“After a disappointing showing by Windows Vista SP1, we were pleasantly surprised to discover that Windows XP Service Pack 3 (v.3244) delivers a measurable performance boost to this aging desktop OS. Testing with OfficeBench showed a ~10% performance boost vs. the same configuration running under Windows XP with Service Pack 2.”
I actually was not expecting this at all. Can’t wait till it goes gold. I don’t plan on upgrading to Vista (can’t on most of my machines, yay!
) since XP works well enough.
Now no one that haven’t upgraded yet will upgrade.
XP’s “mainstream support” is scheduled to end 4/14/2009, and its “extended support” is scheduled to end 4/08/2014.
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&C2=1173&x=5&y=2
The definitions of “mainstream” and “extended” support are given here:
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/
If I read that correctly, “extended” support services aren’t free except for security updates. Even so, 7+ year mainstream support and 12+ year extended support for a particular OS would is very long (maybe the longest in history for a desktop OS).
As for XP SP3, I’d read that it was simply the accumulation of all of the previously released security updates and bug fixes that had have been available via Windows Update. Am I to assume from this article that this was that false?
Edited 2007-11-23 23:45
Service packs are more than just accumulated fixes, it also includes ‘premium fixes’ which enterprise customers pay for. Lets say I have a problem, its very unique, I ring up and under my super-duper support plan which costs an arm and a leg, Microsoft will get a guy to resolve it – then issue a patch for it.
Sun has the same thing; its like saying the quartly update is merely a ‘culmination of updates’ when in reality, it is a culmination of public updates, premium customer upates and upgrades of some components.
Back on topic, I think the issue that is raise; how come, in a 5 year old operating system, they can still squeeze out performance improvements when compared to Windows Vista which you’d think, should have heaps of room to improve the speed.
When 10.5.1 came out, boot times decreased, some things felt snappier. I loaded up Fedora 8 and compared to Fedora 7, it was snappier on the same hardware. Windows XP SP3 has now been ‘benchmarked’ to being snappier. Why is Windows Vista the ‘odd one out’?
“When 10.5.1 came out, boot times decreased, some things felt snappier. I loaded up Fedora 8 and compared to Fedora 7, it was snappier on the same hardware. Windows XP SP3 has now been ‘benchmarked’ to being snappier. Why is Windows Vista the ‘odd one out’?”
It sounds like you have an answer in mind. Care to tell us?
I think the answer is that Vista has a much higher percentage of new code than is the case in the examples you gave. Now, the change from XP to Vista is not nearly as drastic as the change from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X, but even so, it should be noted that the latter transition did result in an OS that was much slower relative to its predecessor than Vista is relative to its predecessor. The reason OSX 10.0 was so slow was that all of that new code hadn’t been optimized yet. The OSX releases since have added features, but also tweaked the existing code, so optimizations have been added over the years, which why it gets faster over time (yet Apple doesn’t allow 10.5 to be installed on lower-end PPC macs, so it’s questionable whether 10.5 is “fast” on such computers, and I do know that many did find 10.4 to be slower than 10.3).
Same for XP SP3 (according to what you’ve posted), SP3 contains performance increases that have been added over the years (for enterprise customers), which might result in XP SP3 being faster than XP SP2 and before.
Vista’s been out less than a year, so it hasn’t had time for lots of optimizations to be added to the code base. Yet its Windows Updates have already made it faster than it was when it was released. Let Vista get a chance to add performance enhancements over the next few years like OSX and XP have had.
So that’s my answer – Vista has lots of new code that hasn’t had years and years to be optimized yet.
Now, I realize that the answer offered by many Microsoft bashers is either that DRM is run all over the place (our own PlatformAgnostic, who now works at Microsoft on the Windows Kernel Test Team says that’s bull), or simply that Microsoft programmers are incompetent (which I find laughable; their programmers come from the same universities as does Apple, Red Hat, etc).
But I am curious as to what reason you would offer as to “Why is Windows Vista the ‘odd one out’?” I gather from the tone of your post that you have an answer in mind.
Edited 2007-11-24 04:28
“So that’s my answer – Vista has lots of new code that hasn’t had years and years to be optimized yet.”
It’s just been *5 years* in the making, that’s all… *HARDLY* enough time to actually OPTIMIZE anything, before shipping it to Microsoft’s adoring public!
Seriously, you’d think with ALL the money Bill Gates/Microsoft has, they could put out a decent sequel to XP, not only in LESS time than 5 yrs., but also something that runs BETTER than XP, not worse!
Apparently the only thing Microsoft is good at is copying looks, not performance.
Apple knows what they’re doing and where they’re going. Is it any wonder why Microsoft’s motto was:
“Where do you want to go today?”
Because they never knew where THEY were going, so they were hoping someone else did and they’d simply hitch a free ride!
Obviously, they can’t even do THAT right!
Do take into account L that MS had to scratch their intial code base for Vista and start again mid stream during that 5 year period.
Vista mightn’t be all that great but it’s an improvement on XP and has one feature that makes it a great improvement, decent account management along the lines of OS-X and Linux. I can now have my users configed as users and an Admin Account and have decent priveledge escallation that I have taken forgranted in all Unix based OS’s. This is a great step forward on the Windows Desktop that will help administrators.
XP only has “run as” as an option if you right click the program you want to run or you have to make a shortcut to any installer to get the “run as” dialogue to then install software as an administrator. This has been a real pain in the ass for those of us administering locked down systems.
If you are someone who doesn’t give a toss about OS security and don’t care about the issues that running full time as an administrator brings, then XP would be fine for you, but in the real world….
Remember this isn’t UAC that I’m talking about but actually telling Vista to have users with user priveledges and then having a proper Admin account for system management that isn’t logged into.
UAC is MS being a timid POS company in enforcing what is needed in Windows for proper, secure user management. Hopefully, MS will grow the balls to piss of UAC and have proper secure user management in Win2008
The issue isn’t the lack of ‘big improvements’ but even *little* improvements. I mean, sure, within 12 months, I don’t expect Windows Vista to have a massive leap forward but when Microsoft developers have had over 12 months to tune and optimise Windows Vista – I’m asking, what the heck is happening? I’d expect at least *some* sort of improvement. The fact is, Windows Vista Service Pack 1 benchmark showed *NO* improvement. Not even a small a improvement.
Why compare it to Windows XP? One would assume that by the time Windows XP SP3 had rolled around (5 years of development plus several patches), they had optimised almost everything they could possibly optimise without causing major compatibility issues. Yet, even with all this work, they could still optimise it further.
As for UAC, I doubt it’ll happen. I’d love to see Windows become a better platform. It benefits me as an end user knowing that the internet is safe from having millions of drones out there spamming. The issue is that Microsoft has no balls. When it comes to making big decisions, it appears that Apple has been the only one in the last decade who said, “f–k it, our operating system stinks to high heaven, lets break with the past and replace it with something better” – and so they did.
Here we are, after 3-4 years of initial pain and suffering, all the better for it. I’m now got a laptop which multitasks smoothly, the performance is light years ahead of when I first used Mac OS 9 with one of the first iMacs released. Yes, there was pain, there was suffering, but in the end, it was worth it. Now we see Mac OS X go from strength to strength.
Mac OS X has gone from being a cute ‘joke’ to being a robust UNIX ’03 certified distribution with all the perks of a rock solid foundation and a beautiful GUI sitting on top.
Personally, I’d love to see Microsoft drop Windows NT, the whole damn line – adopt OpenSolaris as the core, and build upon it. They have some bloody smart people there at Microsoft, its too bad that internal politics rather than technology, make the decisions. If it were left to technology, we wouldn’t have the half baked compromise that is UAC, for example.
Microsoft has “no balls” because they didn’t completely throw away their old OS like Apple did?
Bullhockey.
1. Microsoft already did break away from their old OS, those old OSes being Win3x and Win9x. Apple took years longer to do that, and finally proved incompetent to do it. You think it was “balls” that made Apple throw away backwards compatibility? No, it wasn’t some grand vision, they would’ve loved to be backwards compatible, but they tried and failed. It had nothing to do with “balls”.
2. Apple has 1/10th the user base that Microsoft has (and probably only 1/50th the business userbase), and so can afford to piss its userbase off.
Although do note that Apple’s frequent radical platform changes have pissed its developers off, resulting in less software. Not that Apple minds much, since A. their dream is for Mac users to run only Apple software anyway; and B. Apple’s most recent platform change finally, at long last, succeeded in locking the big name Mac developers into using Apple’s dev tools since those tools are required to make universal binaries.
3. Microsoft has “no balls”? Good gravy, they redid the entire Office UI, which took “balls”. They did what you recommend, they said “f–k it, our UI is way overburdened, let’s start from scratch”, so you’re totally wrong to say they don’t have “the balls” to make changes when needed. And those Office UI changes are making lots of people that can’t stand change piss and moan. Yet now you say they should have “the balls” to piss off their users even more by, for example, building on OpenSolaris, which would buy them nothing? Office shows that Microsoft has “the balls” to make changes when needed, but that doesn’t mean they should make changes for no reason at all, and NT is just fine.
Speaking of OpenSolaris, I know you’re a big Solaris fan, you’ve pimped it many times before. But there is no evidence that Solaris (or any *nix) is superior to NT as a base on which to build.
Having said all of that, I’ll just add that in my experience, XP is way faster than Panther on similar hardware. So XP also being faster than Vista says nothing wrt Vista vs OS X. It could be that XP is faster than both. If someone wants to trash Vista’s speed by comparing it with XP’s, that’s one thing, but I now see you and others claiming that OSX would blow Vista away too. Maybe someone should do a test regarding that. And in your case, let someone do performance tests on Vista vs Solaris.
Actually, Deviate_X did post in this thread a Vista vs OSX comparison running on the exact same hardware.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18965&comment_id=286451
But Vista “won”, so the comparison was dismissed. Seems people only approve of comparisons with results that jive with their preconceived notions.
Let Steve Jobs do his famous Photoshop benchmarks (the ones that “proved” every year that PPC processors blew away Intel processors (yeah, right)) with Vista and Leopard.
Edited 2007-11-24 17:34
1) And yet the same design flaws keep coming back release after release after release.
2) They could have easily done it; provide the new operating system and on a second cd include Virtual PC plus a Windows XP image to allow legacy applications to work ontop of it.
3) I don’t use OpenSolaris, but given the continuously cycle of problems with Windows NT, you’d think that with 79,000 employees they’d be able to deliver an operating system on budget, ontime, and actually performing equal to Windows XP on the same hardware.
4) Nice to see you *IGNORED* what I posted in regards to his post. It was all gushy bullcrap. “ooh, ahh” – who cares about the ‘ooh ahh’ give me cold hard numbers for Christsake!
All I saw from the article was ‘ooh aah’ – making it no more scientific than someone claiming their car goes faster than their friends because its colour happens to be red!
you’d think that with 79,000 employees they’d be able to deliver an operating system on budget, ontime, and actually performing equal to Windows XP on the same hardware.
and how many of those 79000 people are developing windows?
I can’t even tell what points of mine you are responding to. But you claim I “IGNORED” some argument you made, while you ignored much of my post, such as my points regarding OSX (it wasn’t made the way it was becasue of “balls”), Office 2007’s new UI (which demonstrates Microsoft’s “balls”), or that Solaris wouldn’t be any better than NT to build upon.
Now, as to your point 1. Please cite the “same design flaws that keep coming back release after release after release”. I could use a good laugh. Oh, and please don’t include any “Well, it doesn’t do functionality X like Unix does, so the X functionality is flawed by definition” nonsense.
As to your point 2. Please provide at least SOME evidence that NT is inadequate to build an OS on, such that Microsoft should make an entirely new OS and run NT-based apps within Virtual PC. You seem to think NT is antiquated like Mac OS 9 was. Mac OS 9/8/7 needed to be tossed. NT does not need that.
To your point 3. Sorry, I thought I’d seen you pimping Solaris multiple times before. I guess it was someone else. But your use of the very tired “79000” employees canard is the very height of sophistry. I’ve seen enough of your posts to know that you are far better than that. I thought you, of all people, would offer some speculation as to technical reasons why Vista would be “slow”, but all you can offer is “Microsoft sucks”, just like the typical Microsoft-bashers that aren’t in your league.
Here’s what you and the others seem to not understand, or simply don’t want to understand. Vista isn’t “slow” just because “Microsoft sucks”. It’s “slow” for technical reasons, just as Mac OS X 10.0 was. Speaking of which, I’ve yet to see any evidence that OSX is faster than Windows. OSX may get faster with the optimization tweaks made to each .1+ upgrade, but even after 6 years of those optimizations, it’s still slower than XP. And as much as Mac advocates like celebrate Vista’s “slowness” relative to XP, I’ve yet to see any evidence that Leopard is faster than Vista (let alone XP). But I DO have evidence that Leopard is slower than Tiger and Panther, and that’s Apple’s own system requirements for Leopard that don’t allow it to be installed on lower-end PPC Macs. The logical reason for that would be that Leopard is too slow and/or bloated to run on such Macs, i.e. it’s slower and/or more bloated than its predecessors.
As for Microsoft, yeah, I’d like them to release a new OS, but one based on Singularity, not Solaris (give me a break).
Edited 2007-11-25 00:27
Yeah, who needs to run actual tests to see if it’s slower or not?
It’s not like there are any new features that need higher-end hardware.
“Yeah, who needs to run actual tests to see if it’s slower or not?
It’s not like there are any new features that need higher-end hardware.”
Name these features that require higher-end hardware for reasons other than speed/bloat? I thought each Mac OSX system released got faster and faster, so the system requirements should go lower and lower. Instead, the reverse is true, just like Windows *gasp*.
Sorry, but the reason OSX 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3 got faster over time was that 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2 were horribly slow, dog slow, and very slow, respectively. I’ve not seen any evidence of significant speed increases in 10.4 and 10.5 over 10.3, and I’ve seen no evidence that any version of OSX is faster than XP or even Vista.
1) No, you ignored the reply to the post which had the article you were referring to, does this refresh your memory:
http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/2007/01/running_vista_o.html
You provided a link to the post containing that, why haven’t you addressed the fact that the article was filled with gushy garbage such as:
“The OS is dark and handsome. It’s really quite exciting. Like the Zune’s interface, it’s artfully done. The beautifully-rendered shadow effects and transparency give Vista a greater “depth” than OS X, which looks a little flat and well… old fashioned in comparison. I know this is because Vista’s new and novel, but it makes OS X look dated.”
Which as I stated, reminds me of the imbecile who went on about some $7250 speaker wires.
2) Yes, I used to be an OpenSolaris fanboy, but if you took the time you read the post, I said ‘could’ rather than ‘should’ when it came to using something else as the basis of Windows. Could indicating that ‘if there is something else better, use that’.
The reason for Solaris because of its familiarity by most developers rather than relying on a completely new operating system basis which programmers have little exposure to.
3) It is flawed because ever since they first bastardised the kernel by putting the graphics ‘engine’ within the kernel, it has been on a downwards slop from there. Are they honestly expecting me to believe that by the time Windows XP had been released, the hardware wouldn’t have been at a sufficient level of ‘grunt’ to run a user space graphics ‘engine’ at sufficient speed? heck, even when Xorg is compared to Windows, sure, there is a performance penalty, but it isn’t as so large as to cause people frustration.
4) Windows Vista has been in development for over 5 years, and within that 5 years I expected alot more. When it came out, sure, I cut them some slack. I thought to myself, “hey, this is a first release with alot of improvements in alot of areas – major parts have been re-written using new code”.
Yes, I did cut them some slack but now I’m not when it comes on the heals of what is now known about Windows Vista SP1. This service pack has been in development, by the time it has been released, for over 12 months. 12 months they’ve had to improve performance, 12 months to improve reliability, 12 months to put the clamps on shoddy software companies who fail to produce quality applications (not Microsoft’s fault) and their willingness to hand out ‘Windows Vista Compatible” stickers far to easily (Microsoft’s fault)
Add to the fact that Microsoft has a very large number of programmers/employees (79,000), and filled with some of the best and brightest people in the industry – there are no excuses as to why they can’t eek out at least a 10% performance improvement over Windows Vista RTM. That is the issue at play.
5) I have made no such comparison between Mac OS X and Windows XP/Vista. The issue I have is when we have the likes of fanboys praise Windows, praise the fact that ‘PC’s are cheaper’ and more upgradable.
These very people ignore the fact that if you purchased a computer, even 2 years ago (which I wouldn’t consider old), you’ll need major upgrading to be able to run Windows Vista as fast and reliable as Windows XP.
Sure, I don’t expect hardware from 5 years ago to run Windows Vista like a speeding bullet, but I do expect Windows Vista to at least run at an acceptable level of speed on an average machine that was released 2 years ago.
When you take that into account, one has to ask, with the money that you’ll ultimately have to spend to get your machine up to a level to run the latest version of Windows – that money could have easily been spent (or possibly less) getting a Mac. Where is the competitive advantage there for the PC?
6) I have a MacBook Black (2.16Ghz and 2gigs memory), for a Windows computer, it its graphics would be considered woefully underpowered, and yet, on Mac OS X, I’m not punished by the fact that it relies on shared memory.
Yes, Mac OS X doesn’t run on ‘low end PPC Mac’s’ but when you consider what it can be run on compared to what Windows Vista can be run on, it comes off pretty damn good.
As for performance penalty, sure, there is a slight performance penalty, but no where as bad as the performance penalty one would get if one grabbed a similar generation machine from 2 years ago and tried running Windows Vista on it without major hardware upgrades/updates.
That was true back then.
(I could go on and on explaining how the MASSIVE amount of cache in the early G3’s contributed to that, then how the brilliant SIMD delivered by AltiVec contributed to that, then how hacks like L3 cache contributed to that as well, then how the G5 blew the socks out of the Pentium 4 in FP math, and then how Intel finally went back to the drawing board with the Pentium M/Pentium D/Core/Core2 architectures they narrowed, closed, then surpassed the gap while IBM sat on its hands designing embedded processors and believing Apple would be more than satisfied to buy them and sell them as the latest word, then had their bottoms kicked by WWDC’05 when Apple announced the transition… But we’re past that, right? I’ll chalk your comment up to needing to say something related to the “megahertz myth” just to evoke the kinds of sentiments that were around then and make myself sound righteously outraged at the “RDF”. You’re smarter than that, so, please, don’t go down to that level.)
-1 (discussion-wise, evidently not mod points)
(Open)Solaris is optimized for throughput, not latency. It’s a great kernel, but still needs to go a long way to really fulfil the requirements of a desktop OS.
+1.
Actually despite all the hype, Vista still runs faster than Apple OS X: http://blog.wired.com/cultofmac/2007/01/running_vista_o.html
Ah yes, the very ‘subjective’ ‘oooh, it loads xyz faster’. Dear god, tell me another one. I moved from Tiger to Leopard; I saw no speed loss what so ever, I had Pages load in in a couple of bounces, I have iTunes load immediately, I have Firefox load almost instantly.
Then his article goes into gushy crap such as:
“Vista a greater “depth” than OS X, which looks a little flat and well… old fashioned in comparison. I know this is because Vista’s new and novel, but it makes OS X look dated.”
Please, that reminds me of the idiot who claim that the $7250 speaker cables he wasted his money on ( http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/speaker-cables/7250-speaker-cables-turn-… ) were:
“… way better than anything I have heard…Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace–these cables smack that right on the nose big time.”
Edited 2007-11-24 12:32
+1.
Considering how Vista is running on a much faster rig than the Leopard laptop I saw the other day… There’s no way, *no way* Vista runs faster than Leopard given the same HW specs.
(At least not until Apple bundles 3rd-gen DX10 video cards and DDR3 and whatnot. I’m talking about present day, present time (MWAHAHAHA!! (yeah, I’m a Serial Experiments Lain fan.))
And what the hell is Vista doing late at night when it fills up a 4GB+ file on the system-wide $TMP folder? Really makes my head scratch. And may I add, the I/O schedulers in Vista seem a little broken, because even given the promise of the I/O in background tasks not interfering with the I/O in foreground tasks, that doesn’t match my experience at all.
I could give you an unlimited supply of money and you still wouldn’t be able to release an entire operating system developed in five years that would meet your expectations.
There are only so many developers in the world capable of producing something worth the money. And even if you could hire a few thousand of them the communication overhead and learning time would easily eat those five years.
Your use of “So that’s my answer – Vista has lots of new code that hasn’t had years and years to be optimized yet.
” is wrong. If you install XP without Service packs and updates it’s at it’s fastest and the only thing that has got better is security and less bugs.
Microsoft dont give a crap about users but they love their business buddies to make office apps faster in Service Packs. Vista needed new code badly regardless and this is what you get when you dont update your OS so frequently. On OS X they dont need to overhaul the OS like Vista because it was not left to rot in the first place.
I am mostly a Linux geek but I still do use Win XP for gaming. Still, I’m glad for all those users who use Win XP as their main OS. It’s always good news for everyone if Win XP gets better. As for Vista.. Well, I can’t say I personally know anyone who’d think Vista is better than XP
Vista is the first version of windows I don’t find to be a raging pile.
But thats just me, and I’m willing to admit I got a non-standard experience.
One can’t help but wonder if it benefits Microsoft to give consumers yet another reason to stick with XP?
Speaking from experience, XP 10% faster than normal still isn’t enough to catch up with Vista’s speed.
Speaking from experience, XP 10% faster than normal still isn’t enough to catch up with Vista’s speed.
I don’t think dreams qualify as experience.
And I don’t think bloggers qualify as “Research staff.”
There, we’re even.
Here you go!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=vista+benchmark+-blog&btnG=Sea…
“I don’t think dreams qualify as experience.”
They do, depending on who you are…
One’s experience:
http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/5367/gellert.jpg
Could quite easily be another one’s dream:
http://www.hobotraveler.com/uploaded_images/207-91-african-beads-74…
Almafeta had a good experience with Vista, which might be a dream to many.
Almafeta’s post was initially voted down, now, it was not offtopic, nothing implied personal attacks or offensive language and it definitely did not include spam/advertisement. I would really love to know what was the reason.
Now mod me as offtopic (probably rightfully)
Its funny, I had to install XP on my laptop a little while ago. I found XP booted about twice as fast (~30sec vs ~1min), BUT for whatever reason, it took another 30 seconds or so until I was able to connect to the internet. With vista, it connects to my wireless pretty much by the time I see the desktop.
XP displays the desktop well before it has finished actually booting. It won’t be for some time after the desktop appears that you can actually do anything useful.
This is done so that in “boot performance” tests XP would get a better mark than it actually has if you catch the meaning.
I don’t know what the story is with Vista in this regard.
Mind you … even KDE shows a desktop a few seconds before all of the desktop services have finished starting up, so XP is by no means unique here.
Edited 2007-11-26 04:27
Almafeta wrote:
–“Speaking from experience, XP 10% faster than normal still isn’t enough to catch up with Vista’s speed.”
in what areas does Vista performance exceed XP? the benchmarks I’ve seen have all points to the reverse, starting with the one I read from tomshardware almost a year ago: http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/
so I’m wondering have you actually measured anything or is this just your ‘experience’ talking? personally I’ll take a tech blog which provides data and the actual benchmark program used to gather that data up for scrutiny, over someone who quotes nothing but their subjective ‘experience’.
back on the subject, the measured ~10% boost applies to a very specific test concerning some very specific windows technologies. I very much doubt we’ll be seeing anything near an overall ~10% speed boost from xpsp3, I sure as hell wouldn’t mind being wrong though
do you mean vista on that new 3gb quad core machine you’ve had to buy is faster than xp on your “old” pentium4, yeah as that’s a fair comparison.
i’ve not come across a single fan of vista out of all the people i know who have bought a pc with it on recently – some have switched to linux, others have acquired xp, one even sent his vaio back and got a mac – they’d all laugh if you said vista was faster.
Edited 2007-11-25 10:51
My ex gf too bought a new computer with Vista preloaded. She was impressed that it looked so good. But then after playing around with it for a few hours I got a phone call from her: “I want XP!” Why? Because it was so darn slow, even compared to her OLD machine! She even said that installing Sims 2 took an hour :O Anyway, I guided her through installing XP and after all was finished she was more than happy. She did say that now it feels like a new machine
Microsoft Windows XP SP3 – Twice as fast as Vista SP1?
http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/11/25/microsoft-windo…
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB…
Other people are honestly having a somewhat different Windows experience than you, Almafeta.
Well if they keep getting so many bad reviews of Vista, they do what they can to keep you from switching to OSX or linux. A person using XP SP3 is much better than something switching to linux or OSX in their opinion. They are still keeping their userbase.
“Well if they keep getting so many bad reviews of Vista, they do what they can to keep you from switching to OSX or linux. A person using XP SP3 is much better than something switching to linux or OSX in their opinion. They are still keeping their userbase.”
You’re assuming that Microsoft plays by the rules. Upon hearing the news of XP SP-3’s performance gains over XP SP-2, Microsoft will likely issue orders to its engineers to “cripple” the service pack in such a way that it either breaks a key XP feature (or compatibility with some key software, etc.) That might force those users smart enough to stick with XP to make the jump to Vista just to regain the lost functionality or overcome the loss of performance, or else stick with SP-2, which is getting long in the tooth. This sort of nonsense has already been done by Microsoft. Cases in point: Microsoft purposely kept IE7 from Windows 2000 users (even though the beta worked fine on that platform) and it has kept Direct X 10 from XP users. Microsoft has lost their edge with Vista and lets hope they continue to slide into obsolescence.
I like a good conspiracy like the next tin foilhat wearer but I dont think it would be in Microsofts interests to make a platform even worse than it already is.
I agree they have pulled some pretty dodgy stuff even just making a game Vista DX10 only when with a few hacks it runs fine on DX9 on XP … but I think the last thing MS wants (especially with all this attention on them) is even more bad publicity.
Expect more features to be Vista only… but they have already ported a lot of Vista back to XP that was never intended.
“One can’t help but wonder if it benefits Microsoft to give consumers yet another reason to stick with XP?”
Well it’s not regular users that SP3 is targeting. Regular users don’t really have a choice since Vista has been the default version for the last year. SP3 is targeted at all those corporations that are still refusing to buy into the FUD that Vista is better ( and there are quite a few of them out there ). Those are companies that know very well that switching the OS to a new version that hardly provides any real benefits ( other than better media experience and DirectX 10 ) would cost them a significant amount of money it training and support. Plus those are the customers that MS really makes it’s money from. If you try to buy a business computer from any major VAR you will see that XP is still an option. However this is not the case with the consumer devices. And as far as corporations are concerned MS’s image right now is pretty low. Besides ME, there hasn’t been another version of Windows that offered so little for the business users and yet was not a service pack … Oh and before you start arguing that there are better management tools in Vista consider that fact that there isn’t a single decent size IT department that doesn’t have 3rd party tools with similar ( if not better ) functionality.
So SP3 does make perfect sense even if you look at it only from the marketing perspective. MS needs to convince big business that they are serious about supporting their products.
Will this create another Service Pack implementation headache, like the SP 2 did? Also was the comment at the end of this article completely necessary? Windows Vista = Windows ME “Reloaded?” You be the judge! I guess since this is just a blog site, it is acceptable, but the poster of this article seems already biased to me.
Yeah… has everyone forgotten what Windows ME was like? It was literally worse and less stable than Windows 95. I use Vista on 2 computers and it doesn’t crash. Its not significantly better than XP although there are some little usability tweaks I like (and some I don’t). Overall I like it, but I hated ME (and all the other 9x’s).
Windows Vista = Windows ME “Reloaded”
Analogous because it’s a pointless upgrade. Any future MS OS that is released simply for the sake of doing so will be forever compared to Windows ME.
I think XP is still the best OS out there and it even gets better. Nothing againts Linux, I use it myself, but XP rocks. You won’t see me going to Vista in the next couple of years
Let me quesss, you are living in the Czech Republic and you are driving in the latest Skoda?
?????
What’s your problem with the Czechs and Skoda? Let me guess, you are living in Arkansas and you’re driving the latest Oldsmobile, with a bible and some guns in the trunk, for good measure.
Totally wrong quess, nothing wrong with Czechs by the way, they do drive the best Skoda’s in the world, and I know we in the west should be very jealous of them. As for Windows… Never mind.
Totally wrong quess, nothing wrong with Czechs by the way, they do drive the best Skoda’s in the world, and I know we in the west should be very jealous of them.
So why did you even bring up the subject, if you weren’t impugning him in some way?
Although Vista is usually slower, they should have compare speed on system with 2GB o’ram – Vista struggles with one lonely gigbayte
Looking at DDR2 price there’s no reason to buy system with 1GB or less memory. 2GB DDR2 laptop memory for 45 euros…
About XP update – nice, but I don’t think it will work 10% faster on my PC, optimized for XP speed anyway
Let’s wait.
@WereCatf
I know people, liking Vista much more than XP – my daughter for example
And she’s using it without a problem.
I would like to see how well XP performs at the benchmark without any servicepack installed.
Where’s now the so called big bag of salt on the desk?
Edited 2007-11-24 09:51
If WinXP SP3 actually has fewer security holes than the current SP2 + security updates, that’s great. If it has a performance increase of any kind, that’s even better.
OfficeBench wouldn’t seem to really tell most of us a lot about what we could expect, could it?
As with most things Microsoft, I’m happy to have an update that doesn’t leave me worse off than I was prior to applying it. (That goes for Apple, also, but they’re somewhat more reliable.)
By the way, to the people who think that Mac OS X is or was slower than Mac OS 9, it wasn’t slower overall. GUI responsiveness is the only real place where Mac OS 9 had any advatange. Run 3 or more applications and it’s obvious which is faster.
but have you tried it with 999999 gazillion gigs of RAM?
seriously, give it a break. My linux desktop is likely still quicker than your vista with 2G RAM and my system only has 512MB. At any given time most of that 512MB is just used for a cache. The swap has been written to about 2 or 3 times in the last 6 months. Sure I dont do video editing but even if I did, 1GB would be plenty.
I dont care how cheap RAM is, it still means I have to buy more than I currently have, to run a system that does no more than what I currently have (actually – it does LESS).
But then I dont use winxp much…so it looks like a change from linux to windows is a lot more unlikely than the other way around.