We're always a little wary of unconfirmed speed reports derived from beta software -- especially when no build number is given -- but a Florida shop called Devil Mountain Systems is claiming that Windows XP SP3 will offer a 10 percent speed increase over SP2, going so far as to call it a "must-have update." On the flip side of the coin, it looks like
Vista SP1 won't offer much in the way of noticeable fixes, and certainly won't speed things up. Of course, it's not at all unexpected that the finely-tuned XP would run faster than the relatively new Vista, but analysts are having a field day, with Forrester's Benjamin Gray saying "Vista's biggest competition isn't Apple or Novell or Red Hat; it's Microsoft itself, it's XP." That seems a little hysterical to us, actually -- Microsoft deserves major props for continuing to improve XP even as it tries to speed up the transition to Vista, even if that means cannibalizing some sales. That said, let's try to get a little speed out of SP2, mkay?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
L.Cyphre @ Nov 27th 2007 3:58AM
Yay, a new XP SP!
Vista? What's that?
Giles @ Nov 27th 2007 4:46AM
I agree. I also agree with the comments in the post - Vista is competing with XP. I couldn't wait to upgrade to XP when I was running 98...
Now I clutch on to XP... it just works!
Vista is a nightmare and I run a domain on four DCs - tried it and it gave me so many headaches (that's not to say it isn't pretty!) :)
Vanillacide @ Nov 27th 2007 4:47AM
After spending the last few months with Vista I think I'm going back to XP, especially if Service Pack 3 does indeed improve performance.
Vista SP1 will probably just make it even slower.
mike_p @ Nov 27th 2007 5:39AM
I really don't see the big deal. Honestly, I haven't experienced any major problems at all with Vista and I was a big fan of XP (naturally, as a gamer).
Granted, I didn't upgrade RIGHT when it came out, because that would be foolish. Even with my non-existent SP1, Vista is running smooth after I tweaked it like I did with XP.
Constable Odo @ Nov 27th 2007 9:21AM
That's right. I'll look forward to installing SP3 when it comes out on my MacBook Pro. WinXP Pro is fine for me and if they make speed improvements, so much the better. I don't need no stinking Vista. At least not if it's going to suck power and resources just to look pretty.
I had Vista Ultimate installed and eventually scrapped it. I gave it an honest chance and wasn't happy with it. Maybe if I'd had a twice as powerful machine it wouldn't have mattered, but the fans in my MacBook were always running high whenever I used it. Good riddance. Welcome WinXP Pro SP3.
DWells55 @ Nov 27th 2007 11:59AM
I've worked with Vista on several different systems, including a very well-spec'd laptop, and it's been nothing but trouble. My friend's Gateway laptop was sluggish with Vista right after reformatting and that system has a Core 2 Duo and 2GBs of RAM. After wiping it clean and installing XP Pro and SP2, the system runs great. I haven't had a ton of experience with Vista, but so far it's all been negative.
Vista honestly doesn't offer much as far as I'm concerned and XP is still an excellent OS. I'm glad it's still being updated and I'll continue using it despite its lack of DirectX 10 support.
Paolo @ Nov 27th 2007 3:16PM
Let's just hope it's not that oh so pretty Vista performence. You know, that thing that stops your computer from doing anything.
Mark @ Nov 27th 2007 7:37PM
Guys, I honestly wouldn't trust this Devil Mountain. According to Download Squad http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/11/26/windows-xp-sp3-is-fast-vista-sp1-not-so-much/ this Devil Mountain claims that Vista is twice as slow as XP. We all know that Vista's on average under 5% slower. And look I have benches to prove it: http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=18
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page4.html
JAmerican @ Nov 27th 2007 4:02AM
Glad I went to XP Media Center Edition. I just hope the SP3 is for Media Center Edition as well :).
JAmerican
Technex @ Nov 27th 2007 4:12AM
Jesus, I've just had to buy two copies of MS Vista because I was told it would run on a two HD multiboot system, which it doesn't... It's set me back around 200 pounds (400$). Why are Microsoft upgrading XP? Good god, what is wrong with this world?
Upgrade damn Vista!
roflercopterer @ Nov 27th 2007 4:23AM
Whoa there drama queen...not everyone upgrades to the latest and greatest. Microsoft has lots of customers still running XP so it's worth it (to them) to support it.
Technex @ Nov 27th 2007 4:27AM
Yes, I understand that but I don't agree with constantly upgrading it, specially with speed updates... Is it just rubbing the salt into people with Vista's wounds?
niemassacred @ Nov 27th 2007 4:36AM
I wouldn't call this "constant upgrading" - after all, SP 2 was released more than 3 years ago.
Technex @ Nov 27th 2007 4:37AM
No, but all the other little upgrades, not the service packs.
Carbonize @ Nov 27th 2007 4:42AM
Would you sooner they left vulnerabilities alone so your system can get infected with a virus or malware?
TEM @ Nov 27th 2007 4:47AM
My good man, the vast majority of the "upgrades for XP" that you are refering to are actually security fixes. I love my XP, but security fixes hardly count as "upgrades".
Technex @ Nov 27th 2007 5:09AM
I suppose so guys, you win I guess. I'm just saying my point of view anyway. I know Microsoft feels that it's not selling well, that's true, but they could at least help themselves a little. And bring some idea of value to the millions of people who have brought Vista, with a price to go with it...
Luigi193 @ Nov 27th 2007 7:01AM
"Would you sooner they left vulnerabilities alone so your system can get infected with a virus or malware?"
I a service pack could fix that!!!
*Runs for his life*
M Burke @ Feb 20th 2008 1:46PM
If you had purchased a full version, rather than an upgrade, you could have installed it on multiple hds.
TEM @ Nov 27th 2007 4:56AM
I certainly hope SP3 brings some speed back to XP. Unfortunately for me, like for many others, my pc's performance took an unfortunate hit after SP2 and never really recovered.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I have been running this install of XP since its purchase in October 2001 without a single reformat. XP stability and functionality FTW!
SteveS @ Nov 27th 2007 8:02AM
I have installed (and re-installed) XP on about 10 machines and never noticed a speed-drop after SP2.
What does Vista offer that I can't get with XP (via 3rd party apps)? Eye candy? Please. I have a generic wallpaper and "Windows classic style" set. Increased security? That's doubtful.
XP is refined. It might not be pretty but I'd rather that than have to worry about hardware/software incompatibilities and the rest of Vista's bugs.
Constable Odo @ Nov 27th 2007 9:23AM
I know this is a stretch to ask in this weakened economy, but have you ever considered upgrading your PC with more memory or faster processor or something? How about a new computer?
Amrit @ Nov 27th 2007 5:04AM
woahh... that means i wasnt hallucinating that my machine is running faster after installing sp3 !!!!
PS: the first thing i did after getting my laptop 2 months ago was format vista outta it and install a copy of xp !!!
Nubaeus @ Nov 27th 2007 8:23AM
So that makes you cool and unique right? Just like Mac users 'I had a pc but I couldn't stand it because everybody was getting them. So I got a more expensive, less functional, worse built Macbook and I haven't looked back'
Vista is perfectly fine on my computer and in many situations, better than XP. Maybe if you didn't have 2TB of porn, 80,000 music files and 1,600 "tweaks" from WinCustomize then you're comp would be fine too.
caleb @ Nov 27th 2007 10:54AM
So what your saying is Vista works fine as long as you don't use it the way you want to? Isn't that the same argument we've been using against Macs? The only people I've "met" who are satisfied with Vista have been on the internet.
Amrit @ Nov 27th 2007 1:16PM
i accept that some things about vista are good. but you have to realize that the hardware support sometimes really hits you hard. and by hardware support i mean even the hardware that came with the notebook.
my HP notebook came with a broadcom wireless chip. now the problem is, on vista, the wifi just refused to connect to a connection sometimes. it would just keep saying "Identifying the network" and get stuck there. now common, who would like a notebook which cannot connect !! accepted this is part fault of broadcom. but then this is the hardware support problem i am talkin about. the driver is supposedly signed by microsoft. i assume it should work flawlessly.
and i have seen this problem with many HP notebooks with a broadcom wireless. ( to be precise 4 notebooks) and the thing is, this thing works perfectly fine on windows XP.
i never said that vista is bad. its just that its still kind of half baked. and it still doesnt provide performace equivalent to vista even on a 2 gb machine. sure it will with future updates. but as of now, it doesnt.
yes it does have some new features. but i dont use thm as of now. i want the basics like my wifi working first !!
microsoft should make sure that the drivers that they DIGITALLY SIGN actually work flawlessly !!
also the fact that microsoft themselves provide a quiet downgrade program to windows xp from vista. that says something about vista. and for people who dont understand what that means, it says that VISTA DOESNT WORK FOR SOME PEOPLE !!
so i guess that doesnt leave me "unique". does it ?
and yeah Nubaeus, you should stop judging others and move on with your own stuff..
KOTa @ Nov 27th 2007 5:16AM
Stupid question probably, but never succeed to go through microsoft support system to ask them.
I do have official and licensed version of windows XP (yea, i know, shame on me), any suggestion how and where to get SP2 and/or SP3(when it will be out) ?
The only ugly way i know now is to install my version and then go to updates site and spend few hours in updating.
thanks
AndrewP @ Nov 27th 2007 6:20AM
heard of google....try putting im
xp sp2 download
then hit I'm feeling lucky and wowla you end up
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displaylang=en
click download and wait for 266mb of updates and your down.
repeat the above when SP3 is released....
dmccullum @ Nov 27th 2007 6:35AM
Google? What's that??? :-)
pedro @ Nov 27th 2007 8:57AM
KOTa, you are looking to do a "slipstreamed" installation. If you have an original copy of XP, you can merge all the updates and then install from a single disk. Other than buying a fresh copy with XPSP2 (or torrenting it, since you technically have a copy, one might let that slide...), this is the way to go. http://www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsXP/winxp-sp2-bootcd.html
Illuminatu5 @ Nov 27th 2007 5:54AM
"Of course, it's not at all unexpected that the finely-tuned XP would run faster than the relatively new Vista"
WTF? Of course it will! Its already way faster! Do you know anything about Windows?
garrett @ Dec 19th 2007 1:40PM
Do you know anything about the English language?
If you had read the words carefully:
"Of course, it's NOT at all UNEXPECTED that the finely-tuned XP would run faster than the relatively new Vista"
Notice the words I capitalized. "Not unexpected" means the same thing as "expected". Do you see that?
You thought you were disagreeing, when in fact, you were saying the same thing they said. XD
Kizorblade @ Nov 27th 2007 6:08AM
It would be interesting to know how they do this.
Optimization of the code possibly?
Andir3.0 @ Nov 27th 2007 7:18AM
"Borrowed" code from Linux? :p
TZK @ Nov 27th 2007 7:12AM
I didnt realize 10% was significant.
Andir3.0 @ Nov 27th 2007 7:18AM
Depends on the scale.
Leonard Nimrod @ Nov 27th 2007 8:04AM
10% in what area? There are many ways to measure a speed increase in computing. This Florida company hasn't really proven anything. They have only made a blanket statement without the slightest quantification.
On the other hand, one would expect that even MS could make an OS upgrade more efficient after three years.
SteveS @ Nov 27th 2007 8:04AM
p=0.05
Kendall @ Nov 27th 2007 8:11AM
Truth: Vista is the Windows ME of today.
I bought a new desktop with Vista that should of been more than powerful enough for the upgrade but, after tweaking this and that, I found the experience a headache. Long to boot up and slow to do things which XP did in its sleep. Vista seemed almost paranoid with all the security implements built in to it and the basic GUI seemed cluttered, at least to me.
XP was a great OS for them and I am more than glad for the upcoming SP3, but in truth Vista has really hurt Microsoft because of its Windows ME like behavior. It HAS made MACs seem a viable alternative now because of the bugginess and sluggishness i've, and many other users, have found with Vista.
I wish MS wouldn't try to force new computer buyers to use Vista as I see it only hurts them for putting out an OS that you HAVE to fiddle with to get it to work right. Geez.
Steve Jobs must be quietly grinning in the background at this fiasco that MS has put themselves in especially when many have gone back to XP.
Christian Martin @ Nov 27th 2007 10:07AM
"Truth: Vista is the Windows ME of today."
I think you mean 'opinion' there, buddy.
Jordan @ Nov 27th 2007 10:13AM
"...windows me-like behavior."
i laughed. at how stupid you are.
did you ever USE windows me? or vista, for that matter? if you did, you would know that they are two completely different experiences that share NOTHING in common. it took a long time to get here, but vista is still a fantastic upgrade from xp, which has been around way too long and just needs to be put to rest.
Kevin Candow @ Nov 27th 2007 8:28AM
Vista is nothing to XP. XP is it's only real competition. XP SP3 sound amazing, and is defiantly going on my PC. Whoever is coding vista should pick their head out of their *** and look at the mistakes XP has made to get where it is today.
Jordan @ Nov 27th 2007 10:09AM
xp xp3 is nothing. it's an update rollup consisting of a bunch of previous security fixes (which you will already have if you keep your installation up to date) and four new features derived from vista's code, which don't deliver much new functionality. just because some idiot says he gets a 10% speed boost out of it doesn't mean the public will, or that it's even the truth. This story is bullshit.
if you've looked at any benchmarks recently, it's also pretty obvious that vista is equal to xp in many regards, which is pretty amazing when you consider the os is five years newer.
Jason @ Nov 29th 2007 2:46PM
Jordan stated, "if you've looked at any benchmarks recently, it's also pretty obvious that vista is equal to xp in many regards, which is pretty amazing when you consider the os is five years newer."
So Vista runs on hardware that is blazingly faster than what existed when XP was introduced, and now 5 years later, I'm supposed to be happy that it is equal to XP in many regards!?!? In my opinion, a new OS should have features that improve on what was offered in the previous version and run circles around it as well. It has some of the former (but is it enough to make it worthwhile) and offers nothing in the latter case.
Ian @ Nov 27th 2007 8:37AM
They'll take my XP when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!
DOS @ Nov 28th 2007 1:13AM
I've been saying the same thing about Windows 3.1. Anyone know where I can get a floppy for my 486? :)
Mark Richardson @ Nov 27th 2007 8:38AM
"Vista SP1 won't offer much in the way of noticeable fixes, and certainly won't speed things up."
Um... It will offer both of those things, as you yourselves have reported in the past -- like, say, in the link you provided in this very article:
"SP1 appears to be well-received, with testers reporting better laptop battery life, *faster networking*, and *improved wake-from-sleep speeds*."
Do you guys really have to resort to making things up just to make your articles sound more polarizing?
Nilay Patel @ Nov 27th 2007 8:54AM
It's obviously debatable, but I'd say that those improvements are relatively minor compared to an overall 10 percent performance increase, which is what Devil Mountain Systems claims XP SP3 will provide, and to what Vista SP1 will undoubtedly be compared.
Mark Richardson @ Nov 27th 2007 9:18AM
So you're saying they're just not important enough to tell the truth about? ;-)
Nilay Patel @ Nov 27th 2007 9:24AM
Well, obviously, by writing both posts and directly linking to the previous one, I've achieved a deception of the highest order.