home links tools blog about

« Memorial Day | Main | Mikey's Gaming Rig »

May 29, 2007


thomas woelfer

can't say i agree. installed vista on a single machine back in november and after some weeks swithed all other machines to vista too. haven't had a single problem with any of those machines, and i certainly won't go back to xp.



I have to disagree as well. You might want to try sticking with it for a little while. I find that Vista performs _differently_ than XP. It takes my machine a while to start up and it is slow for the first couple minutes in the morning while it does various scheduled tasks and such, but after that it performs really well.

I've just completed a project assessing workstation performance for a financial services company and Vista came through with flying colors.

I too see that my Vista machine never really idles at 0% cpu, but that doesn't mean it isn't just as fast when I need it to be fast.

Michael K. Campbell

Thomas and Corey,

I'm talking about gaming. And specifically about what having a rogue process start up during gaming would do for 'performance'.

That said, on a whim, I went and did a bit of googling and found the following, excellent, review of XP vs Vista performance:

It actually looks, based on that article, that the perf hit for Vista isn't that big of a deal - though there's no counting for rogue processes here and there. And I've also seen it be a total, complete, piece of crap when it comes to running VPCs that have NO problem running in XP.

I dunno, I guess I might give Vista at least a stab ...


How's this for gaming?

Minimal XP for games (no services running).

Ubuntu for work.

No rogue processes at all. In fact, your XP install may seem as speedy as ubuntu, you just won't be able to do anything but play games on it...

The comments to this entry are closed.