"Does performance suck on Vista when compared to XP? That's what I was set out to find out. I was worried at first, since the performance in Beta 2 was quite bad. While there is indeed a performance decrease, it's quite minimal as you'll find out."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-12-31
I agree.
The test system used should have been a system with 512 MB to 1 GB of RAM. Isn't that what most computer users have in their systems?
Also, I would have preferred it was tested with an Athlon XP 2400 or P4 2.4 Ghz processor.
With less RAM & a slower CPU, you'd notice the difference somewhat more.
Microsoft got it right with Windows XP. I'll stick with XP for a few years & afterwards, when time to move on I may go over to Linux OR Zeta/Haiku.
One thing is for sure, I'm not impressed by Vista right now (doesn't have anything I really need) & it won't be for another 3 to 5 years before I consider changing OSes.
Member since:2006-03-24
I'm using the Ultimate RTM on an acer tmc302xmig tablet, 1.6 centrino, 1gb ddr 400, ata100 60gb 5200rpm, intel 855gme onboard graphics w/64 shared ram.
It's an old tablet but vista runs pretty nice, the graphics performance is better than with xp, same for network( broadcom netxtreme Gbit/intel 2200bg ).
Overall it's faster than xp and with much more functionality. what bothers me is Outlook 2k7 and supposedly small IM apps like Windows Live Messenger, outlook takes a lot longer to open an email(word preview pff) and WLM has some performance issues too, minimizing it to tray and restoring it can take a few seconds sometimes, it's just an (40mb) IM app..
Member since:
2006-01-17
I replied on the author's original forum. I'd like to see a Pentium 4 era computer with 512Mb-1GB RAM. That qualifies as a good 'average' computer these days. A C2D will make any OS look good. I bet you the numbers slip further apart. The faster the PC, the less any variation will be.