VOGONS

Common searches


Windows 8 beats XP in performance

Topic actions

Reply 40 of 93, by TELEPACMAN

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
smeezekitty wrote:

I understood that many complaints about Vista were a result of systems being branded "Vista ready" when they in fact lacked the graphics hardware to adequately handle

another big factor is Vista came out before 1gb+ of RAM was common. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot by making the minimum 512 since many 512mb machines came out and gave Vista a bad rep. Vista isn't that bad but it's unusable with less than a gigabyte of RAM. Preferably 2gb with a modern browser

They did this as well for the Windows XP. Compaq and such sold many Windows XP systems with... 128MB SDRAM!

Reply 41 of 93, by smeezekitty

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
TELEPACMAN wrote:
smeezekitty wrote:

I understood that many complaints about Vista were a result of systems being branded "Vista ready" when they in fact lacked the graphics hardware to adequately handle

another big factor is Vista came out before 1gb+ of RAM was common. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot by making the minimum 512 since many 512mb machines came out and gave Vista a bad rep. Vista isn't that bad but it's unusable with less than a gigabyte of RAM. Preferably 2gb with a modern browser

They did this as well for the Windows XP. Compaq and such sold many Windows XP systems with... 128MB SDRAM!

Technically XP SP1 specs 64MB minimum. I have never seen an OEM XP machine with 64MB of RAM though. Good thing too

Reply 42 of 93, by Jorpho

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

I remember back in the day, the XP Themes service was regarded as an enormous resource hog that should be disabled immediately. I don't hear much call for that anymore.

Reply 43 of 93, by dr_st

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Lo Wang,
You make some valid points, and I agree with them, in part.

For a Pentium4, I would probably not go beyond XP myself. Then again, if I care about performance in general, I will not use a Pentium4 as my primary machine. It would feel a bit strange to talk about performance advantages of a certain OS, which I doubt can ever go beyond 20% among the generations we're looking at, and at the same time use outdated hardware that's almost an order of magnitude slower than modern systems. But since this thread was specifically started to talk about alleged performance advantages on older hardware, I do agree that your point has merit.

Regarding tweaking XP vs NT6 - I will have to take your word on it. Many years ago I was also in the habit of tweaking the OS, but I stopped at some point, because, frankly, I saw no returns significant enough (if at all) to justify my time spent. Even if as you say, once you learned to do it, it only takes a few minutes to do, there is still the maintenance, and making sure that you "use the right applications", as you put it, and that nothing (like an update or a third-party app) "accidentally" changed your settings, etc. At some point I stopped worrying about it, and just started using my systems and enjoying them. So, come Vista, I never bothered with tweaks, except some very basic ones (like, well, disabling Windows Search&Indexing service which I never use anyway).

So all in all, I can't present exact data with what's tweakable and what's not, and what positive/negative side effects each of them has. I have seen extensive guides on such tweaks for every Microsoft OS, and claims of amazing improvements, but given my own past experience with some of them (again, mostly pre-Vista and nothing past-Vista), I take them with a grain of salt, and don't bother with them.

However, I will be happy to learn more of your experience, like which tweaks you use on XP, and what you tried on NT6, and where you "hit the wall" with it so to speak. If you think this too off-topic for this thread (even though, IMO, it's quite on-topic), then perhaps you have shared this info in prior discussions and can point me to it.

Regarding privacy/security issues, I agree with you that this is not the right thread, although IMO, they are also often blown out of proportion and poorly understood (in the sense that people believe something is a violation, while it is quite harmless).

A final point about UI - I got use to the XP UI myself over the years, and found it adequate. Vista did not really add anything significant to me (Sidebar is potentially cool, but is not my cup of tea). I do like some of the things introduced in Win7 and Win8 (like jump lists, improved Aero Peek, Aero Snap, Win+X in Win8, better integrated handling of multiple monitors, and probably a few others I can't recall at the moment). It is clearly a case of "you can go without it indefinitely, but once you try it, you will miss it if you go back". Yes, you can probably add most of it through third-party tools, but I'd rather just use one third-party tool to customize the start menu on Win8, then a plethora of utilities to snap extras on XP.

https://cloakedthargoid.wordpress.com/ - Random content on hardware, software, games and toys

Reply 44 of 93, by Scali

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I'd like to add that Windows 8.x is actually quite nice for simpler systems.
I have this old Core2 Duo 1.5 GHz laptop with 2 GB (from 2007). It originally came with Vista, but I upgraded it to Windows 7 x64. It was getting rather slow, and the drive got full.
So I figured I'd try Windows 8.1 x64 on it. Not only is the system much faster now, but I also have tons of free space on my system partition now. It also boots really quickly, because a shutdown is some kind of hybrid hibernate now, rather than a full boot.
Microsoft really cut the OS down significantly to make it run on tablets and such.

http://scalibq.wordpress.com/just-keeping-it- … ro-programming/

Reply 45 of 93, by ZellSF

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Jorpho wrote:

I remember back in the day, the XP Themes service was regarded as an enormous resource hog that should be disabled immediately. I don't hear much call for that anymore.

That's because people aren't using XP anymore. I disabled it on my Win7 netbook, but on most computers I leave it on because I really can't deal with the lack of desktop composition (which the netbook doesn't support).

On the subject of said netbook, it's fairly low end and I noticed no performance difference at all between XP and Win7. Xubuntu was much faster on that thing than either (of course today I would opt for Arch Linux).

Reply 46 of 93, by swaaye

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

The main complaint I have is it takes a LOT longer to install Vista/7/8 updates than XP updates. There are so many updates to install on a fresh 7 install these days. It can take hours on a slow machine. At least with 8 you can get one of those periodic ISO releases from MS.

8 does run well though. It has to run on gimpy tablets after all. I don't really miss the silly composition eyecandy but yeah the interface could use some contrast in some places. I wish that was more configurable.

Reply 47 of 93, by ZellSF

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I run updates in background on new computers and schedule them to run when I'm not using the computer on older hardware.

In terms of performance, install times, bootup times and update times doesn't really matter to me. How fast the computer does things I tell it to when I'm actually using it does.

It was like the weirdest selling point of Win8 to me, the low boot times. You're telling me I can save 30 seconds a day? Let me get my wallet right away!

(I like Win8 for the record, just not Microsoft's terrible marketing for it).

Reply 50 of 93, by ZellSF

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
ratfink wrote:

if you need your computer regularly but not continually, and you want it ready asap, you appreciate short boot times. i do, in many scenarios at home and work.

That's what sleep mode is for.

Reply 52 of 93, by Lo Wang

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
dr_st wrote:

Lo Wang,
You make some valid points, and I agree with them, in part.

For a Pentium4, I would probably not go beyond XP myself. Then again, if I care about performance in general, I will not use a Pentium4 as my primary machine

Yep. Everyone has different needs. I personally do not see the point in going beyond P4 if the applications I regularly use (which, as far as I'm concerned, have no adequate modern replacement) will not be able to take advantage of multiple cores. A 3.8ghz P4 + WinXP can be a winning combination of performance, backwards compatibility and security if you know what you're doing, because nothing is optimal out of the box.

dr_st wrote:

It would feel a bit strange to talk about performance advantages of a certain OS, which I doubt can ever go beyond 20% among the generations we're looking at, and at the same time use outdated hardware that's almost an order of magnitude slower than modern systems

The hardware itself may be faster, but software in general keeps getting slower because excess of horsepower is enticing to lazy programmers. This is not to say we can compare a piece of software making full use of all available cores in a modern computer (e.g. raytracer) with anything I get out of my P4, but it's certainly very wasteful.

A lot of people would be surprised to know the kind of usability you can still get out of a miserly micro from 40 years ago.

"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" - Romans 10:9

Reply 53 of 93, by yuhong

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
TELEPACMAN wrote:
smeezekitty wrote:

I understood that many complaints about Vista were a result of systems being branded "Vista ready" when they in fact lacked the graphics hardware to adequately handle

another big factor is Vista came out before 1gb+ of RAM was common. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot by making the minimum 512 since many 512mb machines came out and gave Vista a bad rep. Vista isn't that bad but it's unusable with less than a gigabyte of RAM. Preferably 2gb with a modern browser

They did this as well for the Windows XP. Compaq and such sold many Windows XP systems with... 128MB SDRAM!

To be honest, the attempted DRAM price fixing after WinXP launched probably didn't help.

Reply 54 of 93, by calvin

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I don't understand why anyone would use a P4 as a daily driver when Core 2 and above HW can be had for nearly free and is far, far faster and more power efficient. Multi-core and hardware virtualization makes a big difference to me. Software has gotten faster thanks to having to accommodate for smartphones and cheapo tablets. The requirements have barely increased since Vista, (same RAM requirement, and the only exotic thing are CPU features, supported by most stuff since ~2005) and Windows 8 would run faster on ~2006 HW (even low end!) than XP or Vista would have.

2xP2 450, 512 MB SDR, GeForce DDR, Asus P2B-D, Windows 2000
P3 866, 512 MB RDRAM, Radeon X1650, Dell Dimension XPS B866, Windows 7
M2 @ 250 MHz, 64 MB SDE, SiS5598, Compaq Presario 2286, Windows 98

Reply 55 of 93, by Gamecollector

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
calvin wrote:

I don't understand why anyone would use a P4 as a daily driver

Retrogaming, man.
P4+Intel 865PE/875P=DOS/Win9x/WinXp compatibility. So - until browsers/ofiice programs etc will support WinXp - I will use it. After WinXp will be completely abandoned - I will assembly something more recent. But the P4 still will be the cornerstone for retrogaming.
P.S. And yes, the Metro interface and "you don't need the start menu" make me furious.

Asus P4P800 SE/Pentium4 3.2E/2 Gb DDR400B,
Radeon HD3850 Agp (Sapphire), Catalyst 14.4 (XpProSp3).
Voodoo2 12 MB SLI, Win2k drivers 1.02.00 (XpProSp3).

Reply 56 of 93, by calvin

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

But I have a separate machine (running more period appropriate HW and SW) for playing with vintage stuff, or even just virtualize it if the hardware isn't is what needed.

I got used to the new Windows 8 UI in minutes. It's perfectly fine, and probably better for other situations (couch computer, tablet - I know it's pretty good on my phone)

2xP2 450, 512 MB SDR, GeForce DDR, Asus P2B-D, Windows 2000
P3 866, 512 MB RDRAM, Radeon X1650, Dell Dimension XPS B866, Windows 7
M2 @ 250 MHz, 64 MB SDE, SiS5598, Compaq Presario 2286, Windows 98

Reply 57 of 93, by Skyscraper

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Im a bit conservative, I used the Program Manager with Windows 95... I diddnt accept exploder and the start button until the moment I upgraded to Windows 98. From then I have used the start button and the desk top... "Modern UI", perhaps in 20 years or so.

New PC: i9 12900K @5GHz all cores @1.2v. MSI PRO Z690-A. 32GB DDR4 3600 CL14. 3070Ti.
Old PC: Dual Xeon X5690@4.6GHz, EVGA SR-2, 48GB DDR3R@2000MHz, Intel X25-M. GTX 980ti.
Older PC: K6-3+ 400@600MHz, PC-Chips M577, 256MB SDRAM, AWE64, Voodoo Banshee.

Reply 58 of 93, by ahendricks18

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
TELEPACMAN wrote:
smeezekitty wrote:

I understood that many complaints about Vista were a result of systems being branded "Vista ready" when they in fact lacked the graphics hardware to adequately handle

another big factor is Vista came out before 1gb+ of RAM was common. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot by making the minimum 512 since many 512mb machines came out and gave Vista a bad rep. Vista isn't that bad but it's unusable with less than a gigabyte of RAM. Preferably 2gb with a modern browser

They did this as well for the Windows XP. Compaq and such sold many Windows XP systems with... 128MB SDRAM!

Yep, I have a HP Pavilion something-or-other and it says "designed for windows xp". Then you turn it on, wondering why windows xp takes forever to load, and you look at your system resources and realize that you've got 128mb RAM. In my case its PC133 ram, so I luckily had some extra sticks. Probably gonna max out the ram and MAYBE a better CPU and then put linux on it.

Main: AMD FX 6300 six core 3.5ghz (OC 4ghz)
16gb DDR3, Nvidia Geforce GT740 4gb Gfx card, running Win7 Ultimate x64
Linux: AMD Athlon 64 4000+, 1.5GB DDR, Nvidia Quadro FX1700 running Debian Jessie 8.4.0

Reply 59 of 93, by ODwilly

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I have an emachines that shipped with 128mb of DDR 266 and a 1.8ghz Celeron. Intel Extreme graphics running XP was literally painful. It took like 10 minutes to get to the desktop and like 2 to open Word!

Main pc: Asus ROG 17. R9 5900HX, RTX 3070m, 16gb ddr4 3200, 1tb NVME.
Retro PC: Soyo P4S Dragon, 3gb ddr 266, 120gb Maxtor, Geforce Fx 5950 Ultra, SB Live! 5.1