Hey guys,
Here’s a short review, rather a duel between two leading OS – XP and Vista from Microsoft.
This has been a debate for a long time as to which of these is the better OS with regards to gaming. I have run a few benchies and some games, to give a direct comparision between the two OS. I would also be touching somewhat on the functionality side of both XP and Vista to tell u which one would be better in day to day computing. :cool2:
Lots of people in TE are suggesting a move to Vista, so just wanted to test both these OS, to give the right guidance to the people seeking it.
This is my first review, so kindly leave me a feedback about the mistakes and the things I have missed out on. 
[BREAK=Test Setup]
Test Config:
Processor: AMD X2 4200+@2700MHz
Motherboard: ASUS M2A-VM
RAM: Transcend DDR2 667MHz 3GB@ 770 MHz
HDD: WD 640GB AAKS
Graphics Card: Zotac 9600GT Amp Edition
PSU: Corsair VX450
Video Driver: Nvidia Forceware 177.83
OS: XP with SP3
Vista Ultimate with SP1
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/8589/testbedxppu9.jpg
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/testbedxppu9.jpg/1/w1024.png
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/4715/testbedvistacw1.jpg
http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/testbedvistacw1.jpg/1/w1024.png
Synthetic Benchmarks:
[ol]
[li]3D Mark 06[/li][li]PC Mark 05[/li][li]Furmark[/li][li]Lightsmark[/li][li]Cinebench[/li][/ol]
Gaming Benchmarks:
[ol]
[li]Unreal Tournament 3 v1.1[/li][li]Crysis v1.1[/li][li]FEAR Perseus Mandate[/li][li]STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl[/li][li]Call of Duty 4[/li][li]Gears of War[/li][/ol]
Test Configuration for Games:
Crysis & UT3 was run on all high without AA/AF
F.E.A.R. PM was run on max settings with soft shadows enabled
STALKER had everything maxed out including AF but no AA
Call of Duty 4 ran at everything max with 4xAA/8XAF
Gears of war was run on Intense post processing with everything maxed out without AA
All games followed the same settings in Vista and XP.
I have tested both OS on my 17†monitor and average hardware. The test results mite vary when done on high end systems.
[BREAK=Day to Day Computing]
Interface & Usability:
Windows XP:
Windows XP is a very old OS but is the world’s finest and most mature OS. It’s rock stable and is very good, rather proficient, at handling just any applications or games u throw at it.
The user interface is the vanilla look, simple and easy to understand for the general user, even a newbie. They say that the OS can be handled even by a kid. But after sometime u get bored of the look and would look for a change. This is when Vista enters.
XP’s boring look can be changed by using several applications and beautification packs, but dat’s a extra which very few people prefer. :no:
Windows Vista:
Vista is the new OS from Microsoft(it would be rather injustice to the OS to say it new but it’s only after SP1 that Vista adoption started to grow). There are a few things that are extras over XP and which are worth trying:
- Aero
This is the new clear, transparent, sexy new look of Vista. It has beautiful live icons, preview tabs on the taskbar, flip 3D to browse through several open windows and the lovely colors for the themes. - Search
The inbuilt search is the best feature of Vista for me. It lets u find any files, anywhere on the PC. The search function in the start menu lets u search for any programs without the need to scroll. - Superfetch
This feature is Vista intelligent Caching feature. It caches everything u do in normal day to day work in the memory and the next time u open the same application, it opens faster. Hence, they say, the more memory u give to Vista, the smoother and better it will be.
Many people would be thinking the memory would be waste during gaming, but it’s not. While gaming, the OS releases the memory for optimum performance.
Vista looks cool and is smoother with more memory to support it’s lovely interface. XP is good even at 1Gig of RAM for day to day applications.
[BREAK=3DMark 06 & PCMark 05]
Here begin the tests…
3DMark 06 v1.10
http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/1820/3dmark06jq7.jpg
Vista SP1 scores higher than XP SP3 in the most widely used synthetic gaming benchmark, though by a slight margin.
PCMark 05 v1.20
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/2717/pcmark05tl2.jpg
PC Mark shows better utilization of the processor cores by XP whereas better use of memory by Vista.
In the two major synthetic benchies, the two OS are nearly on par with each other, but favouring Vista SP1 marginally.
[BREAK=Other Synthetic Benchmarks]
Lightsmark
http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/1451/lightsmarksd7.jpg
XP was the winner straight on in this test. This is a test for enhanced lighting situations and different shadows like hard shadows, soft shadows and penumbra shadows.
Furmark
http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/738/furmarkvw0.jpg
Both OS on level.
Cinebench
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/5496/cinebenchsh7.jpg
Vista SP1 performed better in CPU rendering but I absolutely have no idea what went wrong with the OpenGL benchmark where it lags by around 40% from XP. I think it’s a lack of optimization on the software side not the OS.
Synthetic benchmarks give a clear win to XP based on Cinebench and Lightsmark whereas Vista comes out victorious in 3DMark 06 & PCMark 05, which i feel is a battle half won for Vista.
Now on to the real benchmarks…
[BREAK=Crysis & Unreal Tournament 3]
Crysis v1.1
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5003/crysisom5.jpg
XP had a 8.5% lead at 1280x1024 while Vista has a lead of 7.2% at 1024x768
Unreal Tournament 3 v1.1
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5616/utnw8.jpg
This was by far the biggest loss for Vista losing by over 19%.
[BREAK=F.E.A.R. PM & COD4 - Modern Warafare]
F.E.A.R. Perseus Mandate
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/1415/fearwe0.jpg
Well, this looks like the opposite of what we saw on the last benchmark. Here Vista leads by 19%. The battle’s warming up now. 
Call of Duty 4 - Modern Warfare
http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/2372/cod4nt8.jpg
Well, Vista again leads…
[BREAK=S.T.A.L.K.E.R & Gears of War]
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. - Shadow of Chernobyl v1.4
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/3875/stalkersa4.jpg
Vista Performed faster than XP at 1024x768 by around 17% while at 1280x1024, both OS perform the same.
Gears of War
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9228/gowae9.jpg
Vista and XP perform just the same.
[BREAK=Analysis & Conclusion]
In most of the synthetic tests, Vista emerged the winner though losing by a huge amount in Cinebench, which should be some optimization flaw in the software. This is bcoz we don’t see the translation of the same performance degradation in any game later on.
In the gaming benchmarks, Vista loses in a major game UT3 however regains ground in over all other games.
As per my overall gaming experience, the minimum fps in Vista is always higher than on XP and gameplay is smooth even if there is a negligible drop in fps in some games at some resolutions. U lose out a couple of frames somewhere but that is compensated by a smooth performance which XP’s lacking in recent games. Check this out with the F.E.A.R. benchmark as well.
Also, something worth mentioning is the load time for a game. All game titles loaded faster in Vista than XP.
At the end, i think it’s time to move to Vista. Why?
Coz the difference is more than significant. Vista is no more the story of crashes. It has evolved and grown with SP1 and is now far more stable and secure than XP.
It leads in most major benchmarks and also has lots of goodies in form of DX10 effects for those who are ready to lose a bit on performance and make the game look more beautiful…
People having <2Gig of RAM should avoid Vista coz it’s not responsive for gaming. With 2 or mor Gig of RAM and a average graphics card, u will surely enjoy the journey called Windows Vista…
I hope this review helped people who were confused between XP and Vista for gaming.
Any feedbacks and mistakes noticed are always welcome. Thanks for ur time and patience. Bye-Bye.
