Windows Vista System Performance Reports

[Rob Williams]

Does performance suck on Vista when compared to XP? That's what I was set out to find out. I was worried at first, since the performance in Beta 2 was quite bad. While there is indeed a performance decrease, it's quite minimal as you'll find out.

You can read the article here and discuss it here!

 

[Jakal]

Good update, Rob. Nice to see Vista isn't terribly taxing in its final version. Numbers are very close, and most probably won't notice the difference. I'd say your system is better than midrange though. Most people don't have better than a 7600, unless you're a gaming enthusiast.

More and more will make the move over the next time they upgrade computers. As you stated, when more support comes out for the OS then it'd be better suited for the average user.

 

[Rob Williams]

Well, that is true. I didn't have a system slow enough for an even lower-end range system though, sadly. Unless I underclocked both the CPU and GPU, heh.

 

[Rory Buszka]

What matters is that it was the same system, running the same gamut of benchmarks. Do you think this is simply because Vista soaks up more of your machine's performance for its nifty flashiness, or is this operating system truly inefficient at its lowest levels?

 

[Rob Williams]

I think it's due to the fact that Vista automatically has many system services running at a given time. While WinXP had about 25, Vista had something like 40. I can upload photos showing the differences... I had forgot to include them.

 

[Unregistered]

A Core2Duo with 2GB RAM would probably make anything run nice. It would interesting to see the comparison again with a P4 2.8Ghz (average computer of 2 years ago) with 512MB of RAM. I'd even be willing to concede 1GB RAM, but I think the 512MB would be more interesting....

Robert

 

[sls]

On that hardware it is shame full that it is slower at all!!!

My god! Try it on a system common in corporations or homes today and see.. over 50% of the machine park is 3 years old out there... Most systems that i have seen today are all but useless with Vista on them.

 

[Unregistered]

Real Usage Performance

So I tried RTM with an oldish, decent computer (Athlon XP 2.4Ghz, ATI 9600XT, 1GB DDR400, HDD scored Experience Index 4)

3rd party software generally performed great, as indicated in the article, but many shell-level things had dreadful performance. For example Browsing folders was much slower than XP, all the thumbnail/file detail/metatag processing slowed things down. Also, ZIP processing was ridiculous, extracting ZIP files was at 250 Bytes/Second. Using 7-zip on Vista on the same file was at least 10x faster.

Also, there were some serious latencies in other things, like when Windows switches off Aero every time certain apps run, the whole system pauses for a while, until the Gfx can reload.

While I'm ranting...When the screen dims to show the UAC dialogs (surprisingly often), the whole screen goes black for about 1/2 a second. This is seriously disturbing the first few times it happens.

Stephen

 

[moon111]

Hopefully this isn't a dumb question, but I've only seen the Vista interface briefly...which looked great, especially on a 24" LCD (Grrr... don't you hate friends with money.) Anyways, are the guts of the OS the same? One of the first things I do with XP is get rid of unneccessary services that are running. Operating systems are such bloated beasts. Can Vista be trimmed down? Would this increase performance?

 

[Unregistered]

Buy it should be an impprovement ?1?

at the risk of trolling,
If I was to fork out some hard-earned on a new OS surely I should be entitled to expect an improvement?

Whats the point otherwise?

I *could* spend money to change to an OS that has issues with some applications and not actually get any performance gains, or send nothing and stick where I am

my 2c

 

[unknown]

works fine for me

@moon111

Yes, Vista can be trim down using "vlite" from nuhi the same creator for nlite.

Personally, I'd choose Vista rather than XP. The point is, You get everything NEW and SHINY, and there isn't any loss in performance. You see, XP running around 25 services vs Vista with 40 services and the differences aren't big (big improve, if XP were running 40 services, I'll get BSOD every 5 mins) . So why not?

 

[m3]

nonsense

I dont understand the point of having to run a rig with 2GB of ram and a crazy expensive processor to run your OS. its pointless.... for what? some pretty flashy OS frills? The only people that are going to want/pay for this Bloated Junk is Gamers (because they ARE forced to to run x10) and grandma and grandpa that go to Best Buy to buy a new pc....... Hopefully the more tech savvy folks out their are spreading the word to avoid this OS.. XP is plenty suffiecient at this time for just about anything i can think of and will need... Your article neglects these minor tidbits... it covers performance.. but you fail to ask the BIG question..... Why do i need 2GB of ram and a dual core processor to run this OS (and for what)???? ;/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pz to my boys in:
irc.station51.net #theforum!!

 

[Unregistered]

Good article, thanks.

However, benchmarks are one thing - and great for comparing a new rig, graphics card, hard drive, CPU, etc - but that's not actually important IMHO. What would be nice would be a personal opinion as to the real responsiveness;

How many seconds to load Vista? (Compared - on your system - to XP)
How long to load Explorer? How nippy it is browsing folders? Like someone suggested that thumbnail processing was slow - how was it on your system compared to XP? (Likewise compared to the other guys 'slow' PC).

Ultimately - if we're playing games, then we'll either be happy enough to run a dual-boot, or will tune it up to make it run nice - and anyways, you'd assume (without emulation) that most games will run within a percent or two of their previous performance. So really, it's about how the OS 'feels' at the end of the day - is it responsive, is it productive?

But thanks for a good start into assessing Windows Vista performance. As a computer engineer I'd promissed not to recommend people switch to it purely because I knew nobody would "need to". I've changed my mind - I'm fed up of people buying the cheapest components they can - I'd like to 'force' people -)) to buy something with a bit of meat on it, a proper system!

Cheers
Mark

 

[m3]

huh

Good article, thanks.


But thanks for a good start into assessing Windows Vista performance. As a computer engineer I'd promissed not to recommend people switch to it purely because I knew nobody would "need to". I've changed my mind - I'm fed up of people buying the cheapest components they can - I'd like to 'force' people -)) to buy something with a bit of meat on it, a proper system!

Cheers
Mark

so your going to tell people to waste money on hardware to run an OS with no benefits?
great logic :s

 

[Unregistered]

rofl

Not "too bad"... come on...

looking at your results from a different direction it equates to

Spend $ for Vista

Spend $ for hardware upgrade

By your own admission recieve NOTHING I need as enhancements besides a fresh crop of bugs to cost my techs support $$'s

And equal my current current XP performance benchmarks...

duh!

oh that's a winner that is.


What next? The Edsel?

 

[Rob Williams]

Thanks for the comments and criticism guys. My last article dealt with direct performance increase/decrease, so that's what I had in mind when I came around to writing this follow up.

I like the idea of the startup time/network speed/et cetera. More importantly, I'd like to get ahold of a single core chip and 1GB of ram and repeat testing on a more realistic level. I admit, I overlooked a few things here.. I'd like to clear them up in the weeks to come if I can get a more appropriate machine, and also touch on the other misc. speed benefits.

 

[Jakal]

To the last, what.. 6 posts? If you managed to get through the whole article and read the "Final Thoughts" section, you'd find that he isn't recommending anyone upgrade to Vista, yet. It's been clearly stated that Vista runs more processes than XP, the system he's using is fairly new, AND he describes how older machines would respond to such an upgrade.

Now I'm not on the Vista bandwagon yet myself. I won't be until DX10 takes over. You can't expect a new OS to perform on par with a previous one. It's going to take into account newer technology, and the relative fact that no one is running a P1 133 anymore. It wasn't designed for it. Just like XP has minimal requirements, so does Vista. Take the article for what it is, a comparison between the Beta and Final version. He tells you at the beginning that he's comparing the Beta 2 performance to the Retail version.

The benchmarks provided are only what you can expect from a computer of the same caliber. I don't expect my 2GHz AthlonXP 2400 to run Vista that smoothly, and neither should anyone else. I'm not upgrading to make the move to Vista, and he's not recommending anyone do that either.

Mark, you seemed the most sensible out of the others, had mentioned some other ways of comparing. Just wanted to say thanks, and that registration is only a couple clicks away.

 

[moon111]

My question is, if Vista @ 40 services running compares to XP @ 25 services running, how fast is Vista if it weren't bloated. How would it perform after disabling some services? For most part, I'd be happy with an old DOS interface if you could strip it down that far. I want my resources being used by programs, not the OS. If memory prices weren't so high, it wouldn't be an issue, I'd just put 4 gb in and call it a day.

 

[Monkmachine]

Good article, I'm sure you've seen the benchies comparing gaming, its going to take a while for vista to get up to the speed of XP. I'm currently running dual boot of vista and XP but I wouldn't use vista for gaming as it is laggy. Also Alt+tab is very slow on vista which I use quite alot. As far as internet, office etc vista is fine but not for games. I think gaming is poor because of 2 things
1. Graphics Drivers
2. Ram(2GB still isn't enough) for example BF2 on XP uses 1.2 on high(roughly) and on vista thats all you have to play with. Vista on its own use 600-700.

For those interested in trying vista maybe try one of those "trial" versions on the net or the beta RC2 was quite stable.

 

[Rob Williams]

That's one thing MS should do, if they haven't already. Release a "Trial" 30 day version that could be ordered from their store for like $5 including shipping. That way the rest of the world can make their own conclusions.