Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 21:17 UTC, submitted by Research Staff
Benchmarks "After a disappointing showing by Windows Vista SP1, we were pleasantly surprised to discover that Windows XP Service Pack 3 (v.3244) delivers a measurable performance boost to this aging desktop OS. Testing with OfficeBench showed a ~10% performance boost vs. the same configuration running under Windows XP with Service Pack 2."
Order by: Score:
wow..
by helf on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 21:42 UTC
helf
Member since:
2005-07-06

I actually was not expecting this at all. Can't wait till it goes gold. I don't plan on upgrading to Vista (can't on most of my machines, yay! ;) ) since XP works well enough.

Reply Score: 6

XP support must be extended
by dmrio on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 21:45 UTC
dmrio
Member since:
2005-08-26

Now no one that haven't upgraded yet will upgrade.

Reply Score: 3

RE: XP support must be extended
by MollyC on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 23:44 UTC in reply to "XP support must be extended"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

XP's "mainstream support" is scheduled to end 4/14/2009, and its "extended support" is scheduled to end 4/08/2014.
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&C2=1173&x=5&y=2

The definitions of "mainstream" and "extended" support are given here:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/

If I read that correctly, "extended" support services aren't free except for security updates. Even so, 7+ year mainstream support and 12+ year extended support for a particular OS would is very long (maybe the longest in history for a desktop OS).

As for XP SP3, I'd read that it was simply the accumulation of all of the previously released security updates and bug fixes that had have been available via Windows Update. Am I to assume from this article that this was that false?

Edited 2007-11-23 23:45

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: XP support must be extended
by kaiwai on Sat 24th Nov 2007 03:41 UTC in reply to "RE: XP support must be extended"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

As for XP SP3, I'd read that it was simply the accumulation of all of the previously released security updates and bug fixes that had have been available via Windows Update. Am I to assume from this article that this was that false?


Service packs are more than just accumulated fixes, it also includes 'premium fixes' which enterprise customers pay for. Lets say I have a problem, its very unique, I ring up and under my super-duper support plan which costs an arm and a leg, Microsoft will get a guy to resolve it - then issue a patch for it.

Sun has the same thing; its like saying the quartly update is merely a 'culmination of updates' when in reality, it is a culmination of public updates, premium customer upates and upgrades of some components.

Back on topic, I think the issue that is raise; how come, in a 5 year old operating system, they can still squeeze out performance improvements when compared to Windows Vista which you'd think, should have heaps of room to improve the speed.

When 10.5.1 came out, boot times decreased, some things felt snappier. I loaded up Fedora 8 and compared to Fedora 7, it was snappier on the same hardware. Windows XP SP3 has now been 'benchmarked' to being snappier. Why is Windows Vista the 'odd one out'?

Reply Score: 4

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"When 10.5.1 came out, boot times decreased, some things felt snappier. I loaded up Fedora 8 and compared to Fedora 7, it was snappier on the same hardware. Windows XP SP3 has now been 'benchmarked' to being snappier. Why is Windows Vista the 'odd one out'?"

It sounds like you have an answer in mind. Care to tell us?

I think the answer is that Vista has a much higher percentage of new code than is the case in the examples you gave. Now, the change from XP to Vista is not nearly as drastic as the change from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X, but even so, it should be noted that the latter transition did result in an OS that was much slower relative to its predecessor than Vista is relative to its predecessor. The reason OSX 10.0 was so slow was that all of that new code hadn't been optimized yet. The OSX releases since have added features, but also tweaked the existing code, so optimizations have been added over the years, which why it gets faster over time (yet Apple doesn't allow 10.5 to be installed on lower-end PPC macs, so it's questionable whether 10.5 is "fast" on such computers, and I do know that many did find 10.4 to be slower than 10.3).

Same for XP SP3 (according to what you've posted), SP3 contains performance increases that have been added over the years (for enterprise customers), which might result in XP SP3 being faster than XP SP2 and before.

Vista's been out less than a year, so it hasn't had time for lots of optimizations to be added to the code base. Yet its Windows Updates have already made it faster than it was when it was released. Let Vista get a chance to add performance enhancements over the next few years like OSX and XP have had.

So that's my answer - Vista has lots of new code that hasn't had years and years to be optimized yet.


Now, I realize that the answer offered by many Microsoft bashers is either that DRM is run all over the place (our own PlatformAgnostic, who now works at Microsoft on the Windows Kernel Test Team says that's bull), or simply that Microsoft programmers are incompetent (which I find laughable; their programmers come from the same universities as does Apple, Red Hat, etc).

But I am curious as to what reason you would offer as to "Why is Windows Vista the 'odd one out'?" I gather from the tone of your post that you have an answer in mind.

Edited 2007-11-24 04:28

Reply Score: 4

Luposian Member since:
2005-07-27

"So that's my answer - Vista has lots of new code that hasn't had years and years to be optimized yet."

It's just been *5 years* in the making, that's all... *HARDLY* enough time to actually OPTIMIZE anything, before shipping it to Microsoft's adoring public!

Seriously, you'd think with ALL the money Bill Gates/Microsoft has, they could put out a decent sequel to XP, not only in LESS time than 5 yrs., but also something that runs BETTER than XP, not worse!

Apparently the only thing Microsoft is good at is copying looks, not performance. :-)

Apple knows what they're doing and where they're going. Is it any wonder why Microsoft's motto was:

"Where do you want to go today?"

Because they never knew where THEY were going, so they were hoping someone else did and they'd simply hitch a free ride!

Obviously, they can't even do THAT right! :-)

Reply Score: 2

blitze Member since:
2006-09-15

Do take into account L that MS had to scratch their intial code base for Vista and start again mid stream during that 5 year period.

Vista mightn't be all that great but it's an improvement on XP and has one feature that makes it a great improvement, decent account management along the lines of OS-X and Linux. I can now have my users configed as users and an Admin Account and have decent priveledge escallation that I have taken forgranted in all Unix based OS's. This is a great step forward on the Windows Desktop that will help administrators.

XP only has "run as" as an option if you right click the program you want to run or you have to make a shortcut to any installer to get the "run as" dialogue to then install software as an administrator. This has been a real pain in the ass for those of us administering locked down systems.

If you are someone who doesn't give a toss about OS security and don't care about the issues that running full time as an administrator brings, then XP would be fine for you, but in the real world....

Remember this isn't UAC that I'm talking about but actually telling Vista to have users with user priveledges and then having a proper Admin account for system management that isn't logged into.

UAC is MS being a timid POS company in enforcing what is needed in Windows for proper, secure user management. Hopefully, MS will grow the balls to piss of UAC and have proper secure user management in Win2008

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The issue isn't the lack of 'big improvements' but even *little* improvements. I mean, sure, within 12 months, I don't expect Windows Vista to have a massive leap forward but when Microsoft developers have had over 12 months to tune and optimise Windows Vista - I'm asking, what the heck is happening? I'd expect at least *some* sort of improvement. The fact is, Windows Vista Service Pack 1 benchmark showed *NO* improvement. Not even a small a improvement.

Why compare it to Windows XP? One would assume that by the time Windows XP SP3 had rolled around (5 years of development plus several patches), they had optimised almost everything they could possibly optimise without causing major compatibility issues. Yet, even with all this work, they could still optimise it further.

As for UAC, I doubt it'll happen. I'd love to see Windows become a better platform. It benefits me as an end user knowing that the internet is safe from having millions of drones out there spamming. The issue is that Microsoft has no balls. When it comes to making big decisions, it appears that Apple has been the only one in the last decade who said, "f--k it, our operating system stinks to high heaven, lets break with the past and replace it with something better" - and so they did.

Here we are, after 3-4 years of initial pain and suffering, all the better for it. I'm now got a laptop which multitasks smoothly, the performance is light years ahead of when I first used Mac OS 9 with one of the first iMacs released. Yes, there was pain, there was suffering, but in the end, it was worth it. Now we see Mac OS X go from strength to strength.

Mac OS X has gone from being a cute 'joke' to being a robust UNIX '03 certified distribution with all the perks of a rock solid foundation and a beautiful GUI sitting on top.

Personally, I'd love to see Microsoft drop Windows NT, the whole damn line - adopt OpenSolaris as the core, and build upon it. They have some bloody smart people there at Microsoft, its too bad that internal politics rather than technology, make the decisions. If it were left to technology, we wouldn't have the half baked compromise that is UAC, for example.

Reply Score: 1

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Microsoft has "no balls" because they didn't completely throw away their old OS like Apple did?

Bullhockey.

1. Microsoft already did break away from their old OS, those old OSes being Win3x and Win9x. Apple took years longer to do that, and finally proved incompetent to do it. You think it was "balls" that made Apple throw away backwards compatibility? No, it wasn't some grand vision, they would've loved to be backwards compatible, but they tried and failed. It had nothing to do with "balls".

2. Apple has 1/10th the user base that Microsoft has (and probably only 1/50th the business userbase), and so can afford to piss its userbase off.

Although do note that Apple's frequent radical platform changes have pissed its developers off, resulting in less software. Not that Apple minds much, since A. their dream is for Mac users to run only Apple software anyway; and B. Apple's most recent platform change finally, at long last, succeeded in locking the big name Mac developers into using Apple's dev tools since those tools are required to make universal binaries.

3. Microsoft has "no balls"? Good gravy, they redid the entire Office UI, which took "balls". They did what you recommend, they said "f--k it, our UI is way overburdened, let's start from scratch", so you're totally wrong to say they don't have "the balls" to make changes when needed. And those Office UI changes are making lots of people that can't stand change piss and moan. Yet now you say they should have "the balls" to piss off their users even more by, for example, building on OpenSolaris, which would buy them nothing? Office shows that Microsoft has "the balls" to make changes when needed, but that doesn't mean they should make changes for no reason at all, and NT is just fine.

Speaking of OpenSolaris, I know you're a big Solaris fan, you've pimped it many times before. But there is no evidence that Solaris (or any *nix) is superior to NT as a base on which to build.


Having said all of that, I'll just add that in my experience, XP is way faster than Panther on similar hardware. So XP also being faster than Vista says nothing wrt Vista vs OS X. It could be that XP is faster than both. If someone wants to trash Vista's speed by comparing it with XP's, that's one thing, but I now see you and others claiming that OSX would blow Vista away too. Maybe someone should do a test regarding that. And in your case, let someone do performance tests on Vista vs Solaris. ;)

Actually, Deviate_X did post in this thread a Vista vs OSX comparison running on the exact same hardware.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18965&comment_id=286451
But Vista "won", so the comparison was dismissed. Seems people only approve of comparisons with results that jive with their preconceived notions.

Let Steve Jobs do his famous Photoshop benchmarks (the ones that "proved" every year that PPC processors blew away Intel processors (yeah, right)) with Vista and Leopard.

Edited 2007-11-24 17:34

Reply Score: 2

meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

Personally, I'd love to see Microsoft drop Windows NT, the whole damn line - adopt OpenSolaris as the core, and build upon it.


-1 (discussion-wise, evidently not mod points)

(Open)Solaris is optimized for throughput, not latency. It's a great kernel, but still needs to go a long way to really fulfil the requirements of a desktop OS.

They have some bloody smart people there at Microsoft, its too bad that internal politics rather than technology, make the decisions. If it were left to technology, we wouldn't have the half baked compromise that is UAC, for example.


+1.

Reply Score: 2

Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

Actually despite all the hype, Vista still runs faster than Apple OS X: http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/2007/01/running_vista_o.html

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Ah yes, the very 'subjective' 'oooh, it loads xyz faster'. Dear god, tell me another one. I moved from Tiger to Leopard; I saw no speed loss what so ever, I had Pages load in in a couple of bounces, I have iTunes load immediately, I have Firefox load almost instantly.

Then his article goes into gushy crap such as:

"Vista a greater “depth” than OS X, which looks a little flat and well… old fashioned in comparison. I know this is because Vista’s new and novel, but it makes OS X look dated."

Please, that reminds me of the idiot who claim that the $7250 speaker cables he wasted his money on ( http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/speaker-cables/7250-speaker-cables-turn-... ) were:

"... way better than anything I have heard...Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace--these cables smack that right on the nose big time."

Edited 2007-11-24 12:32

Reply Score: 2

meianoite Member since:
2006-04-05

Ah yes, the very 'subjective' 'oooh, it loads xyz faster'. Dear god, tell me another one. I moved from Tiger to Leopard; I saw no speed loss what so ever, I had Pages load in in a couple of bounces, I have iTunes load immediately, I have Firefox load almost instantly.


+1.

Considering how Vista is running on a much faster rig than the Leopard laptop I saw the other day... There's no way, *no way* Vista runs faster than Leopard given the same HW specs.

(At least not until Apple bundles 3rd-gen DX10 video cards and DDR3 and whatnot. I'm talking about present day, present time (MWAHAHAHA!! (yeah, I'm a Serial Experiments Lain fan.))

And what the hell is Vista doing late at night when it fills up a 4GB+ file on the system-wide $TMP folder? Really makes my head scratch. And may I add, the I/O schedulers in Vista seem a little broken, because even given the promise of the I/O in background tasks not interfering with the I/O in foreground tasks, that doesn't match my experience at all.

Reply Score: 2

John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

I could give you an unlimited supply of money and you still wouldn't be able to release an entire operating system developed in five years that would meet your expectations.

There are only so many developers in the world capable of producing something worth the money. And even if you could hire a few thousand of them the communication overhead and learning time would easily eat those five years.

Reply Score: 2

SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

Your use of "So that's my answer - Vista has lots of new code that hasn't had years and years to be optimized yet.
" is wrong. If you install XP without Service packs and updates it's at it's fastest and the only thing that has got better is security and less bugs.

Microsoft dont give a crap about users but they love their business buddies to make office apps faster in Service Packs. Vista needed new code badly regardless and this is what you get when you dont update your OS so frequently. On OS X they dont need to overhaul the OS like Vista because it was not left to rot in the first place.

Reply Score: 2

Very nice :)
by WereCatf on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 21:53 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I am mostly a Linux geek but I still do use Win XP for gaming. Still, I'm glad for all those users who use Win XP as their main OS. It's always good news for everyone if Win XP gets better. As for Vista.. Well, I can't say I personally know anyone who'd think Vista is better than XP ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Very nice :)
by google_ninja on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 23:26 UTC in reply to "Very nice :)"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Vista is the first version of windows I don't find to be a raging pile.

But thats just me, and I'm willing to admit I got a non-standard experience.

Reply Score: 7

Shooting themselves in the foot?
by virman on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 21:54 UTC
virman
Member since:
2007-11-23

One can't help but wonder if it benefits Microsoft to give consumers yet another reason to stick with XP?

Reply Score: 3

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

One can't help but wonder if it benefits Microsoft to give consumers yet another reason to stick with XP?


Speaking from experience, XP 10% faster than normal still isn't enough to catch up with Vista's speed.

Reply Score: 1

virman Member since:
2007-11-23

Speaking from experience, XP 10% faster than normal still isn't enough to catch up with Vista's speed.

I don't think dreams qualify as experience.

Reply Score: 21

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

I don't think dreams qualify as experience.


And I don't think bloggers qualify as "Research staff."

There, we're even.

Reply Score: 11

linumax Member since:
2007-02-07

"I don't think dreams qualify as experience."

They do, depending on who you are...
One's experience:
http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/5367/gellert.jpg

Could quite easily be another one's dream:
http://www.hobotraveler.com/uploaded_images/207-91-african-beads-74...

Almafeta had a good experience with Vista, which might be a dream to many.

Almafeta's post was initially voted down, now, it was not offtopic, nothing implied personal attacks or offensive language and it definitely did not include spam/advertisement. I would really love to know what was the reason.

Now mod me as offtopic (probably rightfully) ;)

Reply Score: 4

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Its funny, I had to install XP on my laptop a little while ago. I found XP booted about twice as fast (~30sec vs ~1min), BUT for whatever reason, it took another 30 seconds or so until I was able to connect to the internet. With vista, it connects to my wireless pretty much by the time I see the desktop.

Reply Score: 4

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I found XP booted about twice as fast (~30sec vs ~1min), BUT for whatever reason, it took another 30 seconds or so until I was able to connect to the internet.


XP displays the desktop well before it has finished actually booting. It won't be for some time after the desktop appears that you can actually do anything useful.

This is done so that in "boot performance" tests XP would get a better mark than it actually has if you catch the meaning.

I don't know what the story is with Vista in this regard.

Mind you ... even KDE shows a desktop a few seconds before all of the desktop services have finished starting up, so XP is by no means unique here.

Edited 2007-11-26 04:27

Reply Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Almafeta wrote:
-"Speaking from experience, XP 10% faster than normal still isn't enough to catch up with Vista's speed."

in what areas does Vista performance exceed XP? the benchmarks I've seen have all points to the reverse, starting with the one I read from tomshardware almost a year ago: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

so I'm wondering have you actually measured anything or is this just your 'experience' talking? personally I'll take a tech blog which provides data and the actual benchmark program used to gather that data up for scrutiny, over someone who quotes nothing but their subjective 'experience'.

back on the subject, the measured ~10% boost applies to a very specific test concerning some very specific windows technologies. I very much doubt we'll be seeing anything near an overall ~10% speed boost from xpsp3, I sure as hell wouldn't mind being wrong though ;)

Reply Score: 5

simo Member since:
2006-01-09

do you mean vista on that new 3gb quad core machine you've had to buy is faster than xp on your "old" pentium4, yeah as that's a fair comparison.

i've not come across a single fan of vista out of all the people i know who have bought a pc with it on recently - some have switched to linux, others have acquired xp, one even sent his vaio back and got a mac - they'd all laugh if you said vista was faster.

Edited 2007-11-25 10:51

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

My ex gf too bought a new computer with Vista preloaded. She was impressed that it looked so good. But then after playing around with it for a few hours I got a phone call from her: "I want XP!" Why? Because it was so darn slow, even compared to her OLD machine! She even said that installing Sims 2 took an hour :O Anyway, I guided her through installing XP and after all was finished she was more than happy. She did say that now it feels like a new machine ;)

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Speaking from experience, XP 10% faster than normal still isn't enough to catch up with Vista's speed.


Microsoft Windows XP SP3 - Twice as fast as Vista SP1?
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/11/25/microsoft-windo...

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...
According to the Office performance benchmarks, Windows XP SP3 is also considerably faster than Vista SP1.


Other people are honestly having a somewhat different Windows experience than you, Almafeta.

Reply Score: 3

whittmadden Member since:
2007-10-08

Well if they keep getting so many bad reviews of Vista, they do what they can to keep you from switching to OSX or linux. A person using XP SP3 is much better than something switching to linux or OSX in their opinion. They are still keeping their userbase.

Reply Score: 2

cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

"Well if they keep getting so many bad reviews of Vista, they do what they can to keep you from switching to OSX or linux. A person using XP SP3 is much better than something switching to linux or OSX in their opinion. They are still keeping their userbase."

You're assuming that Microsoft plays by the rules. Upon hearing the news of XP SP-3's performance gains over XP SP-2, Microsoft will likely issue orders to its engineers to "cripple" the service pack in such a way that it either breaks a key XP feature (or compatibility with some key software, etc.) That might force those users smart enough to stick with XP to make the jump to Vista just to regain the lost functionality or overcome the loss of performance, or else stick with SP-2, which is getting long in the tooth. This sort of nonsense has already been done by Microsoft. Cases in point: Microsoft purposely kept IE7 from Windows 2000 users (even though the beta worked fine on that platform) and it has kept Direct X 10 from XP users. Microsoft has lost their edge with Vista and lets hope they continue to slide into obsolescence.

Reply Score: 2

Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

I like a good conspiracy like the next tin foilhat wearer but I dont think it would be in Microsofts interests to make a platform even worse than it already is.

I agree they have pulled some pretty dodgy stuff even just making a game Vista DX10 only when with a few hacks it runs fine on DX9 on XP ... but I think the last thing MS wants (especially with all this attention on them) is even more bad publicity.

Expect more features to be Vista only... but they have already ported a lot of Vista back to XP that was never intended.

Reply Score: 1

cg0def Member since:
2006-02-12

"One can't help but wonder if it benefits Microsoft to give consumers yet another reason to stick with XP?"

Well it's not regular users that SP3 is targeting. Regular users don't really have a choice since Vista has been the default version for the last year. SP3 is targeted at all those corporations that are still refusing to buy into the FUD that Vista is better ( and there are quite a few of them out there ). Those are companies that know very well that switching the OS to a new version that hardly provides any real benefits ( other than better media experience and DirectX 10 ) would cost them a significant amount of money it training and support. Plus those are the customers that MS really makes it's money from. If you try to buy a business computer from any major VAR you will see that XP is still an option. However this is not the case with the consumer devices. And as far as corporations are concerned MS's image right now is pretty low. Besides ME, there hasn't been another version of Windows that offered so little for the business users and yet was not a service pack ... Oh and before you start arguing that there are better management tools in Vista consider that fact that there isn't a single decent size IT department that doesn't have 3rd party tools with similar ( if not better ) functionality.

So SP3 does make perfect sense even if you look at it only from the marketing perspective. MS needs to convince big business that they are serious about supporting their products.

Reply Score: 2

But...
by whittmadden on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 22:10 UTC
whittmadden
Member since:
2007-10-08

Will this create another Service Pack implementation headache, like the SP 2 did? Also was the comment at the end of this article completely necessary? Windows Vista = Windows ME "Reloaded?" You be the judge! I guess since this is just a blog site, it is acceptable, but the poster of this article seems already biased to me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: But...
by eggs on Mon 26th Nov 2007 22:10 UTC in reply to "But..."
eggs Member since:
2006-01-23

Yeah... has everyone forgotten what Windows ME was like? It was literally worse and less stable than Windows 95. I use Vista on 2 computers and it doesn't crash. Its not significantly better than XP although there are some little usability tweaks I like (and some I don't). Overall I like it, but I hated ME (and all the other 9x's).

Reply Score: 1

RE: But...
by Phloptical on Tue 27th Nov 2007 23:51 UTC in reply to "But..."
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

Windows Vista = Windows ME "Reloaded"

Analogous because it's a pointless upgrade. Any future MS OS that is released simply for the sake of doing so will be forever compared to Windows ME.

Reply Score: 1

Best OS.
by mkools on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 22:12 UTC
mkools
Member since:
2005-10-11

I think XP is still the best OS out there and it even gets better. Nothing againts Linux, I use it myself, but XP rocks. You won't see me going to Vista in the next couple of years

Reply Score: 3

v RE: Best OS.
by Matt24 on Sat 24th Nov 2007 08:40 UTC in reply to "Best OS."
RE[2]: Best OS.
by Lobotomik on Sat 24th Nov 2007 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Best OS."
Lobotomik Member since:
2006-01-03

?????

What's your problem with the Czechs and Skoda? Let me guess, you are living in Arkansas and you're driving the latest Oldsmobile, with a bible and some guns in the trunk, for good measure.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[3]: Best OS.
by Matt24 on Sat 24th Nov 2007 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Best OS."
v RE[4]: Best OS.
by tomcat on Sat 24th Nov 2007 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Best OS."
Same outdated platform
by DonQ on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 22:38 UTC
DonQ
Member since:
2005-06-29

Although Vista is usually slower, they should have compare speed on system with 2GB o'ram - Vista struggles with one lonely gigbayte ;)
Looking at DDR2 price there's no reason to buy system with 1GB or less memory. 2GB DDR2 laptop memory for 45 euros...

About XP update - nice, but I don't think it will work 10% faster on my PC, optimized for XP speed anyway ;) Let's wait.

@WereCatf
I know people, liking Vista much more than XP - my daughter for example ;) And she's using it without a problem.

Reply Score: 3

re
by netpython on Sat 24th Nov 2007 09:50 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

I would like to see how well XP performs at the benchmark without any servicepack installed.

Where's now the so called big bag of salt on the desk?

Edited 2007-11-24 09:51

Reply Score: 3

bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

If WinXP SP3 actually has fewer security holes than the current SP2 + security updates, that's great. If it has a performance increase of any kind, that's even better.

OfficeBench wouldn't seem to really tell most of us a lot about what we could expect, could it?

As with most things Microsoft, I'm happy to have an update that doesn't leave me worse off than I was prior to applying it. (That goes for Apple, also, but they're somewhat more reliable.)

By the way, to the people who think that Mac OS X is or was slower than Mac OS 9, it wasn't slower overall. GUI responsiveness is the only real place where Mac OS 9 had any advatange. Run 3 or more applications and it's obvious which is faster.

Reply Score: 1

vista not slow?
by pixel8r on Mon 26th Nov 2007 02:57 UTC
pixel8r
Member since:
2007-08-11

but have you tried it with 999999 gazillion gigs of RAM?

seriously, give it a break. My linux desktop is likely still quicker than your vista with 2G RAM and my system only has 512MB. At any given time most of that 512MB is just used for a cache. The swap has been written to about 2 or 3 times in the last 6 months. Sure I dont do video editing but even if I did, 1GB would be plenty.

I dont care how cheap RAM is, it still means I have to buy more than I currently have, to run a system that does no more than what I currently have (actually - it does LESS).

But then I dont use winxp much...so it looks like a change from linux to windows is a lot more unlikely than the other way around. ;)

Reply Score: 2