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 429773
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: XP64 == XP
by vodoomoth on Sat 12th Jun 2010 00:02 UTC 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[4]: XP64 == XP
by vodoomoth on Sat 12th Jun 2010 21:41 in reply to "RE[3]: XP64 == XP"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30

Sorry, but the experience I have daily with the configs I've described in a previous comment has more value than benchmarks of file copying or zipping. Even more when the benchmarkers themselves say

Ultimately, the act of benchmarking file copy operations is distinctly unnatural.

And that is what's being dealt with: the user experience, not the conscious design decisions made by people who "chose to favor smooth consistent performance over raw speed". Even the sentence does not feel normal.

I have a more responsive XP on an 7-year old laptop than a Vista SP1 on a 2-year old laptop. It's in the light of this that I said it's impossible to find that Vista is faster than XP. Why would it have garnered such a bad reputation of slowness?

Reply Parent Score: 1