Login:
Password:

XP SP3 speed lead over Vista SP1 narrows under similar workloads

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

November 27, 2007, 7:32 PM

A heavily promoted performance test by an evaluation software firm appeared to situate Windows Vista SP1 performance against Windows XP SP3. But the initial workloads were actually different due to the Office software used, testers admitted to BetaNews today.

Devil Mountain Software's test results comparing similar workloads on systems with varying editions of XP and Vista -- including the latest service packs or their equivalents -- show the Vista system performing astonishingly more poorly, by a staggering 144%.

But a breakdown of the team's initial tests reveal that, although they used identical Dell computers, they actually compared Office 2007 performance on Vista to Office 2003 performance on XP.

"All testing was conducted against fresh installations of the respective OS platforms," the CTO of Devil Mountain Software, Craig Barth, told BetaNews this afternoon. "In the case of Vista, we installed the RTM code only -- no updates were installed in order to preserve a pristine image. We then installed Office 2007 and the DMS Clarity Studio and Tracker tools. Once benchmarking was complete, we upgraded the installation with the v.658 build (RC0) of Service Pack 1."

For the XP test, Barth said his team followed a similar methodology, but one which equipped the older operating system with the older applications suite.

Barth said his tack for the XP rig was "first, installing and testing a pristine XP + SP2 image (via the integrated CD ISO image from MSDN); adding Microsoft Office 2003, DMS Clarity Studio and Tracker; testing under SP2; then upgrading with Service Pack 3 and repeating the tests under the updated configuration."

But some readers noticed that both systems weren't being tested using the same workload. And since the team's testing software focuses on such factors as ActiveX Data Objects (ADO), whose deployments are very different for Office 2003 than for Office 2007, the differences do matter.

So by their request, the team installed Office 2003 on the Vista system, keeping in mind that Vista may still replace much of the infrastructure from the OS upon which the suite relies. When that happens, the performance gap narrows...to a mere 82%.

It may still be enough, though, for the team to uphold its claim from last week that Vista SP1 is "a performance dud." "Extensive testing by the exo.performance.network research staff," reads the team's blog, "shows that SP1 provides no measurable relief to users saddled with sub-par performance under Vista."

Barth revealed to BetaNews further details about the hardware platforms his team used. "The test system was a Dell XPS M1710 notebook," he said, "equipped with a Core 2 Duo CPU at 2 GHz (T7200), 1 or 2 GB of Corsair Value Select DDR-2 667 MHz memory, a Hitachi 7200 RPM 80 GB hard disk and nVidia GeForce Go 7900GS video adapter."

Devil Mountain Software does not appear to have compared performance when running Office 2007 on both Windows XP and Windows Vista.

Add a Comment (99 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By demark12

edited Feb 12, 2008 - 10:48 PM

vista is a bust. don't buy it!

vista comes with no backward compatibility for legacy pc hardware and software. translation; you'll have to buy all new hardware and software when you make your switch to vista.

as if this isn't enough, there is no noticable improvements in system speed or performance.

in fact, vista is intrusive and difficult to use. it makes downloading anything from the net a nightmare.

bill gates, you really have laid an egg with this one.

instead of buying any machine with vista, i'm telling all within the sound of my voice to buy an xp machine or get a mac.

Score: 0

By oscar7542

edited Jan 15, 2008 - 8:59 PM

still having problems trying to install it...There is an error in the article. windows SP3 does not exist

Score: 0

By vbombv

edited Nov 30, 2007 - 8:04 AM

I got an old laptop running Fedora for net surfing. An XP based system as a Media Centre and a new XPS1330 that Iupgraded from 32 to Vista 64. I nearly backed out of Vista 4 or 5 times thinking of how much faster flashpoint or such will run on XP but ive stuck with it and am now delighted with the usability of the system. Al I can say is that 4gb of RAM give you a fast, elegant and usable system.

Sure I might get more fps with XP but on Vista I get a much more enjoyable OS. 1 example is if I get a display driver crash in XPO then its BSOD or CTD but in Vista I get a pause, an error and the sytstem reloads the driver again in a sec leaving me right back in the action where I was 3 secs later. No fuss.

I really cant think of going to XP now as it looks far too old now. Vista might not be the massive evolution that XP was over ME but it is defenately an advance.

Score: 0

By roj

edited Nov 29, 2007 - 11:54 AM

Faster is still faster - and quite frankly this isn't anything that any savvy user who tried Vista and abandoned it does not already know.

My Athlon AM2 6000+ / 4Gb / twin 500Mb SATA II Raid 0 box putters along quite nicely under XP - I'm not foolish enough to waste it on Vista.

The emperor is NOT wearing new clothes.

Score: 0

By dpcdpc11

edited Nov 29, 2007 - 7:52 AM

@PSXp-One.... hahahah... maybe you will end up with Vista.. as long as i have a choice[and i do] and all the new games run smoothly on Dx 9 i have no reason to switch to Vista... and until Dx10 games will really be photorealistic.. i'll wait for Windows 7... for me Aero is s*** compared to Compiz-fusion on any Linux distros, which btw is just amazing... you can get a pretty looking desktop with WB or other software in XP...btw..KDE4 is coming to windows.. hurrayyy!!!! and who needs DreamScene?!?! which is only available on Ultimate Edition... and when it comes to security... plssss, Live OneCare is a joke...a bad one... give it a year so Vista becomes mainstream and then you'll see it falling like a tree...TIMBERRRRRR!!! the hackers promissed they will deal with Vista next year... and what a show will it be!!!

Score: 0

By PSXp-ONE

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 1:42 AM

HAHAHA, you all will end up with Vista anyway, so hush, hush little baby, don't you cry, daddy is gonna give you A BIG BLACK BIRD!!!!!

Score: 0

By AZLee

edited Nov 29, 2007 - 1:31 AM

Fun with numbers
A "mere 82%" is not a mere difference!
Remember 100% = twice time/half speed.
In that respect Vista is within 18% of half the speed of XP.
If "a staggering 144%" is a worry, 82% is still a long way from %0, or no difference and a longer way still from being called an upgrade.

I'll retain my XP for a while.

Score: 0

By framplot

edited Nov 29, 2007 - 12:00 AM

Your report ends with ".....the performance gap narrows...to a MERE 82%."
Oh ! So that's all right then, no problem there.

Like heck !! Vista is the latest OS, which had billions spent on development and yet XP can show an 82% performance gap, to the good, over Vista. And remember, this report HAS taken note of the differences in software used in the original tests. And yet Microsoft still expect us to fork out for Vista. Why ? Just to take an 82% hit in performance ? They've got to be joking.

Ah, but Vista has got lots of cool features, they say. Like what ? For most of us, we can add nearly all of Vista's "features" to XP.

But what about the Aero effect on Vista ? Oh yes ? Nice and easy to set up or even set up by default ? No. Is it really any better than XP showing folders along the bottom of the screen ? No.

Quite simply, Vista has got nothing over XP to make me want to go out and buy it.

Score: 0

By Bigandstrong

edited Nov 28, 2007 - 11:37 PM

after reading all these comments i have tos ay... i just bought a brand new medion laptop with 2gig of ram and amd dual core proccessor with a dvd burner and a 15.4 inch screen...A
all for just 600$. Now im running Microsoft Vista home premeium and im a teenager so i run the usual yada yada office 07 full edition, i tunes, McAfee, defender, and what ever i can get my hands on. And i just upgraded from a 256mb ram xp based comp. Just let me tell you vista runs sweet, and if u dont like it than just disable all the visual features
thats what i had to do with xp too to get it in a working condition. My XP computer was soo slow i couldnt put office 07 on it because it ran like sh@t, so thats what i got to say. BTW iv never used a MAC but i rly would like to try it out, and i tried Ubuntu, linux on my PC and i think it sucks .... manily cause its too complicated just to get a simple task like running compiz fusion having to go to the terminal every 2 secs.

PEACE

Score: 0

By The Man

edited Nov 30, 2007 - 5:47 AM

"i just upgraded from a 256mb ram xp based comp"

no wonder your new "Vista" comp runs better.
the amount of processes you have running (office, itunes, etc.) need more than 256mb ram alone.

point of the article is, it (your new comp) would run programs FASTER under xp.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 9:25 AM

"manily cause its too complicated just to get a simple task like running compiz fusion having to go to the terminal every 2 secs."

WTF? No, you shouldn't use Ubuntu because you have no clue what you are doing. Enough said.

Score: 0

By djhayman

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 10:31 AM

Well WTF right back at ya d***head...

That is *EXACTLY* why "desktop Linux" will *NEVER* happen.

Two reasons - 1) It can be too complicated for some people (which you aptly worded as not having any clue what he's doing). Well if most people don't know what they're doing, it'll never take off!!! And 2) a******s like you alienate people who give it a try and find it too dificult.

How about you help people when they have problems?!?

Score: 0

By deda

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 8:46 PM

I don“t understand why people insist to compare Linux with Windows. It's like to compare monkeys and bananas. Unix and Windows were built for differents goals, Linux always will be a "adapted platform", except on Servers. Try to compare Windows 2K with Windowx XP. 2K its faster than XP, but doesn't support and/or do many things XP does. (English isn't my native idiom)

Score: 0

By bigsexy022870

edited Nov 28, 2007 - 6:07 PM

I was hopeing SP1 would make Vista a viable option. But apperently that was just false hope.

Score: 0

By eriew

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 11:44 AM

I was hoping you learn to spell!

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 9:32 PM

And apparently you are stupid.

Score: 0

By Protricity

edited Nov 28, 2007 - 5:36 PM

I'd like to thank all the linux and mac fanboys for their efforts on the bandwagon to promote their respective windows replacement operating systems,
now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play Crysis in dx10 on vista

Score: 0

By jbaltz69

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 5:01 PM

No SH!T? WOW!

No, but seriously great test.*

* sarcasm - noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

Score: 0

By Program86

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 4:28 PM

"SP1 provides no measurable relief to users saddled with sub-par performance under Vista."

DUH! You need them to tell you that? Thats like reporting that the Earth is round. DUH!

Score: 0

By seier

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 4:04 PM

Even with the same versions of Microsoft Office I still find their test extremely unscientific. Windows Vista has a number of Visual Enhancements. They should post Vista scores (with Office 2003) both with and without all the visual hoopla. The XP system should also be benchmarked with and without its respective visual accoutrement's.

Score: 0

By johnus

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 4:19 PM

This company shouldn't be in business. They fail, miserably.

Score: 0

By danielz40

edited Nov 28, 2007 - 3:51 PM

Of course Vista is a pig. It was designed to run on more hardware, that's the partnership they have to keep consumers buying more hardware. Who cares what version of Office, as long as it does what it is supposed to do. Sadly, 95% of users out there can hardly cut and paste, and wouldn't know how to design a page layout no matter what tools they had available. So you have to spend hundreds more just to get Vista to run, not to mention spending hundreds just to purchase it. And who mentioned buying all your peripherals again just to get them to run on your computer? That is so stupid. Vista is crap, everyone knows it. Here it is a year later, and people are still recommending not using it. Rightfully so. I am not a *nix fan, but once they get the installation, UI, and apps, I will switch. Add up all you spend to get Vista to run, compare it to XP, factor in the cost difference, and it's only a "mere" 82% worse? Only tards support Vista.
Paris Hilton, name your daughter VISTA. She will be pretty, expensive, do little, be high maintenance, have poor performance, not work well with others, and fool some of the people all of the time.

Score: 0

By GS5

edited Nov 28, 2007 - 5:39 PM

Dude, you're so wrong on the "poor performance", did you see her video??? Paris was performing like a phuck!ng pro.

Score: 0

By johnus

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 4:21 PM

Paris Hilton...pretty? Do you live with Lemurs?

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 3:43 PM

Why are we even looking at these results? That evaluation firm does not have the 2008 drivers yet, nor do they have the true SP's for Vista or XP. So not legitimate, no matter how publicised.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 4:03 PM

Who cares about 2008 drivers? not one person on the planet are running them now or will be for more than a month. Some of us like to plan for our current hardware/software.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 1:20 AM

Where's your proof that "not one person on the planet" are running the 2008 drivers? No one at Microsoft? No TechNet Subscribers? No MSDN people?

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 1:09 PM

My proof is in the current date. November 2007.

Man where do you people come from?

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 6:51 PM

2008 refers to the version of Windows Server, not the year.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 10:27 PM

"Who cares about 2008 drivers? not one person on the planet are running them now or will be for more than a month. Some of us like to plan for our current hardware/software. "

This whole comment doesn't make sense...

So You will have these drivers in a month or two, and you're planning for your "current' hardware/software...so what, you're running on a 2 month upgrade cycle? In 2 months you'll plan your "current" hardware/software again?

And then in the same breath, you're trusting a companies results when they're using incomplete drivers and service packs, and on top of that, they can't even run a proper test. That's hilarious.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 1:12 PM

Makes perfect sense to me. I dont' care about 2008 drivers because they simply don't exist yet, it being 2007. Vista will be tested with "2007 drivers" in almost all cases, as there are far more stable and mature systems released in 2007 than 2008. Microsoft is testing with 2007 drivers 100% right now. 2008 doesn't exist yet.

Score: 0

By smartabc

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 2:15 PM

Easy to answer: Vista is already fast!

Score: 0

By danielz40

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 3:55 PM

Fast as Office 2007. And just as friendly. And it is so cheap. Bill is still laughing at you guys!

Score: 0

By eriew

edited Nov 28, 2007 - 1:12 PM

The test did not have a proper scientific approach and as such is not valid.

Are we to assume that Office 2003 and Office 2007 will load the respective machines equally during the test runs?

What a joke.

It appears to me that the testers had a preconceived notion in mind beforehand.

Don't tell me Dan Rather participated in the test. Have Tom's Hardware run the test for you and get back to us with the results.

Score: 0

By Ciprian.Dobrea

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 5:24 AM

I agree

Score: 0

By auiotour

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 12:49 PM

So XP is faster? Well what did you expect? It to be slower then Vista? seriously?

You ever played an old game on a new pc? like say 4-5 years old. Notice the HUGE FPS gains with your new faster hardware over your old hardware....

I bet if we all went out and installed win 98 on our computers it would out perform with office 97 way better then xp with 2003. I have no doubt in my mind.

Vista requires a huge amount of hardware to run. If you don't have it don't run it. Simple enough. I am sure I could pop in xp x64 and have some fun running it and going a bit faster. But to me its a waste of time. I have grown to love vista and since upgrading to a direct x10 card I have had no problems for 4 months since my fresh install with os and my 8800.

If you want a faster OS move back in time. keep going way past XP. or just upgrade your computer so you dont notice it and stop the b****ing.

Score: 0

By LinuxUser24

edited Nov 28, 2007 - 12:38 PM

All I can say is: Use Linux, you won't regret it.

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 1:29 PM

I use Ubuntu, and I will be honest in that if I just wanted to use the net and an office suite then Id use it in preference to XP.

Sadly its not that easy. There is FAR more to consider and the ease at which a PC can be used when it has XP installed is far superior to Linux. In the future this may change, especially for ageing computers, its just that Windows if far better to use if you know what you are doing.

Its ironic that the best people to benefit from Linux are the people who are lacking in their PC skills, and those are the people who would struggle the most in actually getting it to work as a replacement to Windows.

It doesn't help when people promote it as a windows replacement as if it is an equal, when clearly it is not, not yet anyway.

Score: 0

By patrickberg

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 4:34 PM

If Linux is lacking ease of use & software, then why not run Mac. Leopard just came out & is light years ahead of Vista. From what I hear, Bill tried to copy Leopard in some ways with Vista. From personal experience, I trashed my last PC about 3 years ago when the motherboard blew. Now, I am running an iMac. The system runs faster, has more resources available & get this... I don't get any blue screens or viruses...

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 10:07 AM

How can Bill copy leopard if it JUST CAME OUT? Vista has been out for at least a year and was seen in betas years before.

The only time you get a BSOD in Windows is bad hardware, drivers written incorrectly.

You do realize Apple uses the same hardware as a Windows machine right?

Let me know when Apple supports virtually every single configuration with every software and hardware maker and then tell me how stable your OS is.

Score: 0

By Niro

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 11:03 PM

"Leopard just came out & is light years ahead of Vista. From what I hear, Bill tried to copy Leopard in some ways with Vista"

Uh, yea, and from what I hear, gas in New York costs $0.50/gallon, you should move there. New Jersey tried to copy the gas prices in some ways by adding free windshield wiper fluid with every fill.

/sarcasm

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 5:13 PM

"I don't get any blue screens or viruses..."

You do know that Macs aren't immune to viruses and other exploits. And yes, as hard as it might be to believe, Leopard too has the dreaded blue screen of death. So who did you say was doing the copying??? LOL

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 4:07 PM

In some ways it's superior (free, open source, trust, licensing, no drm, stability)

and in some ways it's inferior:
(gaming sucks, support is minimal, driver support is lacking, hibernation/sleep states need a lot of work.)

I can easily see segments of the population that prefer some of it's advantages over XP and the Microsoft Tax. I can see many not migrating. Nothing is black and white.

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 3:44 PM

Linux isn't hard to use it's just different and people are just to damn lazy learn something new.

Or we can say only intelligent people use Linux:-) And the intellectually challenged and retarded use Windows and OSX. LOL

Score: 0

By Bigandstrong

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 11:42 PM

Linux is crap, i tried setting up my wireless settings and tried running compiz fusion for 5 hours and no prevail. I think Linux is for retarded ppl who cant install antivirus on their windows comp, so decided to feel smart and install ubuntu.

Score: 0

By Ciprian.Dobrea

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 5:36 AM

If you are familiar with the basics of safe computer usage, you don`t even need an anti-virus. It's sad to see linux fanatics everywhere. They claim windows is unsafe, when in fact, their "linux user uber-intelligence" cannot even prevent them from clicking fake porn ads, and thus getting virused whenever they see a tit.
Most true linux gurus aren`t so vehement about *nix being the best, they just realise there are areas where *nix distros are better than windows. Security (perhaps), the console, modularity (being able to install exactly what you need only), and stuff.
But for most people, having a game or whatever app run without configuring cedega for hours, is a way better suited feature.

I`d love all OS`s to be unix-based, that'll mean all games would work on all distros, all drivers ditto, and all documents would be portable. Heck, the sky would be the limit. But when you have so different platforms, it`s only natural to have different extremists taking sides.

Extremists, suck.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 12:14 PM

I'd like to see a 64 bit shootout on quad-core / 8gb system:
mac, ubuntu, solaris, vista 64, xp64, w2ks64-- even though the office suites won't be the same across the platforms....

Score: 0

By johnus

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 4:25 PM

How about this: don't benchmark Office.

Score: 0

By yokozuna

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 10:40 AM

The problem is not that the hardware demands of Vista are high. It does not surprises me so much. The real problem is that the scalability of Vista is very poor. I made an experiment. I have a custom built computer with Asus P5K mobo, 2x1 gigabytes KingMax 1066 memory and Intel Pentium E2160. I ran my machine twice - once underclocked 6*200 megahertz (6 is the lowest multiplier the CPU runs) and once overclocked to 10*360 (the highest overclocking speed I am able to achieve). In addition the memory in the lower speed works as 667 single mode, in the overclocked mode as 1080 dual mode (1080 because the divider). As you see the difference of the computing power increases around three times. I ran x264 benchmark downloaded from http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=442 Operating systems were Vista 64-bit Ultimate and Windows XP SP2 Professional. The difference of speed in the benchmark is 278% in case of Windows XP and 221% in case of Vista. To be honest I am surprised that Vista scales so bad. Where goes the additional CPU power?

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 10:24 AM

I don't understand how a poorly conducted test is news. Vista requires a faster computer to be comparable to XP and offers some improvements on the Windows architecture. If there is a speed drop on your computer, use XP.

Score: 0

By melkor

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 8:19 AM

*finishes eating the apple and starts to peal the orange*

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 8:10 AM

Yawn... Quoting someone on another site:

"Vista was at a disadvantage from the word Go! The XP system had 16 times the minimum ram requirement of 64MB to run XP pro whereas the Vista box only met the minimum 1GB requirement. Why does everyone forget that an old OS on modern hardware will always outperform a modern OS on modern hardware? XP ran like crap compared to the same machine running 98, yet here we all are still running XP."

Score: 0

By Alexq

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 9:36 AM

XP had many important advantages over 98, like stability (strict address separation, a feature that made XP much more stable compared to 98, but also made it slower and more memory hungry).

Vista is much slower and much more memory hungry than XP for no good reason at all.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 9:38 AM

Exactly!

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 11:20 AM

Ok. Keep using XP then.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 7:26 AM

First of all, no friggen duh XP is faster than Vista. Vista is designed to be more memory intensive, because it's offering more functionality-- like search indexing and superfetch cache, etc.

The reason people hate Vista is because of the experience it offers. You can run XP nearly hassle-free but miss out on some of the new applets and media functionality, or you can get the new features but be annoyed to death by the revamped Network Center, Control Panel arrangement, User Access Control prompts, and more.

Personally, I'd rather use some 3rd party apps to gain the missing functionality and have a hassle-free experience.

XP is faster? No sh*t, Sherlock.

Score: 0

By cranbers

edited Nov 28, 2007 - 6:57 AM

Gall did someone botch up this report or what. Why didn't they just use a pentium 4 1.5 ghz with 256mb of ram on the xp system and a state of the art quad core with 2gb ram on the vista system. That would of been comparable to this mess.

Obviously office 2003 should be faster, I mean they completely rewrote the thing for 2007. Kind of like a newer car gets worse gas mileage because its in a newly engineers engine that is not fully tweaked and debugged.

I am not defending vista, but I am stating compare apples to apples.

Another thing about the os's, they are built to work for everyone that is 90 whatever percent of computer users. Gamers, businesses, graphics designers, photographers, home movie editors the list goes on and on. Now yes, if microsoft would focus their efforts on building a good os kernel that is efficent and does just that, im sure it would be great.

Instead we have them building everything under the son to compete with what everyone else is doing that is popular. I have yet to see one program or cool feature the software developers of the world created that Microsoft doesn't make a direct clone of and integrate it into the os upon next release, that yes sucks 10 times more then the worst product already out.

Ie7, windows defender, windows firewall, windows calender, windows mail, windows photo album thing, the list goes on and on and on. If they would just not bother and ask to partner with the best out there, the os would be 10 times better and everyone would be doing great. Ever think of that Microsoft?

Score: 0

By chash360

edited Nov 28, 2007 - 2:30 PM

Speaking as a metrologist (one who specializes in measurements), your right, its not an apples to apples comparison per say. Its an aging apple compared to a brand new lemon! If the data came out the other way there would be no value in it at all because of the disparity between the systems, but because the older system (WinXP/Office2003) outperformed the newer, supposedly better (Vista/Office2007) then it is still a scientifically valid indication that Performance is degrading rather than improving with newer products. Although this test can not say objectively with valid measurements how much the performance difference is due to the inexact comparison, it is conclusive in its findings: Vista Sucks! This does not surprise me, nor many other folks familiar with M$ software and OS's, but it is still apalling that this is what passes for innovation from this behemoth company that has sucked so much money out of the economy for regurgitated, steadily degrading software. M$ and Vista supporters may argue that you get a whole lot more functionality, but thats just not really true, at the core a CPU does not do anything different today than it did 20 years ago. There is no functionality present in Vista, that could not be achieved on XP that is actually needed by anyone. Everything else is just window dressing.
M$ will continue to rip off other's software and tools and publishing their own versions of them, because thats what they do, show me one piece of packaged software that was theirs to begin with that they wrote the code for, and released first? MS-DOS, core of all their other OS's?, no, Graphical GUI, of course not! Office Apps? (try again, most came from Claris), IE sorry Netscape was first and better. (Where is all that performance going, its tracking your every move, event and file you work on. Maybe for reliability and recovery of work, but could also be used to steal new ideas, and new tools as they are being created.)

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Nov 29, 2007 - 1:58 AM

Your credentials as a metrologist seem to be okay; however, that doesn't mean you know computer stuff. Monad/PowerShell is made by Microsoft. They took their inspiration from *nix command shells; however, it's the first of its kind for Windows (*nix emulators don't count). You're right about IE; however, it used to be Spyglass Mosiac. Modern-day CPUs do way more than CPUs from 20 years ago, instruction sets and all. Vista does improve security over XP and earlier versions. It just does it in a way that is annoying and not very effective. su on Linux is much better than UAC. UAC isn't even intended as a security measure, but to encourage developers to make better products. The display manager for Vista can't really be ported to XPas it's a full rewrite.

I doubt Vista is tracking out "every move, event and file" we work on. A lot of auditing is disabled by default, for example.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 7:30 AM

The bottom line here is that whether it's 2003 or 2007, XP is still faster. I guarantee that XP running 2007, while not tested, is faster than it is on Vista. 82% faster or 144% faster? Good question, but I've been running 2007 for about a year now, and it is definitely a better experience.

I don't really find these results flawed at all. Faster is faster. Period. If they release the XP/2007 comparison and it's as fast as I suspect it will be, that will clench the deal for most businesses-- XP/2007 is the combo to have.

Score: 0

By bradingram

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 7:10 AM

true about the car analagy. if you design a new car - is it "better" because its bigger, uses more petrol, and has more gadgets - or its it better because its more efficient, reliable, and has a as good selection of spare parts

Score: 0

By maximum

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 8:33 AM

Great analogy! You forgot to include seat warmers, though.

Score: 0

By bradingram

edited Nov 28, 2007 - 5:41 AM

(as a developer), i remember the days when a GOOD developer made it part of his/her coding standard to make any code as small and quick/efficient as possible, and would re-work code over and over to make it run on a smaller footprint, and with less disk space (load time), now - i just write the code if it works - then its ok, there is no incentive to make applications smaller and more efficient - we (MS) , are more interested in making it "look good" rather then stable/small/efficient - whats wrong with the idea - of producing the next operating system with a goal of making it do more, but with less memory and space... remove all the rubbish from it that users dont use!!, MS seem to have the idea - that it is bigger its better - its not - smaller is better!!!

do we all remember the millenium bug (that didnt happen) , was all because coders had saved the year as 2 digits - i.e. 97,98,99,00 and not 1998,1999,2000, all becuase saving 2 digits was considered important !!!

Score: 0

By godofthunder

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 4:57 AM

FINALLY! PROOF IN THE F*@!ING PUDDING.

VISTA is worse than XP, and office is getting worse with every release!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 10:08 PM

Throw the first release of Linux on a computer. Now throw ubuntu on that computer.

OMG!!111one

Ubuntu must suck!

You fail at logic.

Score: 0

By deminicus

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 7:58 AM

you win a cookie...

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 7:33 AM

Without the XP/2007 results, I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion about Office.

All it means is that Office 2003 outperformed Office 2007 *because of* the differences in XP and Vista.

After a year of use, I can tell you that Office 2007 is a better experience on XP than 2003 is. It crashes less often and is easier to use. The XP/2007 and Vista/2007 comparison could be 50% or it could be 150%, but faster is faster.

Score: 0

By ladylust

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 3:55 AM

Who cares.. I bet windows 2000 would out perform any of those OS's on my system..

Score: 0

By mdotwills

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 1:40 AM

If they made vista less memory consuming than XP, made it more compatible and cleaned the interface a little I would buy a copy right away.

That said, it is a bit of an idealistic though.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 10:07 PM

"If they made vista less memory consuming than XP, made it more compatible and cleaned the interface a little I would buy a copy right away."

They did. It's called Windows 95.

Score: 0

By johnus

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 4:32 PM

Vista is much more compatible with my hardware than XP was when it first came out. (Different hardware, but about as old now as my hardware was back then.)

Score: 0

By Ramhound

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 1:00 AM

Why do people still compare Windows Vista to Windows XP?

Of course Windows XP will use less memory, it does less in the background. While not ever feature within Vista is helpful, there are some quality features that make it a nice upgrade.

FYI

I am a MS Fanboy, but one that admit that Vista does use more memory, just not enough for me to notice a difference.

Score: 0

By cap737

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 12:17 AM

Dude, you got a dell...that's your first mistake! XD

Score: 0

By xyzcb1

posted Nov 27, 2007 - 11:14 PM

The biggest mistake MS makes on Vista is it's not a only 64 bits system. WTF were they thinking? I read it someone the next version of Windows will be 32/64 bits too.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 12:21 AM

Tried a consumer level printer installs on 64-bit OS? It ain't pretty. Even corp machines on a 64-bit Server OS have issues.

The simple fact is most consumers don't use 64-bit hardware and the legacy support for 64-bit is horrendous.

Score: 0

By The MAZZTer

posted Nov 27, 2007 - 11:59 PM

Most people still run on 32-bit processors! I think Microsoft is smarter than to switch their focus from the entire market to a small subset.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Nov 27, 2007 - 10:54 PM

One might want to know who is paying for these numbers... Yes, Vista sucks. I gave up on it twice. It's a bag. My copy of 64Ultimate is collecting a thick layer of dust.

However, doing stupid tests says more about the testers than anything else...

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Nov 27, 2007 - 11:49 PM

Willing to send your copy my way? :D

Score: 0

By lvthunder

posted Nov 27, 2007 - 10:51 PM

This test has no value at all. Now I don't doubt that Vista is slower then XP. I mean if they kept making the software run faster then no one would ever replace their PC. It's as simple as that. I bet these guys didn't even run Vista long enough to let the search finish indexing. They also don't say if they were running Aero or not.

Now it would be interesting if they found out why Vista is running slower. Is it all the background processes that weren't there in XP. Vista has search indexing, Defender, and who knows what else running all the time. Or maybe it's the device drivers. I know for a fact Creative can't write a good Vista driver if their life depended on it, yet they've had years and years of experience with XP.

Maybe I'll load Windows 3.11 on my current machine and benchmark that against Vista. Vista would probably run a thousand times slower.

Score: 0

By Hellcat_M

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 4:18 AM

Very true, Win 3.11 would run faster than XP and Vista, hell probably faster than Win 95 and 98. New operating systems are going to need more processing power and memory,thats just the way it is. The more an Os has to do the more power its going to need. The next version of Windows may be fully 3D or voice activated so it'll need more. If the Os' didn't do more things like DX10 and such then games wouldn't look better and we'd still be playing pong. So when people complain that Vista is slower than XP I laugh, people want the better graphics and all the bells and whistles but they don't want XP to run as fast as Vista. You either go forward with technology or you don't and going forward means you need more ream and a faster processor to run Vista.

Score: 0

By morriscox

posted Nov 27, 2007 - 10:39 PM

Considering how they messed up the testing methodology, should we believe what they have to say? They seem kinda incompetent to me.

Score: 0

By the artist

posted Nov 27, 2007 - 10:14 PM

Don't tell me!!! The promesses from Microsoft were a lie??? I can't believe what I read!!!

Score: 0

By Rynet

posted Nov 27, 2007 - 10:07 PM

Vista is horrible. I have a windows xp machine and a vista machine and the vista machine has far superior hardware and it is 300x slower at running and loading games than my xp machine.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 1:54 AM

Then your Vista machine is about 500x slower than my Vista machine, which much faster than my XP machine, ofcourse my Vista hardware is much, much better.

I'll tell you all the secret to a problem free Vista...it's VERY simple. 64bits. You go 64 and you NEVER look back. Don't hassle with installing 32 bit drivers, either get 64bit ones or replace the crappy hardware that doesn't support it. Of the entire time I've been dealing with Vista and hearing the complaints, it's become evident that the majority of users go with 32bit Vista because they're either lazy and can't let go of older software or cheap and can't/don't want to update their hardware. It really is the only way to get rid of the issues.

One problem is at the dev. level. Devs are pretty lazy and sometimes they make very, very minor changes to drivers for vista compatibility and that doesn't work out in the end. There are lots of loopholes. Now Vista certified drivers are different, they work every time....but for that you generally have to check with MS because believe it or not, some of these people lie. (How many times have you seen Vista Certified on a box and then have the thing not work?...many in my case).

I've found that getting things to work on 32 bit vista and getting them to work on 64 bit vista yield very different results. When I tell you I have zero problems with 64 bit Vista I mean O/Zilch/Nada/None. Vs. 32 bit where every now and again I run into a crappy driver which 'claims' to be Vista friendly but isn't. Another HUGE problem is that there are a bunch of really foolish people out there that think that because the driver or software works with XP it'll work with Vista - granted, there are situations where that may work out, but 90% (I'm using this number as an example, I have no idea if it's 9/10 times for everyone else, but in MY case, it is) of the time you try to squeeze an xp driver or 2 into Vista..even though it may work, you get some funkiness after a while.

Tips for optimum Vista performance:

1. Intel Core Duo 65xx/Quad Core 66xx or better CPU/AMD AthlonX2 5xxx and up CPU
2. 3gb or more Ram
3. Run the 64 bit version of the OS (make the sacrifice, it'll force devs to write more 64bit comp. drivers and apps)
4. Don't by any means install drivers that are not Vista Certified (forget the box, check the MS Vista Certified/Works with Vista list).
5. TRY to stay away from software if it doesn't explicitly mention Vista in it's list of compat. OS'. There's a reason it doesn't.
6. Don't install old software from your backup DVD/CD. Go to the site and find an updated version that works with Vista and if no version does, find an alternative program.

I'm not an MS fanboy, I can appreciate any product, but it really sucks for an OS that really isn't half bad to get downplay because of stupid users.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Nov 27, 2007 - 9:59 PM

"So by their request, the team installed Office 2003 on the Vista system, keeping in mind that Vista may still replace much of the infrastructure from the OS upon which the suite relies. When that happens, the performance gap narrows...to a mere 82%."

But was this second test done on a fresh installation as well, or was Office 2003 installed on Vista without another fresh installation?

Score: 0

By utomo

edited Nov 27, 2007 - 9:35 PM

If they want to compare XP and Vista, they need to use same office.
If they use something else, it is not fair. or better say: old system vs new system.
But it is true that Microsoft need to make Vista much lighter. and it will be sucess

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.software-asli.com

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 2:08 AM

They have made a light version...basic. But noone wants that. Everyone wants Aero, DX 10, all the 'features' that they turn around and call 'non features' and when their computers from 1992 can't run it they b**** and complain. Honestly, it's a lose lose situation.
There's no excuse for running Vista 32 unless you're running 'legacy' or crappy software/hardware that doesn't support Vista 64, and in that case ---- what do you expect? Whenever you try to run legacy anything, you're bound to have issues.

My prediction is that after SP1, Vista will catch on like wildfire. By next year, people will let go of 32 bit and embrace 64 bit, Vists will shine and devs will have to actually work to get software and hardware running right on the 64 bit platform.

This is why Leopard is a good OS and is so far, successful. It's a take no prisoner OS. You get the OS and you now have your 64 bit infrastructure - all apple programs from now on will be either 32/64 or 64 bit and all of those on a 32bit only processor are either fu%$ed or will have to upgrade to a better Mac with a 64 bit proc., that can then run Leopard, that now runs 32/64 or 64bit only apps and drivers.
Apple = Smart (Get a 64 bit proc to get and use Leopard or FU).
MS = Dumb (Try to make everyone happy. Get bitten in the a$$ by 'everyone' who want 'everything').

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 8:32 AM

"This is why Leopard is a good OS and is so far, successful. It's a take no prisoner OS."

It's a take no prisoner OS and it also executes innocent data.

People say that Vista is a disaster. But that's mainly because it's a processor and memory hog. And and there's a lot software and hardware compatibility problems still. But Leopard is truly a disaster compared to Vista. Leopard has a lot of bugs but the biggest is that it actually destroyed data while moving files from one partition to another and in some cases even when copying a file. If that isn't the biggest phuckup ever I don't know what is.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 9:54 AM

I agree that it's a major bug, but beyond that it's turned out to be a good OS....and the point is that Apple has the right idea to basically force 64 down people's throats - that's the only way to get the mass to adopt it. Otherwise you'll have a multitude holding on to 'legacy' software and thus messing up their system.

When XP came out it was a memory and CPU 'Hog' also and it wasn't the major overhaul OS that vista is to XP - but most people forget this. We moved from an era of Athlon XPs and P4's to 2 gigahertz, dual core and 64bit processors and from using 512 mb of ram to 1-2 gigs of it....was that to meet with XP's requirements or just the evolution of computing? Either way, we'll do the same 'for' Vista and in x years when the next MS OS comes out demanding 8gb of Ram and an 8ghz processor, we'll complain again that it's a memory and cpu resource 'hog' and history will repeat itself.
The fact of the matter is that it's a good OS and as we all adjust by either upgrading or purchasing new computers, it will become more of the non-issue that it is currently. People will find anything to complain about.

Score: 0

By LVWolfman

edited Nov 28, 2007 - 11:37 AM

Actually, Vista is just an example of the Vicious Circle of computers also known as "Nature abhors a vacuum".

The hardware manufacturers manage to make faster computers with more memory because consumers want more speed.

Software developers (and Microsoft developers are a great example of this) see all that extra memory, hard drive space and CPU speed and have to fill it.

This brings today's state of the art computer to its virtual knees.

Now bring in the hardware companies to respond to the complaints that a 2 Ghz Quad Core 64 bit processor, 4 GB of ram and a terabyte of hard drive space isn't enough... they'll make faster computers and Vista will be fast.

Until the next OS upgrade.

The cycle continues.

Score: 0

By kellino

posted Nov 27, 2007 - 9:02 PM

It says that the tests were done with "1 or 2GB" of RAM.

Well which is it? Personally I am only interested in the 2GB test as it would be silly to run Vista with anything less than 2GB. XP has a smaller memory footprint and can run well with less RAM.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Nov 27, 2007 - 10:01 PM

I agree, it is darn right silly running Vista on less than 2 gig of ram.

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 8:09 AM

At this point I think it's darn silly to run Vista on anything less than IBM's Blue Gene. LOL

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Nov 28, 2007 - 2:55 PM

Talk about a high electricity bill thou.