WinXP SP3 Yields Performance Gains Over Vista SP1 Again
Posted by Steven Parker on 28 November 2007 - 11:36 · 43 comments & 26664 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
-
-
(2 replies)
#1 Posted by creamhackered on 28 Nov 2007 - 11:40
- haha Chris is a funny guy
-
#1.1 Posted by Swordnyx on 28 Nov 2007 - 15:58
- yeah lol that was funny. But you do know he was using a screensaver for that, right?
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by EL1TE on 28 Nov 2007 - 11:50
- Some of you who read this will think games will fly with SP3, I don't need to reply to this, because most of you know what i mean.
Then, XP needs Security improvements and stability, specially in Explorer.EXE
This is like games (the way some people think about Windows), most of Gamers think Games means Graphics, but for me Games means Gameplay > Stability > Graphics.
Well, im my opinion here's what should be implemented in XP and Vista:
Vista: Stability > Reliability > Performance
XP: Security > Stability
P.S: If Vista SP1 will not improve Performance why the results show a small improvement? (1GB). -
#2.1 Posted by whocares78 on 29 Nov 2007 - 07:35
- XP is secure adn stable, make it faster i say
-
(3 replies)
#3 Posted by 7Dash8 on 28 Nov 2007 - 12:01
- Since when did Officebench become a great measure of an OSes performance??
-
#3.2 Posted by 7Dash8 on 28 Nov 2007 - 12:10
- And most Vista users complaining about it being slow in games are office workers??
Also, could someone quietly go out and shoot Chris Pirillo. The guy is as much of a journalist as Nostradamus. -
#3.3 Posted by ANova on 29 Nov 2007 - 00:53
- Quote - (7Dash8 said @ #3.2)And most Vista users complaining about it being slow in games are office workers??
Also, could someone quietly go out and shoot Chris Pirillo. The guy is as much of a journalist as Nostradamus.
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
-
(2 replies)
#4 Posted by sibot on 28 Nov 2007 - 12:23
- Quote -Chris Pirillo had this to say on all those negative articles surrounding Windows Vista, enjoy!
That says it all. I really didn't expect that towards the ending. Funny stuff. XP rules, and you know it. -
#4.1 Posted by Angry_Badger on 28 Nov 2007 - 12:33
- heh yeah that was pretty good. I wonder if that is his opinion despite the the tongue in cheek nature of the video?
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by boho on 28 Nov 2007 - 12:41
- Read the first paragraph!
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle2958844.ece
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by
neufuse on 28 Nov 2007 - 12:42
- Gawd... I want to start running my own performance benchmarks and reporting on the results without bias... too bad most of the good benchmark programs are expensive... and Officebench oh wow ONE benchmark... while the OS does SO many other things... how about benchmarking GDI performance, DirectX performance, IO performance... things that do matter a LOT not just one office suite
-
#6.1 Posted by freak_power on 30 Nov 2007 - 06:11
- XP owns Vista in DirectX and especially in IO performance. I wouldn't even go there...
-
#7 Posted by MorganX on 28 Nov 2007 - 14:01
- Here's one big thing in Vista's favor, 64 bit Vista is light years ahead of 64 bit XP and I just bought 8GB of DDR2 800 for $250 and a Quad Core processor for $220.
I think I'll take Vista 64 over XP or XP 64 running on the same Hardware.
-
#8 Posted by ajua on 28 Nov 2007 - 14:55
- i've made my own benchmarks and that is what i recommend people do.
MAKE your own benchmarks, be it clocking video converting, file copying, audio encoding, movie editing, etc.
this will provide the only insight you need to know if Vista or XP performs better with your current hardware configuration.
In my case, Vista equals and almost on every clocking i made exceeds XP performace with my hardware.
So, for me there is no discussion at all...
-
(5 replies)
#9 Posted by Azmodan on 28 Nov 2007 - 14:58
- HOW DO YOU DARE CRITIZICE WINDOWS VISTA?
ITS MAKING ALL THIS MONEY AND ALL YOU PEOPLE WANT MORE MORE MORE!!!
LEAVE IT ALONE!!!
WORSE TECH EVER, URI EXPLOITS, YOU ALL JUST WANT TO MAKE MONEY, YOU'RE LUCKY IT'S GOT RELEASED FOR YOU B*STARDS,
LEAVE WINDOWS VISTA ALONE!!!!
ANYONE THAT HAS A PROBLEM WITH VISTA, YOU'VE GOTTA DEAL WITH ME
Last edited by Azmodan on 28 Nov 2007 - 15:06 -
#9.1 Posted by MioTheGreat on 28 Nov 2007 - 18:30
- Vista was actually safer from those URI exploits than XP.
-
#9.2 Posted by Croquant on 29 Nov 2007 - 00:21
- Azmodan, did you skip the class in elementary school about 'net etiquiete?
In case you didn't know, typing in all caps is considered to be rude.
Bumping a whole line of text up to some ridiculous font size is also generally frowned upon.
Oh, and uttering thinly veiled machoistic threats is just childish and dumb.
If you were trying to be funny, it didn't work. :| -
#9.3 Posted by IceBrewedBeer on 29 Nov 2007 - 06:16
- Quote - (Croquant said @ #9.2)Azmodan, did you skip the class in elementary school about 'net etiquiete?bull****, CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL.
In case you didn't know, typing in all caps is considered to be rude.
in b4 reeses for breakfast. -
#9.4 Posted by whocares78 on 29 Nov 2007 - 07:37
- i guess you 2 never saw the leave britne alone thing. i laughed
-
#11 Posted by kouhii00 on 28 Nov 2007 - 15:58
- i want the world to know about my blog and my life...
wait..isn't it easier just to open the house door and smell the fresh air?
-
(1 reply)
#12 Posted by archer75 on 28 Nov 2007 - 16:13
- Vista is self tuning OS and gets faster over time. On my system it screams. Yesterday I built a computer for a friend that has slightly higher specs than mine but was noticably slower. Which is to be expected after a fresh install. In a few weeks it will be faster.
The site that did the benchmarks said they make their tools available for anyone to test with, just register on their site and download the tools to do your own testing. Which I did, however they never sent me my password to actually download the tools. Seems alittle fishy. -
#12.1 Posted by toadeater on 29 Nov 2007 - 06:47
- Quote - (archer75 said @ #12)Vista is self tuning OS and gets faster over time. On my system it screams.
Well, it's been out for a year and it still doesn't seemed to have tuned too well for most people. Maybe it's self-tuning, but it's also self-BSODing. Nor has it tuned itself to be faster for gaming.
This argument is pointless. Vista's performance is well-known and it is not exactly "wow." You load any OS on modern hardware with 2GB of RAM and it's going to run pretty well! I mean, does XP run slow on your system?
-
#13 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 28 Nov 2007 - 16:36
- So he tested Vista with the minimum RAM (1GB) in the first test, but not XP's minimum RAM, which is 64MB. This one, he bumps Vista up to the recommended level, but still didn't run the XP test on it's level, which is 128MB.
-
#14 Posted by bolix on 28 Nov 2007 - 17:10
- That's a true comparison GreyWolfSC, or maybe we can let XP have 1GB and put 16GB on Vista.
-
(2 replies)
#15 Posted by hagjohn on 28 Nov 2007 - 17:10
- XP outperforms Vista--using different Offices
http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_SP3_out...sion/1196208954Quote -But a breakdown of the team's initial tests reveal that, although they used identical Dell computers, they actually compared Office 2007 performance on Vista to Office 2003 performance on XP.
I would duplicate the test on several other "sets" of computers to see if you come up with the same results. -
#15.1 Posted by MioTheGreat on 28 Nov 2007 - 18:31
- Now that's just low. Why the hell would they do that?
-
#15.2 Posted by freak_power on 30 Nov 2007 - 06:13
- Quote - (MioTheGreat said @ #15.1)Now that's just low. Why the hell would they do that?
So some morons doesn't bitch about the fact that they tested software which is not written for Vista. Well, Office 2007 is. Anyway, they tested Office 2003 on both machines and Vista is crappola.
-
#16 Posted by majortom1981 on 28 Nov 2007 - 17:25
- Hmm funny I have a dell xps 410 running vista that originally came with xp media center and vista is more stable and handles my dual core processor much better.
-
#17 Posted by lfLASHl on 28 Nov 2007 - 18:43
- i have sp3 v3.244 installed and all seems nice and good, i like to play alot of games so vista not a choice for me.
-
#18 Posted by JaSoN BouRNe on 28 Nov 2007 - 19:09
- officebench may just shut up all the vista fanboys... xp rules everybody knows. period.
-
(1 reply)
#19 Posted by Lay-Z on 28 Nov 2007 - 19:28
- Maybe it's me but I'm going to take any benchmark from some guy running a blog on Blogger with a grain of salt. Just like 90% of the opinions of self proclaimed tech guys who can't tell their processor socket from a hole in ground.
Opinions are like ***holes, everyone has one and they all stink. What really stinks are people grasping for straws to "prove" Vista sucks compared to XP. What really gets me are the dumb nerds of the neckbeard brigade who repeat this trash to your average user and then they go on and parrot what they said.
Pirrillo's piece was satire but to be honest, I would say a good number of Vista problems are caused by bad hardware or some dolt trying to shoehorn the OS in their crappy 6 year old computer.
XP is fine but I like the fact that Vista is much more secure, uses memory efficiently (unused RAM is wasted RAM), and to me has shown a considerable performance difference over the past several months. -
#19.1 Posted by AthleticTrainer1981 on 28 Nov 2007 - 20:50
- Thank you. I tried to point this out last week when the original article was posted but no one wanted to discuss this. I thought that Neowin had the policy of not quoting blogs for articles but I guess when it comes to vista bashing, there are exceptions.
Everyone has a blog....Hell I have a blog, bet no one cares about it though. Why does anyone give a rats ass what this person says?
-
#20 Posted by coolvi on 28 Nov 2007 - 23:11
- Jesus Christ...This has absolutely the least to do with Windows Vista vs. XP. By comparing Windows Vista to XP is like asking a Grade One student to solve a Grade Seven maths problem. Simple and stupid as that.
While there may be a few reasons to compare Vista SP1 to RTM and XP SP3 to SP2, I don't see much relelance in those comparisons, either. Service packs were meant to be bug fixes anyway so stepping up to the new service pack release from the previous one, a person should not expect a gain in performance. Except for XP SP2 in which more features were added to the operating system but were not optimized where SP3 simply optimized and fixed the issues within those features. There would obvious be a gain in performance.
Duh...LOL
-
#21 Posted by -Hiroshi- on 29 Nov 2007 - 00:32
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nPTQAnb67s
-
#22 Posted by Albert on 29 Nov 2007 - 09:31
- what a bunch of idiots.
i don't know since when (and started by which freaking idiots) service packs are tied to performance gain, but that was not service packs are for.
if you get some performance gain, well good for you. now spread your ass cheek and yodel like tarzan ...
-
(1 reply)
#23 Posted by freak_power on 30 Nov 2007 - 06:09
- Unused RAM is wasted RAM...how many times i'm going to heard the most stupidest thing in 21st Century?
-
#23.1 Posted by Lay-Z on 02 Dec 2007 - 08:11
- What is the point of having 2 or 4 GB of RAM when you don't maximize the use of it? SuperFetch caches programs so they launch faster and you can get work done faster. The experience is enhanced when used with used with ReadyBoost, which acts as additional cache to SuperFetch.
Exchange has been doing this for years, Store.exe caches information in memory and uses as much as it can without inhibiting performance to increase I/O throughput.
Vituralization sells on the fact that a lot of server hardware, not just RAM but also CPU cycles go unused which is a waste of resources. Servers are consolidated as virtual machines and you maximize the use of your hardware while driving down costs.
But from your comment, you're probably one of those people who bitched about Vista using the unused RAM as a cache and posting it on other message boards (while using M-dollar sign) in hopes that Gates himself was reading it and would rush to remedy the issue.
Make of it what you will, I personally don't have performance issues at all. I use Vista with 2GB of RAM and I have a Sandisk 2GB memory stick that is used for the "Ready Boost" feature, maybe they should re-run the test with that scenario.
Chris Pirillo had this to say on all those negative articles surrounding Windows Vista, enjoy!
Revised OfficeBench Completion Times (Seconds)
Note: The Windows XP (SP3) results have been added to the chart to add further context to the Vista results. As before, all tests were conducted on the same Dell XPS M1710 system w/2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and DDR-2 667MHz RAM.
For those interested, they also ran the test using Office 2003 instead of Office 2007, you can view the results by following the link below to the source.