Remembering Windows XP’s early days
section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 25.2.2008
I am amused by the current lovefest going on with Windows XP. It’s the greatest operating system ever, in the minds of some, especially compared to the allegedly bloated, slow Windows Vista. In fact, InfoWorld has gone so far as to kick off a “Save XP” petition drive.
Vista bashers really hate it when you point out that the same criticisms being leveled at Vista today were commonly aimed at XP after its launch. Fortunately, I’ve found a near-perfect example of this trend. It’s illuminating, and ironically, it comes from InfoWorld blogger Randall Kennedy, who has been bashing Vista and hyping the “Save XP” campaign relentlessly on his Enterprise Desktop blog. His latest entry dismisses any comparison between Vista now and XP then:
One of the arguments I hear in defense of Windows Vista’s bloated footprint is that it’s simply a repeat of the situation faced by users when Windows XP first shipped. Back then, the logic goes, users were complaining about Windows XP’s CPU and memory requirements, with many resisting the upgrade push because they simply didn’t want to make the necessary hardware commitment. …
However, the truth is that “Windows 6.0? [Vista] is really only the second mainstream iteration of the current Windows platform (Windows 2000 doesn’t count since it was never a mainstream product). As such, there simply is no real precedent from which to draw such conclusions.
In the same post, Kennedy goes on to rhapsodize over Windows XP:
As those of us who remember can attest, the jump from DOS/Windows to Windows XP was a quantum leap forward in Microsoft’s OS architecture. …
The introduction of Windows XP was a watershed moment for the PC industry, one that firmly cemented Microsoft’s role as the pace-setter for the desktop.
Yes, XP was totally awesome when it was officially released on October 25, 2001. A quantum leap forward. A watershed moment for the PC.
Or not. Thankfully, Google is here to step in and help out some of us old fogies who’ve been in the industry for 20 years or so and can’t quite remember things as clearly as we used to.
Those of us who are willing to supplement our memories with some help from Google can attest that XP was not welcomed with open arms. In fact, it was slammed by magazines like InfoWorld, where P. J. Connolly and the very same Randall C. Kennedy published this not-so-glowing review in the October 26, 2001 issue:
Hopeless optimism must be a fundamental part of human nature, because we want to believe that new operating systems truly represent an improvement on their predecessors. It’s easy to point to certain features in a new OS as examples of progress, but end-users often find that a new OS performs like molasses compared to the version they were using. As a result, CTOs wanting to capitalize on the benefits of a new OS may find that new hardware investments are necessary — and expensive — requirements.
Unfortunately, Microsoft’s Windows XP appears to be maintaining that tradition …
Windows 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows 2000 client. Our testing also suggests that companies determined to deploy Windows XP should consider ordering desktop systems with dual CPUs to get the most out of the new OS. …
Sound familiar?
Let’s compare and contrast those 2007 statements with their 2001 counterparts. Remember, this is the same publication, with the same author’s name in the by-line.
On Windows 2000:
2001: “IT departments should take advantage of license downgrade provisions and continue to press forward with Windows 2000 deployments until the installed hardware base catches up with XP.”
2007: “Windows 2000 doesn’t count since it was never a mainstream product.”
On why your old OS was better:
2001: “Windows XP increasingly ate the dust of Windows 2000 as load ramped up, regardless of machine specs or Office version.”
2007: “[E]xhaustive testing confirms that Windows Vista is at least twice as slow as Windows XP when running on the same hardware.”
On hardware:
2001: “[U]ntil 2GHz desktop PCs become commonplace, we have a hard time recommending widespread adoption of Windows XP at all.”
2007: “Windows XP SP3 … absolutely screams on today’s high-end, multi-core desktops.”
source:
blogs.zdnet.com
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Microsoft: Windows XP SP3 Available EARLY! in 2008 || Microsoft patched critical Windows bug in XP SP3 early || Is It Not Too Early to Crucify Windows Vista SP1 and Put XP SP3 on a Pedestal? || Public Vista SP1 RC in a Few Days - XP SP3 RC Next? || 30 Days: Windows Vista
Comments(30)
if windows xp sp3 absolutely screams on today's high-end, multi-core desktops then why
would we be needing vista whereas we're already loving xp.
98% products with tag name "made in china" which is great. where's all "made in usa"
go?
where the heck did you and roberto come from? don't tell me about the made in china
tags. there used to be some pretty good stuff to buy around here. no longer. it's all
made in china and covered in poison paint!
that's what ms is afraid of. xp sp3 works like a dream and the 'end computer user' is
starting to realize things like that. we thank ms for xp sp3. and it works just fine the
way that it is. if ms doesn't have anything that works as well or better, i would say
that they're finished now...
spammers: please die!!!
i like vista, i know it is a little slower, but i like
it.
yeah, right... sure xp had it's problems at the beginning, problem is they weren't even
close to as big as the ones vista is having at it's beginning, period.
you gotta do what you gotta do. heres my perspective from someone who alpha / beta tested
longhorn/vista.
1. drm. microsoft cut a deal to stamp out movie piracy. the
infection is totally baked deep into vista, aero is typically blamed, but drm queries the
os every 30 seconds to make sure you aren't doing anything ilegal. running vista is like
wearing an ankle bracelet. this os assumes you're a criminal out of the box! microsoft
and their hollywood friends call it 'trusted computing'.
2. traditionally
the pc, unlike the mac has always been open source. everyone could contribute to the
development. pretty cool huh? microsoft hopes to create a monopoly with their version of
drm and then write their own ticket in hollywood. its like, 'look, we got rid of piracy
with our drm, now we demand this and that. hollywood, to protect their so-called premium
content (blu-ray dvd, games etc) would have no choice but to partner with microsoft. kinda
like their recent hostile takeover attemtp recently.
the bottom line is
anything vista can do xp can do better. i have found my games run better under direct x 9.
with vista they freeze and glitch. my pc is a quad core with 4 gigs of ram, fairly new, so
i know it must be the os.
vista works fine for the average user and i couldn't tell any difference performance
wise with either os. vista just seems to make more sense to me, i like the interface over
xp and ubuntu, both those os's i have abandoned for vista. i think vista is here to stay
so get used to it, of course i know some people who're still using 98, not 98se but 98,
go figure.
sorry, but vista just doesn't perform that well with games. i'm an avid gamer and the
performance drops due to vista's bloated system is unacceptable. i would rather have an
os that gives you the options to get rid of some of the bloat. but, vista just hides it in
there along with it's drm. sorry, but it's not for me. i alpha and beta tested
longhorn/vista. i know that the nsa (the american national security agency) was called in
to help work on the security. that, in itself bothers me. i'll stick with xp, an os that
i can change and alter to fit my needs, not the needs of some big brother agency.
say what? windows 98 was a piece of ka ka! xp is stable and solid platform tried and
true! why would you want vista with all that drm infection corrupting your pc? i just dl
sp3 build 3311 and it just smokes. i'm lovin it! my dual xeons with 4 gigs ram really
moves! when i had vista ultimate everything was like moving underwater. just cause
vista's the latest sh.it don't mean its worth having, don't lie to yourself. remember
windows me? what a joke.
i dont think windows 7 will be called windows 7 when it's released, now back to your
regular scheduled program
what exactly are the similarities of win2k (a non mainstream os) vs winxp and nowadays
win vista vs winxp? i tell you none.winxp came to save us from the horrible
win98.difference is you can have winxp as long as you want, a solid and tested and widely
accepted platform, compared to vista where, underground processes, packets that travel
secretly to ms, content protection policies, non-gamers friendly performance, etc
exist.the choice is yours.
the douches commenting here were either not around for win98 and winxp launches or have a
severe case of memory lapse.
same stories different year.
people cried about 98
being eye-candy, bloatware, and a hardware killer. xp rolls out, and 98sp2 is the end
all, be all.....the perfect os ! why do we need xp? it's slow, eye-candy that forces you
to upgrade! 98 runs fine on 64mb of ram, xp takes 512 to run decently! it's crap!
now the same thing over once again....
face it. vista runs great on a well equiped
new machine. it's called progress. games no longer fit on floppy discs. 10 gig hd's
are no longer "more space than you will ever use". 48bit mp3's are no longer concidered
awesome sound quality.
you want to stick with your 1ghz celeron? go for it. run xp on
it till 2021. just shut your mouths while doing it. you look plain stupid to many now,
and will to everyone a couple years from now.
non gamers friendly performance??? what planet you live on? have you played crisis, or
bioshock on full out directx10/vista? evidently not.... makes xp era games look like
super nes. and for your info......xp has plenty of "secret packets to ms" itself.
content protection is made to protect idiots from trashing their machines on a weekly
basis (i know, i repair a lot of them)and can be turned off quite easily. enjoy your
emachine! lol
if u have a shitty system then stick with xp u cheapo's and don't go bad mouthing
vista.
well said skully, well said.
"vista just doesn't perform that well with games"
well update your damn
graphics card you idiot.
and fyi every driver is different in relation to
performance. some will improve performance, some will decrease and some will be the same.
and cause vista is still new you might have to wait awhile to get that
"golden" driver.
windows vista is already being shunned by most of the world! network admins refuse to
'upgrade', everyone complain's about vista's non intuitive interface and cost...i
would say vista's days are numbered like windows me. btw this article was lifted from
zdnet and was written by one ed bott a known vista fanboy who receives kickbacks from
microsoft.
a lot of computer enthusiast don't like vista, they aren't noobs with celerons
"a lot of computer don't like vista, they aren't noobs with celerons"
you don't honestly think m$ cares about "enthusiasts" do you? i bet most
"enthusiasts" have pirated copies of vista and/or xp anyways.
it's not so much the speed, it's the difference it makes.
when xp came out,
sure it was much slower than 98, but it didn't crash with a blue screen every 15 minutes.
and after a year and sp1, that was especially true. it was an improvement that was needed.
with vista, even after a year and sp1, there is nothing new that is really
needed from this os to justify the new specs. with every new os, bigger specs are to be
expected, but with so little in return? that is why vista disappoints.
i
remember keeping win98 as a dual boot for a long time since i needed it to run
incompatible apps. yet i gradually despised not being able to run them in xp since win98
was always crashing.
now, i don't have apps that don't work in vista, and no
matter how much i'd like to embrace it, it just feels slower. oh well.
vista feels s l o w e r than xp becuase it is, much more so. lets see: it can't really
do much, it sports dx 10 for games, ms refused to release dx10 for xp as a come on for
vista. yet on the same hardware i find dx9 is smoother on xp. vista has all those extra
services running and mac eye candy, nasty drm infection baked so deep into the core of the
os it'll take 9 months to come out at least. lmfao!
no vista for me.
yes, xp had its problems at first, but it was no where nearly as bad as vista is. m$
dropped the ball with vista and some just don't want to admit that their god made a big
mistake. grow up. vista supporters are like crows, they are easily impressed by anything
that is shiny.
now i've completely dropped windows and am now using something
superior in many ways and that is linux.
being on every thing doesn't mean
that something is better it only means that people had believed that they didn't have a
choice. now they have a real choice other than windows......
humn...throw away mac, apple, linux crap? opps! but longs ago
well, we tag
them as 'made in china' anyway
has anyone checked sp3?, it increases the size of xp quite a bit, has microsoft add drm?
just a thought.
made in china alot of garbage comes out of those 1$ an hour feces infested child labour
holes,my ass china!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
face it you vista fanboys it blows and is slower. no ifs and or butts. unless you have no
choice to run it then you will say its just as fast or better when in reality you know its
not.
sure if i take my 3200 xp with 2gb ram verse your quad core 3.5ghz 4 gb
ram sli overclocked system with vista. then sure your vista is faster ;)
omg, are you all 12 years old, when xp came out, there were sooooo many "broken"
programs that would not run on xp, driver problems, bsod's. im sorry, since i have
installed vista on my 3 machines and 1 laptop, i have had no problems, they run perfectly
as microsft and myself would want and everything that i do works for the most part. if i
do have any hardware problems, its not vista alone, but the nt core that locks much
m.a.s.m. from accessing them and not letting me do what i want. ooohhh, thats right,
another big problem - the nt core locking out raw code from accessing hardware. have you
ever tried to do that in the nt core, dont think so, cause you cant. if you think that xp
is sooooo fast, why dont you install win98se on your machine and test that. and if your
gonna do that, try win95 and see if your machine can even run that.
ps - i am gay
choice: ok, so there are other platforms that are easily accessible to all, and there are
even some good free ones. but what the hell are you gonna do on them. you still need to
either know osx or windows. you cant do everything on nix, but i will agree that you can
come close
so if you like nix sooo much, why are you spending time bashing
vista adopters?
its not a matter of simply 'bashing' vista. vista bashes itsself just fine on its own
thank you! it people won't touch it, sorry! google vista and you will find the vast
majority of people have rejected vista and 'upgraded' back to xp pro for many valid
reasons: program compatibility, xp is more intuitive, vista has everything buried under
menu options: plus vista is a cpu and memory whore, the os guzzles resources, and cannot
do anything more than xp. (sorry: dx10 don't count: xp runs the latest dx10 games under
dx9 much smoother, if you doubt me check out 'tom's hardware guide' they benchmarked
it! basically vista is a nightmare, not seen since windows millinium blue screened
everyone. vista s.ucks bigtime. lets not forget that microsoft spread its legs for their
hollywood friends and baked drm infection so deep into vista it'll take 9 months to pop
out! thats right, drm ques the os every 30 seconds to make sure you aren't pirating their
so called 'premium content', movies, games etc...this os assumes everyone is a criminal
out of the box, running vista is like wearing an ankle bracelet with a parole officer
looking over your shoulder...microsoft and hollywood call it 'trusted computing'..i call
it spyware.
No new comments are allowed for this article.
For your questions use our KezNews Forum
If it ain't broke why fix it ?
By DCRJ on 26.02.2008 - 02:02