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


Recommended Posts

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 )

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

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.

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.

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....

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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?

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

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?

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.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!