After a disappointing showing by Windows Vista SP1 Beta, we were pleasantly surprised to discover that Windows XP Service Pack 3 Beta (v.3244) delivers a measurable performance boost to this aging desktop OS. Testing with OfficeBench showed an ~10% performance boost vs. the same configuration running under Windows XP with Service Pack 2.

View: Full Article
News source: exo-blog

If this is true, I wonder why the same developers ain't working on Vista.

Edit: I actually run Vista myself, at last, and I'm here to stay! That is, if these results aren't true.

Anyone here about the massive performance differences between Win Server 2k3 and 2k8? Those were SHOCKING.

Already had seen that article. Yay XP!! Boo VistaMe2!!

Guaranteed I stick with XP now, for when I use Windows anyway, which isn't very often anymore!

hmm... I'd like to see the same test done on a machine with 2Gb of memory.

Yes i think the difference will be decreased, but i think WindowsXP will be faster too.

Here it is another article:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000...39291081,00.htm
guys i want to make something more clear here, we are not fighting i think all of us want the truth always.

Not really, can you expand on that a bit? I've just started playing with 08 last week and have both the GUI & Core versions running (via VPC) in a small network on my desktop. Is 08 really that much faster on older hardware?

I've just moved, and tossed out a bunch of stuff...but I may be able to hang together an old box to try this on.

Took me a while to find the oringal article, but here it is:



http://blogs.technet.com/windowsserver/comments/2540130.aspx

Hm... Neither sounds rational for 10.8GB of data, and there is no where near enough information about the test equipment to even attempt to duplicate the results. I've not a clue WTF VirtualEarth "Stitch" files are, but I'll assume they're using a tone of smaller files where there is a lot of stop start file transitions.

I've got 3 2k3 servers in my lab here (in my lab), and I'm only 100Mb, routinely transfer 20-50GB blocks of data between them and have never seen anything in the 10Gig range take 5 hours (or 3 for that matter).

On the other hand 7Min for the same (10.8GB) block of data? transfered over what? Fiber? Shit! Even at Gb speeds you'd have to show me the math to prove that was even possible.


Don't get me wrong man, I'm not trying to pick on you, and I'm guessing that your reason for posting the comment was it didn't quite (too-good-to-be-true...) "smell right" to you either.

I'm not entirely sure how running the 2 08s in a VM on the same box will impact the test, but I'll try to hang together some (junk files) tests to attempt to replicate their results.

Well I don't use Server day-to-day as some of you do, so I wouldn't really know how this stacks up. However, they did say the results were consistent and the numbers added up. If it's true - GREAT! But somehow I think at RTM it won't be quite as true.

Okay here are my Totally UnScientific Test results, which are blatantly skewed due to 08 running on much faster hardware in an attempt to replicate their results.
2k3 server 1 is a Dual P3 box with a single EIDE drive
2k3 server is a Dual 3Ghz Xeon box with a SATA 3.0 RAID5 Array
Win08 servers are both running (in VMs) on my E6600 box also with a SATA 3.0 RAID5 Array.

Which gives 08 a serious "edge" in the test.



45% Faster? Than What? *sniff sniff* I call bullshit!

I agree, i didn't find it logic to have this huge enhancements, whatever 2008 have its still running over an existing network protocols and same file system so i don't think so its possible to have this different, back to the first topic about Vista and XP comparison, they made another benchmark with 2 gb instead of one, check it here http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/updat...ram-office.html

Just curious, how stable is SP3 RC1, and what about software compatiblity? Any problems?

That 10% performance advantage is sure a pretty sweet attraction. Might give me one point more in some benchmark, lol.

any one know if there's going to be an SP3 for Server 2k3 x64

I'm falling to the seduction of raw power...XP...XP...I hear it in my dreams, and with SP3, Vista seems eager to be removed from my Raptor drive...

In other words, I'll probably re-install XP tomorrow.

I don't know, but i think so.

I don't know about XP but I installed Vista SP1 RC1 and the file copy performance increase was considerable on both 32 & 64 bit machines.

All I know it feels good to be back with XP, and even better with SP3RC. It's...great! Really great.

Earlier i was urged by some friends here, to stop talking about my bad opinion about Windows Vista, and keeping my own opinion to myself, but i think its more than an opinion for now,


Windows Vista no.1 of The 15 Biggest Tech Disappointments of 2007

Upgrading From Vista To XP

and with something like this too:

Microsoft acknowledges Vista kernel elevation vulnerability

and recently PC magazine discussed it more than once, (Pc mag November edition) and the advice was the same STAY WITH WINDOWS XP.

I wonder why MS guys didn't see it from the beginning ? personally i saw it since the early beta of Vista, but seems some people are too blind to see or maybe they think any newer version must be better.
anyway i think of starting a topic here discussing how to live with XP till Windows 7 come to the light.

You'll have to discard the first link entirely, as it's a ZDNet article that even hardcore XP and Mac zealots are calling nothing more than a ploy to get hits. A year later, pretty much EVERYONE on the net agrees that Vista, while it has its issues, is by no means a "big disappointment". It's made hundreds of millions of dollars, and the vast, vast majority of people using it have no issues whatsoever with it. The only folks that do are people using proprietary software or enthusiasts who expect a lot more from their PCs than average. Even those two groups are nowhere near as hard on Vista as you are for the most part nowadays.

The second link has no actual evidence. It's an editorial.

The third one: WOW! A vulnerability in Windows! That NEVER happens.

Keep at it, you've got youself convinced, and Cork. Eventually you might get a third or fourth person!

And another nice one:

Vista sets 2007 land-speed record for copying and deleting




man about selling, i know they sold so well, and i like it cause without it it could affect Windows development in general, but for a professional user i am sure Windows XP still the standard or the ideal, within my life with computers, i needed to use Unix for long time i even worked as a Unix Sun Solaris instructor for awhile, but i couldn't rely on *NIX in my daily jobs cause i always missed a piece of software somehow, and its the same story with Vista, plus i don't see any logic to give most of your PC recourses to the OS itself, man we are not fighting we are just discuss.

Ah yes, the Register ... There's a solid source of technological data ... NOT! ...Unless you want tinfoil hat stories about "My sister had a two headed alien space baby".

For Fucks Sake X Get a grip.

I'm Experimenting with Windows server 2008 and virtualization, the adverage size of the files I toss back and forth on the wire are 4G ... Don't you think I'd have noticed a lagg?!? (if there was one).

Were there some Issues? Sure. But nothing worth shit canning "the project". Minor, isolated issues, with hardware vendors that Didn't-manage-to-hear-the-train-coming (for 5 fucking years) that don't seem to be able to get off there fat, stupid, lazy asses to shit a decent driver have caused issues. But that's not Microsoft's fault.

Idiots that reverted to the legacy Start Menu in XP, because they couldn't understand how to use the "new" Start Panel are really screaming at the new Vista edition ... but if they took 8 seconds to stop and grasp what it actually does they'd realize it one of the coolest features of the OS. I Love It!

Just because Vista is designed to be easier for unskilled users, doesn't automatically mean that everyone gets to play total retard and expect it to work just fine. As an IT professional I/You/We have a responsibility to stay current on what is necessary to keep things running smoothly; wade through the bullShit and find the real facts[b] and adjust the configuration as required.

If you really want to point fingers at a complete train-wreak, take a good look at Leopard ... Now that's a joke in need of a trash can.

Guess I'll chirp in then.

My OS is better than your OS.

Lol, simply newer doesn't mean better.

Another advice from Don Reisinger:


Why all Vista users should upgrade to Windows XP
Posted by Don Reisinger

Now that Microsoft has announced the availability of the RC version of Service Pack 3 for our old friend, XP, I'm delighted to tell you all that not only is this upgrade substantial and extremely helpful. Believe it or not, this upgrade creates the best Windows experience I have ever used.

Now, as you may be aware, Vista is, well, crap. Sure, SP1 is on the way early next year and the hope is still there that Microsoft may be able to turn it around, but let's face it -- the chances of Vista becoming a wanted OS are dwindling by the minute.

The full article

Debating on doing the same thing to my totally new system. Already tried Vista before on 2 of my other systems. Only took a couple days to see how bad Vista stunk!

Have kept Vista on this sytem for a couple weeks, so far, but can't tolerate it much longer. Who the heck ever came up with that ignorant UAC crap, or whatever it is? Disabled instantly, and no, it didn't cause any boot up slow down, as reported.

Vista is nothing more than XP with all the wording changed around (automatic updates now called windows update) and that stupid UAC, and the usual way overload of more eye candy.

No wonder MS didn't want to share it with third party people for drivers. They would've blown the horn on MS as to how crappy Vista is. Would've never made the money they did because Joe Blow has to play keep up with the Jones' with the latest & greatest.