Damn XP is fast

[nocilah]

i heard windows xp sp3 considerably speeds up windows xp. im used to vista and after sp1 pretty fast all round.

 

[Ivan...]

XP is very fast on my PC too, but you know what... Tea can do that!

Hahah!

 

[milomak]

One thing I learnt from Linux, I really don't need 90%+ of the the stuff that Windows (Vista or XP) loads onto the bar with the clock. That makes a load a difference as well.

 

[AntiThesis]

One thing I learnt from Linux, I really don't need 90%+ of the the stuff that Windows (Vista or XP) loads onto the bar with the clock. That makes a load a difference as well.

Very true. One of the nicest things about linux stuff is the empty clock area. Spiffy.

Bit misleading this "XP is fast" thing. It's software that's how old now? So it shouldn't be a great shock that it runs well on current hardware. Kinda like how my abandonware runs really, really quickly on my dual core

 

[Gnome]

Very true. One of the nicest things about linux stuff is the empty clock area. Spiffy.

Bit misleading this "XP is fast" thing. It's software that's how old now? So it shouldn't be a great shock that it runs well on current hardware. Kinda like how my abandonware runs really, really quickly on my dual core

Difference being that your Abondonware isn't a operating system.

Oh and it's still perfectly usable for todays applications. There is nothing I would need to install Linux for (and Windows Vista for that matter), at least not for what I do.

If it works

 

[milomak]

Yeah Anti - For instance the latest Office runs on XP. The latest games run on XP. Seemingly faster than on Vista. On the same hardware. A new OS is meant to improve speed matrices from the previous one using modern software. It seems not to be the case with Vista from what I have read from reviews and the like.

What's more even the sites one would call reliable also look down on Vista. What would be interesting would be if users here could site reputable magazines/sites that are Pro Vista. That would surely put a sock in anti-Vista mouths.

EDIT: In fact when I think about, it is probably telling that those who promote Vista have nothing else but their own personal experiences in threads started with an article from a publication/article.

 

[Eh!]

Which XP SP version do you guys have? I got mine from NAG DVD V3264 a few months back and can't tell the differnce after installing.

XP4ever...until I can afford 8gb of RAM

 

[Mier]

Thanks, that made a difference. You wouldn't happen to have a fix for the rubbish network performance too? (<7MB/s on a link that can do 12,5MB/s)...pushing my luck, I know

TCPOptimizer could help
http://www.speedguide.net/downloads.php

 

[AntiThesis]

A new OS is meant to improve speed matrices from the previous one using modern software. It seems not to be the case with Vista from what I have read from reviews and the like.

See that's why I say remember the early days of XP. Everyone hated it. Most of the industry swore blind that M$ would can it and that 2000 was going to remain the OS of choice. Random popular opinion (and the same journalists who blasted XP when it was released) have now raised XP up to this pedestal and declared that it's the most awesome creation ever - the pinacle of OS development.

Which it's not. It's a mature product that's been around for years and years. Vista by comparison has barely been to SP1 level.

It's just weird how everyone has suddenly forgotten all the problems with XP and the issues they used to have.

I'm not suggesting that people switch over to Linux (although that would be cool) or even to Vista but it's a little unfair to say "Why can't Vista be like XP? Vista is the worst thing ever made and XP is so awesome! OMG!"

 

[mancombseepgood]

I've been using Vista for a few months now. Today I toyed around with XP SP3 in a VMware virtualised environment.

The thing that blew me away is just how damn fast XP feels compared to Vista...

Vista SP1:
2gb Ram
2 cores
Latest drivers
Tweaked services + loads of stuff disabled (Shadow copy etc)

XP SP3:
512mb RAM
1 core
Virtualized
No extra drivers installed
No tweaks

All of those things should put XP at a disadvantage speedwise, and yet it still pwns Vista in terms of perceived responsiveness. One gets used to Vista's slowness, but this contrast today makes me seriously think of joining the "XP to the bitter end" crew.

I'll be missing the Vista built-in search function though.

Yeah, Newer hardware and XP is an awesome combination, not to mention compatibility. You wait 5 years to get over the speed issues and they release the latest sloth.

 

[HavocXphere]

Which XP SP version do you guys have? I got mine from NAG DVD V3264 a few months back and can't tell the differnce after installing.

XP4ever...until I can afford 8gb of RAM

This one.

TCPOptimizer could help
http://www.speedguide.net/downloads.php

Vista has TCP optimization built-in...but its obviously not working, so that tool might be worth a try.

See that's why I say remember the early days of XP. Everyone hated it. Most of the industry swore blind that M$ would can it and that 2000 was going to remain the OS of choice.
I'm not suggesting that people switch over to Linux (although that would be cool) or even to Vista but it's a little unfair to say "Why can't Vista be like XP? Vista is the worst thing ever made and XP is so awesome! OMG!"

The thing is, I don't see 2x the features or coolness to go along with that half speed. If it was more functional but slower then that would be OK...but it isn't *that* much more functional.

Anyway, I'm kinda undecided at the moment. Switching off the window animations as Ekhaat suggested helped with some of the sluggishness.

 

[mancombseepgood]

This one.


Vista has TCP optimization built-in...but its obviously not working, so that tool might be worth a try.


The thing is, I don't see 2x the features or coolness to go along with that half speed. If it was more functional but slower then that would be OK...but it isn't *that* much more functional.

Anyway, I'm kinda undecided at the moment. Switching off the window animations as Ekhaat suggested helped with some of the sluggishness.

U switched off the file / search indexer? Huge difference...

 

[Ekhaatvensters]

i heard windows xp sp3 considerably speeds up windows xp. im used to vista and after sp1 pretty fast all round.

This is probably based more on the hate for Vista really. I hardly noticed any speed difference (except in shutting down) with SP3 for XP. Some benchmarks show a speed increase, but I don't know how much this translates into a noticeable difference.

The main benchmark you see with SP3 puts it against Vista SP1 on the same hardware.

 

[HavocXphere]

U switched off the file / search indexer? Huge difference...

The search is very useful, so I'm not switching that off. I have however restricted its search scope significantly.

 

[mancombseepgood]

The search is very useful, so I'm not switching that off. I have however restricted its search scope significantly.

Use Google desktop - it's far more intelligent. The Windows one indexes when it's not idle... lotsa people complaining.

 

[ld13]

[kinda OT]
I'm sitting with the whole XP SP3 vs Vista SP1 / DX9.0c vs DX10.1 choice now...
I know Vista will be slower than XP on the same hardware – its a given. Anyone who indicates anything else: BS!

But now I've stumbled upon Windows Server 2008. Anyone gave this a proper try yet? They say its about 10% Faster than Vista...
[/kinda OT]

 

[mancombseepgood]

Server will have to be tweaked to work nicely as a desktop OS - all the RAM cum virtual memory will be geared towards services etc. Also, your drivers for major gaming hardware will not be suitable... at least they won't make an effort to produce decent DX10 drivers IMO. It's not clever if you ask me, especially considering the cost...
but then if you're using it for business alone, then DX10 is meaningless.

 

[kronoSX]

I've been using Vista for a few months now. Today I toyed around with XP SP3 in a VMware virtualised environment.

The thing that blew me away is just how damn fast XP feels compared to Vista...

Vista SP1:
2gb Ram
2 cores
Latest drivers
Tweaked services + loads of stuff disabled (Shadow copy etc)

XP SP3:
512mb RAM
1 core
Virtualized
No extra drivers installed
No tweaks

All of those things should put XP at a disadvantage speedwise, and yet it still pwns Vista in terms of perceived responsiveness. One gets used to Vista's slowness, but this contrast today makes me seriously think of joining the "XP to the bitter end" crew.

I'll be missing the Vista built-in search function though.

ahh that is always a selling point..yes

 

[mancombseepgood]

What is that built in search function? A poorly designed clone of google desktop?

 

[LazyLion]

I hate those search thingies... I always uninstall them... they slow your whole system down. Just keep all your docs organised and the normal windows search function will do just fine. Uninstalling the indexing and search is one of the first things I do in Windows XP.

BTW, I have a version of XP called Tiny XP... very stripped down... for Ultra Portable Devices... super streamlined and very fast! Wish it was legal though

But I hope to see a Microsoft version soon based on XP.