Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown - Page 4

Last message on previous page:

You don't need a "heavy" cpu or cpu to run Vista. With a 128 mb video card and a athlon xp you'll run it fine.


This is all really "heavy" man!

I completely agree and that is the reason I want to get into Linux. Unfortunately, I'm constantly having to keep up with new developments in the Microsoft-world for my job, so it's hard to find the time (or energy laterly ) and learn yet another OS.

What I do like about Linux though, is that pretty much everything is available in source code. That appeals to my developer side. I just wish I had time.

Human Nature... That's what this thread should have been called. It was the same thing when XP came out. I squeezed 98SE to the last till I couldn't stand the constant random reboots in 98. By the time I switched to XP, SP2 came out. Before 98SE I stayed with 95B. Before 95B I stayed with 3.11.

Point is, it doesn't matter if Vista is a resource hog. The technology is going to have to compensate for the OS. I don't think Linux is going to take over the world as far as the OS to have. The world is Microsoft dependant. Period. There are plug-ins, add-ons and patches out there that can make a linux-based system compatible with most of today's applications. Problem is, not everyone is able to implement it.

I know people here in Germany still using DOS-based applications. Why, because the platform is stable. If you're familiar in DOS then you know.

I'm going to wait until I can afford a new notebook and seeing that it'll be Vista that's when I'll move. I'll keep my current system (dual-boot) with XP and SuSE Linux.

Personally, I like OpenSuse.............. http://en.opensuse.org/Download

I even got lots of my DirectX 9 games running on it.

I tried Ubuntu...I'm an ultra-n00b I guess because installing crap was a pain in the @$$...not to mention there aren't drivers for my X-Fi card. So I dumped it...and that was a pain too.
ANYWAY, back to Vista.
I don't understand what ppl are bitching about.

(1) Why are we bitchin' about 'heavy' hardware it takes? If you are any kind of an enthusiast, you've already got the damn hardware you need. Also, if you're one of those people who like to get things asap like Vista, chances are you're the same way with latest hardware. It seems to me your personality is what determines if you like Vista or not. If you've got dated hardware and a dated OS, you're not going to accept Vista period (at least for some time). If you've got the latest hardware and love to be at the front of the line, then you've probably already ordered Vista.

(2) Do any of you people bitching about DRM know anything about music business? I saw someone quote earlier in the thread that music "is for the ppl and once you worry about money it goes to shit" (from some musician). (Which by the way, he probably stated as a marketing/sales statement to raise his public image) Until a band starts touring, selling tickets, selling swag, CD/music sales are their ONLY source of income. Even when they start selling CDs, they don't see A PENNY of it until their advance from the record label is paid off. Also...if they don't sell any records, the label drops them. If the label drops them, they don't have any financial backers for a tour, thus meaning no ticket sales or merch. I actually graduated with a Music Industry major which why this is a big issue for me. I am NOT defending record labels, and I KNOW that most of artists income comes from touring/sales. But really...wtf kind of fan are you if you download their music for free? Help them pay off their "loan" (advance) from their label for god sakes. If you're such a fan, dropping $15 for their CD won't kill you. This is why we have "one hit wonders"...because their label doesn't see good record sales, and they drop them before they have a chance to get out their. Again I'm not defending the labels, but paying for CD's/digital music is one great way to really ensure your artist's career.

(3) Finally, I say the same thing as everyone else...Ppl were crying when XP came out I'm sure. They cry that Vista isn't customizable enough...Not 'power-user' oriented enough. That's probably true. However, if you work an IT job such as myself...I get enough of scripts, servers, commands, and all that crap at work. When I come home I WANT something ridiculously simple to use. Vista is not a bad OS, its just trying to make things simpler for everyone. (And copy Mac OSx at the same time). If you don't like it, go use a bare bones dist. of Linux then you'll be crying for simplicity.

(Wow that was a big rant)

I don't have an issue with DRM per sae, but I do have an issue with companies telling me how many and which devices I can play my music on, attempting to monitor my music listening behaviour (Sony comes to mind), and restricting my right to make a backup of a CD (or a "mix" CD.)

DRM is fine in theory but it has a number of flaws. First off, you give an enormous amount of power to self-serving interest groups and companies that will undoubtly only consider what is in their best interest and not their customers'. The other problem is that DRM only hinders the people that actually purchase the music, videos, etc. Hackers and pirates already have ways around most DRM schemes so it doesn't affect them.

Another reason I don't have an issue "sampling" music from the internet is that here in Canada we have to pay a surcharge/tax on all CD media because we apparently have no legitimate use for CDs other than to copy music. Who would ever want to backup files, photos, or home vides onto CD/DVD! So if I'm being charged for something I don't do and, in essence, being labelled a pirate, then I might as well get my money's worth. Let me be clear about something, if I like a song or band, I always purchase their music to show support. Period.

Then there is that old argument that CDs were supposed to bring down the price of music but instead have raised it. Most bands only have one or two good songs on their CDs anyhow. I've been suggesting for years that music companies allow single-song downloads and now that it is finally happening, I think it is helping to reduce music "theft", regardless of what the recording companies say. I'm quite happy to spend .50 - .99 cents on only the songs I like. Once again though, the DRM schemes in place attempt to make it very difficult to transport or otherwise freely use the music that you pay for. It's like the music companies are trying to shoot themselves in their collective feet.

In my opinion, the more restrictive they make DRM, the more they are driving legitimate customers to piracy. I'm sorry but I should be allowed to do whatever I want with the music and videos I purchase, short of sharing them on the internet or making copies and selling them (both of which I have never done.)

Vista's DRM is primarly for HD and Blu-Ray DVDs. I don't see why that is such a big deal for some people.

The OSX for the phone that you are talking about is the equivalent of Windows mobile.

I understand what you are getting at but what you are missing is that Vista can be tweaked and trimmed down for the poweruser, if necessary. Vista doesn't have to consume that many resources, it only does so because it is trying to be the best of everything to everyone. My father uses Max OSX and OS9. Some of his software doesn't work on OS9 (without having to pay for an upgrade) so he has to maintain two boot ups. His OSX install is also slowly grinding to a halt and has numerous issues. It isn't pretty. My XP Pro SP2 install, Vista RTM, and Win2k3 have survived very well through all my development work and hammer on them. My point is that I don't think you can simply say "Mac OSX is better" just because that is what you're more familiar and comfortable with. Give me technical facts and reasons why you think it is better and I bet XP and Vista support the same features.

From a developer's perspective, Microsoft is the company to beat. There are very few companies out there that can put together development kits and tools as solid or as concise as Microsoft's. I started programming Win16 with C back in the day and have seen the great steps forward with Win32 API and .NET. Microsoft knows how to support developers.

I definitely agree with you on one point though, no one has to upgrade to Vista; Windows XP will remain a viable OS for quite a few years.

It's too early to tell how fast Vista is going to be with gaming and a little early on the driver front. To do comparisons now while the Vista drivers are so immature is pointless really. I would like to see how it compares in 6 months or so.

Ultimately we'll all go to Vista, it is a fantastic program and it's not just about how it looks. I don't like Microsoft as much as everyone else but we will all be using it eventually........even the naysayers.

If you run the 32 Bit version for the time being compatibility will be much better, most of the issues that I can see are with the 64 Bit version.

I also have a friend who has been running it. That's what caused me to buy the full version of it this week.

He has no problems with DRM running anything on his system and wouldn't go back to XP.

Actually, I think I should recant that statement altogether due to the nature of these recent findings:

http://apple.slashdot.org/article. [...] 4&from=rss

http://www.macworld.co.uk/ipod-itu [...] wsid=16927

After this I don't really know what to believe until someone digs up the truth.

Sorry if the "OSX on a phone" statement caused any confusion.

What misery would that be? Vista is a great operating system so far, in my opinion, both from a user's and developer's perspective. I've been using the RTM since November and besides VS2005 having a few issues (even I'll admit that was a pretty goof up by MS), everything is quite straightforward. I'm just trying to get my head around all the new features.

I'm very keen to get cracking on Longhorn Server...

Go to google.com and search for "vista issues".

I have a hard time believing that all of the OpenGL and Firefox issues are a coincidence. The most hilarious issues are the ones that involve MS's own software not working properly on Vista. If you ask me, it's a joke.

XP is still the choice for compatibility and gaming however for the rest of us Vista is the way to go. And don't bother telling me about Linux. Been there, done that and got the Red Hat Revolution T-shirt. One thing I know about Linux is that it should be user friendly in another 4 years or so. Oh and about that Mac ? Yeah. Gave up the ghost on OS7.5.

Yes. If you use the Business or Enterprise editions.

The main this article forgot to even BOTHER to throw into the mix was windows xp x64. This is something that would have shown a bit more of an inprovement over xp sp2 and vista. Also being that it has had a bit of a lifespan it doesn't have to worry about things "trying" to work with it. Personally I have seen signifigant improvements upgrading from xp sp2 to xp x64.

Microsoft has provided a 64-bit OS for a while now and uh, no vendors are really writing software for it. Explain to me again how that is Microsoft's fault. Maybe we should blame Intel and AMD for the lack of 64-bit apps since they make 64-bit products as well!

Well you could have had a 64-bit machine for the last few years (or longer) now. Once again, it isn't Microsoft's fault that vendors aren't writing appropriate drivers, software, etc.

...right. It is such a better OS that the market figured it would be cool to go with Windows "just to blend in"? For a corporate environment, Unix is severely lacking the appropriate documentation, unified vision, and support services. That's not saying it is a bad OS but it doesn't have the other things that make an OS like Windows XP/Server/etc so successful. It's been around long enough that it could have been huge just like Windows.

Isn't Apple and open-source a contradition? The last thing I would consider Apple to be is open and flexible.

The lack of 64-bit applications has very little to do with Microsoft. Furthermore, on current processors, there isn't a distinct advantage to running 64-bit applications, other than having access to more than 4GB of memory. There are numerous tests on the net showing the performance of 32-bit vs 64-bit Windows and guess what? There isn't a huge difference!

If you're editing massive videos, running a high performance database server, or whatnot, then sure, 64-bit is the way to go. If you're just surfing for e-mail, doing normal Photoshop work, playing games, etc, then there is no need for 64-bit processing at this time.

Just to show this isn't a Windows issue, here is another article for you:
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/09/3 [...] rformance/

I still can't believe you're blaming Microsoft for the lack of 64-bit applications.

Your talking points just reinforce my opinions. You have your opinion I have mine. I'm not here to debate the issue, but to voice my opinion that Microsoft will not get any more money out of me for shoddy products.
The fact that there is now a "viable" alternative with Mac finally means I don't have to be stuck in the MSFT monopoly anymore. I can develop web-sites with Mac OSX Server using AMP and that's all that matters to me. I'm not locked into ASP.Net or Windows servers or any other back-door restraints from them. And, I can still have full access to MSFT software on a Mac if I need it, which I don't. I don't need to upgrade and spend $5,000.00 on a PC that is still running 32bit apps. The fact that no one is writing 64bit apps and kstrat2001's comments about XP64 being a buggy piece of shit just reinforces the point. Yes, I could have bought a workstation 64bit machine years ago, but I've been waiting for a consumer version. I am not a rich corp. that can shell out $10-$15k for what a Sun was going for years ago. Hell, I could have bought a Super Cray if I had a few million laying around. So, If I have to buy a proprietary OS, which is what Vista is, I'd rather buy what Steve Jobs is selling. He has a better box and more attention to what consumers want.
Period. That should be fairly obvious if you're paying any attention at all to where the two platforms are headed. Zune or iPod? Vista or OSX?
Not a tough call to make for a consumer. I can buy a fully loaded Mac with everything I need for less than a Vista box. Case closed.
We haven't even mentioned the "Fun Factor". Apple has always kicked MSFT's ass on that one and I've never owned a Mac, but I've used them over the years. Seems like perfect timing; Gates is leaving MSFT at the same time I am. It's a sign....hahahahaha. I'm gonna push myself away from the table and say "No more Jello for me , Ma!!"
I don't have to defend my argument, just go back and look at the message board postings of the "crash and burn" that is happening right now on Vista "not working". Please, go argue with someone else. Peace.

I can't get 3DMark2006 basic to run at all on my Vista Ultimate... - are they comptatible???

I get that
IDirect3DDevice9:resent failedevice lost
error, reading about it now and some people blame it on F@M (I never used that), so I must be in the other category - Dell PC inomptatible with OpenGL and DirectX9...

Still have not found the fix, trying to install nVidia Vista driver for my Quadro GPU (work computer) - but failing at that too...

No it's not. What I meant by Mac becoming more PC is that it is now using components that were traditionally solely available for the PC, such as Intel CPUs, etc. I wasn't being completely serious about that either.

You make that statement as though a PC can't do that as well. It can. I can run multiple OSes on Windows too using virtualization software or simply creating dual or triple boot scenarios. As for Vista becoming restrictive on hardware, where did you get that from? I agree that some hardware is lacking Vista driver support but that is no different than when XP came out. In a few months we'll see vendors get up to speed on the new driver framework and then Vista will be just as compatible as XP. Give it time, the OS has only been out for a couple weeks (not including the MSDN RTM release.)

OSX has a lot of problems on its own. Vista will have issues as well but for the most part, it is a better OS. Funny enough, my Dad's iPod wouldn't work properly on his Mac with OSX but ran perfectly with the XP/Vista machine I just built him. Even better was that everytime he would unplug or plugin a USB device (any device) on the Mac, it would completely freeze the system. I just read that iTunes won't run properly under Vista and Apple recommends not to buy Vista until they release a "new version" in a few weeks. ...and they say MS is underhanded.

Never say never...

My experiences with Vista so far have been rather positive. My last PC was running XP64, but my new PC is running Vista Ultimate in 32bit flavor. All my hardware works, and works well, some programs need a bit of fiddling for them to work, but that will improve no doubt. Every single game I have thrown at it runs well. Vista seems more responsive than XP, starting and closing programs faster, booting faster, etc.

DRM has not impacted my rig one bit yet, since I don't own a HD/Blueray player, so there is no reason for DRM to even run on this system (which it won't do untill 'Premium content' is played). All media files play, iTunes runs as does my iPod (Make sure you enable disk use).

Now for the biggest surprise, Autodesk Maya 8.5 runs, and runs well. This program depends 100% on OpenGL, but the nVidia driver 100.59 has OpenGL support, and nothing indicates that it runs any slower than on XP on my rig.

I consider myself an enthusiast, and as such I think running Vista early is part of the adventure. I KNOW I am likely to run into some compatibility issues (as with the move to XP, 2000, NT, 98), I know driver performance and stability will likely be worse than on an OS than has been the mainstay for over 4 years, at least for the first few months. Still, if I don't try this stuff now, how can I expect to offer help and support to someone who will only start using it in 6-12 months?

I don't run an OS for the sake of running an OS, so Linux (however 'efficient' it may be) is not an option. I have been using Macs long enough to know that that is not an option either for me. I want to run 3D apps, and Games so Windows is my best bet at the moment.

The only thing I can think of that MS did wrong with vista is release it in Beta and RTM to the general public. People that complain about having trouble getting hardware support for the Beta version or RTM version well before general release are the ones who need some explanation about what a Beta really is, and they definately shoulnd't base their upgrade decision on that. The beta is to help vista get better, not for your windows experience to improve. In all fairness, everyone wo runs a mission critical machine should not have even considered looking at Vista before the 30th of January, and even then they should do their homework to make sure all their hard/soft ware is supported before switching.

I have run all major MS OS version (including X64) since DOS, and I don't see any reason for myslef now to go back to XP. Every new OS introduction brings with it the same doom and gloom stories from the conservative 'enthusiast', and the Mac fans and Linux zealots capitalizing on that. Give it 6-12 months and ALL mainstream PCs will run Vista. Everyone who by then runs a new PC an uses XP, will be just plain stubborn (or is tied to a software developer that offers worse update support than anything I have ever seen) . Vista is no more expensive than XP for a new PC, Vista does not offer less functionality than XP, Vista will not stop you from downloading/playing pirated music/movies/games (if that is your main reason to fear vista), it will runner smoother and offer similar performance as XP. It will allow you to run the exact same programs, and be honest, is it that big of a deal that you need a faster PC to get it to run properly? (wasn't that the case with EVERY newer OS, including MacOS?). I what universe is IDLE state the measuring stick for OS performance?

Comparing OpenGL performance with a driver that doesn't support OpenGL wasn't the smartest thing THG ever did, but at least they had the decency to say that poor results were likely the result of that (read last page). And if integrated graphics solutions no longer offer OpenGL support (because MS dropped generic OpenGL in Vista), my question is; what person that depends on OpenGL runs on integrated graphics?

Before all you 'enthusiasts' boycott Vista, check it out for yourself rather than quoting articles from websites, and benchmarks taken on pre-release version and drivers as your reason for never buying it...

No, I meant RTM, as I know what it stands for. RTM may be final code, but it doesn't mean 'release to retail' or 'release to general public'. It is a release specifically meant for system administrators/integrators/developers to familiarise themselves with the OS before they implement it. It is not meant for System builders, OEM's or enthusiasts. Some enthusiast may have MSDN subscriptions and are able to get it early (or just plainly downloaded a pirate copy), but that doesn't mean they are the focus group of this release. IMO the general public (including enthusiasts) should not have access to this release either, if their only comment on it is poor driver support and bad performance compared to XP. Surely a real comparison (and thus purchasing decision) can only be made after driver support is adequate and software is adapted to benefit from Vista rather than run in shaky compatibility modes or using workaround. MS shouldn't be blamed for enthusiasts not getting (a pirate) vista to run on a 4 year old system, well before driver support is up and running. And people shouldn't blindly follow the advise of these 'enthusiasts', but find out for themselves if Vista will do for them what they want it to do.

So you persist even though your opinion is based on incorrect assumptions ? Brilliant.

You call an OS that has less than 5% of the market share viable ? Please review Economics 101 and then return to the conversation.

And you can't do this on a MS box, why ? As someone who manages 14 websites, I can assure you that you do not need ASP.NET or any other MS proprietary technology to build a website. How about PHP ? How about ASP ? Heck, how about plain ol' HTML and CSS ?

<snip drivel>

Consumers don't need to access more than 4GB of RAM. That's why there aren't many 64 bit apps in the first place much less ones that are targetd to consumers.

We can tell. Apple is such a raving success story. </sarcasm>

Ah ! The infamous iPod ! What a proprietary piece of garbage !

Really ? Where ? Show me the money !

Oh this ought to be good !

I have and your full of it.

A sign ? Yes that he's moving on and hopefully you're growing up. Now don't forget to brush your teeth and wear your rubbers when it's raining..

LOL ! Guess what I'm running ? Vista ! And the uptime is now at 5 days straight. No crashes. Sound like someones using beta drivers or poorly written applications.

Again I have to disagree. Vista won't prevent application access to those resources, but will use them if they go unused. If an app needs more than is available, Vista will scale down the eyecandy in order to free up resources, it will do the same with the superfetch caching. Again, people seem to be obsessed with how much resources are used when idling, which has nothing to do with application performance. Run DOS, there is something that uses little resources when idling!

Just as an experiment I installed Ubuntu Linux (supposedly the easiest to use) this week to see how far Linux has progressed since I last tried it, but honestly... Any OS that requires Command line commands to get hardware to work or to do anything more than starting a program, I am sorry to say is NOT a threat to MS. And suppose I got everything working on Linux (after various Root commands and terminal sessions...), then what? I have spent years of my life learning all the ins and outs of programs like photoshop, I don't want to start all over again with another (Open Source) program. Linux is still anything but user friendly, and compatibility is horrendous. On top of that, there are so many different variants out there that is defies its own existance...

OSX might be a better alternative, but to be honest, by offering an OS that will only run on a limited amount of (apple) hardware, Apple has it a lot easier...Especially since they get profit margins on that hardware that are 2-3 times the industry standard. Why do console games (almost) always work? Because there is only one platform...OSX's 'efficiency' is based on the same concept...How is that for a 'lock-in'?

I don't see the software vendors move from a single common platform (Windows) to a platform that has a billion different variants (linux) anytime soon, especially if it is a platform were people are expecting everthing for free (whooo OpenSource!!!) where there is very little financial gain for them...So that leaves Linux (Again) as an efficient but mostly unsupported platform for years to come...

Is it wrong for me to like you?

Basically, you can't develop for hardware that doesn't exist.