Everywhere you go you hear people saying XP is faster than Vista, as if it's an established fact. It is not an established fact. The benchmarks are actually all over the place. I've looked at all I can find and it's

tough to find any pattern. The only pattern I see is that most benchmarks show it to be a close call and therefore probably moot. Anyway here are the latest from Adrian Kingsly-Hughes at Zdnet.



http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1772

Clearly, it's a conspiracy by Microsoft: They rewrote the benchmarks to show Vista to be 'better'. It should be very obvious to any casual observer that God's Own Operating System could never be eclipsed by that b*st*rd child's ab*rt**n that is ME/Vissss~Duhhhh.

Vista certainly uses more ram. I think it does utilize multi-core processors better though.

Not to complain Cisco. You have a point I'm sure but has any newer OS, let alone one six years newer than the previous, not used more RAM? Vista has a larger RAM footprint but not nearly as much as it appears because of Superfetch. Anyway, I have 8 gigs of RAM on my desktop and 2 gigs on my laptop, when I upgraded from 98 to XP I had 128 meg.

Obviously, and that's where Vista utterly fails, real world performances suck on it. Also, funny how there's no XP 64 thrown in there?

It's also a known fact that everybody has 4GB RAM & C2D/C2Q processors with add-on video cards of at LEAST 128MB, amiright?

Just as a REAL WORLD example, our department has looked into Vista, about a full month testing of all our hardware/apps. 26000 users, over 45000 desktops/laptops. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of our tests showed a MINIMUM of 5% performance loss over XP SP2 on our highest performance systems, near 15% performance loss on our median systems and not even thinkable on our really, really crappy systems. That was with the 32bit Vista too. Over 15% of our apps literally didn't run on Vista 64 (or wouldn't even run on XP 64 for that matter)

Enterprises/schools/governments/etc... run far behind what "we" consider good hardware. We're (again, the big "we" ) enthousiasts that strive for performance & efficiency of whatever we buy. OC'ing CPUs in a programming work environment? lolno. OC'ing @ home as high as electronically possible, hell yes.

Vista is a MASSIVE failure, ALMOST as worst as ME. For Balmer himself to "sorta" say those exact words & M$ to extend the life of XP even longer, should raise big red flags surrounding Vista.

Less than 15% of enterprises under M$ contracts (any contracts) have flocked to Vista. There is ZERO advantages to Vista that would warrant such massive costs.

Intel stated the GPU dead, nVidia stated the CPU dead, M$ themselves have almost stated Vista dead (overexageration, but you get the point).

My own own findings as I have multiple computers and use XP Pro with SP2, XP64 Pro with SP2, and one with Vista 64 Ultimate with SP1.

There are some thing that Vista 64 can do faster than XP Pro, but not many. Vista's advantage shows up mainly when the ram needed gets large. At the same time XP64 beats Vista 64 any day of the week, excepting use of DX10 of course. XP64 has lots less overhead, so it executes faster. Its that simple. Don't fall for any BS that M$ might say. Vista 64 has its good points, but speed is not one of them when compared to XP64.

Welcome to 2008… 4GB RAM & C2D/C2Q processors are pretty much standard. Hell I can get 8gigs of ram for what I use to pay for 2.

Vista is bloatware, no question... but I don’t see any performance decrease during gaming. Yes I might get 59 FPS instead of 60... But do I notice a difference? NO. Fact of the matter I for one like it more then XP except for the networking aspects of it (because it’s a little different/learning curve)

Seriously people enough already! Accept the fact that Vista is here, buy a machine that can run it and get on with life.

The sooner you accept Vista the sooner you can contribute NEW knowledge, until then your just whining over nothing.

Is it really a bad thing that it "intelligently" uses more ram? 4gb can be had for less than $90, and 2gb is standard in most consumer computers.

Why would I want to install Vista when I can use XP?
I was at one of my brothers yesterday and his 2GB Vista machine uses about the same amount of RAM to do -nothing- as my 2GB machine uses to run 4 security programs,seed 6 torrents -and- play Frontlines:Fuel of War all at the same time (my RAM use 49%).

Why?

The problem with your logic is that vista is doing something. Its got commonly used programs cached in the unused ram. I view this as a good thing for everyday consumers. Of course you could always turn off this feature.

Agreed.

I'm getting a little sick of this whiny I don't want Vista cos it uses up more resources.....

If we did what all you whiners are advocating then we'd still be stuck using DOS, there'd be no internet and games wouldn't have advanced further than pong...

This is also aimed at the people who complain about the required system specs of Crysis, yes it requires more computing power than say the Unreal 3 engine, it's also a couple of years newer.

I remember when people were saying exactly the same things about G-Police and Total Annihalation: Kingdoms.

Don't forget next gen. consoles are allready approximately 2 to 3 generations behind todays current high end PC's. The most you can squease out of a PS3 or an X-box is 1920x1080 graphics, my computer in 2002 could easilly exceed that.