Is Vista faster than XP

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Charlie, Sep 7, 2006.

  1. Charlie

    Charlie Guest

    Assuming the same high-end PC is tested with XP and then Vista. What kind of
    performance advantages would one see with the Vista installation? IOW what
    kind of noticeable "seat-of-the-pants" performance gains would one see with
    Vista in this example?
    Would apps load faster, how about boot time and shutdown times?
     
    Charlie, Sep 7, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Charlie

    Montreal MCT Guest

    Hi Charlie,

    Never has Mirosoft released a newer OS with more features that was faster on
    the old features (same hardware & specs) than its predecessor. As well beta
    OSes are always going to be slower than RTMs.

    Having said that the latest releases of Vista (RC1 and pre-RC) show a huge
    performance improvement over their predecessors. I honestly see the same
    performance if not slightly better over the XP install I have which is
    probably cleaner as it is really only used for fall-back.

    If you want to go one step further (speed-wise) you can try using a USB key
    to ReadyBoost your system... it acts as a Prefetch which will cache your most
    frequently accessed programs and processes into the USB key which essentially
    gives your computer a shot of adrenaline.

    Have fun!

    M
     
    Montreal MCT, Sep 7, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Charlie

    MICHAEL Guest

    For me, a clean install of WinXP Pro SP2 vs a clean install
    of Vista, WinXP is "faster". Of course, comparing the seasoned
    XP to a still beta Vista isn't quite fair. It may sound silly, but the
    indexing and search functions in Vista are almost enough for me
    to tell folks to go get it. XP's indexing service is really useless and
    a drain on the system.

    Also, if you turned off some services and special effects in Vista
    and made the "contest" more even, the differences probably would
    not be noticeable.

    I think there are times some forget how long WinXP has been out,
    code refined and user tweaked. If you need a refresher on just how
    good XP is, do a clean install- no crap that's been accumulating for
    years since a user last did a clean install. You might be surprised
    at how good XP really is when "brand new". WinXP Pro is a great
    OS, worthy of several more years of service.

    -Michael
     
    MICHAEL, Sep 7, 2006
    #3
  4. Charlie

    Montreal MCT Guest

    Michael,

    I agree with almost everything that you say. I am not sure though which
    would win a speed test if you used all of the advantages of Vista versus the
    clean install of XPSP2 - I work on a lot of XP machines both clean and dirty
    and I honeslty love the OS, but then I loved Windows 2000 too :) I will be
    interested to see how much faster RC2 and RTM are but for now Vista is fast
    enough (and certainly reliable enough!) for me to use it as my primary OS,
    and leave the relatively clean (recent re-installed) XP SP2 as my fall back
    OS :)

    M
    --
    MDG, MCT
    MCSA (2003), MCSA (2000), MCDST.
    Certified Small Business Specialist
    Visit my blog at www.mitpro.ca/Blogs/tabid/59/BlogID/2/Default.aspx


     
    Montreal MCT, Sep 7, 2006
    #4
  5. Charlie

    Bill Guest

    I did a clean install of RC1 - happy with the performance. I haven't timed
    it against XP, but my isn't-this-nice-all-things-considered satisfaction
    level is real high. - Your level may vary.


    Assuming the same high-end PC is tested with XP and then Vista. What kind of
    performance advantages would one see with the Vista installation? IOW what
    kind of noticeable "seat-of-the-pants" performance gains would one see with
    Vista in this example?
    Would apps load faster, how about boot time and shutdown times?
     
    Bill, Sep 7, 2006
    #5
  6. Charlie

    Conor Guest

    It "feels" like it does.
     
    Conor, Sep 7, 2006
    #6
  7. Charlie

    Paula Guest

    Exactly "Your level may vary"!
    Have you noticed that when you buy a new PC and it's nice and speedy, then
    after installing all your app's it slows down? So a lot depends on your
    software too! That's why I hate Norton! It's a resource HOG! I'm going
    OneCare all the way this time.
    Paula
     
    Paula, Sep 7, 2006
    #7
  8. Charlie

    Bill Guest

    I agree Paula...................................I live in a Norton-Free-Home


    Exactly "Your level may vary"!
    Have you noticed that when you buy a new PC and it's nice and speedy, then
    after installing all your app's it slows down? So a lot depends on your
    software too! That's why I hate Norton! It's a resource HOG! I'm going
    OneCare all the way this time.
    Paula
     
    Bill, Sep 7, 2006
    #8
  9. Charlie

    Chupacabra Guest

    Does this really work? I can't imaging a USB key drive being faster than
    system RAM, or even the hard drive.
     
    Chupacabra, Sep 7, 2006
    #9
  10. Charlie

    MICHAEL Guest

    I don't disagree with you, for the most part. :)
    Actually, the only part I do disagree is making Vista
    my primary OS. I'm not ready to make that type of
    commitment. There needs to be some more courting. :)

    I will say, and there's a chance it's just my perception, that
    WinXP Pro seems a bit more stable than WinXP Home. Even
    though there's more to XP Pro, I've always felt that the code
    was in some ways "tighter" and "sturdier". WinXP Pro just
    always seemed to more robust.

    I do have a question, which may open up a can of worms.
    Like, where I got it, so on and so forth. Anyway, back to
    the question/observation. On this laptop, I have build 5552
    installed. It was an upgrade install from 5536, which was a
    clean install. On a desktop, I did a clean install of RC1. The
    desktop is newer and more powerful than this laptop. Both
    versions of Vista run great. However, build 5552 seems to
    be a bit snappier. Was 5552 on the same "branch" as RC1
    or did it sprout off somewhere else? Itself being a candidate
    for RC1? Before I had RC1 installed on the desktop, I had
    5552 installed on it, too. I then did the clean install of RC1.
    IMO, build 5552 ran better on the desktop, too. I'm not talking
    about a major difference. But, at times, I do notice.
    Just curious. You may not have any answers for me, but maybe
    someone else will speak up. I just asked you because you have all
    those 3 and 4 letter acronyms after your name. ;-)


    -Michael


     
    MICHAEL, Sep 7, 2006
    #10
  11. Charlie

    MICHAEL Guest

    MICHAEL, Sep 7, 2006
    #11
  12. Charlie

    Steve Drake Guest

    Have you found a USB Key that's fast enough?

    My Hard disk gets about 120Meg Per Second (that's on a lappy) it peaks
    higher than that.

    My fast USB key gets about 12Meg Per Second, why would I prefect to it?

    Its funny, I am sure MS have always stated that its each OS is faster than
    the previous one but I cannot remember reading that for vista. But in
    reality its not always that case, but... look at other things, like ASP,
    ASP.NET is faster than ASP, ASP.NET 2 is faster than ASP.NET and ASP.NET 2
    it does more, IIS6 is MUCH MUCH faster than IIS5. .NET2 is faster than .NET1
    in most areas. I hear Vista paging algorithm is much better than XPs (I saw
    Bill Gates say that years ago at a conference, he joked about the paging
    algorithm not changing for years).

    As for vista, I do see some things faster, like search and replace in
    notepad, I don't do this often, but its is much faster, screen updates are
    better in some cases, from a user point, shutdown is faster as you don't
    have to keep clicking end task to end all the programs.

    This is from some websites :

    Launch applications 15 percent faster than Windows XP does
    Boot PCs 50 percent faster than they boot currently and will allow PCs to
    resume from standby in two seconds
    Allow users to patch systems with 50 percent fewer reboots required
    Reduce the number of system images required by 50 percent
    Enable companies to migrate users 75 percent faster than they can with
    existing versions of Windows.

    Also from MS

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/foreveryone/performance.mspx
     
    Steve Drake, Sep 7, 2006
    #12
  13. I don't consider Vista to be faster than XP, but the performance is very,
    very acceptable and there is no noticeable lag. Of course with PC's, there
    will always be a decrease performance sometimes when install a new version
    of Windows on old hardware. The install time for me was 42 mins, startup 42
    seconds, desktop load 15 to 20 seconds.

    Sempron 64-bit 1.6 GHz
    512 MBs of RAM
    Geforce FX 5200 128 MB AGP.
     
    Andre Da Costa [ActiveWin], Sep 7, 2006
    #13
  14. Charlie

    Montreal MCT Guest

    Hi Michael,

    The decision to make Vista my primary OS was actually made in November of
    last year, but I quickly recanted and made it my secondary OS until mid-May.
    I have been using a dual-boot configuration for all of this time, and it took
    a lot of builds for me to decide that it was time. I do not expect that most
    people have made that commitment yet, and do not fault you for it!

    I cannot explain definitively why 5552 was snappier than RC1, but from my
    understanding there are not different `branches`of builds, at least not
    publicly. I suspect that some of the internal builds may be tweaked for
    specific tests which may lead to some technologies being disabled (even
    though you may never know it) hence leading to it being quicker. I remember
    a couple of internal builds back in October that seemed pretty stable
    compared to the public builds, but nothing I could hang my hat on.


    My advice to you is to stick to the public betas - the support is much more
    standardized!

    M
     
    Montreal MCT, Sep 7, 2006
    #14
  15. Charlie

    Paula Guest

    Yes!
    I just got the Apacer HT203 4 gig flash drive and it is very fast.
    200X
    Works great!
    Paula
     
    Paula, Sep 7, 2006
    #15
  16. Charlie

    Montreal MCT Guest

    Wow... if I were to list the reasons I am disenchanted with Norton that would
    be in the top five, but I cannot give it credit as the only reason I hate
    Norton ;)

    I understand what you are saying Paula. I think we were actually talking
    about clean installs side-by-side on identical hardware.

    M
     
    Montreal MCT, Sep 7, 2006
    #16
  17. Charlie

    Montreal MCT Guest

    Hi Andre,

    I am right there with you on install time... between 38-41 minutes. One of
    my machines is a Ferrari 4005 laptop with 2 Gigs RAM, the other is an Intel
    960 proc (3 GHz dual core) with 2 gig RAM... of course that one installed
    faster because the hard drives are fast SATA drives compared to the quick IDE
    notebook drive in the Ferrari.

    Having said that it is a hell of an improvement on my first install of 5231
    on my old Toshiba Satellite (still a 3.2GHz P4) - 4.5 hours or so!

    M
    --
    MDG, MCT
    MCSA (2003), MCSA (2000), MCDST.
    Certified Small Business Specialist
    Visit my blog at www.mitpro.ca/Blogs/tabid/59/BlogID/2/Default.aspx


     
    Montreal MCT, Sep 7, 2006
    #17
  18. Charlie

    Paula Guest

    I understand...I was just sticking my two cents in. <g>
    Paula
     
    Paula, Sep 7, 2006
    #18
  19. Not sure about Rc1 , but beta 2 was very very sluggish at all levels.
    From boot time to shutdown.

    On my 1gig, XP 3200+ with 256meg X800XT I turned off Areo after a couple of week to make the system more usable with 3d
    applications.
    I have nothing installed on that machine but a couple of games... I did try to install Adobe photoshop element but it just crash on
    Vista.

    Also video card drivers are in development stage and game run slower and have a huge problem with resource sharing.

    As you can see, I'm not that hot about vista. Allot of hype for not much improvement yet,

    Stephan
     
    Stephan Schaem, Sep 7, 2006
    #19
  20. Charlie

    Steve Drake Guest

    I have just done some tests.

    I have tested a CHEAP USBKEY, it worked with ready boost, it got SEQ read
    tests off about 9MB/s and RANDOM readtests of 0.9Mb for a range of 31719.

    I got an expensive corsair that was faster, eg, look at the reviews and it
    gets very good reviews, this did not pass the windows ready boost tests, it
    got 16MB/s on SEQ reads, thats very good, but only got 0.6MB/s on the same
    range for RANDOM reads.

    On smaller ranges, the figures were closers but the cheap stick still won.

    Interesting results, I think mem stick companies should post the random disk
    performance figures not just the SEQ ones.

    I used CHDDSPEED found at
    http://www.benchmarkhq.ru/english.html?/be_hdd.html
     
    Steve Drake, Sep 8, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.