Anilrgowda

This article is based on tests done by our sister site CNET.com. As such, please note that there may be slight differences in the testing procedure. For more information on the actual tests conducted on the product, please inquire directly at the site where the article was originally published. References made to some of other products in this review may not be available or applicable in Asia. Please check directly with your local distributor for details.


Before you upgrade your Windows XP system to Windows Vista or replace it with a new Vista system, it would be helpful to know how your upgraded or new machine's performance will compare with that of your current XP-based model. CNET Labs tested two laptops with XP and Vista to see how performance differs between the two operating systems. Five years and 50 million new lines of code after Windows XP made its debut, Microsoft released its successor. Windows Vista is available in no less than six editions, each of which boasts a different set of bells and whistles. Regardless of the graphics, entertainment, and security features packed into each edition, the same engine drives them all. Microsoft makes modest recommendations on what mix of hardware is needed to make that engine run. CNET is of a different mind, however, about what you need to smoothly run Vista; we recommend a more robust rig than what Microsoft suggests.

Before you upgrade your current computer to Vista or replace it with a new Vista-based system, we think it's helpful to know how your upgraded or new machine will compare to your current XP-based model in terms of performance. CNET Labs tested two laptops with XP and Vista to see how performance differs between the two operating systems. We chose the midrange ASUS W7J and the highend Dell XPS M1710 for our tests. For both systems, we first ran all of our tests with Windows XP installed and current drivers. We then upgraded the laptops to Windows Vista Ultimate, installing Vista on top of XP, thereby keeping all of the applications and data files intact. Lastly, we then reinstalled Vista Ultimate, this time formatting the systems' hard drives and doing a "clean install" of the operating system.

A word about drivers
Even though Vista has been in the works for the last five years or so, not all Vista drivers are ready for prime time. So when looking over our benchmark results, you'll need to do so with a grain of salt. Our testing was done in the weeks immediately following Vista's large-scale public release. It's entirely possible--even probable--that, as better driver updates become available over time, Vista performance will improve.
We took two approaches in regard to drivers for our testing. For the midrange ASUS laptop, we tested using the drivers that installed automatically from the Vista install disc and via Windows Update--with the sole exception of installing the Vista beta graphics driver downloaded from Nvidia's Web site. This approach gave us a snapshot of how robust the default drivers are. (We manually installed the beta graphics driver because we wouldn't have been able to run our 3D test with the default driver.) For the high-end Dell laptop, we updated the Vista drivers with all those available for the particular model from Dell's Web site. This scenario allowed us to examine the best possible performance with the most recent drivers.

Immediately following the installation of Vista on the high-end Dell, Vista reported a Windows Experience Index of 1.0, and it lacked Aero Glass support. After updating all of the Dell's drivers, however, the Windows Experience Index jumped up to 4.7, and Aero Glass support was enabled.Microsoft asserts that you should experience faster boot times and quicker resumes from standby when running Vista. Our testing showed noticeably faster boot and resume times with the clean install of Vista on the ASUS, compared with its XP performance. The Dell, on the other hand, saw longer boot times and no noticeable improvement in its resume times on Vista.


Note: All Vista testing done with default drivers, except for graphics driver, which was downloaded from Nvidia's Web site.

Note: All Vista testing done with drivers downloaded from Dell's Web site.

Battery life
We noticed a significant drop in battery life when we moved from XP to Vista on our DVD battery drain tests. The biggest difference was on the ASUS where battery life with the Vista upgrade was almost 40 minutes less than with XP. The gap was a more modest 15 minutes when comparing XP with the clean install of Vista. We saw a small drop in battery life on the Dell going from XP to Vista, but no significant difference between the clean install of Vista and the upgrade. The shorter battery life with Vista is most likely a byproduct of its more intense Aero Glass graphics engine.

Note: All Vista testing done with default drivers, except for graphics driver, which was downloaded from Nvidia's Web site.

Note: All Vista testing done with drivers downloaded from Dell's Web site.

Gaming
Gaming performance also took a noticeable hit with Vista on our laptops when compared with XP. Mind you, scoring 67.5 frames per second on Quake 4 at a resolution of 1,600 x 1,200 on a laptop--as the Dell did--is still respectable. But this was still 13.3fps slower than on the same laptop with XP. With a lower-end graphics engine in the ASUS, the ASUS' frame rate at 1,024 x 768 on Vista plummeted to 13.2fps, less than half of the 38.5fps the system achieved with XP. That's the difference between a game that you can actually play and one that you can't, at least not enjoyably. For both laptops, we saw the same level of gaming performance with the clean install of Vista as we did with the Vista upgrade.

Note: All Vista testing done with default drivers, except for graphics driver, which was downloaded from Nvidia's Web site.

Note: All Vista testing done with drivers downloaded from Dell's Web site.

Source:Windows XP vs Vista - Product Review - CNET Asia