Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 11th Jun 2010 21:56 UTC
Windows Yes, the day is finally drawing closer: the day Windows XP died. October 22, 2010 will be the final and definitive day for the venerable operating system, since OEMs will no longer be able to pre-load it on netbooks after that day. I might not make myself popular around here with this, but thank god, it's about time that pile of junk is taken behind the shed.
Thread beginning with comment 429770
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: XP64 == XP
by Verunks on Fri 11th Jun 2010 23:47 UTC in reply to "XP64 == XP"
Verunks
Member since:
2007-04-02

xp 64 just uses a different kernel, but it doesn't mean much though, the overall experience and feeling is still the same, and like Thom I'm happy that xp will finaly die.

Despite what people claims windows 7(and vista too) is much faster than xp, aero makes the ui snappier and not slower since it uses the gpu instead of the cpu to manage the windows(try to fastly move a window with areo turned on and off and see the difference in cpu usage, here it's 15% vs 80%)

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by vodoomoth on Sat 12th Jun 2010 00:02 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


Despite what people claims windows 7(and vista too) is much faster than xp, aero makes the ui snappier and not slower since it uses the gpu instead of the cpu to manage the windows(try to fastly move a window with areo turned on and off and see the difference in cpu usage, here it's 15% vs 80%)


Nobody sane can ever say that Vista is faster than XP. Nobody can speak such a blatant lie. Otherwise, they've had NO encounter with Vista.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: XP64 == XP
by nt_jerkface on Sat 12th Jun 2010 19:46 in reply to "RE[2]: XP64 == XP"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Maybe you haven't had an encounter with Vista since SP1.


Oddly enough, Vista SP1 felt more responsive [than XP SP2]to user inputs such as opening applications and saving fileswhile the tasks were being performed (we tried this out on separate runs).Problem is that its darn hard to measure this end responsiveness without relying more on synthetic benchmarks.

My experience is the same. In fact, it appears that Vistas designers have made a conscious choice to favor smooth, consistent performance over raw speed.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/another-take-on-vista-vs-xp-benchmar...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by phoenix on Sat 12th Jun 2010 00:07 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

xp 64 just uses a different kernel, but it doesn't mean much though, the overall experience and feeling is still the same, and like Thom I'm happy that xp will finaly die.


Didn't really mention it in the main comment, but this was more about the differences in updates, features, what's running after a boot, etc. XP64 is just an XP GUI on top of the 2003 server, so the services running after boot are different.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by mkools on Sat 12th Jun 2010 09:57 in reply to "RE: XP64 == XP"
mkools Member since:
2005-10-11

XP64 is almost the same as Windows 2003 x64. I ran it for a couple of years, some software even detects XP64 as being Windows 2003 x64. That's why SP3 for XP64 never came, because it didn't came for Windows 2003 as well.

Further more, XP64 was never very popular. It lacked driver support and most people ignored it except people like me and others that wanted to run 64-bit, so you really can't compare XP64 to Windows XP SP3 x86.

I like Windows 2003, I think it's a great OS but if you're going to compare XP with Vista/Windows 7 you might want to install the real XP next time and not Windows 2003 server with an XP GUI.

The part where you say: It's already at the desktop and the harddrive is still busy for 5 minutes, I know that feeling. I still run XP and have that too but the same thing can happen to Windows 7. It just depends on the amount of programs you have installed and run at boot-time.

Reply Parent Score: 2