Windows XP SP3 Yields Performance Gains Over Vista SP1
Posted by Steven Parker on 24 November 2007 - 13:12 · 112 comments & 63373 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(28 replies)
#1 Posted by hardgiant on 24 Nov 2007 - 13:19
- Windows Vista works fine on a dual core or quad core machine with 4 to 8 gig of memory. In time these machines will become average and available to everyone. I already see 3Gig machines for $800 with 22" LCD's being sold.
The test I would like to see is which is better for a quad core machine with 8 gigs of memory Vista 64 or XP 64? -
#1.1 Posted by Kushan on 24 Nov 2007 - 13:26
- Quote - (hardgiant said @ #1)Windows Vista works fine on a dual core or quad core machine with 4 to 8 gig of memory. In time these machines will become average and available to everyone. I already see 3Gig machines for $800 with 22" LCD's being sold.
Yeah but this is about the next service packings giving a boost to performance. It doesn't matter how fast your machine is, a performance boost is always, always welcome.
Personally, I hate this attitude of "most computers have 36436463GB of memory and at least a 452522564Ghz CPU, so we don't have to optimise our software as much" because it pretty much defeats the purpose of advancing the technology. If programmers kept the same attitudes they kept 10 or 20 years ago and applied them today, we'd probably see performance that's in line with what we'd expect 10 years in the future. -
#1.2 Posted by Swordnyx on 24 Nov 2007 - 17:21
- Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.
-
#1.3 Posted by Schmoe on 24 Nov 2007 - 20:30
- Quote - (hardgiant said @ #1)The test I would like to see is which is better for a quad core machine with 8 gigs of memory Vista 64 or XP 64?
Bingo! That's what's missing. A 1GB system isn't remotely suitable with Vista, that's the Vista equivalent of one of those cheap 2002 Win XP PC-specials that shipped with 256MB of memory. No one ships 256 anymore, but early in XP's life-cycle that was the "default" amount of memory. Everyone knows how XP performs with 256... Terribly, putting Vista in the same situation isn't fair to the OS.
I'd go so far as to say that Vista shouldn't have been a 32bit OS. The only problem is that it *had* to be because of the huge legacy installed base. My rule-of-thumb is that the memory sweet-spot is at least 4 times the base amount. Anything less than that, and it might be better to run a previous generation of OS.
This comparison to ME has to stop. It isn't anything like ME. The build quality isn't as good as XP SP2, however it is much better than XP RTM. MS did a decent job with the product. ME was a broken crash-prone OS, some days it had problems doing things that worked fine on other days. Vista isn't so flaky.
People need to stop being alarmists because they are pandering for page-views. -
#1.4 Posted by Morpheus Phreak on 24 Nov 2007 - 22:09
- Quote - (Swordnyx said @ #1.2)Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.
Don't worry. He's well known for posting BS
Also one thing that people seem to be forgetting is that the latest build of Vista SP1 has an issue with the Shell Hardware Detection routine that keeps the CPU running at about 50-75% all the time unless you shut down that service.
Shutting down that service nets a nice little performance gain. -
#1.5 Posted by internetworld7 on 25 Nov 2007 - 00:10
- Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.
-
#1.6 Posted by Croquant on 25 Nov 2007 - 00:14
- Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #1.5)Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.
This message brought to you by Apple Inc: Home of the fanboy.
-
#1.7 Posted by .AlleymaN on 25 Nov 2007 - 00:21
- Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #1.5)Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.
...and people wonder why Mac fanboys get a bad rep. -
#1.8 Posted by +Axon on 25 Nov 2007 - 00:29
- Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #1.5)Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.
*hangs head in shame from the desk of my iMac*
-
#1.9 Posted by Morpheus Phreak on 25 Nov 2007 - 00:30
- Quote - (Axon said @ #1.
Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #1.5)Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.
*hangs head in shame from the desk of my iMac*
Seriously.
I've never understood the whole Mac fanboy mentality.
I know how they work and I like Mac's just fine, but Mac people just seem so rabid for the most part.
I think that's why I've never went out and bought an actual Mac. -
#1.10 Posted by Swordnyx on 25 Nov 2007 - 00:54
- "This message brought to you by Apple Inc: Home of the fanboy."
lol Croquant I can just imagine an Apple advertisement followed by a guy saying that in monotone.
-
#1.11 Posted by yakumo on 25 Nov 2007 - 01:18
- Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #1.5)Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.
no bloatware? how big is an osx install again? -
#1.12 Posted by LTD on 25 Nov 2007 - 01:19
- Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #1.5)Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.
+1 -
#1.13 Posted by RAID 0 on 25 Nov 2007 - 01:32
- Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #1.5)Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.
Make sure you post bigger next time so we can all see the the crap spewing from your keyboard.
How much for a mac? Can I play *games* on it? Oh, that's right.. I'd have to install XP or Vista. So... why don't I just build my own PC?
Apple makes computers for the technically handicapped. I know how to use (and troubleshoot) everything from DOS 3.0 up to Vista. How much money can you make fixing a mac? Oh, silly me.... they don't break. I prefer to use a OS that lets me make money, and have fun at the same time! kthxbye
PS: If they don't break and ARE SO EASY TO USE... why is there a Genius Bar? -
#1.14 Posted by excalpius on 25 Nov 2007 - 02:47
- I AM "thinking different". I'm nowhere near dumb enough to fall for Mac sloganeering and fanboy rhetoric.
-
#1.15 Posted by michael.dobrofsky on 25 Nov 2007 - 03:06
- Quote - (Morpheus Phreak said @ #1.9)Quote - (Axon said @ #1.Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #1.5)Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.
*hangs head in shame from the desk of my iMac*
Seriously.
I've never understood the whole Mac fanboy mentality.
I know how they work and I like Mac's just fine, but Mac people just seem so rabid for the most part.
I think that's why I've never went out and bought an actual Mac.
I've never bought a mac cos they're a friggin' rip off and I don't like to waste money. -
#1.16 Posted by Kushan on 25 Nov 2007 - 05:06
- Quote - (Swordnyx said @ #1.2)Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.
I'm not talking about just OS's, I'm talking about ALL software. I mean, why is it that an office program from 10 years ago can run on 16Mb of RAM with a 486 CPU, yet one from today that does exactly the same tasks (albeit with a nicer Interface or some such) requires 256Mb of RAM and a 500Mhz CPU? (Not to mention the huge jump in hard drive space). There's really no excuse for it, there's absolutely no reason why the requirements are so bloody high.
And you might think "but most computers these days more than meet those requirements" and that may be true, but think about that Vista set up. It only had 1Gb of RAM in it, a pretty typical amount these days, yet the office program has just robbed a quarter of it. That's going to slow down the whole OS and everything else you run.
Or if you want to look at it another way, one of Firefox's biggest flaws is it's stupidly high memory usage, it's so bad that it's one of the major selling points to version 3.0, so it IS an issue and there is no excuse for it.
P.S. Morpheus Phreak, get a life. -
#1.17 Posted by jesseinsf on 25 Nov 2007 - 05:51
- Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #1.5)Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.You guys don't think different. You just feel that you don't fit in. You know those Mac commercials? They always have the Mac user looking like a junky...so who is the glue sniffer, NOT use PC users. Junkies as-well-as the "low" class have never felt that they fit into society. My point is, Mac users do think different (In a negative way). They just can't get along with the rest of the non-Mac users.
PCs are way more flexible than Macs. Apple controls what goes into their computers. It’s a shame that you have to use a third party software program to hack your Mac (ApplicationEnhancer.prefpa) to get some software to work better. And you had to delete this Mac hacking program to get your so called Leopard to stay out of the BSD. Are those 3rd party programs working better now without the Mac-hack program?
Last edited by jesseinsf on 25 Nov 2007 - 06:22 -
#1.18 Posted by jesseinsf on 25 Nov 2007 - 06:08
- Quote - (Morpheus Phreak said @ #1.4)Quote - (Swordnyx said @ #1.2)Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.
Don't worry. He's well known for posting BS
Also one thing that people seem to be forgetting is that the latest build of Vista SP1 has an issue with the Shell Hardware Detection routine that keeps the CPU running at about 50-75% all the time unless you shut down that service.
Shutting down that service nets a nice little performance gain.
I'm using the latest version of SP1 and my CPU is running at 5% average. The problem that I have is when I move my Pagefile to another drive and then do a "Check disk" (C drive only) it will crash after the second reboot and then I get the "Safe Mode" choice screen". Everything is fine after that untill I do another "Check Disk". My "Perfect Disk Program can "only" access the C Drive during an offline defrag. -
#1.19 Posted by Swordnyx on 25 Nov 2007 - 06:14
- Quote - (Kushan said @ #1.16)Quote - (Swordnyx said @ #1.2)Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.
I'm not talking about just OS's, I'm talking about ALL software. I mean, why is it that an office program from 10 years ago can run on 16Mb of RAM with a 486 CPU, yet one from today that does exactly the same tasks (albeit with a nicer Interface or some such) requires 256Mb of RAM and a 500Mhz CPU? (Not to mention the huge jump in hard drive space). There's really no excuse for it, there's absolutely no reason why the requirements are so bloody high.
And you might think "but most computers these days more than meet those requirements" and that may be true, but think about that Vista set up. It only had 1Gb of RAM in it, a pretty typical amount these days, yet the office program has just robbed a quarter of it. That's going to slow down the whole OS and everything else you run.
Or if you want to look at it another way, one of Firefox's biggest flaws is it's stupidly high memory usage, it's so bad that it's one of the major selling points to version 3.0, so it IS an issue and there is no excuse for it.
P.S. Morpheus Phreak, get a life.
True, I understand your arguement, and I somewhat support it. But what I said does relate to ALL software. If you were to include applications such as modern games or video encoding/creation applications, your arguement would be far from true. But to these little applications such as web browsing and documenting, yes you are right there really isn't that much of a need for them to be as power hungry as they are. -
#1.20 Posted by Croquant on 25 Nov 2007 - 06:26
- Quote - (Kushan said @ #1.16)Quote - (Swordnyx said @ #1.2)Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.
I'm not talking about just OS's, I'm talking about ALL software. I mean, why is it that an office program from 10 years ago can run on 16Mb of RAM with a 486 CPU, yet one from today that does exactly the same tasks (albeit with a nicer Interface or some such) requires 256Mb of RAM and a 500Mhz CPU? (Not to mention the huge jump in hard drive space). There's really no excuse for it, there's absolutely no reason why the requirements are so bloody high.
And you might think "but most computers these days more than meet those requirements" and that may be true, but think about that Vista set up. It only had 1Gb of RAM in it, a pretty typical amount these days, yet the office program has just robbed a quarter of it. That's going to slow down the whole OS and everything else you run.
Or if you want to look at it another way, one of Firefox's biggest flaws is it's stupidly high memory usage, it's so bad that it's one of the major selling points to version 3.0, so it IS an issue and there is no excuse for it.
P.S. Morpheus Phreak, get a life.
Nobody's stopping you from resurrecting a 486 and running Word 1.0 on it. They're just laughing at how slow that set-up would be. I'll throw a Pentium III 533 MHz and a copy of DOS 6.22 at you (Catch!) and then race you with my Core 2 Duo E6600 w/WinXP Pro SP2 setup, OK? You can slot all the PC-133 SDRAM you want in there. Remember, though: DOS is 16-bit. XP is 32-bit. That means the DOS machine is limited to 2^16 bytes of RAM, and the XP machine is limited to 2^32 bytes of RAM. I will set processor affinity for the test to both cores on the XP machine just because I can. (Just be thankfully I'm not running a Quad-Core. ) Think the DOS/486 setup will outperform my Core 2 Duo? No? Neither do I.
You do have a point in that Microsoft keeps making their software more and more bloat-filled. (To be fair, they're not the only ones who do this. I'm looking at you, Symantec, Nero, et. al.). The thing is, the typical user can only type & click so fast (well, at least untill Microsoft has us all replaced by robots.... but that's another discussion for another time). So, in order to sell new software and new hardware, Microsoft has to convince people that the new stuff offers "better" features that the old stuff. Hence, the eye-candy that is in XP and isn't in Win2k.... the Aero Glass eyecandy that's in Vista and not XP... the interface that the iPhone tries to sell as the greatest thing since sliced bread, etc, etc, etc.
Of course, if you don't wanna pay the Microsoft Tax then there's always Linux to consider. ASUS's "Eee PC" mini-laptop runs Linux and it's only using a 900 Mhz Celeron ULV and 512 MB of RAM. You can surf the web with it (through Firefo
just fine. I might just get one once they release the upcoming model that comes with 8GB of SSD storage. That'd be sweet.
Last edited by Croquant on 25 Nov 2007 - 07:12 -
#1.21 Posted by Kushan on 25 Nov 2007 - 14:20
- Quote - (Croquant said @ #1.20)Quote - (Kushan said @ #1.16)Quote - (Swordnyx said @ #1.2)Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.
I'm not talking about just OS's, I'm talking about ALL software. I mean, why is it that an office program from 10 years ago can run on 16Mb of RAM with a 486 CPU, yet one from today that does exactly the same tasks (albeit with a nicer Interface or some such) requires 256Mb of RAM and a 500Mhz CPU? (Not to mention the huge jump in hard drive space). There's really no excuse for it, there's absolutely no reason why the requirements are so bloody high.
And you might think "but most computers these days more than meet those requirements" and that may be true, but think about that Vista set up. It only had 1Gb of RAM in it, a pretty typical amount these days, yet the office program has just robbed a quarter of it. That's going to slow down the whole OS and everything else you run.
Or if you want to look at it another way, one of Firefox's biggest flaws is it's stupidly high memory usage, it's so bad that it's one of the major selling points to version 3.0, so it IS an issue and there is no excuse for it.
P.S. Morpheus Phreak, get a life.
Nobody's stopping you from resurrecting a 486 and running Word 1.0 on it. They're just laughing at how slow that set-up would be. I'll throw a Pentium III 533 MHz and a copy of DOS 6.22 at you (Catch!) and then race you with my Core 2 Duo E6600 w/WinXP Pro SP2 setup, OK? You can slot all the PC-133 SDRAM you want in there. Remember, though: DOS is 16-bit. XP is 32-bit. That means the DOS machine is limited to 2^16 bytes of RAM, and the XP machine is limited to 2^32 bytes of RAM. I will set processor affinity for the test to both cores on the XP machine just because I can. (Just be thankfully I'm not running a Quad-Core. ) Think the DOS/486 setup will outperform my Core 2 Duo? No? Neither do I.
I think you missed the point a little, what I'm saying is if you ran Office 97 (that is, if it's possible to get it working on a modern machine) on a modern computer and benchmarked it against office 2007, it will be a lot faster because it was optimised for much slower hardware. It might not make a huge difference in office applications, but the ones you pointed out like Nero and Symantec's stuff would see a huge speed gain.
Sometimes new features are added that make the slower speed worth it, but in 99% of cases this never seems to happen. Nero is a great example of that one (it's supposed to burn CD's, not search files, edit wavs, etc.) -
#1.22 Posted by Morpheus Phreak on 25 Nov 2007 - 19:02
- Quote - (Kushan said @ #1.16)Quote - (Swordnyx said @ #1.2)Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.
I'm not talking about just OS's, I'm talking about ALL software. I mean, why is it that an office program from 10 years ago can run on 16Mb of RAM with a 486 CPU, yet one from today that does exactly the same tasks (albeit with a nicer Interface or some such) requires 256Mb of RAM and a 500Mhz CPU? (Not to mention the huge jump in hard drive space). There's really no excuse for it, there's absolutely no reason why the requirements are so bloody high.
And you might think "but most computers these days more than meet those requirements" and that may be true, but think about that Vista set up. It only had 1Gb of RAM in it, a pretty typical amount these days, yet the office program has just robbed a quarter of it. That's going to slow down the whole OS and everything else you run.
Or if you want to look at it another way, one of Firefox's biggest flaws is it's stupidly high memory usage, it's so bad that it's one of the major selling points to version 3.0, so it IS an issue and there is no excuse for it.
P.S. Morpheus Phreak, get a life.
I have a life, but thanks for noticing -
#1.23 Posted by Shadrack on 25 Nov 2007 - 21:08
- Quote - (Swordnyx said @ #1.2)Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.
An OS is not an application, but a means to an application. Increase hardware performance is to address the new features that users want in their applications with decent performance. The more the OS uses the less that is available to the applications, which is really why the user is using their computer to begin with. If all anyone was interested in was the OS, then people would just turn on their computer, stare at the screen for awhile, and then turn it of. Think about it.... -
#1.24 Posted by RAID 0 on 25 Nov 2007 - 21:49
- Quote - (Shadrack said @ #1.23)Quote - (Swordnyx said @ #1.2)Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.
An OS is not an application, but a means to an application. Increase hardware performance is to address the new features that users want in their applications with decent performance. The more the OS uses the less that is available to the applications, which is really why the user is using their computer to begin with. If all anyone was interested in was the OS, then people would just turn on their computer, stare at the screen for awhile, and then turn it of. Think about it....
You made me laugh. Good points. -
#1.25 Posted by Swordnyx on 25 Nov 2007 - 22:35
- Quote - (Shadrack said @ #1.23)Quote - (Swordnyx said @ #1.2)Kushan: lol dude you just posted a bunch of BS. If OSs didn't become more intensive as the years passed, then the hardware would'nt have a need to become stronger as well. Think about it. Software drives hardware.
An OS is not an application, but a means to an application. Increase hardware performance is to address the new features that users want in their applications with decent performance. The more the OS uses the less that is available to the applications, which is really why the user is using their computer to begin with. If all anyone was interested in was the OS, then people would just turn on their computer, stare at the screen for awhile, and then turn it of. Think about it.... Sad you tried to incorporate humor into something that doesn't make much sense. An OS is a platform to run applications. The platform has to evolve to include newer features that make things possible the previous could not. (Ex. DX10, etc.) According to your arguement, you would rather use a set of useless applications rather than have the benefits of the newer technology. Its like installing Office 2000 when Office 2007 is out just because 2007 doesn't work on Win2k or something. -
#1.26 Posted by NeoTrunks on 25 Nov 2007 - 23:11
- Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #1.5)Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.
Who are you? *douses the flames with water* -
#1.27 Posted by internetworld7 on 26 Nov 2007 - 00:24
- Quote - (NeoTrunks said @ #1.26)Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #1.5)Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.
Who are you? *douses the flames with water*
I could have been your father if the line wasn't so long. -
#1.28 Posted by Nomad559 on 26 Nov 2007 - 07:38
- Quote - (Croquant said @ #1.6)Quote - (internetworld7 said @ #1.5)Yet another reason to switch to a Mac, no bloatware, lean and mean. Guys stop sniffing glue and get a clue, Vista is a miserable failure. Think Different, Think Macintosh OS X Leopard.
This message brought to you by Apple Inc: Home of the fanboy.
Apple Fanboys Are really Bizarre
The Cult Of Apple
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F9gdx_LIAc
-
(3 replies)
#2 Posted by miguel_montes on 24 Nov 2007 - 13:22
- What is this app, Officebench?
And 10% increase performance... where in XP?? Overall?? -
#2.2 Posted by C0ncrete on 24 Nov 2007 - 13:24
- Quote - (miguel_montes said @ #2)What is this app, Officebench?
And 10% increase performance... where in XP?? Overall??
I agree. Although I'm happy that there is increased performance in XP (don't like vista yet) I'm not sure where these gains are. -
#2.3 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 24 Nov 2007 - 15:21
- Quote - (miguel_montes said @ #2)What is this app, Officebench?
And 10% increase performance... where in XP?? Overall??
No, only when running Officebench, which is what EVERYONE uses Windows for...
-
#3 Posted by Kushan on 24 Nov 2007 - 13:30
- I think it's a bit unfair testing vista on Machines with just 1Gb of RAM. It IS a bit of a memory Hog, but if you have 2Gb of RAM it's not as bad by a long shot, perhaps then you'd see a measurable performance boost.
-
(8 replies)
#4 Posted by chaosblade on 24 Nov 2007 - 13:38
- Sheesh, Since when has Neowin turned into a Vista-Flamebait news channel.
Come on, This "article" is nothing more than trolling attempts.
Even the "Windows ME v2" comparison quote is just asking for it. -
#4.1 Posted by Davebo on 24 Nov 2007 - 14:27
- Quote - (chaosblade said @ #4)Sheesh, Since when has Neowin turned into a Vista-Flamebait news channel.
Come on, This "article" is nothing more than trolling attempts.
Even the "Windows ME v2" comparison quote is just asking for it.
Methinks you're ****ed off at the wrong people. The folks you should have a beef with are located in Redmond. They're the ones who released the lemon known as Vista SPwhatever... -
#4.2 Posted by mjdbb1 on 24 Nov 2007 - 15:24
- [quote=chaosblade said,#4]Sheesh, Since when has Neowin turned into a Vista-Flamebait news channel.
Come on, This "article" is nothing more than trolling attempts.
I'm really sick of the fact that you post one article about any possible downside of vista (or in this case, about how xp outperformed vista in a benchmark) and you're a troll or a flamer. It's like if you can't say something good about vista/bad about xp you shouldn't even bother posting or you'll get your head cut off -
#4.3 Posted by Athernar on 24 Nov 2007 - 15:45
- The problem is, people seem to be forgetting what happened with XP when it was first released.
I seem to remember people moaning about how "XP looks like it was made by fisher-price" and that it "Crashes all the time" and <Insert modern article that's had Vista Find&Replace'd with XP>.
I'm not denying Vista has it's flaws, every OS does and there is a lot of room for improvement in some areas, but right now it's all just mostly a load of bandwagon "HAY GUIZ M$ HAZ A NEW OS OUT LETZ BASH IT OLOLOL".
In b4 "Windows 7 = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge!" -
#4.4 Posted by chaosblade on 24 Nov 2007 - 16:39
- @Davebo: You're a troll. Go back under your rock or something.
@mjdbb1: Read Athernar's reply. Every software has its flaws. You're just trolling around now, Like this article. -
#4.5 Posted by toadeater on 25 Nov 2007 - 06:24
- Quote - (chaosblade said @ #4)Sheesh, Since when has Neowin turned into a Vista-Flamebait news channel.
Come on, This "article" is nothing more than trolling attempts.
I'm sure XP users on Neowin were interested in hearing this news. -
#4.6 Posted by Davebo on 25 Nov 2007 - 13:48
- Quote - (Athernar said @ #4.3)The problem is, people seem to be forgetting what happened with XP when it was first released.
I seem to remember people moaning about how "XP looks like it was made by fisher-price" and that it "Crashes all the time" and <Insert modern article that's had Vista Find&Replace'd with XP>.
I'm not denying Vista has it's flaws, every OS does and there is a lot of room for improvement in some areas, but right now it's all just mostly a load of bandwagon "HAY GUIZ M$ HAZ A NEW OS OUT LETZ BASH IT OLOLOL".
In b4 "Windows 7 = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge!"
Granted, but then XP SP1 was leaked, to great critical reviews. It was clear that with SP1 XP was fixed, and that XP was now ready for prime time.
Vista SP1 had been leaked - where's the clamour of millions of users suddenly satisfied with their OS? If your comparison to XP is true, Athernar, then why no relief with Vista SP1?
Best to compare Vista with ME, and no SP could every cure that dog... -
#4.7 Posted by Athernar on 25 Nov 2007 - 17:03
- Relief to what exactly?
I've been running Vista since shortly after its launch, and i've had no issues except for poor drivers from nVidia in the first couple of months.
Sure Vista needs some attention, some refinements to the amount of UAC dialogues, the odd tweak and fix here and there are happily accepted.
But no, i think i have to agree with #4.4 in this case now, you're just bandwagon trolling. And until such time you can provide a coherent (and factual) argument that is not heavily-biased or written by some clueless wannabe web-journalist trying to hop on the ole' bandwagon to look "cool", i think i'll just choose to ignore your poorly executed attempts at trolling.
Oh and just a FYI here, i've used every Microsoft OS since 3.1 and i also enjoy fiddling around with various Linux distros in my spare time, so don't waste your effort with the cliché "OMG UR A M$ FANBOI COZ <insert topic> UR GEY FOR BILL GAETS" routine.
-
#4.8 Posted by Shadrack on 25 Nov 2007 - 21:14
- [quote=mjdbb1 said,#4.2][quote=chaosblade said,#4]Sheesh, Since when has Neowin turned into a Vista-Flamebait news channel.
Come on, This "article" is nothing more than trolling attempts.
I'm really sick of the fact that you post one article about any possible downside of vista (or in this case, about how xp outperformed vista in a benchmark) and you're a troll or a flamer. It's like if you can't say something good about vista/bad about xp you shouldn't even bother posting or you'll get your head cut off[/quote]
Relax dude. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has them. Some people seem to really think Vista is the **** in a lot of ways (which I agree with), other people are annoyed that Windows XP outperforms Vista on some applications (I agree with that too). Everyone wants to express their opinion and some come across as trolling or flaming. Take it all in with a grain of salt.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by Primetime2006 on 24 Nov 2007 - 14:15
- That is like putting Windows 95 OSR2 in a test with Windows 2000, both running on a 150 Mhz system with 128 MB of RAM and saying Windows 95 ran better than Windows 2000. Try using a test machine comparable to today's standards and fair for both operating systems.
How many times was the test ran as well? Run the XP SP3 test on Officebench 5 times and see if you achieve the same results. You can't even begin to explain how a service pack with nothing but patches/fixes from the last X amount of years on it boasts an increase in performance because it just doesn't make sense. Try and convince the public of this "new finding".
This is a poorly made article. Although I have decided I will probably never move to Vista since my days of "I need the latest and greatest to keep up with the Jones'" have been replaced by "I need whatever works well", I'll still take some of their medicine and "be the judge" when SP3 comes out. -
#5.1 Posted by Jugalator on 24 Nov 2007 - 14:48
- I agree...
As I said in the discussion thread, it's not news that succeeding operating systems have higher hardware requirements to run even on equal performance. That's the rule rather than exception.
The deciding factor rather use to be whether if a consumer feels it's worth it to pay the new features in terms of performance or not. For this to happen, the feature set needs to be improved enough, and it can be speculated whether it is in Vista.
But if Vista is slower than XP on the same hardware? Big deal. It's not like if Windows 95 didn't require less than 98. It did, and it therefore usually ran faster. But that's not what I think one should ask oneself. Few believe Windows 98 was because of this a worse OS.
-
(2 replies)
#6 Posted by archer75 on 24 Nov 2007 - 14:21
- All SP3 is is a collection of all the past updates. That's it. Everyone already has all the patches that make up this service pack. Nobody is coming from SP2 with no windows update patches beyond that straight to SP3 so this comparison is somewhat unrealistic.
Even with a fully patches XP install on my machine Vista x64 feels faster to me. My apps load up faster and the entire OS is more responsive. Since Vista also gets faster the longer you use it and the more it learns your computing habits it's also unrealistic to compare anything against a fresh install of Vista. I think with faster hardware Vista becomes faster than XP. It's better able to make use of higher end hardware. -
#6.1 Posted by EduardValencia on 24 Nov 2007 - 16:22
- No ....you are wrong ,Windows XP Service Pack 3 not only include past Post SP2 Fixes,it contains new ones + 3 new features that increase system security.
-
#6.2 Posted by NightmarE D on 24 Nov 2007 - 16:32
- It's a little more than past updates.
There really is a performance boost that comes with it. I was soo surprised to see that, that I honestly thought the computer was messing up somehow I just didn't expect the boost that came with it.
I was running Vista for a while on 1gig of RAM and it ran perfectly fine for me. Only reason I don't run it now is because a stick of RAM died and I haven't bought anymore yet.
I'm happy with both XP and Vista
-
#7 Posted by sialivi on 24 Nov 2007 - 14:47
- archer75,
Actually, it's not just a bundle of previous fixes. SP3 contains features backported from vista
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by Dynames00 on 24 Nov 2007 - 15:17
- vista isnt slow for everyone... its only slow for these idiots who write about how slow vista is...
-
#8.1 Posted by toadeater on 25 Nov 2007 - 06:38
- Quote - (Dynames00 said @ #vista isnt slow for everyone... its only slow for these idiots who write about how slow vista is...
No, it's slow for everyone with less than 2GB of RAM and a dual-core CPU.
Contrary to that, XP works very well with just 1GB of RAM and a $70 CPU. So does Linux.
This isn't going to matter much in coming months, with hardware and RAM prices hitting rock bottom, but people still would rather not upgrade to Vista for no apparent benefit. Why bother? MS still can't adequately answer that question, except to say that Vista has DX10 and some vague improvements that have not demonstrated themselves in real-world situations *without* hardware upgrades.
The problem is, MS added a bunch of useless bloat into Vista and people don't need this crap. If MS has made it optional by default, instead of installed and running by default, Vista would look good. Instead, it runs like an overloaded dump truck with a flat tire on hardware that could run XP pretty well. Consumers see this performance and wonder WTF? They don't know why it's like that, all they know is that it runs like crap and they're not going to bother wasting their time with it.
-
#9 Posted by hapbt on 24 Nov 2007 - 15:23
- i ran vista 17042 and i know that its way faster
it swaps and hits the hd noticably less in games, has almost no delay at all in explorer and file copy operations, i am totally impressed with it. i'm sorry your little 2 cent benchmark programs disagree but actually using a system versus benchmarking it might reveal something to you.
-
(5 replies)
#10 Posted by mp9_sit on 24 Nov 2007 - 15:28
- Roll Back to six years before
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/0...029tcwinxp.htmlQuote -In every test we performed on systems with a single CPU, OfficeBench ran in less time under Windows 2000 than under Windows XP. The differences ranged from slight to dramatic, depending on the hardware configuration, but XP was always slower. -
#10.1 Posted by Neobond on 24 Nov 2007 - 16:40
- WOW good find, thanks.
Others were saying that the test should of been run on 2gb of RAM and I believe them. -
#10.2 Posted by tiagosilva29 on 24 Nov 2007 - 23:30
- Quote - (Neobond said @ #10.1)Others were saying that the test should of been run on 2gb of RAM and I believe them.
Probably related to the system requirements. -
#10.3 Posted by Primetime2006 on 25 Nov 2007 - 14:48
- Quote - (mp9_sit said @ #10)Roll Back to six years before
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/0...029tcwinxp.htmlQuote -In every test we performed on systems with a single CPU, OfficeBench ran in less time under Windows 2000 than under Windows XP. The differences ranged from slight to dramatic, depending on the hardware configuration, but XP was always slower.
I think you just ended the discussion there. That's proof, 100% proof that people's bitching of new operating systems is cyclical. It happened 6 years ago and it's happening now. In the end, it does not matter. Users will flock to Vista. -
#10.4 Posted by empty on 26 Nov 2007 - 03:38
- Quote -
Probably the best post i have ever read on neowin. amazing -
#10.5 Posted by AfroTrance on 26 Nov 2007 - 13:56
- I wish MS still supported Win2K. Every time I format I waste time disabling all the crap that makes XP different from 2000.
-
#11 Posted by +PsychoDad on 24 Nov 2007 - 15:42
- Just setting here reading all this hoo ha bickering, and I cant help but wonder, if this is a case of too much estrogen or not enough
-
#12 Posted by DJ Prem on 24 Nov 2007 - 16:15
- Nice...thou I like both OSes of course depending on the hardware its running on
-
#13 Posted by Hurmoth on 24 Nov 2007 - 16:19
- As I've said before, bring on SP3. Vista is a lost cause!
-
(1 reply)
#14 Posted by Intelman on 24 Nov 2007 - 17:36
- I don't believe it. Vista for me has been faster. I admit that graphics cards probably do not perform as well, but the CPU and I/O subsystem performs faster, which I really notice in supreme commander. So did driverheaven.net
http://www.driverheaven.net/articles/Vista%20XP/index2.php
I think people just love to hate vista, everyone seems to.
I enjoy my array mic support, instant search, new look and feel, new audio stack, UAC ( I run as a limited user and can actually elevate to install easier, so now there is no reason to have an anti virus http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000803.html )
You know, I also think SP1 brings some performance advantages too, it feels snappier, a lot of other people have said that. -
#14.1 Posted by random_n on 25 Nov 2007 - 04:41
- Those improvements were also mostly present in NT 5.2 as well, so running XP x64 or Server 2003 will net you most of the improvements in that regard, while maintaining XP's excellent graphical performance. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those adjustments are being backported to NT 5.1 for this new service pack.
You're right though; Vista SP1 seems a good deal better than its original incarnation. There are fewer pauses that leave you wondering "what the hell is this thing doing now?", and it's a shame that will never show up on a benchmark result that Microsoft can proclaim to the masses. I'll admit right now that if I had to go use the old NT 5.x Explorer shell (or even OS X's Finder) without having the years of experience in finding and avoiding every action that causes the UI to hang for 60 seconds, I'd be ragging on it every bit as hard as most people have been doing to Vista.
I'd say that the only significant problem with Vista now is that the UI is a cluttered mess. Cut it down, bring back the flyout Start Menu (keep the scroll bar, but let it expand to the full height of the screen!, do *something* about the network control applet (a larger WiFi connection box would be a start), and a "New Folder" button on that lovely bluey-green bar would be primo. Call it Vista Second Edition. Could even make it an optional download on Windows Update. Who knows; some people might even consider giving the thing a second shot.
And if someone could make an extension to elevate Explorer *windows* instead of individual actions, I might even turn UAC back on.
-
#15 Posted by Justin- on 24 Nov 2007 - 18:00
- Was this ran on a newly installed system? Because doesn't Vista's Superfetch help overtime with the speed of things?
I am using Vista and, other than the random disk usage/thrashing at times when I am not using it and the file sharing issues I have with it and Mac OS X, I find it quite faster and better than XP. I've been using it since March without a reinstall and so far it runs faster than XP did after 8 months of the same usage ...
-
(1 reply)
#16 Posted by thenay on 24 Nov 2007 - 18:09
- Does this really surprise you? Vista is a resource hog, it uses more ram than XP to start off with.
I truly believe Vista is Windows ME all over again, I wouldn't buy it or switch to it. Atleast yet. -
#16.1 Posted by +RenderItBlue on 25 Nov 2007 - 00:32
- Quote - (thenay said @ #16)Does this really surprise you? Vista is a resource hog, it uses more ram than XP to start off with.
I truly believe Vista is Windows ME all over again, I wouldn't buy it or switch to it. Atleast yet.
Yes...lets NEVER use our ram and have it sitting around doing nothing......If you know how an OS SHOULD handle memory you would never have made such a dumb comment.
-
(3 replies)
#17 Posted by z0phi3l on 24 Nov 2007 - 18:13
- IF Vista is so much better, can any of you geniuses explain to me why I feel forced to use either XP or Linux on my fairly new laptop, because Vista Ultimate is too slow on a semi top of the line laptop.
I got fed up with Vista taking 5+ minutes to boot or shutdown, got tired of Vista sucking up 1.5 of my 2 gb of RAM just to get to a desktop, I got tired of MS forcing this Alpha quality software down consumers throats. -
#17.1 Posted by notuptome2004 on 24 Nov 2007 - 19:30
- Quote - (z0phi3l said @ #17)IF Vista is so much better, can any of you geniuses explain to me why I feel forced to use either XP or Linux on my fairly new laptop, because Vista Ultimate is too slow on a semi top of the line laptop.
I got fed up with Vista taking 5+ minutes to boot or shutdown, got tired of Vista sucking up 1.5 of my 2 gb of RAM just to get to a desktop, I got tired of MS forcing this Alpha quality software down consumers throats.
Maby if you knew what the F you was doing when ya installed vista maby you would not have that issue. i have installed vista ultimate on 5 machines my system and a few friends systems and ya ko what does not at all take 5+ minutes to get to the desktop my system dual core AMd chip system 2gb ram takes maby the most not including password imput maby 8 secs to get to the desktop so eaither you Fed up the install or you Fed up and installed it on Well known Non supported Hardeware just so you can make Fing statements such as you did -
#17.2 Posted by
markjensen on 24 Nov 2007 - 20:28
- Quote - (z0phi3l said @ #17)... why I feel forced to use either XP or Linux on my fairly new laptop ...I rather enjoy using Linux, don't feel "forced" to use it in any way. I do, however, seem to have to buy a Windows license, except on a select (very) few PC models that come with Linux pre-installed. If only all PCs had optional OSes.Quote - (notuptome2004 said @ #17.1)Maby if you knew what the F you was doing ... just so you can make Fing statements such as you didWow, you have anger issues, man. No need to go ape-crap all over someone else with personal attacks because you don't like what he has to say. Personal attacks are a no-no here.
-
#17.3 Posted by LaXu on 25 Nov 2007 - 18:25
- Quote - (z0phi3l said @ #17)I got fed up with Vista taking 5+ minutes to boot or shutdown, got tired of Vista sucking up 1.5 of my 2 gb of RAM just to get to a desktop.
I agree that Vista startup/shutdown IS slow with the default settings. This seems to be caused by nothing else than MS repeating the same mistake they did with XP: Too many unnecessary services running on the "automatic" setting. After following SpeedyVista's service guide my Vista Home Premium 64-bit starts and shuts down faster than XP ever did.
Another thing MS totally ****ed up was the effects timing, again just like in XP. The minimize/maximize animation is just too slow compared to having it turned off. It makes the system feel slow. I wish they let people adjust the effects timing so we could have the eye candy fx without them interfering with using the OS efficiently.
Vista also uses memory a lot smarter than XP does. XP ju
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.
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.
Windows Vista = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge!