is XP SP3 still a good OS for today's computing?

By Nguyen07
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Ci7

Posted
Posted

Also, keep in mind WINDOWS MESSENGER 4.7 even after SP3 is still present which has a security flaw

just like how IE6 still present

they simply can't remove features with servicepacks :/ (although i wish they do ,in like those two cases )

Grand Master

notuptome2004

Posted
Posted

a Friend of mine up in washington got his mom a used AMd 1.5ghz single core laptop with 1gb of ram and an ATI DX9 GPU with windows XP on it on batt save setting it got slightly under 2hrs of life with windows 7 on it clean install it gets 5HR 32min

Grand Master

Seizure1990

Posted
Posted

a Friend of mine up in washington got his mom a used AMd 1.5ghz single core laptop with 1gb of ram and an ATI DX9 GPU with windows XP on it on batt save setting it got slightly under 2hrs of life with windows 7 on it clean install it gets 5HR 32min

Well I had a machine with a 1.8 GHz intel Pentium and 768MB of RAM, and when I installed Windows XP on it, my penis grew 5 inches and I gained the power to fly by fart-propulsion, so there.

Grand Master

Udedenkz

Posted
Posted

So very true! Since moving on to Windows 7, reboots are only necessary when updates or software installations require it. It is so much more stable than XP ever was. I recently kept my office machine (Win7 Pro x64) running for over 3 weeks without a reboot with absolutely no degradation in performance.

Reboots are only necessary when updates or software installations require them on XP as well. Additionally, most of software doesn't need a restart which requests it.

XP can also run for long periods of time without any issues, if it doesn't I suggest replacing user.

Two bugs noticeable so far, one has bee fixed by the SP1. The second, sometimes while choosing a wifi to connect to, I single click on the network, but the OS registers it as a double click.

Sadly no bugs that I know of have been fixed with SP1, such as desktop icons becoming transparent.

There has been no work on increasing performance of WMP scrolling or Windows Explorer scrolling which noticeably laggs on any low-end hardware.

Grand Master

NEVER85

Posted
Posted

Sadly no bugs that I know of have been fixed with SP1, such as desktop icons becoming transparent.

There has been no work on increasing performance of WMP scrolling or Windows Explorer scrolling which noticeably laggs on any low-end hardware.

Again with the Explorer complaints....

Grand Master

notuptome2004

Posted
Posted

this is my windows 7 system my only system doing the same winrar extaction of window s77 iso and all that or well to iso or so like the guy above as you can see with 1 sec left on the extraction it only took my system ( AMD 9550 2.2ghz quad core with multi-threading enabled in winrar on windows 7 ultimate 64bit my system to extract the 32bit version of windows 7 ) 1min 42 sec

post-74594-0-85491800-1301638785.jpg

Rising Star

XP1

Posted
Posted

this is my windows 7 system my only system doing the same winrar extaction of window s77 iso and all that or well to iso or so like the guy above as you can see with 1 sec left on the extraction it only took my system ( AMD 9550 2.2ghz quad core with multi-threading enabled in winrar on windows 7 ultimate 64bit my system to extract the 32bit version of windows 7 ) 1min 42 sec

post-74594-0-85491800-1301638785.jpg

You are extracting a RAR file. The other person is extracting the contents of an ISO file.

The ISO extraction is probably going to take longer because there are hundreds of files to extract.

Grand Master

notuptome2004

Posted
Posted

You are extracting a RAR file. The other person is extracting the contents of an ISO file.

The ISO extraction is probably going to take longer because there are hundreds of files to extract.

true but i dont have the time but i did exact same then did the rar extraction but doing the iso extraction took lless time then his system less then the XP system and also i had multi-threading enabled not sure if he did

Rising Star

XP1

Posted
Posted

true but i dont have the time but i did exact same then did the rar extraction but doing the iso extraction took lless time then his system less then the XP system and also i had multi-threading enabled not sure if he did

Also, look at the progress bar. It appears that the person is using a very old version of WinRAR, probably not optimized for the new OS.
Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

also was multi-threading enabled on winrar for both versions

There's a few other improtant questions

if thsi was one the same computer. where both OS' on the same physical HDD ? if not was one of the OS' on the same HDD as the RAR file or the HDD where the rar fiel was being extracted to ? was the file extracted to and form the same place on both examples ? Fragmentation, since they can't be done at the same time, one of them will be unpacked to a different part of the HDD. unless you defragged the drive before both experiments, one of them could have been extarcted to a heavily fragmented part of the disk. If they where extracted to different disks, Disk speed on the target disks ?

there so many things that will affect this example, the only thing that really won't affect the extraction time here is the OS. unless one is 64bit and you use 64bit Winrar.

true but i dont have the time but i did exact same then did the rar extraction but doing the iso extraction took lless time then his system less then the XP system and also i had multi-threading enabled not sure if he did

oh so they're entirely different systems making the whole thing useless. since pretty much ALL of my possible reasons for slowdown and a few more are probably there then.

Grand Master

Seizure1990

Posted
Posted

I think the overall point is that every system is different, and that goes both way people. Some things will be faster on certain machines with XP, others will be faster on 7, it's all dependent on the hardware, the software, a million different things.

Coming up with stories about how 7 turned your dinosaur into a magical unicorn is pointless and stupid, since a) it isn't representative of computers in general, and doesn't prove anything, and b) is most likely an exception, rather then a rule, since 7 is made to run on higher resource requirements. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Try to install it on a 1.5GHz with 768MB of RAM and see what happens.

I love 7, but trying to argue that it's the perfect OS for every system and every situation is just dumb.

Grand Master

LiquidSolstice

Posted
Posted

this is my windows 7 system my only system doing the same winrar extaction of window s77 iso and all that or well to iso or so like the guy above as you can see with 1 sec left on the extraction it only took my system ( AMD 9550 2.2ghz quad core with multi-threading enabled in winrar on windows 7 ultimate 64bit my system to extract the 32bit version of windows 7 ) 1min 42 sec

post-74594-0-85491800-1301638785.jpg

windows ultimate retial.rar? That looks legitimate :rolleyes:

Grand Master

Seizure1990

Posted
Posted

Maybe his system runs better with 7 because it's one of those special "gamer" editions that you can find online ;)

Edit: Just realized that this is the same guy who I was arguing with about monetary reasons, too! He said that Win7 is definitely worth the $200.

edit2: Did he assign "B" to one of his HDDs?

Grand Master

notuptome2004

Posted
Posted

Maybe his system runs better with 7 because it's one of those special "gamer" editions that you can find online ;)

Edit: Just realized that this is the same guy who I was arguing with about monetary reasons, too! He said that Win7 is definitely worth the $200.

edit2: Did he assign "B" to one of his HDDs?

ok so you would tell anyone not to upgrade to windows 7 because of price vs security Example store gets robbed

Windows XP Cameras are there for Show to give you the illusion of security but the upside it saves ya money

Windows 7 has working Camera system that record and stores the video and in case your security is breached the cops will have evidence of the man on video because you invested in a far better security system

Rising Star

XP1

Posted
Posted

Examples include any RAM-heavy XP-7 compatible application actually.

There is a ~400 MB difference between RAM usage in XP and 7 (memory that cannot be freed), that is ~400MB of RAM that will be used for the application.

That is ambiguous. You may have to rephrase your post.

What "application" are you talking about?

Proficient

Anthonyd

Posted
Posted

xpvs7reboot.png

Anyone who isn't an idiot is using the hybrid sleep since Vista (which is 4years old now). Then your system boots in less than 5s.

Also, when you say "same system", did you use the same HDD? Did you installed XP on the first partition on the disk and 7 at the end of the disk (so it's much slower than it would be when it comes to hdd i/o like your test is), lolz?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.