Vista vs XP performance comparison.

[hashbandit]

been using vista since it came out wouldent even consider moving back to xp, xp is a very poor os, constantly freezing and crashing and loads of other problems I'm not going to mention as I'd be here for a year lol. I have the unfortunate problem where I have to use xp in work and it fuking kills me.
just remember those of you that decide to stay in the past, sooner or later you will have no choice but to move to vista as xp will eventually be consigned to the bin where it belongs.

And imo the quicker the better that happens.

[causa45]

QFT all the way.

I don't buy these stories of people running under vista with their 8800's getting 150+ fps. That's a total line of bull and I'd stake money on it.

AMEN! They just want to be part of the group of idiots that say that the OS does such a diffrence. Crazy!

[SpitFire]

95% of the worlds PCs run Windows. Everyone has the choice of running a free OS, but still 95% of the worlds PCs run Windows...

I am not arguing that Windows is better than the alternatives, just stating the facts.

Ducks for cover....

There are more GNU/Linux users than the microfail propaganda suggests recent estimates are at around 30-40 million world wide but its difficult to get estimates

http://commandline.org.uk/more/predi...-04-19-00.html

I dont see GNU/Linux , BSD and mac as alternatives to microslop at all , after all they are either unix or based on unix which has been the mainstay of computing since the 1960's. If anything microsoft products are an alternative to unix , its just that computer manufacturers pretty much force microsoft products onto their un-enlightened customers. Ofcourse microsoft products are considered "easy" but easy to break , easy to hack and ofcourse easy to replace - albeit without the fancy games ( i wish game developers would take note instead of kissing balmer bottom ) which leaves me and many others in total gratitude to the likes of Ryan "icculus" Gordon ( who is porting ut3 atm ) and TTimo of Id software who really do care about platform agnosticism. Think about it , a handful of developers who port certain games and the results blow away the windows counterparts , imagine if everyone used unix or unix based OSes and all development effort went into those platforms , things would be x10 better but as ever there are those who "wub vista" and dont have a clue.....sigh

rant over......hurry up epic , i'm not too fond of ut3 its true but i will be able to mod ( thanks to mr. Gordon and wxWidgets )

[oldkawman1]

Which Vista?

Older os`s will run faster than new os`s ...duh

New os`s have much more to offer and has great potential, I went over to vista bout 3 weeks ago and loving it, avg 120+ fps in ut3, world settings 5 texture 1 @ 1680 x 1050 with a 6000+ and a 8800gt

Been using xp to long, time for a upgrade, learn something new again and master it

Regards
Stuart

Right, Vista this, Vista that. What Vista are you referring to?
You do realize there are 11 different versions of the Vista OS, right? Well, that excludes any vendor specific editions which is another story in itself.
I wonder if anyone bought the Vista Starter edition on purpose?
Well, here they are, all 11 versions along with their intrinsic memory limits.

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Vista.
Version__________________Limit in 32-bit ______Limit in 64-bit
Windows Vista Ultimate________4 GB ___________128 GB
Windows Vista Enterprise_______4 GB ___________128 GB
Windows Vista Business________4 GB ___________128 GB
Windows Vista Home Premium___4 GB ____________16 GB
Windows Vista Home Basic _____4 GB _____________8 GB
Windows Vista Starter__________ 1 GB______ ________N/A

Why anyone would run out and buy any of the 32 bit versions of Vista totally defies logic. Well, running out and buying any NEW OS when the old one works perfectly fine also defies reason. I can see going 64 bit for enhanced performance as the only logical reason.

Only 3 versions of XP

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows XP.
Version
Windows XP 64 bit________128 GB
Windows XP 32 bit__________4 GB
Windows XP Starter_______512 MB
I never even heard of a "Starter Version" before.

So, it takes 11 versions of Vista to do the same job XP did with only two. Hah, it's all just an elaborate scam by Microsoft to make money. Sell you the NEW OS that you cannot live without. Then sell you upgrades like MS office 2007 which you also cannot live without. Over 99% of people could still be using MS office '97 except for the fact that older versions of Office cannot read files saved in the newer format. This is such a great scam. You just cannot make this stuff up.

The following review shows almost a 20% performance advantage of XP over Vista in UT3;
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183499/p-5.html
Must be due to all the extra super cool stuff offered by Vista.

My very obsolete specs;
Opty 180 @ 2.6GHz (socket 939)(AMD Dual-Core Optimizer)
DFI Infinity NF4 SLI (nforce 6.85 driver)
2GB DDR400 (value ram, 4x512MB single sided)
2x XFX 7950GT 570MHz 512MB SLI (169.04 driver, AFR2)
BFG Ageia PhysX (1.1.1.14 driver)(quiet Vantec ICEBORG5 cooler)
SB Live 24 bit (1.004.0055 driver)(no xp64 driver for TB Santa Cruz)
Win XP64 pro SP2 until Linux port arrives (yes, Linux 64bit for TB Santa Cruz)
1600x1200, 3-3 quality, 38-85 FPS (I set a 85 FPS cap => refresh rate)
1600x1200, 3-3 quality, 26-70 FPS PhysX maps
UT3 ver. 1.1

[Princess Katrina]

I wonder how many people said windows 98 was LOADS better then XP in the beginning days of XP

Lets see in half a year or maybe abit more, and ask again

I still say 98SE is better than XP.

honestly, vista uses so many sys. resources it just cant keep up with xp, end of story. if that is wat u want, great. if u want to game xp or even better, linux, is the superior choice

XP used a lot more system resources than 98 and 98 used more than 95 and 95 used more than . . . well, you get the point.

[SpitFire]

I still say 98SE is better than XP.




XP used a lot more system resources than 98 and 98 used more than 95 and 95 used more than . . . well, you get the point.

funny how microslop products get more hardware intensive yet the latest incarnation of gentoo with full blown GNOME desktop uses a mere 127Mb with 0 swap , great if you're dual booting with vista on a 4gb box , one uses 1gig at idle and the other uses 127mb at idle yet the 127mb looks so much better and outperforms the 1gb os in ever way..... progress for ya eh

[[YS]Alienz]

BS for ram usage:

My vista once optimised uses UNDER 500mb ram constant and that includes prechacing of data as well as full Aero.

Agree for UT3 benchmarks though. Take a look at ATI. ATI cards have absolutely 0% difference in XP or Vista mode for UT3...now who do we blame. Nvidia for drivers? Microsoft for crappiness? Or perhaps the game itself.

[Elohim]

Originally Posted by Hickeroar View Post
QFT all the way.

I don't buy these stories of people running under vista with their 8800's getting 150+ fps. That's a total line of bull and I'd stake money on it.

AMEN! They just want to be part of the group of idiots that say that the OS does such a diffrence. Crazy!

I don't understand why that's hard to believe?? Isn't this dependent upon what benchmarking settings are being used?

[Benfica]

There are some reviews on the net that show Vista with same performance/ slower/much slower gaming, office, content creation, algorithms, tons of ****, without a consistent number showing faster. I have lower performance on my main C2D, 2GB RAM machine, even though it has nice features, new utilities, Aero, etc... It runs poorly on 2 others w/1GB that I have. Still if you bought a PC with Vista pre-installed, like the new features and it has good stability and performance, then who cares?? There is no point of spending money buying XP.

The same way there is no point of trying to push people to upgrade. It's not about Vista, is that nobody has to do with how other people want to spend their hard earned cash. I can understand people like this or that. What I don't is defending with so much energy that other people should buy the new Vista and if your machine is not good enough for it, it's your fault, just upgrade. Buy a 300€ card because the 150€ sucks with Vista.

User > Machine > Programs > OS

Shuffle that the way you want, but it's always User > *

Most people don't like to be told how to spend their money, don't care about changing stuff, or just turn off the machine, go take a bath and get laid.

[cel4145]

Best advice if you already have XP is skip Vista!

Instead, wait for the new Windows OS in 2009

(BTW: I might just do that)

[Elohim]

Best advice if you already have XP is skip Vista!

Instead, wait for the new Windows OS in 2009

(BTW: I might just do that)

I highly doubt you'll see Windows 7 in 2009 The last I read, it's tentative release date is 2009-2011, so that probably means 2012

[oldkawman1]

Best advice if you already have XP is skip Vista!

Instead, wait for the new Windows OS in 2009

(BTW: I might just do that)

You mean we are going to have this same thread again in 2009? Will it never end? This is like the meaning of life or do I mean the cycle of poo. Where is WarTourist when you need him? Seems he has a different agenda lately.

[oldkawman1]

I still say 98SE is better than XP.

XP used a lot more system resources than 98 and 98 used more than 95 and 95 used more than . . . well, you get the point.

The problem with 98se and all before was the ram limitation. You had to have <512MB in order to boot. That was just how it was written. Back then, 125MB or 256MB was real pricey. 64Mb was pretty much typical usage for pc100 or pc133 ram, so why spend time with the extra code for that. Typical BS corporate decision for short term results and long term failure. Why do something today when you can delay it until cost skyrockets and time is critical? For the BONUS of course! How about that?

[CyB3rThuG]

What bout media centre 32/64 bit, home 32bit, pro 32.64 bit

the point is there is more than 3 xp`s

Right, Vista this, Vista that. What Vista are you referring to?
You do realize there are 11 different versions of the Vista OS, right? Well, that excludes any vendor specific editions which is another story in itself.
I wonder if anyone bought the Vista Starter edition on purpose?
Well, here they are, all 11 versions along with their intrinsic memory limits.

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Vista.
Version__________________Limit in 32-bit ______Limit in 64-bit
Windows Vista Ultimate________4 GB ___________128 GB
Windows Vista Enterprise_______4 GB ___________128 GB
Windows Vista Business________4 GB ___________128 GB
Windows Vista Home Premium___4 GB ____________16 GB
Windows Vista Home Basic _____4 GB _____________8 GB
Windows Vista Starter__________ 1 GB______ ________N/A

Why anyone would run out and buy any of the 32 bit versions of Vista totally defies logic. Well, running out and buying any NEW OS when the old one works perfectly fine also defies reason. I can see going 64 bit for enhanced performance as the only logical reason.

Only 3 versions of XP

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows XP.
Version
Windows XP 64 bit________128 GB
Windows XP 32 bit__________4 GB
Windows XP Starter_______512 MB
I never even heard of a "Starter Version" before.

So, it takes 11 versions of Vista to do the same job XP did with only two. Hah, it's all just an elaborate scam by Microsoft to make money. Sell you the NEW OS that you cannot live without. Then sell you upgrades like MS office 2007 which you also cannot live without. Over 99% of people could still be using MS office '97 except for the fact that older versions of Office cannot read files saved in the newer format. This is such a great scam. You just cannot make this stuff up.

The following review shows almost a 20% performance advantage of XP over Vista in UT3;
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183499/p-5.html
Must be due to all the extra super cool stuff offered by Vista.

My very obsolete specs;
Opty 180 @ 2.6GHz (socket 939)(AMD Dual-Core Optimizer)
DFI Infinity NF4 SLI (nforce 6.85 driver)
2GB DDR400 (value ram, 4x512MB single sided)
2x XFX 7950GT 570MHz 512MB SLI (169.04 driver, AFR2)
BFG Ageia PhysX (1.1.1.14 driver)(quiet Vantec ICEBORG5 cooler)
SB Live 24 bit (1.004.0055 driver)(no xp64 driver for TB Santa Cruz)
Win XP64 pro SP2 until Linux port arrives (yes, Linux 64bit for TB Santa Cruz)
1600x1200, 3-3 quality, 38-85 FPS (I set a 85 FPS cap => refresh rate)
1600x1200, 3-3 quality, 26-70 FPS PhysX maps
UT3 ver. 1.1

[CyB3rThuG]

Ultimate x86

Question here, why get better and faster more powerfull pc`s if ur systems run fast on older os`s?

Then what`s the point in technology in computer sence if ur happy with current or even old tech?

Right, Vista this, Vista that. What Vista are you referring to?
You do realize there are 11 different versions of the Vista OS, right? Well, that excludes any vendor specific editions which is another story in itself.
I wonder if anyone bought the Vista Starter edition on purpose?
Well, here they are, all 11 versions along with their intrinsic memory limits.

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows Vista.
Version__________________Limit in 32-bit ______Limit in 64-bit
Windows Vista Ultimate________4 GB ___________128 GB
Windows Vista Enterprise_______4 GB ___________128 GB
Windows Vista Business________4 GB ___________128 GB
Windows Vista Home Premium___4 GB ____________16 GB
Windows Vista Home Basic _____4 GB _____________8 GB
Windows Vista Starter__________ 1 GB______ ________N/A

Why anyone would run out and buy any of the 32 bit versions of Vista totally defies logic. Well, running out and buying any NEW OS when the old one works perfectly fine also defies reason. I can see going 64 bit for enhanced performance as the only logical reason.

Only 3 versions of XP

The following table specifies the limits on physical memory for Windows XP.
Version
Windows XP 64 bit________128 GB
Windows XP 32 bit__________4 GB
Windows XP Starter_______512 MB
I never even heard of a "Starter Version" before.

So, it takes 11 versions of Vista to do the same job XP did with only two. Hah, it's all just an elaborate scam by Microsoft to make money. Sell you the NEW OS that you cannot live without. Then sell you upgrades like MS office 2007 which you also cannot live without. Over 99% of people could still be using MS office '97 except for the fact that older versions of Office cannot read files saved in the newer format. This is such a great scam. You just cannot make this stuff up.

The following review shows almost a 20% performance advantage of XP over Vista in UT3;
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6183499/p-5.html
Must be due to all the extra super cool stuff offered by Vista.

My very obsolete specs;
Opty 180 @ 2.6GHz (socket 939)(AMD Dual-Core Optimizer)
DFI Infinity NF4 SLI (nforce 6.85 driver)
2GB DDR400 (value ram, 4x512MB single sided)
2x XFX 7950GT 570MHz 512MB SLI (169.04 driver, AFR2)
BFG Ageia PhysX (1.1.1.14 driver)(quiet Vantec ICEBORG5 cooler)
SB Live 24 bit (1.004.0055 driver)(no xp64 driver for TB Santa Cruz)
Win XP64 pro SP2 until Linux port arrives (yes, Linux 64bit for TB Santa Cruz)
1600x1200, 3-3 quality, 38-85 FPS (I set a 85 FPS cap => refresh rate)
1600x1200, 3-3 quality, 26-70 FPS PhysX maps
UT3 ver. 1.1