So I found That XP is Faster Than Vista but ....

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by Ex-COC, Jan 6, 2008.

  1. Ex-COC

    Ex-COC Guest

    I posted a week or so ago about the fact I noticed Vista was faster in disk
    IO and about all said that was not that case.

    I downloaded Dacris for a HD benchmark and found that:

    XP - 140MB/s
    Vista - 110MBs


    So the benchmark proves that XP is faster in that respect but still I notice
    Vista:

    1. Under Vista in Media Player, all 200+ videos I have come up as
    thumbnails. XP is still working on it and that is after deleting the Media
    Player database and re-importing everything as well as letting it sit there
    to try and create thumbnails. Also, when I add MP3s to Media Player and do a
    'add to library it scans the same folders in about a third of the time as
    XP.


    2. I have one folder with 220GB of MP3 files. XP Explorer could never read
    it so I got Opus. Vista Explorer and read the folder fine and sort all the
    files in seconds. Using Opus under Vista it reads the file information
    (artist, album, etc) in about a third of the time as XP.


    Conclusion: XP may be faster for file IO, but Vista deals with NTFS at lot
    quicker.


    I spending a lot more time in Vista than XP at this point and have ordered
    some upgrades I will need to use Vista full time.
     
    Ex-COC, Jan 6, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin], Jan 6, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 1) thats all due to the codec that you have for AVI, the thumbnails need to
    use the codec to be created.. so its not XP's fault

    2) Files do not need time to "read" as you say unless you are extracting
    meta data from them with a setting in the view of Windows Explorer (SEE THE
    COLUMNS THAT HAVE INFO LIKE BITRATE? where do you think that data is coming
    from? The sky? LOL, its hard to explain but all the things you are saying
    are not related to the actual OS, but to either codecs or the way you
    display the data in Windows explorer... the DISK itself is faster as you
    have seen on XP.. and this is true...

    Thus your conclusion is wrong.. XP is faster ALWAYS... as long as you
    compare apples with apples...

    Vista is very slow.. and whatever you are saying is not well documented...
    You have to know more things in depth to really make a comparisson..

    and I have done just that.. Vista is slower than XP in ALL functions.
    PERIOD.
     
    non flammable on XP, Jan 6, 2008
    #3
  4. Ex-COC

    MegaDETH Guest

    I am sure it is "on your system"

    I find Vista x64 faster than XP on just about everything, but this is
    on "my system"

    YMMV applies here as always.


    --
    MegaDETH

    Core 2 Duo E6600 (L629F) @ 3.690GHz
    ASUS P5K DELUXE/WIFI
    4X2GB A-DATA PC2 6400
    eVGA E-GEFORCE 8800 GT 512MB Superclocked
    22\\" Hanns.G HDMI LCD
    LG GGC-H20LI
    BenQ 1655
    LiteOn DH20A3P
    Samsung 203N
    LG GSA-H42N
    LG GSA-H22N
     
    MegaDETH, Jan 6, 2008
    #4
  5. 64 bit can be faster if you have 4 or more gigs..

    under that, 32 bit is faster

    have you compared 64 bit xp and 64 bit vista?

    dont say no.. please dont say no...
     
    non flammable on XP, Jan 6, 2008
    #5
  6. Ex-COC

    Frank Guest

    non flammable on XP wrote:

    ....his usual demented delusional uninformed bullsh*t!
    You are an idiot!
    Frank
     
    Frank, Jan 6, 2008
    #6
  7. Ex-COC

    Alias Guest

    Sitting on a tack again, Frank?

    Alias
     
    Alias, Jan 6, 2008
    #7
  8. Ex-COC

    Frank Guest

    Wrong again alias...as usual.
    Get a life you moron.
    Frank
     
    Frank, Jan 6, 2008
    #8
  9. Ex-COC

    DanS Guest

    Are you using the same anti-virus program under XP and Vista ?

    There are several CD's I have that each contain a 400+ MB single exe
    file. For a time, it appeared as all of them were unreadable when I put
    them in the CD drive.

    They weren't. The problem was, when I went to access the CD, the AV
    program, Norton, took a REALLY long time to scan the file. That is what
    was causing it to appear that the CD couldn't be read with Explorer.

    I only figured it out after a failed Norton update which crashed the
    realtime scanning engine so it wasn't running. One of those CD's was
    still in the CD tray, and I went back to Explorer for something else and
    had realized that the CD Drive was now showing the disk label. Trying the
    other 'bad' CD's which now worked, and then re-starting Norton, and going
    thru the experiment again and finding that they didn't 'work' once again,
    sealed Norton fate. It was gone from my machine shortly after.
     
    DanS, Jan 6, 2008
    #9
  10. Ex-COC

    MegaDETH Guest

    No sorry but I didn't. :( I got a good deal on Vista Ultimate so I
    bought it.


    --
    MegaDETH

    Core 2 Duo E6600 (L629F) @ 3.690GHz
    ASUS P5K DELUXE/WIFI
    4X2GB A-DATA PC2 6400
    eVGA E-GEFORCE 8800 GT 512MB Superclocked
    22\\" Hanns.G HDMI LCD
    LG GGC-H20LI
    BenQ 1655
    LiteOn DH20A3P
    Samsung 203N
    LG GSA-H42N
    LG GSA-H22N
     
    MegaDETH, Jan 6, 2008
    #10
  11. Ex-COC

    Alias Guest

    So why are your panties in a twist, then?
    Got one, remember?

    Alias
     
    Alias, Jan 6, 2008
    #11
  12. you can have 64 bit with all vista editions, the send you the DVD for the
    non ultimate versions
    for free, and you use the same product key
     
    non flammable on XP, Jan 7, 2008
    #12
  13. Ex-COC

    Frank Guest

    Wrong again loser!
    Get a life mr liar.
    Frank
     
    Frank, Jan 7, 2008
    #13
  14. There is only one product that I could say is worse than norton..
    and thats vista


    vista and norton make the worse combination you could ever have!
     
    non flammable on Vista, Jan 7, 2008
    #14
  15. Ex-COC

    DarkSentinel Guest

    Wrong again dimwit, I have disproven THAT personally.
     
    DarkSentinel, Jan 9, 2008
    #15
  16. Ex-COC

    DarkSentinel Guest

    No, actually it proves that test was faster.

    On my system, under Everest Disk Benchmark, with a Hitachi HDT725040VLA
    SATA2 w/8MB buffer on the Buffered Read Test...

    XP: 171.5MB/s
    Vista: 192.3MB/s

    It could all very well be the drivers for XP are better optimized, and you
    got a better transfer rate.
     
    DarkSentinel, Jan 9, 2008
    #16
    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.