Windows XP SP3 Boosts Performance 10 Percent

Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:49AM EST

See Comments (12)

On the heels of last week's news that Windows Vista's first service pack would do nothing to improve performance comes some good news for those who wisely chose not to upgrade the new OS: XP's upcoming Service Pack 3 (now in limited beta) does improve performance, in the range of 10 percent, a substantial boost.

Exo.blog has the benchmarks again.

The results are initially somewhat surprising, as Exo notes, since SP3 is largely meant as a bug fix rollup for a mature OS and shouldn't carry with it any architectural changes serious enough to shave that much slowness off of the OS's operation. But on further reflection, it's important to remember how small changes can have major impacts on OS performance. Tweaking the way and the frequency with which memory is paged to the hard disk, for example, can have major ramifications for computer speed. The hope is that none of this has any negative effect on system stability. (And so far, things are looking up in that department too.)

Want to see something really scary? Check out how slow Vista is compared to XP on the same tasks now. (Vista is the leftmost two bars on the graph above.) 

Latest word on XP SP3 is that it is still planned for release in the first half of 2008. If you want a (legal) preview of what SP3 will look like when it comes out, you might check out TheHotfix.net, which offers a "preview pack" release that's likely to emulate what SP3 is like.

LINK: Windows XP SP3 Yields Performance Gains 

Comments on Windows XP SP3 Boosts Performance 10 Percent

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 6 Posted by edjrauch on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:52PM EDT Report Abuse

    Glad I did'nt jump on the Vista bandwagon.I felt that I have not use XP to its fullest.

  • 7 Posted by eblack7164 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:51PM EDT Report Abuse

    The brief time we had a media center PC with Vista (a few months after Vista dropped), the primary complaint was my mom and sister couldn't access the intranets of their respective jobs. Also, Vista (at the time we got the computer) was incompatible with iTunes. +, according to what I read online, 4, Microsoft will reportedly support XP until 2010.

  • 8 Posted by allita@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:51PM EDT Report Abuse

    WOW! What an interesting site. I'll return when I have time to spend. I can just say Wow. You're all so knowlegable. I feel like a dumb rock. This site is great.

  • 9 Posted by okseeusoon on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:44PM EDT Report Abuse

    There is nothing at all wrong with Vista. Stop the lies. Someone start using Vista and then write an article. If you are comparing a Pentium IV Vista with a Pentium IV Windows XP - well duh, yeah, it's not going to run as fast. But if you are comparing a Windows XP era computer with Windows Vista era computer well... Wow! It really does work and it looks so cool while doing it. I wish all the yellow journalism would stop about Vista. It's quite old and a bunch of lies. Macs are only good for performing an extremely limited number of tasks. I wish Microsoft would start a campaign ridiculing the Mac ads - they are lies, lies, lies based on 1995 exaggeration of modern Windows.

  • 10 Posted by tailchaserxl5 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:54PM EDT Report Abuse

    In response to 9 above and others. Vista is always going to be slower than XP on the same 32 bit processor based PC - even a Core 2 Duo. Only when run on a 64 bit processor (which Intel is coming out with soon, and AMD already has) will Vista start to shine. The problem started when Microsoft mandated that all consumer PC's had to ship with Vista. But the hardware simply wasn't up to the task (yet). Fortunately you can still get XP for use on current technology - at least through Dell's business side until June 2008. Probably by then the performance of the processors/hardware will be up to the task of running Vista at least as fast as XP does now on a Core 2 Duo processor. And yes, that Aero interface is beautiful. The whole problem is that Vista runs great on a $2500 desktop and a $4000 laptop - but most consumers spend far less than that and the cheaper hardware can run XP OK, but Vista is a dog on it. That all should hopefully change next year.

  • 11 Posted by hezzdown on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:18PM EDT Report Abuse

    I am surprised that Microsoft would actually put a patch out that improves upon XP. After all aren't they trying to market Vista? I'm not complaining, I decided against upgrading (for a lack of a better term) to Vista in the second week of its release.

  • 12 Posted by ironmanboher on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:25PM EDT Report Abuse

    I was going to upgrade to vista , but with all the negatives I have been hearing, I am staying with XP. I too have the fear that Microsoft may stop supporting XP so we have no choice if we still want windows. Personally I think XP pro is about as good as I will ever need, not to mention that much of my hardware may not work with vista.I wonder, does anyone know if a vista based computer and be downgraded to XP?

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 Next Last

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment

My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Site Map | Tour | Subscribe to Yahoo! Tech

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.