XP is much quicker than Vista

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Performance' started by aftermath, Feb 18, 2007.

  1. aftermath

    aftermath Guest

    I've been using Vista Ultimate now since the launch on one of my high end
    PC's. If I switch over to the XP PC, which is a hp 3.2GHz P4, you realize
    how slow Vista actually is. For example, if you open "Connect To" on a Vista
    PC to connect to some of my VPN connections, it takes it's time. The XP PC
    is instantaneous. I now find that there are allot of apps that exhibit the
    same issues. I know Vista is pretty and all that, but it takes twice as long
    to do the same thing as I did before.

    PS, the high end PC's rating is 5, and that's because of the processor
    having the lowest rating of 5 - (1.86 Core 2 Duo). Maybe it's going to take
    time, SP1 might resolve these issues in the near future, but in my
    professional opinion, Vista is slow compared to XP
     
    aftermath, Feb 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. aftermath

    Paul Smith Guest

    How much RAM do you have?

    --
    Paul Smith,
    Yeovil, UK.
    Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
    http://www.windowsresource.net/

    *Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*
     
    Paul Smith, Feb 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. aftermath

    aftermath Guest

    2 X 1GB Kingston 1066MHz Modules


     
    aftermath, Feb 18, 2007
    #3
  4. When XP was released, it would run on a Pentium 233. It would be slow. Heck,
    it was slow on the top of the line PC's sporting the P3 550's with 512MB of
    RAM. That was a top of the line machine. 5 years later, with a top of the
    line machine, Vista runs ok. In 4-5 years, with new PC's and hardware, it's
    going to fly.

    You want to try something fun? Install DOS or Windows 98 on a Core 2 Duo. :D

    Some things are slow because of driver issues, others because the software
    is pushing the hardware (which is a good thing for progress!).
     
    Dustin Harper, Feb 18, 2007
    #4
  5. aftermath

    Jon Guest


    It's slow out of the box, but then so is XP. If you want it to run lightning
    fast then you need to tweak it.
     
    Jon, Feb 18, 2007
    #5
  6. aftermath

    William Guest

    I agree. I have XP and Vista running side-by-side. The XP is installed on a
    pre Dou Core loaded Dell 3.6 machine about 2 years old, and the Vista loaded
    on the newest high powered Dimention Duo Core. I twiddle my thumbs waiting
    for certain apps to load up on the Vista machine while the load is
    instantaneous on the older XP machine. I've tweaked it as best as I could
    with the info available and I am still very disappointed.
    I'd like to hear more about the "tweaks" Jon mentions.
     
    William, Feb 18, 2007
    #6
  7. aftermath

    Jon Guest


    I'll post some suggestions in. See above for a 'Speeding up Vista' thread.
     
    Jon, Feb 18, 2007
    #7
  8. aftermath

    William Guest

    Jon, I followed your post "Speeding up Vista" line-by-line and made the
    modifications you suggested after running a fresh WEI. True, the changes did
    not leave Vista looking pretty, it confirmed there was no reason to switch
    from XP. Take out the Security Center, Defender, Update, Aero, Readyboost
    plus the slick graphics and Vista is nothing!

    My computer was hardly flying. I did not notice the slightest change in
    performance and in fact a post mod WEI yeilded EXACTLY the same results and
    before the changes. Kudos to Microsoft for the stability in Vista for that
    much.

    I clicked on a JPG file and it took 20 seconds for Microsoft Office Picture
    Manager (Vista version) to load up before the photo showed up on the screen.
    I moved over to my older XP machine and did the same thing using the same
    program (XP version) and Picture Manager was loaded and running in a
    fraction of a second. I did this and several other performance comparrisons,
    all with similar results. Several more tests like this were done after your
    suggested mods with no noticeable differences.

    As a devout Microsoft fan, user and stockholder, I am very disappointed to
    say (from my experience) Vista gets two thumbs down. I have no doubt
    Microsoft will eventually get this thing right, but it could take a few
    years. In the meantime, XP works well and for a few bucks extra, one can buy
    most of the same add-on utilities and features as are in Vista.
    William
     
    William, Feb 19, 2007
    #8
  9. aftermath

    aftermath Guest

    Can anyone honestly say Vista is the same, or quicker?
     
    aftermath, Feb 19, 2007
    #9
  10. aftermath

    n00k Guest

    20sec to load a pic!!! My ystem took at the most 2sec and I'm running
    Aero and all graphics jacked all the way up. Sounds like something
    with your system, not Vista.


     
    n00k, Feb 19, 2007
    #10
  11. aftermath

    aftermath Guest

    It takes less than 1 sec on this PC, but there are other certain things
    which take a lot longer (Read my 1st Post) Make no mistake, I'm not going to
    go backwards, I like Vista, but I wish certain area's performed like XP
     
    aftermath, Feb 19, 2007
    #11
  12. aftermath

    fcsndrs Guest

     
    fcsndrs, Feb 19, 2007
    #12
  13. aftermath

    Jon Guest

    XP is undoubtedly quicker than Vista . I don't think there will be a way
    around that. You'll never get extra functionality, without some performance
    cost (assuming the same hardware).
     
    Jon, Feb 19, 2007
    #13
  14. aftermath

    bls8195 Guest

    I think that I would agree with you to some extent. I love Vista, have had no
    problems with the OS at all, which I guess I should be thankful. I don't know
    if its just my PC or if its just "luck" LOL
     
    bls8195, Feb 19, 2007
    #14
  15. aftermath

    Conor Guest

    All new Windows are slower than the versions before on the same
    hardware.
     
    Conor, Feb 19, 2007
    #15
  16. Are you saying that if I put Windows 95 that was built to run on a 486 and
    up on a Core 2 Duo Quad, it won't be slower than Vista that was made to run
    on modern CPU's!?!?!

    Wow. If only everyone knew this fact!

    --
    Dustin Harper

    http://www.vistarip.com

    --
     
    Dustin Harper, Feb 20, 2007
    #16
  17. aftermath

    Art Guest

    Not trying to be a fanboy or anything but I upgraded my laptop:

    AMD Turion 64 (single core)
    1 GB RAM
    100 GB Seagate 5400 rpm drive
    ATI 200M shared ram graphics (64 MB)

    My rating was 2.0 because of the graphics. I posted to an ATI group and
    someone running the chipset said it was fine and go ahead and turn on all
    the stuff (this is Vista Home Premium). I have it running with all the
    bells and whistles turned on and I honestly don't notice a speed difference
    from XP SP2. All my 3000+ jpgs are on a NAS and I open the picture manager
    and it pops to the large thumbnails. I double click a .jpg and it's in the
    view within a second or two.

    Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones. I expected to have to disable alot
    but I can even run Flip 3d with about 2 copies of and a few browsers and
    other assorted stuff and the preview images cycle pretty good. I haven't
    done any tweaks.

    I guess that's why they say YMMV.

    Art
     
    Art, Feb 21, 2007
    #17
  18. If you just want to do the same things in the same way but faster,
    then I'd agree with you. Vista's not a speed upgrade for XP.

    For me, the slick graphics are the least compelling reason to go for
    Vista, and there are things beyond those you mentioned, but the main
    reason I'd use it is as a solid base for tomorrow's expanding hardware
    and add-ons. So I'd not upgrade XP, but I'd want it on a new PC.

    Your system is maxed enough for Vista to swim, and beyond the point
    that XP would see much improvement with more - so I see your results
    as reflecting a genuine best-case performance defecit. The only
    factor that could tilt the table here, would be sucky drivers.
    Try Irfan View; it will prolly be way faster than both.
    Speed is prolly the least important issue, in that it's the one issue
    which will automatically improve from blind hardware progress.

    The lesson has been: Do it RIGHT, even if it's slower. Think:
    - Y2k
    - innumerable HD capacity barriers
    - RAM barriers
    - timing ASSumptions invalidated by fast and different CPUs
    - endless exploits due to poor or absent sanity-checking

    When you take code that is "efficient" because it uses tiny bitfields
    for addresses and performs no sanity-checks on inputs, and then add
    kludges and protective layers to patch it up, you end up with
    something that is not only slow, but flaky and a bitch to maintain.

    OTOH, you may have new Vista drivers that are hopefully stable, but
    which may not yet operate your hardware in the most efficient mode,
    and they may still have debugging code and sanity-traps in place from
    the development process. That, too, will improve with time.
    Maybe not. What's more likely to happen is that hardware will improve
    to the point that the same-priced box in 2009 will be "fast enough".

    What I hope is that with a more solid code base, we will have less
    layers of paint and mascara barrier code added by that date.
    Sure, and that's what I'd do on an existing XP PC.


    Saws are too hard to use.
    Be easier to use!
     
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user), Feb 21, 2007
    #18
  19. On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:27:56 -0800, "Dustin Harper"
    The specifics vary. The generality is that an OS will run slow of
    hardware that dates from when the OS was first released, run better on
    hardware that's a year or two later, and prolly run really fast on
    hardware that dates from the time that the next OS comes out.

    On the right hardware, a new OS can be as fast or faster than on an
    old OS on older hardware. In fact, the old OS may not run on the new
    hardware at all; sometimes this being the reason why the OS had to
    change, sometimes even within the same OS lifetime.

    For example, Win95 SR2 was needed to support USB, AGP and "large" hard
    drives; NT 4 SP3 for the same reason, and XP SP1 and SP2 were chasing
    after "large" hard drives again (for new values of "large")

    A new OS often has better awareness not only of scalability, but also
    specifics of new hardware - such as new S-ATA modes, USB sticks, new
    processor features e.g. dual-core, hyperthreading, SIMD, NX/DEP,
    64-bit extensions, going right back to Enhanced 386 mode.

    What ultimately kills an OS is an inability to use modern hardware
    effectively, as much as anything else.


    Saws are too hard to use.
    Be easier to use!
     
    cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user), Feb 23, 2007
    #19
  20. aftermath

    mbg Guest

    Not if it's not doing anything extra, or is doing things in the
    background that I don't care about or would rather didn't exist :)

    mbg.
     
    mbg, Feb 23, 2007
    #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.