Can We Accurately Compare XP, Vista and Windows 7 When It Comes To Performance?
- 5
- Add a Comment
Can We Accurately Compare XP, Vista and Windows 7 When It Comes To Performance? One writer over at the ExtremeTech web site did what I believe is an accurate, as possible, comparison of the three operating systems. The writer took a Toshiba Satellite laptop which used a Pentium 1.73 GHz processor, 1 GB of Ram and a 100 GB hard drive as his test bed. The Professional version for all three operating systems was used in order to try and make the testing as fair as possible.
The writer also installed Office 2007, Windows Essentials and Picasa 3.5 so the systems would have other software installed besides the operating system. He put the three operating systems through a series of tests which included bench mark testing. The writer also included start-up and shut down times as well.
Before reading the test results I made the following assumptions, having used all three operating systems on various computer I have in my home. Windows XP would most likely be the fastest since it is less bloated than either Vista or Windows 7. Windows 7 most likely would come out as second and Vista third.
Check out the results on all of the testing here.
After you read the test results see what you think. Were you surprised at the results? I wasn’t.
But there was one statement that the writer made that I believe just about says it all:
Windows XP actually started up fastest, but keep in mind that my test machine was built in the XP days; new machines will be more tuned for quick start-up in Windows 7.
I’m running Windows 7 on dual-core machines, with at least 3 GB of RAM or more, with sata drives, better graphic cards and overall very fast machines. Therefore I personally believe that trying to compare Windows XP against Windows Vista or Windows 7 on a machine designed for Windows XP, may not be a fair comparison.
However the writer did go on to state that:
But for the purposes of this story, testing on one of those machines would be pointless—this story’s about the experience those who are upgrading can expect. For most people, that means an older machine.
This is where some people are going to have a less than stellar experience using Windows 7 on an older box. Your system will most likely run slower using a newer operating system. Just my two cents.
Comments as always are welcome.
5 Comments
jay
November 13th, 2009
at 12:20pm
Did i miss something? where was the comparison? Xp started up faster? is that performance?
how are systems built for an os? sure there may be things in built into the motherboard that the os takes advantage of, but a newer os would certainly see those same “advantages” It’s like saying orange juice taste better from this glass cup, but then i get this new plastic cup and it is lighter to carry, and is colorful but i can still drink my OJ. Does it make it a better experience in the plastic cup? Some would say, yes. And other’s wouldn’t care as long as they get their OJ.
Given how flashy and feature rich windows 7 is over xp, i’d say 7 is the winner. i’ve loaded the RTM of windows 7 on 3 machines. 1 is a 2002 laptop with pentium 3 1.17 ghz 512mb ram. Windows 7 runs great on it. The only issue i’ve had is the video graphics driver. So no dvd playback. I install windows 7 rtm on my 2003 desktop pentium 4 2.4 ghz 1.5 gb of ram, again 7 runs great, and so did vista. The problem comes when programs get install and run in the background. It has got to be easier to uninstall something.
Buffet
November 13th, 2009
at 4:58pm
Once again, you were right, and, once again, XP wins!
Gary Bing
November 14th, 2009
at 6:49pm
PC World revealed a real burn out of study. Newer stuff pretty good older stuff not so. With my 7 year old Dell that I just upgraded to it’s 1g of ram max and it’s 30g hard drive and 2.4 ghz Intel processor with XP Pro service pack 3 it puts my 3 year old HP dual core 2.8 ghz 2mb of ram 250g hard drive to shame even after disabling the UAC and frigging sidebar. On the Dell I can shut it off and turn it back in and it boots up in a flash. The newer Visa machine, I can go out for coffee and when I come back it’s still futzing around. I have to keep the computer on 24/7 because even in sleep mode I have to shut the computer down as sleep doesn’t really do anything when you have to shut the computer off to get it going again, a time consuming waste to save a little power is not worth the effort. Since the maximum ram on this computer is 2g converting it to Windows 7 seems pointless anyway and the fact that my current printer does not have a 7 driver makes it more so. I was told I could I could turn in my Vista computer to Best Buy for a $159 Best Buy gift card and apply it towards a $449 new one (quad core with 6mb of ram) but they seem to be reneging on both fronts. So I stand pat. My $180 Dell with the XP Pro boot disk included along with lifetime telephone support is looking better than my current Vista HP or seemingly any other new purchase in the immediate future.
Ryan Farmer
November 16th, 2009
at 1:59am
I don’t know about performance, but Windows 7 takes about 20 GB of hard disk space just to install. Windows XP Professional x64 takes like 3 GB.
The only thing I want Windows for are a few computer games that are temperamental in Wine, and for when I need to do a voice and video call in Windows Live Messenger (Which you can still trick into installing on XP x64).
95% of the time, I prefer being booted into my OpenSuse partition, because it just blows Windows 7 out of the water on just about any task I want it to do.
This 1 TB drive has given me some breathing room at least, so I can have OpenSuse 11.2 on like 80% of the disk, and Windows on the other 20% or so.
Ron Schenone
November 16th, 2009
at 4:48am
Thanks for the comments everyone.