Windows XP SP3. Much better than Vista SP1

[Rudy]

the title of this thread is stupid ... so i wont even bother reading the whole 10 pages ...

on another note... my apple is better than your orange..... see the similarities?

comparing 2 versions of windows isn't like comparing apples and oranges

[Hurmoth]

the title of this thread is stupid ... so i wont even bother reading the whole 10 pages ...

on another note... my apple is better than your orange..... see the similarities?

How is the title stupid? Can you expand on that a little? The title is perfect for what the thread's contents are. We're comparing Windows XP SP3 to Vista SP1. XP SP3 wins in benchmark tests shown. What would you like the title to be?

[BajiRav]

You can specify how much space Shadow copies use. And most of your Vista "problems" are more like "I don't like the way vista does xyz..." ;)

[Rudy]

You can specify how much space Shadow copies use. And most of your Vista "problems" are more like "I don't like the way vista does xyz..." ;)

i did say i didnt really have "stability" issues with Vista, i just dont like the way it does a lot of things. And the file operation thing is a major deal breaker (the "update" before SP1 that fixes it doesn't work that good for me....but SP1 fixes the problem completely though)

[Reeg]

Here's where I weigh in. I used Vista since it was beta. Kinda liked it, kinda loved it. When it was beta the system let me use the Glass Aero theme with no hiccups. When Vista finally becomes Retail and I get a copy, my machine is no longer good enough for the visual effects. Don't know what changed, but whatever. I know Vista is slowe than XP. Especially with sound editing software like Acid Pro which is what I use for doing my remix/blends.

I ended up going back to XPSP2. Now I got a new 22" widescreen with DVI and I really want the visuals of Vista back, but I know I shouldn't. I fight with myself over it everyday. I fear that one day I will cave and end up with Vista again. Maybe it's not such a bad thing. :/

[tiagosilva29]

I'm not going to install Vista because I don't want/need to.

But I'll download XP SP3 as soon as it's released in MSDNAA.

[gertin]

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

You forgot the awful implementation of the principle of least privilege (a.k.a UAC). Why on earth do I have to click through 3 dialogs just to rename a exe-file and its extension in the Program Files directory? The last dialog even has to redraw the entire screen in order to shade everything but the dialog darker and unclickable.

[popsmear]

WHat is the test machine for loading office?

40 seconds? Jesus.

[b20a61u31]

I wonder how much longer will microsoft be able to develop windows without introducing major bugs. Windows XP has already 49 milion lines of code and there is nobody who can understand the system as a whole, so there are no suitable chief architects.

[ANova]

Blaa blaa blaa more statements without any facts.

Fact: your factual void and insult laden response to my opinion about something that doesn't even qualify as an inanimate object is reason enough for my statement.

Fact: people don't respond well to pathetic personal attacks. You should learn to use your brain instead.

[Ji@nBing]

As said many, many times before, this is exactly how XP was received. Look how that ended up. But from the comments you are all 12 years old, so you probably don't remember that far back.

[rajputwarrior]

Here's where I weigh in. I used Vista since it was beta. Kinda liked it, kinda loved it. When it was beta the system let me use the Glass Aero theme with no hiccups. When Vista finally becomes Retail and I get a copy, my machine is no longer good enough for the visual effects. Don't know what changed, but whatever. I know Vista is slowe than XP. Especially with sound editing software like Acid Pro which is what I use for doing my remix/blends.

I ended up going back to XPSP2. Now I got a new 22" widescreen with DVI and I really want the visuals of Vista back, but I know I shouldn't. I fight with myself over it everyday. I fear that one day I will cave and end up with Vista again. Maybe it's not such a bad thing. :/

i think about that to sometimes, but it's not worth it, vista is terrible right now, it still slower then the old OS. New OS should not be slower, i am sorry, this will never make sense to me. New Linux builds get faster, new OSX builds get faster, why is everyone excusing microsoft making making vista 2-3 times slower? It can't even get simple OS features such as networking and file transfer done properly.

JionBing you are right i know this is how XP was received, but at least when XP came out it was stupidly slower then 2000 and was able to do networking and file transfer.

[hagjohn]

http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_SP3_out...sion/1196208954

[Linkinfamous]

http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_SP3_out...sion/1196208954

But a breakdown of the team's initial tests reveal that, although they used identical Dell computers, they actually compared Office 2007 performance on Vista to Office 2003 performance on XP.

Well now isn't that special. I can't believe they'd be that misleading.

[markwolfe Veteran]

... New OS should not be slower, i am sorry, this will never make sense to me. New Linux builds get faster, new OSX builds get faster ...

ORLY?

I am a Linux user, 100% since 2003 (no Windows dual-booting). However, the kernel change from 2.4 to 2.6 was slightly slower for many (but not all) things. Add in how large (some say "feature rich" ) Gnome and KDE have gotten to provide a more comprehensive and user-friendly environment.

Now compare a Fedora 1 to a Fedora 8 install on the same PC, and do some benchmarking. Or just try both and see if changes and feature-adds and other improvements also come at some cost to performance on lower-end hardware.

Yes, some features of Linux are improved and made faster, memory, networking and SMP handling are notable examples. But, overall, as an end-user desktop (even in Linux-land) newer versions over the years generally means higher hardware requirements.

[ANova]

OSX is dedicated hardware, different kettle of fish. And 98 was 2-3 years after windows 95, same with 2K > XP. Vista was 5 years after XP. Performance wise the evolution is about on par.

Macs run the same hardware PCs do now, nothing different about it. Each successive windows release was at most 20% slower than the previous with hardware requirements only a little higher. Vista is much slower than any of them and demands hardware requirements at least twice that of XP to run decently, and for what? A few improvements here and there. XP's minimum ram is 256, Vista runs like crap on anything lower than 1 GB, and even then all the Vista lovers insist you need 2 GB. XP with 1GB runs circles around Vista, no matter how much ram you throw at it.

Ubuntu, which you ignored, has many features like that of Vista (including a hardware accelerated UI) but runs about as fast as XP.

[Evolution]

Macs run some of the same hardware.... the point he is making is that all macs use the same processor type and mainboard more or less, so in this confined area there would be a lot less problems since there are a lot less variables. Vista is a very very new OS, that has a completely different architecure.... XP was more of an eye candy + 2000 + some other features on top, Vista was modified from the ground up.... (not so much the kernel but everything else i.e. memory handler, virtualization, etc. down at the basic layer). Vista was a huge effort, and yes it's a shame that they restarted their project, missing 3 years in development... sort of.

Just give it some time, and it'll be as performant as you expected it to be. Vista could have been XP with Vista-like features, but they wanted to take a different path to create a better architected OS that hopefully will pay off in the future. BTW many of the great features in Vista aren't really noticed since software developers haven't taken advantage of them. Vista was kind of rushed... that's all, it's a good OS though.

[webcivilian]

Macs run the same hardware PCs do now, nothing different about it. Each successive windows release was at most 20% slower than the previous with hardware requirements only a little higher. Vista is much slower than any of them and demands hardware requirements at least twice that of XP to run decently, and for what? A few improvements here and there. XP's minimum ram is 256, Vista runs like crap on anything lower than 1 GB, and even then all the Vista lovers insist you need 2 GB. XP with 1GB runs circles around Vista, no matter how much ram you throw at it.

Ubuntu, which you ignored, has many features like that of Vista (including a hardware accelerated UI) but runs about as fast as XP.

I see all these comments over and over again. Don't want to say it but, Macs always had the same hardware as the PCs, infact Macs are PCs and PCs are Macs. Its called a computer. Their's something called an architecture that defines how different part of a system work. Macs were based on the RISC computing architecture whereas PCs are based on Intel's x86 arch.

To come to the point what the person who you quoted meant that Macs target/have a specific set of hardware; meaning they have only a limited number of hardware combination in their system. Results are less incompatible hardware/software, easier driver coding and less work need when designing/code the core OS functions.

Now to your point that XP runs very effeciantly even with less memory compared to Vista. That is true, its also true if you compare Windows 98 to Windows Xp. Another example is a game like Crysis which requires very high hardware resources to be playable. Same can be said with any new program like Photoshop or 3D Studio, they are coded in such a way that they try to use the hardware; for example instructions like SSE4 which are part of the new Intel processors. If you try to run these programs on older machines than obviously the performance is not going to be the same.

So newer software are designed/coded to use more resources and really take advantage of the newest of hardware. Its called progression in technology.

Plus look at the problems Leopard is having. And Linux oh my what can I say about Linux, its like still catching up what other companies in the OS space have done long. Linux try to innovate please.

[Gamerhomie]

But, overall, as an end-user desktop (even in Linux-land) newer versions over the years generally means higher hardware requirements.

You're right, same goes for a lot of OS. I don't know why it's so hard to understand...

[Danrarbc]

i think about that to sometimes, but it's not worth it, vista is terrible right now, it still slower then the old OS. New OS should not be slower, i am sorry, this will never make sense to me.

Every new Windows has been slower. It doesn't have to make sense, it's a fact. If Windows 7 is faster on the same hardware than Vista it'll only be because most of the framework was created on Vista whereas Windows 7 is the refinement of that framework. Though if i had to bet, I'd say that'll be slower too.

And it most certainly isn't 2-3 times slower.

[ANova]

Macs run some of the same hardware.... the point he is making is that all macs use the same processor type and mainboard more or less, so in this confined area there would be a lot less problems since there are a lot less variables. Vista is a very very new OS, that has a completely different architecure.... XP was more of an eye candy + 2000 + some other features on top, Vista was modified from the ground up.... (not so much the kernel but everything else i.e. memory handler, virtualization, etc. down at the basic layer). Vista was a huge effort, and yes it's a shame that they restarted their project, missing 3 years in development... sort of.

Just give it some time, and it'll be as performant as you expected it to be. Vista could have been XP with Vista-like features, but they wanted to take a different path to create a better architected OS that hopefully will pay off in the future. BTW many of the great features in Vista aren't really noticed since software developers haven't taken advantage of them. Vista was kind of rushed... that's all, it's a good OS though.

You guys don't seem to understand. Macs use a Core 2 Duo just like a PC, they use the same memory, they use the same hard drives, they use the same chipsets (just a different layout on the motherboard) and they mostly use the same graphics processors (onboard or ATI). Compatibility rarely results in performance problems, that has more to do with instability. It has now been about a year since Vista's release and SP1 is close, yet we are not seeing any performance improvements. I think it is safe to say by now that Vista's performance is not down to compatibility issues. If you take a look under the hood, it's performance issues are obvious. If you load a car down with a body that weights twice as much as another car with the same engine, the car that weights less is going to outperform it's competitor. Vista, while certainly having some improvements over XP, has alot more going on than XP. I honestly don't understand how people can dilute themselves into believing otherwise, there is nothing really to argue here. You can argue Vista's usefulness and features, since much of it comes down to personal taste and individual uses, but you cannot argue pure performance.

For me Vista simply doesn't offer anything truly useful to warrent it's requirements and others obviously feel the same way. If you like it, good for you but don't expect everyone to or insult them because of it, that's just silly. Remember, people were ridiculed for believing the world to be round back in the day, look how that turned out.

[kouhii00]

Hard to believe. I had it installed on my laptop just to try it out and I was greatly disappointed \I formated my HD two days later and installed the dual boot Linux and XP. Do some research on google and you'll find the same findings. I dont think that your extra 500MB could help that much more in performance... BTW I am using the DELL Inspiron 700m with 12'1 Widescreen display.

I was able to notice big slow downs in MS Outlook, just browsing through folders and emails, it takes much longer to load.

Oh yeah and forget about running the glass effect... Is not supported the the Intell GPU you need a GPU with 3d Acceleration. The problem here is that MS is pushing DirectX and leaving out OpenGL which is much less hardware demanding.

Yeah I've found that you need a min of 2GB RAM in order to have Office working better on Vista. Apparently the office agent is loaded in the RAM and is running in background so every time you issue a request for Excel or Word, a window pops out immediately.

That's Superfetch at work for ya....I have office 2007 installed and have vista installed for about 2-3 months? Now all of my most used apps loads instantly. Wanna tell me what office agent you're talking about, I don't see any office agents in my task manager..?

Edited November 29, 2007 by kouhii00

[toadeater]

Here's some interesting info about why XP apps run worse in Vista than XP.

It is because of GDI+. Vista no longer uses GDI+ for the GUI, it uses DirectX instead. That means the GUIs of XP-compatible apps must be remapped into DirectX in realtime. This causes all sorts of problems.

"Existing graphics interfaces, such as GDI, GDI+, and older versions of Direct3D, continue to work on Windows Vista, but are internally remapped where possible. This means that the majority of existing Windows applications will continue to work." - Microsoft

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb173477.aspx

There's more info about it here:

http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/12/04/vista_vs_xp_tests/

[ManMountain]

Yes I know the original Officebench test was done on lesser hardware, but for the fun of it, I tested Officebench on my Vista install.

All we need now is some XP benchmarks on equivalent hardware for comparison :)

[vraev]

I have been using vista since public build beta. I have been using RTM since release on my inspiron 9300. NEVER....NEVER DID I have a single problem with anything. Apart from annoying UAC. It was abit slow....but once I upgraded to 2 GB ram. Man! I can never never go back to xp. Vista is by far the best operating system ever. Inspiron 9300 is 2 yrs old. As long as u have hardware in the past 3 yrs...you should have no issues at all.