Which is better, Vista or XP? - PSP3D.com - Sony PlayStation Portable News, Homebrew, Hacks, Reviews, Videos, Mods, Forums

theaceoffire · #1 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 07:09 PM

Well, I thought I would do a tiny bit of checking.

I used my older tutorial on making virtual computers to create a virtual XP Pro (Corporate) machine and Vista Ultima machine.

Quote:

My computer has the following stats:
Processor Intel Pentium 3.06 Ghz Processor
Lots of GB of storage
1.5 GB of ram
Good Video card, but was hidden as generic video card.

As far as the emulation is concerned, it can only see my monitor, the ram I allocate to it, and the virtual hard drive I give it.

I gave both machines a max and min of 768 MB of Virtual Ram, and started em at 768 MB of ram. After that, I cut the ram by half until wouldn't boot, etc.

One note: Vista never stops doing crap with the processor, so it's boot times are less reliable (I turned off as much as I could from both the XP and Vista, turning off all but visual effects and the translucent triangles, turning off real time scanning, virus protection, booting items, etc). For XP, I booted, and waited until my processor went down to zero before I claimed it had booted... which I think is a lot more reliable.

Ok, so let's see what I got:

Quote:

XP Pro Corporate:
Virtual Ram 768 MB:
768 MB Ram:
Boot Time=0:1:45.1
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:1.2
Load Time of MSCONFIG=0:0:2.4
512 MB Ram:
Boot Time=0:1:45.0
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:1.3
Load Time of MSCONFIG=0:0:2.2
256 MB Ram:
Boot Time=0:1:45.1
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:1.2
Load Time of MSCONFIG=0:0:2.2
128 MB Ram:
Boot Time=0:1:46.1
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:1.7
Load Time of MSCONFIG=0:0:2.6
64 MB Ram:
Boot Time=0:2:21.7
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:1.9
Load Time of MSCONFIG=0:0:2.9
32 MB Ram:
Boot Time=0:4:28.0
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:4.3
Load Time of MSCONFIG=0:0:5.58
26 MB Ram:
Boot Time=0:7:9.0
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:4.3
Load Time of MSCONFIG=0:0:6.9
24 MB Ram:
Boot Time=0:30:0.0+ (Never finished booting)
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:0.0
Load Time of MSCONFIG=0:0:0.0
>24 MB Ram: Will not start.

Quote:

Vista Ultimate:
Virtual Ram 768 MB:
768 MB Ram:
Boot Time to Password Enter=0:1:45.2
Boot Time from Password=0:1:5.1
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:2.3
Load Time of MSCONFIG warning=0:0:4.6
Load Time of MSCONFIG after warning=0:0:35.93
512 MB Ram:
Boot Time to Password Enter=0:1:37.1
Boot Time from Password=0:0:51.0
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:2.7
Load Time of MSCONFIG warning=0:0:6.2
Load Time of MSCONFIG after warning=0:0:12.0
256 MB Ram:
Boot Time to Password Enter=0:1:37.0
Boot Time from Password=0:0:53.0
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:4.9
Load Time of MSCONFIG warning=0:0:13.0
Load Time of MSCONFIG after warning=0:0:19.0
225 MB Ram:
Boot Time to Password Enter=0:1:36.3
Boot Time from Password=0:1:24.9
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:8.3
Load Time of MSCONFIG warning=0:0:14.0
Load Time of MSCONFIG after warning=0:0:22.5
221 MB Ram:
Boot Time to Password Enter=0:1:36.7
Boot Time from Password=0:1:21.0
Load Time of Notepad=0:0:5.7
Load Time of MSCONFIG warning=0:0:9.96
Load Time of MSCONFIG after warning=0:0:22.0
>221 MB Ram: Will not start.

Quote:

Smallest XP Machine:
26 MB of ram, 768 MB of Virtual ram, 3.02 GHz processor.
Boot Time: 7min 9secs.
Notepad Time:4.3 secs (This is not part of the OS)
MSCONFIG Time:6.9 secs (This can access core parts of the OS)

Quote:

Smallest Vista Machine:
221 MB of ram, 768 MB of Virtual ram, 3.02 GHz processor.
Boot Time: 1min 36.7secs. + 1min 21.0secs is roughly 2min 57.7secs
Notepad Time:5.7 secs (This is not part of the OS)
MSCONFIG Time:9.96 secs + 22.0 secs = 31.96 secs (This can access core parts of the OS)

You can fit 8 and a half smallest XP machines in the smallest Vista machine, and yet each one of those eight would have slightly faster Notepad Access and VASTLY faster MSCONFIG access, even if they boot slower.

^_^ Also, it is a tad difficult figuring out how to turn on the directory in the explorer windows in Vista... O.o don't ask me, it bothered me.

Anywho, anyone have other test's I should try out as long as I got this set up?
I am still trying to see if I can get Mac OSX on here.

Cody L. · #2 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 07:23 PM

Vista doesn't seem to have the appeal to XP users as XP did to ME/2000/98 users back in the day, if that says anything!

AshTR · #3 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 07:37 PM

It's because of all the DRM, trusted computing, and Microsoft being able to pick what you can keep on your computer or not with Vista.

Callapidae · #4 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 07:46 PM

I agree with Cody.L, which is kinda strange, as XP came out like 2 or 3 years after 98/2000 while Vista 6 years after XP was realeased. I think people expected more after the wait.

theaceoffire · #5 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 09:24 PM

Don't forget that Vista seems to be based on HIDING how your computer works from the users.

The directory is hidden away, saving is reconfigured, etc.

soccerplaya2090 · #6 (**permalink**) 05-02-2007, 09:35 PM

ace i pmed u

Jarrod · #7 (**permalink**) 05-03-2007, 01:58 AM

All those Mac vs. PC ads are showing me how stupid Vista is.

Then again I am easily persuadable.

djcopey · #8 (**permalink**) 05-03-2007, 02:18 AM

for the user who wishes to customise any pc functions xp is better for the just "user" vista is ok for you, but in any case the resources required for vista compared to xp (and the features gained from the resources used) i'd stick to xp as vista doesn't seem worth it.

Gamer420 · #9 (**permalink**) 05-03-2007, 10:54 AM

Well, I think XP is better than Vista. I mean the only really good thing bout Vista is it is a little bit more secured and has some 3D effects and that is bout it. I don't like the layout as much as I liked the XP. XP has a better layout then Vista. Plus, there r a lot of compactiblity issues w/ Vista.

jsf · #10 (**permalink**) 05-03-2007, 11:03 AM

I heard that about the compatability issues. I understand that a lot of old programs from XP will not work on Vista. That's why my dad refuses to get it.

Off topic: Is it just me or has things been kinda slow here on PSP3D. I mean there hasn't been many new posts or threads. Case in point I'm not home on the weekends anymore because my weekend place is now open. i left last Friday and when i came home Sunday there was only one page of new posts. Usually when i come home from the weekend there are two pages. Sorry to go offtopic like this but I wanted to see if anyone else noticed things being kinda slow lately.