Windows XP SP3, the final service pack for Windows XP, was released to manufacturing a few weeks ago, and popped up on Windows Update about a week later. Even though the service pack is rather light on actual new features, it still caused a few problems for some users. Despite these problems, some benchmarks show that while SP3 delivers better performance compared to XP SP2, Microsoft seems to have solved many performance issues with Vista, turning the company's latest OS offering into the better choice for gaming - according to ExtremeTech.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-23
Fans: 0
I expected the update to be larger, but it seemed that it was only about 66 MB, which is small indeed, though I've kept things up to date.
I did notice more responsiveness, but the installation mentioned something about rebuilding the Registry, which could have fixed things that were broken.
I just hope that it doesn't come to bite me later.
Member since:
2006-03-20
Fans: 0
Member since:2005-11-10
Fans: 14
I've used HP laptops, where they did not function out of the box, because of the conflict of craplets installed on the machine, and a bad RaLink Vista driver. It's as if some lowest-of-the-chain tech was given the job of setting up the image, and he didn't bother re-booting the machine after installing everything.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 14
I remember when I purchased an HP laptop for the first time; it was chocked to the brim with crap: I truly couldn't believe it when I saw it. To make matters worse, the BIOS was buggy, the ACPI was old and out of date (people are STILL shipping laptops with ACPI 1.0?).
The best experience so far? I've got a Lenovo thinkpad; wonderful - and it runs OpenSolaris like a champ. I'm not too sure what the consumer Lenovo laptops are like, but their Thinkpad range is simply awesome.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 4
Sadly, that's true for nearly all big OEM PCs these days - desktops and laptops. For the last 3-4 years now, my standard practice when setting up a new laptop for someone has been: format the drive, install a clean copy of XP.
I've literally done virus/spyware cleanups that were less time-consuming than trying to remove all the pre-installed crap from a Dell/Acer/HP machine.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 14
I've literally done virus/spyware cleanups that were less time-consuming than trying to remove all the pre-installed crap from a Dell/Acer/HP machine.
The worse part about these applications, they're not even remotely useful in the slightest. Now, if all the software they bundled were full versions, then it would be a great value. Imagine getting a full version of Nero ultimate (or what ever their super deluxe model is called) - for example.
The thinkpad I have was surprisingly crap free - it was loaded with Windows Vista Basic and hardly any other software - so it ran surprisingly well. As mentioned arstechnica battlefront, I pointed out that what Microsoft needs is a 'gold partner' programme to really lift the quality of integration out there.
Member since:
2005-11-07
Fans: 0
I've installes WinXP SP3 on 2 machines and WinVista SP1 on another 2 machines and so far no problems with the updates.
In fact, copy and move operations in Vista are now much faster then before. I haven't noticed significant performance gains in WinXP though, in fact so far i haven't noticed any difference.
Member since:
2006-07-16
Fans: 0
Okay, I've been keeping track of Vista vs. XP benchmarks because I enjoy watching Microsoft try to to positively spin the disaster that is Vista. Numerous benchmarks were done by several reputable PC / Tech magazines recently; which compared XP SP2 to Vista and Vista SP1 to determine if Vista had improved any with the service pack. All three parties reached the same conclusion: If you want performance stick to XP. Any data to the contrary, without updated drivers or other heavy tweaking by third parties to Vista is nothing more than propaganda designed to sway the uninitiated laymen into believing Vista (being newer and recently updated by its SP1) is better than the older XP. In truth, this is simply not the case. The recent improvements to XP's performance by way of XP's new SP3 will only strengthen its performance gains over the floundering Vista.
Member since:2005-09-13
Fans: 2
//Okay, I've been keeping track of Vista vs. XP benchmarks because I enjoy watching Microsoft try to to positively spin the disaster that is Vista//
Funny, my fresh install of Vista with SP1 on a three-year-old P4 3 Ghz system, 128 MB vid card, and 3 GB RAM ... has run flawlessly. No problems whatsoever.
But you don't like to hear about the thousands and thousands of experiences like I've had. You enjoy focusing on the negative.
Member since:2005-08-11
Fans: 7
Member since:2006-07-16
Fans: 0
So you'll just ignore data that disagrees with your assertions? That's nice. Good to know, I'll just ignore your posts from now on.
I should have placed the word "data" in the above sentence, that you conveniently took out of context, to clearly indicate that I was speaking facetiously. Regardless, my comments weren't about MY assertions...rather those of many others; based on cold hard numbers. As I said: you can spin it how you like, but the fact of the matter is that XP performs better than Vista in most real world scenarios. Sorry Charlie.
Member since:2005-08-11
Fans: 7
If you were speaking facetiously, there was no real indication in your statement. There are some situations where XP outperforms Vista SP1, but the gap is closing, and in my case, Vista runs about the same as XP on the same hardware. Debian outperforms them both :-).
With Windows, it's always the same, the new OS is slower or uses more resources on the same hardware. It's not a new situation. As the OS matures and the hardware gets faster, the situation changes. It happened with XP.
Edited 2008-05-14 13:50 UTC
Member since:2005-07-11
Fans: 1
Member since:2005-09-13
Fans: 2
Member since:
2006-05-19
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-10-11
Fans: 1
Below are just my results at file copying speeds.
My PC has three Hard drives. My E drive appears to have faster write speeds.
My basic specs are.
AMD X2 4600+ (2.4Ghz) s939
2X1GB RAM DDR400
I used a 1GB video file to copy from my D to E for maximum read/write performance. I measured time using a stopwatch. It is not accurate to any decimal point.
Below are the results.
Vista (fresh install)
ROUND1 (I did it 3 times)
time comments
38sec E to D
26s D to E
ROUND 2
32s E to D
24s D to E
ROUND 3
32s E to D
24s D to E
-------------------
VISTA SP1 installed
ROUND 1
18s E to D
18s D to E
ROUND 2
19s E to D
18s D to E
--------------------
My C drive is an identical WD320 model as my E above.
XP SP3 (sorry didn't do this test prior to SP3)
28s C to D
17s D to C
18s C to D
16 C to D (just did this twice to see if caching makes a difference)
20s D to C
17 D to C
In this simple test the performance looks the same. Although I haven't done a test. I believe copying multiple files of varying sizes XPSP3 would be the winner.
On a different note. I have noticed issue with SP3 as expected. (I work as a tech in a PC store).
1st issue:
svchost.exe goes 100% because SP2 machines are trying to access windows updates but can't receive a download.
So the PC are making the request but because MS/Apache? servers can't meet demand PC practically freeze. As you can imagine customers come in with all different problems, but the solution is the same.
I either tell them to be patient and let the update happen, or disable autoupdates and put a windows update icon on the desktop and tell them to try it in a month when this all blows over.
2nd issue.
We sell a DLINK wireless USB product. If you do a standard install it installs the driver and the DLINK software. If I install SP3 the DLINK software has an error message on startup.
Solution is to msconfig the DLINK entries and just let the driver and the windows zeroconf do its job.
This is just minor. But it is the pain of commercial software.
Long post 
Member since:2005-10-11
Fans: 1
Member since:2005-12-20
Fans: 0
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 20
First off, the performance improvement in SP3 blog post (it's been linked to before) is complete baloney. They do one specific benchmark (once I would imagine) and simply don't describe what they were actually testing. While I accept that lots of people have issues with Vista, their benchmark for that doesn't mean much by the same token.
The issue with the SP3 hardware specific configuration is funny. HP should probably be using proper images for each piece of hardware they have, but really, a XP system should not be doing this and should be able to gracefully probe for hardware in a sensible fashion. You wouldn't see this from a Linux system as a system should be probed transparently (kernel and driver integrity!). If you don't have it, it's not a problem.
Microsoft seems to be suitably vague about what causes this, but it seems as though the service pack update is reactivating the intel driver regardless of the system that it is on and paying no attention at all to the current state of the driver.
I'm inclined to believe that this is a Microsoft problem. While third-party drivers can always cause you grief, anything that Microsoft bundles themselves should be supported on hardware configurations that they support, otherwise creating images is fairly useless (taking into account any said third-party drivers that you might install on top).
Member since:2006-11-24
Fans: 1
"a XP system should not be doing this and should be able to gracefully probe for hardware in a sensible fashion."
This shows that you don't tamper an awful lot with hardware and/or images. XP is NT based and you could/should never swap an NT/W2K/XP install from one hardware to another. You could do this with Win 9x a hundred times and it would still run acceptably crappy, but not NT. Since MS advised on this only in 2004 it only goes to show that MS was awakening to this issue a decade late themselves. Maybe HP wants to offer me a job? I have done this a million times on even more hardware and the short answer is: don't do it!
"You wouldn't see this from a Linux system"
Linux is not Windows - what are you trying to say..?
Member since:2005-11-15
Fans: 0
This just isn't true. Last fall when my Exchange Server's motherboard died, I replaced the motherboard with a different model that used a different brand of processor (Intel instead of AMD), different chipset, and differnt NIC (Intel instead of Marvell). Not only did the system boot after these major hardware changes, it automatically found and installed drivers for the new hardware without skipping a beat.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 0
This just isn't true. Last fall when my Exchange Server's motherboard died, I replaced the motherboard with a different model that used a different brand of processor (Intel instead of AMD), different chipset, and differnt NIC (Intel instead of Marvell). Not only did the system boot after these major hardware changes, it automatically found and installed drivers for the new hardware without skipping a beat. "
Then you got very lucky. I've had a T61 laptop BSOD on me using an image from a T61p; only difference is the graphics card. Wouldn't even boot to Safe Mode (which is very odd).
I've tried loading an NC6320 image (Intel-based) onto an NX6125 machine (AMD) and it flat out tanks. Should it be that way in 2008? Probably not. But it is, at least in my experience.
Not really a big deal for me though, as drive space is cheap for storing images, and we buy such large lots of identical models, it's not troublesome.
Member since:2006-01-04
Fans: 0
The correct and approved method is to select repair from 'your original install disk'. If the OS thinks you are a pirate, it will tank.
Member since:2006-02-05
Fans: 11
Member since:2005-08-18
Fans: 15
There's no reason to go to Vista. My brand-spanking new company laptop, a Compaq c2d, that came with Home Premium is so much snappier in XP it's not funny.
Power management is amazingly stupid. No way to configure different schemes for when on AC and when on battery? WTF? Are we back in 1995?
Network and Sharing Center (or whatever the hell it is called) is equally unfriendly and a total pain. What was wrong with XP's "Network Connections"? Nothing. Granted it didn't show a fancy (and incorrect) "map" of your network but on the other hand it actually worked right.
Gaming faster in Vista? Uh, what are they smoking? Not on my machine it aint and SP1 made it even slower (granted it's only in one game, Soldiers, but it horribly slow. I'm not lying when I say it takes like one minute for the exit dialog to pop on screen).
While UAC popping up is somewhat annoying it's nothing compared to the fact that it takes forever for it to pop up. You just sit there waiting for something to happen for what feels like forever.
I cant wait to get XP on it and since SP3 added the necessary drivers that wont be long now.
Thankfully it runs Ubuntu (and any Linux distro, i'd wager) perfectly fine with everything supported.
Member since:2006-02-05
Fans: 11
Why would you want to configure different schemes? In vista, you can configure a plugged in, and on battery profile for each scheme.
"Network Connections" is accessed by clicking "Manage My Network Connections", and is the exact same thing as xp. Network and Sharing Center replaces an absolutely retarded wizard that has shipped with every version of windows up till vista.
There are alot of game specific issues with vista, but I find every new game I have tried runs significantly better on Vista then XP. My roomate uses XP, and for gears of war could barely play it on the minimum settings. With comparable specs, I am able to play it maxed.
UAC means you can actually realistically run as a non administrator for the first time in the history of windows. The lack of the ability to run in a least privileged environment makes XP downright archaic by comparison.
Aparently. It seems like you were completely unwilling to spend more then a few seconds looking for anything, since most of your gripes are pretty silly.
I wouldn't bet on it, about one in ten times my laptop will not wake up in ubuntu, which has never happened in vista.
Member since:2005-08-18
Fans: 15
Why should I have to? The only reasonable default is to save power when on battery and maximize performance when on AC. Vista obviously doesnt do this since it drains battery like there's no tomorrow. Thankfully there's a 3rd party app on Codeplex (Vista Battery Saver) that makes things sane.
Replacing one useless retarded thing with another uselss retarded thing isn't a step forward.
significantly better on Vista then XP.
I guess my problem is that the games I play arent new enough to be designed for Vista.
I know what it's good for, thank you. The problem is that sometimes you start an app and you're left waiting and waiting and waiting while Vista chugs the hard disk only to after what seem like an eternity present you with a dialog asking if want to allow this app to run. Come to think of it, that might not be UAC but it's mighty frustrating nonetheless.
Actually, I used it for 3 weeks and I do not like the way it works. I know where to find the different things but I dont like the way it's different from XP. (I want Network Connections by default, not the retarded sharing center)
It's slower and more sluggish, even when you turn off Aero. I see no reason for me to use it unless I have to.
Since I've been running Ubuntu daily for 3 weeks on it and using both suspend and hibernate without problems, yes it does.
Another funny thing happened last night. I aborted the Vista boot by powering off the laptop. Later I turned it on again and Vista went into something called "Startup Repair". This went on for like 15 minutes doing God knows what only to say that my system cant be repaired. Now, that did sound quite alarming but all I had to do was power off and on and all was back to normal. What the hell?
Btw, thanks for modding me down people. I guess there are other zealots than Linux ones.
Edited 2008-05-14 05:11 UTC
Member since:2006-01-24
Fans: 3
google_ninja wrote:
-"UAC means you can actually realistically run as a non administrator for the first time in the history of windows. The lack of the ability to run in a least privileged environment makes XP downright archaic by comparison."
I find this puzzling, ever since the arrival of win2k I've been doing all my day to day work in windows from an unpriviledged user account. while most programs need administrator priviledges to install software (which is a bad tradition on windows), I can't remember the time I last encountered programs that needed administrator priviledges when actually using them. and even when installing I don't need to leave my unpriviledged account since I can run the installer as 'administrator' using the 'RunAs' command.
I'm curious, which are these applications that I seem to be missing that needs administrator priviledges to run?
Member since:
2005-11-12
Fans: 1
I updated to SP3 on my Athlon Thunderbird box and all went well. I really don't notice any differences but a few menu changes. Works well here. I was pleasantly surprised. My system is too old for Vista so I guess this is the last update. I am hoping the low end ultramobile laptops, like the Asus eee, will keep XP around for a while longer.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 0
only an idiot (or HP, in this case) would load an Intel image on an AMD computer. That's beyond foolish. Different processor, different north bridge, different south bridge, often different NICs, different onboard video, different sound.....there's usually nothing identical in an Intel machine to an AMD machine.
This is just laziness on the part of HP, which doesn't surprise me. In my experience their service has gotten really bad, and their PC's, even business models, come loaded with tons of bloatware crap. A really disappointing turn for a once great company.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 20
While HP will have to take this one on the chin a bit, having to create different images and having to do specific installs because you have a different x86 processor and different hardware is just plain silly. Any modern OS worth its salt should be probing for hardware support that it ships with adequately at boot time. It should not require you to do a full install.
This is why Microsoft is slightly sheepish about exactly what is going on.
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 14
This is why Microsoft is slightly sheepish about exactly what is going on.
True, you're right. At the end of the day, the operating system should see that the hardware has changed, redetect the hardware, install the correct drivers (or possibly ask the end user for drivers) then continue booting. Replace AMD process with 'hardware upgrade' - if one upgrades their hardware, should they be required to install the whole operating system again?
Member since:2005-07-06
Fans: 0
While HP will have to take this one on the chin a bit, having to create different images and having to do specific installs because you have a different x86 processor and different hardware is just plain silly. Any modern OS worth its salt should be probing for hardware support that it ships with adequately at boot time. It should not require you to do a full install.
This is why Microsoft is slightly sheepish about exactly what is going on. "
I understand that, and agree. But there's a reality here, and that is that Windows still doesn't work that way, and can't handle such drastic (in its eyes) hardware changes.
HP should know better. Just because something should work a certain way doesn't mean you go ahead and do it, when clearly it'll be a problem.
Maybe someday MS will get Windows to the point where it won't tank on a slightly different image, or BSOD when it sees a different graphics card than what driver is in the image (this happened to me last week).
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 1
I've had no reboot problems (not an affected platform).
One thing I noticed is that after SP3 was installed, Windows Media Player had hijacked the file associations for all of the files it could play. I had to reinstall my multimedia players to make sure everything was working properly. This has been verified to be the case with several different computers so far - not a hardware or driver problem.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Fans: 0
I don't game anymore on my PC, except old games. So, no real reason for me to really ever upgrade my computer again. At least I can't find one.
Everything runs just fine on my old p4 box. I think the only reason one needs anymore to upgrade the PC is Video Games. If you don't play new games and everything else is running fine and stable, enjoy it I say.
With games moving over to the cheaper consoles, I strongly believe that upgrading PC's will be all but unnecessary sooner or later. Except for businesses and people that use graphics software and the like.
Member since:
2005-11-15
Fans: 0
If it weren't for the price differential, I'd recommend Windows Server 2008 over Vista or XP, even on the desktop. I've been running W2K8 x64 on my main workstation since its release and have been very pleased with its performance and usability.
There are very few features Vista has that can't be made to work on W2K8. On my hardware it's faster than Vista, uses less memory, and has features that Vista doesn't offer, such as Hyper-V. Out of the box it's tuned as a server, but it's easy to tune for workstation use. Search Google for "server 2008 workstation" and you'll find several sites devoted to using W2K8 as a workstation.
About the only things missing are the MCE stuff, which I won't use anyway.
For compatibility with the very few things that won't run in either W2K8 or on a 64-bit OS, I run XP SP3 in a Hyper-V VM. It runs almost as fast in this environment as it does on bare hardware, and SP3 includes Hyper-V specific enhancements to XP that improve integration and performance.
Member since:
2008-05-14
Fans: 0
My laptop (1.66 GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, 160 GB HDD) came with Vista Home premium pre-installed. Bought it in Jan 2008, and it has been working nicely ever since. I use the laptop every single day for about 8 hours, for school/work and it hasn't crashed or BSODed on me even once. I have many programs installed on it, some a few years old, and all of them work just fine.
Soon after I got the laptop,I did the following
-removed all the bloatware. made a big difference in startup times.
-removed the resource hogging horror that is McAffee. Put AVG free on it instead.
-Installed Diskeeper 2008 Pro. One of the few non-freeware utilities I have on it. Superb defragmenter..keeps the drive in great shape. I don't like the Vista defragger.
-Installed Opera. Way better than the sluggish IE7.
That's all I did to 'tweak' Vista and keep it running smoothly.
Had a bit of trouble installing SP1, but nothing unsurmountable.
Member since:2005-07-24
Fans: 33