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 429878
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: XP64 == XP
by nt_jerkface on Sat 12th Jun 2010 19:46 UTC 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

RE[5]: XP64 == XP
by Gone fishing on Sun 13th Jun 2010 06:49 in reply to "RE[4]: XP64 == XP"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

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


seriously nt_jerkface how can we take anything you write seriously when you insist on claiming that Vista is fast responsive and the best OS ever with the possible exception of Win 7.

I use Vista (with service packs) every day and I can say without doubt it is utterly vile. It is possible that it is 0.01 seconds faster opening office than XP. However, this doesn't make up for the 40 plus seconds that it takes to wake up after you've made the mistake of going for a cup of coffee, or the horrendous print management, or the minute plus it takes to find anything on the network, or why it refuses to remember network login passwords, or the 10 plus seconds it takes to get a usable desktop, or why parts of the control panel take ages to wake up or the ....

Maybe next week I'll make a log of all the ways Vista pissed me off.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: XP64 == XP
by nt_jerkface on Sun 13th Jun 2010 07:17 in reply to "RE[4]: XP64 == XP"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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?


Vista has a bad reputation from being released too early. It had problems that needed to be fixed and it was also installed on a lot of machines that only had 512 mb of RAM. MS should have required 1 gig.

General responsiveness is a somewhat subjective matter and I've read mixed opinions when it comes to XP and Vista. XP is certainly faster than Vista on low end machines while I have read accounts of Vista being faster on quad core desktops.

As for your situation I would try turning off the animations in Vista if it seems slow. On some laptops Vista is more responsive with Aero turned off. The other thing with Vista/7 on laptops is that they should have 2 gigs of RAM, if not 3.

Reply Parent Score: 2