Vista service pack 1 32 bit VS WindowXP service pack 3 32 bit benchmarked

[hclarkjr]

here is the link granted it is early before the official release but....

 

[mechBgon]

Now for the security benchmarks, any version of Vista versus WinXP SP2, using out-of-the-box default setups :evil: Bonus points for endowing both boxes with a realistic, real-world selection of out-of-date, exploit-prone stuff like QuickTime Player, Flash Player, Adobe Reader, WinAmp, RealPlayer, and Sun Java.

Actually, I guess it's sort of been done already...

Symantec

Out of the seventy percent [of ~2000 malware samples] that were able to execute, only about six percent of the samples were able to accomplish a full compromise and an even smaller number (four percent) were able to survive a reboot [on Vista].

Microsoft

From January ? June 2007, there were 60% fewer malware infections and 2.8 times less potentially unwanted software on Windows Vista than on Windows XP SP2, according to the Microsoft Security Intelligence Report from 10/07. This illustrates how the defense in depth features built in to Windows Vista help prevent machines from getting infected by malicious and potentially unwanted software.

But hey, no one cares about silly things like security 😉

 

[Megatomic]

It's actually XP SP2, he can't disclose any performance related to SP3 per EULA. I'm sticking with XP Pro until I get my Macbook.

 

[osage]

Vista gets spanked again......hummmm nice

 

[VirtualLarry]

It's common knowledge that Vista is slower. Glad to see some real benchmarks though.

 

[13Gigatons]

Windows Vista will never be faster then Windows XP because it's so bloated.

To run Windows Vista really well you need a quad core and 8 GB of RAM plus a decent video card. These will become standard in the future, I already see computers with 3 GB at Best Buy and they are mainstream.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Windows Vista will never be faster then Windows XP because it's so bloated.

To run Windows Vista really well you need a quad core and 8 GB of RAM plus a decent video card. These will become standard in the future, I already see computers with 3 GB at Best Buy and they are mainstream.

I guess the excellent performance and 100+ FPS in all my games is some sort of miracle then. Check sig.

Vista is faster than XP on my box. And I'm too busy playing my games at 100+ FPS to worry if I've lost 2 or 3.

 

[zod96]

Yeah vista got smacked again 🙂 no surprise their. I'm the reverse of you nerp, vista sucks for games on my sytem more like 20 fps on most games compared to 100+ fps on xp and no crashes. Man half the games I play crash to the desktop with vista. Vista to me is like Windows Me one of the worst OS every made...everything it does takes twice as long as xp, from unzip a file to loading a program. I'll be on Xp till the next verson of widows thank you 🙂

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: Megatomic
It's actually XP SP2, he can't disclose any performance related to SP3 per EULA. I'm sticking with XP Pro until I get my Macbook.

Which will be this coming Wednesday, the day my blackbook gets delivered. 😎 My wife will inherit my HP DV6000T that came with vista but now proudly sports XP pro.

 

[buckwheat12n]

How about we compare XP to win 2000. You're basically doing the same thing in comparing Vista to XP.

 

[Lord Banshee]

Originally posted by: zod96
Yeah vista got smacked again 🙂 no surprise their. I'm the reverse of you nerp, vista sucks for games on my sytem more like 20 fps on most games compared to 100+ fps on xp and no crashes. Man half the games I play crash to the desktop with vista. Vista to me is like Windows Me one of the worst OS every made...everything it does takes twice as long as xp, from unzip a file to loading a program. I'll be on Xp till the next verson of widows thank you 🙂

Maybe because you turn on DirectX 10 and on XP you are using DirectX 9 (ONLY), so if you only turn on DirectX 9 only features in vista you would get the same frame rate +/- 3% i bet.

If not you need to relook at your installation as something is seriously wrong.

About the test, hmm not sure if i believe it. I'll wait for more tech sites to do thier benchmarks as i agree with nerp. My vista system is much faster than XP. To me the shell being run though the video card is amazing. You try it, load up task manager and pick and move a window all over the place and see your CPU = 100%, do it in vista with aero and see it 5-10%. Not the mention the quicker launch of most applications due to superfetch, better security, better/faster sleep and hibernation, ... list goes on.

 

[Griffinhart]

I'm personally more interested to see benchmarks on a Vista PC that is a few weeks old. Vista is at it's slowest on a fresh install. SP1 also resets all of Vista's self tuning when its install. So, any fresh install of Vista or SP1 is going to be skewed against Vista.

 

[osage]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
I'm personally more interested to see benchmarks on a Vista PC that is a few weeks old. Vista is at it's slowest on a fresh install. SP1 also resets all of Vista's self tuning when its install. So, any fresh install of Vista or SP1 is going to be skewed against Vista.

That could be a valid point.
My Vista install was fresh the day I installed sp1 from WU, been about 4 days now maybe I will run a few tests, and then hook up my XP drive and see what kind of results I get.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: zod96
Yeah vista got smacked again 🙂 no surprise their. I'm the reverse of you nerp, vista sucks for games on my sytem more like 20 fps on most games compared to 100+ fps on xp and no crashes. Man half the games I play crash to the desktop with vista. Vista to me is like Windows Me one of the worst OS every made...everything it does takes twice as long as xp, from unzip a file to loading a program. I'll be on Xp till the next verson of widows thank you 🙂

Something wrong with your system then,personally I find my Vista x64 faster then my XP for general use,all my games run fine and don't crash,performance is very close to XP(talking 60 games here even with Starforce/TAGES/SecuROM drivers installed).


As to those benchmarks I'm still not sure if I should believe them,however I do know that my Vista x64 is snappy in general use .

I hope this thread does not turn into another Vista bash thread,we have had too many of those in the OS forum.

 

[hclarkjr]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
I'm personally more interested to see benchmarks on a Vista PC that is a few weeks old. Vista is at it's slowest on a fresh install. SP1 also resets all of Vista's self tuning when its install. So, any fresh install of Vista or SP1 is going to be skewed against Vista.

i noticed that also, i did a clean install of vista with service pack 1 on tuesday and have noticed improvements in boot times and load times the last day or so.

 

[ViRGE]

Something to keep in mind when benchmarking Vista vs. XP is that there's a big difference in how XP and Vista decide a file copy is done. XP considers the job done when it's finished reading a file in to the write cache, Vista RTM considered the job done when it was done writing the file, since it was an uncached operation. Microsoft reinstated some caching with Vista SP1, but they never made it clear if Vista SP1 still considers the job being done when the file is done being written, or if it's just done being sent to the write cache like XP.

Technet blog

 

[nerp]

ViRGE - this point exemplifies the uselessness of some benchmarks.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Megatomic

Originally posted by: Megatomic
It's actually XP SP2, he can't disclose any performance related to SP3 per EULA. I'm sticking with XP Pro until I get my Macbook.

Which will be this coming Wednesday, the day my blackbook gets delivered. 😎 My wife will inherit my HP DV6000T that came with vista but now proudly sports XP pro.

Hehe...well my Dell laptop is being built with Vista x86 HP,I could not go back to XP even with the option to select XP as the OS for my laptop,I was a little annoyed that there was no option for Vista x64, however with 3GB of ram,dual core conroe 2 it'll fly 😉.

Think I might even install Windows 7( 64 bit version)on it down the road,providing it meets the hardware requirements.

 

[zod96]

Oh don't get me wrong, I want to use vista, I like the GUI much better than XP and its new technology, but try as I might I just can't get used to it. To me its seems like a Ford Mustang with a V8, yet the V8 is only running on 4 cylinders. Its just plain slow at everything it does. Like I was saying before, if with SP1, when I unzip a file in vista it takes like 30 seconds to do it, that same file in xp takes like 5 seconds. Or moving files from a flash drive to your hard drive, on vista it takes like a minute, xp like 10 seconds. I think I have installed vista at least 20 times since its release trying to get myself to like it over xp, but I always end up going back to xp. Who knows maybe I'll like it soon. Oh and DX10 forget about it, even super systems with dual 8800 GTX's in SLI get poor FPS, DX10 is no where near where it needs to be, in terms of playable vs. DX9 in games. But you are right I don't want this to turn into a vista bashing thread, its whatever floats your boat and for me its xp (for now 🙂 )

 

[Mem]

when I unzip a file in vista it takes like 30 seconds to do it, that same file in xp takes like 5 seconds. Or moving files from a flash drive to your hard drive, on vista it takes like a minute, xp like 10 seconds. I think I have installed vista at least 20 times since its release trying to get myself to like it over xp, but I always end up going back to xp. Who knows maybe I'll like it soon. Oh and DX10 forget about it, even super systems with dual 8800 GTX's in SLI get poor FPS, DX10 is no where near where it needs to be, in terms of playable vs. DX9 in games. But you are right I don't want this to turn into a vista bashing thread, its whatever floats your boat and for me its xp (for now 🙂 )

That's a long time,think longest mine has took is around 10 secs,normally around 4-5 sec or so,what zip program are you using?

I'm using ALZip.

Btw remember to install latest DX9.0C version in Vista,makes a difference with some games.
Some games won't even load without latest version ie Witcher demo.