Sp3 = +25% ?

[Viking]

It is claimed that the SP3 (service pack 3) for Windows XP will give a boost of 10-25%. Will someone who intends to install the SP be a guinea pig and bench the Il2 simulation before and after please?

[JG52Uther]

I read that the other day! It could be interesting.Microsoft must have got their fingers burnt with Vista pretty badly if they are still backing XP to this extent!

[F19_Klunk]

lol.. if it gives Xp such a performance boost, they just shot Vista in the foot

[JG52Uther]

lol.. if it gives Xp such a performance boost, they just shot Vista in the foot
I think Vista shot itself in the foot!

[F19_Klunk]

Indeed, but with this (and if it's true), Microsoft just handed over the gun :P

[Tbag]

Isn't XP limited to 3GB of memory? If so, this will be the limiting factor for XPs lifespan in my opinion. 2GB are becoming standard right now, for gamers anyway.

[msalama]

Gonna try it as soon as it comes out, which AFAIK is sometime around mid-2008...

[OldBuzzard]

Actually, SP3 RC 1 has already been released. I have it installed on my 2 XP 32 bit installs. However, I use an XP Pro x64 partition for IL2, so I can't really say if if gives a boost in IL2. As I understand it tho, SP3 is mostly just a 'roll up' of all the securety and other patches since SP2.

I guess I could install IL2 on a 32 bit system, and see what it does.

Just so you understand, I use HyperOS which allows me to have multiple Operating systems http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/ Right now I have 2 XP Pro and 4 XP Pro x64 partitions, altho my version of HOS will allow up to 22 versions of 2000, XP, and Vista in all 'flavors'.

[csThor]

I must say I am very satisfied with my XP and won't bother with Vista unless they give me a very good reason to buy it. My parents bought a notebook a few weeks back and first thing I did when configuring it was to switch off the redlight-district-style gfx stuff. I mean I was pretty close to puke when I saw the XP screen first time but this Vista stuff is another notch beyond "acceptable". *imagine puking smilie here*

[SPUDLEY1977]

Vista requires a multiple of overhead resources (Ram and CPU) compared to XP. It supports significantly fewer of the common programs we hare accustomed to use, work programs, entertainment, and gaming. It is slower. It is the latest Miscroshaft advertise/marketing planned obsolesence. After the initial Vista rollout, XP was not offered by vendors. Buyers were forced Vista. There were so many problems, it was way too buggy and software would not run on it. Now everyone seems to offer XP as people were very unhappy with Vista ( read: purchasers were returning PC systems). So now once again we can buy XP.

XP was a hugh improvement over 98 as an OS, not just new window dressing at a $$ and performance cost. It was also much more stable. Miscrosoft needs need $$ so they offer something new and try to terminate resellers offering what really delivers at a lesser cost to consumers. Perhaps it is geared to business, it does not appear to be welcome to the typical person who has many applications and enjoys gaming. One size does not fit all.

YMMV...Peace

[352nd Persecutor]

Isn't XP limited to 3GB of memory? If so, this will be the limiting factor for XPs lifespan in my opinion. 2GB are becoming standard right now, for gamers anyway.

All 32 bit OS's (including Vista 32 bit) are limited to 3 gigs of memory. There's a deep discussion of why here (http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm).

[6S.Manu]

Maybe in the Sp3 we'll have the DX10 support for XP?

[Codex]

I'm with Vista on this one. Yes right now there "appears" to be no benift in Vista which I can understand, but it will be future titles in gaming where Vista's memory managment and multi threading capabilities will leave XP dead in the water. And re: 64bit v 32bit, 32 bit is fine for the moment but there will be a point where the 4GB limit will no longer do. A 64bit OS can access 16 Terabytes of RAM, yes terabytes.

As for Vista being crap well have a look at this: http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=2&c=21&t=1418



Seeing as we get several posts a day on how "bad" Vista is I thought it was time for a single post.

1) I get constant BSOD.
This is not actually a direct fault of Microsoft, actually it comes from cleaver initative on behalf of Microsoft.
Despite popular belief Microsoft don't write operating systems that are designed to crash on a regular occurance, not crash ever. In fact, the vast majority of crashes that occur are related to hardware, well actually the drivers powering the hardware.
I'm yet to have any version of Windows, Vista or other, that has crashes and not tracable back to a driver error.
Next time you have your system crash, before coming here to add another bitching thread check your Event Viewer (Admin tools for those who are unsure) and see if you can find the cause of the problem. They are generally in the Application or System logs.

Its also worth noting that applications themselves often crash. I've had Opera crash on me on occations and you know what its Opera's fault that it crashed, not Microsofts, dispite the fact that it's running in Windows.
Again, Event Viewer is able to tell you what crashed and give you a bit of google-able stuff to try and find solutions to your crash.

But the best way to avoid crashing is to a) Update your drivers regularly, b) Update your software regularly and c) Update your OS regularly.

Update: As I'm still learning about Vista and haven't delved into all of Vista's components but today I found a nifty new one. In control panel there's a new app called Problem Reports and Solutions . It is pretty much what it sounds like, a tool for reporting problems and finding solutions.
Well today I booted my PC and had an alert in my system tray saying there were new solutions. Apparently there's a new XviD out, as I've had some problems with watching some video's I have.
Now I don't know if this has fixed the problem, but its nice to get a notification on a non-Microsoft product having an update.

2) My application X doesn't work in Windows Vista, but it worked on Windows Y.
Again, dispite popular belief Microsoft doesn't write every piece of software that runs within a Windows OS, nor is it required to ensure that every Joe Blow that writes software has to have it work on every OS they release.
If something doesn't work, check the authors page , they may have a new version with Vista capabilities.

3) That bloody UAC, I'm so glad I can turn it off.
I can't count the number of times I've heard in all my years on computers phrases such as "Windows is horribly insecure", or "Linux (or OS X) is supperior as it protects the end user".
Welcome to the world of UAC. Microsoft have finally made a good effort at developing an OS with a good security model, that works with linux-like permissions (having to approve software installs, prompts when changing system files, etc) and what's the first thing people have done, bitched about it and turned it off!
I have not seen a valid reason for turning it off yet, except for doing a new system build, as you will install a lot of software, but for every day use its good to have on. Who actually needs write access to their Win32 directory? Or full, unrestricted reign over the Admin tools?

4) Vista is a massive resource hog over XP.
And XP takes more resources than 2k, and 2k takes more than 98/98SE, and 98 takes more than 95, and 95 takes more than 3.11.
New software is released to take use of the current available hardware, and to be able to make good use of the available hardware over its lifespan.
XP was released in '02 (IIRC) and what was the top CPU then? About a 2Ghz, 512Mb RAM was still pretty tops and a GFX was hardly more than 64Mb.
What's top at the moment? Dual-Core 3.8Ghz? 2Gb ram is standard, 1024Mb gfx is top-range.
Not supprising running Vista on a 5 year old PC might be a bit of a strech!

That said, I have found Vista to be at least the same as XP, if not better.
I've run Vista on a PC that's about 1 - 1.5 years old, was very usable and just as fast around as the XP partition on it.
For all the complaints I've seen about the so-called resource hogging of Vista I haven't seen anyone back them up with hard facts.

5) Vista uses a lot more RAM than XP did.
The reason we by RAM is not so we can look at it and go "Wow, I have 1.5Gb of my ram currently free, how cool am I!", its to use it.
Vista has a feature called SuperFetch . What this does is it caches frequiently used applications so that you can access them a lot faster than if they weren't in memory.

6) Vista is nothing more than a flashy new look, why waste the money!
And? So?
Battelfield: Vietnam was little more than a graphics upgrade.
Each C&C release looks prettier.
Every Grand Tourismo looks better.
All NFS's have been little more than graphics upgrades.
Hell, even Crysis is a prettier version of random FPS here .
Yes, the above comments are generalised, but they are they are close to the truth. If you look at something at face value then all you're going to see is its face. Dig deeper and you'll find all the good stuff.
I hardly think that the $150 for OEM Home Premium is expensive, hell, even $175 for the upgrade aint bad!
How much did you spend on your last video card? Or your last CPU? Or any other major part!

7) Vista is little more than Microsoft copying OS X.
Yes this is a very true statement, so go buy OS X.
This has been going on for years, and not just in terms of OS's. A lot of inovations in programs steam from someone else's ideas.
Take archiving for example. How many different archive formats are there these days? You've got RAR, Zip, 7z, etc, and they all would have steamed from someone thinking that compression and archiving is a good idea.
If a company can see what consumers like/ want and then incorporate that into their own work good for them.
This isn't even limited to computers. Why do you think that 3 wheeled cars never took off? It wasn't a good idea so no one followed up on them.

8) They are already planning a service pack. That means they know its not complete on release.
Define a complete piece of software?
Working in software development I can tell you that from my experienses a complete piece of software is something that a user can use for nearly everything without issue, but that doesn't mean there isn't issues.
Every application written gets upgrades, gets patches, gets hot-fixes, gets service packs.
When was the last time you got a patch for a game? Or for a common app like Nero, or FF?
How often does a linux distro get upgrades? The kernel?
Software development is a never ending process, a great quote I once read was "Software development is a race between developers making idiot proof software and the universe making better idiots".
For a company to write an OS that did not need patching would require the computing industry to come to a hault.
Microsoft should be applauded for their forward thinking and planning for a service pack, ensuring everyone knows when to expect the next major round of fixes.

9) IE 7 is shit.
http://www.opera.com.au
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
And at least its not IE6.


Well that's all I can think of for the time being as to what people shouldn't buy Vista.
Just incase anyone is still confused I'm attempting to take the piss. I'm using Vista and loving it. I've had hardly any problems, the vast majority of ones I've had have been related to my nVidia drivers, which are still in beta so that's to be expected.

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

I'm with Vista on this one. Yes right now there "appears" to be no benift in Vista which I can understand, but it will be future titles in gaming where Vista's memory managment and multi threading capabilities will leave XP dead in the water. And re: 64bit v 32bit, 32 bit is fine for the moment but there will be a point where the 4GB limit will no longer do. A 64bit OS can access 16 Terabytes of RAM, yes terabytes.

As for Vista being crap well have a look at this: http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=2&c=21&t=1418

Hear Hear!!!

[strewth]

As for Vista being crap well have a look at this:

4) Vista is a massive resource hog over XP.
And XP takes more resources than 2k, and 2k takes more than 98/98SE, and 98 takes more than 95, and 95 takes more than 3.11.
New software is released to take use of the current available hardware, and to be able to make good use of the available hardware over its lifespan.
XP was released in '02 (IIRC) and what was the top CPU then? About a 2Ghz, 512Mb RAM was still pretty tops and a GFX was hardly more than 64Mb.
What's top at the moment? Dual-Core 3.8Ghz? 2Gb ram is standard, 1024Mb gfx is top-range.
Not supprising running Vista on a 5 year old PC might be a bit of a strech!

Yeah well he appeared to let ME slip by un-noticed. I am not the greatest fan of microsoft, but generally it works and I personally cannot do any better, so I use it.

HOWEVER! For those that have experienced ME otherwise known by the numerous help line people as "Arrrr, you mean Many Errors"; I can only shake my head at the heartache it caused me over the years on a work laptop. It certainly one that MS just plain got wrong.

Not really trying to flame you here. Just reading through and it was something that caught my eye.

Cheers!

[GOZR]

Well if you want the best M$ os for me for now it's win server 2003..

[Urufu_Shinjiro]

Yeah, ME really was a steaming pile of excriment....

[heywooood]

I was bitten by both dogs...ME and Vista....they are identical POS's

thought it was criminal for M/S to force me to buy Vista when I had a new rig built for my kid...and then I was hoping against hope that it would be a good thing and all the while I kept thinking about the first computer I bought him...it came with ME >= (

screwed...errrm bitten twice

[Codex]

Maybe in the Sp3 we'll have the DX10 support for XP?

Microsoft has always said it's not going to release DX10 for XP. There are some third party development houses building DX10 wrappers for XP, but they won't have the memory management optimisations of Vista for DX10 games, which mean a DX10 game in XP will be slower than on Vista. Also they'll probably charge $$$ for the wrapper, which to me defeats the purpose, you might as well just buy Vista.

Edit

[TooCool]

As said previously, Vista seems to be the modern Windows Me. one article I found funny:

"Upgrading from Vista to XP"

http://dotnet.org.za/codingsanity/archive/2007/12/14/review-windows-xp.aspx


:grin:

anyway, the "after vista" OS is supposed to arrive in about 2.5 years... there's a good chance XP does quite well until there.. even if most will have to move to a 64bit version

[VMF-214_HaVoK]

Isn't XP limited to 3GB of memory? If so, this will be the limiting factor for XPs lifespan in my opinion. 2GB are becoming standard right now, for gamers anyway.

Yes, but most games will stay optimized for 2GB of ram for the simple reason most people do not run 64bit OS. I personally run XP Pro 64bit but even to this day its not fully supported and its not marketed very well either and almost feels abandoned at times. By the way Vista 32bit has the same capacity as XP 32bit so unless everyone starts running out and buy 64bit versions you have nothing to worry about concerning RAM limitations.

S!

[VMF-214_HaVoK]

I was bitten by both dogs...ME and Vista....they are identical POS's

ME got me as well...lol. Although I never purchased Vista I have worked on several PCs that ran it and I concur with your analysis.

S!

[EZ1]

Much ado about nothing.

This is a PC Magazine review of the SP3 Beta:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2200774,00.asp

[LT.INSTG8R]

I just got a laptop with Vista Premium 32bit. TBH all I see is a more resource heavy, repainted version of XP. I dont see any point to Vista UNLESS its 64bit as there is ZERO benefits to 32bit Vista. I also have both the RC's for Vista and my XP Pro Desktop. I saw nothing new or exciting in the XP SP3 nor did I feel it ran any faster( I mean I am very diligent about keeping up to date so it seems like its just a rollup of all the updates I probably already had anyway.

@Havok: You have been left out in the cold with XP 64bit. As far as was concerned it was just a guinea pig testbed for 64bit functionality before they committed it to Vista.

[Codex]

From: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2200774,00.asp


SP3 may well be the end of the line for XP service packs—Microsoft's mainstream support for the OS ends in 2009, although extended support will run through 2014. That's not to say that there isn't plenty of room for improvement in the now venerable XP. My wish list includes new functionality (such as the ability, in Windows Explorer, to switch between folder and favorites views and to navigate folders from the locations field), along with better memory management—especially for multimedia production programs—and stronger built-in security. A few overhauls wouldn't be out of place, either, particularly of utilities such as Backup and Paint and all those other things that have been lying around largely unchanged since the original XP and even before. Actually, this would be a good time to introduce a few of Vista's user interface upgrades, if only to make XP users look longingly towards the newer OS.

Alas, that's not what SP3 delivers.


LOL...no because those exact "improvements" are in VISTA...LOL