View Full Version : XP vs Vista Benchmarks:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/
discuss!
Expunge
01-30-2007, 08:38 AM
gg ms
DiscoDave
01-30-2007, 08:40 AM
I swear a couple years ago I remember Microsoft talking about a special "game boot mode" that would eliminate most of the Windows shit turning the operating system into a lean, mean, 360 type machine. But now everyone thinks I'm dillusional. At least the voices in my head tell me I'm right. =(
Shadow
01-30-2007, 01:24 PM
I swear a couple years ago I remember Microsoft talking about a special "game boot mode" that would eliminate most of the Windows shit turning the operating system into a lean, mean, 360 type machine. But now everyone thinks I'm dillusional. At least the voices in my head tell me I'm right. =(
I remember! =(
Drakul
01-30-2007, 02:21 PM
raise your hand if you saw this coming a mile away through a snowstorm while on fire ect. ect. ect.
ghrogels
01-30-2007, 02:58 PM
games that were released for xp being tested on vista for lulz.
wow, makes me like win xp more.... for once
Ender
01-30-2007, 08:33 PM
games that were released for xp being tested on vista for lulz.
It's still a valid benchmark since there aren't any games out made for Vista and most people still play those old games made for XP - nobody's gonna wanna upgrade if their current games don't as well anymore.
Itsmeee
01-30-2007, 09:40 PM
games that were released for xp being tested on vista for lulz.
since vista is windows 2003 I don't see exactly why they should work slower. Its not like they are running in emulation or anything.
Tuanies
01-30-2007, 10:31 PM
since vista is windows 2003 I don't see exactly why they should work slower. Its not like they are running in emulation or anything.
Uh, no, Windows Vista is not Windows 2003. Its a completely new code base.
QuietStorm
01-30-2007, 10:52 PM
A "completely new code base" complete with large portions of previous operating systems and painful legacy support.
scumdog
01-30-2007, 10:59 PM
I like beer.
Tuanies
01-30-2007, 11:05 PM
A "completely new code base" complete with large portions of previous operating systems and painful legacy support.
It has plenty of underlying changes that no one notices including the new network and audio stacks and the way it interacts with hardware. There are plenty of changes, it is to Windows Server 2003 as Windows 2000 was to NT4.0.
CrazyRob
01-31-2007, 01:48 AM
i havn't even looked at the benchmarks posted @ toms without having to know they're making outrages claims one way or another. It should be known that all benchmarks posted on tomshardware are suspect. Granted, after saying that, i've read several sets of benchmarks of varying sources that indicate a variety of things that all point to one conclusion. The current state of beta drivers doesn't allow for a valuable comparison of the operating systems unless the means of comparison is what operating system will be the best to use for games for the next couple days. Anyone remember when xp came out and this same thing was goin on, and everyone was like "you can take 2k out of my cold dead hands"? The only difference this time is that there is a valid reason for discrepencies, complete different approach to the UI. Sorry, i'm done ranting now.
(After i rearead my rant, i realized i shouldn't have bothered in the first place, most of you DON'T remember the launch of XP, or 2k, or 98, or 95 or.....)
DiscoDave
01-31-2007, 07:00 AM
lol
TomsHardware is one of the best sites out there. You know, aside from that whole, "Wow, thanks to nvidia, I don't need a Voodoo2 anymore!" fiasco. ;)
And they're just saying everything that EVERY OTHER SITE is saying. Vista is slower than xp at games. Hell, Microsoft people have even admitted this.
Sure, drivers are partly to blame. But they're not entirely to blame.
ghrogels
01-31-2007, 11:08 AM
Microsoft is to blame.
Itsmeee
01-31-2007, 11:55 AM
It has plenty of underlying changes that no one notices including the new network and audio stacks and the way it interacts with hardware. There are plenty of changes, it is to Windows Server 2003 as Windows 2000 was to NT4.0.
I'm not saying there aren't some large changes but I guess I expected all those improvements to improve it, not make it slower.
lol I'm lying, I never expected that. :p
honestly the rest of the experience is probably nice enough so that you don't really care that much that it takes a few seconds longer to encode things or you lose a few fps in games.
vBulletin v3.0.3, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.