64-Bit XP vs 64-Bit Vista

MScrip said:
Do you think Windows 7 will ship with the 6.1 version number? Or are they just using it now for testing? Then will Windows 8 be version 7.0?
Click to expand...

The windows 7 developers have stated that Win7 will ship with a 6.1 kernel version, to make sure apps don't break in win7 that work on Vista. Compatability is important this time around after all the criticism (unfounded imo) that MS received about Vista. The next version may be kernel version 6.2, or 7.0, or they may skip to kernel version 8.0, it's only a number so it doesn't matter that much, if they're willing to break some badly coded apps/games.

- edit -

It's also funny to me that meow has not come back to tell us what the hell a '2d graphic mark' is where XP-64 is eleventy billion times faster than Vista. *snicker* silly XP fanboys... Obviously his whole graph is a complete fabrication.
 
MScrip said:
Do you think Windows 7 will ship with the 6.1 version number? Or are they just using it now for testing? Then will Windows 8 be version 7.0?
Click to expand...

I would assume it will end up being NT 7 as there aren't any other reasons to call it "Windows 7."

devil22 said:
It's also funny to me that meow has not come back to tell us what the hell a '2d graphic mark' is where XP-64 is eleventy billion times faster than Vista. *snicker* silly XP fanboys... Obviously his whole graph is a complete fabrication.
Click to expand...

I was immediately accused by the XP guys of bad testing methodology and cheating within minutes of posting my full benchmarks. Lets take the high road here. If he comes back and tells us exactly what he used I'll run the benches myself and report back.

Although you're probably right. :)
 
Meow said:
The XP64 install by far outperforms both others in almost everything I throw at it, all I'd like to do with this machine can be done best in XP64. The only REAL reason one might favor Vista is because it has some specific software written for it that you fancy (UAC or the likes), or because you like the ridiculous shiny bullshit on your screen nobody really needs in actual production use of daily life.
Click to expand...

I favor Windows Vista for many reasons beyond 'shiny bullshit' as you like to call it.

For starters, it's a lot faster for me than XP was. That includes start up time, and opening programs. The difference in performance of actual programs on the two operating systems is so small that it doesn't even matter. Opening programs and the actual responsiveness of the operating systems is a different ballpark, and with Vista's many kernel level improvements over Windows XP and the addition of services like superfetch, programs open a lot faster for me than they do on Windows XP. And when it comes to real world usage, that matters a lot more than minimal differences in performance across the two operating systems.

Vista also doesn't grind to a halt when you try running games in a Window.

And of course, over time Windows XP just gets slower and slower and slower until you end up having to reformat and reinstall. Windows Vista on the other hand, gets faster over time.

Windows Vista has a lot newer APIs, which I also like.

Improved security is another important factor for me. (Yes, that includes UAC. If you actually make proper use of the service, instead of disabling it, it's very beneficial.)

Stability is another good feature. I can leave my PC on for weeks straight now that I have Windows Vista on, and it's still very fast. I've never been able to do that with Windows XP. I am also yet to have a BSOD or crash on Windows Vista. I have a feeling this is in part due to the improved Display Driver Model on Windows Vista. The new driver model pulls a significant amount of driver code out of the Kernel mode of the Windows Operating System Architecture and into the User Mode. Since everything in the User mode must make a system call before it can access vital kernel resources, a driver error in the user mode is much less likely to cause a crash or BSOD than one in the kernel mode.

Something I love about Windows Vista is how much better everything sounds. My instrument processing software works and sounds a very noticeable amount better on Windows Vista than it did on Windows XP, and I get much lower I/O latency, which is very important. If you're recording with a high I/O latency, you get a delay, which makes keeping a good time signature VERY difficult.


Also, I did reply to one of your posts in the 'other' thread that you think this should be a part of.
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1033542805&postcount=196
 
I've been running XP64 completely stable for years. I really think it gets a bad reputation around here which is undeserved.
 
serbiaNem said:
I've been running XP64 completely stable for years. I really think it gets a bad reputation around here which is undeserved.
Click to expand...
It's not that it's a bad product for what it's for, it's just not as user friendly as Vista x64.

As for the 2d benchmark, who gives a flying flip if XP x64 is faster. I run a 3d UI now :rolleyes:
 
serbiaNem said:
I've been running XP64 completely stable for years. I really think it gets a bad reputation around here which is undeserved.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's XP. XP is dead. It's a dinosaur. Vista 64 took over, and soon Windows 7 64 will take over. Too little too late.
 
Would you look at that. XP doesn't get 100 FPS more like some of the naysayers have been stating. By golly, the apocalypse must be upon us!

Thanks for doing these benchmarks; I can prove to my friends who still insist XP is eons ahead of vista in benchies that they are, in fact, wrong.
 
XP is still best on older hardware but Vista and 7 take more advantage of new hardware than XP does.
 
On my work PC, I made the switch to Vista x64 as I would have non-stop issues with programs such as Outlook 2007 crashing randomly under XP x64. Incredibly frustrating. Vista x64 has been without issues so far.
 
serbiaNem said:
I've been running XP64 completely stable for years. I really think it gets a bad reputation around here which is undeserved.
Click to expand...

it does get a bad rep but what they accomplished was really pretty remarkable. The 32bit emulation layer really is fantastic.
 
Jon55 said:
Yeah, but it's XP. XP is dead. It's a dinosaur. Vista 64 took over, and soon Windows 7 64 will take over. Too little too late.
Click to expand...

I'll also add that the only reason Windows XP is as fast as it is on modern hardware is because the hardware came out 5-6-7-almost 8 years after it's release. Try running Windows XP on hardware that came out when XP came out, and stack that against Vista running on hardware that came out the same time as Vista. Imagine how well Vista will run on hardware that came out 7 years after it's release.
 
I have my cousins computer here now, taking a look at speeding it up. Windows XP, Celeron 2ghz, 256mb of ram. It's painful.
They don't have any useless crap installed, kept up on defrag and windows updates too.
 
Archer75 said:
I have my cousins computer here now, taking a look at speeding it up. Windows XP, Celeron 2ghz, 256mb of ram. It's painful.
They don't have any useless crap installed, kept up on defrag and windows updates too.
Click to expand...

There was a time when that computer was the fastest computer you could buy. Can you imagine ever saying, "Man, this thing is sooo fast!"
 
Archer75 said:
I have my cousins computer here now, taking a look at speeding it up. Windows XP, Celeron 2ghz, 256mb of ram. It's painful.
They don't have any useless crap installed, kept up on defrag and windows updates too.
Click to expand...

That should be roughly equivalent in performance, maybe a bit faster than what Windows XP came out on. I think the faster CPUs available then were the 1.2ish Ghz Pentium III's, and 256mb of ram was probably the norm for higher end PCs back then.

Now, compare that to Vista running on the hardware it came out with. Core 2 Duos, plentiful quantities of memory, high end GPUs; Vista performs well on hardware that came out the same time it came out. You don't need to wait a few years for the hardware to catch up.
 
MScrip said:
There was a time when that computer was the fastest computer you could buy. Can you imagine ever saying, "Man, this thing is sooo fast!"
Click to expand...

Oh, I remember.

My first computer was a tandy with a 8mhz cpu and 640k of ram!
 
Archer75 said:
Oh, I remember.

My first computer was a tandy with a 8mhz cpu and 640k of ram!
Click to expand...

My first computer had 64K of RAM, of course you couldn't actually access all of it. There wasn't a whole lot of worry about how fast it was, because there wasn't a whole lot to do with it.
 
My first one didn't have memory... seriously. Altair 8800... all DIP switches, kids. :D Built from a kit myself in early 1975... oh, those were fun times. :D
 
Archer75 said:
I have my cousins computer here now, taking a look at speeding it up. Windows XP, Celeron 2ghz, 256mb of ram. It's painful.
They don't have any useless crap installed, kept up on defrag and windows updates too.
Click to expand...

that same rig with 512 mb of ram would run ok
 
Stoly said:
that same rig with 512 mb of ram would run ok
Click to expand...

I was just working on another XP computer earlier this week with 640mb of ram. It was also painful. Though not as much.
My minimum is 1gb for XP. That way I don't pull out all my hair. But everyone has a different pain threshold.
 
devil22 said:
It's also funny to me that meow has not come back to tell us what the hell a '2d graphic mark' is where XP-64 is eleventy billion times faster than Vista. *snicker* silly XP fanboys... Obviously his whole graph is a complete fabrication.
Click to expand...
I have not "come back" because, guess what, I'm USING my computers for other things than bragging about silly operating systems that don't work well, like Vista. I have a life, in which I do an extreme amount of video editing, encoding, graphic and 3D editing, audio and video creation, mixing and restoration. I also do a lot of work with Adobe's Photoshop, as well as maintain a lot of hosting business (VDS/VPS and some Dedicated and Colocated servers and many websites).

The image that you see in my previous post is from genuine unbiased tests, unlike those shown here by the Vista fan-boys. Those tests were done when I was still employed by the FNWI at the University of Amsterdam, by me and some related ICT students as part of a pretty demanding project, for which certain speeds were required by many students for huge database calculations and some scientific research-software packages. The 2D Graphic Mark is quite common for those who do a lot of testing with different operating systems, but if you prefer the slower one of the two (Vista), by all means; Go down with Microsoft.

The people who created that image ended up using ReactOS and CentOS (x64) Linux with Wine, which outperforms both XP64 and Vista for the tasks at hand.
 
Meow said:
I have not "come back" because, guess what, I'm USING my computers for other things than bragging about silly operating systems that don't work well, like Vista.
Click to expand...

Why so serious?

Either list the software you used or stop trolling and go away please.
 
Meow said:
I have not "come back" because, guess what, I'm USING my computers for other things than bragging about silly operating systems that don't work well, like Vista. I have a life, in which I do an extreme amount of video editing, encoding, graphic and 3D editing, audio and video creation, mixing and restoration. I also do a lot of work with Adobe's Photoshop, as well as maintain a lot of hosting business (VDS/VPS and some Dedicated and Colocated servers and many websites).

The image that you see in my previous post is from genuine unbiased tests, unlike those shown here by the Vista fan-boys. Those tests were done when I was still employed by the FNWI at the University of Amsterdam, by me and some related ICT students as part of a pretty demanding project, for which certain speeds were required by many students for huge database calculations and some scientific research-software packages. The 2D Graphic Mark is quite common for those who do a lot of testing with different operating systems, but if you prefer the slower one of the two (Vista), by all means; Go down with Microsoft.

The people who created that image ended up using ReactOS and CentOS (x64) Linux with Wine, which outperforms both XP64 and Vista for the tasks at hand.
Click to expand...

If you're going to make such insular claims about our decisions for using Windows Vista, please address the points I have made in this post and explain to me why I'm so foolish for using Windows Vista as my primary operating system.
http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1033553664&postcount=44

If Vista is slow and doesn't work well, why is it faster than Windows XP for me, and why does it work better than Windows XP for me?

If you can't provide logical, sensible responses to that, I don't think there's any reason anybody should listen to anything that comes out of your mouth any longer.
 
I'm like so glad I made the decision last week to just avoid posting my benchmarks with XP Pro x64 vs Vista Business SP1 x64... my god, you children... you're depressing me.

Thankfully, I've got Windows 7 x64 rolling along... and I did say Windows 7 could be the OS that cause(s) me to finally move on from XP Pro x64... at the going rate, I'm on track to stick to that decision based on the x64 build I acquired today from TechNet...

It's quite nice, folks. Quite nice indeed (and I'd been using the x86 build for the past two weeks, the x64 improves on it).
 
Joe Average said:
I'm like so glad I made the decision last week to just avoid posting my benchmarks with XP Pro x64 vs Vista Business SP1 x64... my god, you children... you're depressing me.

Thankfully, I've got Windows 7 x64 rolling along... and I did say Windows 7 could be the OS that cause(s) me to finally move on from XP Pro x64... at the going rate, I'm on track to stick to that decision based on the x64 build I acquired today from TechNet...

It's quite nice, folks. Quite nice indeed (and I'd been using the x86 build for the past two weeks, the x64 improves on it).
Click to expand...

Oh come off it. The only people I see acting like children are the XP fanboys.

You can admit you were wrong sometimes you know. ;)

Everyone knows 7 is Vista with minor performance enhancements. I'm sure it will be an excellent OS.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Oh come off it. The only people I see acting like children are the XP fanboys.

You can admit you were wrong sometimes you know. ;)

Everyone knows 7 is Vista with minor performance enhancements. I'm sure it will be an excellent OS.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true person that hasn't used it, yet. Thanks for playing!!! :)

As for me being wrong, on my hardware, XP Pro x64 is the clear cut winner across the board save for 2 benchmarks I performed. The difference ranges from 1% faster to 42% faster in the 32 different tests I put my boxes through. It lost to Vista Business x64 in a GUI responsiveness test (because of Aero and the GPU acceleration) and in application loading time (because of Superfetch).

Sooo... you kids have fun.
 
Joe Average said:
I'm like so glad I made the decision last week to just avoid posting my benchmarks with XP Pro x64 vs Vista Business SP1 x64... my god, you children... you're depressing me.

Thankfully, I've got Windows 7 x64 rolling along... and I did say Windows 7 could be the OS that cause(s) me to finally move on from XP Pro x64... at the going rate, I'm on track to stick to that decision based on the x64 build I acquired today from TechNet...

It's quite nice, folks. Quite nice indeed (and I'd been using the x86 build for the past two weeks, the x64 improves on it).
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

I doubt I'll change my server up, but for everyday desktop use it really does feel better and slimmer.

I like how people are calling XP a dinosaur.. even though it really isn't missing much that 7 has IMHO.
 
Jon55 said:
Yeah, but it's XP. XP is dead. It's a dinosaur. Vista 64 took over, and soon Windows 7 64 will take over. Too little too late.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ: http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=9
http://www.newage-os.net/forumdisplay.php?f=7
It's more alive than ever before. Drivers and DirectX 10 aren't an issue any longer. All big brands develop for XP64 now.

Also, the argument that "Vista was made for newer hardware" is ludicrously silly. XP64 enjoys updates to match the newer hardware options. It is merely keeping score with new hardware, for that MS uses the exact same code Vista uses, but I fear such knowledge goes beyond what most of the Vista fanboys can understand. Learn a little about the way MS has built these operating systems and you'll see what I'm talking about here.

I bet you the topic starter here has done his tests without properly updating his XP64, that's one of the easiest tricks in the book of flawed testing. Logically, you will not make use of the latest code that way and the older OS will fall behind.
I guess Joe and I *do* use fully up to date Windows XP x64 Edition base files.
 
Meow said:
I bet you the topic starter here has done his tests without properly updating his XP64, that's one of the easiest tricks in the book of flawed testing. Logically, you will not make use of the latest code that way and the older OS will fall behind.
I guess Joe and I *do* use fully up to date Windows XP x64 Edition base files.
Click to expand...

As I said in my initial post, I used fully updated complete versions of Vista and XP. I installed the latest drivers, service packs, and all Windows Updates.

But I guess nlited/vlited versions are the proper versions, huh? :rolleyes:
Meow said:
I currently have 3 different operating systems on one Intel SSD, and have had them on this machine for about 5 months now;
- CentOS 5.2 (x64),
- nlited Windows XP x64, and
- vlited Vista Business x64.
Click to expand...

I've asked several times for you to post what software you used in your benches. Since all you're going to do is troll and accuse me of cheating I have nothing more to say to you.
_______________

Joe Average said:
As for me being wrong, on my hardware, XP Pro x64 is the clear cut winner across the board save for 2 benchmarks I performed. The difference ranges from 1% faster to 42% faster in the 32 different tests I put my boxes through. It lost to Vista Business x64 in a GUI responsiveness test (because of Aero and the GPU acceleration) and in application loading time (because of Superfetch).
Click to expand...

I guess your word simply proves that XP is better. I bow down before you in defeat. :rolleyes:

And I was agreeing with you on Windows 7 being better. I'm sure it will be.
 
Meow said:
I beg to differ: http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=9
http://www.newage-os.net/forumdisplay.php?f=7
It's more alive than ever before. Drivers and DirectX 10 aren't an issue any longer. All big brands develop for XP64 now.

Also, the argument that "Vista was made for newer hardware" is ludicrously silly.
Click to expand...

It's alive more than ever? The key word in that sentence is NOW. Right when Vista is very stable and fast. Right when Windows 7 is shaping up to be even better/faster/more secure in every way than both Vista and XP. Like I said, too little too late. If this had been the case 4 years ago, things would be different.

And it's not made for newer hardware? Pretty sure every OS is made for newer hardware. Win98 will work better on older hardware than XP will.
 
In all seriousness OP it's a nice comparison you did. I have personally been running Vista 64 since before SP1 and even with all the known bugs and issues reported it has never given me any trouble. It just keeps working every day as it should with no problems. I do a lot of multitasking and it isn't uncommon for my actually ram usage to hit 3.5gig these days out of 4. I don't monitor things like ram usage and core utilization often but even under heavy load the UI never slows down.

That said I never gave XP64 a serious chance so I really can't comment on it. But I have had no reason to even consider it. Even if the UI was as clean and responsive at all times and the system really was a little faster. What real improvement would I get out of it? I know what I would be giving up. DX10 along with all security improvements mentioned already in this thread.

In the end Vista works with out issue for me and many others. It also has features like DX10 that XP will never have and so on. That said if your happy with XP and it works great for you then that's fine too. But I can't help but see that a lot of the people who have chosen to stay with XP feel the need to bash Vista every chance they get. And then tout XP's superior performance on a home PC. And I really find that odd and suspect you can't really be as happy with your PC as you claim to be. Since most of the time the only bad thing Vista users seem to have to say about XP is it's old. I mean something has to be making them a bitter PC user and clearly it can't be Vista since they wouldn't want it anyway.
 
Joe Average said:
Spoken like a true person that hasn't used it, yet. Thanks for playing!!! :)

As for me being wrong, on my hardware, XP Pro x64 is the clear cut winner across the board save for 2 benchmarks I performed. The difference ranges from 1% faster to 42% faster in the 32 different tests I put my boxes through. It lost to Vista Business x64 in a GUI responsiveness test (because of Aero and the GPU acceleration) and in application loading time (because of Superfetch).

Sooo... you kids have fun.
Click to expand...

Joe something with your setup or what you do with you PC must vary drastically from mine

I tab between windows and tabs in Firefox edit document's and so on. I have no UI lag or delay using Aero. I select something it loads I detect no delay so I can't even imagine how you would measure that. But even if you have a good way to do so and XP is the winner what do I gain when I already experience no lag?

Anyway you keep benchmarking XP and have fun. I am sure somewhere on a forum someone right now is doing the same thing with Windows 98 still touting it's superiority.

Edit: Joe I have a few question if you don't mind. How much time would you say you have invested in maintaining your XP system over the past year? By that I mean how much time have you spent interacting with with virus scanners, reg cleaners, and so on. Also any time spent imaging or restoring your system with an image.

Also how old is your windows install at this point meaning when was the last time you did a fresh install, reinstall, or loaded an older image of you OS?

I will trust you to respond truthfully and I will answer those questions about my own rig.

Not had a Virus on vista and other scanners that also auto run find little to be concerned about I am lucky if I spend 12 minuets a year interacting with scanners. I made a backup image when I first installed Vista and then a new one when I installed SP1. I have since stopped bothering, I don't install much software and important files get backed up. I have become spoiled by Vista and suspect the only way I will need a reinstall will be if I have a hard drive failure. Not to mention I feel no need to tweak anything from the base vista install.

So I ask how your XP experience compares. I know my time with XP was not near as pleasant.
 
Meow said:
I have not "come back" because, guess what, I'm USING my computers for other things than bragging about silly operating systems that don't work well, like Vista. I have a life, in which I do an extreme amount of video editing, encoding, graphic and 3D editing, audio and video creation, mixing and restoration. I also do a lot of work with Adobe's Photoshop, as well as maintain a lot of hosting business (VDS/VPS and some Dedicated and Colocated servers and many websites).

The image that you see in my previous post is from genuine unbiased tests, unlike those shown here by the Vista fan-boys. Those tests were done when I was still employed by the FNWI at the University of Amsterdam, by me and some related ICT students as part of a pretty demanding project, for which certain speeds were required by many students for huge database calculations and some scientific research-software packages. The 2D Graphic Mark is quite common for those who do a lot of testing with different operating systems, but if you prefer the slower one of the two (Vista), by all means; Go down with Microsoft.

The people who created that image ended up using ReactOS and CentOS (x64) Linux with Wine, which outperforms both XP64 and Vista for the tasks at hand.
Click to expand...

"Blah blah blah I'm not telling what software I used to benchmark blah blah blah"

Yea, that's what I thought, TROLL. Next.

BTW. I did some benchmarks:

3D stuffs:
Vista: 1,000,000
XP: 2

2D stuffs:
Vista: 10,000,000
XP: 11

Disk stuffs:
Vista: 9,999,999
XP: 7

(higher is better.)

I'm 'too busy using my computer' to tell you the benchmarks, but as you can see, Vista rules. :rolleyes:
 
devil22 said:
BTW. I did some benchmarks:

3D stuffs:
Vista: 1,000,000
XP: 2

2D stuffs:
Vista: 10,000,000
XP: 11

Disk stuffs:
Vista: 9,999,999
XP: 7

(higher is better.)

I'm 'too busy using my computer' to tell you the benchmarks, but as you can see, Vista rules. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Thanks for proving my point. You people wouldn't even believe it, even though it's the truth. There is simply no way you will accept defeat when it comes to the harsh reality. Fact remains that Vista is slower than XP64 on ANY hardware with most software the average user uses/needs, on most tasks I throw at it. The image was pretty clear on the few points where XP64 loses from Vista, but you can't even see those because it's brought up by someone who doesn't join the Vista.bandwagon just because it is "newer".
 
Meow said:
Thanks for proving my point. You people wouldn't even believe it, even though it's the truth. There is simply no way you will accept defeat when it comes to the harsh reality. Fact remains that Vista is slower than XP64 on ANY hardware with most software the average user uses/needs, on most tasks I throw at it. The image was pretty clear on the few points where XP64 loses from Vista, but you can't even see those because it's brought up by someone who doesn't join the Vista.bandwagon just because it is "newer".
Click to expand...

Thats true because all the benchmarks i posted were knocked out because they were vista fan boys. Some people can't accept defeat. Just because you paid a ton of money for vista doesn't mean its the best.
 
From the older benchmark thread:
Meow said:
Why aren't you capable of multi-booting between XP64 and Vista? I have both on my system, they don't influence each other one bit. Even better; I have a linux x64 next to them on the one drive. Ever hear of partitioning your boot-drive?
Click to expand...

I thought I would clarify this over here as well. Putting both OS's on the same drive would give an advantage to the OS closest to the outer edge of the drive.

This guy obviously has zero credibility.
 
If you guys are interested I'm currently installing the 64-Bit Windows 7 Beta on the exact same system I used for the benchmarks.

Should I run the benches again? Any other tests you would like to see?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top