 |
 |
 |
Windows Vista System Performance Reports
Sunday, January 28th, 2007
Does performance suck on Vista when compared to XP? That’s what I was set out to find out. I was worried at first, since the 
performance in Beta 2 was quite bad. While there is indeed a performance decrease, it’s quite minimal as you’ll find out. Last summer, I wrote an article entitled "Windows Vista Beta 2 Performance Reports" which attracted a lot of attention. In fact, it proved to be our second most popular article of 2006, so it’s clear that people who are looking to purchase Vista truly care about whether or not they will lose a good deal of performance when making the move.
Well, that article was more for fun since it was indeed based on a beta operating system. I noted there that when the RTM became available, I would revisit all of the benchmarks mentioned there and come up with a more appropriate conclusion. I received a lot of criticism for that article, but most people didn’t seem to see the "Beta 2" in the title. I was completely aware that the performance seen there did not reflect the actual performance differences in the final release.
I will admit one thing, the RTM is -far- superior to Beta 2… there is no comparison. I have been using Vista Ultimate RTM full time on my Windows rig for over two months and haven’t run into any serious problems, except for a few of my favorite applications that still do not function. I’ve found the system to be much more stable overall and speedier as well. Techgage - Review: Windows Vista System Performance Reports
Popular Posts
Please read our Disclaimer
