XP vs. VISTA
Jon Honeyball, Tim Danton, Simon Edwards, Dave Stephenson, Dave Bayon, Barry Collins, Darien Graham-Smith, Zara Baxter
|
Mar 26, 2008 3:02 PM
Still not sure whether it's worth upgrading to Vista? We put XP and Vista through the ultimate face-off.
"The biggest competitor we face with Windows Vista is XP,” said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer shortly before the launch of the OS. He wasn’t wrong. Not since the makeshift Windows ME has Microsoft faced such an uphill battle to win public favour for a new version of Windows.
Microsoft insists Vista is the fastest-growing operating system ever, but given that the installed base of PCs has nearly doubled since the launch of Windows XP, it would be disastrous if it wasn’t. Many of those choosing new Vista installations are either people or businesses buying new PCs as part of an upgrade cycle, or corporate customers that receive the latest OS as part of their rolling licence. The number of people actually opting for Vista upgrades is painfully thin: US reports claim that sales of boxed upgrade editions are 60% down on XP levels.
So what’s the problem with Vista? Is it that users simply don’t know how good the new OS is? Or is it, as Ballmer implied, simply not a big enough improvement on Windows XP? This feature answers those questions.
We’re throwing the two operating systems into the ring and judging them over nine categories, ranging from performance, right through to bundled apps and games. At the end of each section, we give each OS a score out of ten, and on page 33 you can find out which is our overall winner.
Of course, we’re not the only experts who’ve been working with Vista. Hundreds of IT professionals told us what they thought of Vista in our exclusive online survey, and we reveal their scores and feedback.
If you’re still not sure whether to upgrade, the next ten pages will guide your decision.
Usability and interface
Vista’s most notable feature is its ‘new’ user interface, but it’s based on the same principles that underpin every version of Windows since Windows 95 – and there’s nothing wrong with that. Microsoft may not have invented elements such as icons, menus and hierarchical folders (hence the lawsuit filed against the company by Apple in 1988), but it deserves credit for implementing them effectively and consistently across almost every version of Windows for the past 12 years, making basic operations, even on an unfamiliar version of Windows, comparatively painless.
 |
| Flip 3D is Vista's new way to scroll through open apps - far clearer, not to mention prettier, than XP's flat, icon-based approach |
Yet while Vista’s interface may be fundamentally similar to XP’s, it boasts numerous cosmetic and functional innovations, which Microsoft advertises on its website as “breakthrough computing experiences... both visually exciting and intuitively designed”. Does Vista really improve on a tried – and-tested formula? Or is it a case of change for its own sake?
Aero Glass
Perhaps the most conspicuous novelty in Vista is the Aero Glass transparency effect. Opinions are divided as to how “exciting” it really is compared to the classic Windows theme – and it doesn’t make a lot of sense when you maximise a window and suddenly the border goes dark – but overall it’s certainly nicer than XP’s default theme of chunky blue window borders with a lurid green Start button.
Vista’s way also reduces the load on your CPU, since Aero windows are composed by the graphics card, although it isn’t enough of a saving to make a visible difference in everyday use. Both operating systems allow you to revert to the Windows 95 style, but if you don’t want to go down that route Vista is a clear winner (if you’ll excuse the pun).
The Start menu
Early Vista testers, particularly power users, were delighted by the new feature that lets you filter the contents of the Start menu simply by typing. Type “calc”, for example, and the calculator instantly appears. It’s far quicker than navigating via Start, All Programs, Accessories and clicking on the Calculator option.
Vista’s new Start menu, which replaces the classic Programs fly-out menu with a scrolling list, has been less endowed with praise. Although Vista’s approach is neater, scrolling to find the programs you want means more mouse work and less speed, and some consider it a step backwards in terms of usability. Vista’s Start menu has also been criticised for its overcomplicated shutdown options, which are spread out across two buttons and a menu.
That’s not to say XP’s Start menu was brilliantly conceived: the default was a confused two-column affair,with the Programs menu flying out to the right but confusingly launched from the left-hand column. It also moved icons around depending on when they were last accessed, flouting the cardinal rule of interface design – consistency. Between this and Vista’s foibles, it’s a score draw.
Little touches
Some of Vista’s new features are less conspicuous, but still worthy of note. A new windowing engine means it’s finally possible to move and minimise non-responsive applications, making it much easier to remain productive when a single program freezes. And the task-switching menu now shows live thumbnails of your open applications and windows rather than mere icons, and you can switch immediately to a previewed window simply by clicking on it – a feature flagrantly copied from Mac OS X, but still one that warrants a usability thumbs-up.
For fashion junkies, most versions of Vista also offer a prettified 3D version of the task switcher, known as Flip3D, which does everything its 2D cousin does, only more ostentatiously. XP has nothing to compare with any of these handy features.
 |
| An inuitive way to navigate between folders |
Naming and shaming
A number of the changes in Vista are purely superficial, the intention seemingly being merely to emphasise that Vista is different. An obvious example would be the renaming of certain system resources. In fairness, XP’s names weren’t perfect: it’s great to finally be rid of the patronising ‘My’ prefix before the names of various folders. However, Vista’s new names aren’t much clearer than the established ones.
For example, the Add or Remove Programs feature now has the much more ambiguous title of Programs and Features; Display has been bundled into a catch-all window called Personalize; Accessibility has been repackaged as Ease of Access – and the word Start has been removed from the Start button.
Things have been moved about, too. In XP and before, display settings were grouped neatly together into a tabbed dialog box. In Vista, these same functions are separated out into five separate dialog boxes. It’s a step backwards from XP that only slows down the user. See our networking comparison on p132 for another example of unnecessary complication.
 |
| Vista's shortcuts |
The Explorer window
While the little things make a difference, if you use your computer to get real work done your Windows experience centres on the Explorer window, and it’s here that interface design will have the most impact on productivity. Seemingly realising this, Microsoft has given Explorer a thorough reworking. Some changes
are largely aesthetic, such as fully scalable icons, more pervasive thumbnailing and previews of a folder’s contents appearing within its icon.
Some updates, though, have a significant impact on usability, such as the new Favorite Links panel. This lets you create instant shortcuts right within Explorer – a huge time-saver if your work is spread across multiple file system locations. Your shortcuts even appear in standard Open File dialogs. There’s no cost to using it except the space it takes up in the Explorer window, which you can reclaim simply by hiding the panel. It’s another steal from Mac OS X, but a great addition to Explorer.
VERDICT
XP
At heart, a powerful, usable interface that’s stood the test of time. But where it promised graphical sophistication, it delivered only gimmickry, and finding your files can be a trial. 7/10
VISTA
Almost all of what’s good about XP is available here, and then some. Not every new feature is a hit, but Vista has a few unique tricks that really can make life easier and more productive. 8/10The Explorer window - (continued)
The new search engine is another time-saver – indeed, a revelation after the slow and inflexible search in earlier versions of Windows. The technology underpins not only basic searches, but also the new “stacks” and saved searches features. A stack looks like a folder, but instead of showing all the files in a particular location on your hard disk it shows all files on your system that meet a user-defined criterion. For example, you can open a stack of all the Excel spreadsheets on your system, or of all photos taken on a particular date, and work with it as if it were a folder. For greater control, you can use a saved search, which lets you predefine complex search criteria and then open a window containing the results at the click of a button.
These systems work well, so long as Vista has indexed the folders you want to search, and it’s especially useful that you can use them within the Open
File dialog box. In everyday use, you may never have a use for these advanced functions, but almost everyone will appreciate the fast, handy search field built into every Explorer window.
One final change to the Explorer UI is perhaps less inspired. The familiar toolbar at the top of the Explorer window has been replaced by a simpler design, modelled on the Internet Explorer interface.
Simplicity is no bad thing in itself, but while back and forward buttons make sense in a browser they’re not a perfect fit for navigating a hierarchical file system – yet these are now Explorer’s main navigation tools, while the “up” button has vanished entirely. The new crumb trail at the top of the window does let you jump quickly up the folder tree, but it’s not as usable as it might be because the crumb buttons have neither a consistent size nor a consistent location. Thankfully, there’s still a keyboard shortcut to go up a folder level .
Simplifying the Explorer window has also left it without the space to show all the available options. To get at the hidden functions, you have to press Alt, causing the familiar old menu bar to appear above the new, streamlined one, duplicating many options and rather spoiling Microsoft’s boasts of “intuitive design”. It looks like here even Vista’s designers have had to acknowledge the strengths of XP’s way of doing things.
 |
| vistas pull down column helps you hunt down apps quickly |
 |
| Vista Aero Glass - see whats underneath open windows |
Security
With more than nine out of every ten PCs worldwide running Windows, XP and Vista aren’t just targets for malware – they’re pretty much the only targets. Vista was famously written with security in mind but, ten months on from its launch, has it really stood up to Microsoft’s claims?
Windows XP has been plagued by security issues, and continues to be so. Even in its infancy, Vista has also suffered from security flaws: regardless of how effective Microsoft’s security measures are, any Windows OS is going to be the subject of sustained attack due to its popularity.
Bug fixing
Given Microsoft’s strenuous efforts to address security, it’s perhaps surprising to discover that Vista suffered more known security issues in its first five months than XP did, according to Microsoft’s own figures. It’s even more shocking to discover that fewer fixes have been issued for Vista.
While this sounds bad, Vista’s had fewer fixes because the early security issues were relatively trivial compared to XP. However, after six months, Vista still contained one known and unfixed security vulnerability that was categorised as High severity. Unknown exploits are also freely traded online.
Firewalls
Both XP and Vista include a firewall. XP’s original offering was disabled by default, but with SP2 Microsoft introduced the Windows Firewall, and enabled it automatically. Vista’s firewall is also enabled by default. However, both firewalls are limited. XP’s firewall blocks only incoming connections and doesn’t monitor the outgoing network traffic, which means that any malware running on the system is able to connect to the internet undetected.
Vista’s firewall can block outgoing connections, but the default setting allows all outgoing traffic, so it’s no more secure than XP out of the box. There’s a tool to configure the firewall to block certain outgoing traffic, but this facility involves blocking specific ports rather than allowing or denying certain applications.
 |
| XP's default security lacks sophistication |
 |
| Vista's firewall can be set to block outgoing traffic, but it isn't by default |
User Access Control
XP’s poor account controls mean most people are permanently logged in as administrators, which allows all kinds of malware to wreak havoc. Vista does exercise some control over apps, however. The User Access Control (UAC) system forces users to confirm they want to run certain programs, install software or make other important changes to Windows. This means that, if malware attempts to execute on your PC in the background, you should see a box asking you to confirm or block the file. XP lacks this feature, which is why it’s advisable to run a personal firewall with the capability to block applications.
However, UAC is no panacea: we threw 126 executable items of malware at a naked Vista machine and, of the 42% that ran on the system, fewer than half caused Vista to present a UAC prompt or firewall alert.
UAC also relies on users having some idea about what’s normal and abnormal system behaviour. Market research from Symantec has discovered that inexperienced users normally click OK, regardless of the context. So, while UAC may add security from a technical standpoint, users may accidentally subvert it. There’s also a possibility that people will deliberately sabotage the security: UAC is easily disabled, and even experienced users can be tempted to switch it off without realising that doing so also disables Internet Explorer’s protected mode, parental controls and file/Registry virtualisation.
Compatibility with security suites
Neither XP nor Vista are secure enough to run safely without third-party internet security software. However, when Vista was first launched, security companies complained that the built-in security systems caused problems with their products. The main issue was the kernel protection, known as PatchGuard.
Symantec said that it restricted legitimate software companies from accessing the system at a low level, while attackers could already circumvent it.
Kaspersky Lab dismissed the protection that PatchGuard offered, claiming it was vulnerable. Ultimately, PatchGuard’s presence hasn’t prevented any major security company, including Symantec, from producing Vista-compatible antivirus, antispyware and firewall products. That said, the latest ZoneAlarm Internet Security suite has fewer features and runs slower on Vista than on XP.
VERDICT
XP
A hassle-free XP experience means running as administrator, which is an unsafe way to operate, while the built-in firewall isn’t nearly strong enough for peace of mind.
5/10
VISTA
Technically more secure than XP, Vista comes with some powerful security tools, but relies too often on user judgement to make important security-based decisions.
7/10
Gaming and entertainment
When Vista first appeared, the news was bad for gamers. Reports circulated that Microsoft was telling members of the gaming industry to expect a 10-15% performance hit against XP. Both ATi and Nvidia appeared to have been caught off guard by the new OS, and for a few months confusion reigned. New drivers appeared on an almost weekly basis, and gaming performance took a serious hit. Dual-card setups, such as Nvidia’s SLI and ATi’s CrossFire, either simply didn’t work or often ran worse than single-card setups.
 |
| There's now little difference between XP and Vista frame rates in Call of Duty 2 |
But with Vista approaching its first birthday, the big two graphics card vendors have got their act together. We ran our Call of Duty 2 test under both XP and Vista on the same hardware, and the results were promising: 27fps under XP and 24fps under Vista. Running 3DMark 06 yielded a similar result, with its benchmarks producing an overall score of 4,252 under XP and 4,032 under Vista. This puts gaming performance ahead of Microsoft’s original estimates and, if your games run smoothly under XP, they should be fine under Vista. Nevertheless, you wouldn’t expect a new OS to have a negative effect on gaming, and even with the modest performance hit you might have to drop detail or buy a new graphics card.
And what of DirectX 10? The screenshots doing the rounds on the internet before Vista arrived promised lush, photo-realistic scenery, lifelike game characters and physics simulations that accurately mimic the real world. In real life, DirectX 10 has yet to deliver anything meaningful. DirectX 10-only games such as Halo 2 are simultaneously thin on the ground and quite underwhelming. The difference between DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 is very hard to spot in games with dual-rendering modes at present and, while we optimistically hold out hope that DirectX 10 will lift the PC above the current crop of games consoles in terms of performance and visual impact, it’s just about the worst reason to upgrade to Vista we can think of.
Bundled games
The one area of gaming where Vista does make a distinct improvement on XP is with the bundled games. There’s now a surprisingly slick 3D chess game, a curious puzzle game called InkBall, and a decent version of the Chinese board game Mahjong. Even the old Windows favourites – Solitaire, Hearts and Minesweeper – have been given a lick of paint. Vista’s bundled games aren’t about to put the Xbox out of business, but they’re more likely to help pass a dull train journey than those in XP.
Media Center
One of the most fundamental changes between XP and Vista is the integration of Media Center. Treated as a separate edition of the operating system under XP, Media Center is now an integral part of both the Home Premium and Ultimate editions of Vista.
The new Media Center is more polished than its XP predecessor. An MPEG-2 codec now comes preinstalled, so that DVDs play out of the box, and both analogue and digital TV broadcasts are handled without fuss. The interface is also much cleaner: large music collections are much easier to browse thanks to the album artwork thumbnails, while the new television electronic program guide (EPG) is now simple to follow and reliable.
The stability issues that afflicted XP’s Media Center have been largely overcome, although there are still some kinks in the software. System files occasionally crop up in your media library, the “online showcase” of content that’s streamed over the internet is both weak and unreliable, and program recordings do still occasionally go astray.
Despite the improvements in Vista, Microsoft was planning to completely overhaul the Media Center software this year as part of a project codenamed Fiji. An open invite for beta testers was sent out in March, but since then the project has gone eerily quiet. It seems this almost certainly won’t be ready for Service Pack 1, meaning that any further improvements to Media Center are unlikely to surface until the back end of this year.
VERDICT
XP
Still the fastest operating system on the market for gamers, but unless you have a Media Center edition of XP it sorely lacks the home-entertainment features that are increasingly expected of modern PCs.
7/10
VISTA
The new, integrated Media Center gives Vista’s home-entertainment facilities a healthy boost – let’s just hope gaming gets a boost when DirectX 10 titles finally arrive in force.
8/10
Mobility
Given the huge growth in notebook use since the launch of XP, it’s hardly surprising that Microsoft designed whole portions of Vista with mobile workers firmly in mind.
The Mobility Center lay at the heart of all the marketing towards laptop owners, but in truth it’s little more than a useful conglomeration of previously scattered options – brightness, power options, wireless, external displays – in one menu. It’s deeper within these options that Vista really improves over XP; most notably in ways to extend battery life (although some claim Vista is inherently more power-consuming than XP).
Admittedly, the advanced power setting’s interface is far too fiddly, and allowing you to fiddle with PCI Express power controls is over the top for most users. But the control you have over critical battery levels and actions, maximum CPU clock speeds and the addition of a reliable sleep mode leaves XP looking distinctly desktop orientated. We’re particularly impressed by how quick Vista returns to life from sleep mode.
 |
| XP's power management is rudimentary, and that's being kind. |
Vista also makes improvements for connecting with external devices. XP offered a basic add-on for this purpose called SyncToy, but Vista’s SyncCenter is integrated into the OS and is a more polished offering. As with the Mobility Center, it draws together the synching of data between computers, network servers and devices into one place, making it a simpler task to keep devices up to date – the Sync All button really does make it a one-click job to set running while you make the tea.
While tablet PCs haven’t really taken off, Vista still has a whole section dedicated to its unique features, and you can make use of them on any normal laptop if you have a graphics tablet and stylus. Its handwriting- recognition software is surprisingly accurate, with thorough training modules for initial calibration, and the array of customisable flicks and gestures are wonderful for rapid navigation after a bit of practice.
 |
| Vista's mobility center is a one-stop shop for laptop owners. |
Finally, Vista opens a door to future developments that could – and we’re sitting on the fence for this one – be extremely exciting. The SideShow technology allows laptops to support a secondary screen for all sorts of extensions, from built-in LCDs on the lid to remote controls that can browse your music collection. It’s still in its embryonic stage, but it’s just one more reason for mobile users to keep faith with Vista.
VERDICT
XP
Did what was expected of it back then, but in an increasingly mobile market it looks flimsy when you compare it to Vista.
7/10
VISTA
Built with the mobile user in mind, it brings together existing notebook features and adds innovative ones itself.
9/10
Networking
Networking is one of XP’s strong points. Earlier versions of Windows had their foibles, but XP offers easy connectivity, simple configuration and file and printer sharing at the tick of a box – and it’s easy to switch features on and off for each user.
 |
| Vista confusingly divides networks into different sections |
Yet Microsoft hasn’t rested on its laurels. Vista offers a range of networking enhancements, including a two-way firewall and support for IPv6 (the “next-generation” internet protocol, set to gradually replace IPv4, which is now showing its age of 20 years). A nifty new globe icon in the System Tray shows at a glance when a computer has access to the internet. Recognising the risks of the wireless age, Microsoft has also added the new ‘network location’ setting, which applies security settings depending on the type of network you’re connected to. It’s confusing to use, though, with some requesters dividing networks into three sections (home, office and public place) and others referring to just two (public and private).
Vista also features a new Network and Sharing Center. This applet is supposed to make network configuration easier, but in practice it gives you almost no useful tools or information – just a range of sharing options that most people will only ever need when they first connect to a network.
There are some annoying steps backward, too. In XP, dead network connections could often be resuscitated with the Repair function, which simply flushed the connection settings and reconnected. In Vista, this has been replaced by Diagnose and Repair – a process that sits and grinds for 30 seconds trying (and normally failing) to identify the cause of the problem before you’re given the option to reconnect.
Worse, some Vista users have experienced a bug that causes
cross-network file copy operations to take up to ten times as long as they should, making it hugely inconvenient to use Vista on a network. Numerous fixes have been suggested, including more than one official patch from Microsoft, but no universal cure has yet been found. We live in hope that one will be included in the forthcoming SP1, but until then it’s a black mark against Vista.
VERDICT
XP
A proven system that delivers features while remaining easy to configure, although lack of IPv6 could be an issue in future
9/10
VISTA
Some new networking features are worthwhile, but others lead to an overall user experience that’s worse than in XP.
8/10
Business
For most companies, the question of XP vs Vista is complicated. It would be glib to follow the marketing line and say “there are many benefits to upgrading to Vista – you have the licences already as part of your rolling license program, so upgrade when you’re comfortable”, because there can be almost intractable and unresolvable conflicts within the decision-making process.
Let’s first look at the benefits of moving to Vista for a business user. We’re assuming there’s already a good basic infrastructure in place, and the move isn’t predicated on a need to fix unresolvable underlying issues – upgrading an OS is rarely a solution to an existing problem. We’ll also assume the business has a disaster-recovery plan in place. This might sound patronising, but most companies don’t. It’s inevitable that the issue of large-scale software deployment on to either existing or, more likely, brand-new hardware has to be considered as part of that solution.
Installation and imaging
If you’re relying on a manual install, configure, patch and deploy solution for each new computer that arrives into the building, it’s clear that it will be impossible to deploy a large number of machines in the required short period of time if a disaster occurs. There’s no option but to look to imaging techniques for mass deployment. Almost immediately, Vista can pay for itself.
One of the big issues for XP is that you need to create image discs for almost every flavour and subversion of the hardware – it becomes worse if you have to consider multilingual desktop options, too. With Vista, if you design it right, you can get this down to one disc. In a fully tested disaster-recovery scenario, this will pay for the deployment of Vista immediately, and it’s a compelling argument in the new OS’s favour.
Data encryption
For those who take laptops out on the road or overseas on business regularly, and are more worried about losing the contents of their hard drive to enterprising thieves than losing the hardware, the BitLocker encryption in Vista Ultimate and Vista Enterprise (but not, surprisingly, in the Business version) is a tempting solution. You can’t just slap a new OS build on to the machine to overwrite any permissions and thus gain access to the sensitive data. But while BitLocker is a good step up, there’s already a very good NTFS-level encryption facility built into XP.
Locking down USB ports is another area where Vista has advantages over XP, helping to prevent mass theft of data to a USB key. But, like the other interesting technology of encrypted password keys in hardware, XP has solutions in place – it’s just that Vista is better. Again, it’s a people and process problem, not a hardware or OS one.
Remote and office working
For getting connected back to base, there are advantages to Vista’s VPN tunnelling, but many were quite happy with that supplied in XP, provided the lesser configurability was deemed adequate. And there’s a hand-in-hand issue here with Office – if you’re going to deploy Vista, you’ll almost certainly roll out Office 2007 at the same time. With Office, there’s much to gain from Outlook’s connectivity to Exchange Server, its ability to tunnel better and work seamlessly online/offline. Moving to Office 2007 on XP is probably an unlikely combination in the real world.
Network management
For general administration, system monitoring and other ‘health plumbing’ issues, there isn’t much to choose between the two operating systems. No-one relies on the built-in tools in either, and a server-side system-management solution such as SMS or Microsoft Operations Manager makes a fine job of keeping on top of the day-to-day issues just as well on either platform.
We’d hoped for considerably fewer OS patches for Vista compared to XP, due to the much-vaunted ‘secure by design’ moniker that Microsoft was touting, but there’s been no obvious reduction between a mature XP SP2 solution and a new Vista one. For either, you really need to ensure you have the local network deployment tools in place, such as Windows Update Server.
Which to choose? Vista offers more and has key advantages. But XP SP2 is like a well-worn pair of shoes – business is comfortable with it, knows where most of the demons are hidden, and can make it jump through hoops. It isn’t clear that Vista currently offers enough to make the leap forward. And for many, the reality is that it isn’t yet compelling enough.
VERDICT
XP
Despite XP’s well-reported security flaws and quirks, it’s a known quantity and still clearly the platform of choice for the business desktop – a fact acknowledged by Microsoft’s recently introduced downgrades.
8/10
VISTA
Without doubt, there’s much to admire here, and a few key features might make all the difference to some businesses. But does it really offer enough to make switching over worthwhile?
7/10
Bundled Applications
One of the big draws of upgrading to a new OS is the suite of extras that comes with it. And with Windows Vista, Microsoft overhauled the lot. The star attraction is Media Center, integrated into Home Premium and Ultimate, but Vista introduces several new programs, too. It also gives a makeover to the best apps in XP. Admittedly, some are the electronic equivalent of particle board, but others are genuinely useful improvements.
Get organised
Compared to Vista, Windows XP is pretty bare when it comes to organisation tools. The closest you get to a calendar is looking up future dates in the Date/Time Properties, but Vista boasts a dedicated app. While Outlook users will stick with their current software, Calendar is a tidy, focused information manager that lets you add appointments, send invites and even share your calendar online. Support for iCal is an added bonus – visit Apple’s iCal directory to see all the public calendars you can add, including UK public holidays.
Less impressive is Windows Contacts. This update to XP’s Address Book (essentially a list of contacts) lets you add details such as birthdays, anniversaries, home address and work address, but Contacts is really designed to be accessed from other apps, just like Address Book. Although it’s an improvement over Address Book, with more fields for example, it certainly isn’t a compelling reason to upgrade.
The final organisational update is Outlook Express becoming Windows Mail. Outlook Express users won’t need to learn much, as it’s almost identical in terms of looks and the way it behaves, with the main improvements being better junk-mail handling and that Windows Search indexes all its contents, making it easier to dig out old mail.
The Sidebar
Perhaps the biggest visual change on loading Vista is the Sidebar. Think of it as a dock for handy applets that you want to access quickly. It’s also relatively easy to program your own Gadget – utilities docked on the Sidebar – so businesses can write one for handling their expenses system, for instance. There’s nothing like Sidebar in Windows XP – that said, it isn’t hard to add similar features by downloading Yahoo Widgets orGoogle Desktop.
Making movies
Microsoft introduced Movie Maker with Windows ME, but it was only with the Windows XP version that it matured into a useful app. The version in Vista is a marginal but respectable improvement on its predecessor: it supports the recorded TV files created by Media Center, allowing you to edit adverts from recordings for instance, and the version of Movie Maker bundled with Home Premium and Ultimate offers support for HD as well.
You can also burn the end results to DVD thanks to Windows DVD Maker. It’s designed for ease of use rather than trying to rival advanced DVD-burning apps, but it’s a fine way to create DVD movies quickly.
 |
| XP's Paint is a terrible photo editor by modern standards |
Photos and music
Possibly the biggest change between now and 2001, when XP launched, is the explosion in digital photography. As such, XP had the woefully impotent Paint; Vista has Photo Gallery. Although Photo Gallery includes tools to touch up photos – removing red-eye, boosting colours, adjusting exposure and cropping – its main strength is as an organiser, especially if you tag photos with relevant phrases when importing them from the digital camera.
On the music front, Vista comes bundled with Windows Media Player 11. Its shiny interface lets you navigate through album covers, it synchronises with MP3 players, and it’s a pretty impressive ripper of CDs. However, it’s also a free download for XP.
Conclusion
We’re now far less reliant on an operating system’s bundled apps, with a feast of polished software available for free download: Thunderbird for email, Paint.NET for enhancing photos, Google Pack for pretty much anything (including an office suite). The list goes on.
As such, it’s difficult to justify an upgrade to Windows Vista just because of the more polished apps, except that these products have been specifically designed to work with the operating system, and that upgrades (and patches) will be provided automatically via Windows Update. And, compared to XP, there’s no disputing that Vista has the upper hand.
VERDICT
XP
In comparison XP's bundled application look dated and weak. The good news is that many of Vista's extras can be added to XP by simply downloading free programs.
3/10
VISTA
Some new programs are little more than the old ones with a sprinkling of fairy dust, others are genuinely impressive. Windows now finally rivals the software apple bundles with new macs.
8/10
To listen to Microsoft talk about Vista in the run-up to its launch, you could be forgiven for thinking the OS was going to do for your PC what a jet engine would do for a hang-glider. Better management of memory and I/O devices would mean your PC would be more responsive, offering faster startup and shutdown.
But when it first arrived, Vista was hamstrung by a bewildering variety of performance bugs and glitches. File copying took an age, performance wasn’t what it should be, and 3D gaming was better left unmentioned.
We’re happy to say that things are much improved now. File copying appears to have been fixed in one of the myriad patches. Copying a pair of AVI files from a USB flash drive under Vista took 3mins 43secs; on the exact same hardware, the transfer took 3mins 44secs under Windows XP.
 |
| XP gets the edge in our benchmark tests for perrormance |
We also tested using our application-based benchmarks, with mixed results. In Photoshop and 3ds Max, the system was actually faster with Vista loaded – albeit only by 4%. But in our Office 2003 test, it was much slower, down by 23% on XP. Aggregating all the scores, Vista was 8% slower than XP.
Startup and shutdown times are better for Vista. On our test rig, a fresh install of Vista took 28 seconds to go from off to ready to use. The same hardware under XP took slightly longer: 34 seconds. Shutdown times on both were near-identical, though, at around 15 seconds each. Startup and shutdown times are markedly different on laptops, though. Open a laptop that’s sleeping under Vista and it springs to life nearly instantly – something that makes Vista a tempting upgrade for mobile workers.
Most of the time, a software vendor will tell you that new versions of software always run slower than their predecessor on the same hardware than the previous iteration. Most of the time, you forgive it because computer hardware increases significantly in speed every few months, and also because you’re desperate enough for the features in the new software that you’ll forgive it being a few shades slower.
Microsoft has managed to get Vista to a point where application and benchmark performance is nearly parallel between it and XP. But it’s a long way from the jet engine we were promised.
VERDICT
XP
After six years of tweaks and patches, XP remains marginally the best performing version of Windows to date
8/10
VISTA
Performance is roughly comparable to that of its predecessor, but Vista lacks the “wow factor” we were promised.
7/10
Responsiveness
Unfortunately, Vista feels slower. A recent report by an independent research institute, Pfeiffer Consulting, dismisses Vista’s Aero effects as “eye-candy”, and says that Vista suffers significantly from “friction”. Friction, in OS terms, is a performance problem that slows down common tasks such as creating folders, opening windows or a menu.
Pfeiffer benchmarked both XP and Vista, and found that, “on average, Windows Vista was 20% slower than Windows XP in the menu latency benchmarks”, saying “this lag is clearly linked to the Aero interface”. And that’s not all. Pfeiffer found “opening folders and deleting elements also show Windows Vista/Aero at a clear disadvantage over Windows XP”. Those eye-catching Aero enhancements are to blame. Take the way windows in Aero fade into view: “Amusing at first, the additional lag obviously adds to the perceived (and measurable) User Interface Friction, and can become annoying over time”.
There are times when Vista’s enhanced looks can be a good thing, though. Take , for instance. Most will be prepared to forgive Vista a few microseconds lag in return for a live preview of the application they want to switch to. But, in most cases, Vista feels slightly slower to react than XP. Everything from copying files to simply opening the Start menu takes a bit longer and, while it isn’t noticeable in isolation, go from a Vista PC to a similarly specified XP system and you’ll find yourself flying through menu systems rather than constantly staring at the irritating ‘wait-a-minute-while-I-catch-my-breath’ blue mouse cursor.
So a 10-0 drubbing for Vista? Not necessarily. Search performance in Vista is massively superior to XP’s and, even if speeds are the same, the search box at the top of virtually every Explorer window in Vista makes searching incredibly fast. You should also consider Microsoft’s habit of releasing scene-stealing service packs. SP2 arrived for Windows XP and turned it from a good operating system into a great one. SP1 is due for Vista early next year, and there’s no reason to suspect it won’t do the same. But, until then, Vista is still a pleasingly usable operating system.
VERDICT
XP
XP rarely leaves its users waiting, offering almost instantaneous navigation through its menu systems and various folders.
8/10
VISTA
Those irritating half-second waits for menus to open gives Vista a sluggishness that didn’t afflict its predecessor.
6/10
The Verdict
The minimum you’d expect of any new piece of software is that it’s an improvement on its predecessor. The bad news for Microsoft is that more than 35% of the 800 respondents to our online survey believe that Vista is inferior to XP. That’s not to say it’s all doom and gloom: 42% of our readers believe Vista has raised the bar, with 21% claiming Vista is no better or worse than XP. Not only that, but in our Reliability and Service awards 53% of respondents said they are satisfied with Vista overall and 60% are satisfied with Vista’s features.
Security and usability are the two areas where readers thought Vista had made the most improvement. However, the new User Account Control and the Aero interface came in for some stick. Some are infuriated by UAC’s interruptions. “The security feature that requires two questions and two answers for each action makes Vista the most unpleasant operating system I have worked with,” complains an anonymous early switcher.
The Aero interface draws consistent praise from Vista adopters, with many people praising its “clean” design and simplicity. “While Aero may not boost usability, the impact it has on everyday computing is great. XP is like living in an old worn-down building, while Vista is like living in a new, well-designed modern home,” says Andrew Hackley. There’s also widespread admiration of Flip 3D, the feature that allows you to scroll through graphical previews of open Windows. Critics complain the smart looks come at the expense of performance. “The Aero interface is very nice indeed, but is just too hungry to use properly on my 18-month-old laptop, despite me giving it a 2GB memory boost,” says Anthony Smith.
Indeed, the performance and responsiveness of Vista are the two biggest sources of complaint from readers. In both areas, roughly half of the survey respondents claim Vista is worse than XP. “Performance on single-core systems is poor to very poor – having to wait 30-50 seconds for the Windows menu to open at times is very frustrating,” complains David Wright. “Performance is slow on a dual-core processor with 2.5GB of RAM,” moans James Noe, with the Aero interface and copying files often singled out for causing slow-downs.
And what of the fifth of survey respondents who haven’t yet opted for Vista? What’s holding them back? A lack of compelling features and satisfaction with Windows XP are the two most common reasons, although there are a wide variety of excuses for holding back. “I’m waiting until at least a year has passed by and Service Pack 1 is out and tested,” says Steve Surrey.
Conclusion
It took Microsoft six years to produce a new desktop OS after the success of Windows XP, and what has it got to show for it? A narrow victory – both in our tests, in our Reliability and Service awards and in the opinion of the 800 readers who filled in our online survey.
While it’s hardly cause to start popping champagne corks in Redmond, Vista’s modest triumph must be placed in context. Many of the areas in which Vista still lags behind XP – performance, responsiveness, networking – could easily be addressed in service packs.
Microsoft has already fixed issues such as the laboured transfer of large files and problems resuming from sleep modes with Windows hot fixes. And with the company admitting that SP1 is nothing more than a giant bug fix, there’s every chance that more of those performance issues will be righted by next year.
Although our Gaming and entertainment section awards Vista a narrow victory, that’s largely due to the superb Media Center facilities. Gaming remains disappointing with Vista, but once again it could become one of its strengths if graphics cards makers and software developers manage to eke the promised performance from DirectX 10 hardware.
On the business side, Vista offers many advantages for both SMBs and large enterprises, but until issues surrounding reliability, compatibility and performance are resolved many will stick with the devil they know. The news that Microsoft is allowing PC makers to offer XP downgrades on PCs preinstalled with Vista Business and Ultimate doesn’t bode well, but the arrival of SP1 could provide a timely confidence boost.
(continued on page 19)
Conclusion - continued
Having made such a hullaballoo about Vista’s security, Microsoft can at least take comfort from the fact that our experts and PC Authority’s readers are convinced the new OS is safer than its predecessor, although the company may need to look again at the constant nagging of UAC if it wants to prevent users from switching off a potentially critical feature. It also appears to be a job well done on the new interface, with most people appreciating Aero Glass and the redesigned Start menu.
History repeating
Yet, even if Vista is an improvement over XP, it’s hardly the blow-your-socks-off success you might expect from an OS that’s spent six years in development. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised: Microsoft has a long history of following up hits with abject misses. Windows 95 redefined the history of computing, but Windows 98 prompted even more Blue Screens of Death than its already wobbly predecessor, until the Second Edition was released in 1999. Windows 2000 brought stability and reliability to business PCs and servers, but Windows ME was a mess.
In 2001, Windows XP finally delivered a consumer version of Windows that wouldn’t need restarting at least twice a day. And so we arrive at Vista – an OS that hasn’t done anything terribly wrong, but lacks enough killer features to put clear daylight between it and XP.
So is Vista ultimately worth the upgrade from XP? It’s difficult to justify the expense of upgrading your current PC to Vista unless you’re a real enthusiast – in which case you probably already have. Nor is there a desperate need to buy a new system, as there’s little you can do in Vista that you can’t already do in XP. However, if it’s time to buy a new PC or notebook, Vista is a better OS than XP (although businesses should still tread with caution).
The good news is that, if history is anything to go by, the next version of Windows is set to be a belter. And if the rumoured timelines are correct, we could be seeing Windows 7 in 2009.
SCORES SUMMARY
XP VISTA
Usability 7 8
Security 5 7
Gaming 7 8
Mobility 7 9
Networking 9 8
Business 8 7
Bundled apps 3 8
Performance 8 7
Responsiveness 8 6
Final Score 62 68
This article appeared in the
February 2008 issue of PC Authority.