posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 12:35 AM
Vista will only be significantly slower than XP in various programs if there's some 'teething' issues, or you're running dead slow hardware. For
example, Vista is a giant memory and processing hog, so will NEED a dual core computer with atleast two gigabytes of RAM to run Vista half decently.
If you're running Vista on a Pentium 4, 1gb RAM, X300, then it's no wonder it's 40% slower. That laptop is decent, I would encourage the review
site to delete all the crap Dell installs on it, then install, fresh, bandnew drivers on it. It will NOT be 40% slower.
According to every single source I've came across using real hardware, Vista fares only a few percent slower than XP.
Toms Hardware: Vista is 2.8% slower 3dmark 06, all games but one were only 6% slower on Vista. Some applications were 90% slower, however, it is clear
that they obviously had some incompatibilities.
AnandTech: In 3dmark06, Vista is a few hundred points behind XP, however, it's not a rather significant diferance because both scores are around 10
000 points. Other applications generally not significantly slower on Vista.
As for me, I am not prepared to waste a few hundred dollars 'upgrading' to a new Operating system when it clearly offers little above Windows XP
only with loads of incompatibilites. However, the notion that Vista is 40% slower than XP is just wrong.
What hardware are you using?
[edit on 26/9/07 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]