CovOps
 Location : Ether-Sphere
Job/hobbies : Irrationality Exterminator
Humor : Über Serious
 |  Subject: Man am I glad not to have purchased Vista: FAQ: How to dump Vista SP1  Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:59 pm | |
| And read all the comments too..
Here's what to do if you upgraded to SP1 and still aren't happy
Link |
|
CovOps
Location : Ether-Sphere
Job/hobbies : Irrationality Exterminator
Humor : Über Serious
| | Subject: Why Is Windows XP Faster Than Vista? Wed Mar 26, 2008 12:57 am | |
| I've finally completed my project to build a performance PC with Intel (NSDQ: INTC)'s upcoming, top-of-the-line Core 2 Extreme QX9770 quad-core processor. Since I had all that speed to spare, I decide to do a dual-boot setup, installing both Windows Vista and XP. Boy, was I surprised. I'm a big Vista fan, but it's shocking to be reminded just how much faster Windows XP really is. And, as a Vista fan, this makes me angry.
Why XP? Normally, I'm a big fan of Vista. I've always thought that it's glitzy Aero interface, which some criticize as useless eye-candy, actually adds a lot to the consumer experience. The OS also makes it arguably easier for non-computer-savvy users to launch their apps and to navigate their ways through the maze of lightweight tasks that type of user is likely to do.
True, applications compatibility and (now) problems with Vista SP1 are definite negatives. However, vendors have worked their way through that first stumbling block. As for the second one, in typical Microsoft fashion, it, too, will eventually get fixed.
The biggest Vista negative is the fact that it sucks up lots of processing cycles, which could otherwise be applied to useful work. Here again, though, we get back to the newbie (or, average user) argument. Folks running Word, Excel, iTunes, and a Web browser as their main app aren't gonna to run up against this.
Vista's hardware penalty -- i.e., the fact that you need a faster processor, more memory, and a beefier graphics processing unit (GPU) than you do for an equivalent XP system -- only comes into play in the corporate world, where IT departments simply won't spend the extra bucks. That's why I have a Windows XP laptop at work, and why you probably do, too.
Microsoft's solution to this one seems to be simply to wait it out. That is, the "Vista is better" argument, to convince the corporate world to move to Vista, has mostly been a non-starter. So Microsoft is end-of-lifing XP -- OEM and retail sales will end on June 30, 2008, though support will continue for years. This forces the Vista issue on the software side, which is half of the battle.
On the hardware front, my sense is that Microsoft will simply wait for the processor and graphics capabilities of the typical laptop to rise to Vista's level. With dual-core MPUs already widely deployed, this is an imminent reality. The only real gating factor I can see is the price of memory, because 1 GB or 2 GB of RAM offers a marked performance improvement over 512 MB. The takeaway here is, it's your responsibility as a tech person to warn your laptop-hunting relatives away from those discount-retail specials equipped with only 512 MB of RAM.
OK, so back to my dual-boot saga. The reason I opted to install Windows XP is that I had a heavy duty video-editing app I wanted to run. It simply wasn't compatible with Vista. Plus, video is nothing to mess around with, in that you want all your processing power directed to where the rubber meets the road.
The dual-boot installation process is itself no cakewalk. I'll give the cookbook specifics another time, but be prepared for a lengthy session in front of the PC. As with all mods, that's largely because of all the minor, unexpected things which rise up to bite you in the, er, keyboard. Me, I had to continually mess around with the boot order in the BIOS, so that my system would proceed from where it left off on the Windows XP installation disc, rather than unsuccessfully attempt to boot off the temporarily screwed up hard drive.
Back to the big surprise I mentioned up top. With both Vista and XP installed on the new, quad-core PC, I have to admit I find myself opting to boot up in XP more often than not. True, that's partly because I have my video-editing app installed on the XP side. However, XP is so much faster -- for every single task I attempt -- it's not even funny.
Most glaringly, the side-by-side comparison between Vista and XP spotlights just how badly Vista's file-copy performs. This had long been a big user complaint, and supposedly it's been fixed somewhat in Vista SP1. However, it shouldn't even still be an issue, especially since this doesn't involve major functionality but rather a very minor utility.
As an engineering type, I wish I could tell you I had quantitative data confirming my statement that XP is faster than Vista. Unfortunately, I only have my anecdotal, subjective impressions. (But I'm right.) I did run numerous benchmarks. However, the Futuremark PC Vantage benchmark I ran on the Vista side doesn't run under XP. I figured PCMark05 would form a more apt basis for comparison. However, while the benchmark ran successfully on my XP install, it wouldn't get past the hard drive initialization test under Vista. Searching Futuremark's forums, I found this is not uncommon.
In summary, while I still love Vista, I've got renewed respect for Windows XP. Now that it's outfitted with SP2, and numerous updates inspired by years of in-the-field experience, it's clearly more robust and user-friendly than ever.
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/03/why_is_windows.html |
|
