Comments on: Windows XP vs. Windows Vista – Performance

By: Cesar

Cesar — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:04:35 +0000

Once upon a time, i used an operating system, that required 512kb (that’s Kilobytes) of RAM, no hardiskspace only 2 floppy disks (low density ones) and a 7 mhz cpu. It was called Workbench and pretty much did the same file operations as windows and had a windows environment and a mouse pointer with left and right click and all that. And yes, for a few megabytes more and a harddisk, it would do EVERYTHING Windows does. Wanna talk about wasting resources now? :D:D:P

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:52:40 +0000

Sootie, I do say that Vista is slower than XP. My point is that it doesn’t really matter. However, there might also be cases where XP is slower than Vista as you encountered. One thing is for sure, though, Vista’s new user interface lets me do my job faster than with XP.

By: Sootie

Sootie — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 02:16:51 +0000

Nice to see someone not saying vista is slower than XP.

I support around 200 desktop’s 90% of which are vista. All the desktop’s are new dell’s with 2gb of ram around 1gb is used pretty much all the time on all the computers however no matter how many apps you have open i have still not seen performance slow.

I also have a group of 5 computers with identical hardware running XP for compatibility reasons and have found them much much slower than the vista machines especially while running multiple processes simultainously.

Plus aero looks cool….

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 22 May 2008 16:14:52 +0000

Leonardo, the discussion might be different with Windows 7 because of its modular structure. It will allow you to only load what you need or what your hardware can bear. So it will seem as if Windows 7 is not so bloated. But of course it will be the fattest OS of all times.

By: Leonardo

Leonardo — Wed, 21 May 2008 15:15:21 +0000

I can’t wait till Windows 7 comes out and this starts all over again. LMAO.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 20 May 2008 18:52:48 +0000

Christoph, that’s an easy question. I estimate that about 95% of Vista’s 2750 new features justify the requirement for many hardware resources. I also have a question. Which of XP’s features justify the fact that it requires about 4 times as much resources as Windows NT 4? And don’t you think that XP is quite bloated too?

Rickj, I think the analogy fits perfectly. A bloated operating system allows you to do more things more easily and it also gives you more security, just as with a bloated bank account. A bloated operating system also has a higher ROI because it increases productivity. A bloated bank account allows you to invest more money in your company which increases productivity as well. In this context, “bloated” just means more powerful.

By: rickj

rickj — Tue, 20 May 2008 17:49:59 +0000

re: There is nothing wrong with a “bloated operating system”, just as there is nothing wrong with a “bloated bank account”.

Since when is a good thing like a bad thing? The proper analogy would be a bloated operating system is like a bloated credit card balance. Both cost you as long as you have them.

By: Christoph

Christoph — Tue, 20 May 2008 09:00:35 +0000

I am sorry but the man got a point here. What new Vista features actually really helps a company or the average user which justifies using more than the double amount of memory and cpu cycles? And please disregard things they had to implement because Server2008 required them. Oh and for folks who are inclined to say “UAC”: if you try to fix a broken engine, you won’t use bubblegum and duct tape for serious results.