Comments

1. eponymousnyc

   
   Posted on: February 27, 2008 at 10:34AM  

   Vista is faster than XP...on Bizarro World!
2. Ceinach

   
   Posted on: February 27, 2008 at 10:43AM  

   Dovella,

   I can't read Japanese, but I think I can make out enough of the Vista vs. XP on that page to quickly draw a conclusion about that test. It appears that it is simply a feature comparison. For example, I see that "bitlocker" is mentioned in one of the tests. Since XP doesn't have bitlocker, obviously Vista won that test. I also see "Media Center" being listed, but they didn't test the XP:MCE version, so obviously Vista won that test as well. Media Center Extender is also listed. These tests are all about comparing features...not performance.

   In addition, it's on a Microsoft site (www.microsoft.com/japan" Of COURSE it's going to be biased and pro-Microsoft.
3. Good_Bytes

   
   Posted on: February 27, 2008 at 10:49AM  

   I manage to run Vista 32-bit with everything turned on, on my old computer, and I only see advantages, and no slow downs...

   AMD Athlon XP 2500+, Nforce 2 with WinXP drivers, Geforce FX 5900FX, 1GB of RAM. Everything is 100% smooth.

   I am sure most of you that complains about Vista, either never tried it, never used it, never looked at it, or simply don't know how to properly install it. (TIP: just click on "Install")

   I even installed and run Vista 32-bit under Virtual PC WITH 256MB OF RAM! However I had to disable about everything, and i do mean everything expect networking services, and of course security and workstation related services. Nevertheless, Vista on 256MB of RAM (not bellow thus)
4. Intrepid00

   
   Posted on: February 27, 2008 at 11:43AM  

   @Ceinach

   The test for speed at http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332 is actually a really poorly thought out test.

   The ZIP tool built into Vista has issues and should not be used as a bases to test system performance. In fact, the ZIP tool that comes with VISTA should be treated as an installed program and not a core component of the OS. I cheap program that can and should be replaced with much better ZIP programs out there.
5. dovella

   
   Posted on: February 27, 2008 at 11:58AM  

   i have Windows Vista in my 2 PC

   first

   Asus p5n 650 SLI Nvidia

   Intel Core 2 E 6400

   Nvidia 8800 GTX

   ddr2 2 x 1 gb in 1 t and perfect timing

   Vista WORK SUPER FINE (no sp1 )

   Second Hardware

   Asus p4p 800

   Intel Pentium IV 2,4

   Nvidia 7600 GS 512mb

   1,5 gb ram ddr 400

   Vista work very fine

   Xp can  it can be good using nlite ,

   but now STOP XP !!I say that it is time for VISTA and to say thanks to all the team that has made a job enormous ..

   THX TEAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6. shollomon

   
   Posted on: February 27, 2008 at 2:46PM  

   I like Vista better than XP, mostly for the eye candy.  It looks better (Aero, hi-res icons and the like).  For that reason alone I run Vista.

   But other than eye candy, there is nothing Vista does as an OS that XP can't do. And, by the way, benchmarking by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes on ZDNet shows XP SP2 outperforms Vista SP1.  Here's your link:

   http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1338

   Note I prefer the look and feel of Vista to XP and Vista is my day to day operating system, but I don't think I got much for my money otherwise.  That frustration is increased because I purchased Ultimate and no Extras of any conceivable value appear to be forthcoming.
7. eponymousnyc

   
   Posted on: February 27, 2008 at 3:07PM  

   "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."

   All that work on Service Pack 1 and it's only a quarter second faster?
8. Ceinach

   
   Posted on: February 27, 2008 at 4:23PM  

   Intrepid,

   Zip files have been around for years. I remember using pkzip and pkunzip in DOS over 20 years ago. There is no excuse for poor zip file performance in any operating system nowadays.

   If the ZIP process caused the Vista performance to fail in the Ziff Davis test, then it's Vista's fault....not the test. Microsoft should never have included a completely sub-standard zipping program in the first place. People zip files ALL the time. It's a great test IMHO and is one of the common tasks people perform all the time.
9. Intrepid00

   
   Posted on: February 27, 2008 at 4:51PM  

   Ceinach,

   If it was Vista's fault because of poor ZIP performance you wouldn't get normal performance using another ZIP program.

   The issue isn't Vista, but MS's version of the ZIP they included with Vista.

   The test proves nothing besides that.
10. Ceinach

    
    Posted on: February 28, 2008 at 10:39AM  

    "The issue isn't Vista, but MS's version of the ZIP they included with Vista."

    With that logic, then I guess all the issues aren't really Vista, huh? I guess they are just the MS version of all the tools and resources included with Vista.

    If we just eliminate the networking speed issues, media center skipping issues, zip performance issues, indexing issues, etc...then Vista actually performs pretty well?

    (chuckle)