windows vista performance vs xp results

[steelfist]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/17/gameplay-only-gets-worse-with-vista/
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/


it seems the drivers aren't ready yet, coupled with the fact that windows vista is a hog on ram. some applications aren't optimized for vista yet, so some of the programs have slow performance. games, especially UT2004 are slower on vista than on xp.

for people who want to play windows xp games who are considering buying vista, wait until drivers, games and vista start working well together.

battery life seems about the same suprisingly, so laptop users, relax.

vista seems to be good on video and audio encoding performance charts though

[Dont Hurt Me]

Vista is a work in progress, to be fair I cant think of any Microsoft software that was right from the get go. Its allways a big mess,patches and fixes and issues. Microsoft should just hire Apple to write all of its software.

[zero2dash]

coupled with the fact that windows vista is a hog on ram.

That, my good sir, is the understatement of the century. :D
Vista is by far the ram hoggiest OS POS I've ever seen.

Give me 2k or XP any day of the week if I've gotta use Windows. :)

[fiercetiger224]

Haha I saw that earlier today. Vista is sucking so bad. Hopefully performance will improve over time, just as OS X did. But since it uses so much RAM...You'd probably need at least 2 GB instead of 1 GB to run optimally. It's really sad, because back then, OS X was already running on much slower hardware, and running Vista on decent hardware is still painful. I just looove David Pogue's review of Vista:

http://video.on.nytimes.com/ifr_main.jsp?nsid=b7818ba6b:110556bfaf6:2902&rf=bm&fr_story=d14603c1e23e6ce37920a8134a2e27b1405a4991&st=1169666563306&mp=FLV&cpf=false&fvn=9&fr=012407_022243_7818ba6bx110556bfaf6x2903&rdm=45180.07245203826

Everytime I watch this, it makes me laugh. :D

[zero2dash]

But since it uses so much RAM...You'd probably need at least 2 GB instead of 1 GB to run optimally.

Microsoft's system requirements for any of their modern OS's is truly a load of crap.

Windows XP Professional (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx)
Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
•
PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
•
128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
•
1.5 gigabytes (GB) of available hard disk space*
•
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
•
CD-ROM or DVD drive
•
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device

(Windows 2000 is similar with the exception of a 133mhz cpu)

Don't know about any of you but XP runs like shat on 512 megs of ram and I wouldn't run it on anything lower than a 2gig cpu with 768 megs of ram. (Although it did run fairly well on my P3 866 with 768.)

2k runs great on a 256 meg system. Even 128 megs if you are light on background programs (like using AVG for antivirus instead of anything Norton/Symantec or McAfee puts out).

Vista's requirements are equally absurd.

Vista Business requirements (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/business/default.mspx)
Windows Vista Business
Recommended system requirements
1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
1 GB of system memory
40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
WDDM Driver
128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
Pixel Shader 2.0 in hardware
32 bits per pixel
DVD-ROM drive
Audio Output
Internet access (fees may apply)

Yes, I agree about needing 2 gigs of ram.
Vista chugged on my laptop with 768; I haven't ran it on my desktop (P4 3.0C with a gig of Corsair DDR400) and don't want to hose my system, but, yes by and large I think we'll see a garbage performance with anything less than 2 gigs of ram.

What a waste. If I want the extra security features and I don't want to buy a Mac, I'll go install a Linux distro (like SuSe or Fedora). :rolleyes:

XP and 2k are solid OS's; I find no reason to upgrade.

[raggedjimmi]

I'll be sticking with XP then until there is noticable improvement over the only PC game I care for playing these days - HL2. Have to be a huge improvement seeing as my iMac runs at 1680*1050 with all the bells n whistles turned on!

[bobber205]

Microsoft's system requirements for any of their modern OS's is truly a load of crap.

Windows XP Professional (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx)


(Windows 2000 is similar with the exception of a 133mhz cpu)

Don't know about any of you but XP runs like shat on 512 megs of ram and I wouldn't run it on anything lower than a 2gig cpu with 768 megs of ram. (Although it did run fairly well on my P3 866 with 768.)

2k runs great on a 256 meg system. Even 128 megs if you are light on background programs (like using AVG for antivirus instead of anything Norton/Symantec or McAfee puts out).



The computers I have to put up with in the campus library are a 1.29 celeron from forever ago with 256! of RAM. OMG!

This computer can barely scratch it's own butt without resorting to slow HD based memory. :rolleyes:

[gkarris]

Haha I saw that earlier today. Vista is sucking so bad. Hopefully performance will improve over time, just as OS X did. But since it uses so much RAM...You'd probably need at least 2 GB instead of 1 GB to run optimally. It's really sad, because back then, OS X was already running on much slower hardware, and running Vista on decent hardware is still painful. I just looove David Pogue's review of Vista:

http://video.on.nytimes.com/ifr_main.jsp?nsid=b7818ba6b:110556bfaf6:2902&rf=bm&fr_story=d14603c1e23e6ce37920a8134a2e27b1405a4991&st=1169666563306&mp=FLV&cpf=false&fvn=9&fr=012407_022243_7818ba6bx110556bfaf6x2903&rdm=45180.07245203826

Everytime I watch this, it makes me laugh. :D

I agree with David. Windows did not copy OS X, Microsoft's is called "Windows" and Mac's is called "OS X".... the same???

[sikkinixx]

Sorry I have to throw this in

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/subclass.asp?catid=10657&logon=&langid=EN

thats a lot of vista choices :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[ezekielrage_99]

I would have expected Vista to be slower with it's minimum system requirement... BUt you have to remember Microsoft puts more effort into marketing rather than releasing quality products (MS Mice are excluded, they are the only good M$ product).

Vista will be like XP buggy for at least 2 years before some decent updates are there for users to download and install.

And wasn't it Bill Gates who said something to the extent of "If you can't make it work make it look pretty".

[phungy]

Played around with Vista at Best Buy tonight. Wasn't too impressed with Aero. All the computers have at least 1GB of RAM. Lagged a bit when I clicked "Start". It's meh...

[bobber205]

Sorry I have to throw this in

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/subclass.asp?catid=10657&logon=&langid=EN

thats a lot of vista choices :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

WTF. That's more than I thought there were. Why isn't there just a Pro and Home version anymore?

[phungy]

Sorry I have to throw this in

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/subclass.asp?catid=10657&logon=&langid=EN

thats a lot of vista choices :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Is that site for real? I was at Best Buy and the Ultimate was only $270 but $500?? That's (almost) half a Macbook!

[EM87]

I got myself a copy of Vista today but I have not yet built up enough confidence to install it on either my Mac :apple: or PC's. I did get a play around with it on my mates PC today and I must say that it is actually pretty good. Aero is not half as bad as I was expecting and the GUI in general is not as bad as it looks in the still images. After I had my little play with my mates I went and got myself a copy but when I got home I read some stuff about it being slower than XP etc so I have not yet installed it.

I will get back with some comments on it after I install it:)

[xUKHCx]

Don't know about any of you but XP runs like shat on 512 megs of ram and I wouldn't run it on anything lower than a 2gig cpu with 768 megs of ram. (Although it did run fairly well on my P3 866 with 768.)

Hey, i'm currently running Xp on 256 ram and 1.9 ghz P4. Pretty slow but not too bad.

It is my parents machine from 2002.

Not my machine of choice, i do have a iMac Core 2 Duo 20" with 2Gb Ram, that runs windows XP too fast.