Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test

[Devilguns]

If I go Vista, it'd probably be 64 bit using a quad core. I think it would be a much better performer than the 32 bit version. You get rid of the 2 gig limitation and there is a lot better vendor support now.

On the other hand, being that the trend is to port console games to PC and not vice versa, makes me think, screw it just stick with XP. The majority or the next batch of games to come out over the next five years most certainly be based on the U3 engine any way. By 2010ish the new yearly subscription version of windows will be out any ways.

[L_Mo]

My biggest beef w/ vista (tried both 32 and 64-bit on my athlon 64) is that it's an unnecessary resource hog. I think people with newer computers don't care so much about this, but as far as I can tell Vista shouldn't use so many resources - the effects aren't even that complicated. I run Ubuntu Linux on my Core Duo laptop which uses compiz-fusion (example video here) and it has visual effects that are frankly better than Vista, but it uses WAY fewer resources.

I was at Best Buy the other day and I noticed the video cards are labled with regards to how well they run Vista. From "good" to "better" to "best" and it got me thinking. I'm seriously starting to think that Vista runs intentionally slower than necessary to encourage people to upgrade their hardware. I'm pretty sure (I hope) that's not -reall- true, but the way Vista runs it sure seems that way. As far as I can tell from playing with it for a few days it's the same old stuff with a few new features, except everything runs slower...

[darth_nevus]

here's where it really gets bad...

http://www.techreport.com/discussions.x/13670

A big speed boost for XP. all in SP3. rofl. released the same time a similiar one for vista coming out.

[random_id]

My biggest beef w/ vista (tried both 32 and 64-bit on my athlon 64) is that it's an unnecessary resource hog.

What do you mean? That Vista uses lots of RAM for its own services/modules? Well, if no other program requires that currently unused RAM space, I don't see any problem with Vista grabbing as much RAM space as it's possible... Here's an explanation on why Vista does it:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

[LIMEY]

My biggest beef w/ vista (tried both 32 and 64-bit on my athlon 64) is that it's an unnecessary resource hog.

What do you mean? That Vista uses lots of RAM for its own services/modules? Well, if no other program requires that currently unused RAM space, I don't see any problem with Vista grabbing as much RAM space as it's possible... Here's an explanation on why Vista does it:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

Mr. Gates is that you? You maybe the only person on Earth who is thinking Vista is an upgrade.

[darth_nevus]

My biggest beef w/ vista (tried both 32 and 64-bit on my athlon 64) is that it's an unnecessary resource hog.

What do you mean? That Vista uses lots of RAM for its own services/modules? Well, if no other program requires that currently unused RAM space, I don't see any problem with Vista grabbing as much RAM space as it's possible... Here's an explanation on why Vista does it:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

Mr. Gates is that you? You maybe the only person on Earth who is thinking Vista is an upgrade.

*cough*http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/*cough*

Vista is an upgrade. of sorts. some folks like it others don't/ i am too used to xp, and consdering its lower overhead to vista, i still likexp. i have a machine thats more than compitently. its just not mature enough for me yet.

[random_id]

My biggest beef w/ vista (tried both 32 and 64-bit on my athlon 64) is that it's an unnecessary resource hog.

What do you mean? That Vista uses lots of RAM for its own services/modules? Well, if no other program requires that currently unused RAM space, I don't see any problem with Vista grabbing as much RAM space as it's possible... Here's an explanation on why Vista does it:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

Mr. Gates is that you? You maybe the only person on Earth who is thinking Vista is an upgrade.

I never said that, don't put your words into my mouth :P

[L_Mo]

What do you mean? That Vista uses lots of RAM for its own services/modules? Well, if no other program requires that currently unused RAM space, I don't see any problem with Vista grabbing as much RAM space as it's possible... Here's an explanation on why Vista does it:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

I've no problem w/ Vista using my RAM as needed. I guess when I said it uses too many resources, I just mean that in the end my programs and the whole feel of the OS feel more sluggish. Compared to XP it looks better, but in general runs slower. My laptop looks better than XP and runs faster... I'm sure I'll make the switch eventually, but probably not until I upgrade my hardware.

[Dead...Again]

I switched to Vista x64 at the same time that I built my new system, so I didn't really feel any crunch. I run everything I've installed so far at high settings and don't see any sluggishness. I mean, does it really matter whether you get 120 or 150 FPS? I don't think so...
I did notice that a lot more memory is used by Vista, so I just bought another 2GB of memory.

[pigworthy]

Dead Again... Are you running your games and everything on 64bit?

[-Bar]

I think they should have just left it alone and keep usin Xp. lol I even see commercials on Tv offering Downgrades when you buy a Pc now....

[random_id]

I switched to Vista x64 at the same time that I built my new system, so I didn't really feel any crunch. I run everything I've installed so far at high settings and don't see any sluggishness. I mean, does it really matter whether you get 120 or 150 FPS? I don't think so...
I did notice that a lot more memory is used by Vista, so I just bought another 2GB of memory.

Yea, this is exactly what I did... Except I got extra RAM before getting Vista x64 and it was one of the reasons I installed this particular version of Vista instead of regular x86 version

[Dead...Again]

Dead Again... Are you running your games and everything on 64bit?

Yeah I run everything in 64bit Vista. There is only one application I have that won't run in Vista, the app that came with my video camera to transfer the videos to your computer. Everything else runs like a champ. I even found some stuff that supposedly wouldn't work in Vista that work fine.

[rafles]

My biggest beef w/ vista (tried both 32 and 64-bit on my athlon 64) is that it's an unnecessary resource hog. I think people with newer computers don't care so much about this, but as far as I can tell Vista shouldn't use so many resources - the effects aren't even that complicated. I run Ubuntu Linux on my Core Duo laptop which uses compiz-fusion (example video here) and it has visual effects that are frankly better than Vista, but it uses WAY fewer resources.

I was at Best Buy the other day and I noticed the video cards are labled with regards to how well they run Vista. From "good" to "better" to "best" and it got me thinking. I'm seriously starting to think that Vista runs intentionally slower than necessary to encourage people to upgrade their hardware. I'm pretty sure (I hope) that's not -reall- true, but the way Vista runs it sure seems that way. As far as I can tell from playing with it for a few days it's the same old stuff with a few new features, except everything runs slower...

Hey L_Mo what about the games on Ubuntu? can you run them?

[Cain]

Yep, Vista = ME