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

By Nguyen07
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Subject Delta

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.

Curious, I run a lot of memory heavy applications, particularly games and I have never noticed any difference. Do you have any evidence to back this claim up?

Mentor

Jen Smith

Posted
Posted
Curious, I run a lot of memory heavy applications, particularly games and I have never noticed any difference. Do you have any evidence to back this claim up?

More or less the same for me; 7 initially starts up a little heavier, but once it "settles down" after a couple minutes, it's more or less on par with XP. After using it a while, stuff moving in and out of swap, etc etc, I'll typically wind up with more free memory available than XP, especially after using heavy applications like Visual Studio 2010 and the like, which is anything but lightweight. Even on an old system that's very resource limited, I've had overall better results with 7 than XP. (Including an old celeron tablet with 512MB, going to be swap-heavy either way but just felt more responsive in 7.) I've seen a couple reasons for mayyyybe keeping XP around, but memory isn't one of them.

As far as the reboot speeds go, again noticing a complete opposite here. From a cold boot, at least on my systems, XP and 7 get to the desktop more or less at the same time, but 7's typically idle and ready to go where XP's still chugging along loading stuff in the background for a while longer. But that's a cold boot; I much prefer just putting the sucker to sleep, and being ready in a second flat. Only time I usually power them down fully is during a storm.

Grand Master

Subject Delta

Posted
Posted

More or less the same for me; 7 initially starts up a little heavier, but once it "settles down" after a couple minutes, it's more or less on par with XP. After using it a while, stuff moving in and out of swap, etc etc, I'll typically wind up with more free memory available than XP, especially after using heavy applications like Visual Studio 2010 and the like, which is anything but lightweight. Even on an old system that's very resource limited, I've had overall better results with 7 than XP. (Including an old celeron tablet with 512MB, going to be swap-heavy either way but just felt more responsive in 7.) I've seen a couple reasons for mayyyybe keeping XP around, but memory isn't one of them.

As far as the reboot speeds go, again noticing a complete opposite here. From a cold boot, at least on my systems, XP and 7 get to the desktop more or less at the same time, but 7's typically idle and ready to go where XP's still chugging along loading stuff in the background for a while longer. But that's a cold boot; I much prefer just putting the sucker to sleep, and being ready in a second flat. Only time I usually power them down fully is during a storm.

Precisely. 7 is a more complex OS than XP, it's natural that it will have a slightly higher memory footprint, but it does not cause applications to use more memory, and I don't know why people claim it does!

Veteran

Frylock86

Posted
Posted

Precisely. 7 is a more complex OS than XP, it's natural that it will have a slightly higher memory footprint, but it does not cause applications to use more memory, and I don't know why people claim it does!

Keep in mind XP and 7 deal with memory differently. Application that use XX amount of RAM on XP could end up using XY amount of RAM on 7, but it won't be too much of a difference.

Look at FF4 for example, same application, two different operating systems. Firefox 4 has features that work on 7, but don't on XP.

Mentor

Jen Smith

Posted
Posted
Hey, is there a way to uninstall Windows XP Sp3? I wanna go back to RTM, I've found that RTM will use less RAM than SP3. I hate seeing almost a GB of my 4 used up. :(

Be careful going that route, the only flavor of XP that's still officially supported is SP3. Anything older is officially dead and buried as far as Microsoft is concerned, you're probably going to miss out on some critical security updates and the like that are still being pushed for SP3. (Besides, RTM sucked, personally had better results with Server 2K3 until XP3 SP3 came along, but that's just me.)

Edit for next post below : Yea I hope so too :D

Grand Master

Rigby

Posted
Posted

Be careful going that route, the only flavor of XP that's still officially supported is SP3. Anything older is officially dead and buried as far as Microsoft is concerned, you're probably going to miss out on some critical security updates and the like that are still being pushed for SP3. (Besides, RTM sucked, personally had better results with Server 2K3 until XP3 SP3 came along, but that's just me.)

I think he was being sarcastic, I hope. ;)

Mentor

nekkidtruth

Posted
Posted

I was going to go into this whole drawn out post about all of the silliness being spewed about XP being superior to 7, but decided this was much more fitting.

Let's call a spade a spade guys.

If you think XP is far superior to 7, you're doing it wrong. Very very wrong.

Mentor

nekkidtruth

Posted
Posted

XP if your hardware can't handle 7. Thread over.

Which doesn't even happen that often since 7 runs disgustingly well on a LOT of older hardware. I've got it running on several older P4 machines and it runs like a beast. Sure I have to use the classic look, but it runs circles 'round XP on that older hardware.

  • soonerproud, Skyfrog and Frylock86
  • Like 3
Rising Star

DootDootMan

Posted
Posted

Which doesn't even happen that often since 7 runs disgustingly well on a LOT of older hardware. I've got it running on several older P4 machines and it runs like a beast. Sure I have to use the classic look, but it runs circles 'round XP on that older hardware.

That's what I meant. If you can't get 7 to run on your current hardware use XP, Linux, etc.

Grand Master

Udedenkz

Posted
Posted

Curious, I run a lot of memory heavy applications, particularly games and I have never noticed any difference. Do you have any evidence to back this claim up?

Think about it... 400MB of RAM vs. 400 MB extra Swap... RAM vs HD.

Do I have to prove to you that disk trashing is worse than having more free RAM?

Grand Master

Subject Delta

Posted
Posted

Think about it... 400MB of RAM vs. 400 MB extra Swap... RAM vs HD.

Do I have to prove to you that disk trashing is worse than having more free RAM?

And I repeat, evidence? I have neither problems with excessive memory usage, or disk thrashing

Grand Master

Rigby

Posted
Posted

Think about it... 400MB of RAM vs. 400 MB extra Swap... RAM vs HD.

Do I have to prove to you that disk trashing is worse than having more free RAM?

Do I have to point out that RAM is dirt cheap and with systems having 4-8GB these days your argument is completely absurd.

I have Windows 7 and only 2 GB of RAM and I have no thrashing in any programs or games. You either have a very crappy system or you're just making stuff up. Go back to Windows 98 and have fun, it only requires something like 16 MB.

  • soonerproud, Frylock86 and Skyfrog
  • Like 3
Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I might do that. If I don't get an extra 2gb of ram, it's still wise to go with the 64 bit? I won't be screwed in terms of driver support?

I have only 3 GB now, and had only 2 GB when I crossgraded, so RAM isn't now (and wasn't then) the issue.

While large amounts of RAM are *a* reason for making the move, it's not the only one, and in some cases (like mine) it wasn't evne close to being a major reason.

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

Which doesn't even happen that often since 7 runs disgustingly well on a LOT of older hardware. I've got it running on several older P4 machines and it runs like a beast. Sure I have to use the classic look, but it runs circles 'round XP on that older hardware.

And if you have GPUs that are newer than R300 (Radeon 9600/9700/9800), why would you need Classic? Aero requires, at most, DX9c (which even GPUs that old support); further, all their successors support at least DX9c as well (AMD 85xx, nV 6xxx, and Intel 8xx are the respective Aero floors).

There are some decent GPUs *today* that can be had for the AGP, and even the (don't laugh) *PCI* (not PCIe) bus - they aren't spendy, either; some can be had, depending on where you look, for less than $30 new.

Which doesn't even happen that often since 7 runs disgustingly well on a LOT of older hardware. I've got it running on several older P4 machines and it runs like a beast. Sure I have to use the classic look, but it runs circles 'round XP on that older hardware.

True. Mom had inherited my old P4 workhorse desktop when I crossgraded (I had been running Vista x32 on it) she followed me to Windows 7 when it launched (I went with 7 x64, while her P4 then went to 7 x32).

She has since moved to a newer P4 which is x64-ready (Prescott in LGA775 - specifically the P4 3.0-E) and, like me, runs 7 Ultimate x64 today.

Rising Star

XP1

Posted
Posted

Hey, is there a way to uninstall Windows XP Sp3? I wanna go back to RTM, I've found that RTM will use less RAM than SP3. I hate seeing almost a GB of my 4 used up. :(

Be careful going that route, the only flavor of XP that's still officially supported is SP3. Anything older is officially dead and buried as far as Microsoft is concerned, you're probably going to miss out on some critical security updates and the like that are still being pushed for SP3. (Besides, RTM sucked, personally had better results with Server 2K3 until XP3 SP3 came along, but that's just me.)

Edit for next post below : Yea I hope so too :D

Sarcasm alarm bells:

  • Going back to RTM.
  • Trying to use the full 4 GB RAM on 32-bit XP.

Two unrelated issues.

Rising Star

muratoner

Posted
Posted

Oh no, what am I going to do now every time I want to open services and drag the window border back and forth really fast?

I guess I'll have to go back to XP. :rolleyes:

it's not just the services box.It's for everything that needs 2D.I've noticed this and hated the responsiveness of W7.It's even worse if you have a folder with 200+ video files and click the folder and wait for about a minute (every freakin time) to process.It's the most annoying thing ever.I don't want any preview handlers checking folders.I just want to see my files.Is it too much to ask for

Rising Star

muratoner

Posted
Posted

Why don't you just turn the previews off then, it's a very simple setting.

i did.But it still processes the folders anyway.It takes like 10sec on a 300gb folder with avi files where in xp it just shows your files in a sec

Grand Master

LiquidSolstice

Posted
Posted

i did.But it still processes the folders anyway.It takes like 10sec on a 300gb folder with avi files where in xp it just shows your files in a sec

I think you're talking about the thumbnail cache being deleted and rebuilt. If so, that's pretty easy to fix.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.