View Full Version : Can Vista run nearly as fast as XP?
Sunnz
January 6th, 2007, 08:37 PM
Consider, Joe someone is going to buy a new computer in 2007.
By various advice off your typical "PC" mag, Vista will be out soon and Joe shall wait for it the come out then buy the new PC.
So he did, the computer was twice as expensive as his old PC and have 4-8 times better spec. However, we all know that it is going to be running at the same speed in XP!!! Same boot time, same program loading times, everything.
Think about it.
All the great engineering at producing newer technology such as multi-core processor are only gets you into the same spot?!! Isn't it complete bizarre?
Ok, this forum is not for bashing MS... I guess I'll get to the point: technically, despite the minimum requirement set by MS, could Vista run at nearly the speed as XP? Say if you just get the most basic version and disable all the Areo, themes and stuff... basically, Windows 2000 style desktop just so you can run your office's software?
teaker1s
January 6th, 2007, 11:15 PM
vista is a DRM infected turd, I've only got 1 xp machine left for a car data program in the garage/duel boot laptop that never gets booted to xp and 2 dapper pc's
jagwah
January 6th, 2007, 11:25 PM
Sunnz, Your avatar really hurts my eye's
smoker
January 6th, 2007, 11:44 PM
it may start off just the same speed, maybe even faster, but after a few months the av and spyware apps and the built in ms protection will slow it to a crawl. i can see a number of disappointed people going back to xp after a while.
riven0
January 7th, 2007, 01:34 AM
All the bashing aside (:p ), I think it's quite possible Vista will run as fast as XP, so long as you have a high-end graphics card and you are running Aero. I imagine if you are running with the classic theme it may become a drag. Why buy Vista if you can't run Aero... at least that's the way I see it.
But that's not really the point, right? To me, real growth in technology growth will come when you can run newer technology on lower end hardware... like how Edgy worked for me. It's much faster than Dapper despite being a newer release.
And you're right; all that great engineering for the same speed. I think the average joe will be disappointed.:)
3rdalbum
January 7th, 2007, 05:22 AM
I was originally mystified about how some people were reporting Windows Vista to be faster than XP.
Then it hit me. Many dual-core computers in Australia come with XP Home, which does not allow for more than 1 core to be used. The prerelease versions of Vista, and possibly all the release versions, have Symetrical Multiprocessing enabled. So it's not so much Vista running faster than XP, but XP only using 60% of the processor's capacity.
marx2k
January 8th, 2007, 04:12 AM
I was originally mystified about how some people were reporting Windows Vista to be faster than XP.
Then it hit me. Many dual-core computers in Australia come with XP Home, which does not allow for more than 1 core to be used. The prerelease versions of Vista, and possibly all the release versions, have Symetrical Multiprocessing enabled. So it's not so much Vista running faster than XP, but XP only using 60% of the processor's capacity.
Well, wouldn't that mean Vista is running faster than XP?
That's like saying that just because Linux handles hardware better than Windows doesn't really mean Linux is faster, it just handles hardware better ;)
3rdalbum
January 8th, 2007, 07:45 AM
Well, wouldn't that mean Vista is running faster than XP?
That's like saying that just because Linux handles hardware better than Windows doesn't really mean Linux is faster, it just handles hardware better ;)
Not really; it's more like this:
* A couple of years ago, the price of petrol was 90c per litre.
* A couple of months ago, the price of petrol was $1.30 per litre.
* Now, people feel really pleased with themselves when they get petrol for the "low" price of $1.15 per litre.
Vista doesn't really have speed *improvements*, it just gets rid of the purposeful crippling of the XP Home product.
null0
January 8th, 2007, 11:52 AM
It has always been like this when a new windows comes out. It's too heavy, it's too buggy, it's too windows...
I've heard all sort of bizarre stuff, like debuggers stopping working, low performances, games stopping working, DOS stuff stopping working. I heard it all.
Now I'm actually testing it in a high-end and a low-end computers. It's running great. It runs all my hardware, all my games, all my developping tools, all my debuggers, my trusty antivirus, all my multimedia software.... It runs everything for god's sake.
One of this computers is just a plain 512Ram 1Ghz cpu, and with aero off, i can't tell the performance difference from XP. And if i could i'd say it's faster :P
You'll have to upgrade some software versions, big deal...
Is it too heavy with aero on? Turn it off, it's just plain eyecandy. I mean, for us, a plain cmd line would do the trick right...?
Why upgrade? Well.... it's new! It supports stuff xp doesn't, do you need more reasons?
People just talk too much.
*edit*
I'm sorry if i sounded like a M$ bish, im actually a fanatic linux user since 1998, and almost ten years of *nix community made me a little sick of linux-noob-m$-haters that talk a lot about "what they've heard"...
Sunnz
January 8th, 2007, 05:00 PM
No null I like it... I mean, I keep hearing people saying Vista too heavy too slow... but some other people reports it being faster... I think most of these people are biased, which just confuses the hell out of people.
I won't need Windows at all in the near future... but you never know, maybe I'll get an IT job, maybe I will need to use Vista only software... when that day comes I hope I can maybe turn on|off Aero or something to have a Vista that isn't too slow compared to Leopard.
ago
January 9th, 2007, 10:45 AM
My best bet (I am not going to try it) is that on a system with a LOT of headroom Vista will be on par or better than XP. But when resources are limited, Vista will perform worse.
null0
January 9th, 2007, 12:26 PM
My best bet (I am not going to try it) is that on a system with a LOT of headroom Vista will be on par or better than XP. But when resources are limited, Vista will perform worse.as i said, the worse sys i tryed was a [ 1Ghz 512ram GeForce5200 ] and with aero off you can't tell the diference from xp. on lower specs even xp has trouble working, so....
marx2k
January 11th, 2007, 10:43 AM
No null I like it... I mean, I keep hearing people saying Vista too heavy too slow... but some other people reports it being faster... I think most of these people are biased, which just confuses the hell out of people.
I won't need Windows at all in the near future... but you never know, maybe I'll get an IT job, maybe I will need to use Vista only software... when that day comes I hope I can maybe turn on|off Aero or something to have a Vista that isn't too slow compared to Leopard.
If your IT job doesnt give you a laptop to use, I would just run Vista in a VMWare window ;) Thats what I do with XP for school/classes that need XP-only apps.
spockrock
January 11th, 2007, 10:54 AM
first home will show both cores on dual core cpus. The windows home is limited to one physical cpu socket, and pro to two cpu sockets. That is why people are able to run quad core cpus in xp pro and home. If both cores are not showing they either need to re-install xp or make sure the computer is setup for multicore setup.
And yes vista does run as fast if not faster then xp, the critical thing is that 1GB of ram, users with more then a gig of ram should have the same if not faster experience then xp. Granted right now my xp is running slow as $*** right now, gotta reformat it and re-install windows however I am in xp never so I haven't bothered and and prolly gonna install vista.
Sunnz
January 11th, 2007, 12:29 PM
If your IT job doesnt give you a laptop to use, I would just run Vista in a VMWare window ;) Thats what I do with XP for school/classes that need XP-only apps.
For the software engineering course I do at school, I was required to send all documents in PDF and they has to work on Mac, Linux and Windows!!! For presentations it has to be odp. For non-computer courses, papers are usually handed in on paper, and for presentations I could just bring in my laptop.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.