I honestly find no advantage to Windows Vista, and there are some downsides. For example, no matter what Vista advocates say, Vista requires Vista-level hardware. Pentium 4 desktop hardware runs it better, but usually that class of hardware needs a video upgrade.
I've personally seen instabilities with the shipping version of the Vista code: applications freezing, Windows services slowing to a crawl, even OS crashes. I'm not saying everyone is having these problems, but I see no real improvement over Windows XP. While the architecture of Vista is a little better, Vista adds a lot of overhead to support quite a bit of new and sometimes questionable functionality.
Vista is a lot more complex than Windows XP. It's probably more secure, but it still needs a raft of third-party security software and hardware. I don't trust its anti-malware protection or its firewall. And it doesn't have an onboard antivirus product. I have five Windows Vista installations.
I'm reducing that number to two, one of which will be in a dual-boot with XP. The Windows Vista installation I have on my main Windows machine was a Vista upgrade install, and it's the least stable. That's why it's getting fresh dual-boot clean installs. The other Vista machine I'm keeping stays in the office, where I don't use it frequently. If I need other Vista boxes for testing, I'll set them up as I need them. The rest of my Windows hardware will shortly revert to pristine Windows XP installations.
You can follow the question or vote as helpful, but you cannot reply to this thread. Threats include any threat of suicide, violence, or harm to another.
Any content of an adult theme or inappropriate to a community web site. Any image, link, or discussion of nudity. Any behavior that is insulting, rude, vulgar, desecrating, or showing disrespect. Any behavior that appears to violate End user license agreements, including providing product keys or links to pirated software. Unsolicited bulk mail or bulk advertising. Any link to or advocacy of virus, spyware, malware, or phishing sites.
Any other inappropriate content or behavior as defined by the Terms of Use or Code of Conduct. Any image, link, or discussion related to child pornography, child nudity, or other child abuse or exploitation. Support for Windows 7 is to end January 14, Yes, you need to think about getting a new computer with Win 10 if you're using Win 7. Was this reply helpful?
Yes No. We've taken a test PC and laptop, installed XP, Vista and Windows 7 on them and applied a number of testing real-life benchmarks to see which will come out on top. We're aware that speed isn't everything, though, so we've also explored the new features that each OS has introduced.
To make life easy for you, we've split our findings over eight categories, with an overall verdict at the end. It's often said that recent versions of Windows have become bloated, and it's hardly unreasonable to expect each new OS to perform better than its previous iteration. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the lightweight OS runs quickly on today's processors. Newer OSes can optimise for modern hardware and include more powerful features, but is this extra functionality really just slowing us down?
To find out, we decided to test each operating system's performance on an average PC. We installed XP, Vista and Windows 7 in that order all bit versions on the machine's GB hard drive and ran a number of real-world benchmarks to find out which OS was best. The boot time test provided no surprises — Vista took the longest time to get started, XP came in second place and Windows 7 was the fastest. We bear good news. Even the beta of Windows 7 can beat Vista's sluggish start.
At first it seemed like our file transfer benchmarks would deliver the same results. Vista produced poor copy speeds in our small file tests, XP again placed second and Windows 7 came out on top.
0コメント