Catalyst, it is a phsyical impossibility for Vista to be faster than XP, given similar installations.
It is impossible for the 430+ threads Vista runs by default (and that is the low side count) to run faster than the 230+ threads XP runs by default, which is also on the low side count.
You cannot run more software on any given hardware platlform without sacrificing performance to the overall system. It cannot be done.
it has been proven by many sites on the Internet, that given the same hardware, software runningunder Vista, will be approximately 25 to 35% slower, than running the same software on XP.
This is not about bashing MS, this is just a simple fact. If your, or anyone else's computer, is running better under Vista that it did under XP, with the same software installed, then the installation of XP was fouled up. It is a simple deduction based on the facts and backed up my many other sites on the Internet who have tested and compared the two operating systems.
I have already spent a good deal of time on Vista trying to get back as much performance as possible, and I still cannnot get close to the performance I had running Windows 2000. See my sticky post in the Technical support forum about Vista performance tips.
If you have another explanation, please assert it. As a side note, I do not know why you are getting all worked up about the fact that Vista is slower than XP. This is something that has been known for a little while now.
