Windows XP SP3. Much better than Vista SP1

By Borimol
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Miuku.

Posted
Posted
Anyway...I decided to do that anyway, I am on a wireless G network at home, fired up a Dell machine downstairs and logged onto its network share folder and went back a folder so the share folder is still there.

I said "Map the network drive", not browse a share.

Not what I'd call "choking" since there are 3 more cores left for explorer to use for gaming/video playback/photoshop etc etc so no slowdown.

25% of your machines resources are dedicated to "I wonder if that network drive is still there" and that's OK? Get a grip.

Grand Master

Robbie Khan Reviews

Posted
  • Reviews
Posted
I said "Map the network drive", not browse a share.

25% of your machines resources are dedicated to "I wonder if that network drive is still there" and that's OK? Get a grip.

If you notice the 25% was in use before I clicked "back" I had some other apps running in the BG too.

You obviously don't have multicore system so don't know how this works, maxing one core makes no performance difference in Vista.

Mapping a network drive has the same effect as in my video except the error message saying network location not found comes up sooner.

It would appear the bulk of Vista nay sayers are people who just don't have decent hardware....oh well no wonder.

Grand Master

Rudy

Posted
Posted

Im sick of hearing people blaming the drivers and hardware instead of Vista,s own faults. My computer gets a rating of 5.5 and all my drivers are always updated and I still had problems with it.

XP is now a solid OS - maybe not as solid as Win 2K Pro, or 98SE - but those are pretty seasoned - Vista would be "decent" by SP2 - then it will be time to bash how crappy Venice is !

you lost any credibility with that comment (Win2k yes but not 98)

Grand Master

Miuku.

Posted
Posted
You obviously don't have multicore system so don't know how this works, maxing one core makes no performance difference in Vista.

model name : Intel® Xeon® CPU 5140 @ 2.33GHz (And 2 of them as well)

If you really, really want - I'll switch to Vista and take a screenshot for you - or I can dump my Linux cpuinfo/stat for you - if you really, really want.

It would appear the bulk of Vista nay sayers are people who just don't have decent hardware....oh well no wonder.

Considering my hard drives and their controller cost more than your entire machine, I wouldn't quite go that far.

Just because I don't like Vista, doesn't make me poor. You'd be surprised.

Grand Master

Rudy

Posted
Posted
You obviously don't have multicore system so don't know how this works, maxing one core makes no performance difference in Vista.

you obviously don't know anything about multicore system :rolleyes: if Vista is maxing out one core, that's one less core for your programs to use

Grand Master

Robbie Khan Reviews

Posted
  • Reviews
Posted

None of that is really needed.

Fact is (as has been said by many people in this god forsaken thread) that those of us actually using it daily for games and daily computer tasks have no real issues at all - now what tell me is the problem with you people who try to tell us otherwise ? We have provided benchmark comparison URLs, videos, screenshots etc etc all showing Vista running well and performing no different to XP in games yet people who do have issues seem to think everyone will have issues too?

Yeah that's so true.

you obviously don't know anything about multicore system :rolleyes: if Vista is maxing out one core, that's one less core for your programs to use

No it comes down to priority, the application requesting the higher is given that priority so Vista would balance it out. It's much better at CPU utilisation and memory management than XP in this regards which is why performance is good as a modern day OS on modern day hardware.

Grand Master

Rudy

Posted
Posted
None of that is really needed.

Fact is (as has been said by many people in this god forsaken thread) that those of us actually using it daily for games and daily computer tasks have no real issues at all - now what tell me is the problem with you people who try to tell us otherwise ? We have provided benchmark comparison URLs, videos, screenshots etc etc all showing Vista running well and performing no different to XP in games yet people who do have issues seem to think everyone will have issues too?

Yeah that's so true.

I have a copy of Vista Ultimate that I ran for 4-5 months (i even ran SP1 for a while, it was better....MUCH better but not good enough), so don't try to tell me i haven't used it "daily"

Grand Master

Robbie Khan Reviews

Posted
  • Reviews
Posted

Well you're in the minority then, the same type of minority who state that variations of Linux are better than Windows because it uses less resources, is faster, doesn't have DRM etc etc etc.

I've been using Vista since Feb 2006 and this install has seen 3 hardware configurations. It has not had a single BSOD and has remained stable at all times. My XP install was exactly the same. When I add hardware I add hardware that is known to work, I install cherry picked drivers and know how to maintain a clean OS.

Why is it people like me have no issues yet people like you do...

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted
Here come the Vista defenders....

Either:

1) paid by MS

2) buyer's remorse

As opposed to the Vista-bashers, who by and large want to continue to wear those five-year-old shoes, despite the holes/rips/tears in them.

Let's face facts here: Windows XP is a six year old operating system; however, it's only been on the market in force since 2002. (And that was largely despite the biggest securoty problems in all of 2001 being the Code RED and Slammer worms and their variants that Windows XP was actually immune to, while earlier versions were vulnerable until being patched). The general attitude of the Vista-bashers is that ease of use and performance *always* trump security. Most of them buy new hardware, but still insist on running the same old operating system. Worse, the majority of the Vista-bashers are not corporate/enterprise users (that may have incompatible-with-Vista applications as an excuse), but home users that by and large have no such excuse.

Grand Master

seta-san

Posted
Posted

i don't find anything wrong with vista at all. The title of this thread is incredibly unfair. It's like comparing the speed of a solar powered calculator running normal solar power calculator stuff and having it run graphing calculator stuff. Vista has alot of new features. And many of them take a lot of memory and cpu processing power and yet i see no delay. I'm quite happy with all the new functionality and updated tools and cleaner interface. I disable what i don't need and i keep what i do need or want.... such as UAC... That went out day one.

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted
I don't understand how anyone "likes" dreamscene...

Who sits at their desktop doing nothing just to watch that, it has no purpose.

That can be said of most (if not all) wallpaper, regardless of OS (the only exception is HTML-based wallpaper such as that created for ActiveDesktop, which was universally loathed for security reasons). The advantage of DreamScene is that it is *not* static (in short, it *doesn't* Just Sit There Doing Nothing). What's more, Dreamscene uses, at most, ten percent of system resources (and that is a ceiling for DreamScene). Do you run your computer completely without wallpaper? (While we're at it, do you run your computer without a *screen saver*? To follow your argument, screensavers are another big waster of CPU cycles.)

What are you saving those CPU cycles for?

Apprentice

ubermanx

Posted
Posted

People say that speed and performance don't matter?

It's the only thing my corporate clients ask for (sorry, speed and compatibility).

Why suffer thru a slow desktop experience? If I installed a video driver in XP that killed my speeds I'd uninstall it immediately. So why would I use a slower OS?

I've installed and used Vista as my main desktop and gave it an honest shot but XP is back on and will stay that way until the hardware gets faster to cope with the bloatware.

"What Intel giveth (faster processors) Microsoft taketh away (slower and slower OSs)"

Collaborator

Mayhem

Posted
Posted

lol it's normal this kind of opinion that XP is better than Vista because of ppl hardware, Vista is a OS for the current generation of computers, if you still have a Single Core and no more than 1GB Ram Vista is no good for you

new OS for updated hardware, is the way industry works, is always updating components and the software has to keep up and use the power that the new hardware provide

i still remember when SP2 was released and still happens yet today with 3 friends of mine that simply dont update their XP SP1 to SP2 because it slows their computer down, when it was released was the same thing, all the ppl that have a lower computer was in panic and forcing everybody to not update as well lol...

As for Vista, i got mine since day one of release and runs perfect and no crash's like when it was installed, so in the end is resumed if the computer is current hardware and not 4-6 years ago and depends the use ppl make on their computer (if know's how to maintain the OS and not simply installing stuff over stuff over stuff etc etc and having to format 2 weeks later < i have a friend like that lol)

so ppl, dont try to force everybody to use XP if the hardware can't keep up, 1gb on the tests? lol cmon, that simply is the min requisite for UT3 for ex

show me a current graphic with a dual core and 2gb ram in games and in cpu processes benchmarks with XP being superior to Vista today and i glad install XP

prove me wrong

Collaborator

Mr.ed

Posted
Posted

Well, you can count me in as a satisfied Vista x64 user.

I also have an XP "server" computer, and a Core Duo laptop also with Vista x32.

The only difference is that i also consider Vista to be a resource hog, and i think it could be less bloated. Curious thing is that i felt the same way about Windows XP when it came out. Windows 2000 interface was cleaner, efficient, and unbloated. It was really difficult for me to justify the upgrade from 2000 to XP, but i just did it as an evolutionary upgrade, the same as Vista.

With Vista i beta tested it, and even used the rearm on my ol machine out of curiosity, as I also tested XP at its time. Vista always seemed as the step forward for me, as XP was to 2000. I also like Aero as much as Fisher Price's Luna on XP, not that much, but it doesnt bother me.

I also welcome every improvement under the hood on Vista, even those that cant be immediately seen. I can resume it as: It works for me, but not neccesarily for others. Fine by me.

I knew where i was getting to (Vista), so i migrated at the time of my anual pc upgrade. My new desktop has never had XP in it, and i plan to keep it that way.

For the record, i upgraded from:

Nforce 4 SLI

Athlon 64 3700

2 GB DDR 400

Nvidia 7600GT

2 Raptors 36GB

To:

Intel 965 Express

Core 2 Duo E6600

4 GB DDR2 667

Nvidia 8800 GTS

Raptor 150GB

Vista work flawless, everyday use and game too. A had to install the beta SP1 to fix the file transfer issue, but thats about it.

Mr.Ed

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted
The important question is: Can you have a great Vista experience with 1GB of RAM? You should be able to, those are the recommended specs from Microsoft. And how are you using Vista with 1GB of RAM? How many applications in use simultaneously, which apps, etc.

Most people supporting Vista's performance here seem to be running it at AT LEAST 2GB of RAM, in some cases 4GB of RAM. That's like using a Porsche to do pizza delivery, of course it will be great, you've invested into it more than it is required, or even recommended. I won't lie, my notebook had 1GB of RAM and I purchased an extra gig at the same time. When I received it, I first started the laptop to see if everything works before upgrading the RAM and even after I uninstalled most of the bloatware that came preinstalled, Vista felt slow and stuttered/lagged. After quickly adding an extra gig, it's now smooth.

Is Vista crap? No. Is Sp3 for XP better than Vista SP1? Maybe, but the comparison still ain't fair whether you like Vista or not. The issue here is, the hardware requirements and the comparison of different service packs, SP3 XP with Sp1? How about SP3 Vista when it will be out with Sp3 XP?

I'm also having a great Vista Experience, and I have a mere 1.5 GB of RAM (and for a long time, I ran with a mere 1 GB). My CPU? A P4 2.6C (that's a *hyperthreaded Northwood core* for the technically obtuse) that dates back to 2004 (to put that in perspective, Windows XP was three years old). I've made one hardware change since Vista went RTM (my graphics card; however, it's a change I would have made regardless of operating system, as the old graphics card was failing), and I have no issues (ATI AIW 9700PRO to ATI Radeon X1650PRO AGP). My application mix is varied (everything from games to Microsoft Office 2007); heck, even my game mix runs the gamut (from Peggle Deluxe to Supreme Commander Forged Alliance and Gears of War). I often have multiple applications running in the background (I currently have 23 items in the TaskTray, and that figure is actually normal). To put things in perspective, XP likely would have fallen down under this load (in fact, it often *did* under a lighter load). However, the complaints of some folks are bringing something to light; are the majority of the complainers/bashers running single-core CPUs without support for hyperthreading?

Windows XP could see multiple cores; however, it is not really optimized to take advantage of them (not even XP Professional). Windows Vista, however, is based on the decidedly multicore-friendly code of Windows Server 2003 R2; the load-balancing results in vastly increased application performance with multiple cores (even if the application itself isn't multicore-aware; however, if the application *is* multicore-aware, performance increases can be staggering). Even if the second core is virtual, rather than physical (Prescott and Northwood-C), there are still gains to be had (though not as high as a true physical second core); this is why even the Celeron (the last great single-core Intel CPU) is giving way to a dual-core product (two, actually; Pentium Dual-Core and the lower-end Core2Duo E2xxx series), and why the older dual-cores (C2D E6300/E6400) are being replaced not just with larger-cache dual-core versions, but even quad-core versions (Q6600 and the forthcoming Q6650/6750).

Single-core on the desktop is dying fast; why hobble a great processor with an old operating system?

Grand Master

Rudy

Posted
Posted

I personally don't have stability problems with Vista, just general problems. Here's my problems with Vista:

- Windows Defender can't be uninstalled (can be remove with vlite but that doesn't count)

- Performance (a bit slower than XP...)

- Less control over the OS

- Shadowcopy goes out of control, should be disabled by default and the user can enable it on certain folders

- UI for settings looks fragmented (they should get rid of the tabs at the top if there's only one tab.....)

- SLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW file operations....... (unbearable)....fixed with SP1 though

- Sidebar is useless compared to what it used to be in the early betas..... (it should be able to combine the start button, quick launch and system tray, that's a must for widescreen users)

- inconsistent UI (XP has some problems in that area too)

- too many components can't be uninstalled (security center, general useless applications), since MS started from scratch for the installer they could have tried to modularize the OS a bit (lots of pieces can be removed without affecting the OS.

- 64bit support not as good as it should be

i have more but that's all i can think of right now. A few weeks ago when the updated SP1 was released, i reinstalled Vista to try it out but it wouldnt install so i went back to XP again....i might try it again with SP1 final is released

Grand Master

Evolution

Posted
Posted

How is there less control over the OS in Vista.... with vista there's even more granualar control.

Shadowcopy isn't that bad since it'll only create copies of modified files and the frequency is based on system restores :/ File operations were fixed before SP1 with the performance patches.

At least the UI is Vista is prettier :p

The OS is pretty much completely modularized.... they just don't let end-users mess with it.

How is a lack of 64-bit support Microsoft's fault? Do you expect them to pump billions in the market offering freebies to companies developing for 64bit?

The performance is mixed. Application startups and multitasking is a lot faster than XP, however the general performance does seem to be bogged down :/

Grand Master

Rudy

Posted
Posted
How is there less control over the OS in Vista.... with vista there's even more granualar control.

Shadowcopy isn't that bad since it'll only create copies of modified files and the frequency is based on system restores :/ File operations were fixed before SP1 with the performance patches.

Shadowcopy somehow was filling up my HDDs really fast (500, 250, and 80)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.