3.1 is 100000X faster than Vista.

I watch all my media on Vista (mostly DVD's and divx files) and have yet seen any DRM interference. Were you joking maybe?

[cary1]

looks like you have never used Vista

I have been using it since 2006 summer and I haven't seen any DRM based restriction.

The only time I saw a problem was when I was trying to access a colleague's music library on iTunes, unless Windows has something to do with it ;)

[Seaspray0]

You've got it backwards

The DRM (digital rights management) is embedded in the data, not the operating system. The operating system typically requires a certificate associated with the drm (your subscription) and the encryption method used to decode the data. For example, you can't play itunes songs on other mp3 players because they don't have the ablility to decrypt the file. Mp3 players will play songs that do not have the itunes DRM embedded in them.

[mknopp]

MS just now getting it

The hard fact of life for Vista lovers is that this is a valid test. Perhaps not fair in the technical sense, but completely valid and in many ways a more important test then one using 4GB of RAM.

Here is the scenario.

You are Child Kettle and you are looking to buy a computer for Ma and Pa Kettle, you want a computer so that they can email, surf the web, look at the pictures of the grandkids that they took on that newfangled camera you got them for their anniversary, and write letters.

So you go to Dell and look at the cheapest computers that they have because it will do all that they need. Dell has an Inspiron for $500 that will do exactly what they need so you decide to order it.

Here is where this test is very valid. Do you order the computer with XP or Vista? The base configuration only comes with 1GB of RAM. It cost $370 dollars to upgrade to 4GB of RAM and you cannot justify paying an extra 74% for RAM that they are not going to need for any of the activities they are going to do.

So what do you do?

Like it or not there are a thousands of machines out there being sold with Vista and 1GB of RAM, and the majority of users are not computer savvy enough to install their own RAM.

So, running a test that reflects the exact situation that thousands of consumers will be facing this Christmas buying season is completely valid and in many ways more practical then what many of you are suggesting.

The days of needing the biggest and baddest computer that you can afford are gone. The general task that people use their computers for do not and should not require the resources that Vista demands. People are wanting more streamlined, less resource intensive, and more focused computers. Portability and ease of use are the keys of today as computers shrink and become mobile. The real issue with Vista is that Microsoft is just now starting to get the idea that many people do not need, nor want, all of their bells and whistles, and the requisite resources they demand, to do what they need a computer to do.

[Cmos4081]

the truth hurts

I could not agree more with you.
You put the facts as they are in my opinion.

[cary1]

your scenario

If I had to buy that $500 laptop with 1GB RAM, I would go for Vista Home Basic. My parents won't need Aero interface, Because they just need to check email and look at the pictures.

[wolivere]

I have seen this arguement so many times before

I have seen it with Linux, mac you name it.

The reality is Vista Ultimate was not targeted at Ma and Pa kettle, Vista Home Basic was.

Chances are they are not runing office 2007

So if you want a machine for ma and pa kettle, get Vista Basic with 1gb of ram. And your fine.

And know this is not the situation facing 1000's this christmas season.

Most people will get a system with Home basic and run fine.

Some may get a Mac, and there kids will want to play a game and cry, and then buy boot camp and run XP.

But wait whats the arguement?

Now maybe your right some people don't want bell's and whistles but guranteed within a short time they will have downloaded and installed every bell and whistle they can think of, and wonder why there system can't handle it.

Strange there is a stripped down Vista with out all the bells and whistles that has a small foot print. But pepole opt for Ultimate cause they want the bells and whistles.

Its like the Linux arguement.

People install it they use the base drivers they surf the web its good. Could have done the same with Win98 but okay.

Anyhow then they want the fancing screen flipping and gidgets, and they go hmm its slow..

Well yah!!!

[Stating]

This is what I posted here numerous times

Any half-wit can see that Vista is a dog compared to XP. Every time I presented facts here to this effect I was savaged by Microsoft paid lackeys intent on pumping up Vista sales. As effecient an OS as XP is however, Windows 2000 absolutely flies on comparable hardware. Every Microsoft OS since 2000 has suffered from severe bloat. The best thing that ever happened to Intel was Microsoft bloatware.

[frankz00]

You're absolutely right!

If I could, I would run Windows 2000 on all of my machines. I have some hardware that I need XP for though. This is the opposite of the Vista situation. I upgraded to XP to GAIN the ability to use certain hardware and software. And I lost nothing. In Vista, you LOSE half of what you use with no real benefit.

[astdan]

Disagree

> As effecient an OS as XP is however, Windows 2000 absolutely flies on comparable hardware.

Bull! I had a Windows 2000 PC at work for 2 years and it was painful. Boot times were horrible. Changing to XP Pro was like a breath of fresh air.

[sanenazok]

WRONG!

Windows 2000 runs SLOOOWWW compared to NT 4.0 I remember running NT 4.0 on a 486 or a P90. Try running Win2k on that and see how fast it does. I think the minimum usefulness for Win2K is a P2 300. Also, when Win2k came out everyone was ******** about the NEW driver signing and how there were very few drivers for devices making the OS soo hard to use. Also, prior to SP's it was buggy. Geez, do you detect a pattern here?

Of course, now Win2K is some sort of a savior. What-the-f-ever.

So definitely you're wrong that Win2K was somehow less bloated. Perhaps you're suffering from happy memories of a time before your tech support job was outsourced?

[Microsoft_Facts]

Vista, WinME all over again.

Enough is enough, this OS needs to be scrapped and swept under the rug like Windows ME was. There are too many issues at the core of the OS that can not be 'fixed' or patched.

[catch23]

Are you on drugs?

or do you need to be? Vista has sold more then every other non-MS OS out there. If even 1/4 switched back to XP (which I doubt. If you actually use it, Vista is a good OS) that would leave an install base to rival Apple's.
Every company out there wishes for a 'failure' like that!
besides, you can't even name an issue. Try actually using something first, then bashing it.
I know that would be new to you, but try anyway

[moviegeek65]

Vista=WinMe

I agree 100%.
XP will be supported by MS for another seven years and SP3 will make it even better.
In seven years Vista will be forgotten like Me is today.

[mfquigle]

Windows XP

if it's not brok, don't fix it.

[Michael00360]

Still not upgrading

My Windows XP machine with it's AMD Dual Core 5600+ processor and 2GB Ram will not be seeing Vista until Microsoft can prove to me that they have gotten all the bugs out (or atleast the big ones). Not to mention, that most software is still designed for Windows XP.


By the way, I noticed the specs for the machines did not mention the Video processor or the amount of Video Ram the computer had. That does make a difference in performance. Especially if the computer is sharing the ram with the video card.

[moviegeek65]

XP Hacked

Well duh the PC with XP was hacked...THEY WERE RUNNING SP1 AND THEY TURNED OFF ALL THE SECURITY FEATURES.
That's like putting a Yugo motor in a F1 race car and saying it didn't win the race.

[macdaddy357]

Just scrap it.

Vista is a mistake on par with ME that never should have seen the light of day. No service pack will fix it. No matter how hard it is to accept that something you spent six years and billions of dollars developing is just a lemon and needs to be scrapped, Microsoft needs to.

[armchair99]

2 Ghz Core 2 Dou and 1GB RAM?

Any modern Linux desktop distro (Fedora, Suse, Ubuntu) or OSX on that hardware would absolutely scream. Measuring Vista to XP's performance is like comparing a sea slug's speed to that of a sloth. Anyone that wants performance runs something other than a Microsoft OS.

[wolivere]

Actually no

It does not take a rocket scientist to go to the Linux distro forums and see a differnt story.

Again yes in a basic configuartion your dead right.

Take any Gnome KDE install with nothing fancy, and it will be snappier then Vista with Aero and widgets and gidgets and the 100o other things people to load on there desktop.

Now take the Linux distro, and get your 3d working to the point were you don't loose your screen rez every 2nd or 3rd boot.

And please lets not try and take ma and pa kettle through copying there xorg.conf and tweaking it over the forums while being lambasted by script kiddies on how dumb they are.

Now Linux Distro, lets see is browsing faster? Well not that you can really see. BTW is google toolbar fixed yet with 7.10 or is it stuck at loading bookmarks?

Oh you want to play games like in XP or Vista? Wine? Okay thats fun.

Oh game got patched that sucks.. all those hours of tinkering down the drain. Wait you got it right.. ahh tobad you PERFORAMCE is 1/2 to 1/4 of the XP/VISTA box. Sorry you did not hear that over the crappy sound from the wine implementation?

Oh wait its not the disto's fault its the driver?

Here is what I like about XP of Vista over Linux..

It just works.

[real_bgiel]

World not ready for Vista???

I think they got that backwards.

[protagonistic]

Test results

It is amusing to read all the whining about how unfair this test
was. Life is unfair, get over it, move on and get a life. The test
machine would be an adequate test bed for almost any other
desktop OS out there. If Vista can't cut it then XP will continue to
dominate.

[rdtmk]

Why Vista?

Shouldn't the decision to upgrade be based on the answer to this question: What will the new system give me that I don't already have? XP is mature, stable, and enables businesses and users to do everything they need to do. Being compelled to migrate to a new OS simply because MS support for the previous version will be discontinued in the near future is a ridiculous business model. The money a company will have to spend to migrate to Vista does nothing to increase shareholder value or corporate productivity - it is simply a MS revenue stream.

I am NOT anti-MS. I admire the company and what its done for the industry and, as a capitalist, support their profit motive. But from a pure dollars-and-cents perspective, I don't know how a company can justify a migration to a new, unproven environment when the current one is more than good enough. Look around - do you see your colleagues floundering because they are using 2000 or XP, do you see the IT support folks in your space every day because of XP, do you see folks clammering for Vista because it will make their lives better? If you do, you live in a different world than I do.

At 50, I'll admit I'm a bit gray and have seen a lot of IT 'next big things' come and go, but when did the OS become the 'thing', the object of our adoration? When did applications lose the focus as our primary productivity tools? To me, the OS exists to create an environment in which I can run the programs that actually help me get stuff done. 99% of the time, I expect the OS to be a silent partner that enables me to run the apps that really matter. When did an OS ever directly help me draft a report, create a complex spreadsheet, or develop a database application? Sure, it keeps the desktop environment from collapsing around me (most of the time, at least), but the apps and my intelligence do the hard work. Aero or whatever OS graphical beauty do nothing but sit behind my apps, ready to impress if I minimize their windows. I've always assumed that computers exist to run the applications that entertain and enable us, not to showcase the latest OS.

Am I looking at this wrong?

[mknopp]

Truer Words...

Microsoft would call that blasphemy. I call it the absolute truth.

The biggest threat to MS is the recent surge in cross platform programs. With the ability to run important applications on any OS then the field is somewhat leveled between all OSes and Microsoft is finding itself on the losing end. Its market shares have been steadily declining for a while now.

Honestly, if it were not for the few entrenched application necessary for business and the inertia that Microsoft enjoys from close to a decade of near monopoly they would be in major trouble.

[Seaspray0]

Bravo!

My sentiments as well. My company makes money from their apps, not from the OS. My company saves money by choosing the OS that is stable, easy to use, easily managed, and above all else RUNS THE APPLICATIONS.

[markdoiron]

X4 for Why Vista?

At 58 years old, but having been using computers heavily since my first one with 8KB of RAM, I completely agree. The eye candy is not a compelling reason to upgrade. And the bulk of the productivity improvements are provided by the app's. Reduced performance, greater hardware expense, and replacement of incompatible app's (back-up software, etc), are compelling reasons against upgrading to Vista from XP.

The only way that MS will make Vista succeed is by forcing replacement because XP becomes unavailable. If it wasn't for the pressure from competitive OS's (MacOS and Linux), I'm certain that XP would have been buried by MS months ago.

--mark d.

[fred dunn]

You are CORRECT sir...

As an IT Analyst responsible for the administration and security of over 5000 WinXP (few 2000pro) systems I do not see the business case for a migration from a mature and stable OS to an unknown (Vista Enterprise) just because MS thinks it's the right thing to do.
What ever happened to the business model drives IT and not the other way around?

Maybe 10 years ago MS could get away with this but Large Enterprises are not going to roll over for Microsoft...Period.

If this means that a new company sprouts up to support Windows XP after MS is through with it then watch it happen.

[mike.gw]

I couldn't have said it any better!

You are 100% correct. I've not seen any reason to introduce Vista (or Office 2007) to my corporate LAN either. XP runs quite well, considering I have centralized anti-virus servers, firewalls and e-mail spam/virus filters in place between my LAN and the Internet.

In an office, there is nothing that a Vista (or even XP) user can do more efficiently than a user who has Windows 2000 and Office 2000. That's why Microsoft no longer sells upgrade licenses. Instead, they use FUD scare tactics to make us buy Software Assurance Licenses in 3 year allotments... all just to guarantee they get consistent revenue upfront. The scare tactic is that they imply that there might be a new version of Windows or Office you'll need to upgrade to, and without SA, you'll pretty much be paying retail for your upgraded licenses. The problem is (again) that I haven't seen a version of Windows or Office worth upgrading too since the 2000 versions.

I don't buy SA for Windows. My users get an OS upgrades when it's time to replace their computers. And I still run Office 2003 for everyone (with the Office 2007 compatibility patch installed). The only reason I'd upgrade to Office 2007 would be if there were any file compatibilty issues between my users, and the outside clients that we serve as we e-mail documents back and forth.

[bruceatk]

Not a realistic test

More info needs to be presented about this test. I would be interested in how much memory is required for the benchmark. If Vista in the tested configuration needs 1.1 gig and XP needs .9 gig than Vista will be significantly handicapped in performance.

Vista with 1 Gig of memory and no tweaks will definitely underperform XP with 1 Gig. Turn off Superfetch & UAC and I bet the difference isn't so great. Just don't copy a lot of files. :)

[mknopp]

More Info Needed

I have to agree that there was little information about the test presented by CNet's report. The test was much more complete then CNet reported. From another news source which did a more complete writeup.

"Devil Mountain researchers ran a mix of tests comparing existing versions of the operating systems -- the original Vista and XP SP2 -- and versions that had been patched with the latest updates -- Vista SP1 beta and XP SP3 beta. Tests were also run on machines with 1 Gbyte and 2 Gbytes of memory.

Windows XP trounced Windows Vista in all tests -- regardless of the versions used or the amount of memory running on the computer. In fact, XP proved to be roughly twice as fast as Vista in most of the tests."

Further, "What's more, the tests showed that the resource-hungry Vista gobbles up most of the additional RAM added to a computer. By upgrading a notebook running Vista SP1 from 1 Gbyte to 2 Gbytes of memory, "we managed to achieve a 'whopping' 4% improvement in OfficeBench throughput," the researchers noted."

So the test was ran with 2GB in the machine as well and it made no significant difference.

[hawkeyeaz1]

Mike Sievert got it wrong

'"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.'

Actually, it is Vista that isn't ready for the world.