Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[OmegaWolf747]

Unfair test

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

Ideally, the test would be done on machines that were optimized for each OS. XP could be run on a 2 GHz single core machine with 1 GB RAM and Vista could be run on a 2 GHz dual core machine with 2 GB RAM, then it would be equal.

[willihg]

Get real!

When has Microsoft ever released an OS that has improved performance relative to current hardware performance. Give them a break!
Vista is not just developed for today, it will grow with future hardware developments - as has every other OS launch with MS. Windows 95 runs quicker than XP on my old machine, but nobody from the news says anything about that, do they?

[a85]

That's gold

I love the bit where the MS guy says 'The world was not ready for Vista'. What a joke. Vista was not ready for the world.

No OS is perfect, but Vista really was a let down.

[Timcal]

They have it backwards

"Frankly, the world wasn't 100 percent ready for Windows Vista," corporate vice president Mike Sievert said in a recent interview at Microsoft's partner conference in Denver.
They have it backwards, I think Microsoft was NOT 100% ready to release Vista. Yes the test was fair. It's just like Windows ME, man did we get ripped off on that one.

[umbrae]

Thanks, CNET

Now MS will be sure to cripple the SP3 service pack to ensure XP runs slower than Vista. You all SUCK!

[cary1]

Duh!

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.

[roger.d.miller]

1 GB RAM??

I know 1 GB is the recommended minimum for Vista, but running benchmarks with that configuration is like driving a Mercedes with a Volkswagon engine in it!

[rcrusoe]

AfterVista

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.

[ewookie]

Thanks alot!

<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.

[Commander_Spock]

Cool!

"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.

[aemarques]

Test is unfair? Only irrelevant

I have 6 PCs at home, 5 desktops and one notebook. Four of them have XP Pro; the notebook and one of the PCs (my own...) have Vista.

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

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

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

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

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

P.S.: So let me get this straight: for years, XP was a bad OS; now that we have a better one (Vista), it suddenly it is a good OS? Oh dear...

[rnieves1977]

minimal migration

That migration would take YEARS... Especially since some resellers still don't give you a choice on XP over Vista. Personally I wouldn't ever move over to Apple's OS (too limiting) but other could but I don't think in enough numbers, ubuntu(and other untu's) while cool looking and functional doesn't have the apps that I need and the rest of the OS's are too complicated for average users to figure out. While I think Vista is a bloated OS with pretty GUI, it won't go down in a ball of flames. It is a wake-up call for microsoft though.

An OS shouldn't need to use a tremendous amount of system resources to run... It's supposed to be a platform for my apps not THE APP. It should also be intuitive which XP wasn't really and Vista is less.

[Renegade Knight]

Backwards Thinking

"Frankly, the world wasn't 100 percent ready for Windows Vista," is exactly backwards.

Vista wasn't 100% ready for the world. MS could actually fix Vista long before they could fix the world. Maybe.

[WJeansonne]

I would rather have a more secure OS than speed

Vista has been re-built from the ground up with security in mind. Windows XP harks back to NT with all its insecure or open processes, ports, etc.

[cstuder]

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?

[WJeansonne]

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:

http://www.news.com/Microsoft-exec-calls-XP-hack-frightening/2100-7349_3-6218238.html?tag=item

[frankz00]

XP Outshines Vista in actually WORKING!!

I don't have to buy new hardware and software with "old reliable". Making Vista incompatible with 50% of everything I own was just dumb move on Microsoft's part. They've effectively stalled their home user business and turned alot of people on to Macs.

[cstuder]

Mirosoft has spread itself to thin.

Microsoft has become a jack-of-all-trades. They do a lot of things ok, but are the master of none. If they would just concentrate on making a great Operating System, and leave the security to companies that specialize in secuity like Norton or whoever, we'd have the best of both worlds. Speed and Security, like we had before the operating systems became gloated monsters..

[Bevo4138]

CNET Should Report Better Here

A few points:
1. Where is the link to the test results?
2. What version of Vista was used? Was Aero turned on?
3. It is EXPECTED that the OS that has less features/processes running would run faster. This is why MS recommends A LOT MORE computing power for Vista. This is true for every new OS.
4. Why was only one system configuration used? To have a scientifically sound benchmark, you need multiple computers with different hardware configurations in order to get rid of the variables. For all we know, Dell's hardware configuration could be affecting the outcome, positively or negatively.
5. Because of point #4, we don't know WHY XP is faster. It likely is a RAM issue, but we would need to test to be sure.

Therefore, this "benchmark" study is basically useless, which tells us nothing new.

[scalemaster34]

Was it a fair comparison?

I'm not yet a Vista fan, but would be nice if CNet would provide a few details about the test. Were all of Vista's enhancements running, or had they been turned off?

Too be honest it make since that a newer OS would be slower than an older one. You would expect there would be additional features with a new OS that would require additional recourses.... New OS are designed to take advantage of the advancements in the newer hardware available today.