Welcome to The Windows Blog 

Principled Technologies Tests Windows Vista SP1

When Windows Vista was originally released just over a year ago Microsoft commissioned Principled Technologies to compare the overall responsiveness of Windows Vista to Windows XP SP 2 for some common business and home tasks. With the release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) Principled has updated their results. Principled Technologies concluded the following when comparing business scenarios:
  • Overall, Windows Vista SP1 and Windows XP performed comparably on most test operations. Performance differences between the two operating systems were typically less than a half second. Significant differences of over a second occurred on only nine of 128 measures; Windows Vista SP1 led on eight of those.
  • Windows Vista SP1 was noticeably more responsive after rebooting than Windows XP on several common business operations.
  • Overall, Windows Vista SP1 was more responsive than Windows Vista on most comparisons. Performance differences between the two operating systems were typically less than a quarter second.

Principled Technologies also concluded the following when comparing home scenarios:

  • Overall, Windows Vista SP1 and Windows XP performed comparably on most test operations. Differences were typically less than a half second.
  • Windows Vista SP1 was noticeably more responsive after rebooting than Windows XP on several common home operations.
  • Overall, Windows Vista SP1 and Windows Vista performed comparably on most test operations, with differences typically less than a half second.

To download a PDF of the two most recent reports, as well as the original ones from last year, go directly to the Principled Technologies website - http://www.principledtechnologies.com/Clients/Reports/Microsoft/microsoft.htm

Comment 

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

  1. shollomon
    Posted on: February 26, 2008 at 8:47PM  

    The question is when can those of us who paid full price for Vista at retail get our hands on SP1?  Why not now?

    The other question is why would somebody pay for a replacement that performs comparably with what they have now?  Makes me wonder about my decision.

  2. windows vista blogger
    Posted on: February 26, 2008 at 10:02PM  

    this is great windows vista is a step ahead great job team

  3. Good_Bytes
    Posted on: February 26, 2008 at 10:09PM  

    @shollomon, all Service Pack (SP) upgrades are free, (UNLIKE SOME other OS makers). You will soon see a SP1 update in Windows Update panel.

    Vista is far superior then XP in many ways, for teh first most, the 64-bit Vista is better then Vista 32-bit which is better then WinXP 32-bit SP2. This is a fact. (Unless you are running an old machine that is does not fully support Vista of course)

    Vista has more features, performs better as it would seam that all or most of it's processes are multi-core compatible, and under Vista 64-bit, they are in 64-bit (32-bit version is also available in the 64-bit Vista, like Media Player (you need 64-bit codecs to enjoy it))

    Now I won't go in more details, as it seam you have Vista already and you can see what is new over XP already other then the skin, new UI system, and included Tablet PC features.

  4. Ceinach
    Posted on: February 26, 2008 at 10:17PM  

    Hard to believe when every other review site on the planet shows pretty much hands down it is slower on similar hardware. I didn't even think this was a point of argument anymore. This statement is fairly stunning...it's like Microsoft is claiming the earth is still flat.

    I do not believe these results...especially since the tests were performed with 1-2 GB systems. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY Vista outperforms XP won a 1GB system. No way.

    If you don't believe me, do google searches, read the forums like the one below and you'll quickly come to the conclusion that aside from this specific Pricipled Technologies test, the vast majority (if not all) the of the INDEPENDANT studies show Vista is nowhere NEAR Xp speed on 1-2 GB machines. Perhaps 4-8GB machines with 64-bit Vista. Something doesn't make sense.

    Can Microsoft please explain the vast discrepancy between this test and the following Ziff Davis test. Perhaps that would clear this up for me. For example:

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332

  5. Locutus
    Posted on: February 26, 2008 at 10:42PM  

    Ceinach, there are quite a bit of different ways you can benchmark a PC thus there will be variation in the benchmarking tests. Instead of asking Microsoft to explain the differences in independent benchmarking tests (they are *independent* tests anyway not Microsoft driven) - why don't you look at how folks are doing the benchmarking. Some folks use benchmarking tools that do tests at super-human speeds while others conduct real-world benchmarking tests.

  6. Ceinach
    Posted on: February 26, 2008 at 11:46PM  

    It's certainly not independant when

    "Microsoft provided the test systems and test settings"

    It's also to note that

    "The original testing included a Hewlett-Packard a1320y desktop PC. We omitted that system from the charts and analysis in this report becuase it produced unacceptably high variability in its test results."

    Viewing Appendix D we can clearly see that XP was roughly twice as fast on this system. Rather than chalk it up to a win for XP or try to determine which BUG was in the testing scripts that caused this system to have "produced unacceptably high variability"...they simply decided to sweep those results under the rug. Unacceptably high variablility ususally spells BUG to me.

    This "omission" gets even more interesting. Looking at Appendix C we find that it appears XP is twice as slow as Vista in a number of othertests, but nobody threw those results out. Hmmm. Wonder why? (chuckle)

    Perhaps THOSE results are also subject to "unacceptably high variability" as well. in fact, I question all of the results from this test as being biased. Comeon, Outlook opens twice as fast in Vista on identical hardware? Yeah...right. I've NEVER seen that in the real world.

    Sorry, but that's how I feel. This isn't passing my "sniff test".

  7. SteveBallmer
    Posted on: February 26, 2008 at 11:58PM  

    Good job guys! Vista is waaaaay better than XP in every concievable area anyone could possiblly think up! Remember that and push it!

  8. dovella
    Posted on: February 27, 2008 at 12:45AM  

    Vista It's Number ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. Superpotato
    Posted on: February 27, 2008 at 2:58AM  

    Obviously we have all been living in a parallel reality where Vista is worse than XP.

    Thank you Microsoft for showing the error of our ways. We will continue using Vista safe in the knowledge that the incredibly slow, buggy and backward incompatible performance of Vista is nothing but a figment of our imagination.

  10. dovella
    Posted on: February 27, 2008 at 6:09AM  

Trackbacks

  1. Posted by: Techy News » Blog Archive » Principled Technologies Tests Windows Vista SP1 on February 26, 2008 at 5:57PM

Navigation

The Blogs:

Recent Posts

Tags

View more

© Copyright 2008 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.   |   Privacy Statement