XP or Vista, which is faster?

Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by sash, Mar 10, 2008.

  1. sash macrumors 6502a

    sash

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    #1
    Hi,

    I've installed XP (via Boot Camp) on a new Mac Pro. So far so good, but it seems not running as fast as Mac OS on the same machine (which could be pretty natural etc., that's not a point).

    I'm wondering, would Vista (Business or Ultimate) be faster on Mac Pro? Does anybody have some personal experience with these two systems on the same or comparable machine?

    I'm reading and hearing almost only negative reactions on Vista, is it really that bad? Could it be that a newer OS is worse than the old one? For me, as a long time Mac user, it seems almost impossible: a newer Mac OS means a better Mac OS...

    Anyway, I would be grateful for any comment on this topic.

    Windows is being used for a number of PC-only applications, amongst others involving simultaneous processing of several huge data bases. No gaming at all.

    Thanks,
    Sash
     
  2. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #2
    Windows XP will usually run faster than Windows Vista. There is one thing that you might want to check out though: Depending on which version of Windows XP you buy, it will support more or fewer processors. If you buy a "Home Edition" then it might only ever use one of your eight cores. You'd probably want to find out about that. So buying a more expensive version might give you more speed, not because that version actually runs better, but because the cheaper version refuses to use all your processors.
     
  3. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #3
    Also make sure you get the 64-bit version if you have the memory. It is very frustrating to have 8 GB of memory and Windows can only see about 3 Gb of it. I remember Windows 2000 was limited to use only 2 CPUs or 2 Cores. I don't know if this was ever expanded with Vista or XP.
     
  4. sash thread starter macrumors 6502a

    sash

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    #4
    Hi,

    Yes, I'm using the pro version, so it sees and uses all the cores...

    Does the same thing apply to 64-bit Vista? Is it also slower than the 32-bit XP Pro?

    Thank you a lot!
    sash
     
  5. sash thread starter macrumors 6502a

    sash

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    #5
    I've seen a comparison chart on the MS site; I believe, x64 Ultimate can address 132 GB or so... No, it's 128+ GB.
     
  6. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #6

    If you can get this question answered, I will have nothing but praise for you. I've been trying to figure out which is faster too, Windows XP Pro (SP3) or Vista Ultimate x64 (SP1). My main use is gaming, and while it looks like Vista is starting to really catch up with XP in terms of raw fps, it's hard to say (plus there's potential compatibility issues).

    Honestly, I want Vista to be awesome. It really is a more solid OS (than XP), but it's so hard to tell right now. And then to make it even more complicated, Apple doesn't have official drivers for the MBP for Vista x64 (yet?).

    From what I've read, 32-bit and 64-bit is like night and day. Much better with 64-bit.
     
  7. Mr. Zarniwoop macrumors demi-god

    Mr. Zarniwoop

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    #7
    That is incorrect. The current 2008 MacBook Pro ships with Boot Camp 2.0.3 with support for 64-bit editions of Vista.

    Besides the ability to access more than 4GB of RAM, what do you see so night-and-day about 64-bit Windows?
     
  8. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #8
    In MS speak processor ≠ Core. XP Home will run 1 processor with 4 cores. XP Pro will run both processors with all 8 cores.
     
  9. Stridder44 macrumors 68040

    Stridder44

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #9
    Sweet thats good to hear!
     
  10. RITZFit macrumors 65816

    RITZFit

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Location:
    In my Corner
    #10
    i think xp would be much faster, considering how much of a resource hog vista is
     
  11. john.gotmods macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Location:
    45 mins north west or detroit
  12. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #12
    The older the OS, the "faster" it will run. The older the OS, the less overhead the computer has to deal with.
     
  13. crm114 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Location:
    Midwest
    #13
    I say XP all the way.

    Unless you are one of the lucky guys on the site that are runing 8 or 10 gigs of RAM (yes i am jealous dammit!)

    Once you hit 4 gigs of ram i think vista will be better (64 bit).

    I have had problems with XP 64 bit becuase a lot of drivers/software are not compatible with 64 bit XP (my phone software adn some printer drivers for example). But if you can do that stuff in OSX, then its not a big deal.

    I can not really speak to vista, as i am pretending it does not exist - but everything i have read says vista will "run" slower.
     
  14. sash thread starter macrumors 6502a

    sash

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    #14
    Hi,

    Actually I was thinking about appr. 8 GB...

    But with all these negative comments on Vista, I'm quite confused.

    I'm afraid, the only good (user) review on Vista I've seen on the Microsoft's site...

    sash
     
  15. OMGWTFBBQ macrumors member

    OMGWTFBBQ

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    #15
    hey sash, so what did you end up deciding to do?
     
  16. Craigtimms macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2008
    #16
    Hey i was a p.c user.. that could never afford mac.. i went upto vista

    and was appauled at its performance.

    However i do believe it ran slightly faster on my laptop (1.5gb ram, 1.8ghz AMD sempron, 40gb hdd) than xp did.. however every time i plug in a plug and play usb device more than not i have to acutally set vista to search in its own driverstore folder to recognise the device, its stupid! this is a common problem.

    I personally liked vista, i think the GUI is nicer than XP


    But then i could afford to come to mac.. And as they say - once you go mac.. you never go back.

    as everyone said if your mac pro is running many cores, and lots of ram (above 3.5gb) chances are vista will be faster but expect the usual annoyances with vista ;)
     

Share This Page