SP3 for XP now Confirmed Faster and Better than Vista

JohnDotCom · 4th January 2008, 14:30

Microsoft will be releasing SP3 for XP in this first Quarter,
and I/We have been privileged to be Beta testing it.
Firstly it may Well look as If Microsoft are shooting themselves in the Foot Commercially.
With SP3 and its 1000 Updates, Security Fixes, it also includes several Bits Borrowed from VISTA but is now 10% Minimum Faster than VISTA running any Same program on same spec'd Machine.
As you may be aware other than On Domestic Market VISTA has been an Admitted Failure For Businesses and Commercial Users with Less than 1% using it (That includes Microsoft Themselves).
XP is now available Retail and OEM again and will be able to be requested on all New Machines.
Driver Database fully updated to. Many other Features not be announced yet until Final Release and the 30 Day allowance for Authenticity back also.

The VISTA SP1 is delayed again and will do nothing to Improve or alter Performance, they admit they don't want to call it SP1 either as it sounds as if it was Faulty when released.

The Next Windows Version is now well on its Development Path for release Slated for release in 2010.

Sounds Like Vista is really a Dead Duck now!

MGOracle · 4th January 2008, 14:35

Everyone has had access to SP3 for about a month now (RC1 Beta).

It screwed my system up royally forcing any themes I had to Windows Classic mode.

Even with a clean install it was buggy with no noticeable improvement over SP2, so, I'll be leaving it for now.

Truth be told, if you are fully uptodate with fixes and updates from WUP then SP3 will do little, if anything, for your system.

JohnDotCom · 4th January 2008, 14:42

Did you have all the New sections from VISTA to check/Test report back on?
I know the Public have been able to get it recently also, not sure if a feed back Mechanism is in place for them though.
The Feedback with Microsoft seems to show over 90% MCSE people and Testers more than Happy and Excited by the SP3 Package. (which is much higher than normal)

We have been doing no Installs of VISTA anyway, always strongly advise against its Use, per IBM (US) Instructions/Orders,
and in the States you hardly see it! Except on Shop Shelves

Mind You mainly still UNIX, NT4, XP Pro, SQL Server etc.

BMC123 · 4th January 2008, 14:50

My workshop machine runs XP SP2, last updated in July last year. It runs perfectly well, and I turned the updates off in August, as the machine is/was running perfectly and as it has no need for net access security was not an issue and I did not feel the urge to keep on throwing updates at it. It also will not be getting SP3 anywhere near it, as it runs a lot of non-standard hardware/software, many with custom drivers so I just know what would happen if I did do it

My vista based PC (this one) is also running well, and to be honest the only updates I seem to be getting from MS are windows defender ones, I still get all my updates for my adobe stuff.

As for machines with the same spec running faster, we have two old same spec 486 machines running lighting control software in my mates work, one with XP and one with 98 - guess which one runs better? I think its just par for the course that each new OS is a bit more bloated than the old one, its been like that since the early DOS days

Now, if they would bring out a stable 64bit OS I would be happy.

Christopher · 4th January 2008, 15:18

I've upgraded my tablet PC with Vista, even though it just manages to cope - but the increased functionality you get in the Tablet PC side of things is very very good. The biggest problem I can see with Vista personally is this damn pre-fetch and whatnot, tying up the HDD for minutes on end, make boot times interminable and resuming from sleep/hibernate a pain some-where - and with a tablet PC I amused to keeping my tablet in suspend to be awoken in a few seconds to carry on writing .... I am doing my best to live with Vista because of the TPC enhancements but I have my original restore disks (XP for Tablet PC) handy ....

BMC123 · 4th January 2008, 18:09

My boot times are pretty much what I would expect, and the return from sleep mode is lightning fast, so much better than hibernate imho. I also have a graphics tablet plugged in and vista treats the pc like a tablet in some respects with all these new things like "pen flicks" just to confuse me.

Zeb · 7th January 2008, 18:47

In 1992 I had an Amstrad 486 with 4mb ram and windows 3.1
In 2007 I have a purpose built laptop with dual 2.4ghz processor and 2gb ram...

The Amstrad ran Doom well but it took a wee while to load.
The laptop runs Unreal Tournament 3 and takes the same amount of time to load....

My point?

Plus ca change plus ce la meme chose...

BMC123 · 7th January 2008, 20:48

It's like the internet.

Back when I first started downloading things (like music and erm... "pictures"

) , a 3Mb file took between 6 and 12 minutes (depending on all the variables then) and now a 3Mb file on this line takes 3 seconds. of course in the prestel and compuserve days we did not actually download anything (much)

no service packs in those days... well.. maybe there was, the move from windows 3.1 to 3.11

I suppose that was the first "service pack" as such, you could upgrade 3.1 to 3.11 (as opposed to installing 3.11 for workgroups) it got very confusing, so in the end we equiped all our machines with 3.11 workgroups. ah the heady days of 1993 and 1994

Keith · 8th January 2008, 17:02

I have had the RC of SP3 for a while, not entirely sure what improvements the final will contain but things at the moment are a bit slower so it probably has some debugging code running in places

Could be an own goal for MS if they bring further performnce increases to XP the deveil in me says it would pay them to slow XP down to make Vista look better

r44712 · 9th January 2008, 19:44

Always thought Vista was a bad apple...never liked it and find it infuriating to use as an IT 'Pro'. However, XP works exactly how I'd like it to.

Funny thing is my brother-in-law (who doesn't really know much about PCs) "loves" Vista and cand stand XP. Sounds almost as if its been so dumbed-down for novices, that it has alienated the experts.

Another thing, having recently built a new PC, I choose the XP (the 64-Bit version) over Vista. Totally up-to-date machine, but I chose the 'older' O/S purely becuase I prefer it so much.

I don't know why people say x64 is unreliable I have no issues with it. There's the odd web-thing that doesn't work, but hey-ho.

As for MS 'retarding' XP that would be ridiculous!!!!

4th January 2008, 14:30	#1
JohnDotCom * Rover 75 FaceLift Tourer CDTi 170BHP Auto ConnSE 2005 Model Starlight Silver Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Abergele Posts: 28,735 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	SP3 for XP now Confirmed Faster and Better than Vista Microsoft will be releasing SP3 for XP in this first Quarter, and I/We have been privileged to be Beta testing it. Firstly it may Well look as If Microsoft are shooting themselves in the Foot Commercially. With SP3 and its 1000 Updates, Security Fixes, it also includes several Bits Borrowed from VISTA but is now 10% Minimum Faster than VISTA running any Same program on same spec'd Machine. As you may be aware other than On Domestic Market VISTA has been an Admitted Failure For Businesses and Commercial Users with Less than 1% using it (That includes Microsoft Themselves). XP is now available Retail and OEM again and will be able to be requested on all New Machines. Driver Database fully updated to. Many other Features not be announced yet until Final Release and the 30 Day allowance for Authenticity back also. The VISTA SP1 is delayed again and will do nothing to Improve or alter Performance, they admit they don't want to call it SP1 either as it sounds as if it was Faulty when released. The Next Windows Version is now well on its Development Path for release Slated for release in 2010. Sounds Like Vista is really a Dead Duck now!

4th January 2008, 14:50	#4
BMC123 Posted a thing or two 2004 1.8 Connoisseur SE, 1999 XJ8 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,163 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	My workshop machine runs XP SP2, last updated in July last year. It runs perfectly well, and I turned the updates off in August, as the machine is/was running perfectly and as it has no need for net access security was not an issue and I did not feel the urge to keep on throwing updates at it. It also will not be getting SP3 anywhere near it, as it runs a lot of non-standard hardware/software, many with custom drivers so I just know what would happen if I did do it My vista based PC (this one) is also running well, and to be honest the only updates I seem to be getting from MS are windows defender ones, I still get all my updates for my adobe stuff. As for machines with the same spec running faster, we have two old same spec 486 machines running lighting control software in my mates work, one with XP and one with 98 - guess which one runs better? I think its just par for the course that each new OS is a bit more bloated than the old one, its been like that since the early DOS days Now, if they would bring out a stable 64bit OS I would be happy. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

4th January 2008, 15:18	#5
Christopher Owners Club Director Rover 75 V6 Copperleaf Red, MG ZTT 190+ Lagoon & Early MGF Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Rugby Posts: 9,287 Thanks: 105 Thanked 343 Times in 81 Posts	I've upgraded my tablet PC with Vista, even though it just manages to cope - but the increased functionality you get in the Tablet PC side of things is very very good. The biggest problem I can see with Vista personally is this damn pre-fetch and whatnot, tying up the HDD for minutes on end, make boot times interminable and resuming from sleep/hibernate a pain some-where - and with a tablet PC I amused to keeping my tablet in suspend to be awoken in a few seconds to carry on writing .... I am doing my best to live with Vista because of the TPC enhancements but I have my original restore disks (XP for Tablet PC) handy .... __________________ Christopher in banana veritas

4th January 2008, 18:09	#6
BMC123 Posted a thing or two 2004 1.8 Connoisseur SE, 1999 XJ8 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,163 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	My boot times are pretty much what I would expect, and the return from sleep mode is lightning fast, so much better than hibernate imho. I also have a graphics tablet plugged in and vista treats the pc like a tablet in some respects with all these new things like "pen flicks" just to confuse me. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

7th January 2008, 20:48	#8
BMC123 Posted a thing or two 2004 1.8 Connoisseur SE, 1999 XJ8 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,163 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	It's like the internet. Back when I first started downloading things (like music and erm... "pictures" ) , a 3Mb file took between 6 and 12 minutes (depending on all the variables then) and now a 3Mb file on this line takes 3 seconds. of course in the prestel and compuserve days we did not actually download anything (much) no service packs in those days... well.. maybe there was, the move from windows 3.1 to 3.11 I suppose that was the first "service pack" as such, you could upgrade 3.1 to 3.11 (as opposed to installing 3.11 for workgroups) it got very confusing, so in the end we equiped all our machines with 3.11 workgroups. ah the heady days of 1993 and 1994 __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

4th January 2008, 14:35	#2
MGOracle Banned MG ZT CDTi 135+ Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Cardiff Posts: 1 Thanks: 0 Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts	Everyone has had access to SP3 for about a month now (RC1 Beta). It screwed my system up royally forcing any themes I had to Windows Classic mode. Even with a clean install it was buggy with no noticeable improvement over SP2, so, I'll be leaving it for now. Truth be told, if you are fully uptodate with fixes and updates from WUP then SP3 will do little, if anything, for your system.

4th January 2008, 14:42	#3
JohnDotCom * Rover 75 FaceLift Tourer CDTi 170BHP Auto ConnSE 2005 Model Starlight Silver Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Abergele Posts: 28,735 Thanks: 0 Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts	Did you have all the New sections from VISTA to check/Test report back on? I know the Public have been able to get it recently also, not sure if a feed back Mechanism is in place for them though. The Feedback with Microsoft seems to show over 90% MCSE people and Testers more than Happy and Excited by the SP3 Package. (which is much higher than normal) We have been doing no Installs of VISTA anyway, always strongly advise against its Use, per IBM (US) Instructions/Orders, and in the States you hardly see it! Except on Shop Shelves Mind You mainly still UNIX, NT4, XP Pro, SQL Server etc.

7th January 2008, 18:47	#7
Zeb Banned MGZT V8 & ZTT 190+LPG Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 8,089 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	In 1992 I had an Amstrad 486 with 4mb ram and windows 3.1 In 2007 I have a purpose built laptop with dual 2.4ghz processor and 2gb ram... The Amstrad ran Doom well but it took a wee while to load. The laptop runs Unreal Tournament 3 and takes the same amount of time to load.... My point? Plus ca change plus ce la meme chose...

8th January 2008, 17:02	#9
Keith This is my second home ZT400 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Ellesmere Posts: 5,948 Thanks: 0 Thanked 43 Times in 29 Posts	I have had the RC of SP3 for a while, not entirely sure what improvements the final will contain but things at the moment are a bit slower so it probably has some debugging code running in places Could be an own goal for MS if they bring further performnce increases to XP the deveil in me says it would pay them to slow XP down to make Vista look better

9th January 2008, 19:44	#10
r44712 Loves to post ZT-T+ 135 & ZR+ 115 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: N.E. Hampshire Posts: 398 Thanks: 1 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Always thought Vista was a bad apple...never liked it and find it infuriating to use as an IT 'Pro'. However, XP works exactly how I'd like it to. Funny thing is my brother-in-law (who doesn't really know much about PCs) "loves" Vista and cand stand XP. Sounds almost as if its been so dumbed-down for novices, that it has alienated the experts. Another thing, having recently built a new PC, I choose the XP (the 64-Bit version) over Vista. Totally up-to-date machine, but I chose the 'older' O/S purely becuase I prefer it so much. I don't know why people say x64 is unreliable I have no issues with it. There's the odd web-thing that doesn't work, but hey-ho. As for MS 'retarding' XP that would be ridiculous!!!!