Windows 7 May Not Be Much Faster Than Vista

bodmas · 11 May 2009

which one is fast depends on system specs.

keeping other specs unchanged with 2.0 GHz core2duo processor :

if total installed RAM size is 512 MB:

XP is faster than vista x86 & x64 all version.

If total installed RAM size is 1 GB:

Vista Home Basic x86 is faster than XP but here version of vista Home premium and ultimate are still slower than xp either 32 bits or 64 bits.

if total installed ram size is 2 gb:
vista x86 basic & HP is faster than xp but here still vista x86 ultimate and vista x64 all editions are slower than xp.

if total installed size of RAM is 4 GB.

vista x86 or x64 all editions are faster than xp.

if total installed ram size is 16 GB then the vista x64 bits with all editions are damn faster than xp.

so when you see any system running xp faster than vista then please look into the specification and I am sure that you find that particular system with low specs.

djfirestorm · 11 May 2009

Night Hawk said:

Vista is still a good version while having missing out on people still running older hardwares by not raising the minimum requirements from the start. Now new systems see 3-4gb of memory already installed even with the 32bit Home Premium.

It's not Vista is slowwwwww.... but it what it preloads into active ram right at startup being the most used programs as well as background services plus the typical as it goes expression of "eye candy" with the then new Aero themes and sidebar, gadgets.

Besides seeing the startup repair tools beginning with Vista one thing 7 now sees besides a heavily refined Vista kernel overall is the built in option to create a system recovery disk. That can be made at any time as well as seeing the prompting for this when finishing up a backup of the drive.

Well, I have a Maximus II and a Q6600 OC @ 3.0ghz, so no old hardware issue, I have tried vLite a copy, really slim no background services, eye candy disabled, and it still eats ***. I also have 4GB of DDR2 PC-9600 and my board clocked to run it at that. So, ya, support the turtle...you obviously have no concepts of time if you think Vista is "still a good version" Heck you probably think Mac is the only solution. One more inaccuracy...W7 is not a heavlity refined Vista kernel...it is its own kernel, and to be technical, it is NT kernel. W7 = NT6.1, XP/Vista = NT5.X. Before you tout against someone who knows...and acknowledges Vistas complete failure in every way, know your **** so you don't look like a dumb ****

jimbo45 · 11 May 2009

bodmas said:

which one is fast depends on system specs.

keeping other specs unchanged with 2.0 GHz core2duo processor :

if total installed RAM size is 512 MB:

XP is faster than vista x86 & x64 all version.

If total installed RAM size is 1 GB:

Vista Home Basic x86 is faster than XP but here version of vista Home premium and ultimate are still slower than xp either 32 bits or 64 bits.

if total installed ram size is 2 gb:
vista x86 basic & HP is faster than xp but here still vista x86 ultimate and vista x64 all editions are slower than xp.

if total installed size of RAM is 4 GB.

vista x86 or x64 all editions are faster than xp.

if total installed ram size is 16 GB then the vista x64 bits with all editions are damn faster than xp.

so when you see any system running xp faster than vista then please look into the specification and I am sure that you find that particular system with low specs.

Chapter and Verse please for these Stats. Also what were you actually testing.

Also have YOU actually tested and verified this -- OK you *might* not have a 16 GB RAM machine -- but if you ARE quoting these sorts of results we need to see the SOURCE so the provenance of the results can be verified. So Links please. If you've done it yourself then COMPLETE system specs of the machines you ran this on and the actual nature of the tests you executed.

Cheers
jimbo

Win7User512 · 11 May 2009

bodmas said:

which one is fast depends on system specs.

And software: like services that are running.

Night Hawk · 11 May 2009

I had all three running here on the same hardwares and even most of the exact same programs with a few former exceptions seen with Vista as far as compatibility. The one thing that makes an equal comparison impossible is due to how long each installation had been running.

Both XP and Vista saw clean installs last fall while the 7 RCs were only put on last week! If all three were installed fresh with the basics only each as stand alone installations on three separate but identical drives you would have a more accurate frame of reference to start off with.

patmos · 11 May 2009

Definitely much faster to boot and work

RST101 · 11 May 2009

What else needs to be taken into account is xp and vista are established with service packs. Windows seven hasn't even got started.

Night Hawk · 11 May 2009

Another thing to note is that prior to SP3 XP was a disaster in progress in a variety of ways. Besides being an obviously newer and larger version from XP Vista is also far more secure. SP3 was the realization of over 1,000 much needed fixes for various security holes as well as other bugs.

Besides being the newer larger OS Vista also saw an improvement over XP's memory manager with the SuperFetch replacing XP's attempt there with the PreFetch. While XP installations can tend to see large fragmentation on volumes Vista sees various tools preloaded and running low profile in the background keeping the drive at a 0% fragmentation level.

The drawback for the newer version over XP was more memory being used since the most commonly used programs were also preloaded into memory for faster loading times. But that also brought up the problems seen on older systems with less resources and capacities.

What 7 sees now is MS stepping back to take a serous look at first the refinement of the Vista kernel to start with. In other words less "bloatation" kind of like switching from the older versions of Norton to a freebie like AVG!

Far more responsive as well as bringing in some rather new features to make 7 more interesting to start with.

DrWho · 11 May 2009

Dude! Where did you find that little pearl?

bodmas · 11 May 2009

jimbo45 said:

Chapter and Verse please for these Stats. Also what were you actually testing.

Also have YOU actually tested and verified this -- OK you *might* not have a 16 GB RAM machine -- but if you ARE quoting these sorts of results we need to see the SOURCE so the provenance of the results can be verified. So Links please. If you've done it yourself then COMPLETE system specs of the machines you ran this on and the actual nature of the tests you executed.

Cheers
jimbo

Dear, those are based on my experience I came through the past 2 years. I think it is not a matter of argument.

But if I am wrong then you can prove it. I will add your tested information to my experience list too.:)