Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old

re: Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old

David Overton — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:08:00 GMT

Craig, they are, but cars with more in / on them as standard have bigger engines. Would you turn on the Air con to get a 0-60 in a car? Nope. Would you expect a heavier safer car to give you the same 0-6 with the same engine as a motor cycle or even a 5 year old Ford 1.1 engine? Nope. Now the newer 2GHz CPUs will give an old 3GHz CPU a run for the money, but that is true with some of the new vs old cars too.

The 0-60 ignoring the engine size, power / weight ratio and other "extras" has never been a valuable comparison - have you ever bought a car simply because of the 0-60?

You can absolutely judge a machine and an OS on the performance of a machine, but you can't take a machine that is expected to excel with XP and Expect it excell with Vista - the same was true with Dos --> Win 95, Win 95 --> 2000 and so on - this is normal for the IT industry - the extra features cost you CPU cycles, disk space and reads and memory. If you don;t want the features, turn them off and then Vista will do better - just don't complain that it is not better than XP with all the extras turned off!!

ttfn

David

re: Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old

Craig.. Edge — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:13:14 GMT

Saying that its unfair to judge cus the min spec is low is stupid. All cars are judged on 0 - 60 regardless of engine size. Should we give them a head start if it a low spec???? Or just judge it on a like for like spec.

More on the differences between real world Vista performance and that of a benchmark

David Overton's Blog — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:41:38 GMT

Following up on my articles that discuss Vista performance (I still stick by my statement that it is

re: Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old

Tim — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:11:42 GMT

The biggest problem is that for most of us Vista hasn't added any visible functionality, to justify its thirst for resources. The graphic are nicer, and that is about it. Hibernate is differently faulty and more memory makes it even slower. That is about it.

XP gave us USB and Firewire, Vista doesn't seem to offer individuals and small businesses anything new.

Minimum System Requirements? Just Feed 8 GB (!) of RAM into Vista SP1 and then Watch it Fly, plus Windows XP SP3 | CTF Blog

Sun, 02 Dec 2007 20:18:33 GMT

Pingback from Minimum System Requirements? Just Feed 8 GB (!) of RAM into Vista SP1 and then Watch it Fly, plus Windows XP SP3 | CTF Blog

re: Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old

David Overton — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:43:17 GMT

Terry,

why am I in a huff, because this is sensationalist benchmarking. Your absolutely right, there is only so many cpu instructions you can fit into a second, so the more function you add, the potentially slower a system is. That is why things like recommendd and system minimums are provided. The original benchmark didn't even use the same version of Office in the two tests.

Now, Vista's min reqs are 8 times those of XP, so there is an up front statement that more resources are need, yet XP is given 8 times its min reqs while Vista is given 1 times - I'd hope the results were not good in those scenarios. You have to think about the h/w that XP was released onto and the h/w that Vista has been released onto. Of course there is some growing in to happen.

I just hate crap benchmarking (it was a career of mine for nearly 5 years) to be sold as apples to apples comparisons.

ttfn

David

re: Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old

Terry — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 17:02:29 GMT

David,

Not sure why you have a huff with the results because it is a fact that Vista is considerably slower than XP, Why? well how many default tasks run the background?, all the bells and whistles have to share CPU time, and then there's all the security thats chugging away in the background.

But you know what, I remember my little old P3 450Mhz running W98SE and installing XP and feeling how painfully slow the computer went.

Its called evolving. However, these days its not about how glossy the front end is, it should be about getting the best out of each clock cycle, not just throwing extra cores at the PC to maintain the same speed.

Vlad Mazek - Vladville Blog » Blog Archive » Vista SP1 vs. XP SP3 Performance Stats: Flawed Samples or Market Reality?

Wed, 28 Nov 2007 21:08:55 GMT

Pingback from Vlad Mazek - Vladville Blog » Blog Archive » Vista SP1 vs. XP SP3 Performance Stats: Flawed Samples or Market Reality?

kertvista » Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old

kertvista » Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:35:24 GMT

Pingback from kertvista » Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old

kreative_96 » Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old

kreative_96 » Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:37:58 GMT

Pingback from kreative_96 » Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old

kliquee » Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old <insert your favourite derogatory term here>

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:54:16 GMT

Pingback from kliquee » Vista SP1 beta vs XP SP3 beta and performance - what a load of old <insert your favourite derogatory term here>