XP Sp3 Faster than Vista...

[Officer Dibble]

Makes for interesting reading...

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9048658&intsrc=hm_list
(http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9048658&intsrc=hm_list)

Lots of people I know who were Vista fanboys at the outset are going back to XP... dunno why they wasted their money in the first place.

I'll be doing an Ubuntu Demo for them soon... hopefully we'll see something of them around these forums soon, eh? ;)

[Grey Box]

It keeps giving me the crazy idea that Vista was just a way to boost XP sales.

[karellen]

XP is faster than Vista with or without SP3...

[Officer Dibble]

XP is faster than Vista with or without SP3...

Hmm... okay, maybe I should have said *even* faster... ty 8-)

[inversekinetix]

vista is ME II

win2k = great OS >>> winME = hellohole >>> winXP = great OS (seemed even better because of ME's shortcomings>>>>vista = hellhole 2 >>>> windows 7 = great OS (will seem better because of vistas shortcomings)

[darksong]

Please elaborate on why its ME 2 - please give a good reason why it is poor on the required hardware. And a linux community saying its crap because of compatibility issues is a bit of **** take really.

[xArv3nx]

And a linux community saying its crap because of compatibility issues is a bit of **** take really.
Agreed.

[GepettoBR]

It's ME 2 because just like ME's greatest selling point compared to Windows 98/2000 was looks but it was a lot buggier and less compatible, Vista's advertising focuses on the Aero theme and the Media Center, with a footnote about "security improvements" - but Vista has less hardware support than XP due to the driver signing policy, has a much higher load on the CPU and RAM (which will cause it to crash more often on the same hardware) and has intrusive DRM software installed by default (which also consumes RAM and CPU cycles, so even if we never do anything related to DRM it'll still be a nuisance).

And a linux community saying its crap because of compatibility issues is a bit of **** take really.

That statement was made in comparison to XP, so it is not "a bit of a **** to take".

[WiFi Ed]

I wonder....

On the same hardware, XP SP3 is faster than Vista.

Would Win 2K be faster than XP on that same pc?

Would Win98 be faster than Win 2K? On my old PIII 600, Win 98 is mucho faster than XP or Xubuntu Feisty. On my Core2Quad, everything is fast as hell.

It would be interesting to see some benchmarking of Gutsy vs. Feisty, or even Edgy. Real benchmarking, not "it seems to boot faster, etc."

I will continue to enjoy ALL my OS's, as each has its place and purpose...

[screaminj3sus]

It's ME 2 because just like ME's greatest selling point compared to Windows 98/2000 was looks but it was a lot buggier and less compatible, Vista's advertising focuses on the Aero theme and the Media Center, with a footnote about "security improvements" - but Vista has less hardware support than XP due to the driver signing policy, has a much higher load on the CPU and RAM (which will cause it to crash more often on the same hardware) and has intrusive DRM software installed by default (which also consumes RAM and CPU cycles, so even if we never do anything related to DRM it'll still be a nuisance).



That statement was made in comparison to XP, so it is not "a bit of a **** to take".

ME hardly looks much different from 98 or 2000, and Vista is MUCH MUCH MUCH more stable than ME. Vista is not MEII, vista is XP when it first came out and people were bitching about exactly the same things. I have run vista flawlessly on my crappy old dell, and just built my new computer this weekend (5000+x2, 2 GB RAM, x1950 PRO, Vista x64 runs flawlessly on it, no problems at all)

[Chrisj303]

Vista runs fine for me as well.

Even on the Macbook - that uses integrated graphics - it runs *fast* with no lag.

[Midwest-Linux]

So when is MS going to admit they made a "mistake" with Vista and stop offering it and push XP SP3 instead? The right thing would be is to let Vista users "upgrade" to XP SP3 for free.

[GepettoBR]

ME hardly looks much different from 98 or 2000, and Vista is MUCH MUCH MUCH more stable than ME. Vista is not MEII, vista is XP when it first came out and people were bitching about exactly the same things. I have run vista flawlessly on my crappy old dell, and just built my new computer this weekend (5000+x2, 2 GB RAM, x1950 PRO, Vista x64 runs flawlessly on it, no problems at all)

I agree that Vista is a lot more stable than ME - I never said otherwise. I was comparing the XP-Vista leap with the 98-ME leap. And yes, we all bitched about the same things when XP came out because that's Microsoft's modus operandi: in order to push forward the required hardware power, they buff up the system with every release, making it require more RAM, HD space and CPU power. They don't bugtest enough, and they leave in many obsolete lines of code that could have been removed, and create instability and leaks. Most of them are fixed with SP1 (in W98's case, with 98 SE) but until then people will continue to bitch and complain. Some of us don't have these problems I never had a complaint about XP that I didn't also have about Windws 98 and ME and I am overall satisfied with it whenever I use it. I haven't used Vista enough to say the same thing, but why not? The bottom line is, with such a large user base, they should focus more on stability than they do, instead of selling the sizzle with all the new eye-candy. Just because you and I got lucky doesn't mean every one else did, too.

[getaceres]

ME hardly looks much different from 98 or 2000, and Vista is MUCH MUCH MUCH more stable than ME. Vista is not MEII, vista is XP when it first came out and people were bitching about exactly the same things. I have run vista flawlessly on my crappy old dell, and just built my new computer this weekend (5000+x2, 2 GB RAM, x1950 PRO, Vista x64 runs flawlessly on it, no problems at all)

No. When XP was launched, vendors didn't include an option to install Windows 98 (or ME) instead of Windows XP one year after its launch as some vendors like Dell and HP are doing now. I didn't see in the forums (Windows forums I mean) the same amount of posts asking about a XP downgrade as I'm seeing now with Vista downgrades.
There has been a year since Vista was officially put on every new PC and today people are still experiencing problems and the SP1 seems to be useless relating to that problems (performance, stability, ...). I clearly see Vista as ME2 and Windows Viena (7.0?, 6.1?) as the next XP.

[Midwest-Linux]

Vista is a dog, maybe its not windows ME...but Vista is still a mistake the way it was released with the restricted drivers, and the DRM bloatware. Three to Five minutes to get to the desktop on a new computer is a mistake in my opinion...

However....we have Linux, free of bloatware, No DRM, No WGA, No "activation", no serial numbers, no reduced functionality, no UAC, no crap...just a operating system that gets even better and better...

[de_valentin]

Take a look at my avatar it's the graph with the 2 short baulks being xp before and after sp3 and the long baulks are vista before and after sp1.

It says it al for me. I bet if you would put Gutsy next to that with a similar benchmakr test it would even be quicker than XP

Edit: Here's the link to the graph (in dutch but the graph speaks for itself)
http://core.tweakers.net/nieuws/50544/sp3-krikt-snelheid-windows-xp-op-met-10-procent.html

[igknighted]

vista is ME II

win2k = great OS >>> winME = hellohole >>> winXP = great OS (seemed even better because of ME's shortcomings>>>>vista = hellhole 2 >>>> windows 7 = great OS (will seem better because of vistas shortcomings)

Umm...

winXP = more expensive win2k with a fisher price skin... how is this a great OS?

Vista, OTOH, is the first windows OS that is reasonably secure, the first that looks decent, and as long as you match it with reasonable hardware (not an unreasonable expectation... why would you buy a new version of windows for an old PC anyway?). The real issue is that people don't want to (a) learn a new system that has some very nice tweaks that, once you are used to them, are very efficient, and (b) pay the price for security. UAC and sudo are nearly the same thing, and while they might be "annoying" at times, for the sake of security they are necessary. So the complainers are really saying that they would prefer to take their chances. Note that Vista even caters to these people by letting them turn UAC off anyways... so they really are just complaining to complain. If it was linux and they were told "you can remove evolution and ekiga later" or "you can change the theme after you install", no one complains. But if theres a security feature on windows you feel you don't need that you are told to turn off yourself... its the end of the world!

[igknighted]

Vista is a dog, maybe its not windows ME...but Vista is still a mistake the way it was released with the restricted drivers, and the DRM bloatware. Three to Five minutes to get to the desktop on a new computer is a mistake in my opinion...

However....we have Linux, free of bloatware, No DRM, No WGA, No "activation", no serial numbers, no reduced functionality, no UAC, no crap...just a operating system that gets even better and better...

Sorry for the DP, but this is just FUD. You merely threw out buzz phrases that get people mad. Lets review:

Restricted drivers? Explain this. If you mean no drivers for all devices, then that is not Vista's fault. If anything, Vista's drivers are far better than XPs. Many wireless nics and printers (probably more, this is all I have experience with) have drivers built in... no more downloads or looking for CDs. Yes, many devices don't have drivers... go bitch to hp, creative and logitech that your devices don't work. Linux has the same issues, don't forget, with vendors choosing not to make drivers.

Oh dear, the DRM card again. Do you really know what DRM is? Look... DRM is despicable, but just because it exists doesn't mean it's windows fault. If you bought a windows PC with a blueray drive, and wanted to watch a disk it wouldn't be able to read it without DRM. Is that acceptable? Not when I paid for a license to the OS! It better come with these licensed formats! If you hate DRM so much that you hold it against Vista, then you better not touch any "plays4sure" mp3 player or apple device... which is 99% of the players out there.

3-5 minutes to the desktop is a mistake... your mistake. It is a driver/compatability issue or your computer is too slow for vista. Mine boots nearly as fast as linux, nothing special about it. Run msconfig and turn off the crap you don't want and it's quite reasonable.

Final rundown:

* Linux has no bloatware - what's OO.o and Evolution?
* No DRM? Ok, so you gain nothing but lose the ability to view a DRM file/stream... again, fight the system by avoiding DRM... but fight the right people.
* Activation/Serials/reduced functionality - this is a big plus for linux... but if you buy legit and don't try anything silly that the license doesn't allow it shouldn't be an issue. Oh, nice job listing this (essentially the same thing) three times to make it look worse btw.
* No UAC - Umm, explain to me this huge difference between UAC and sudo then?
* No Crap - Every OS has its fair share of crap, linux is no different. Explain what you mean by crap and you might have an argument.

Look, I love linux and use it 80% of the time. But my desktop boots to Vista quite often due to games, and I have had nothing go wrong with the system. People bash it on these forums because it is cool, but I bet 90% of them never gave it a FAIR shot. They heard rumors, assumed it would be bad, and saw what they wanted to see. So call me a fanboy if you want, but I'm just trying to tell the other side of the story that many here love to ignore.

[Midwest-Linux]

Sorry for the DP, but this is just FUD. You merely threw out buzz phrases that get people mad. Lets review:

Restricted drivers? Explain this. If you mean no drivers for all devices, then that is not Vista's fault. If anything, Vista's drivers are far better than XPs. Many wireless nics and printers (probably more, this is all I have experience with) have drivers built in... no more downloads or looking for CDs. Yes, many devices don't have drivers... go bitch to hp, creative and logitech that your devices don't work. Linux has the same issues, don't forget, with vendors choosing not to make drivers.

Oh dear, the DRM card again. Do you really know what DRM is? Look... DRM is despicable, but just because it exists doesn't mean it's windows fault. If you bought a windows PC with a blueray drive, and wanted to watch a disk it wouldn't be able to read it without DRM. Is that acceptable? Not when I paid for a license to the OS! It better come with these licensed formats! If you hate DRM so much that you hold it against Vista, then you better not touch any "plays4sure" mp3 player or apple device... which is 99% of the players out there.

3-5 minutes to the desktop is a mistake... your mistake. It is a driver/compatability issue or your computer is too slow for vista. Mine boots nearly as fast as linux, nothing special about it. Run msconfig and turn off the crap you don't want and it's quite reasonable.

Final rundown:

* Linux has no bloatware - what's OO.o and Evolution?
* No DRM? Ok, so you gain nothing but lose the ability to view a DRM file/stream... again, fight the system by avoiding DRM... but fight the right people.
* Activation/Serials/reduced functionality - this is a big plus for linux... but if you buy legit and don't try anything silly that the license doesn't allow it shouldn't be an issue. Oh, nice job listing this (essentially the same thing) three times to make it look worse btw.
* No UAC - Umm, explain to me this huge difference between UAC and sudo then?
* No Crap - Every OS has its fair share of crap, linux is no different. Explain what you mean by crap and you might have an argument.

Look, I love linux and use it 80% of the time. But my desktop boots to Vista quite often due to games, and I have had nothing go wrong with the system. People bash it on these forums because it is cool, but I bet 90% of them never gave it a FAIR shot. They heard rumors, assumed it would be bad, and saw what they wanted to see. So call me a fanboy if you want, but I'm just trying to tell the other side of the story that many here love to ignore.


ll I know is I went to several stores, checked out different Vista machines on display. Some were off, powered them on them on...and waited and waited. I didn't take the specs down...didn't matter...didnt bring a stop watch either....


As far as the drivers in Vista, if Microsoft wants to..it can do driver revocation on a Vista machine.... I am not making this up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Denial-of-Service via Driver/Device Revocation

“Vista will […] revoke any driver that is found to be leaking premium content […] if the same driver is used for all the manufacturer's chip designs, then a revocation would cause all that company's products to need a new driver”. If it's an older device for which the vendor isn't interested in rewriting their drivers (and in the fast-moving hardware market most devices enter “legacy” status within a year or two of their replacement models becoming available), all devices of that type worldwide become permanently unable to handle premium content.

The threat of driver revocation is the ultimate nuclear option, the crack of the commissars' pistols reminding the faithful of their duty. The exact details of the hammer that vendors will be hit with is buried in confidential licensing agreements, but I've heard mention of multi-million dollar fines and embargoes on further shipment of devices alongside the driver revocation mentioned above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If consumers want a OS that has a slow start up, needs more ram out of the box that what came with the computer, runs a lot slower than the previous OS, and having the possibility of their drivers on their expensive bloated OS revoked, or have their machines in reduced functionality mode because the legit Vista was mistakenly labled as pirated. Or have programs that ran good on XP, but not on Vista...Thats fine with me...

[GepettoBR]

* Linux has no bloatware - what's OO.o and Evolution?

I'm sorry - I've read your posts with great interest and agree with most of what I could have an opinion about (I've barely used Vista enough) but that's just silly.

if Windows came with Microsoft Office and Outlook Express, would you call that bloatware? Most people who use a computer at all use word processors on a regular basis, and most people who have and use internet connections will use at least e-mail and presentation software like powerpoint. Including them with the OS isn't "bloating" it - Heck, the first personal computers had nothing but text editors. Granted, the OOo Writer is much more feature-filled than necessary and AbiWord would (maybe) suffice for most of the time, but answer me this: When a person has MS Office installed and they need to type and print something simple, how many of them will use Notepad/Wordpad and how many of them will fire up Word anyways and not care that it takes a few extra seconds to load?

[igknighted]

I'm sorry - I've read your posts with great interest and agree with most of what I could have an opinion about (I've barely used Vista enough) but that's just silly.

if Windows came with Microsoft Office and Outlook Express, would you call that bloatware? Most people who use a computer at all use word processors on a regular basis, and most people who have and use internet connections will use at least e-mail and presentation software like powerpoint. Including them with the OS isn't "bloating" it - Heck, the first personal computers had nothing but text editors. Granted, the OOo Writer is much more feature-filled than necessary and AbiWord would (maybe) suffice for most of the time, but answer me this: When a person has MS Office installed and they need to type and print something simple, how many of them will use Notepad/Wordpad and how many of them will fire up Word anyways and not care that it takes a few extra seconds to load?

Windows does come with outlook express (well, vista has windows mail, but w/e). And had it come with Office I wouldn't consider it bloat because the MS Office apps tend to be reasonably responsive.

Can you really say that OO.o has the same features as MS Office? I don't think you can. But still it is much slower and less responsive. And I really think you aren't giving abiword enough respect. It is NOT notepad/wordpad for linux. It is almost as fully featured as OO.o at a fraction of the resource use. And not to mention gnumeric is the best spreadsheet app for linux, far superior to OO.o Calc, IMO. To simply write them off like that is quite unfair. I think that adding features to these apps via plugins would create the ideal solution... a faster app, and the user could control how many features they need. OO.o code is to warped for this, while gnome-office and koffice are terrific bases for such a project (actually, Koffice2, which will be available for windows too, should be an awesome office suite as it is).

As for Evolution, I suppose my complaints are more about bugs than speed, but compared to Kontact in KDE which offers similar functionality, it crawls at snails pace.

I don't think either of those apps are bad (well, evolution comes close some days...), but I do believe that they are much slower than they should be.

Good points on presentation software and such. I have yet to find anything that works as well as Impress. I can't say the same about base... if you are gonna do database work, go for the real thing and use MySQL.

EDIT: I am not saying that including these features is bad. I am saying that the choice of the apps is iffy. I would consider adding firefox to that list as well, due to there being some other very capable browsers like epiphany, konqueror (a gnome port could be made), and a few others.

[igknighted]

ll I know is I went to several stores, checked out different Vista machines on display. Some were off, powered them on them on...and waited and waited. I didn't take the specs down...didn't matter...didnt bring a stop watch either....

Your evidence is floor models at big-box stores? I have nothing further to say to you.