MS Windows XP SP3's performance evaluation

[beowulf7]

I came across this blog on ZDNet (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1747) titled XP SP3 performance gains - Nothing to write home about.

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes benchmarked XP SP3 and other flavors of XP (SP2, SP2 w/ patches, and RTM). His conclusion is provided in the intro of the article:

Those who believed that Windows XP Service Pack 3 would provide the aging OS with a performance boost may well be disappointed. My benchmark tests show that the application of XP SP3 makes negligible difference to system performance.

I wonder what others' (real-world) experience will be.

[bmaverick]

On our HP-Compaq V3000Z laptop, the performance was slower. :(

Is this to make people switch to Vista?

[Joe Average]

I've been saying this since last summer: you can expect no seriously noticeable performance gains just because you run SP3 over SP2 for any length of time.

A lot of people ran all over the place screaming like crazy at how well SP3 was supposed to increase performance based on the silly Exo benchmarks posted late last year - they compared it to Vista SP1 which was funny for this reason:

They were comparing a beta service pack of XP SP3 vs a beta service pack of Vista SP1. Talk about stupid tripping over idiotic, geez.

Anyway, their benchmarks are repeatable because they're just scripts that cause Office 2003 to run through a given set of tasks.

What isn't repeatable are the so-called impressive results they spammed all over the place, because it just ain't so as people are now learning.

SP3 is a bug-fix with minimal new feature implementations, and none of them - neither the fixes for the old stuff nor the new stuff added - has any appreciable effect on performance.

[Uberbob102000]

I've been saying this since last summer: you can expect no seriously noticeable performance gains just because you run SP3 over SP2 for any length of time.

A lot of people ran all over the place screaming like crazy at how well SP3 was supposed to increase performance based on the silly Exo benchmarks posted late last year - they compared it to Vista SP1 which was funny for this reason:

They were comparing a beta service pack of XP SP3 vs a beta service pack of Vista SP1. Talk about stupid tripping over idiotic, geez.

Anyway, their benchmarks are repeatable because they're just scripts that cause Office 2003 to run through a given set of tasks.

What isn't repeatable are the so-called impressive results they spammed all over the place, because it just ain't so as people are now learning.

SP3 is a bug-fix with minimal new feature implementations, and none of them - neither the fixes for the old stuff nor the new stuff added - has any appreciable effect on performance.

QFT, I think those were the same benchmarks that said Vista was 100% slower than XP which is total bull.

[beowulf7]

While the results are very similar to each other, I thought it was a little weird how XP RTM was the fastest, followed by XP SP2 w/ patches, then XP SP3, then XP SP2. Then again, the performance results are within a few percentage points of each other, so it's not that meaningful.

I've seen benchmarks that say Vista is faster than XP and vice versa. I don't know what to believe anymore. :o

[Joe Average]

On the same hardware, on a clean install of the OS, XP (any service pack or even RTM) will outperform Vista (any edition, any service pack which means the RTM or SP1 at this point) because XP is smokin' fast after a clean install and Vista hasn't had any opportunity to self-tune as it was designed to do based on usage patterns, data access patterns, times of usage, etc.

After a few weeks, XP will begin to degrade over time - anyone that claims otherwise needs to go back to Amsterdam and smoke up some more weed and leave the 'puters alone - whereas Vista will get faster due primarily to SuperFetch at work, etc.

All the benchmarks you'll find online, pretty much 100% of them guaranteed, will put XP up against Vista immediately after a clean installation and as I just said, XP will typically mop the floor with Vista under such conditions.

But over time, Vista will shine... and XP will dull and never be the same again.

I know one guy that's using an old P4 box and he's on his original XP installation from October of 2001 - I kid you not. On the same processor, same RAM, same motherboard, same original Radeon video card (yes, the original one) and what's best of all: he's still using an actual honest to goodness IBM "Deathstar" 60GXP hard drive as his primary hard drive and it all works great, according to him.

My contention is that he's so used to the sub-par performance on that box (and I've been trying for YEARS now to get him to start clean again) that he believes it works fine. He updates as required, is going to put SP3 on it soon enough, etc. Can you imagine running the same install of XP from October 2001 through every patch/update that's been made available, from IE6 to IE7 every step of the way, with most every piece of hardware intact save for a bigger hard drive to store some mp3 files on?

I can't figure it out myself...

[JimmiG]

You know it's funny, this "self tuning" stuff has been cited as a major reason to upgrade to the latest Microsoft OS for a while now.

-Everyone was told to switch from Win98SE to Win2k because "the os doesn't get slower over time"

-Then WinXP was advertised as self-tuning, getting faster over time or at least remaining the same

-Now Vista will gradually turn your aging AthlonXP rig into a quad-core powerhouse it seems...

WinXP does include a number of self-tuning features. Vista has Superfetch, which will gradually make it faster than XP.. but XP won't get "slower" because it's missing this feature. XP does have "Prefetcher" which "speeds up the Windows boot process, and shortens the amount of time it takes to start up programs" (sounds familiar?).

Using UltimateDefrag to keep less frequently used data out of the way, my XP installations have never become slow or unstable over time. I don't know what some people are doing to their XP installations to make them slow down like that..

[SuperSubZero]

I don't know what some people are doing to their XP installations to make them slow down like that..
They download 50 random apps they found on google, each of which installs some kind of agent, and then they don't see the "default option is to install this toolbar" thing, and then they don't understand why their systems slow down.

[Canadian in Berlin]

I ran my XP install for 3 years through Mobo, processor and 3 video card changes and it worked just fine. That said, Vista works fine for me as well, so I don't really care that much.

[chrispycrunch]

But over time, Vista will shine... and XP will dull and never be the same again.

I know one guy that's using an old P4 box and he's on his original XP installation from October of 2001 - I kid you not. On the same processor, same RAM, same motherboard, same original Radeon video card (yes, the original one) and what's best of all: he's still using an actual honest to goodness IBM "Deathstar" 60GXP hard drive as his primary hard drive and it all works great, according to him.
I can't figure it out myself...

Amazing. Since 2001, I've had to re-install XP 2-3 times for each machine. In every case, XP started to degrade, probably not due to the OS itself, but because of 3rd party software that clogs the system. Stuff like adobe, freeware, and even some games now. Those steam/anti-cheating programs that are added to start up just slow things down. I've even tried to uninstall applications and to run all sorts of tweaking tools (Ccleaner, defrag, etc.) but XP truly isn't the same as a fresh install.

So far, this observation is true for my older boxes (AMD64, P4 3.0 Northwood) and not so for the C2D which is just 5 months old. It's almost like we need a virtual machine for each subset of applications (photography, video editing, programming) we run, just to avoid application overload!

[beowulf7]

My current rig has 32-bit XP Pro that's over 2.5 y/o. It hasn't really gotten sluggish on me, but my plan from 2005 was to upgrade to 64-bit Vista 3 years later, which would be this summer/fall. Now I'm not so sure I want to do that. I may just rebuild later this year w/ XP SP3. Or just let it be as is.

[griffinhart]

I've been saying this since last summer: you can expect no seriously noticeable performance gains just because you run SP3 over SP2 for any length of time.

A lot of people ran all over the place screaming like crazy at how well SP3 was supposed to increase performance based on the silly Exo benchmarks posted late last year - they compared it to Vista SP1 which was funny for this reason:

They were comparing a beta service pack of XP SP3 vs a beta service pack of Vista SP1. Talk about stupid tripping over idiotic, geez.

Anyway, their benchmarks are repeatable because they're just scripts that cause Office 2003 to run through a given set of tasks.

What isn't repeatable are the so-called impressive results they spammed all over the place, because it just ain't so as people are now learning.

SP3 is a bug-fix with minimal new feature implementations, and none of them - neither the fixes for the old stuff nor the new stuff added - has any appreciable effect on performance.


There were several problems with those over reported officebench tests. First was the scripts didn't actually do anything other than open and close windows, scroll through windows and copy and paste between windows at speeds no human can even come close to. Just adding the window animations Vista has can, and does, throw that particular benchmark out of whack. Worse still according to the details of these particular tests, they were run on virtual machines and not standard installs. No one should be surprised that there is no difference in real world tests.

[Uberbob102000]

There were several problems with those over reported officebench tests. First was the scripts didn't actually do anything other than open and close windows, scroll through windows and copy and paste between windows at speeds no human can even come close to. Just adding the window animations Vista has can, and does, throw that particular benchmark out of whack. Worse still according to the details of these particular tests, they were run on virtual machines and not standard installs. No one should be surprised that there is no difference in real world tests.

QFT... Thank you for being the shining ray of truth and reason in this thread.. If your surprised that there is no performance difference, slap yourself now for being so gullible.

[beowulf7]

In related news, MS has postponed (http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1368) Windows XP SP3 indefinitely. :eek:

[DeaconFrost]

In related news, MS has postponed (http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1368) Windows XP SP3 indefinitely. :eek:
I can see postponing the automatic update, but it still should be left available for a manual update, with a big, bold warning about the compatibility issue with Dynamics. I've loaded it on my Dell Latitude D630, and haven't seen a difference.

[Ap0stl3]

No performance gain is exactly what I saw back in February when I posted some personal benchmarking results (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1270255) using the RCs. I have been running Vista Enterprise 64 ever since I did the tests and haven't been disappointed

[Mithent]

There were several problems with those over reported officebench tests.

I thought there had to be something fishy with those tests.. there's no way that XP is twice as fast as Vista. Thanks for pointing that out!

In related news, MS has postponed (http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1368) Windows XP SP3 indefinitely. :eek:

Well, it's been stopped until they can filter out people who are using Microsoft's rather unpopular retail management system, because of the incompatibility.. there's not anything fundamentally wrong with the service pack, they just don't want people installing it and getting problems. Although I don't know why everyone gets quite so excited about SP3, it's just a bundle of hotfixes that you should have most of anyway - it's a convenience thing for new installs more than anything else.

[jlbenedict]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/04/microsoft_delays_windows_xp_se.html?nav=rss_blog

"To help protect our customers, we plan to put filtering in place shortly to prevent Windows Update from offering both service packs to systems running Microsoft Dynamics RMS. Once filtering is in place, we expect to release Windows XP SP3 to Windows Update and Download Center."

[beowulf7]

...

Well, it's been stopped until they can filter out people who are using Microsoft's rather unpopular retail management system, because of the incompatibility.. there's not anything fundamentally wrong with the service pack, they just don't want people installing it and getting problems. Although I don't know why everyone gets quite so excited about SP3, it's just a bundle of hotfixes that you should have most of anyway - it's a convenience thing for new installs more than anything else.

Maybe some people will get excited about right clicking on "My Computer" and seeing "Service Pack 3" listed in the "General" tab. :D

[Happy Hopping]

what about security? ie.., as far as intrusion thru ADSL, is the security aspect of SP3 better than SP2? I mean, their PDF file did claim it packages all the old individual service pack files together

[Mithent]

SP3 shouldn't be more secure than a fully-patched SP2 system, but it does mean that you can deploy a machine with up-to-date patches immediately rather than installing Windows with SP2 and having unpatched vulnerabilities present until you install the relevant hotfixes.

[bigdogchris]

The only thing XP SP3 was supposed to do is provide all the fixes since SP2 and to include a way for an XP machine to work with Server 08 policies, or something like that. They never said it was going to add performance of any type.

[Happy Hopping]

SP3 shouldn't be more secure than a fully-patched SP2 system, but it does mean that you can deploy a machine with up-to-date patches immediately rather than installing Windows with SP2 and having unpatched vulnerabilities present until you install the relevant hotfixes.

So if I don't have any security update patches, ie., all I ever get is SP2, then SP3 would be more secure for my computer then?

[Zepher]

SP3 seems to run the same as SP2 on my machine. It looks at acts the same as before.

[Mithent]

So if I don't have any security update patches, ie., all I ever get is SP2, then SP3 would be more secure for my computer then?

If it's unpatched SP2, then SP3 will be more secure, yes, because it will include the fixes that were released in between SP2 and SP3.

SP3 seems to run the same as SP2 on my machine. It looks at acts the same as before.

Sounds just the way it should work.

[beowulf7]

I haven't checked to see if MS said when they'll officially offer SP3. Does anyone know?

[beowulf7]

I was notified a couple hours ago by Windows that it is ready to d/l SP3. So I allowed it to do so. I haven't head from it since.

[Scream And Fly]

SP3 seems to run the same as SP2 on my machine. It looks at acts the same as before.

I agree. Installed SP3, my XP machine works just as it always did -- which is great, fast, and 100% stable. :)

[chrispycrunch]

SP3 shows up if you click windows update.

edit: link for direct download
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/thankyou.aspx?familyId=5b33b5a8-5e76-401f-be08-1e1555d4f3d4&displayLang=en

[beowulf7]

Here's a brief article (http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1381) about the XP SP3 patch update. Since my computer supposedly started downloading SP3 last night, I haven't seen any pop-ups about it. I'll shut down my comp. tonight to see if it has already downloaded the service pack and is just waiting for a shut down.

[chrispycrunch]

I downloaded from the link above and installed SP3 on one of my pc's (the one good thing about having many computers is the ability to test!). On reboot my d-link wireless software would not load. Google search indicates this was an issue with RC3. I've let windows manage my wireless.

Otherwise i think it's business as usual...

[beowulf7]

I have no idea what happened to SP3 after I gave permission to Windows to start downloading it. That was a couple days ago and my computer's been running for about 8 hours since then. :confused:

[thebeephaha]

They download 50 random apps they found on google, each of which installs some kind of agent, and then they don't see the "default option is to install this toolbar" thing, and then they don't understand why their systems slow down.

+10, sadly...

[beowulf7]

Minimizing XP SP3 woes (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1819)

[pxc]

I believe every contradictory performance test as I see fit, because testing it myself would be too much work. :cool:

[Joe Average]

Minimizing XP SP3 woes (http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1819)

After the roughly 2.5 year gap between SP2's release and SP3's release, anyone actually bothering to "upgrade" to SP3 should be put outta their misery I swear. Ugh... god, we had all this shit when SP2 came out, causing so many issues, etc. Nothing to see here, it's all happened before, it'll pan out just as before...

[beowulf7]

After the roughly 2.5 year gap between SP2's release and SP3's release, anyone actually bothering to "upgrade" to SP3 should be put outta their misery I swear. Ugh... god, we had all this shit when SP2 came out, causing so many issues, etc. Nothing to see here, it's all happened before, it'll pan out just as before...

It'll just take time to let it work through the masses and work out the bugs and quirks. I'll give it 'til June and then upgrade it to SP3. I still have no idea what happened since MS tried to install SP3 last week. Perhaps my McAfee anti-virus stopped it (w/o telling me) since that article mentioned AV woes w/ SP3. :confused:

[Happy Hopping]

Can you update directly from SP1a to SP3?

Also, believe it or not, I have a hell of a time trying to download either SP2 or SP3.

I use Windows Update icon, it ask me for a few installed components first. I then install those components, but it won't install one of them. Then I came to a screen that says Express, or custom, I try both, and it goes nowhere.

So my next step is to do a Yahoo search as to the exact link of SP2 download or SP3 download. The closest I can get to is the for IT Professionals and Developers ver. of SP3.

I just can't find a link to allow me to donwload SP3 or SP2 directly.

[Joe Average]

Direct download link for Windows XP Service Pack 3 Standalone installer (314MB) (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/info.aspx?na=90&p=&SrcDisplayLang=en&SrcCategoryId=&SrcFamilyId=5b33b5a8-5e76-401f-be08-1e1555d4f3d4&u=http%3a%2f%2fdownload.microsoft.com%2fdownload%2fd%2f3%2f0 %2fd30e32d8-418a-469d-b600-f32ce3edf42d%2fWindowsXP-KB936929-SP3-x86-ENU.exe)

Simple.

If you're still using SP1a then seriously, you should probably back up the data on that machine, create a new XP SP3 integrated installer CD and then reinstall XP nice and clean and start over. I know some people absolutely hate the concept (I have one friend that's been on the same XP install since Oct of 2001, and I am not kidding you at all) but sometimes it just has to be done.

[xxEIEIOxx]

If you're still using SP1a then seriously, you should probably back up the data on that machine, create a new XP SP3 integrated installer CD and then reinstall XP nice and clean and start over. I know some people absolutely hate the concept (I have one friend that's been on the same XP install since Oct of 2001, and I am not kidding you at all) but sometimes it just has to be done.

I would agree that a reformat and an integrated SP3 install would run much better.

Also, for those looking for any performance increases over SP2, forget it. We still run XP at work, and updated them all to XP3 from XP2. Can't tell the difference. At all.

[Happy Hopping]

If you're still using SP1a then seriously, you should probably back up the data on that machine, create a new XP SP3 integrated installer CD and then reinstall XP nice and clean and start over. I know some people absolutely hate the concept (I have one friend that's been on the same XP install since Oct of 2001, and I am not kidding you at all) but sometimes it just has to be done.

First of all, I really appreciate the link. After SP3 is installed, I discovered that Zone Alarm Suite 7 is having problem, it senses 200+ virus, in which they are components of XP PRo, and start erasing all of them.

In the end, XP PRo won't even boot up. So to save the headache, I go back to installation of the Start up CD, which is SP 1a. I am going to stay away from SP3 for 3 mth. until Zone Alarm people sort out their mess.

If there is a direct download link for SP2, please help out. Thank you

[beowulf7]

First of all, I really appreciate the link. After SP3 is installed, I discovered that Zone Alarm Suite 7 is having problem, it senses 200+ virus, in which they are components of XP PRo, and start erasing all of them.

In the end, XP PRo won't even boot up. So to save the headache, I go back to installation of the Start up CD, which is SP 1a. I am going to stay away from SP3 for 3 mth. until Zone Alarm people sort out their mess.

If there is a direct download link for SP2, please help out. Thank you

Can you disable Zone Alarm (and your anti-virus program(s) while you're at it) while you install SP3, then re-enable those programs afterward?

About SP2, I did a quick search on MS' site. First, go here (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx). Then click on "Download and deploy SP2 to multiple computers (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displaylang=en)" on the right side. (I'm not sure if that link will work for you; if not, just use that 1st link I provided.) Then choose your speed and click on "Download". Hope that works!

[Vashypooh]

I'd personally recommend removing zone alarm. Its crap anyways. The windows firewall is just as good, if not better, and if you need a virus scanner I recommend NOD32.

[beowulf7]

I'd personally recommend removing zone alarm. Its crap anyways. The windows firewall is just as good, if not better, and if you need a virus scanner I recommend NOD32.

I know ZoneAlarm works in both direction. But from what I understand, Windows' firewall only protects in-bound traffic but not out-bound.

[Vashypooh]

Most certainly protects against outbound, why do you think the firewall pops up every time you want to play a game you just installed. Because it was blocking its outbound and wants to make sure you want it out.

[Mithent]

There's some controversy over whether outbound filtering is worth anything; the line of thought goes that, if you have malware that's trying to communicate with the outside world, well, you already have malware. The damage is done, and even if it can't send the data itself then it could just send its data via a web browser or something that's allowed to get out.

[xxEIEIOxx]

Most certainly protects against outbound, why do you think the firewall pops up every time you want to play a game you just installed. Because it was blocking its outbound and wants to make sure you want it out.

Those are in inbound. Games go both ways, the server has to connect back.

[Grentz]

There's some controversy over whether outbound filtering is worth anything; the line of thought goes that, if you have malware that's trying to communicate with the outside world, well, you already have malware. The damage is done, and even if it can't send the data itself then it could just send its data via a web browser or something that's allowed to get out.

If the app is blocked from sending, that could be your Personal Info, logins, etc. that are being stopped from being sent out to who knows who ;)

[Mithent]

If the app is blocked from sending, that could be your Personal Info, logins, etc. that are being stopped from being sent out to who knows who ;)

That's the counter argument, yes. It's mostly a damage limitation strategy rather than a security one per se, though; I guess it could use an allowed program as a conduit, or tamper with something to change the firewall settings (if it has administrative privileges). It's an extra layer which is probably a good thing though, yes.

[griffinhart]

Most certainly protects against outbound, why do you think the firewall pops up every time you want to play a game you just installed. Because it was blocking its outbound and wants to make sure you want it out.

Under XP the firewall is inbound only. Vista's firewall has both inbound and outbound protection.

[Mithent]

Under XP the firewall is inbound only. Vista's firewall has both inbound and outbound protection.

That's true, but I don't think it has any ability to give you popups to ask whether you want to let a program to make an outbound connection. You can configure it manually, but that would be a pain and almost no-one does that; it does nevertheless still offer outbound protection for components that register the types of connection they need to be able to make with the firewall.

As for the original games point quoted above, though, the game is trying to open a port for inbound connections for multiplayer games. Neither XP nor Vista prompt for outbound permission.

[Happy Hopping]

Can you disable Zone Alarm (and your anti-virus program(s) while you're at it) while you install SP3, then re-enable those programs afterward?


thanks for the link, it works. That's how I got the SP3 in ISO format, on top of the other link provided in this thread. I don't know why Microsoft said Do not download if I'm using more than 1 computer.

Anyhoo, I didn't disable Zone Alarm when I installed SP3, in which during that installation, Zone Alarm is running fine. It's afterwards that Zone Alarm keep telling me about the "Win 32" viruses.

I am aware Zone Alarm Suite is not perfect, but I have try many other options

I used to have CA ETrust, buti it's useless, as it doesn't scan spyware. But a bigger problem is, I find that separate a Firewall software w/ a virus/spyware software causes a lack of corporation btwn. the 2.

So in the end, the only one I can find as a suite is Zone Alarm. I used to use CA in conunction w/ Zone Alarm Pro. but Zone Alarm Pro has, on occasion said my Anti virus is not on

[Russ]

Meh, I don't bother with tons of firewall programs myself. The router has a firewall, and that works fine. I just use 1) smart browsing 2) good anti-virus 3) anti-keylogger 3) occasionally scan for spyware with AdAware.

My antivirus never finds any viruses, it updates every day, and I never have spyware problems, I don't see the need to complicate things with ZoneAlarm. ZA always used to block everything I wanted to play, especially games and p2p that I needed to work right, and the free version was a pain in the ass to configure. I never quite figured out how to open ports and stuff on it, I always just turn it off.

On a side note, yay for SP3. I'm still running SP2 on my laptop, but this computer is my desktop that I *just* got running again after almost 2 years of downtime. Still running SP1 on this baby. :P Used to be the shit, I remember all the grumbling when SP2 came out because it fucked up performance in so many games, I never got around to upgrading to it.