Comparison of Windows Vista and Windows XP: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:00, 7 July 2017

Revision as of 22:57, 21 July 2017

Line 9:

Initial performance tests have demonstrated that Windows XP outperforms Vista in several productivity areas.<ref>[http://news.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029694,49294484,00.htm XP outperforms Vista in benchmark test], CNET</ref><ref>[http://www.crn.com/software/207001890 XP outperforms Vista in benchmark test], ChannelWeb</ref> File copy operations are speculated to be one area where Vista performs better than XP.{{Clarify|date=June 2011}}<!-- SMB 1.0 or 2.0? --> In a test run by CRN Test Center, a 1.25 GB file was copied from a network share to each desktop. For XP, it took 2 minutes and 54 seconds, for Vista with SP1 it took 2 minutes and 29 seconds.{{Citation needed|date=June 2011}} The Vista implementation of the file copy is arguably{{Who|date=June 2011}} more complete and correct as the file does not register as being transferred until it has completely transferred; in Windows XP, the file completed dialogue box is displayed prior to the file actually finishing its copy or transfer, with the file completing after the dialogue is displayed. This can cause an issue if the storage device is ejected prior to the file being successfully transferred or copied in Windows XP due to the dialogue box's premature prompt.{{Citation needed|date=June 2011}}

Another test was performed by ''[[Tom's Hardware]]'' in January 2007.<ref>[http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown : Is Windows Vista Faster Than XP?], Tom's Hardware</ref> Applications such as ''[[Unreal Tournament 2004]]'' and the graphics [[benchmarking]] suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the [[OpenGL]] graphics library under Vista. They reached the conclusion that Windows Vista clearly is not a great new performer when it comes to [[executeExecution (computing)|executing]] single applications at maximum speed. On the other hand, they did not find evidence that Windows Vista's [[Desktop Window Manager]] (DWM) consumes more energy than Windows XP's window manager. All of the tests were performed on a computer with an 2.93&nbsp;GHz [[Intel Core 2 Extreme]] X6800 processor, 2× 1024 MB DDR2-800 [[random-access memory|RAM]], HIS Radeon X1900XTX IceQ3 [[graphics card]], 150 GB [[Western Digital]] WD1500ADFD [[hard disk drive|hard drive]] and a [[Gigabyte Technology|Gigabyte]] GA-965P-DQ6 [[motherboard]].

Scientific paper about [http://www.jucs.org/jucs_18_2/performance_evaluation_of_recent performance evaluation of recent Windows operating system performance] concludes that Windows Vista doesn't provide a better overall performance on the high-end computer system compared to Windows XP. Some performance improvements can be seen in memory management and graphics display, but other parts of OS have equal or lower performance than Windows XP. On the low-end computer system, Windows XP outperforms Windows Vista in most tested areas. Windows OS network performance depends on the packet size and used protocol. However, in general, Windows Vista compared to Windows XP shows better network performance particularly for the medium-sized packets.<ref>Martinovic, Goran; Balen, Josip; Čukić, Bojan, [http://www.jucs.org/jucs_18_2/performance_evaluation_of_recent/jucs_18_02_0218_0263_martinovic.pdf "Performance Evaluation of Recent Windows Operating Systems"], Journal of universal computer science. 18 (2012), 2; 218-263</ref>