Windows XP to get a significant performance boost with SP3?
By Nilay Patel 
posted Nov 27th 2007 3:54AM
posted Nov 27th 2007 3:54AM
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?
Yay, a new XP SP!
Vista? What's that?
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!) :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's just hope it's not that oh so pretty Vista performence. You know, that thing that stops your computer from doing anything.
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
Glad I went to XP Media Center Edition. I just hope the SP3 is for Media Center Edition as well :).
JAmerican
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!
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.
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?
I wouldn't call this "constant upgrading" - after all, SP 2 was released more than 3 years ago.
No, but all the other little upgrades, not the service packs.
Would you sooner they left vulnerabilities alone so your system can get infected with a virus or malware?
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".
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...
"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*
If you had purchased a full version, rather than an upgrade, you could have installed it on multiple hds.
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!
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.
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?
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 !!!
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.
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.
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..
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
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....
Google? What's that??? :-)
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
"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?
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
It would be interesting to know how they do this.
Optimization of the code possibly?
"Borrowed" code from Linux? :p
I didnt realize 10% was significant.
Depends on the scale.
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.
p=0.05
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.
"Truth: Vista is the Windows ME of today."
I think you mean 'opinion' there, buddy.
"...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.
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.
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.
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.
They'll take my XP when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!
I've been saying the same thing about Windows 3.1. Anyone know where I can get a floppy for my 486? :)
"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?
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.
So you're saying they're just not important enough to tell the truth about? ;-)
Well, obviously, by writing both posts and directly linking to the previous one, I've achieved a deception of the highest order.
Sarcasm aside, you having written both and even now linked to your previous one only means that you should certainly know that what you were now writing was false.
Would you like to sarcastically respond now too?
I'm not trying to pick a fight with you here, but seriously, telling the opposite story from one article to the next in order to be sensationalizing is poor journalism.
If you read the article at the read link, Devil Mountain also claims Vista SP1 is a "performance dud" -- which, like the impressions in the previously-linked post, is their subjective opinion. Until everything is released and in hand, however, that's all we have to work on. We'll see when we see -- my impression was that the overall speed improvements listed for Vista SP1 seem rather minor. I could very well be wrong.
If you read some of the comments from readers who did 5 minutes of research on their own, you'll find this Devil Mountain gang of incompetence performed the benchmark one time on one computer. (Which really discredits this whole article, but that's another story.)
"[M]y impression was that the overall speed improvements listed for Vista SP1 seem rather minor."
Now you've come full circle. First you claim SP1 has speed increases, then you claim it doesn't, and now you're back to admitting that it does after all but poopooing it by saying "Well, okay, it does, but they're only minor improvements, so it really doesn't count."
Admitting your mistake and apologizing for this back-and-forth petty argument would be the professional thing to do at this point.
@Mark
If your panties were bunched up any tighter they would suck in light energy.
"the finely-tuned XP"
Stop it. My sides are hurting from laughing.
Anyone here actually bother to look at the benchmark in question?
I'm so glad these guys don't review hardware.
1 BENCHMARK + 1 CONFIGURATION + 1GB RAM = 1 BIASED PIECE OF "NEWS".
Checks in the mail, Engadget.
linux users don't get why xp speeds up faster when it is injected w/vista stuff
Exaclty what "Vista stuff" is being "injected" into XP via SP3?
Yeah, and here I thought Vista added MORE overhead and slowed things down... strange.
linux users dont understand why anyone would want a graphical user interface, games, or working office suites... (yes, i know, linux CAN have these but...) they just want to screw around with their configuration to see if they can install ubuntu, alpaca, or fitshaced on a mobile phone.
I have SP3 running on my laptop now for one week. I notice little difference. My shutdown seems to be a little fast but thats all i have noticed.
I'm guessing no one actually read the link through...
All the performance gains are measured by actions and scripts run in MS office suite...
Based on the article this can have as little impact as just better integration between any MS product and marginal at best for 3rd party. Or they could have made actual changes to the OS that may have some benefit to 3rd party as well, but that’s not mentioned in the read at all.
I guess they realize that even though it is all NT now, business users will skip Vista, making ALL versions of Vista "Home". So they do some real tweaks instead of making it just a "super update rollup".
My position with Vista after giving it a good 8 months is that the performance hit was unforgivable. XP on the same box was significantly faster.
Had some very minor instability due to early drivers, but no big deal, was a new machine with an intel board though, so I might have had a better experience than most. Still felt like the most bloated thing I had ever used.
The funny thing is that absolutely the only reason to upgrade to Vista would be the eventual dropping of support for XP. If apple wants to take this ball and run with it, good on them. Hell, I would push the office to Macs if there was a messaging system that worked like exchange that was all mac. Apple could scoop that one up too as Exchange 2007 is awful (I just wasted two days on it, and ended up rolling back to 2003)
I'll tell you one thing, after seeing Vista and Exchange 2007, they are going to have to really bring the "Wow" if they want me to even think about Windows Server 2008.
I installed sp3 and I havent noticed a thing. There a reg hack that will allow anyone to install sp3. What we need is a vista theme for xp. :)
Vista will be widely accepted in about two years for one very important reasons: 4GB RAM.
XP 64 is a piece of junk, has almost no drivers, and little support. Vista 64 works better than Vista 32 does, is getting all the current driver attention and at least on my machine hasn't crashed yet.
FLAWED TESTING
FLAWED TESTING
FLAWED TESTING
The benchmarks for Vista were run on a system with 1GB of RAM. Vista's minimum is 2GB of RAM to run smoothly. XP needs only 1. Say what you want about those requirements, but the testing was not done on a level playing field (giving each OS the optimal platform to run on).
Engadget needs to read the details of these things before propagating false data and adding to the echo chamber.
I don't see why anyone is making such a big stink about Vista running poorly on a system with 1gb of RAM. Obviously this was not a level playing field.
When XP came out, what was the minimum RAM requirement, like 256? and 512 "recommended"?
The minimum is the ABSOLUTE minimum that you should even try to run an OS on. The "recommended" amount is more like a real-world minimum.
I ran Vista Beta2, RC1, and RC2 on my current computer (AMD64 4000+, 1gb of ram) and it ran fine. The only annoying "feature" was UAC, and the fact that I had to manually install drivers for my Atheros-based off-brand WiFi PCI card.
I think M$ made a mistake in letting people think that Vista could be effectively and enjoyably run on an old system, or a new budget system. XP should have been continued to be offered as the OS of choice for the budget systems, and Vista be touted as the high-end system.
Apple has been able to avoid this OS ecosystem split by only briefly supporting "universal" (PowerPC + Intel x86/64) support, and now all their software (I Think...) is 64-bit.
Microsoft, however, continues to create "bloated" operating systems that have driver and device support for decade-old hardware. Even with some drop-off in support, there is a lot of code in Vista to offer legacy computability. Only by starting from scratch with their next OS will they be able to effectively improve performance significantly without requiring ridiculous hardware.
Summary:
Quit complaining about Vista sucking on your crappy computer. But if you have a new laptop with Vista and it still sucks....well I don't know, complain to Microsoft or something.
Microsoft wants to force Vista on new purchases by fazing out XP in a one year time frame... while introducing windows home server... I'm confused?
last time I checked Microsoft isn't responsible for supporting old hardware? {maybe the MS peripherals}.
Microsoft Didn't care if Vista ran good or not, you buy a copy for your old machine, found out your old machine was old, and go out and buy a new compy for Vista: Bang! they sold you twice! {with that new EULA}.
oh and still no boot manager?
As much as i love XP, these guys are on crack.
http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/xp_sp3.asp
Also how does testing Vista with 2GB of RAM vs 1GB like in XP skew the results. If anything, it shows how much better XP is.