Ok, I Have to Admit (Vista)...

**danielkh** · 07-15-2008, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Machinehead

There's no way that Vista loads faster than XP in either hibernate or cold boots. Even with stripped down versions like TinyVista the boot times are slower.

Not going to argue the point as I would totally agree with you if I hadn't been the one running the test. Using the current system in my profile, with the core duo/hybrid drive and all, Vista did run equal to faster than XP under all circumstance. The resume from standby blew me away. 10 seconds XP to 2 seconds Vista? Like I said, I wouldn't have believed it myself.

I guess you could say Vista lost one race. Going into standby, Vista took over 30 seconds, but your basically shutting down, so what does it matter?

I'm a hardcore XP user, so there was not bias in the testing. I was trying to prove Vista couldn't work. It just came on the computer I was testing and I thought "what the hell", let's try this readyboost/superfetch stuff.

**danielkh** · 07-15-2008, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Tidder

Same goes for XP and server 03. I run Micro2003 in my car, it's based off of server 03 enterprise. Very VERY fast once all the server services are removed. It'll boot on my lappy in about 8 seconds. NOT resume from hibernate, we're talking normal boot. Resuming from hibernate actually takes longer cause I have a gig o ram.

Takes about 25 seconds to boot on my carPC (From a CF card), but that's an EPIA 800 in there, slow as **** and a cheap CF card, slow as ****. It IS faster at hibernate resume in the car. Rock solid and stable for a few months now tho. Plus got EWF working with it now.

ANYWAY... long story short. Server 08 will prolly be the way to go for speed and stability if you wanna stick with a Vista flavor.

I run full blown versions of OS's because of my needs. As for Vista "flavor", I have never gotten used to the layout/command structure.

**danielkh** · 07-15-2008, 07:44 AM

These are cold boots to running Streetdeck without any software optimization:

1. vista/sd alone to music: hybrid 1:10.21 1:17.32 1:15.50 (alone means no readyboost)
1. xp/sd alone to music : hybrid 1:25.56

There was an extra 10-15 second load time for SD under XP because of a setup issue (that's why there is only 1 result. After that, I stopped), so you are looking at equal performance under Vista.

As for readyboost, it depends on your setup, memory card, etc., but first test really showed worse performance:

2. vista/sd 4gb readyboost to music : 1:44.45 1:25.10 1:18.03 1:24.76 1:15.81

But it seemed to be getting better the more times it was booted.

**john1701** · 07-15-2008, 07:45 AM

running vista in the car for a while now, no problems.

**danielkh** · 07-15-2008, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by john1701

running vista in the car for a while now, no problems.

I would too if I hadn't ran into the audio problem. I guess I should define that better.....

The sound worked fine, but Streetdeck would no longer see the individual ports for XM stuff (line-in) so I couldn't configure it. Now that I use 3 separate line-ins (XM,HDradio,HQCT), there is no way it would work.

**dhantiflag** · 07-15-2008, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by danielkh

I would too if I hadn't ran into the audio problem. I guess I should define that better.....

The sound worked fine, but Streetdeck would no longer see the individual ports for XM stuff (line-in) so I couldn't configure it. Now that I use 3 separate line-ins (XM,HDradio,HQCT), there is no way it would work.

ya... im in same problem...and i actually never got the sound working for RR in vista... at all :-/ boo but ya i like vista way better then XP

**Machinehead** · 07-15-2008, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by Tidder

Just depends on the system. If it's a system that was intended to run Vista super fast, with more than the recommended specs, it's faster. But vista was designed to take advantage of a powerful system such as that. XP on the other hand, is old. It was designed back when 2ghz was an extreme beast to have, and a gig o ram was a **** load... So lets say for instance you have a 1ghz machine with 512mb ram. Vista will go the way of a felcher and XP will run ok. But you take a 3.4ghz system with 2gb ram, bad *** vid card, etc, vista will outshine XP. Just the differences in design mang.

I have a feeling I'm not getting a true sense of the boot times through VMWare then. TinyVista Rev 02 boots 20 seconds slower than a normal build of XP in that environment.

**kibble** · 07-15-2008, 10:29 AM

Yeah, VMWare doesn't exactly show you what REALLY happens once you have it all installed and working.

We use that at work to test the images that get installed on the workstations. Everything seems to be really fast and all through VMWare, but once you actually run it on the machine, it can be considerably slower.

**Machinehead** · 07-15-2008, 10:38 AM

Well, I know that, I'm just saying that Vista's performance in that environment is probably not giving an accurate comparison to XP.

**Chairboy** · 07-15-2008, 11:12 AM

For the super quick restore for Vista, keep in mind that this means Vista will still be consuming power when the car is off. Dead batteries are teh suck.