Vista vias XP Vista News Discuss Vista vias XP in the Windows Vista forums; taken from Bink Site.. I said in yesterday’s introduction, my job as an engineer on the Windows Vista team is to improve performance. I wanted to look at a ...

[Snuffy]

taken from Bink Site..

I said in yesterday’s introduction, my job as an engineer on the Windows Vista team is to improve performance. I wanted to look at a study that measure a key area that we focused on for Windows Vista – consistent responsiveness during the times that matter most to users (when starting up their machine, after being idle, and when you are under the gun running tons of apps, etc.).

To objectively measure how we did, I’ve been working with a company named Principled Technologies. If you’ve been involved in the (admittedly somewhat niche) specialty of perf testing over the last decade you likely know the people if not the company. We commissioned Principled Technologies to develop, run, and document the results of a set of tests that compare the performance of Windows Vista RTM and Windows XP on common business tasks. Today they published their findings here. I am, of course, really excited by the results.

Now you should read the whole report, but I wanted to talk a bit about their key findings:

l “Windows Vista was noticeably more responsive after rebooting than Windows XP on several common business operations.”

As I alluded to, yesterday, superfetch is the key driver behind this. I want to point out, though, that 'after rebooting' can be seen as a proxy for lots of cold operations. Rebooting is just the easiest to reliably measure. The second bullet is:

l “Overall, Windows Vista and Windows XP were roughly equally responsive on most test operations. Windows Vista was more responsive on some operations, and on those operations on which it was more responsive, Windows XP typically responded only a half a second or so faster.”

This is great, especially since Windows Vista is doing considerably more out of the box (e.g. UAC, Defender, search indexing, etc.). One of the most interesting bits for me was their 3rd highlight... you can run Aero without guilt!

l “Windows Vista Aero had little effect on the responsiveness of Windows Vista. Over 95 percent of the response-time differences between tests we ran with and without Vista Aero were under a tenth of a second, and all of the differences were under one second.”

We put quite a bit of effort into making sure that the new visuals were as efficent as possible and it really paid off.

Continue At Source



News Source: blogs.msdn.com

So basically Vista is somewhat faster than XP in somethings and XP is somewhat faster than Vista in otherthings..
It looks better, handles better, (IMHO) But is it really worth the $$$$$.
to disappoint you..

[felix8406]

I like Win XP, and of course I like Vista, but I mentioned before, I do think that all tests done so far have not taken into consideration the environment where Vista has been tested. I am not saying they are not reliable, but they've been run in a Win XP environment.

Vista is designed with new technology in mind, and although it can run older applications and drivers, it's supposed to be taking advantage of newer applications, hardware drivers and so forth. I personally don't expect Vista to be superior to Win XP while running Win XP native applications. However I expect Vista to do much better than Win XP when it's running hardware and software designed for Vista...and if Vista doesn't do better while running its native hardware and software, then I'll be really disappointed.

[Znod]

Snuffy, did you see this thread: http://www.vistababble.com/forums/vi...te-really.html? I don't have the results on the individual tests any more, but the averages of the composite scores given here may point us to the overall relative performance difference we might expect between Vista and XP Pro. But, as felix suggests, time will tell the final story.