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 429887
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: XP64 == XP
by vodoomoth on Sat 12th Jun 2010 21:41 UTC 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[6]: XP64 == XP
by nt_jerkface on Sun 13th Jun 2010 08:34 in reply to "RE[5]: XP64 == XP"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


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've never claimed any OS as the best ever so please don't make stuff up.

I use XP, Vista and 7 all the time and I wouldn't describe one as being far ahead of the others when it comes to speed. They are all plenty fast on new hardware. Various benchmarks around the web show this.

As for your office computer rant that really isn't a fair way of judging an operating system. Wake times and network issues can be caused by a variety of factors. You should test clean installs on the same hardware. I've done it and while I found 7 to be better than Vista the difference is nowhere near what tech hipsters would claim.

In the real world the only complaint about Vista I heard was that it was hard to find things compared to XP, which was really an issue of familiarity. XP has scattered config menus around the system and they tried to clean that up a bit in Vista/7.

I've also never suggested upgrading to Vista or 7 from XP for speed reasons. My position is that XP should be ditched for the security additions in Vista/7.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

RE[6]: XP64 == XP
by vodoomoth on Sun 13th Jun 2010 12:12 in reply to "RE[5]: XP64 == XP"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


XP is certainly faster than Vista on low end machines while I have read accounts of Vista being faster on quad core desktops.

Seems like someone said previously that XP doesn't use multicores. Would it be the explanation?

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.

Turning these and Aero is the first thing I did on Vista. I've also stopped the indexer service.

Reply Parent Score: 1