|
|
|
|
There's plenty of negative press about Vista, but how much of it is fear of change and trendy Microsoft-bashing? We put Vista head-to-head with its biggest rival - XP - to see how Microsoft's new OS performs
Performance in F.E.A.R. hardly changed between XP and Vista although 3DMark06 was slower with both ATi and Nvidia hardware – a 3% drop for ATi and 6% drop for Nvidia.
Using Nvidia hardware, the frame rates in Windows Vista were 10 per cent slower than XP when running Far Cry, but only 1 per cent slower with the ATI Radeon HD 2900XT.
While the benchmarks didn’t give Vista a clean bill of health, more subjective testing did. Vista has a more streamlined interface than XP and technologies such as SuperFetch contribute to a more responsive feel. It's very tricky to quantify it with a benchmark, but it's a consistent enough experience to imply that Microsoft has got Vista right from a usability perspective.
For the full results and analysis of our in depth XP vs Vista face-off check out the feature, here, or:
Click here to see the full XP vs Vista 2D benchmark results (opens in a new window).
Click here to see the full XP vs Vista 3D benchmark results (opens in a new window).
Ok, I know don't know about the "Vista vs XP" fuzz and everything, but for me an older OS is usually faster compared to a newer one because of the gap between their system requirements. Don't get me wrong, but what you did here is just like pitting ye olde Windows 98 to XP during the latters younger years. I don't really care that much about Vista's performance and on how XP smoked it because some of the components that are fit for the newer OS is still coming out, (DD4 memory and Barcelona / Xeon for resource hungry Vista anyone?) Just my two cents guys...
Ok, I know don\'t know about the \
Vista isnt an option for me at the moment i play far too many old games as well as my new ones. I guess i may keep my current machine as a xp rig and then build\buy a new one for vista.
I thought this was already proven long ago? I thought that it's mainly because the OS is itself "doing more". I also thought that dual cores were also faster on XP Pro than when running on Vista. Who the hell cares about frame rates when you're well over 60fps anyway? You can't even tell the difference with the naked eye! This article seems nothing more than BS to me and just tries to pile on the negative hype about the Vista OS and leaves more questions unanswered then answered.
I think everyones got over the mindblowing fact that an OS released 6 years ago, with 6 years of updates and optimizations and 6 years of user feedback performs better than an OS released 9 months ago.
I've had Vista for a couple of months now and I have to admit I think its a million times better than XP, it loads faster for me, its more stable than XP (hasn't crashed once so far), I also run openSUSE, gentoo, and mac osx, and although I love customising linux, have to say vista is prob my favourite, I think its a huge improvement, XP always felt like a half arsed, patched together effort. if you think its just about looks, you really need to try it out, superfetch is awesome, everything i use the most loads instantly, kinda like in tiger, love it!
I've given up on Vista and gone back to XP. I might go back to Vista when SP1 comes out but until then I'm giving it a wide berth. The key improvement for me has to be compatibility with games (I like games to work with Vista) and gadgets (for instance my phone can't connect with Vista PCs) and an improvement to DX10. At the moment DX10 is complete twaddle and there's nothing in the near future to suggest an improvement; it kills framerates and offers little if anything by way of better graphics.
If you look at the performance of SSD's, Vista is sometimes 200 to 400 percent quicker.
I'm running Vista Ultimate x64 and now I have everything setup as I want it's brilliant. Bring on SP1 for improved performance...
As the benchmarks feature open-source programs, I'd be interested to see how Ubuntu compares to both Vista and XP in the latest CPC benchies - it certainly opens GIMP quicker! Wonder if Spode can sort it out?! I do agree with WoodSpoon though, having to use XP in work is slumming it by comparison. I don't care if its slightly slower in benchmarks. It holds its own in gaming and is an all-round more complete package compared to XP.
Its interesting that PC Pro had a feature in the last issue covering this very topic. Although, they put Vista in front overall. Not that it matters to me, I\'ll be sticking with XP until I have no choice. I have used vista plenty and ran the release candidate for several months. I just can\'t see the justification for the outlay. Looking pretty doesn\'t cut the mustard.
I dont give a monkeys what anyone says, I'm running Vista ultimate and I'm loving it! Love it or loathe it, but get used to it as it's obviously here to stay!
Make a Comment