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.
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.
-
2 Posted by alexgannis on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:50PM EDT Report Abuse
BULL CRAP LOOK I GOT WINDOW VISTA AND IT RUN BETTER WHEN I HAD WINDOW XP.
-
3 Posted by alexnolasco on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:50PM EDT Report Abuse
I switched to Ubuntu period and I am happy so far.. Again, Linux is not for everyone so don't even start.. Good luck Vista after all you are made in the USA and not in China.
-
4 Posted by janlbca@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:28PM EDT Report Abuse
Anyone know for sure how long MS will keep supporting Win XP? I am going to hang on for dear life and then probably jump to LINUX....Vista is too much for me
-
5 Posted by agustin2489 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:47PM EDT Report Abuse
What? What?! Curse you Microsoft for making us lowly consumers buy Vista with each new computer..
-
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.
1 Posted by m_knopp on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:32PM EDT Report Abuse
Yet another WOW! moment from Microsoft regarding Vista. I guess for once their PR department got it right. In this case it has to be people going, "Wow, I cannot believe that I bought/upgraded to Vista." So now the race is on to see which one ends up being worse ME or Vista.