Vista SP1 is slower than pre-SP1 Vista
Microsoft has talked and talked and talked about the performance enhancements present in Vista SP1. Some are there, others are not and in certain instances, Vista SP1 is slower than pre-SP1 Vista (aka Vista SP0). The main area where Vista with SP1 seems to be slower is file copying. Vista was always slower than XP at file copying but Vista SP1 takes it to entirely new levels of slow.
Copying large files of 2GB or more to local folders was 20% slower under Vista SP1 when compared to Vista SP0. However, doing the same task to a network folder took the same amount of time under both. It seems Microsoft actually did fix the slow network transfer issue.
According to ComputerWorld copying a 256MB from a local folder to a network took the same time under both. XP was three times as fast as either version of Vista when copying a folder of files to local sources and twice as fast when copying a local folder to a network folder. Both versions of Vista were faster when it came to copying a single large file to either local or network destinations.
Microsoft has won some and lost some with Vista SP1. Shut down and boot are slightly faster with SP1 installed, the interface appears more responsive but that’s about all the changes I could notice for myself. There is at least that. Hopefully the company will get itself together with updates that are yet to be added to Vista SP1 or will work out the remaining issues with Vista SP2.
Related Posts:
February 8th, 2008
ROFL!
February 19th, 2008
Not true. I’ve been running SP1 (public RC1) since it became available and have seen quite noticeable improvements in performance, including copying files. Copying from Vista to Vista, Vista to XP, pc to SD card…NONE have slowed at all. Vista ‘feels’ far more responsive than it ever has.
March 13th, 2008
Not true at all.
Vista SP1 is equal or faster copying files than any previous Windows, including XP and Vista RTM.
April 19th, 2008
Absolutley true, especially transferring files over usb2 to external harddrives in insanely slow. Even worse than the previous versions.
April 20th, 2008
Is very slow. I have a laptop with ultimate and a desktop with ultimate. on the desktop I also have xp64 installed (not dual boot) I use my bios to switch os’s xp64 smokes vista on file tansfers
no matter how lean I make vista. That is the only problem I have with vista.
November 14th, 2008
First off, USB 2.0 would restrict your file transfer more so than vista would. It can only allow data to be transferred at 480Mbps (60MB/s) So that alone will restrict your transfer rate. This happens even in XP. I’m running XP and Vista (both 64 bit) and they both transfer data fairly quickly. If there is any latency it is minimal at best. File transfer is 90% hardware. So if you have a crappy computer, you’ll get crappy results. And vista ultimate on a laptop? you’re just asking for lag there. Most laptops aren’t designed to be multimedia throttling game machines. You have to understand, you have to upgrade more than just your OS. You can’t run XP on a Win98 CPU, it’s only fair to think the same with Vista. If you have the hardware, Vista will fly and blow XP out of the water in most instances. But if you run the bare minimum with ANY machine…. you will get poor results