Quote:
Originally Posted by Funerall XP because faster and simple  |
I don't technically disagree, but I think Vista has it's moments. For example, with lots of memory (4gb+), Vista's caching subsystem works a charm, especially with large apps - games spring to mind. AFAIK it preloads programs in to memory in the order they appear on the start menu - so the ones you use most get cached first, and so on.
Thanks to DWM being graphically accelerated, alt-tabbing from games is a load faster than in XP, which can be very important if you run fullscreen games and IM apps at the same time.
Vista's actual performance after an app is loaded however, varies massively by system configuration - It clearly isnt optimised for older (XP-generation) hardware - its improved multithreading as evidence of it. But on a modern system (like mine), performance between Vista and XP is negligible to none. In some cases its faster thanks to better thread management in apps.
Sure, I'm not here to defend Vista or anything. I technically use it out of necessity - it does nothing for me that XP cant, except use all my memory. And I use some software that chooses not to run properly on xp x64 - it wasn't designed for x64 based processors initially, and theres such a feeling of xp being "forced" into x64. But I do like to point out the benefits of Vista, albeit the very few of them.
