• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

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

Recommended Posts

MadDoggyca    0

Windows 7 hands down for memory management..

like other have said idel memory is useless memory..With Win7 you don;t wast any part of your hardware whitch in turns means ever thing runs quicker.

the only other thing I can say about memory on any PC/OS is 8 GIG is not enough into days world...if I did this on XP (assuming xp would alowe me to do this with 8 GIG of ram the system would BSOD right away)

if you have the resoruces... USE IT!!!

BTW for people that take notice there 1.3 GIG of free physical memory left. When I tired to load F.E.A.R 2 appretnly the game takes more then 1.3 gig of memory when running>LOL

my second shot is my current running state...yes that Vmware down there so that mite add to the amount runing but meh,

post-342470-0-27622000-1300133962.jpg

post-342470-0-07953100-1300134609.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan    5,232

You mean slower than XP? Because that's the real reason for superfetch - to disguise 7/Vista's poor performance.

not it's not, I said with superfetch disabled. Windows 7 is still faster than XP.

you obviously don't use your computer for anything seriously, but today, games, and heavy apps are all faster on windows 7. because it's a better system.

As for the percentages, did you even look at them, yes, they all add up to 100%. due to the median being a median it might not directly add up to 100%. but I suspect you know basic math and understand why that irs right ? no ?

That site's stats are clearly skewed.

and so is your net market. his stats are 10 % below the median and yours are 10 % above the median. both stats are the only ones in that catergoy, the only one beign that much lower and the only one being that much higher, ALL the rest are in the 40-45 percentage.

you can't blame his stats for being skewed when you are yourself using obviously skewed stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz    51

Killing UAC is dumb to say the least. Using UAC doesn't make you "an average user" or "dumb user" or something like that.

I am saying that these additional security features are not "absolutely necessary". Removing them didn't make me an "instant virus magnet".

Wow, pathetic "arguments", those.

1. I never bought that "customization" bull****. They cause all sorts of problems, because they modify system files. I tried the Vista Transformation Pack on XP 4 years ago, and the result was horrible. My Windows Update died, and there was no way to revert to the old system without formatting. Not to mention ALL of those "customizations" are half baked, and only introduce incosistency throughout the UI. They are usability and stability nightmares.

2. XP's "classic search" feature is the worst crime ever committed against humanity. Why on earth should I have to memorize names of thousands of files on my computer to search for files? And even then it was slow as molasses. On the other hand, on Windows 7, I have my ENTIRE hard drive indexed. So I type something on the start menu search box, and within a fraction of a second the result appears. I no longer have to remember file names, or organize files. All I do is to type ANYTHING I remember about that file, and immediately it appears. It also helps me to launch applications and Control Panel applets within a fraction of a second. On XP I had to hunt the cryptic Control Panel to launch what I wanted.

3. You can say all you like about how you are a super man and never get infected with malware, but the reality is for the vast majority of users, XP's pathetic security was the sole reason for security problems. Windows 7's security is infinitely better than XP's.

4. XP DOES NOT have good memory management. Yes it shows more free RAM available. But free RAM is wasted RAM. What's the point of that if it can't use that RAM to improve performance? Windows 7 runs programs much faster than XP because it can USE those extra RAM.

5. XP 64-bit is the most instable OS I have ever tried. It has ZERO driver support and keeps crashing ALL the time.

6. On Windows 7 I don't even need to install drivers manually any more. It automatically finds those drivers for me, or offers them via Windows Update. Finding drivers for XP, and successfully installing them is a nightmare.

7. I had to reinstall XP every 4/5 months because of slow startup time and overall poor performance. On the other hand I have been running Windows 7 on my main desktop system for 20 months with absolutely no issues whatsoever. It's still incredibly fast and shows no sign of slowdown.

XP has less than 35% market share in North America, Europe and Oceania combined. Windows 7/Vista has more than 50%. So, YOU are the one who is outnumbered, unless, of course, you happen to be one of the pirated Chinese XP users.

1. I meant mostly Royale Theme. Luna is annoying, Royale is just overall awesome looking. All the customization you need.

2. We are talking about different things here, at least we should be, classic search was really fast and searched what I wanted. XP's default search engine was **** though - the one with the dog. Additionally, WINKEY + keyword + ENTER can be substituted by XP addons such as launchy. Windows 7 start menu search is nothing more than a hybrid of WINKEY + R and WINKEY + F + "keyword" + ENTER/RUN FIRST SEARCH FOUND.

3. I admit, the more babysitting the OS does, the less problems the average user will get. But, as I said, a proper Windows XP setup will do that just fine as well.

4. Windows 7 doesn't run programs faster than XP. Tested on Athlon II (see signature) and C2D/4GB/SSD systems. You are just experiencing placebo effect. Additionally, superfetch ain't that smart either - I have it enabled and have 1.2 GB RAM sitting there on W7 system (and yes I know that memory consumed by superfetch is empty when needed for something else) - it uses just about ~1GB. Superfetch is not anything magic at all, it just compensates for additional W7 overhead (sadly).

5. OK. Lets go through the troubleshooting steps: Do you have the latest drivers installed? Do you have the latest updates for XP x86_64 installed? Is your computer plugged in? In all seriousness, your comment reeks of a think stench of idiocy. 64-bit XP is stable and great as long as there is driver support for your hardware.

6. Well, thats Windows 7 for you.

7. You need to learn to use a computer, yes you do. You are just a newbie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

So you're using 100% of your memory all the time? Thought not. Then I guess your logic failed you. Most people don't need to utilise 100% of memory all the time. Sometimes I use 90+, sometimes I use 10%. It's there if I need it. That's the point. There's no justification for the OS to gobble it all up unnecessarily. Of course in Windows Vista/7's case, it's used to conceal performance problems relative to the previous iteration - XP.

Of course I would want all my memory being put to good use by either the OS or its applications... I didn't upgrade the memory in my computer from 4 GB to 8 GB just because it looks cool and so it can sit idle 95% of the time. Modern operating systems like Windows 7 and Mac OS X will allow the system and/or applications to use as much memory as they need for caching and whatnot to give you the smoothest experience possible. Once you start launching more applications the OS will automatically reallocate memory to where it's needed more and spread things out more evenly. This isn't causing problems, it makes sure your hardware reach its full potential. You're proofing over and over again you don't have a clue how things actually work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
notuptome2004    156

my system windows 7 and it is damn fast when launching heavy intensive task and or programs ( 2.2 AMD Quad core 4gb of ram )

post-74594-0-02228200-1300142846.jpg

post-74594-0-02201600-1300142836.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Solid Knight    511

The arguments for Windows XP could be made for Windows 3.1

Windows 3.1

- Boots and shuts down faster

- Uses less memory

- Searches faster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SoyoS    19

Why is it that Windows users are the ones that hate change and continue to push old OS's? You don't see Mac users raving on about how great Tiger is, they upgrade instantly and never look back and that's something people need to do more of over in the Windows camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

The arguments for Windows XP could be made for Windows 3.1

Windows 3.1

- Boots and shuts down faster

- Uses less memory

- Searches faster

If Windows 3.1 and Windows XP search faster than Windows 7 something has gone very wrong at Microsoft. Not sure how things are with Windows 7, but Mac OS X Snow Leopard's Spotlight searches (both the Spotlight menu and full searches in the Finder) generate near-instant results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+warwagon    13,116

"If you have to reinstall windows xp every 4-5 months, you don't know enough about it to properly support or give any argument for or against it. "

QFT!!

+10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Solid Knight    511

If Windows 3.1 and Windows XP search faster than Windows 7 something has gone very wrong at Microsoft. Not sure how things are with Windows 7, but Mac OS X Snow Leopard's Spotlight searches (both the Spotlight menu and full searches in the Finder) generate near-instant results.

Well the speed really depends on what you're looking for and how you're looking for it.

Really, Windows 7 has the fastest feedback out of all the searches but like all search algorithms, it all depends on where the file is and how much detail the search has to consider. Windows searches have scaled in complexity (as in what you can even look for) in addition to having more places to look on average. A lot of searches you can do in Windows 7 couldn't even be done in Windows 3.1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flawed    8

like other have said idel memory is useless memory..With Win7 you don;t wast any part of your hardware whitch in turns means ever thing runs quicker.

Except that it doesn't use all your available memory. Therefore according to your logic it's wasting a part of your hardware. And superfetch doesn't preload every application into memory, so it doesn't speed up "everything" as you put it. In addition to that, It only improves the application's boot time, not the run time speeds of it. Much like an SSD would, except that an SSD reduces a greater system bottleneck - the disk IO.

XP also has a prefetcher that reduces boot and application load times. In fact superfetch is an extension of that. Of course, it still doesn't use anywhere near the amount of memory as vista/7.

the only other thing I can say about memory on any PC/OS is 8 GIG is not enough into days world...if I did this on XP (assuming xp would alowe me to do this with 8 GIG of ram the system would BSOD right away)

I doubt many computer users need 8GIG at anyone time. Just shutdown a few applications. And no, XP would behave the same as 7, in that it would use swap space to prevent the system from running of memory. However, the system will virtually grind to a halt anyway if use a lot of swap space.

if you have the resoruces... USE IT!!!

I agree. However, it's not necessary all the time. Do you use 8gig of memory like that all the time? I doubt it. Then you are wasting it according to your own logic.

BTW for people that take notice there 1.3 GIG of free physical memory left. When I tired to load F.E.A.R 2 appretnly the game takes more then 1.3 gig of memory when running>LOL

Try turning off virtual memory. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flawed    8

The arguments for Windows XP could be made for Windows 3.1

Windows 3.1

- Boots and shuts down faster

- Uses less memory

- Searches faster

You forgot:

- Has better software support/compatibility. Developers go where the users are.

- Uses less resources in general. Disk Access, Memory, CPU. So they can be allocated to the programs that need them instead of the OS itself.

- More stable/mature (less bugs).

Oh and 3.1 doesn't search faster because it doesn't index the file system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick H.    9,841

I...give up. I think I would stand a better chance of getting my dog to understand the theory of relativity than getting you to see sense. And when I think about it, it doesn't bother me. We're not trying to get you to make the right decision, we're trying to tell the OP what the best decision is for the hardware he has, and if he's got sense he'll listen to the majority and realise the best move is to stick with Windows 7.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flawed    8

I...give up. I think I would stand a better chance of getting my dog to understand the theory of relativity than getting you to see sense.

If by sense, you mean your bias, then no.

And when I think about it, it doesn't bother me. We're not trying to get you to make the right decision, we're trying to tell the OP what the best decision is for the hardware he has, and if he's got sense he'll listen to the majority and realise the best move is to stick with Windows 7.

The OP was asking about the acceptability of XP for today's computing needs. I believe XP is more than good enough for modern hardware, and I stated that. If you don't like my reasoning, then I suggest you offer a valid argument to counter it. I've seen no such argument so far, only vague and untested claims of superiority.

So in summary I recommend that the original poster installs XP SP3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
notuptome2004    156

If by sense, you mean your bias, then no.

The OP was asking about the acceptability of XP for today's computing needs. I believe XP is more than good enough for modern hardware, and I stated that. If you don't like my reasoning, then I suggest you offer a valid argument to counter it. I've seen no such argument so far, only vague and untested claims of superiority.

So in summary I recommend that the original poster installs XP SP3.

oh it is so darn good on new hardware you have to disable Hardware features just for stuff to work if you find drivers.

if you get a Core i7 running with windows XP you have to disable HT because it slows XP down big time now on windows 7 it was designed to take advantage of HT thus giving more performance alo windows XPs CPu scheduling API is 11+ years old hek windows XP had to be updated not the code base but a layer added a patch of sorts just to work with Dual core chips and HT enabled chips and then with the HT chips it did not run right it ran slower. Windows 7 uses a new CPU scheduler API witch is far more efficient when running threads and scheduling task and is far more efficient at multi-tasking .

modern graphics cards DX10-11 on windows XP you are stuck using DX9 only as DX10 and 11 are not Available for XP and dont be fooled by that crappy ass DX10 emulation hack someone made that was abandoned and not finished because it did not work out to well

run windows XP on modern hardware witch XP has no clue WTF this future hardware is at all and was not a forethought in the developers minds at the time of the creation of XP it cannot take advantage of this new hardware

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glassed Silver    940

Yes, your setup seems like a good fit for xp.

As long as your software compatibility needs are met you can't go too wrong with xp.

You should consider that the axe of end of app support is however approaching in probably 2-3 years on a wide range. I bet base support by devs will last at least as long as 2 years.

@BudMan: +infinity!

Glassed Silver:ios

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
]SK[    109

Well with the near future of XP no longer being supported (2 os revisions is about where engineers stop making compatible software for in new revisions), I would say that XP is not a feesable os to continue to deploy. There are exceptions as with anything though.

Getting a business that has 100,000 computers all running xp on a specific image that has been tested and true on xp is going to be hard to transition over. All of their apps have to be tested in the new os (a lot of their apps are legacy to begin with), fixes have to be made and put into the image for the legacy software to work (if it will work), and for some businesses this takes about a year to find and fix or determine if the new os can be put into play. Then there is the cost of 100,000 pcs being upgraded and the lost man hours to be able to upgrade them if they don't have a system in place to do a image push to the pc's.

For many companies it is extremely costly to do on a wide scale and it is why XP was a blessing, it allowed all companies to catch up to the microsoft world. But if MS keeps releasing OSes every 2 years, businesses will not be able to catch up because they will be a year behind and that is if they get apporval prior to or during R&D. I would like a 4-6 year span between major OS releases with service packs taking care of the inbetween. Hell apple is still on OSX from its original release, however there have been many revisions to the OS but they release it as a new OS when it is just a modified original (kind of like a service pack). I am all for going 64 bit and staying there for a while, but lets stay on the version of windows for a bit and release upgrades as needed.

But as far as XP being a viable OS for today, it is ok for today, but it's days are certainly numbered.

This guy said it all tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skyfrog    712

Yes, your setup seems like a good fit for xp.

As long as your software compatibility needs are met you can't go too wrong with xp.

Sorry but his setup isn't good for XP at all. With 4GB of RAM and modern hardware 7 is going to be more efficient; unless he went back to XP 64 he'd be losing RAM also. Plus he was concerned about battery life. Going back to XP is going to really hurt that as well. It would be ridiculous to put a decade old OS on a new computer.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
neo158    281

If by sense, you mean your bias, then no.

The OP was asking about the acceptability of XP for today's computing needs. I believe XP is more than good enough for modern hardware, and I stated that. If you don't like my reasoning, then I suggest you offer a valid argument to counter it. I've seen no such argument so far, only vague and untested claims of superiority.

So in summary I recommend that the original poster installs XP SP3.

I'm not going to disagree with you as XP SP3 is still viable, but only in a corporate environment. This is because, as i'm sure you are aware, businesses have budgets for IT which mean that the latest and greatest hardware and software isn't always an option. However, in OP case we are talking about a single machine.

OP has a machine that would function far better with Windows 7, simply because OP is using a C2D and XP doesn't reliably support dual core processors, remember, XP had to have Dual Core support patched into it after release. With 4GB RAM installed Windows 7 64-bit is a better option, is better supported with drivers and will allow OP to use all the available RAM without the need for PAE or Kernel Hacks. That's not even mentioning better power management built into Windows 7 as well.

I have a laptop with a Core Duo processor and 2GB RAM, what OS do you think I should be using?

  1. Windows XP
  2. Windows Vista
  3. Windows 7

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flawed    8

Sorry but his setup isn't good for XP at all. With 4GB of RAM and modern hardware 7 is going to be more efficient; unless he went back to XP 64 he'd be losing RAM also

Wrong. Heard of PAE? Besides, he can always install XP 64bit as well.

Plus he was concerned about battery life. Going back to XP is going to really hurt that as well. It would be ridiculous to put a decade old OS on a new computer.

Why would it hurt battery life? XP supports the same ACPI technologies. If anything, 7's constant disc thrashing, higher cpu usage, and additional memory operations will consume more battery life. Back to the drawing board for you then ;)

Ps. It's not a decade old. SP3 was released on April 21, 2008. That was approximately 3 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rigby    1,577

Wrong. Heard of PAE? Besides, he can always install XP 64bit as well.

PAE is a kludge and not even remotely a solution, and XP 64 is still an ancient OS that was never well supported.

Why would it hurt battery life? XP supports the same ACPI technologies. If anything, 7's constant disc thrashing, higher cpu usage, and additional memory operations will consume more battery life. Back to the drawing board for you then ;)

Ps. It's not a decade old. SP3 was released on April 21, 2008. That was approximately 3 years ago.

Once again you prove you don't know what you're talking about, then you lie about Windows 7's performance once again. You're computer must be a piece of crap if you are having any of those problems, but I think it's more likely you just want to spread FUD. Most of us are using Windows Vista or 7 at this point so your lies are going to be pretty obvious.

Yes XP is a decade old. Service packs do not make it a newer OS.

I'm not sure why I'm even replying to you at this point because you're either a troll or an ignorant bull-headed luddite.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flawed    8

OP has a machine that would function far better with Windows 7, simply because OP is using a C2D and XP doesn't reliably support dual core processors, remember, XP had to have Dual Core support patched into it after release.

XP works just as well with dual core processors as Windows 7 as far as I can tell. But if you have any evidence to the contrary, then I'd be more than willing to take a look at it.

With 4GB RAM installed Windows 7 64-bit is a better option, is better supported with drivers and will allow OP to use all the available RAM without the need for PAE or Kernel Hacks. That's not even mentioning better power management built into Windows 7 as well.

PAE isn't a kernel hack, it's built directly into the processors (CPU's) themselves. It was first introduced into the Pentium Pro line in 1995, so it's a very mature technology. It's also widely supported on most OS's including Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, MAC OS, and Solaris.

I have a laptop with a Core Duo processor and 2GB RAM, what OS do you think I should be using?

  1. Windows XP
  2. Windows Vista
  3. Windows 7

I have a machine with a Core 2 Duo CPU, and 2GB of ram, upon which I run Ubuntu 10.10 and XP SP3 in a dual boot configuration. To answer your question, You could run any of them you like, or all of them if you so wish in triple boot mode. However, in terms of efficiency, XP is superior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rudy    457

One thing I keep seeing in this debate is "search".... is it something you guys really use that often? :blink:

I've personally never used it :/ I know exactly where my files are, it's not that complicated if your files are somewhat organized (and believe me I have LOTS of files, I even kept my programming exercises from university :blush:).

XP search is slow.... but who cares?

Vista and 7 have a much faster search...

OSX had instant search since Tiger with Spotlight....I used it once after I installed Tiger to check it out....then I've used it a few times to calculate stuff hahahah (since you can give it formulas to pass on to the calculator app :p)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Flawed    8

PAE is a kludge and not even remotely a solution, and XP 64 is still an ancient OS that was never well supported.

PAE was invented and introduced into CPU lines long before XP was even written. Kludge? No. Unless you wish to label things such as SSE or virtualisation kludges too.

then you lie about Windows 7's performance once again

I use windows 7 on almost a daily basis, so I can assure you that my critique is genuine and earnest.

You're computer must be a piece of crap if you are having any of those problems, but I think it's more likely you just want to spread FUD. Most of us are using Windows Vista or 7 at this point so your lies are going to be pretty obvious.

The aforementioned problems with 7 and Vista are ubiquitous. Superfetch tries to compensate for the poor performance by caching certain things. This gives the perception that applications are running faster, but that's simply not true. A few select applications might initially boot faster, but their runtime performance is generally on par or slower than XP.

Yes XP is a decade old. Service packs do not make it a newer OS.

What is a new version of Windows or any other software for that matter if not a series of patches (service packs) over time? SP2 and SP3 both added additional features to XP, not just bug fixing. The Windows code base itself, and yes, including Windows 7, is two decades old. So I suppose you could say Windows 7 is two decades old if you follow your logic to its natural conclusion.

I'm not sure why I'm even replying to you at this point because you're either a troll or an ignorant bull-headed luddite.

Nice manners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
neo158    281
XP works just as well with dual core processors as Windows 7 as far as I can tell. But if you have any evidence to the contrary, then I'd be more than willing to take a look at it.

As far as I can remember XP didn't have support for dual core processors built in, it's something that had to be patched in later. Windows XP Multi Core Config, might not be the most reliable source but it does link to the patches required by both Intel and AMD multi-core processors.

PAE isn't a kernel hack, it's built directly into the processors (CPU's) themselves. It was first introduced into the Pentium Pro line in 1995, so it's a very mature technology. It's also widely supported on most OS's including Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, MAC OS, and Solaris.

If you read my post again I stated "PAE or Kernel Hacks", not "PAE is a Kernel Hack".

I have a machine with a Core 2 Duo CPU, and 2GB of ram, upon which I run Ubuntu 10.10 and XP SP3 in a dual boot configuration. To answer your question, You could run any of them you like, or all of them if you so wish in triple boot mode. However, in terms of efficiency, XP is superior.

Well the machine in question is running Windows 7 Ultimate x86 with no disk thrashing, high CPU usage or additional memory operations. Granted though I dual boot with Ubuntu 10.04, which seems to be lighter on resources although not so you'd notice. However, don't state opinion as fact.

In terms of battery life i'll have to wait for the new battery to arrive before I can see if you're right about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.