Windows XP SP3. Much better than Vista SP1


Recommended Posts

Hamstings

I am not sure if some of you realize this, but Microsoft had SP1 for Vista and XP planned before they sold them to consumers. It is how Microsoft works. I use Linux/Mac OS/Win XP on my computers and I look forward to when Vista SP2 comes out.

Most of my friends use Linux, although most of them are not that tech savvy, so you don't have to know a lot about Linux or computers to run it, depending on the destro. They hated their Vista when they got it with their new machines, but I think most of them were driver issues and not the OS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mrchetsteadman
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

Same here. I like how when you uninstall someting it actually UNINSTALLS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
reactionary007

people forget that even when xp sp2 came out there were those who were like - don't install it! it's unstable!! it is will ruin everything!

blah blah blah.

vista for me was slow because of a/v. I switched to OneCare and it runs awesomely. at work we use Trend Micro - and that is great on my vista laptop as well. CA and Avast both brought it to it's knees at the time - that was almost a year ago now though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
S7un7
Quote - (chrispinto @ Nov 24 2007, 08:05) *

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

Same here. I like how when you uninstall someting it actually UNINSTALLS.

I've had an install of XP running for 4 years with no problems. I'm sure others have had longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hjf288
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.

Whats that? Since when did i become part of a generalised group?

I dont claim that Linux is too complex TYVM

So shut up and stop trolling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hotdog666al
3) People who know how to use/maintain their computers and with up to date current hardware...

I know how to use/maintain my computers and keep up to date current hardware - I just choose not to because there is no need!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin
Course it is, course it is. Vista is basically a jab at Mac with all of it's shiny graphics. The best OS is Windows 2000, or if you want a little newer, XP.

Basically a jab at Mac? More like basically a radical rearchitecturing of many of the major underpinnings of the OS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
revvo
Why the hell would they want to test Vista or XP with a computer that only hold 1Gig of memory??

Because Microsoft's own reccomended hardware specifications mention 1GB of RAM.

Obviously, when Microsoft were making Vista, their goal was to make it look good because they know that it works for Apple's OSX. Their priorities weren't set on performance. If they were, why the hell would Vista run best at 2GB ram? OSX runs perfectly fine on 1GB and the same goes to the new KDE4 with Plasma on Linux. dwm.exe has a working set of memory of 60-100MB just for Aero's effects, and here I thought the videocard would be used to draw the effects.

I'd say though, that a fair comparison would be XP with/without SP1 with Vista with/without SP1. At least compare the first service pack's impact on the OS. Right, from what I remember, SP1 was mainly fixes, just like Vista's SP1. Bad comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Danrarbc
dwm.exe has a working set of memory of 60-100MB just for Aero's effects, and here I thought the videocard would be used to draw the effects.

A copy everything is kept in both system and video RAM since they must be transfered between the two in the event a game or other 3D app needs access to the video card. That's why it always eats RAM.

It's a hell of a lot better than everything freezing up for a few seconds while data is moved around.

As for the 2GB requirement, neither OS has a cache quite like SuperFetch. And lets be honest, Vista does have a lot of services like shadow copy and media center running in the background that are probably eating up RAM, maybe even more than they should. It's not perfect but it ain't ME, and it's certainly better than pre-SP1 XP.

This is 6 years after XP, it's time to move on from those days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
franzon
dwm.exe has a working set of memory of 60-100MB just for Aero's effects

:blink:

I use Vista since 30 January and on my PC the dwm.exe has always used about 14-16MB only (I have a Geforce 6200 with 256MB).

Edited by franzon
Link to post
Share on other sites
azz0r_wugg
I know my original post came off ignorant and trollish, that wasn't my intent. In my opinion, people who use Vista prior to SP1 (possibly SP2) are unknowingly beta testers for corporations/people who are waiting for it to stabilize.

A lot of people, including me, are waiting for MS to do to Vista what SP2 did to XP, make it mature and stable for a much wider crowd. I am confident MS will make Vista much more efficient and usable (without buying a brand new PC) that it is now. Question is, will they already be working on 7? Vista will be a flop if corporations don't heavily invest in it. So far, they're not; hence the expedited release of SP1.

I'd agree if Vista ran like crap and crashed all the time, but it doesn't so your talking rubbish.

Link to post
Share on other sites
rajputwarrior
No one, just 90% of people with a brain.

as an IT guy i tell people to get the hell away from vista, it has protential... but not yet way to slow and buggy. like honestly, it can even do networking or file transfers prooperly. SO SLOW!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
leovanham

So where do i get SP3? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin
I use Vista since 30 January and on my PC the dwm.exe has always used about 14-16MB (I have a Geforce 6200 with 256MB).

He's talking about the full working set. You're looking at the private working set.

Which isn't really a fair indicator, as the full working set also shows memory that's shared, if I'm not mistaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Chicane-UK
as an IT guy i tell people to get the hell away from vista

Likewise. In my department I think I know of about 5 people who've gone with Vista. The rest of us loathe it.

Personally I think it just isn't a good product. The new AIK based on Vista is much nicer than WindowsPE.. been using it to build some scripted installation tools for HP Proliant servers and it has been pretty easy going so far :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I HAS PICKLE
Vista is a lot better than Xp, no one would disagree

Vista blows dogs for quarters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
NCIvey

When I switched from 98 to XP my TV tuner stopped working because of driver issues. Did I cry the blues and say "XP sucks." No I dealt with it and adjusted to the newer technology.

And as far as comparing XP SP3 to Vista SP1. That's not really fair. Wait until Vista SP3 comes out and then compare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
S7un7
So where do i get SP3? :)

I found out how to download it through Microsoft Update on google, in 10 seconds. It's still got some bugs though. I would wait if I were you.

@b.tarek.aziz.

There are lots of people the disagree. Vista may be better than XP for YOU. It all depends on what the end user is doing with it.

@Sir Kill Jerk

Yeah, that make sense. If/when sp3 comes out for Vista, XP will be 8-10 years old.

Link to post
Share on other sites
EDF
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.

Hard drives were also smaller back then. You never had to restart XP, you HAVE to restart 98 after a game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoffrey B.
3) People who know how to use/maintain their computers and with up to date current hardware...

I agree completely because i have a machine that has mostly new hardware and mostly new everything i keep it up to date and i have windows vista Ultimate edition with all the latest updates and all features enabled such as aero and such and i have not have any problems with vista. all of my stuff works and i can manage to find a way to get my really old software to work on it so it has not really bothered me at all. and i have not had any performance issues with vista yet i can watch a a few movies at a time and still have aero enabled it runs all of my games the way i want them and i can even get file transfers to go fast (except for when i am transferring files to my flash drive that drive is slow)

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueFiberOptics

I recently switched to using Ubuntu on my desktop, but I still have XP on a partition. I can't wait for Service Pack 3 so I can slipstream it into a CD. Then I won't have to do 80 updates when installing.

I have played with Vista, both beta and final. I was disappointed in the performance on a variety of hardware.

However, just because I don't like Vista doesn't mean I am not excited about Windows 7.

I hope Microsoft turns the ship around and makes Windows 7 a better OS for the majority of computer users out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mitch00
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.

I love this. Most new linux users' biggest complaint is "Linux sucks because there's no hardware support or 3rd party apps!".

Well gee, now Vista users are using the same argument, hopefully finally getting the point that it's not Linux (or Microsoft) that controls these things. If your hardware or favourite software doesn't work, don't blame the OS. Blame whoever made it! The sad thing is most people will still complain about poor hardware support on both platforms.

edit: typo

Edited by mitch00
Link to post
Share on other sites
Dysphoria

How would you explain that no one at the Microsoft Research Offices in Redmond is using the Vista OS?

I never jumped on the Vista wagon, and I don't intend to. Yes XP was slower than 98 but the difference was minuscule in comparison to the changes and improvements in the file system.

I am not dissing microsoft, I am just saying that they could have done a better job and optimizing the OS, so people dont require 2Gs of RAM and the latest Nvidia or ATI card just to run Aero and all that pretty desktop decoration.

I have Win XP and opensuse dual boot installed on my laptop and running compiz & emerlad with 3d Desktop and I have a Intel GPU with 1GB of Sys RAM and INtel Centrino 1.8Ghz and it runs as smooth as baby's butt. Now try running only Vista on this Laptop... Performance drop of 50 -80% on all applications, especially on Office...

You be the judge...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution

Well I'm running an Intel Centrino 1.8Ghz processor, 1.5 GB RAM, 7200 RPM 100 GB Harddrive, and the 855GME graphics chipset, and I've found that Vista is faster than XP :/

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mordkanin
and the latest Nvidia or ATI card just to run Aero and all that pretty desktop decoration.

An FX5200 will run Aero perfectly fine (I've done it.). They're coming up on 5 years old...so I don't really consider them "the latest".

especially on Office...

One of the interesting things I find is that Office 2007 actually loads faster and runs a bit better for me on Vista than it does XP. But I have 2 gigs and a 2.17GHz Core Duo, so I've got a pretty good machine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.