Is xp faster than vista??
23 Sep 08
XP is definitely faster than Vista, Vista consumes a lot more resources than its predecessor windows XP. For vista to work especially with Aero enabled, you need to invest something more than what you would have expected to invest before. The graphics card requirement is quite high. The graphics card must be of DirectX 10 supported. The required minimum graphics memory on the graphics card is 128 MB. For better performance, graphics memory must be of 256 MB. The minimum hard disk space required is 20 GB for installation of Windows Vista. Processor speed is also expected to be high for Aero to work smoothly without causing any hiccups. The memory requirement for Windows Vista system is high. The system will work smoothly when one has got RAM of about 2 GB installed. Totally, I would like to say that, Windows vista eats up lot of resources, than its predecessor Windows XP.
21 Sep 08
The matter is not so that whether xp is faster or vista. The matter is the target hardware. Vista is very much resource hungry. Anything os or other software that have extra graphics requires extra ram or graphics processing units. So on older machines xp runs very good. If you can provide sufficient hardware support to vista no doubt it will also run quite well.
20 Sep 08
As the new windows vista is new,has extreamly high quality graphics, some unique features, hence it is not supported by majority of the computers as you'll hav to install an additional graphic card, video card and other gadgets to your existing PC, to take its full advantage otherwise in my opinion Xp is the best, as it is supported by almost all PCs. Why do we need a vista when we are fully satisfied by Xp??
19 Sep 08
well iam having a laptop. it came with vista pre-installed. first i liked it but after a few days, the system started becoming sluggish and slow. then i realised that there were many processes goin on in the background. and plus due to the transition effects and all, vista requires a good amount of processing power, ram and quite some good amount of graphical memory to get it work smooth. i myself then installed xp in it and now its working perfectly fine and it is MUCH faster than vista as the processing power require for xp is minimal compared to vista. the virtual memory you get to use in xp is much much more than vista because of its many background modules. check this link. it explains all www.custompc.co.uk/news/601470/vista-vs-xp-performance-tested-and-vista-is-slower/page1.html
18 Sep 08
it really depends on you processor speed. Though speed differences can also be caused by too much video effects from vista, thus a higher specs for graphics. XP though is much favorable as it is simple. combined with high end computers now, XP would be the way to go when you need speed. But if you are for additional perks, then vista is great, though you have to sacrifice speed.