So I've been going back and forth with a friend of mine over various aspects of XP and Vista, and in particular, we can't agree about memory usage in Vista v XP. So I decided to do what any informed individual would.... test it!
Now I'm going to admit, my test of the two OS'es wasn't apples to apples by any means. My XP machine is a custom built AMD64 rig (desktop) and my Vista machine is an IBM THinkpad T60. The desktop has 2GB of DDR400 while the laptop uses 1GB of DDR2.
Both machines are running the latest patches and SPs as of today, March 19, 2007. This means XP has SP2 plus all other patches to date, and Vista has its 7-10 patches loaded as well since release.
However, for purposes of this post, I think my comparison was pretty accurate. This was an IDLE load test, nothing running on either machine but my AV program (NOD32) and Ad Muncher.
Have a gander.
Any ideas as to why this is? Everyone is complaining that Vista uses soooo much more memory, but as my (un)scientific test proved, this is entirely false.
Any other people test this theory? Post your findings!
Now I'm going to admit, my test of the two OS'es wasn't apples to apples by any means. My XP machine is a custom built AMD64 rig (desktop) and my Vista machine is an IBM THinkpad T60. The desktop has 2GB of DDR400 while the laptop uses 1GB of DDR2.
Both machines are running the latest patches and SPs as of today, March 19, 2007. This means XP has SP2 plus all other patches to date, and Vista has its 7-10 patches loaded as well since release.
However, for purposes of this post, I think my comparison was pretty accurate. This was an IDLE load test, nothing running on either machine but my AV program (NOD32) and Ad Muncher.
Have a gander.
Any ideas as to why this is? Everyone is complaining that Vista uses soooo much more memory, but as my (un)scientific test proved, this is entirely false.
Any other people test this theory? Post your findings!