Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 21:17 UTC, submitted by Research Staff
Benchmarks "After a disappointing showing by Windows Vista SP1, we were pleasantly surprised to discover that Windows XP Service Pack 3 (v.3244) delivers a measurable performance boost to this aging desktop OS. Testing with OfficeBench showed a ~10% performance boost vs. the same configuration running under Windows XP with Service Pack 2."
Thread beginning with comment 286425
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

"So that's my answer - Vista has lots of new code that hasn't had years and years to be optimized yet."

It's just been *5 years* in the making, that's all... *HARDLY* enough time to actually OPTIMIZE anything, before shipping it to Microsoft's adoring public!

Seriously, you'd think with ALL the money Bill Gates/Microsoft has, they could put out a decent sequel to XP, not only in LESS time than 5 yrs., but also something that runs BETTER than XP, not worse!

Apparently the only thing Microsoft is good at is copying looks, not performance. :-)

Apple knows what they're doing and where they're going. Is it any wonder why Microsoft's motto was:

"Where do you want to go today?"

Because they never knew where THEY were going, so they were hoping someone else did and they'd simply hitch a free ride!

Obviously, they can't even do THAT right! :-)

Reply Parent Score: 2

blitze Member since:

Do take into account L that MS had to scratch their intial code base for Vista and start again mid stream during that 5 year period.

Vista mightn't be all that great but it's an improvement on XP and has one feature that makes it a great improvement, decent account management along the lines of OS-X and Linux. I can now have my users configed as users and an Admin Account and have decent priveledge escallation that I have taken forgranted in all Unix based OS's. This is a great step forward on the Windows Desktop that will help administrators.

XP only has "run as" as an option if you right click the program you want to run or you have to make a shortcut to any installer to get the "run as" dialogue to then install software as an administrator. This has been a real pain in the ass for those of us administering locked down systems.

If you are someone who doesn't give a toss about OS security and don't care about the issues that running full time as an administrator brings, then XP would be fine for you, but in the real world....

Remember this isn't UAC that I'm talking about but actually telling Vista to have users with user priveledges and then having a proper Admin account for system management that isn't logged into.

UAC is MS being a timid POS company in enforcing what is needed in Windows for proper, secure user management. Hopefully, MS will grow the balls to piss of UAC and have proper secure user management in Win2008

Reply Parent Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:

The issue isn't the lack of 'big improvements' but even *little* improvements. I mean, sure, within 12 months, I don't expect Windows Vista to have a massive leap forward but when Microsoft developers have had over 12 months to tune and optimise Windows Vista - I'm asking, what the heck is happening? I'd expect at least *some* sort of improvement. The fact is, Windows Vista Service Pack 1 benchmark showed *NO* improvement. Not even a small a improvement.

Why compare it to Windows XP? One would assume that by the time Windows XP SP3 had rolled around (5 years of development plus several patches), they had optimised almost everything they could possibly optimise without causing major compatibility issues. Yet, even with all this work, they could still optimise it further.

As for UAC, I doubt it'll happen. I'd love to see Windows become a better platform. It benefits me as an end user knowing that the internet is safe from having millions of drones out there spamming. The issue is that Microsoft has no balls. When it comes to making big decisions, it appears that Apple has been the only one in the last decade who said, "f--k it, our operating system stinks to high heaven, lets break with the past and replace it with something better" - and so they did.

Here we are, after 3-4 years of initial pain and suffering, all the better for it. I'm now got a laptop which multitasks smoothly, the performance is light years ahead of when I first used Mac OS 9 with one of the first iMacs released. Yes, there was pain, there was suffering, but in the end, it was worth it. Now we see Mac OS X go from strength to strength.

Mac OS X has gone from being a cute 'joke' to being a robust UNIX '03 certified distribution with all the perks of a rock solid foundation and a beautiful GUI sitting on top.

Personally, I'd love to see Microsoft drop Windows NT, the whole damn line - adopt OpenSolaris as the core, and build upon it. They have some bloody smart people there at Microsoft, its too bad that internal politics rather than technology, make the decisions. If it were left to technology, we wouldn't have the half baked compromise that is UAC, for example.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Deviate_X Member since:

Actually despite all the hype, Vista still runs faster than Apple OS X:

Reply Parent Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:

Ah yes, the very 'subjective' 'oooh, it loads xyz faster'. Dear god, tell me another one. I moved from Tiger to Leopard; I saw no speed loss what so ever, I had Pages load in in a couple of bounces, I have iTunes load immediately, I have Firefox load almost instantly.

Then his article goes into gushy crap such as:

"Vista a greater “depth” than OS X, which looks a little flat and well… old fashioned in comparison. I know this is because Vista’s new and novel, but it makes OS X look dated."

Please, that reminds me of the idiot who claim that the $7250 speaker cables he wasted his money on ( ) were:

"... way better than anything I have heard...Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace--these cables smack that right on the nose big time."

Edited 2007-11-24 12:32

Reply Parent Score: 2

John Nilsson Member since:

I could give you an unlimited supply of money and you still wouldn't be able to release an entire operating system developed in five years that would meet your expectations.

There are only so many developers in the world capable of producing something worth the money. And even if you could hire a few thousand of them the communication overhead and learning time would easily eat those five years.

Reply Parent Score: 2