Testers say XP could get faster than Vista

[Uber_Tiny]

But Microsoft says its too early to evaluate two forthcoming service packs

SEATTLE - Microsoft Corp.'s Windows XP operating system is about to get faster and Windows Vista isn't, according to a report that caused a stir online this week as industry watchers speculated that a zippier XP could keep customers from upgrading to Vista.

(MSNBC is a joint Microsoft - NBC Universal venture.)

Microsoft, however, said it's too early to evaluate the two service packs it plans to release next year.

Early versions are already in the hands of testers like Devil Mountain Software Inc., which helps big financial services companies track trading-floor computer performance.

Wellington, Fla.-based Devil Mountain Software ran several versions of XP and Vista through a test simulating common desktop computing tasks. It found the original Vista performed 50 percent to 100 percent slower than the prevalent XP Service Pack 2, or SP2.

Vista SP1, due out in the first quarter of 2008, barely improved the operating system's performance.

But XP SP3, scheduled for the first half of 2008, did improve on XP's earlier performance, running 10 percent faster than SP2.

That's a strike against Vista for IT professionals on the fence about switching, according to Craig Barth, the company's chief technology officer.

Kevin Kutz, director of Microsoft's Windows Client group, said the company is working on speeding up tasks like moving files between PCs, but it's a work in progress.

Michael Cherry, an analyst for research group Directions on Microsoft, said it's impossible to say if Microsoft has started tuning Vista SP1 for speed. Even if XP gets faster, consumers and businesses may still switch to Vista.

<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22031691/">MSNBC LINK</a>

[VW_Factor]

XP thus far in my experience is already faster (minus its search function)..

So.. MS is doing a press release in an attempt to quicken the adoption pace?

[Xerogen]

I really need to get XP...

[Cjl64]

i have been thinking of going back.. I run SLI 8800GTX and find myself running all high Dx9 because it runs the best no matter what. DX10 is a total fail to me.... i tried to see the light at the end of the tunnel... but its was all crap. Optimizations right Dx10 is always slower and add's little to explain its performance hit. I mean you can tweak dx9 crysis to give you "dx10" features but have the game run alot faster. So when i think about it... i might as well go back to xp as i only have 2gb of ram anyways.

[Uber_Tiny]

Like any new major software there is going to be all kinds of bumps and bruises. Unfortunately Vista looks like some one that got curb stomped more than a few times. Every one was expecting the major band aid (SP1) to fix allot of issues, but it looks like it just caused more. :(

I would have thought by now they would have gotten these issues taken care of and even with a quad core I hear there is really no difference in how the program reacts, not performs. I am thinking Vista is just going to take a long time to really adapt well and become an "XP" style OS. But till them I'm sticking with XP. Especially after my most recent month long stint with Vista. Don't get me wrong, the OS is fabulous, till you want to game. :mad:

[VW_Factor]

stint with Vista. Don't get me wrong, the OS is fabulous, till you want to game. :mad:

Which is generally the primary reason we all use Windows to begin with. If games I wanted to play were available to play on a *nix platform, I'd likely be sporting it.

[synk]

I do give vista props on useability. recently a couple friends brought me computers to fix (read remove porn codecs and myspace banner ad games) and I really started to miss vista. Nothing major just the little things. But then you can mod xp to look and act like vista in most ways. I do miss the up button from xp though. But I'm vista now and refuse to go back.

As for gaming most games play at 60fps locked (with vsynk off a difference of 80 to 95 xp vs vista is nonexistant to me) and the few new ones that can't tend to crash fairly often (in comparison) and I perfer to go back to desktop rather than a restart so I guess I like Vista better for gaming also.

[FiggyG]

XP already slaughters Vista in everything IMO. I've only been testing out 64-bit, and it's pretty much ass at this point. I'm gonna give 32-bit a spin this weekend and see if it fares any better.

[Cjl64]

well don't get me wrong.... i like Vista.... but it still is not 100% for games. Other than that its been a great OS... no driver issues or anything and i mean it! I never had the issues so many people had.. i just find the OS a little heavy for gaming which is what i do on my pc.

[moshpit]

Holy necroposting thread resurection, batman! But it's been a little over 6 months since this thread left off, it's time for a little revisit.

As of recently, Vista has pulled on par with XP in gaming easily:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2303830,00.asp

If you were expecting a huge drop in performance as your eyes scanned from the XP to the Vista results, well, surprise! As many a tech analyst predicted, Windows Vista's gaming performance conundrum has largely been solved, and it was mainly due to early graphics drivers.

In fact, I'd been planning to run a few other gaming tests, but the results from these were so uninteresting that further work didn't seem merited. Love it or hate it, Vista is performing far better than it used to.

I can honestly say, in daily use, Vista x64 is every bit as snappy as XP for multi-tasking and general use. Gaming performance has just gotten better and better almost every driver version, little by little. I finally outright removed my XP boot since I never use it anymore. I can outright say, unless you have legacy hardware or apps you HAVE to have, then there's no reason to load XP on a new box unless you just cannot afford Vista. On the other hand, I don't recommend giving up a perfectly good XP load up for Vista either, at least not yet.