I have been using Vista since before its beta days & it was even horrendous back then, not only was the code unfinished, the accompanying hardware -- common at the time -- were not at par with what was needed to adequately handle the OS. Things have changed today & top of the line components commensurate with Vista expediency are now available & quite easier to afford; even on a conservative budget.
It is in light of the above, that I sometimes think more than a few folks out there are not really considering perhaps a crucial underlying factor when contrasting XP to Vista in terms of speed.
A moderately configured XP machine is significantly sub-par to an equivalent Vista machine, but very few people take that into account when pitting XP (with all Service Packs) against Vista with or without a Service Pack.
Maybe not an exact analogy, but if you ask me who is going to have the edge in a 100m dash or a non-guerrilla warfare? A 1940s GI equipped with roughly 35 pounds of standard combat gear, or a 75 pounds or more carrying modern combat troop - it shouldn't be a surprise if the GI has the advantage lead. However, if you had to choose who to enlist for modern combat; you are going to quickly look beyond the GI's collateral agility & go with the heavier dude with the "smart gear."
In short: don't be surprised if XP is faster than Vista on an XP "ready" or Vista "capable" machine - it should be!
XP SP3 vs. Vista SP1 - Which is fastest?
