Jump to content



Photo

Windows XP SP3. Much better than Vista SP1


  • Please log in to reply
281 replies to this topic

#1 Borimol

Borimol

    Neowinian

  • 215 posts
  • Joined: 06-March 05
  • Location: Spain

Posted 24 November 2007 - 11:56

After a disappointing showing by Windows Vista SP1, we were pleasantly surprised to discover that Windows XP Service Pack 3 (v.3244) delivers a measurable performance boost to this aging desktop OS. Testing with OfficeBench showed an ~10% performance boost vs. the same configuration running under Windows XP w/Service Pack 2.

Posted Image
Figure 1 - OfficeBench Completion Times
(In Seconds - Lower is Better)

Note: As with our Vista SP1 testing, we used the identical Dell XPS M1710 test bed with 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU, 1GB of RAM and discrete nVidia GeForce Go 7900GS video.

Since SP3 was supposed to be mostly a bug-fix/patch consolidation release - unlike w/Vista SP1, Microsoft made no promises of improved performance for XP - the unexpected speed boost comes as a nice bonus. In fact, XP SP3 is shaping-up to be a "must have" update for the majority of users who are still running Redmond's not-so-latest and greatest desktop OS.

Of course, none of this bodes well for Vista, which is now more than 2x slower than the most current builds of its older sibling. Suffice to say that performance-minded users will likely choose to stick with the now even speedier Windows XP - at least until more "Windows 7" information becomes publicly available.

Windows Vista = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge!

Windows XP SP3 Tests

Edited by Borimol, 24 November 2007 - 20:40.



#2 (Spork)

(Spork)

    ANDROID-APPLE

  • 4,789 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 07

Posted 24 November 2007 - 12:51

i did think windows vista sp1 was for performance only fixes ? if thats true how was the test fair ?

#3 D!rtySh@dy

D!rtySh@dy

    Neowinian

  • 541 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 04
  • Location: France

Posted 24 November 2007 - 12:54

It's normal........Aero with transparency, etc..........need more performance but better look. Windows Vista need also more space on hard disk.


I think also Win98 is better than XP, because Win98 is small than XP.

Not surprise.

#4 and1direct

and1direct

    Neowinian

  • 310 posts
  • Joined: 06-September 07

Posted 24 November 2007 - 12:56

Windows Vista = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge!

This is very very 2006 and we are almost at 2008. Drop it. Its getting very old please. It is not ME. It is the best OS that Microsoft has came out with. If your drivers are buggy, it is not MS's fault. If you don't know how to use a PC, it is not MS's fault. If you love Macs/Linux/etc, it is not MS's fault.

#5 ozzy76

ozzy76

    Neowinian

  • 896 posts
  • Joined: 25-November 02
  • Location: USA

Posted 24 November 2007 - 12:57

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS
2) buyer's remorse

#6 hjf288

hjf288

    Korean Crazy Man!

  • 2,426 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 03
  • Location: United Kingdom

Posted 24 November 2007 - 13:02

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS
2) buyer's remorse


3) People who know how to use/maintain their computers and with up to date current hardware...

#7 vetFourjays

Fourjays

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,013 posts
  • Joined: 09-September 05
  • Location: Staffordshire, UK

Posted 24 November 2007 - 13:03

Wouldn't a fairer test be to test both OSs on the hardware "of the time"? So use a computer which meets, but doesn't exceed, the recommend system requirements for each OS.

Using a modern computer, XP will be faster than Vista. Add Windows 98 to the test and XP will be shown to be slower too...

I don't want Vista anytime soon, but the speed argument is pretty null.

#8 Northgrove

Northgrove

    Philosophizing Developer

  • 9,963 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 02
  • Location: Sweden
  • OS: OS X 10.9
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 24 November 2007 - 13:05

If it's only about performance, Windows 2000 is probably faster than XP, and so on. No theming engine bloat, no services for system recovery kicking in, and so on. Each successive OS use to have worse performance and higher system requirements than its predecessor, with perhaps the exception being 16 vs 32-bit OS's. Even in this case, the system requirements will be higher, but when they're met I guess they're at least faster. Still, anyone remember running Windows 95 well on 0.016 GB RAM? I don't think you should place your hopes in Windows 7 as for performance. Especially since MS has officially said about that OS that they learnt a few things with Vista, and that they should in the future not change the OS as much at once. So I believe W7 will look and play much like Vista. I'm not at all sure the new mini kernel experiment they're working on will end up in Windows 7. And even if it does, even Vista use a microkernel. All NT operating systems do. The size of the kernel doesn't necessarily affect the heaviness of the OS much. It's rather a lot of the middleware that do. If Windows 7 ends up being big on .NET, you'll long for the days of Vista in comparison, at least as for performance.

No, what makes people switch is rather about if the new features are better, not the performance. If people feel they can pay the new features with performance as the currency, they switch.

That people have to occasionally upgrade systems for new operating systems haven't been news since the development of operating systems begun. That's not the newsworthy thing about Vista. Not at all. In that case, you just have an incredibly poor memory.

Edited by Jugalator, 24 November 2007 - 13:15.


#9 chrispinto

chrispinto

    Objective Apple products fan.

  • 1,055 posts
  • Joined: 15-September 03
  • Location: Bournemouth, UK
  • OS: OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion - iMac 27" 2.7GHz i5 Quad - 12Gb Ram

Posted 24 November 2007 - 13:05

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS
2) buyer's remorse



Buy, Learn, Use, Enjoy.

We adapted to XP, we'll adapt to Vista.

OVer a year and i've yet to format my Vista install, it's still stable, and solid, and fast.

And no, i'm not a paid Microsoft employee

#10 zhangm

zhangm

    Just bitter.

  • 10,095 posts
  • Joined: 21-August 02

Posted 24 November 2007 - 13:05

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS
2) buyer's remorse


What was that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of your knuckles dragging on the ground.

I haven't bought Vista. I've only used it in passing, mostly while servicing machines. It looks nicer than XP, has much better networking support, better support for devices out of the box, much improved instant searching, more powerful security features, a more powerful task manager, better audio management, a better laid out updating utility, versioning in the way of Shadow Copies, etc. I also don't get paid by Microsoft - more specifically, this is a Mac-oriented university campus. So what was the point of your post again?

#11 +Nik L

Nik L

    Where's my pants?

  • 34,365 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 03

Posted 24 November 2007 - 13:07

Windows Vista = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge!

Your post = posted by a moron? You be the judge!

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS
2) buyer's remorse


Or actually know what they are talking about.

#12 kaiwai

kaiwai

    Kaiwai Gardiner

  • 1,270 posts
  • Joined: 03-June 04
  • Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Posted 24 November 2007 - 13:08

3) People who know how to use/maintain their computers and with up to date current hardware...


Hang on, you're the same people who claim that Linux is 'too complex' for Joe average, and yet, you expect that very same Joe to acquire all the same knowledge you have to run Windows Vista 'properly'. Interesting double standards.

Black kettles, glass houses and all that jazz I guess.

#13 Neo-Phi

Neo-Phi

    Phi is everywehere...

  • 152 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 07
  • Location: Marj.

Posted 24 November 2007 - 13:12

Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS
2) buyer's remorse


Oh Yeah??....you're completely wrong Mr. Vista is received now like the way Xp has been in it's early days.....Vista is a lot better than Xp, no one would disagree......:cool:

#14 MGS4-SS

MGS4-SS

    Perfection

  • 6,366 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 04
  • Location: [ Shadow Moses ]

Posted 24 November 2007 - 13:14

Oh Yeah??....you're completely wrong Mr. Vista is received now like the way Xp has been in it's early days.....Vista is a lot better than Xp, no one would disagree......:cool:


No one, just 90% of people with a brain.

#15 Lindkvist

Lindkvist

  • 446 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 02

Posted 24 November 2007 - 13:26

There's no way you can convince Vista users that this OS is ****, and they can't convince you that it's not.
So why keep playing the same old song? it's getting ridiculous.

There's alot of people that have zero problems with the OS and actually enjoy using it.
Your assumptions just makes you sound uninformed.