Tom's Hardware > Forum > Windows Vista > Vista General Discussion > Vista twice as slow as XP
Ask the community Add a reply
Word :    Username :           
 
SyPheR   02-18-2008 at 04:14:20 AM

Today I've read this post on Toms hardware.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/

Pretty interresting you would say but I dont get it. Vista 32 bit only supports 4GB's of RAM and so does the XP 32bit version.
The same counts for Vista and XP 64 bit both supporting 128GB's of RAM.
In other words, 8GB's is fun but I would like to see a benchmark between these two 64 bit versions instead of only talking about Vista.

http://www.zoliblog.com/2007/11/24 [...] -as-vista/

This site is among the many sites that proofs that the newly and also last SP3 for XP has a performance gain over XP SP2 that is estimated around 10 procent. Also it shows that Vista is twice as slow as XP atm.
Hope we get to see some 64 benchmarks soon between these two. ;)

Add a reply
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.
notherdude   02-18-2008 at 04:58:31 AM
- 0 +

That ONE BENCHMARK, officebench, tested twice as fast. Which is a far cry from saying XP is twice as fast as Vista, which implies many other measures of OS function are also 2x faster and this was not by any means tested. The piece of software called 'officebench' tested faster, that much was true.

FWIW the guys who actually ran the tests managed to get Vista only 40% slower by turning off some Vista bkg stuff.

XP seems to be substantially faster on some things. Part of the reason may well be the security and reliability improvements on Vista having to do with caching and commitment of transfered files among many other things.
Vista seems faster on some other functions to me.

Each OS tends to be slower than the last, newer OSes do more and are more reliable. Raw speed is not everything and many of these benches are not even real world at all. Relaibility, security, and actual productivity are whats really important. The case is still open as to why this officebench and file transfers seem to be quite a bit faster on XP. We shall see.

That Tom's article was woefully short of actual data. Almost worthless.


Message edited by notherdude on 02-18-2008 at 05:06:17 AM
------------------------------ tehhardpro wrote :


notherdude u have an old hand. Having an old hand doesnt make sence. Cuz its old. get a new one.. seems like ur hand doesnt understand what it is writing. So placve it in ur rig instead of vista human orgnoids will amke more sense
Reply to notherdude
Scotteq   02-18-2008 at 03:04:51 PM
- 0 +

So a blogger found one (1) app that runs slower on Vista??

Blogger???


you disappoint me, Syph... You can troll better than that.

------------------------------ Which Chip? Well, it depends on which set of thieving b@stardz you choose to support: The ones who use insider trading to enrich themselves while running their company into the ground? Or the ones who illegally pay vendors to not support the first group?
 Reply to Scotteq
Ask the community Add a reply
Tom's Hardware > Forum > Windows Vista > Vista General Discussion > Vista twice as slow as XP
Go to:

There are 1191 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.

Forum map
Bestofmedia Forum ©
2000-2009 Bestofmedia Group
Page generated in 0.291 seconds
Please mind

You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.

Add a reply Cancel
Sponsored links
  • Ask the community now
  • Publish
Ad
Related Topics
See all relatives topics
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
How do I win badges?