Why Is Windows XP Still So Much Faster Than Vista?

Informationweek writes:

"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."

[decapitator]

I think is because Vista was rushed and Microsoft did not have enough time to finalize it before rushing it out to consumers.

[JsonHenry]

I think it is because XP has much lower requirements (like and old video game vs. something like Crysis) and it has been out for YEARS all the while newer and faster hardware is cheaper to buy.

XP was slower than older Windows programs as well when it first came out.

It is completely ridiculous to think that a newer OS with more options and a bigger footprint is going to run faster than an OS that has less than half the minimum requirements and has been out for years.

Actually, it is border line retarded for ANYONE to expect it to be faster right out of the gates.

[Kholinar]

"It is completely ridiculous to think that a newer OS with more options and a bigger footprint is going to run faster than an OS that has less than half the minimum requirements and has been out for years."

Actually, most other OS's do this by default. Most OS X releases, for example, are quicker than the previous release on the same machine. Same thing with larger linux releases like Ubuntu. Sure, there are the occasional hiccups like with Leopard or Feisty, but, for the most part, optimised code in these releases seems to improve.

What's truly bizarre is how much more processor/ram intensive successive Windows releases are. Double the RAM with each release? 2k ran acceptably with 256mb, XP fine with 512mb, and now Vista is barely acceptable with a gig.

Microsoft's hardware ties are showing. It's better to release a slower OS and keep your vendors happy when their customers have to buy new hardware. That cycle was slowing down... better do something about it.

[JsonHenry]

^^

You forgot to mention one thing about a Mac OS - it is a closed hardware system. They don't have to do all the extra programming that Microsoft does because they only support a limited number of hardware compared to the wide open hardware format that Windows must support.

And you are being very misleading about your OS X statement. The jump from IBM to Intel made a huge performance difference right out of the box. When OS X came around, coded specifically with Intel chips in mind, it was a little faster on Intel machines. Try running OS X on an older IBM CPU machine and it is quite the opposite.

[Kholinar]

"And you are being very misleading about your OS X statement. The jump from IBM to Intel made a huge performance difference right out of the box. When OS X came around, coded specifically with Intel chips in mind, it was a little faster on Intel machines. Try running OS X on an older IBM CPU machine and it is quite the opposite."

Sorry, I have a ibook G4. Jaguar to Panther was faster, Panther to Tiger was faster, and Leopard is a bit slower (but not much). The same thing applies to old g3 400mhz. The intel transition has nothing to do with it.

As for closed hardware being the only reason, you'd have to address linux distros. Sorry, 7 years is a long time. The code should have been a lot more optimised. There aren't enough feature improvements to justify such cludgey performance. Look at the graphics engine. Compiz does as much or more with a intel gma 900 or a Nvidia 5200fx or a ati 9200. Coreimage (in os x) will run on far older graphics card than Aeroglass will.

[JsonHenry]

^^ Trying to find online proof of this being the case. I have never had an upgrade in a Mac OS run faster on the SAME hardware as the previous OS did.

And I certainly know from personal use that OS X did not run faster on the same hardware once it was upgraded.

And yes, don't kid yourself. Being a closed hardware machine gives plenty of stability not afforded to microsoft when making a Windows OS. You say 7 years, but being open hardware format it changes every day. Literally, every day.

[Kholinar]

Ok... whatever.

http://www.techradar.com/pr... techradar (tiger faster)

http://reviews.cnet.com/mac... (performance gain from Jaguar to Panther)"

You can argue that I'm being disingenuous all you want. The fact remains that old g3's run Leopard well and Tiger extremely well. 500 ghz pentiums with 512mb of ram run brand new linux distros faster than most 2.0 ghz p4's with a gig of ram run Vista.

Every day it does change, which makes it that much more impressive that Linux, BSD, etc. have far better performance than Vista.

[Kholinar]

I will add one more thing though. The idea that Microsoft has to support a vast, vast amount of hardware is somewhat true but also somewhat misleading in justifying bad performance/bugs.

Microsoft does support a fair amount of older hardware out of the box from major manufacturers. But the general outline of this support is vague, if you want advanced features, then you install drivers. So the vendor/oem/manufacturer actually supports this, not microsoft. So stability/integrity is also up to the vendor. So you can't completely praise Microsoft for this and you can't completely blame them for this. Other than the fact that they chose this environ in order to dominate an industry. So their successes are linked to their failures.

So, acknowledging that, one must also consider Linux (again, notice that there's been no rebuttal on this aspect). Open-source coders, for the most part, have no access to the specs of the hardware that they write drivers for. Remember, this changes every day. Microsoft and the vendors have complete access, yet others coding blind can produce systems that perform comparably or better.

Pretty sad.

[TunakTunakTun]

because microsoft sucks ass

[ChrisGTR1]

for the same reason windows 2000 is much faster than xp.

[Capt CHAOS]

:->

[JsonHenry]

^^ Running windows 98 programs coded for both 98 and 2000, it WAS faster on 98. Been building my own PCs and playing PC games since at least 1994 I remember the slow down using the same hardware jumping from Win98 to Win 2000.

[TLSBill]

No answers, just questions = crappy article.

[Shortstop]

Vista to me seems like nothing more than a "make work" product.

What I mean is that Windows (and Linux) are basically all you need for a computer. There really isn't a fundamental change that appears to be required. The release of Vista seems to me that it was much more of a business decision, in that they need to make money, rather than a necessary technical upgrade.

[Kakkoii]

That's exactly how I feel.

They should have just released some sort of update that costs money.. like XP2 that would bring DX10 to XP and other features. While still leaving the fundamental OS standing.

[Andronix]

Windows 2000 was a very well written Operating System that had to be fast on PCs circa 1999!. XP added home user features.

Vista is designed for mid to top end pcs of today. Therefore it needs a powerful pc. It also adds a lot of features. But i suspect the programming hasnt been streamlined leading to bloated code. Which means slower performance. My old underpowered XP PC started up much, much faster than my Quad Core Vista PC.

[Gorgon]

Simple. Because every new OS is heavier than the last. You you want a faster OS then just use windows 3.1.

[DJ]

To force Vista onto consumers, but I have doubts that such an initiative will end up being successful. The majority of consumers refuse to put up with faulty, low-performance products.

If you plan on buying a new computer within the next 3~4 years, get XP while you can. I already got the 64-bit version for when I upgrade to new hardware.

[Goodfella78]

and ill be sticking to it till the bitter end,vista gives me mental blisters,and yes its a perfect example of rushed software,just like the problems the 360 has with its hardware, because that too was rushed,.peace out.....

[rosebowl23]

My Vista runs much faster than XP. Of course it uses more resources, but when an OS makes a jump like Vista did, who wouldn't expect this? There are tons of ways to get rid of the resource usage too and make it pretty much just like XP. So I don't see why everyone complains.

[Tyrael]

I'm running XP on my laptop, and my roomate running Vista on the same model takes about 3 to 4 seconds to pull up an internet browser, whereas mine does it in an instant.