XP Service Pack 3 .... FINALLY!

[KSoD]

Yes and XP will be snappier.

98 was not a complicated DOS prompt. That was 95. 98 got away from the DOS prompt and DOS reliance. It was almost the first full stand alone Windows OS. It did fall short. But it was not as dependent on DOS as 95 was.

My point is this. Vista has well over 100 Million lines of code. XP does not even get close to that. Everybody thinks that Vista is XP with a new GUI. That is where they are wrong. Vista is much more complicated. If XP could even handle the things that Vista can do, you would see the speed of XP get slowed down real fast.

There is no fair benchmarking as there is no way you can fairly compare the 2 OS's at all. They are not even in the same code base. The only thing these 2 have in common is the Windows name. But everyone wants to make the comparison.

If and only If Microsoft is lucky enough to use something like the MiniWin Kernel that they have talked about to reduce the kernel and eliminate almost all of the backward functionality, just like XP did, maybe then you can get clsoe to a comparison between OS's.

 

[Apokalipse]

Yes and XP will be snappier.

98 was not a complicated DOS prompt. That was 95. 98 got away from the DOS prompt and DOS reliance. It was almost the first full stand alone Windows OS. It did fall short. But it was not as dependent on DOS as 95 was.

But the fact that it did still have ties to DOS was one of the things that caused instability.
One of the things specifically, was memory handling. 98 was quite bad in that area.

Though I do admit, I did find XP to run slower than 98 (I was running on a Pentium 3 500MHZ with I think about 256MB RAM when I upgraded to XP)
But, there was a definite improvement in stability and usability.

I guess my point is that the transition from 98 to XP really was an upgrade. 98 was quite unstable comparatively.
But XP right now is far from unstable. In fact, it's one of the most stable OS's available. And it's also quite versatile.
So moving from XP to Vista doesn't really give you advantages quite like moving from 98 to XP.

My point is this. Vista has well over 100 Million lines of code. XP does not even get close to that.

Yes, Vista has more code in it.
though I've always wondered how much more that new code actually does for Vista than XP.
I mean, Vista has a lot of features that are basically just eye candy (XP has some too, but to a much lesser extent).
And when running programs on each OS, with the exception of DirectX 10, I've yet to find anything Vista does do that XP doesn't.

Though from what I hear, DirectX 10's new features aren't really all that new. They have basically made standard a lot of the things that game programmers were already implementing in DirectX 9.0b/c anyway.

Everybody thinks that Vista is XP with a new GUI. That is where they are wrong. Vista is much more complicated. If XP could even handle the things that Vista can do, you would see the speed of XP get slowed down real fast.

But that's just it: what can Vista handle that XP can't?
I've run both OS's, and I can't say I'm really missing anything in XP. #1

There is no fair benchmarking as there is no way you can fairly compare the 2 OS's at all. They are not even in the same code base. The only thing these 2 have in common is the Windows name. But everyone wants to make the comparison.

Why is it not fair to compare them? I mean, Vista is the OS that is supposed to replace XP.
Even if they are a different code base, Vista is supposed to be able to do whatever XP can do, but better, and/or more *see #1. I don't see why it's unfair to compare them.

And even if you can't really compare them, then who is to say which OS one should use?

Now, I don't think Vista is as bad as people often say, and I won't pretend that it's an absolutely nasty horrible OS that you should avoid like the plague.
But, I also don't think it's really better than XP.

And since XP (32 and x64) does run faster, that's what I'm using.

 

[KSoD]

I am not trying to say who should use what. I am saying that the comparison are not equal. They will ALWAYS show XP as being faster. ALWAYS.

The new stuf inVist is under the hood. UAC, the networksing all of that is different. The code base is not like XP's at all. It has been redone. If people knew of the series of cdoing that went on they would know this as well.

Codename Longhorn was a XP Clone. IT was XP with new features and a new look. Luna and the other themes. But when Microsoft realized that they could ont do what they wanted with the OS they dropped ALL the code and started from scratch with Vista Beta. That is why it took 5 years to develop the OS. It is also why it was rushed out and not put out properly.

Now if you want to do a real comparison of OS's. Put XP up against Server 2008. You will be shocked to see that XP will not win that battle. If Microsoft wasnt in such a rush to get out Vista and get it to the public, who at the time were demanding it. Then maybe they could have finished it and made it work like Server 08.

The fact is that while Vista may use the same stuff as XP. It is not at all like it. People may think that it is just XP with a new look but then that just shows that they do not know anything about the OS. Yes it is slower than XP. I am not arguing that point. But my point is this. ALL new Microsoft OS's are SLOWER than their predicessors. ALL of them. That is something that people forgot about in the 5 years it took Microsoft to develop Vista. They got so accustomed to XP.

Now the real test will be to see how much they slack off Windows 7 when that still doesnt give them the speed they want.

 

[Apokalipse]

I am not trying to say who should use what. I am saying that the comparison are not equal. They will ALWAYS show XP as being faster. ALWAYS.

I don't follow what you're trying to get at...
I mean, if you use the same hardware, and it's faster on one OS, why is it unfair?

The new stuf inVist is under the hood. UAC, the networksing all of that is different. The code base is not like XP's at all. It has been redone. If people knew of the series of cdoing that went on they would know this as well.

yes, it's got different code. But it still has to have the same basic functionality that XP has.
It does much of the same stuff, even if the code it uses to do those things works differently.

I mean, the two OS's run the same programs (in 99.9% of cases), and as far as basic functionality goes, you're probably not going to have different results on each OS (unless perhaps the programs have OS specific functions)

Codename Longhorn was a XP Clone. IT was XP with new features and a new look. Luna and the other themes. But when Microsoft realized that they could ont do what they wanted with the OS they dropped ALL the code and started from scratch with Vista Beta. That is why it took 5 years to develop the OS. It is also why it was rushed out and not put out properly.

Yes, I know about Longhorn..

But my point is, I just don't see Vista as a better OS than XP.

Yes, it's different, yes it's got better looks.. but as far as functionality goes, with the exception of DirectX 10, it doesn't really do more than XP (though I am pretty sure DirectX 10 could be made for XP... just that Microsoft won't do it)

What's more, XP tends to do things faster, and is still a very stable OS.
No, that doesn't mean Vista is bad. But I just don't see a lot of incentive to use it instead of XP.

Now if you want to do a real comparison of OS's. Put XP up against Server 2008. You will be shocked to see that XP will not win that battle. If Microsoft wasnt in such a rush to get out Vista and get it to the public, who at the time were demanding it. Then maybe they could have finished it and made it work like Server 08.

Server 2008 has improved over Vista as far as performance goes, though I think a lot of it is just less of the unnecessary features are used. But, in the benchmarks I've seen, it still looks like XP is faster:
Windows XP SP2/SP3 Server 2008 Comparison Thread - XtremeSystems Forums
That's with themes etc disabled on all OS's

The fact is that while Vista may use the same stuff as XP. It is not at all like it. People may think that it is just XP with a new look but then that just shows that they do not know anything about the OS. Yes it is slower than XP. I am not arguing that point. But my point is this. ALL new Microsoft OS's are SLOWER than their predicessors. ALL of them. That is something that people forgot about in the 5 years it took Microsoft to develop Vista. They got so accustomed to XP.

Yes, newer OS's are most often slower than the older ones.
But, usually, they provide significantly more/better functionality, and/or stability too.

I'm not saying vista isn't very functional or stable. But, XP is
IMO, it's Microsoft's most stable, compatible and reliable OS to date.

While Vista might not be the terrible OS people sometimes make it out to be, it isn't really better

 

[KSoD]

That is your opinion. Which you are entitled to. Many people i know prefer teh extra security that Vista offers. The better netowrking among their PC's. The parental controls built in.

Vista is functional and stable. Just like XP IS. It is the users who do not know how to cope with Vista. That is the issue. I have used Vista since Beta and have had few to no issues with anything since RC2 build of Vista. Yet everyone seems to think that it isnt stable. What did they do to make it that way? I haev gotten maybe 3 BSOD' total in Vista. 2 of them were after i switched GFX cards and didnt remove the old drivers. MY fault. Not Vista.

We can sit here and go back and forth. The truth is Vista is the future. It is the building ground for Window 7 no matter what people think of it. I know when Windows 7 starts to hit Beta stages i will be ready for it. I will not have to get used to the changes that it will have compared to XP. Those who wish to stay. Fine.

I personally have found Vista to be just fine and very fast on my system. XP may be slightly faster. Ubuntu beats them both. So each person makes their choice.

 

[atomic tofu]

ok, i skipped some of the latter responses...lol

here is why it's unfair to compare Vista with an older gen os..and I hope EVERYONE will understand this comparison, take it with them, and make sure to inform other clueless people...not to say anyone in particular is clueless...

GAMES...has any person here tried to play an older game on modern hardware? Have you found it to run way too fast?

people have had to make apps to slow down the games...
http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/myslow/

some readin'
The Oldskool PC Guide to Getting Old Software Running on Newer PCs
DOS Games Frequently Asked Questions: Part of dosgames.com


The problem is...logic...simple logic...is failing way too many people. And that is more a matter of something have Microsoft, Windows, or Vista as its naming convention.

It is EVERY OS generation that seems to reset this phenomena...but thankfully, not in everyone's mind, only those "SOME".

Then, some also fail when they try to compare versions, but not matching up versions appropriately. A consumer version of an OS will be different from a SERVER version of an OS.

Xp vs Server 2k8 - invalid comparison
server 2k3 vs server 2k8 - valid

etc

I used NT when people were using 95. I clung to w2k when people were using xp.

I have this strangely uncanny knack for "logic". There is no logical way for me to fairly compare NT or W2K v 95 or xp...it simply was not valid. They were different for a reason.
---

Microsoft may go completely modular with the next mainstream version of Windows OR their next Windows named OS, but they will still fail to satisfy those where logic seems a foreign concept...

eric traut windows 7 - Live Search

If MS goes oldschool techie and takes it modular, you will have those that say, how come it doesn't have this, how come it doesn't have that, how come it does have this, how come it does have that...etc etc...it's a no win situation for the commercial top dog.

so...I hope I have not offended anyone But I just hope people embrace a little more logic when they talk about things.

To throw a boomerang uturn back into the mix...if I use my 4gb, e6600, 512mb x1800, and install windows 2k on it, it will most likely be faster than Xp and Vista...but what does that argue? Absolutely nothing...and w2k is very very stable

 

[KSoD]

It is not invalid to compared Server 2008 to XP. If you turn on SuperFetch and add in all the stuff that is used in Vista than what is the true difference? With Aero, SpuerFetch, Indexing, The Search featuer and the Sidebar what is really the difference then? Nothing. They use the same kernel and coding. Even the Winver of Server 2008 reads as SP1 just like Vista does now. There is no difference. They are the same OS.

 

[Apokalipse]

Vista is functional and stable. Just like XP IS. It is the users who do not know how to cope with Vista. That is the issue. I have used Vista since Beta and have had few to no issues with anything since RC2 build of Vista. Yet everyone seems to think that it isnt stable. What did they do to make it that way? I haev gotten maybe 3 BSOD' total in Vista. 2 of them were after i switched GFX cards and didnt remove the old drivers. MY fault. Not Vista.

That's something I do agree with; many of the problems people are having on Vista are because they're just not used to how Vista works.
The same thing still applies to many problems people are still having on XP. Some people just don't know how to keep it running properly.

Vista isn't really an unstable OS. Initially there was trouble with driver availability (as there was with basically every other OS when they were released), but Vista as a whole is a functional OS.
It just isn't an OS that I'd install over XP.

ok, i skipped some of the latter responses...lol

here is why it's unfair to compare Vista with an older gen os..and I hope EVERYONE will understand this comparison, take it with them, and make sure to inform other clueless people...not to say anyone in particular is clueless...

GAMES...has any person here tried to play an older game on modern hardware? Have you found it to run way too fast?

In a few games, I have.
But then, I just enable Vsync (this can be done in ATI's CCC, or Nvidia's Control Panel).
It's a simple fix, and it works.

But that hasn't really got anything to do with the OS. it's the way the game was originally programmed, and the capability of the hardware we now have compared to the hardware it was designed for.

The problem is...logic...simple logic...is failing way too many people.

I agree with you there (this isn't directed towards anybody specifically).

And that is more a matter of something have Microsoft, Windows, or Vista as its naming convention.

can you rephrase this? I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

Then, some also fail when they try to compare versions, but not matching up versions appropriately. A consumer version of an OS will be different from a SERVER version of an OS.

Some people use server OS's on their home PC.
And some people use a 'standard' OS on a server.

In fact, I think many people are using Server 2008 instead of Vista on their home PC's, because it's faster.
To be honest, I would probably use Server 2008 too if I had to use one of the newer OS's.

I used NT when people were using 95. I clung to w2k when people were using xp.

I think that makes sense.

When I upgraded to XP, I didn't realise how similar it was to 2000. But I did know it was more stable than 98, and far superior in networking (one of the reasons I upgraded, networking wasn't working too well in 98)

I have this strangely uncanny knack for "logic". There is no logical way for me to fairly compare NT or W2K v 95 or xp...it simply was not valid. They were different for a reason.

This is where I don't agree. I don't think it's invalid to compare two OS's just because they were intended for different purposes.

If they can perform the same tasks, but one does it more stably, more reliably and/or faster, it doesn't matter if they were originally made for different uses. It matters what you can use it for and how well.

off topic: That's one thing you can learn from evolution. Functionality of something can change to something completely different, and maybe it'll even work better with the new function.

I think that concept easily works with software. All it is, is changeable data being manipulated and processed. You can make software do pretty much whatever you want it to do, if you know how.

To throw a boomerang uturn back into the mix...if I use my 4gb, e6600, 512mb x1800, and install windows 2k on it, it will most likely be faster than Xp and Vista...but what does that argue? Absolutely nothing...and w2k is very very stable

Actually, that is a valid point.

I don't know what performance differences there would be on todays systems with several gigabytes of RAM and multi-core CPU's which are many times faster per core than what was available then; in fact it would probably be indiscernable on most of todays systems.

But, if you have a system that has, say 64MB RAM, and a CPU of a few hundred MHZ (which wasn't unlikely even when XP was just out), Windows 2000 will happily run on it, and work stably.

In fact, I did install Windows 2000 on an old laptop with similar specs to the example above for a friend. XP would have probably run too slow on it, and 98 was horribly unstable comparatively.

 

[KSoD]

For those of you trying to get your hands on Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 3, I found this direct link to Microsoft for the update. This should guarantee that everyone that wants it can get it and that you are getting the real deal.

I have confirmation. This is not the final build. It is build 3624 one of the RC builds. Got the confirmation from someone who slipstreamed it into their disc jsut to find out when he did a winver that he was only running a RC build not hte final.

 

[Osiris]

It seems like everyone has inside info on XP SP3. Not to be outdone, TechARP has an article about the “secret pre-release details” for the upcoming Service Pack. Interesting stuff.

We were the first to break the news on the release of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and the final RTM schedule of Windows XP Service Pack 3. Now, we will be the first to release the full details on Microsoft's Windows XP Service Pack 3, which as we know will be available for manual update on April 29, 2008. That's just a few days away!
​