Vista sp1 vs windows xp sp2

Additionally, you can now record data to Blu-ray Disc media. SP2 includes Windows Search 4. You can find more information with more links HERE. As you can see not much has really changed overall… The addition of Blu-ray burning is nice, if you can afford a Blu-ray burner and the media. CrystalMark R3 is a 32bit total benchmark software. Yes I run Vista X64 and this is for 32bit, but the majority of the stuff we run on X64 is still 32bit. For a drop across both single core and multiple core rendering something had to change obviously, even though nothing was listed among changes to the core of the operating system.

Among other improvements. With Crysis Warhead you can see we dropped a bit for the average and maximum frame rates when moving to SP2, the average though is still more than playable.

So if Vista would really be faster than XP, I would suggest asking your money back. The point is that not only software is improving over time, but hardware also. Advances in operating systems are only possible because hardware is getting faster, too.

So if you really want to know if XP or Vista is faster, you should compare your 6 year old PC running XP with Vista on a computer you bought a year ago. Which one do you think is faster? Subscribe to 4sysops newsletter! I am now thinking of getting my money back. Want to write for 4sysops? We are looking for new authors.

Read 4sysops without ads and for free by becoming a member! On a busy server, you want to avoid putting more load on the machine with applications that are not VMware vSphere 7 offers several built-in tools and utilities to monitor performance.

You can use the vSphere client performance As you know, snapshots affect the performance of virtual machines VMs in your VMware environment. The performance is affected Poor storage performance can affect both physical and virtual environments. We have a vast topic today. We'll discuss some VMware VM performance tips and tweaks. Application users often complain Are you struggling with storage performance issues in your virtualized environment?

VMware vMotion allows live migrating of virtual machines VMs from one host to another without downtime. It was a SolarWinds combines a powerful log analyzer with high-level network performance views into an incredibly useful pack. Quickly solving complex Performance counters are a useful way to track server performance metrics and monitor resource usage. Back in the day, A virtual machine VM may run into performance issues due to multiple factors. The most common ones are CPU, Faulty VMware infrastructure configuration is the main reason for bad VM performance.

The wrong selection of drivers or incorrectly With their version 18 release, Condusiv Diskeeper finally solves one of the product's only historical annoyances--reboot dependency. The user Not too long ago, systems administrators had no way to optimize their servers' SSDs. In this review, you'll learn Storage Replica is a new feature in Windows Server that allows us to do storage-agnostic block-level replication of We started with VSAN 3 nodes, then We are coming to the end of our article series on Azure Storage Services.

In this section, we are And now, face it, Vista is slower, and will ever be. Two years from now, it will be bearable, but now? No thanks. Indeed, while technically you may be right to say that it is not fair to compare a one year old OS with a more than 5 years old one, what people are interested in is sheer performance.

I'm consider myself happy when I go on people's PCs and see that they have 1GB of ram and the point is that they simply won't upgrade their PCs just to run Vista Also, the problem is that the added features simply do not explain the added overhead in performance which is sometimes massive The number and purpose of the new features simply do not justify the added overhead While I can be OK with boot time, why do we see so much difference in files copy performance?

The problem is that customers are not going to buy the "It is OK for it to be slower, because it is brand new and have added features" excuse. Granted, the same was true with 98 and XP many users, especially home users, didn't get through the Win phase , but it was a whole different kernel and the gap in requirements wasn't as massive as from XP to Vista.

While you are right that better hardware is required for better I would prefer to say "newer" software to run, it is something that software use and abuse with the hope of this to cover their occassional sloppy programming. I think it is clear that today, the focus is not on performance but on features and looks, and who cares how bloated it is becoming : it is why people have the feeling they need to renew their PC to do barely the same thing as before.

If programmers had performance more in mind when writing programs, our PCs would run much faster today than they did in the last years. Unfortunately, I am not feeling that my PC that I renew almost every year has been much faster than a few years ago in day-to-day tasks and I can't help but be sad when I realize that the added performance from the new hardware i have been buying has been sucked away from me to make up for software bloat and occasionnal sloppy programming I'm not only speaking of Vista here but almost any software vendor today.

My view of Vista is that it has wanted to do too much at once : new user-interface very confusing and breaking years of user-experience and habits, ending up in huge training costs and productivity loss , new security features while they are certainly good, some seem overkill over the loss of compatibility and it is why most admins think that XP is "secure enough" and insane hardware requirements compared to what most people or companies are equipped with.

Not saying that things shouldn't move, but Microsoft tried to do too much at once, resulting in a lot of rejection from its user worst point for me over all I said is user-interface : it is why I am not planning to deploy it yet in my organization. What are you looking for? Preferences Community Newsletters Log Out. Written by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes , Contributor. Adrian Kingsley-Hughes Contributor Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over two decades to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Full Bio. Posted in Hardware 2. Read on My Profile Log Out. Join Discussion for: Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked. Add Your Comment. Please review our terms of service to complete your newsletter subscription. See All. Partly I put this down to immature drivers, but on the whole I was convinced that at the core of the problem was Vista.

Here's the deal. On each of these images all the updates provided by Microsoft were installed. The installation of drivers in addition to those supplied by Microsoft was kept to a minimum XP SP2 required more drivers than Vista. On each of the images the latest ATi Catalyst drivers version 8. Then, in order to be able to measure and record frame rates, the latest version of the FRAPS utility was installed. Finally, the games we were going to were then installed and each one updated to the latest version.

Here's a list of the games used:. For these tests we chose not to rely on any of the canned benchmark tools supplied with some of these games. Instead we relied on real-world play - that is, playing the same bit of the game on each of the platforms a technique that HardOCP use when benchmarking.

While this method is subject to variations, if you've played games for long enough and are familiar with the map, you can pull this off quite well. To come up with workable graphics settings we first experimented with each of the games in turn. When we found graphics settings that worked well all the tests were run at x resolution in full-screen mode with the games set to either medium or high quality graphics these settings were carefully recorded replicated them across the three platforms.