XP is much quicker than Vista

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

  1. aftermath

    Gary MS News Guest

    Yep same here pics load up in less the 2sec on Vista Home Prem 64
     
    Gary MS News, Feb 28, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Got any tweak suggestions?
     
    Diamontina Cocktail, Mar 5, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. aftermath

    Art Guest

    Art, Mar 5, 2007
    #23
  4. aftermath

    dwdino Guest

    I have found that running with Virtual Memory disabled dramatically improves
    performance. Apps open nearly instantaneously. With 2 GB of physical memory
    most programs don't notice the abscence of VM. Now VMWare server is another
    story...
     
    dwdino, Apr 10, 2007
    #24
  5. aftermath

    Morskittar Guest

    I've found the opposite.

    HP dv6000t
    2.00GHz Core 2 Duo t7200
    2gigs RAM
    Nvidia GeForce Go 7200, 256mb
    Vista Ultimate *Retail*

    Boot from cold to login is just under a minute, 58 seconds or so, while
    login to using programs is less than 10 seconds. Every time, including
    auto-loading IM programs and Sidebar. I didn't time it when under XP Media
    Center, but it is enough of an improvement to be noticable.

    Perhaps the difference lies in a clean install minus all the OEM bloatware,
    original drivers, and proprietary apps (HP download/support manager? No
    thanks.)? Vista certainly has its new OS issues (like my brick once known as
    a "printer"), but speed and stability haven't been an issue.
     
    Morskittar, Apr 10, 2007
    #25
  6. aftermath

    STL Guest

    I can. I had XP SP2 and now I have Vista Ultimate (clean Install) on the same
    machine (3.4 GHz P4 HT CPU, 4GB ram, NVidia 7800GT with 256MB Ram plus some
    more (500 something) shared with system). Also I consider my self picky, and
    I really work hard to keep my computer in shape. i didn't touch any of the
    Vista settings until now, they are out of the box defaults.

    For Boot times, Vista is slightly faster than XP with almost same set of
    applications installed. But I can also say XP is way faster than Vista when
    there are no applications installed. My Vista boots in 2 minutes now, Xp was
    around 3. Vista responds within 1 minutes of logging in, for Xp that time was
    2 minutes. REcovering from Hibernate is fater in Vista. And there is the
    "Sleep" mode.

    For Application load times, response times etc, Vista is blazing fast. My
    *perceived* performance is: Vista is at least twice as fast as XP when it
    comes to applications. I didn't take any measurements with applications
    because their versions are mostly different now.

    As a side note, all the problems -including some performance issues- I had
    with Vista so far are because of drivers and applications themselves. Vista
    is great, but rest of the software industry is not really ready for it. It is
    getting better...
     
    STL, Apr 11, 2007
    #26
  7. aftermath

    Norman Guest

    I honestly have to say that I am DISGUSTED by the performance at start up,
    logging into a new user account, and opening (My) Computer. I have reviewed
    all of the performance diagnostics I could think of and found serious
    problems. I have in one case waited for startup 9 min. 47 sec. according to
    the warnings it logged. I have continous crashes on explorer.exe, internet
    explorer.exe logged as well. This is on a default fresh install with no
    software installed!!!!

    I have disabled many unnecessary services, startup programs, removed
    networking overhead, disabled drivers, updated drivers... and nothing helps.
    I am about to pull my hair out!

    I thought it may have something to do with connecting to an Active Directory
    Domain, but even when I log in on a local account with no network connected,
    it is still horrible.

    Microsoft, PLEASE HELP.

    -- Norm
     
    Norman, Apr 13, 2007
    #27
  8. I have 2 machines running Vista Basic. One on a laptop and one on a AMD 64
    2.34 GHz HP Desktop with 1 Gig, plus using Readyboost on a 2 Gig USB stick.
    I have to agree sometimes Vista is just plain slow. I've noticed videos that
    were flawless in XP are somewhat jerky on the desktop, and I'm not running
    Aero obviously.

    That being said, I have also noticed that it is true the longer it runs the
    better it gets. I've reset the desktop 3 times in hopes of making things
    faster, tweaking settings, applications etc. but have not seen any
    improvement. I've let the laptop sit with Vista on it for about a month.
    The laptop, which hosts an Intel Centrino Duo runs beautifully. I would say
    it's as fast, if not faster, than it was under XP. That machine does have
    1.5 Gig and is not utilizing readyboost.

    I would say the moral of the story is let it run for a few weeks.
    Everything I've read on the system says it's going to run slower it's first
    few days and faster later, unlike XP did. As for Aero, I still can't justify
    to myself bigger hardware for eye candy. It's an OS. I'll save the eye
    candy for my games, photos, and vacation videos.
     
    Gary McPherson, Apr 13, 2007
    #28
  9. aftermath

    Robinrouge Guest

    Hello,
    I have DSL and have run my Vista Ultimate through a program that shows how
    fast your computer is running and on High Performance I get a T1 rating, and
    I don't think with DSL there is anything faster than that, at least I didn't
    see anything faster. But it is best to keep it on Balanced or you will ruin
    your battery, and on power saver I have a 5 hour battery life.
    Sincerely,
    Nanette
     
    Robinrouge, Sep 13, 2007
    #29
  10. aftermath

    oscar Guest

    It's over a year since these posts appeared. I'm coming late to this thread:
    March 3, 2008. But in case anyway looks at this as I have this morning, I'd
    like to put in my 2 cents worth.

    I've found Vista to be pretty fast compared to my XP. Here's the comparisons
    between the two laptops:

    HP dv1000 laptop (made in 2005) with XP. I have 2 GB RAM. Most of my apps
    such as Word and WinDVD will open in a flash. Before, I had 512MB Ram, and it
    would take about 6-12 seconds for most apps to open. Axis and Allies seems to
    run a bit faster, too. The HP wakes up or shuts down within 2 to 3 minutes.

    Sony Vaio VGN 120E with Vista purchased new July 2007. It has 2 GB Ram. Most
    apps such as Word and WinDVD take 4-6 seconds to open. The more I use the
    apps the quicker the apps open; 2-4 seconds. The Sony Vaio wakes up or shuts
    down within 2-3 minutes.

    On both machines, I have uninstalled all of the bloatware, tweaked the
    StartUp and have kept the desktop fairly uncluttered. Also, I only have
    programs installed that I actually use on a daily or weekly basis. I also
    clean up the machines at least once every two months with CCleaner or
    equivalents.

    Conclusion: Both machines seem to work equally as fast, but the Sony with
    the Vista OS has more work to do, so I'd have to judge that Vista is doing
    its job. Vista can be just as fast as XP, but it's not dazzling fast. If you
    are still working with XP, I'd stay with XP until Vista smokes XP away which
    may take a couple more years. As for me, I'm working with both Vista and XP,
    and I applaud the efforts that Microsoft is making with Vista. Vista has some
    really powerful features and should not be dimsissed outright.

    oscar
     
    oscar, Mar 3, 2008
    #30
  11. aftermath

    Owner Guest

    Every iteration of Windows has been slower then the previous with its larger
    code base and enhanced capabilities.
     
    Owner, Mar 3, 2008
    #31
    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.