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.

[sanenazok]

C|Net Sucks

Way to go C|Net, it turns out this whole article was worthless fluff inasmuch as the "test" used Office 2003 on the XP machine and Office 2007 on the Vista machine. Big freakin' surprise Office 2007 is slower because it's a complete revamp.

It's C|Net's fault for not checking and stupidly reporting based on a press release. C'mon do some journalism, won't you???

[imacpwr]

Re: c|net Sucks

c|net doesn't do journalism, they do TABLOIDISM...!!!!

[Tomcat Adam]

You missed the point.

As it IS a complete revamping, it should be showing some form of IMPROVEMENT over its predecessor.

[(Tom)]

Read the facts

Go to http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/

They have the benchmarks for both Office 2003 and 2007 (originally, it was just 2007). They also show that 2GB doesn't help Vista much.

[gric111]

Reason why VISTA = WINDOWS ME 2007

people liked windows XP sure a little bit more security so it would be less succeptable to viruses or spyware would be nice, but lets be honest MOST people arent being HACKED common sense prevails most of the time in preventing your secure information from being put at risk.
People didnt want an entire new operating system they wanted windows XP 2 everything nearly identical but with function 64bit compatability(not like xp 64 bit where half your drivers didnt work either) but just functionality with 64bit and a little better security. SOOOOOOOOOOOOO microsoft attempts to do that but along the way decides to cram it full of stupid pointless things to try and keep up with the appeal that people find in the mac OS. REGARDLESS of how nice a mac os is windows will always sell HUGE because most people have pcs and are to stupid to patch in mac os, or dont care enough to. The other chunk of people being an average user who wants to spend 500$ on a pc to use for browsing internet doing email typing documents powerpoint ect ect basically a office computer at home maybe a game or two to pass some time. Apple wants a rediculous amount of money for their computers compared to what you can do with a pc. they always have and always will, they have their isolated audience and a good base in artistic work such as music graphics design all that wonderful stuff, apple simply has the software for that. nice thing about XP you can throw it on a computer with **** for specs and it will work just fine it might take a little bit to load up but once its going its good to go.

so when people get a new operating system they want to see noticable changes that are more then stupid little nick nacks.

Best comparison would be for cars. when you buy a care there are many things to consider but the least of your worries is how the nobs turn on the stereo or that it uses a button instead of a nob, factors like the engine how it drives and comfort are huge factors. or in the case of your operating system you want it to run at similar or better speeds then your current os, why go from a ferrari to a scooter. You want it to use all the crap you already have. Who cares if this new hydrogen fuel cell car can go 500 miles on one fueling if you cant fuel it conveniently. and when you are hounded with error messages or popups from windows for security bullcrap that makes it rediculously inconveniant to run things, who wants to ride in the car if every ******* bump in road jolts you around you wanted your smooth ride you had with the speed you had and the convenience of gasoline. not a hydrogen fuel cell scooter with a pole and no seat.


so in closing the reason people dont buy vista is its more of an inconvenience then needing to reinstall XP cuz you got spyware once a year.

much like the ethanol 85 ******** cars GM pulls out YAY IT USES ETHANOL NOT GAS BUT I CANT GET THE **** SO **** IT.

[drukenhard]

How to make it fair

put it up against a mac with the same specs running leopard



bye bye Vista shoppers!

[spoonman522]

Turns out that this author was MISINFORMED...

The author might not have seen this, but it turns out that all those reports of XP being almost twice as fast as Vista are misleading. It turns out that they used one piece of software on XP and a different piece of software on Vista to compare results. So obviously you are going to get varying results. To read more check this link out: http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_SP3_outperforms_Vista_SP1_but_less_when_running_same_Office_version/1196208954
Other than that I have been a Vista user since early March, no probs here. Definitely perfer it over XP.

[imacpwr]

Re: MISINFORMED...

HEY... it's c|net.. they're always MISINFORMED or MISINFORMING..!!

[sadcap]

Interesting article

So, instead of Vista being 144% slower it's only 82% slower...

[giant_david]

Migrate to Linux Desktop

Linux Desktops are a very good option for those that are looking for a new OS.

No virus, no spyware. Amazing graphics. Great stability. I am using Ubuntu distro right now, it is a great choice. Very easy to install and use.

For a web surfing and office stuff it goes perfect. You should give it a try.

Forget about Vista, it is a "bad vista" :
http://badvista.fsf.org/

[ITdirector]

Linux Viruses

Do you really think there are no viruses that affect Linux?!?

And which of the thousands of flavors of Linux are you talking about? Do you really think they are all easy enough for the average user to use, with all of the features that other OS's have and at the same time still be secure, with no possibility of virus attacks?

Give me access to your system (and approval) and I will plant a couple of viruses that only affect Linux for you.

No matter what you try, you can not plant a virus on my system unless I grant access.

The more popular MAC or other versions of Linux become, the more viruses will be written for it.

Don't tell me if you use Lindows that it is just as secure as all of the other flavors of Linux.
http://info.lindows.com/askmichael/question9.htm

Why switch anything? Most people have XP, so stay with XP. There is not enough of a reason for them to uninstall XP and install Ubuntu.

Besides, most of the software I work with will not run on Ubuntu, so I can't switch to Ubuntu.

Like most people, I do not have a computer just for the OS. I have it to run specific applications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses_and_worms

[cybervigilante]

What a surprise

I'm shocked, shocked, that Msofts first iteration of software is bloated and slow. What a surprise ;')

What stinks is they'll stop selling stable, fast and popular XP so they can shove bloatware down our throats. I predict a big Ebay business on XP install disks, as people delete Vista from their new computers to install XP.

Also, selling four different versions of Vista is a load of marketing crap. They're hoping the suckers who want to be the kewlest will spend extra dough for more of their crappy graphics.

[cybervigilante]

The curse of DRM

All that other security stuff is an excuse to shove DRM down our throats.

[cybervigilante]

they didn't tell the manufacturers

Okay, if Vista needs two gig for a fair trial, I looked at a bunch of new Vista-installed computers and they all come with one gig installed. I guess the manufacturers don't know it requires two gigs. That, or you're supposed to run out and buy new memory the minute you buy your new computer.

[groink_hi]

Not only that...

But many laptops shipping with Vista have a MAXIMUM limit of 2GB RAM. If people are saying that 2GB is not enough, then many of these laptops should never have received the Vista approval decal.

Speaking for my own experience... I bought an Acer laptop with 1GB RAM, Vista Basic pre-installed and 1GB L2 cache. OUT OF THE BOX, post-boot occupied 80-percent of the 1GB RAM, and it constantly ran the Celeron CPU up around the 35-percent mark on average. Upgrading the RAM to 2GB, it still occupied 40-percent of the 2GB after completing the boot process. For an operating system to eat 40-percent before you even run your first application - that's totally INSANE! And to add to the lag, the paging file on 5400rpm hard disk is automatically enabled. Logically I would think that disabling disk caching and have everything run in RAM would improve performance. But I've been told by Microsoft many times that doing so would actually slow the PC down even MORE! That does not make sense!

So with that, you're basically forced to purchase a laptop that has:

1. At least 2GB of L2 cache

2. The ability to increase the RAM to at least 4GB

3. A hard disk that runs at a speed of at least 7200rpm

4. Video that doesn't put a strain on the main CPU.

So with that criteria, the available laptops that can run Vista efficiently has severely shrunken to just a few. Again, the majority of new PCs with Vista pre-installed cannot run Vista efficiently - even after upgrading the PC to the maximum it can handle.

[adjustedpete]

Ubuntu here I come

When will they learn we r not sheep

[ITdirector]

MAC Server - LOL!

Where are all of the MAC servers?!?

Where are all of the IT pro's touting the benefits of switching to a MAC server?!?

[groink_hi]

Did you post on the correct topic?

This is an article about workstation-based operating systems. But to answer your question, my company owns and runs several Mac OS X-based servers - as they're being used to stream videos to Internet customers. And we (we're an ISP) also co-lo many more. There's many MANY more of them out there in the world, believe me.

[felixms]

what test is this???

how good is this article without info about the test executed???
very week work from cnet news

[dh21187]

I Dumped Vista

I got ten copies of Vista from my Microsoft Action Pack Subscription and I dumped it a few months after installing it. Too many problems to make it worth while for now. Drivers are hard to find and routinely fail causing serious system stability issues with the product. I switched back to XP and everything is humming aling fine now in my network.

[Commander_Spock]

Staying The Course Of The (EXPLORER & CASSINI) Missions...

Code-Base OS/2 ("Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test")!!! Just Great.

"OS/2 Compatibility"

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/ntwrkstn/reskit/os2comp.mspx?mfr=true

Now, "All Your Base (90% market share) Are Belong To Us"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9oh3gqOEKU

[skillingssucks]

"The world wasn't 100 percent ready for Vista"

"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 cluetard, it was the other way around! And you wonder why everyone is laughing at Microsoft.

[Jim Harmon]

You're both right.

If Vista HAD been ready for release, the world wasn't 100% ready for it. The fact that Vista wasn't 100% ready for the world only aggravates the situation.

[Dango517]

Foul, unfair........1GB RAM

Vista is slow with only 1GB RAM. Redo the test installing 2GB of RAM on both. Nearly all new Vista computer come with 2GB RAM these days. Basically what you have here is a one legged Vista running against a two legged XP in a foot race.

[Jim Harmon]

Fair test, not all computers are new

I have 1.5 gig, but since mine shares that with video it's really only 1.3 gig. Sure, I could shell out another $75 for another PC3200 1 gig stick, then another $100 for a separate video card, then another $100 for a decent version of Vista. But after spending $275, what would I have? A bloated operating system with no appeciable ROI (well, other than better video - which is simply the result of the video card).

I'm sticking with XP - even when the day comes when Microsoft ends support for it.

[ceilo007]

unfair?

XP would still out do Vista if both systems had an additional 1 GB of RAM. The test however should have been conducted with all the versions of both XP and Vista.....

[iraedei]

Why so ignorant about Vista

I should write an article that explains how Windows 3.11 outperforms Vista as well. The test will be done on:

8MB of RAM
Cyrix 80486 processor

and we'll see which OS can open and close MSWord faster.

RAM is so cheap right now. I'm running 6GB of RAM on my Vista64 machine and I've had no problems with the way it runs. Don't listen to fools speak about something they don't understand. Vista is a fine OS... especially the 64bit version. and remember ... yes you do need more RAM... so what... it isn't that expensive unless you're running a computer with DDR3 RAM modules.

[drbayer]

lose the tunnel vision

For 1 machine, yes RAM is cheap. What about an IT department responsible for 50 or 100 or 1000 or 10,000 machines? Suddenly, not so cheap simply to continue running the same applications you were previously.

On top of that, if you want to upgrade a machine to Vista, odds are you are running a 32-bit processor, effectively limiting your RAM to between 3GB and 3.5Gb as opposed to the 6GB you are so happily running.

[colonnade]

Microsoft failed to follow their own success in building the Edsel OS.

The mighty MS failed to follow it's own principles of success. They failed to deliver what the consumer wanted, and instead tried to build another Edsel. WHY?

There was nothing wrong with XP, that some fixes and repairs could not fix. People don't like change, unless it's faster, better cheaper and gives then something for nothing, as is expected with everything on the market...."Google" is one example, and I predict tha there will be a "G-OS" before the "Vista" figures out what happened.....

[NiTeKrUzR]

PLEASE CONTINUE SUPPORT FOR XP !!

VISTA = *WINDOWS ME 2007* i think fairly well sums it all up. Please keep xp. i'm getting xp pro & would love the support from microsoft to extend its services & support for longer than 6-months & hopefully receive 12. NEW isn't always better especially with all the manpower hours put into xp. lets let xp still ride for awhile. i once owned a set of tires that with proper balancing & rotation received 220,000 miles of safe driving. after 120,000 miles they still looked new to the amazement of the dealership & myself. when i went back for a new set at 220,000 great miles the dealership told me they no longer sell 'that' tire. i said why? and they told me "because none of our customers ever come back," "they last to long." "we had to go to a tire that gets 60-80,000 miles instead," "'those' tires were too good!" "we need to sell tires"! Xp with all the proper balancing & rotation has turned out to be a great set of tires & i hate to have to buy the 60-80 version yet. lets wait for VISTA PLATINUM to come out in 12-16 months and still get a good ride out of windows xp + . it keeps on ticking & ticking & ticking & ...

[Commander_Spock]

Brotherly Love!

"it keeps on ticking & ticking & ticking & ..." (one reason it is able to do this - It is built on Code-Base OS/2) as it keeps LINUX et al from the rest of the 80% market share as it awaits the arrival of its Half-Brother for the "family" reunion:

http://www.ecomstation.com/product_info.phtml

Hurry on up there Serenity Systems International with that 2.0 Release - It is almost New Year's Eve!

[zanzzz]

DRM In Vista = Performance Drag

The multi layered DRM infesting the Vista OS is one of the reasons for its poor performance. Microsoft decided the content industry was more important than its customers when it came to designing Vista. Read all about it here:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html