Comparsion Between Vista Sp1 Rc And Xp Sp3

[Guest Reimar]

There a lot test of comparing Vista SP1 RC (1) and Windos XP SP3 RC! But what that test really telling?

I do believe that every one need to realize that the difference between the two OS's are not only because of a different Software with different Kernel but because of much different Hardware compatibility as well.

As many knows, XP didn't supports Dual Core 2 Processors very well but Vista does. And that much more with Quad Core Processors. So, how it's possible to compare the two OS's on Hardware which isn't supported full by one of the OS? From my point of view that kind of comparsion is leaking and not correct!

But build your own meaning and read the article I'll post now:

Vista SP1 RC1 Flies Past Vista RTM and Windows XP SP2

- But it also hits a speed bump when it comes down to network transfers

Despite the fact that Microsoft has expressed its official position regarding testing Windows Vista Service Pack 1 ahead of its finalization, there is simply too much of a hunger for the service pack. In this context, performing benchmark tests on development milestones of Vista's first refresh are inherent methods of getting a taste of what SP1 will bring to the table. The Redmond company revealed in the past that it considers irrelevant tests involving a pre-RTM build of Vista SP1. But with the release to manufacturing date of the service pack still to be announced, sometime in the first quarter of 2008, the temptation is too big to get a sneak preview of the refresh.

In an initiative similar to that of the Devil Mountain Sofware company that tested the performance of beta builds of XP SP3 and

Vista SP1, Gizmodo has also performed a benchmarking of Vista SP1, but this time the full Release Candidate. Earlier in December, Microsoft opened up the beta testing process of Vista SP1, with the delivery of the first public download, namely Release Candidate 1. Now, there is still no word from Microsoft whether RC1 is the final stage before RTM or if another RC will follow, but the company has given strong indication that Vista SP1 RC1 is close to the service pack's final form.

The new performance tests are essentially a comparison between Vista SP1 RC1, Vista RTM and Windows XP SP3. The tests were performed on a machine with the following configuration: a dual quad-core Penryn HP xw8600 PC, NVidia Quadro FX 4600 graphics (eight processor cores each at 3.16GHz), a 15,000rpm SAS hard drive and 4GB of physical system memory. Vista SP1 RC1 scored the highest, according to the results returned by running the industry-standard PCMark05 benchmark, accounting for 15.28% speed increase, compared to the RTM version of Vista. However, when it came down to network transfers, Vista SP1 RC1 hit a speed bump and copied a 1.37GB folder with 2606 items in almost 16 minutes, whereas Vista RRm did it in 13 minutes and XP SP2 in under 4 minutes.

Source

[nikster]

"a dual quad-core Penryn HP xw8600 PC, NVidia Quadro FX 4600 graphics (eight processor cores each at 3.16GHz)..."

8 cores at 3.16GHz... a sensible choice. Sounds like just the right amount of hardware to make Vista fast...

[Guest Reimar]

"a dual quad-core Penryn HP xw8600 PC, NVidia Quadro FX 4600 graphics (eight processor cores each at 3.16GHz)..."

8 cores at 3.16GHz... a sensible choice. Sounds like just the right amount of hardware to make Vista fast...

They using a machine for to compare which isn't really supported by XP! How that comparsion can show something? IMHO it can't!

It looks like that a comparsion like that is to "push" Vista to an Front Place where it couldn't be in the real!

[hp8000]

Vista SP1 RC (1) : Datas of your activities on the computer sent to some obscure US organizations.

Windows XP SP3 RC! : Datas of your activities on the computer sent to some obscure US organizations.

I don't see any difference.

[LivinLOS]

"a dual quad-core Penryn HP xw8600 PC, NVidia Quadro FX 4600 graphics (eight processor cores each at 3.16GHz)..."

8 cores at 3.16GHz... a sensible choice. Sounds like just the right amount of hardware to make Vista fast...

They using a machine for to compare which isn't really supported by XP! How that comparsion can show something? IMHO it can't!

It looks like that a comparsion like that is to "push" Vista to an Front Place where it couldn't be in the real!

While I can agree that the test bias's new hardware surely thats whats coming down the pipe.. Things evolve, Vista makes better use of newer and faster hardware, so vista is faster on that hardware.. Whats not to like.. Would you rather vista didnt support new hardware more effectively ??

I am rebuilding a media PC.. Going to be looking into quad core options and pricing v duo.. I fail to see whats not to like, despite all the FUD put out by MS haters, vista is outperforming XP on new hardware, isnt that what its supposed to do ?? While look and feel and useability all improved ??

I can now run a vista media center.. That captures my live TV, that offers pausing and playback, throughout my whole home to multiple nodes on xbox360's.. Every room in the house can have my music collection, dvd library, TV library, Hidef library, (not to mention basic functions like gaming.. And add on functions like whole home automation etc), all through a nice clean unified consumer electronics interface.. None of this was possible a couple of years back..

Vista looks better, vista does more, and now it even runs faster on the current hardware !! Yet still people want to bash it. Sure if you have a multi year old computer keep XP on it.. But if your the kind of guy who upgrades to the good stuff vista is it IMO.

[Guest Reimar]

"a dual quad-core Penryn HP xw8600 PC, NVidia Quadro FX 4600 graphics (eight processor cores each at 3.16GHz)..."

8 cores at 3.16GHz... a sensible choice. Sounds like just the right amount of hardware to make Vista fast...

They using a machine for to compare which isn't really supported by XP! How that comparsion can show something? IMHO it can't!

It looks like that a comparsion like that is to "push" Vista to an Front Place where it couldn't be in the real!

While I can agree that the test bias's new hardware surely thats whats coming down the pipe.. Things evolve, Vista makes better use of newer and faster hardware, so vista is faster on that hardware.. Whats not to like.. Would you rather vista didnt support new hardware more effectively ??

I am rebuilding a media PC.. Going to be looking into quad core options and pricing v duo.. I fail to see whats not to like, despite all the FUD put out by MS haters, vista is outperforming XP on new hardware, isnt that what its supposed to do ?? While look and feel and useability all improved ??

I can now run a vista media center.. That captures my live TV, that offers pausing and playback, throughout my whole home to multiple nodes on xbox360's.. Every room in the house can have my music collection, dvd library, TV library, Hidef library, (not to mention basic functions like gaming.. And add on functions like whole home automation etc), all through a nice clean unified consumer electronics interface.. None of this was possible a couple of years back..

Vista looks better, vista does more, and now it even runs faster on the current hardware !! Yet still people want to bash it. Sure if you have a multi year old computer keep XP on it.. But if your the kind of guy who upgrades to the good stuff vista is it IMO.

You're very right from your point of view, I agree fully.

But that wasn't the question! The questions is really that it isn't a "true" compare between and 6 years old OS on latest hardware , which isn't fully supported by that OS, and a new OS which supports the lates hardware in full extends!

And not all of the users/members are able to upgarde to the latest hardware available!

[sjaak327]

Reiman, sure, but that's not the point here. When tests are done, they are not going to be preformed on old hardware, but on current hardware. I don't give much value to tests anyway, but again I don't see ANY reason why someone who buys a new PC would insist that XP would be installed on it, instead of vista.

Hardware compatibilty will be better then XP, software compatibility isn't an issue anymore either.

Livinginlos: Vista media Centre is the Killer App of Vista as far as I'm concerned. It's a great piece of software, and it's slightly better then the XP MCE version. (transparent screens for instance, where your TV is in the background with the menu system overlayed above it, just love it !

[Guest Reimar]

Reiman, sure, but that's not the point here. When tests are done, they are not going to be preformed on old hardware, but on current hardware. I don't give much value to tests anyway, but again I don't see ANY reason why someone who buys a new PC would insist that XP would be installed on it, instead of vista.

Hardware compatibilty will be better then XP, software compatibility isn't an issue anymore either.

As long as the comparing is done with the hardware which was available at the launch of the OS the compare is ok IMHO! But compare a system which was designed to work with single core processores and even didn't full support dual core processors with an other OS which was designed to work with quad core processores, and that was the case with Vista, that can't be done. And the other fact is the memory!

As I worte, not everyone could buy the latest hardware because of it's cost and that users better sticks with XP than change to vista! And that's what the users should think about before they change the OS!

I run Vista more than a year without problems and it runs better than XP but: ON MY HARDWARE which differs from others! And I've tweaked Vista for my own use! Again, who want to use Vista should to first take a look at the Hardware and/or to what to upgrade before make a decission!

That's why I was starting this topic, to show that the test having a lot different sites but even that we have to look not to the result but to whole bunch of available Hard- and Software!

[sjaak327]

Yes Reimar I agree with you, put I was talking about people who buy a new PC, on which Vista will most likely run much better then XP. Regarding upgrading, that's a different story alltogether, especially regarding driver compatibility, something that isn't a problem on brand new hardware.

That said, I did upgrade two of my pc's to Vista, on one (that was ony one year old at the time) it also did run much quicker then XP, on the other (4 years old) I indeed needed to upgrade memory and video card to make use of aero. Incidentally that 4 year old pc is running my media centre, much to my satisfaction.