XP (x64) -vs- Vista (x64) Actual Benchmarks

HenryBravo said:
Wow with all that experience you can't get Vista running properly on a P35? LOL
Click to expand...
I can't get it working on certain systems due to problems inherant in the OS... yes I have gotten it working on a P35 based board... as well as P965, G33, G35, P31, i680, i780, among many others... I have done close to 1000 vista installs since it was beta and at least 20% of those either failed the installation itself or got installed and has OS problems once loaded. Out of those hundreds, maybe 1 or 2 were due to user error.
Anything else you want to know about my extensive experiences?
 
This discussion really reminds me of the whole WIndows 2000 vs. Windows XP debate a few years back. I was with the Windows 2000 crowd back then, and I didn't upgrade to XP till SP2 came out (and I certainly tried to go XP64 when it came out, but it was just atrocious). With Vista I adopted what I would consider early, and I didn't regret it yet. Vista works for me, sucks for those for whom it doesn't work, but I just can't relate. You couldn't pay me to go back to XP.

I am still not sure what the purpose of the debate is though. One isn't going to convince the other to change their mind, so at this point it's really just arguing for argument's sake.
 
Thuleman said:
This discussion really reminds me of the whole WIndows 2000 vs. Windows XP debate a few years back. I was with the Windows 2000 crowd back then, and I didn't upgrade to XP till SP2 came out (and I certainly tried to go XP64 when it came out, but it was just atrocious). With Vista I adopted what I would consider early, and I didn't regret it yet. Vista works for me, sucks for those for whom it doesn't work, but I just can't relate. You couldn't pay me to go back to XP.

I am still not sure what the purpose of the debate is though. One isn't going to convince the other to change their mind, so at this point it's really just arguing for argument's sake.
Click to expand...

No, that's not correct. I'm not trying to convince screwball to change his mind. I'm trying to convince him to provide real information. He could not use Vista in his lifetime for all I care. If his information is factual and his analysis is correct, then he is providing useful information. Otherwise, it's my responsibility to call him out.
 
screwballl said:
I can't get it working on certain systems due to problems inherant in the OS...
Click to expand...
Once again, if it was inherent to the OS, it would affect everyone with that board or NIC. Blame it on a very very unique quirk with some driver file, but it is most certainly not inherent to the OS.
 
That is fine... it does affect certain systems for whatever reason because of OS problems. That does not mean it will affect every person with a specific board because that would mean it is a hardware or driver issue, not the OS. Does every E8400 come with the guarantee that you can OC it to 4GHz? Does every i680 motherboard guarantee SLI will work flawlessly?
I have close to 1000 Vista installs under my belt.. Most of them did install and work fine. There have been at least 150-200 of them that had problems relating to the OS itself. I am not counting hardware or user errors.
 
screwballl said:
That is fine... it does affect certain systems for whatever reason because of OS problems. That does not mean it will affect every person with a specific board because that would mean it is a hardware or driver issue, not the OS. Does every E8400 come with the guarantee that you can OC it to 4GHz? Does every i680 motherboard guarantee SLI will work flawlessly?
I have close to 1000 Vista installs under my belt.. Most of them did install and work fine. There have been at least 150-200 of them that had problems relating to the OS itself. I am not counting hardware or user errors.
Click to expand...

Do I have to keep asking or can I just assume that you don't want to provide any more specifics? Let's assume that I've already read the arguments in the other thread. They were performance-related and old printer-related -- I've responded to those already. Anything else?
 
screwballl said:
Drivers have always been an issue, even to this day. For example, if I install it on my main system (in my sig), the networking only works maybe 10% of the time. The rest of the time it says it cannot connect to the internet.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, we have common ground as far as the hardware here. This board uses a Realtek 8111/8169. My laptop uses a Realtek 8111B/8168B. My laptop functions as my main web/torrent/IRC/etc.box while my gaming rig is gaming. I do all of these things without any problems. Have you installed the latest driver? The one on Gigabyte's site is very recent. Tho I used the drivers that came with Vista x64 and it worked fine. Realtek also does have their own downloadable drivers, which I use.

screwballl said:
Looking in the Device Manager, it shows chipset errors when I have all the proper drivers installed either from the default Vista install or from Gigabyte. Yet no other OS has this issue (XP or any other flavor of linux that I have used).
I have built and setup many other systems with Vista and only one actually runs without a problem (although it is slow), which is my mother in laws Dell B110 with Celeron 2.53GHz, onboard video.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why your success rate is so low. I figure if Vista had *this* many problems and was just completely uninstallable or usable to the extent you make it sound, we'd have hundreds of millions of borked installs and no OEM would even offer it.
 
I am planning on getting another hd for this system (the 320GB has XP SP3 and the 120GB has Ubuntu, plus the 500GB for backup only) and going to reinstall Vista Ultimate x64 since I have not done that with this specific system since SP1 was released.
As for OEMs, many of them implement their own or MS-supplied patches for many issues that make it work with their systems... but for the rest of us with OEM-builder or retail versions... we have to get it fixed on our own or hope that a MS update fixes it.
 
screwballl said:
As for OEMs, many of them implement their own or MS-supplied patches for many issues that make it work with their systems... but for the rest of us with OEM-builder or retail versions... we have to get it fixed on our own or hope that a MS update fixes it.
Click to expand...
You seem to be implying that if I took a retail Vista off the shelf and tried to install it on a OEM box, where the OEM typically provides their own media, that it would not be properly "patched" for issues with that hardware.

Is that what you're saying?
 
exactly... I have seen this in several cases with Dell, HP and Lenovo... its not widespread but it is real.
Since SP1 I have not run into this but it was as occasional problem for the first year or so... I wonder if MS included these patches/fixes into SP1...
 
I wish I had the exact models handy... it was at several jobs done earlier this year... I will see if I can find some logs from those jobs...
 
ScretHate said:
Superfetch, a feature which allows applications to load faster due to being pre-cached in the memory should not affect graphical benchmarks in any way.

XP x64 is based off of the 2003 server kernel, and as such is vastly more mature than Vista x64. You guys need to get your facts straight.
Click to expand...

Speaking of getting facts straight, Vista is ALSO based off 2003 server, fyi. And by more mature, I'm sure the guy you're replying to was referring to the mandatory 64-bit support that MS has for Vista, while XP-64 was not mandatory and is now old and obsolete, it will never have the support Vista x64 has and Vista x64's support will only get better.

Anyways, Vista seems to do pretty good except in that one 3dmark2001 benchmark, but that could be a driver or program issue.

Here are some more benchmarks, this time of actual games and Vista seems to win most of them:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp
 
devil22 said:
Speaking of getting facts straight, Vista is ALSO based off 2003 server, fyi. And by more mature, I'm sure the guy you're replying to was referring to the mandatory 64-bit support that MS has for Vista, while XP-64 was not mandatory and is now old and obsolete, it will never have the support Vista x64 has and Vista x64's support will only get better.

Anyways, Vista seems to do pretty good except in that one 3dmark2001 benchmark, but that could be a driver or program issue.

Here are some more benchmarks, this time of actual games and Vista seems to win most of them:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp
Click to expand...

Those benchmarks do not compare Vista x64 vs XP Pro x64. This thread is about Vista x64 vs XP Pro x64 - and it's not XP64, that's the Itanium version; XP Pro x64 is the x86 version, be nice if people would get their shit straight on this.

"old and outdated" indeed. The only thing old and outdated about XP Pro x64 are people's continually ignorant opinions about it. Sad...
 
For every site you post supporting the skewed results showing Vista equals XP, there are 2 more that dispute it.
 
screwballl said:
For every site you post supporting the skewed results showing Vista equals XP, there are 2 more that dispute it.
Click to expand...
Given that logic (not saying it is correct), what does that say about your posts, considering there are two, three, or four people who dispute your information?
 
It doesn't matter. On modern hardware it's fast enough that you never notice the difference in practice while getting features XP does not and will never support. If your hardware is old, run XP because Vista will seem slow. If you hardware is modern, run Vista and lose 5 FPS you will never miss. /thread
 
that is very true silent... 5 FPS is not the end of the world (not even in Crysis).. but the fact is there that there is a well documented discrepancy between XP and Vista as the original poster stated and documented here.
 
It's amazing that you people still look at the only indicator of PC performance as some fucking synthetic graphics or game benchmark as the fucking ruler that all OSes and hardware platforms should judged by.

It's pathetic.
 
screwballl said:
For every site you post supporting the skewed results showing Vista equals XP, there are 2 more that dispute it.
Click to expand...

How are extremetech's benchmarks 'skewed'? Because you don't like them? That's not a reason. Anyways, feel free to quit trolling and link the benchmarks you're referring to (as someone else said, current benchmarks only, since graphics drivers have now matured and SP1 is out for Vista).
 
Joe Average said:
Those benchmarks do not compare Vista x64 vs XP Pro x64. This thread is about Vista x64 vs XP Pro x64 - and it's not XP64, that's the Itanium version; XP Pro x64 is the x86 version, be nice if people would get their shit straight on this.

"old and outdated" indeed. The only thing old and outdated about XP Pro x64 are people's continually ignorant opinions about it. Sad...
Click to expand...

Please. What does XP Pro x64 offer that Vista doesn't? Nothing that outweighs what you get with Vista x64, which is better driver and program support since MS makes it mandatory, Aero, integrated search, DX10, better support for limited users, protected mode IE, security improvements, accelerated desktop windows, etc. Assuming performance is more or less equal, Vista is much better for the average user. There will always be special cases, where people need XP, or Win98 or DOS or whatever, for some special app, but in general Vista x64 is a much better consumer OS than XP Pro x64.
Personally, my Vista x64 install has been ultra stable, runs everything I throw at it, and is very fast, XP's (and XP Pro x64's) day has passed.
 
screwballl said:
I can't get it working on certain systems due to problems inherant in the OS... yes I have gotten it working on a P35 based board...
Click to expand...

Sorry, if the problem were inherent with the OS, there would be a patch by now or a thread somewhere (other than this one) about Marvell LANs or P35s not working right with Vista. I've seen threads about people who don't know what they're doing with Vista networking and having problems all the time, though.

You can't even name the technical problem "inherant" with Vista, can you?
 
I had problems a long time ago with 4GB RAM/X-Fi/SLI as a setup, but those were all driver problems. I never blamed Vista/Microsoft for these issues because it was the fault of the company that wrote half-ass drivers for Vista x64! Yes, Vista x64 is a new OS, yes it requires a new driver architecture. Instead of sitting on their hands and pissing and moaning about it, then releasing half-baked drivers, what should have happened is that these companies should have written proper drivers. Instead, they betted that "Everyone will not use Vista x64, so let's not worry about writing drivers."

...epic fail. With memory being so cheap and many consumer mainboards supporting 4, 8 and even 16 gigabytes of RAM, 64-bit (XP or Vista) is more prominent now than ever before. I run Vista on a P35 board and have never had a problem with it. When I installed a clean Vista OS on my laptop, it detected and correctly installed the sound hardware (XP required drivers that weren't included on CD, even the Dell OEM disk didn't have them integrated, you had to do it seperately), network hardware (again Dell's custom disk lacked any drivers built into XP itself) and also set the display to its native resolution of 1280x800 (rather than kludging with 1024x768).

I never had pie-in-the-sky expectations for Vista, probably because I wasn't as much into computers when Vista's "next great feature" was being trumpeted across teh Intarwebz. Thus, aside from the hardware requirements being woefully understated to help Intel move obsolete chipsets, I remain happy with Vista.

Let people who want XP use XP, and vice versa. I never understood these "OS wars." Let someone use his/her OS in peace! (Unless, of course they are spreading patently false/stupid/ignorant rumors like "Vista x64 has no drivers").
 
Used vista x64 for about 2 weeks. The thing is utter trash. Going to install xp x64 a weekend from next (would do it this coming weekend but i have a 3 day sex date with a girl).


Btw in case people dont know if you have good hardware you'll have support with xp64 (and just so you dont think i'm a fanboy i'll say this as well: you'll have support from vista x64 as well.) I installed xp64 before i installed vista and everything worked fine for me. Haven't ever had a driver "problem" like most vista fanboys like to say when talking about xp 64.

IF IT AIN'T BROKE DONT FIX IT PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD
 
I used XP64 since it was in beta, and recently I made the plunge to Vista Ultimate 64...

To say the least, I'm not going back to XP anytime soon.
 
mobusta1 said:
Used vista x64 for about 2 weeks. The thing is utter trash. Going to install xp x64 a weekend from next (would do it this coming weekend but i have a 3 day sex date with a girl).[/B]
Click to expand...
Nominated for the most useless post of the thread

I'm running my old copy of XP PRO 32 on my new build at the moment while I get together the funds to get x64 home premium. The way I see things now is: If you have XP PRO x64, don't bother spending the money to upgrade, if your jumping into x64 from a 32bit OS, Vista is probably the way to go. However, I've only used 32bit OS's before, so take that with a grain or 2 of salt.
 
iTunes64.exe refuses to install in XP64, saying that it's not a 64-bit OS. :rolleyes:
iTunes32.exe will install in XP64 but has no cd importing or burning. :rolleyes:
Neither iTunes32 or iTunes64 has any issues in Vista. ;)
I'll stick with Vista. :cool:

Not to mention, Vista has awesome font management and installation. Right click a .TTF file, choose install, then authenticate (if UAC is enabled).

After many months of using Vista, I can't stand XP anymore.
 
mobusta1 said:
Used vista x64 for about 2 weeks. The thing is utter trash. Going to install xp x64 a weekend from next (would do it this coming weekend but i have a 3 day sex date with a girl). <snip>
Click to expand...

If you don't have the skill to get Vista 64 running properly then you must think that gives you the right to bash it.

HB
 
zero2dash said:
iTunes64.exe refuses to install in XP64, saying that it's not a 64-bit OS. :rolleyes:
iTunes32.exe will install in XP64 but has no cd importing or burning. :rolleyes:
Neither iTunes32 or iTunes64 has any issues in Vista. ;)
I'll stick with Vista. :cool:

Not to mention, Vista has awesome font management and installation. Right click a .TTF file, choose install, then authenticate (if UAC is enabled).

After many months of using Vista, I can't stand XP anymore.
Click to expand...

Award for Actual Evidence to Support Claim that One OS is Superior to the Other - Cha-Ching!

All I've heard in this thread from some XPx64 people (but not all) are generic, boilerplate anti-Vista complaints that "things don't work" and "there are things wrong with the OS."

Alright. Tell me what's wrong, specifically, with the OS and prove it. None of this "Ah whoa is me because I can't make Vista work, so it sucks!" bullcrap. I fought with Vista x64 driver issues (that again had nothing to do with the OS itself) for about four months. I survived...and I still like Vista to boot.
 
zero2dash said:
iTunes64.exe refuses to install in XP64, saying that it's not a 64-bit OS. :rolleyes:
iTunes32.exe will install in XP64 but has no cd importing or burning. :rolleyes:
Neither iTunes32 or iTunes64 has any issues in Vista. ;)
I'll stick with Vista. :cool:

Not to mention, Vista has awesome font management and installation. Right click a .TTF file, choose install, then authenticate (if UAC is enabled).

After many months of using Vista, I can't stand XP anymore.
Click to expand...

So in essence Apple software sucks- "EVERYONE IT"S VISTA TIME!!" ?
Yes, Vista's main security feature is far less important than fonts...Are you living under a rock?
this thread is like most threads concerning Vista64 and XP64 - fraught with 0 user experience and tons of kiddie opinions to boot, strictly for OS noobs, sometimes I wish this really was [H],,,,
 
Is there a link to a better comparison than these benchmarks?

I've used both windows XP 64 and Vista 64 , and they both have their goods and bads. Xp 64 is really streamline unlike vista with it's bloatware which eats up more resource than it should be.Vista has a lot of pretty features, is more well support and accepted than XP 64 is. Everyone has stated XP seems out dated no Dx10 support , but that isn't much of an issue as of right now as most apps do not run properly in Dx10, but maybe in the future things will pick up. Only if you were able to combine the two together it would be perfect. Performance plus features, and that's' the big different between the 2 for me. Do you want performance or do you want features. Maybe windows 7 will surprise us all, but yes every os has it's own function and it's own flaws, which best caters to your need is which you will pick.

I am stuck in the middle right now as to which options I want more.
If anyone out there that has a link to a good article between the 2 OS with a better comparison than these 3dmark benchmarks I would really appreciate it. Thanks.
 
As the most outspoken supporter of XP Pro x64 around these parts (pretty sure I am...) it all comes down to two things primarily:

1) What you want

2) How you want it done

For myself, XP Pro x64 fills both adequately on my workstation (Q6600 @ 3 GHz, 8GB DDR2 800 3-3-3-9) exactly as I want. I've got this thing tweaked to the max in ways most people can only imagine, and using a RAMdisk (6GB assigned) only makes it absolutely scream through most tasks except for the hardcore rendering or video crunching duties I sometimes put it through.

I've said it many times before and I'll say it again:

I just don't like Vista.

That isn't a slight against it as a very useful and quite functional OS, it's a personal preference that comes from using it since its inception many yarns ago, installing it several thousand times, supporting it since long before day 1 on retail shelves, and other aspects of my experience with Vista. I just don't like it, simple.

XP Pro x64 fills the bill, or bills as the two requirements are for myself. It does what I want when I want it done, and pretty much as fast as it can without much muss or fuss, overhead, etc. Vista is bloated, plain and simple. There isn't a single person at this forum or any other that has half a clue that will say otherwise and they damned well know it.

Whereas over time Vista does get faster because of SuperFetch and other technologies that finally got into the Windows codebase, it's just a wee bit too much for me, regardless of the fact that 1TB drives are $100 these days (on sale, soon to be regularly under $100). To put it bluntly, for myself it comes down to my most basic tenet when it comes to items I use:

Function rules over form. What something looks like is absolutely irrelevant to me (unless we're talkin' about women but that's another thread and GenMay material hehe) compared to how it functions. You could have the baddest looking machine ever put together, but pull the plug and it's just a pretty box. I've built PCs from cardboard boxes (seriously) that blew the doors off Alienware machines, Plexiglass ones that ate Falcon Northwest PCs for breakfast, and one made of plywood once as a project just for shits and giggles that trounced a VoodooPC machine.

So it is with XP Pro x64 and Vista for me. Vista is all about form, to be honest, and XP Pro x64 is all about function, which makes my choice of OS really damned simple. ;)

At this point I can't see the purpose in asking or publishing benchmarks that compare XP Pro x64 and Vista x64 (any edition). What I can see the purpose of is saying do it yourself. Get the OSes, get the drivers, and then sit down for a day or two and do your own testing and see what happens. Use the Vista drivers for both if possible - my experience with both OSes is that the drivers for basic hardware functionality are the same, it's when you get into exotic territory for some devices that differences appear.

And what I mean about the drivers with exotic territory is stuff like printers, modems, scanners, etc - devices that are not classified as bare-metal necessities that make a 'computer' what it is. If all you care about is gaming performance, hell, stick with XP 32 bit, seriously. DirectX 10 simply ain't all that, I don't care what people say. Buying an OS or switching to an OS just to play an incredibly tiny - but growing - subset of games that support DirectX 10 is, at least to me, a complete waste of time.

But, as Vista is how things are done now, it's probably the OS to choose. If not, you'll end up falling further behind the curve and have a tough time catching up later on to how things are done now. For me, I'll still be running XP Pro x64 probably well past the release of Windows 7, maybe way past it.

Funny thing: even though Windows 7 shares the overall codebase with Vista, I like Windows 7 compared to Vista - even stating that from the experience of using the pre-beta-late-stage-alpha build 6801 of Windows 7 (with the SuperBar and other features enabled). I can't quantify precisely why I like Windows 7 or what specifically makes me like it better than Vista, all I can say is I live Windows 7, at least so far.

As long as Microsoft doesn't fuck it up between now and the final release, and if they improve the performance of the OS as dramatically as they did with late stage betas of Vista compared to the RC2 build (really dramatic differences, RC2 was amazing compared to the betas and even RC1), Windows 7 is a likely candidate for my next OS, at least from the Windows perspective. I can always run OSX on this machine anytime I want - it helps that I'm the guy that released the world's first generic installation DVD for OSx86 back in 2005. Trust me, I've got a ton of experience with OSx86. :cool:

Or even Linux is possible - Arch Linux kicks some serious ass...

But, as my sig says, XP Pro x64 is my OS of choice and will remain so for a long time to come. It just works. No, seriously, unlike other OSes out there *cough*Apple bullshit notwithstanding for OSX*cough*. ;)
 
benchmarks are like IQ test, they just show how good it/you are at benchmarks/IQ tests
 
I can't tell the difference in performance between XP and Vista. Vista has more features, looks a lot nicer, and never crashes.

I'll stick with Vista.

Joe Average said:
Vista is bloated, plain and simple. There isn't a single person at this forum or any other that has half a clue that will say otherwise and they damned well know it.
Click to expand...

I guess that's why its real world performance is pretty much identical to XP? :rolleyes: If anything aero feels snappier and search is much faster.
 
I definitely notice some of the "bloat" of Vista. The Superfetch/RAM thing, the large number of services, the large hard disk footprint.. we can explain all of these away in some fashion, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that they are there.

The fact that Vista is heavy doesn't necessarily make it bad. As opposed to the "bare metal pure function grey concrete slab apartment block from late 80's Russia" feel of XP (or the comically stupid Luna) I feel more comfortable sitting in front of Vista's Aero for hours on end. It looks nicer and pleases my senses more. A plain white wall can hold up a roof; a plain white wall with some nice artwork hung on it can still hold up the roof but be more friendly at the same time.

Vista also seems to have no trouble running well on my hardware, and running everything I need to run acceptably. It works.
 
Just chanced on this thread and have really enjoyed reading it.
I can't believe people get so worked up about this but it's nice to see the passion and emotion displayed.
People seem genuinely outraged when their favourite operating system is slagged off and there's no "proof" on offer to back up assertions
They also seem genuinely hurt if others can't see it their way and realize they've been wrong all along and should/shouldn't have up/downgraded.
It's fascinating. There's more going on here than people discussing the relative merits of two slightly different computer operating systems surely?
Thanks to you all, John:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top