How is the performance of WINDOWS VISTA when compared WINDOWS XP SP2?Plz give ur valuble suggestion..?

Question

I'm in a dilemma that whether windows xp sp2 or windows vista is better for my computer.Please give ur valuble suggestion.

Answer 1

xp sp2 is more efficient and has better benchmarks almost across the board. check tomshardware.com for details.

Answer 2

The Windows SP 2 Pro can be had for $140.00 and it works great, has all the bugs out, and will be supported for at least the next 4 or 5 years. Vista, on the other hand, is still full of bugs (and will be until enough guinea pigs provide feedback) and cost more than twice as much!

GO TO:

http://www.viosoftware.com/Windows+XP+Professional/Windows+XP+Professional+with+SP2+OEM+DSP.html?osCsid=94823a90189246e5cee3b9f02da13e7a

Answer 3

Vista is more recent, has a aspect bar, lot extra protection that ought to emphasise you nuts, the personal computer looks a touch extra effective. the position as Windown XP is a touch older yet countless human beings prefer to apply it because that's like minded with all classes (maximum) , while Vista may nicely be very stressful and not in any respect note of instruments or softwares, etc etc. also XP calls for 512 mb of ram and vista desires atleast a million gb. i'm no pc freak. =]

Answer 4

Stick with XP
Vista is resource-hogging, and the PCs today sold with Vista barely can handle Vista alone. Try adding World of Warcraft or 3D gaming, is like taking a step backward.

With all of that said, wait until the bugs are worked out.

Answer 5

Recently, i read a great article from PC World Magazine which tested Windows Vista performance compared to Windows XP SP2. I have included the reference below. I would recommend staying away from Windows Vista for awhile. Unfortunately, there are very few drivers available for Vista and the ones which are available don't deliver good performance. Vista is a new OS and there is still a good deal of bugs which need to be worked out.

"Lab Tests: Vista's Fast If You Have the Hardware
You need at least 1GB of RAM, and you'll go even faster with a dual-core processor, PC World's lab testing shows." -- written by Eric Dahl, pcworld.com. (http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128305-page,2-c,vistalonghorn/article.html)

Speed vs. XP
Microsoft typically claims increased performance for each new Windows version--but nearly every one requires a somewhat faster system to perform as well as its predecessor did. Our first Vista tests, though, showed some mixed results, and one very encouraging development.

Overall, our test apps did seem to run slower with Vista. On less-expensive or older hardware, the difference was pronounced. Our two low-end systems--an inexpensive 1.8-GHz Sempron 3400+ desktop PC from Dell with integrated GeForce 6150 LE graphics that rely on main system memory, and an aging 3-GHz Pentium 4 desktop from ABS using an ATI Radeon 9600 ProE card--ran our Photoshop test in Vista 23 percent and 13 percent slower, respectively, than they did in XP. Our results in the multitasking test and in the game Far Cry showed drops of 5 to 17 percent. (See the chart.)

On newer systems, the story gets a little more complex. We ran the same tests on a 2.2-GHz Athlon 64 X24200+ PC from Polywell equipped with a GeForce 7600GS card, and on a Micro Express system with a 2.4-GHz Core 2 Duo E6600 and Radeon X1600 graphics. Scores in the Photoshop test declined by a more modest 7 to 8 percent, but frame rates in Far Cry dropped dramatically.

The Polywell system endured a 25 percent hit in its frame rate, plummeting from 114 frames per second at 1024 by 768 resolution without antialiasing under XP to 85 fps in Vista. The Micro Express PC suffered a 12 percent drop. Bumping up to 2GB of RAM did nothing to improve frame rates on either system. Since gaming tests depend heavily on graphics drivers, though, the results should improve as ATI and nVidia continue to tweak their drivers for Vista.

Answer 6

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/