Matthew Kane

Vista is “better” than XP…Why???

Hi to all, I’ve had this idea and opinion in my head ever since the third week after Vista’s Initial release. Read on as I explain on!!!

I think Vista is much more better then XP, why? Let’s look at it this way, compare Vista, the very first when released (Not Beta or RC’s) to the very first XP.
Which is more reliable, stable and more performance?
Of course Vista!!

Now don’t get me wrong, but 80% of Vista users complain about certain hardware not coping with Vista and working as there is no Vista only driver for that hardware.

I’ve never had a single problem with this ^ and why? It’s because my computer is off the shelves from an OEM supplier: HP. They provide me with all the updates and drivers, < which is the great thing about OEM’s
Vista handling some drivers and some hardware not working compared to XP; shows a great OS gap. As far as I remember doing a test the other day, XP failed a couple times recognising my SATA2 Hard drive configuration and also BSOD a couple times trying to recognise my Pentium D 915 (my C2D E6700 died weeks ago =[ ). And compare this to Vista….Whooaa.. Vista is happily working at top notch on my system without any failure or hardware hiccups (< this is when I reinstalled Vista Ultimate the second time)!

To see which is better: XP or Vista?

I did a benchmark test



As you can see in the comparison chart, Vista overtakes XP by more than 30% all up.

But if you are wondering whether I included test results for SP1 XP vs. SP1 Vista, sorry but I haven’t done it yet. As soon as I do, I’ll update this thread.
But if you’re also wondering why I didn’t include SP2 XP vs. Vista. Well there is no point because SP2 XP is more reliable and performance is better than Vista. Because it’s got SP2, SP2 is mainly the only SP that increases everything to an OS. So it’s pointless until SP2 is released for Vista. Non SP2 version of Vista up against XP SP2 is like two people at a marathon race, the first runner has 2 normal legs, but the second runner only has 1 leg…So really...It’s pointless to see who wins (because we already know) and it’s pointless to see the results of XP SP2 triumph over Vista or SP1!

Also Vista was compiled together on Dual Core Machines, that’s why Vista’s multasking is way faster than XP. XP was compiled together on Pentium 4 based machines. Most people question why Vista is such a resource hog, both RAM, CPU and also Graphics card.

1: I have gone through this carefully and this will explain why Vista needs so much RAM. Why? In a clean Vista installation, and if you head on into Task Manager, you will see about 50-55 or possibly 60 tasks running with Show All Tasks “ON”. (Also depending on which version of the Vista series you’ve got: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, Starter, or even Enterprise).
In a clean XP installation (Home Edition, Media Center Edition or even Professional Edition). There is only 25-30 processes!
A difference of 20-30 process’ from the two OS. This clearly explains why Vista needs so much RAM. Now put it to the test, I have about 55-60 process’ running in my XP SP2 right at the moment and I can tell you that the performance is reaching towards sluggishness same as Vista…as the two now both have the exact amount of process’ running which leads to my computers RAM being eaten up! By the time XP SP2 was using up to 60processes, XP had already started consuming more than 790MB of my 2GB RAM. (I removed my other 2 GB to make this test easier to clarify)
Funny thing is this; XP now with 60 processes is the same as my Vista. And by coincidence, both are using 656MB to 1GB of RAM. See, this explains why Vista uses so much RAM. And Why? Well it’s because Vista has a lot of services running to power the core of Vista to make it fully pleasing and functionable, others also include Networking, Aero and esp. Windows Index. While XP doesn’t have any of these extra featured services. This doesn’t mean you can just close and quit some of those Vista tasks, no; it just doesn’t work that way. But it shows that, everything is about the same.

2: Why does Vista require more space then XP? Well apart from running the 55-60 services in Task Manager, Vista’s main OS core occupies about 4-5GB only. So…Why does it require 15-20GB? Vista’s main component that requires the most of the 15-20GB space is Vista’s graphics and visuality engine: Aero and the 10000 drivers incorporated in Window Vista itself for various hardware’s in the installation, compared to XP’s couple hundred. Vista’s multi-lingual support is also a main reason why it occupies a lot of the 15-20GB hard drive space.

3: Why does Vista require such a high-end graphics card? Vista doesn’t require a high-end graphics card. For Aero…the card has to be at least DirectX 9.0C comlipiant, you need a pretty descent card but other than that, you could easily run Vista on a Integrated Intel GMA graphics VGA.
And finally, why does Vista need such a decent machine to run it? Well you don’t really…like with a Pentium III based machine with 512MB RAM and a 80GB will run Vista for you, but only the basic version though, which doesn’t give you that WoW experience. Vista was first released in 2007, XP in 2001. From then on, in the 6 years difference, technology and software has grown to a very high and mature level. This is like comparing XP’s required specs to of that of Windows 95. The only reason, why XP doesn’t need a “so-high” end machine to run it is because it was released in 2001, Windows 2000 in 2000, Windows 98 SE in 1998, Windows 98 in 1997 and Windows 95 in 1994-5. The specs and increase in hardware back then in the above years in only a year increase doesn’t expand much as well as it increasing. But after these 6 years…as technology descends a sturdy and long road…Vista’s specs goes up dramatically...if you know what I mean. ]

And last of all, why is gaming a poor performance compared to XP. Why? Again it’s SP2 that increases it over Vista. Until SP2 is released or some other Microsoft announced Patch/Update to fix Vista’s poor gaming performance…I will update this thread and then truly..Vista will kill XP in everything!


I hope this thread helped those who haven’t upgraded to Vista yet, answered those wanted a answer and those going 64 Bit…Good Luck!!!


(Note: Rumours have it that 3 more Service Packs are going to be released for Vista, as Windows Seven will end Vista and Service Pack 3 is the last for Windows XP)!




vs

The Chosen One

lol every one know tht cod4 is better then cod3...
well a new version f XP is in built i forgot it's name dammit but it's gonna be good....
and wtf !!!! i cant find windows xp media centre CD

__________________
*disclaimer*
everything i post is an order from tht little guy in my head...i dnt take the responsability of wht he does or says...so dnt blame me if he did something bad...

tht little guy is knew by the name of Perfect hacker

bakuryu

That is not actually true. vista x86 (32 bit) will install fine on a 4~6GB partition, and removing the drivers using vLite will cause even less disk space. Vista x64 requires around 10GB for installation. It's mentioned 15GB for users who are upgrading from XP.

As of multi tasking, Vista is more responsive. I run 4 High priority threads, without freezing the system, in XP the system nearly freezes when I run 4 high priority threads. And also I see Java's file I/O performance increased a whole lot in Vista if we use newer Mapped I/O. Traditional I/O still performs better in XP. So it's just with newer technology, the coding of the programs should improve, and not continue using old technologies.

__________________
Please don't click here

Dark Star

Because Windows MCE was aimed for OEM version not for retail outlet.. But later on I guess they mad it available for public..

@ topic just check this pure pwanage .. http://www.cio.com/article/324313

__________________

Matthew Kane

The first bit that you mentioned might be the case...but as forth after some tests and experiments myself and info off a Microsoft MVP....mainly Vista still needs at least 10GB but 15GB is mostly best crucial! But I don't know when I first purchased this machine I'm using and installed Vista Ultimate x86 as a 3rd boot os...the installation came out at about 14.66GB and it didn't allow me to install it on a previous 5GB partition...and also....it also depends on what series Vista you install....I mean Vista Starter barely has anything that Home Basic Has and it works on my dads 5GB partition as a 5th boot os....but other then that....can you tell me what folders and files using vlite to strip out the drivers from a original copied version of Vista Ultimate from disc to the HDD?

And also about the responsiveness.....yes.....Vista is much more responsive..I can run up to 5-8 full threads on my P D 915 and it won't lag....on my XP Pro SP2...at a mere 3 or 4...XP will hang up and freeze on me.....even with all crucial SP and patch updates and those that require validation at msoft.com

But I hope this thread answered some questions....didn't know if it helped or not....but I could've posted it way earlier but time is always against me...esp when ur in yr 11...and you've got VCE coming up!

uhmmm....Can you teach me how strip out the drivers out of the Vista original disc and leave it s smaller version...so when I insall, the Vista installation can be much smaller?

And also can I download a separate version of MC and slipstream into a XP PRO sp2 and make it like XP MCE??? I wonder if you can still buy MCE....? Haven't seen one to be exact since XP Pro's release on the market here!

__________________

Stats: Addicted to Combat Arms now

bakuryu

You can install Vista Ultimate 32bit in a 8GB partition, since I myself installed it, and later remove the pagefile to other partition.

Use vLite.

There is no such thing as a separate version of Media Center containing only media center and then slipstreaming it with XP SP2 to make it MCE.

IMO MCE is just marketing stuffs from Microsoft, there's nothing in MCE that you cannot do it XP Pro SP2, infact Xp pro SP2 is better than MCE.

Strider

I'm running Vista Ultimate off my 8 GB partition in my old Athlon 2200 / 512 Mb machine. With a little bit of tweaking it's running as smooth as XP SP2. But still the point is older hardware tend to have problems in Vista, mainly driver issues.

Btw. A very good analysis Mathew. Keep it up.

__________________




Want to ask a question? Try This! A guide on how to post a question, reply to a post etc.

The Chosen One

wtf... it dosent work on my P4 3GHz , 512 ram ddr2, 40 GB HD

__________________
*disclaimer*
everything i post is an order from tht little guy in my head...i dnt take the responsability of wht he does or says...so dnt blame me if he did something bad...

tht little guy is knew by the name of Perfect hacker

bakuryu

the hardware really has to be OLD -- like your's old AMD

1mAn3rd

Vista is almost a completely plug-and-play OS. I found it amazing that Microsoft finally decided to put DVD writing support into one of their OS's. Great and fully detailed analysis though! It's the kind of work I expect from you though, Matt .

__________________
--1mAn3rd