November 27, 2007 5:13 AM PST
Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test
- Related Stories
-
Parents the winner in Leopard, Vista showdown
November 20, 2007 -
Leopard, uncaged: Mac OS X upgrade debuts
October 30, 2007 -
The balance sheet on Windows Vista
October 29, 2007 -
U.K. retailer links poor profits to Vista sales
October 18, 2007 -
Microsoft extends Windows XP's stay
September 27, 2007 -
Running the numbers on Vista
September 11, 2007 - Related Blogs
-
Microsoft's first quarter: A blowout
October 25, 2007
Vista's first service pack, to be released early next year, is intended to boost the operating system's performance. However, when Vista with the Service Pack 1 (SP1) beta was put through benchmark testing by researchers at Florida-based software development company Devil Mountain Software, the improvement was not overwhelming, leaving the latest Windows iteration outshined by its predecessor.
Vista, both with and without SP1, performed notably slower than XP with SP3 in the test, taking over 80 seconds to complete the test, compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP's 35 seconds.
Vista's performance with the service pack increased less than 2 percent compared to performance without SP1--much lower than XP's SP3 improvement of 10 percent. The tests, run on a Dell XPS M1710 test bed with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 1GB of RAM, put Microsoft Office 2007 through a set of productivity tasks, including creating a compound document and supporting workbooks and presentation materials.
In response to the test, a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement that although the company understood the interest in the service packs, they are "still in development" and will continue to evolve before their release. "It has always been our goal to deliver service packs that meet the full spectrum of customer needs," the spokesperson said.
If SP1 does not evolve sufficiently, it could be another setback for Vista, with many businesses waiting to adopt the operating system until the service pack is released.
A year after its launch, only 13 percent of businesses have adopted Vista, according to a survey of IT professionals.
Microsoft admits that the launch has not gone as well as the company would have liked. "Frankly, the world wasn't 100 percent ready for Windows Vista," corporate vice president Mike Sievert said in a recent interview at Microsoft's partner conference in Denver.
Microsoft has not done enough to make users aware of the benefits of Vista, NPD analyst Chris Swenson said at the conference. "The problem is that there are a lot of complex new features in Vista, and you need to educate consumers about them...much like Apple educating the masses about the possibilities of the iPhone or focusing on a single feature or benefit of the Mac OS in the Mac-versus-PC commercials. Microsoft should be educating the masses about the various new features in a heavy rotation of Vista in TV, radio, and print ads. But the volume of ads (for Vista) has paled in comparison to the ads run for XP."
XP has proved to be more popular than its younger sibling, with the first six months of U.S. retail sales of box copies of Vista 59.7 percent below those of XP's in the equivalent period after its release.
Microsoft has had to allow PC manufacturers to continue to sell XP on new PCs, setting a deadline for the last sale at January 31. However, the pressure from manufacturers and consumers has been so great that Microsoft has been forced to extend the deadline another five months, until June.
According to Microsoft, sales of Vista have been picking up, with the software giant reporting 88 million units sold.
Suzanne Tindal of ZDNet Australia reported from Sydney. CNET News.com's Ina Fried contributed to this article.
See more CNET content tagged:
service pack,
Microsoft Windows Vista,
benchmarking,
Microsoft Windows XP,
spokesperson

Ideally, the test would be done on machines that were optimized for each OS. XP could be run on a 2 GHz single core machine with 1 GB RAM and Vista could be run on a 2 GHz dual core machine with 2 GB RAM, then it would be equal.
If they both had two gig of ram Windows XP would still run faster, and if the Vista computer had two gig of ram when the XP computer only had one I imagine it will still run faster.
But Windows XP takes only 128 megabyte minimum. You're telling us that Vista takes 1600 percent more ram to run correctly.
Certainly, Vista isn't 16 times better then Windows XP is it? It's certainly not 16 times faster. Where?s the justification?
Ergo, I'm putting my 'dump Vista for XP' effort on a fast track.
Keep putting lipstick on that sow - but a pig is still a pig.
*PETA Note - no animals were harmed in the use of these analogies.
I would rather use XP than Vista if the retailer had gave me that option for my laptop.
Saying its equal to do a test with a twice as powerful PC shows that you do not have the appropriate knowledge or training to make a truly informed opinion.
Software bloat like this is whats caused the performance of machines to stay almost the same while speeds have increased.
I recently 'upgraded' from a 2Ghz Single Core running XP with 1GB Ram to a 2Ghz Dual core with 2GB ram running Vista.
In general usage there is very little in performance increase, even though I in theory have twice the computing power at my disposal.
You're absolutely right but you miss the whole point of what this
tests proves. The article's main theme is based on a quote found
mid way which states:
"A year after its launch, only 13 percent of businesses have
adopted Vista".
The question is obviously answered in that (very fair) real world
test. I'll use my company's stance to explain my point. At my
desk I have a 2 year old computer with XP on it that continues to
run as it was designed to. It has a 2GHz single core processor
with only 512mb of ram and a graphic card which works
perfectly for XP but is far below Vista's needs. So in order to
"adopt" Vista either half of my comp's components need to be
replaced or better yet the whole computer needs to be chucked.
That's one hell of an investment just to upgrade to Vista and for
what...? XP has no problems surfing the Internet or using Office
so seriously.. why would my company want to toss money out
the window when the Windows it uses already on a non-Vista
compliant computer works perfectly as it is..??
desktop OS on the planet that can't run nicely in 1 GB of RAM.
How is that an unfair test?
And the guy had it backwards when he said the world wasn't
ready for Vista. What he should have said was that Vista wasn't
ready for the world.
They were testing equal hardware specs, and [b]1GB[/b] of RAM is allegedly [b]double Vista's minimum memory requirement[/b].
http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/update-re-testing-vista-w2gb-ram-office.html
Result: Vista still sucks hind teat, and by a large margin.
Lesson: Be careful what you wish for, because when you get it things are likely to look just as bad (or worse, in this case).
Cheers!
A new OS should have MORE features and consume at least the same amount of resources if not LESS. This is how technology is supposed to grow. Things are supposed to become more efficient, using less or equal amounts of power with a greater outcome.
Vista is not just developed for today, it will grow with future hardware developments - as has every other OS launch with MS. Windows 95 runs quicker than XP on my old machine, but nobody from the news says anything about that, do they?
Games ran faster, everything ran faster.
Get your facts straight.
I am an IT Analyst in the Desktop Enterprise Management group where we manage 5000+ systems and I have been testing Vista since beta and even have Vista Enterprise on one of my systems at work A dual core OptiPlex 620 and the only way to get it to "play nice" is to tweak the system through the local group policy and turn off UAC, etc. By the time you get it to a point where it will not drive our helpdesk staff to the brink you have stripped off pretty much what MS says is so good about it, short of the "eye candy" Aero interface.
Like the man said "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
My recommendation along with the vast majority of fortune 500 companies is going to be "skip it",
We'll wait and see how Windows 7 turns out then make some hard decisions as to whether Microsoft is truly listening to their Enterprise user base.
No OS is perfect, but Vista really was a let down.
They have it backwards, I think Microsoft was NOT 100% ready to release Vista. Yes the test was fair. It's just like Windows ME, man did we get ripped off on that one.
Translation:
Frankly, we know that not everyone wants Vista.
If you don't re-translate, the original quote is just as incriminating. The release of Vista was delayed 2 years and the world still wasn't ready for it. Sounds like the world doesn't want it.
If you test Windows 95, it will work even faster. This is a no-brainer.
And all you MS bashers out there, compare the system requirements of latest versions of Mac OS and Ubuntu and compare it to the versions released five years ago.
For the most part each upgrade of OSX has been faster than the previous version. Windows seems to be the opposite.
requirements of latest versions of Mac OS and Ubuntu and
compare it to the versions released five years ago."
And then compare those requirements to the Vista requirements
and ask yourself, if they can do it why can't Vista? Vista seems
to be the only OS on the planet needing at least 2 GB to get any
decent performance out of it.
And for the record, it took a lot of years being abused and
ripped off by MS to turn me into a MS basher. But at least I
learned from my experience. Some people never do learn.
The bootup time was of course basically instant, POST finished and BAM you were at your desktop. But after that there was not much of a performance difference compared to XP.
The duel core, didnt work at all, it would not install Windows 95. SATA Drives, don't even think about it :).
Still sucks.
/P
apparently won't be after SP1.
As a MSFT stockholder I hope MS is hard at work on a Vista
replacement, and a plan to keep offering XP for a few more
years until "AfterVista" is ready.
Otherwise they should expect a slow but steady migration of
customers to other operating systems.
Translation:
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We'll be sure to add some arbitrary, performance-crippling code to XP SP3 before it gets out of beta.
All of them run smoothly (my 15 year old kid last week asked me what is a "blue screen of death" - because he NEVER saw one!). However, I really prefer Vista over XP.
The question, for me, is not "performance", as in "speed", but rather, "performance" as in "functionality". And "security". And "ease of use". And... Well, you get my point (I hope).
I didn't run the tests, but I can only guess that Windows 98SE RUNS FASTER ON A 1 GB MACHINE THAN XP! Duh... That's why the point raised by another poster here about "unfairness" is a good one.
As for myself, my machine has 4 GB of RAM (RAM is REALLY cheap nowadays) and I don't complain. In fact, Vista actually *uses* the 4 GB of RAM; I doubt that XP benefits as well by adding more RAM above 2 GB.
In the end, nothing of this really matters, because one year from now, Vista will rule (more than now) and XP will have fade into oblivion.
P.S.: So let me get this straight: for years, XP was a bad OS; now that we have a better one (Vista), it suddenly it is a good OS? Oh dear...
So Vista for home...Great. Vista for the Enterprise...I think we'll wait and see what Windows 7 has to offer.
* "oooh, RAM is cheap!" Sure, if your definition of "cheap" is: "a couple of hundred bucks".
You know? I'd like to see the pricetags and performance of Vista, XP, Leopard, and Ubuntu all on the same exact hardware specs for a given application native to all three major types (like, say, Unreal Tournament?) I'm more than willing to bet that Vista sits at dead last, and that MSFT would crap its pants in haste to try and shut down any website that did such a test.
/P
Guess what -- Vista still sucks, even after SP1.
Guess what else -- XP is here to stay, while Vista is on its way out.
Microsoft is pretty much admitting defeat, and is accelerating development on Windows 7.
An OS shouldn't need to use a tremendous amount of system resources to run... It's supposed to be a platform for my apps not THE APP. It should also be intuitive which XP wasn't really and Vista is less.
Vista wasn't 100% ready for the world. MS could actually fix Vista long before they could fix the world. Maybe.
both. :-)
-Nate
It is slow AND insecure
Vista is still below 10% market share. When it reaches 10% market share it should become a lucrative enough target for the hackers to really start focusing on it.
What I found more interesting was this tidbit of information. "The National Vulnerability Database reports 19 Windows Vista vulnerabilities in the first nine months," stated Avert Labs' just-published top 10 threat predictions. "This compares with 16 Windows XP vulnerabilities during a comparable period." (The comparable period being the first nine months of XP's release.)
So comparing the first nine months of XP to Vista and Vista has had three more vulnerabilities then XP. How is that more secure?
Version 6.0, to be exact. See?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT
Windows isn't the only game in town anymore. IF MSFT wants to
compete, it damned well better learn to do so on merit for once.
;)
/P
It's time for Microsoft to admit that Vista is DOA. The only reason Vista is selling at all, is to people that are buying new PCs and don't know better.
Microsoft, It's time to cut your loses, Dump the crap, and create a new operating system that works. One that does not require anyone to update the hardware, allows you to startup with only the applications that we select, and not the kitchen sink. Do You Think You Remember How To Do That?
came out first and MS had to at least match it. Isn't competition
great. :-)
You are right, MS needs to do what Apple did and do a complete
rewrite. Until they do that they are going to be saddled with bad
code that has accumulated over the years. And they will be stuck
with the design choices they made in the earlier versions.
Here's the CNET article on XP from last week in case you all missed it:
http://www.news.com/Microsoft-exec-calls-XP-hack-frightening/2100-7349_3-6218238.html?tag=item