Why Is Vista Slower Then Xp?

I've been dealing with personal computers for 20 years. Never have I seen an OS that comes out which is faster on the same hardware or less hardware demading than its' predecessor. I don't understand why people expect this, it defies logic.

Vista has lots of new features and functions (like the aforementioned superfetch, which I love, and the neato "sidebar" gadgets) which take advantage of newer computers' speed (faster CPUs, memory, video, storage).

If you don't want the features or don't have a computer which can handle the higher system requirements for Vista, then stick with XP, it's a fine OS in its own right.
 
Last edited:
better video card runs vista better. it appears as aero uses vram alot.

i tried using a 2400 pro and it lags when maximizing and minimizing.

then i change to a 7800gtx,8800gtx,2900xt and they all buttery smooth.

even a 6600gt runs vista smooth. but it is not just the video card. the cpu plays a part.

i'd say if your vista runs slow, one or more of the computer parts needs upgrading :cool:
 
kof2000 said:
.

even a 6600gt runs vista smooth. but it is not just the video card. the cpu plays a part.

i'd say if your vista runs slow, one or more of the computer parts needs upgrading :cool:
Click to expand...

even my 9600 pro runs vista smooth...Vista runs faster on my pc than Xp ever has suprisingly and according to Everest Ultimate vista only uses around 50 or so mb more when my system is idle than Xp on my system.

i was shocked when i installed vista.
 
Addition: If you are concerned about Vista being a memory hog, then I would recommend the "Home Basic" version of Vista. It does not have the "Aero" glass features or the "flip 3D" task switcher, both of which tap a great deal of system resources. It still looks and feels much nicer than Windows XP.
 
Last edited:
I found the stability in gaming was better in Vista while some are only looking at benchmark results for frame rates. The games even some 6-7yrs. old seem to run better with the improvements seen more in the file system structure with far fewer driver issues even after XP saw SP2.

But there are some opposing views also being seen as to Vista's actual worth for Microsoft. The two articles seen at the link here paint a totally different story stating that Microsoft should dump Vista in order to survive? You be the judge of that when you review those.

The Inquirer had the Microsoft told to abandon Vista heading on the one seen at http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/09/28/microsoft-told-abandon-vista

c/net NEWs saw the Why Microsoft must abandon Vista to save itself title at http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9785337-7.html?
 
VISTA ROCKS! i dont find i slow at all. in fact, my download speeds are a lot faster on Vista then XP!
 
Despite the minimum requirements being higher then seen with XP take a good look at how much time has passed since XP was first released until the time Vista came out earlier this year. What was the average memory seen then compared to what a typical prebuild sees now even. Then it was about 128mb while 2007 sees 512 or 1gb for Vista as far as system memory. Vista has to see that as minimum for use on low enders!

The pace at which hardwares see changes with the next line of whatever seen MS has been the slow one for the OS dept.! The areo style interface and sidebar where dsiabled here for the classic view settings for those that hate the new styles. This can be done in the Home Premium edition ruling out a need to only go for the Basic and loss on other features seen in the better version. Home Basic is good more for public libraries and simple email/web browsing and leaving out gaming. multimedia to some greater extent.
 
PhilBiker said:
I've been dealing with personal computers for 20 years. Never have I seen an OS that comes out which is faster on the same hardware or less hardware demading than its' predecessor. I don't understand why people expect this, it defies logic.

Vista has lots of new features and functions (like the aforementioned superfetch, which I love, and the neato "sidebar" gadgets) which take advantage of newer computers' speed (faster CPUs, memory, video, storage).

If you don't want the features or don't have a computer which can handle the higher system requirements for Vista, then stick with XP, it's a fine OS in its own right.
Click to expand...
Very well said. If people didnt want newer OS's to use up more resources, we wouldnt have surpassed Windows 3.1! Yes Vista takes up more resources, but it has so many newer features such as Aero, it uses transparency, widgets, etc.
 
Considering that it "preloads them into your system memory", wouldn't that cause more memory to be used and in fact end up making it a bit slower..?
 
It's pretty funny how many features m$ stole from linux but yet some how made them worse. The aero effects was a direct rip off of compiz and beryl, yet microsoft's version uses tremedous resources compared to compiz or beryl. That and it has a lot less features then compiz and beryl.
O well, what do you expect when you pay for an OS :rolleyes:
 
wungoodshu said:
Considering that it "preloads them into your system memory", wouldn't that cause more memory to be used and in fact end up making it a bit slower..?
Click to expand...

The SuperFetch preloads to put the most often used games and apps in a standby more where they actually are supposed to load faster with far less interference from other things running in the background. This is one thing that is pointed out on the MS page earlier. You would have to go from system to system to see how well this works under various situations.
 
I like Vista. I don't use it mainly because I only use Windows for games and my current video card can only run older games. Most of the games, like the original Call of Duty don't install well without adding patched files and the like. And even then it's pretty sketchy.

When I did have Vista installed, I noticed a great performance leap. Obviously the programs loaded faster, but things like compiling large programs and even some CPU stress tests did much better on Vista v. XP. I just realized I'm bringing us off topic...
 
Why is that? We have been making some comparisons between both versions of Windows. Some older games might just surprise you as to how well they will go on and run while some more recent games like Metal of Honor: Allied Assault simply refused to install. Soldier of Fortune and it's sequel run at 1280x1024 without a problem with the detail levels set high.

A few simpler games like Duke Nukem Manhattan Project don't obhect either. 007 Nightfire will go right on as well as some like Prey, Fear and the expansion pack, Steam games obviously since those self update through the Source game engine.

It's the differences like no recovery console for manual expansions of system if problems come up or running the disk checker with the manual prompt along with no add/remove Windows components option in the control panel>add/remove programs section that are the real annoyance there. But drive partitioning even formmatting as well as automatic repair tools can be found now on the installation disk. The msconfig utility is still there for disabling Vista's new sidebar and Aero styling as well as the classic desktop.

UPDATE:

Apparently a group of beta testers got together and have the beta version of Vista's SP1 available for immediate download. From personal experiences with beta testing most are advised to wait a little longer for the finished version. However the information and download links are found at http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...7/09/24/sp1-beta-release-available-today.aspx
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top