360 Extreme Explorer Modified Version

[Milkinis]

5 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I want quantitative measurements.  Not "gut feeling".  Newer is not always better.  But nor is it always worse.

supermium 117 scores better than the original chrome 109 but I don't feel any significant difference when surfing the web

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I'm referring to performance of XP, XP SP1, XP SP2, and XP SP3.

it's been well over a decade since I ran tests, but I do distinctly recall that SP3 was faster than SP2.

I will attempt to get some proof over the next couple of weekends - not exactly high priority for me.

But for people to say, over and over again, that SP2 is faster, but have NO DATA to back it up, that is "gut feeling" and none of us should listen to anybody's gut growling, all that tells anybody is that the gut is hungry and wants food.

[Milkinis]

2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

But for people to say, over and over again, that SP2 is faster

1 person to be more exact... why don't you just ignore and move on ?

last time I played around with SP2 over the original XP SP1 I didn't feel it any faster 

[hidao]

8 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I'm referring to performance of XP, XP SP1, XP SP2, and XP SP3.

it's been well over a decade since I ran tests, but I do distinctly recall that SP3 was faster than SP2.

I will attempt to get some proof over the next couple of weekends - not exactly high priority for me.

But for people to say, over and over again, that SP2 is faster, but have NO DATA to back it up, that is "gut feeling" and none of us should listen to anybody's gut growling, all that tells anybody is that the gut is hungry and wants food.

If you have a old computer like Intel PIII or P4 and so on, you can found the defferent of XP SP2 and XP SP3, if your computer was faster enough, may be you couldn't found that

or you can used VirtualBox or Vmware to created a "old computer" to test

[Dixel]

6 hours ago, hidao said:

If you have a old computer like Intel PIII or P4 and so on, you can found the defferent of XP SP2 and XP SP3, if your computer was faster enough, may be you couldn't found that

or you can used VirtualBox or Vmware to created a "old computer" to test

I even had much worse - Intel Celeron! The difference was very noticeable, and I don't even understand why some still argue, when it's known, SP2 introduced memory limit. I'd be interested to see the test results with Chrome 360 on all service packs, with the right era hardware. 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

My garage laptop ThinkPad that I use to tune turbo engine performance chips is a Celeron with 2 GB RAM.  I call it "Silly On".

Memory limit is irrelevant.  If you are truly running era-correct hardware, you only have 2 to 4 GB RAM (3.5ish available) and the limit does not come into play on truly era-correct hardware.

There are SOOO many things about that ThinkPad "Silly On" that makes it USELESS for anything but ECU/ECM chip mods on 80s/90s automotive "technology".

People that want to play games or YouTube on a "Silly On" and argue about differences between SP1, SP2, and SP3 are just as "Silly" as that "Silly On".

Besides, if the memory limit was introduced with SP2, then why are we even arguing SP2 versus SP3, shouldn't we be arguing about SP1 versus SP2 ???

You guys can argue until you're blue in the face, I'm opting to "move on".  

Edited July 26, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[hidao]

39 minutes ago, Dixel said:

I even had much worse - Intel Celeron! The difference was very noticeable, and I don't even understand why some still argue, when it's known, SP2 introduced memory limit. I'd be interested to see the test results with Chrome 360 on all service packs, with the right era hardware. 

About 10 years ago, I tried to reinstall XP SP3 in PD and Celeron, it's so slowly when we used,so I installed XP SP2, it was a little faster then XP SP3

I tried to installed XP SP3 in PIII, but it too slowly to start,at last I installed XP(without SP),it's slow to,but could worked

Edited July 26, 2023 by hidao

[Dixel]

4 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

If you are truly running era-correct hardware, you only have 2 to 4 GB RAM (3.5ish available) and the limit does not come into play on truly era-correct hardware.

No, it does, with that limit it will never "see" all 4GB, assuming we talk about 2x2DDR2GB, which is era correct. You will get 3GB, or 3.2-3.5 - at best! If you use "memory remap" in BIOS.

Also, if we talk about laptops, it will deduct the VRAM from RAM, resulting in even less amount, let's say 2.5GB, if you had a 512MB "right era" GPU.

[hidao]

3 hours ago, Dixel said:

No, it does, with that limit it will never "see" all 4GB, assuming we talk about 2x2DDR2GB, which is era correct. You will get 3GB, or 3.2-3.5 - at best! If you use "memory remap" in BIOS.

Also, if we talk about laptops, it will deduct the VRAM from RAM, resulting in even less amount, let's say 2.5GB, if you had a 512MB "right era" GPU.

I remember that all of 32bit OS couldn't used 4GB RAM, not only XP...

[NotHereToPlayGames]

57 minutes ago, hidao said:

I remember that all of 32bit OS couldn't used 4GB RAM, not only XP...

Not true.  Server 2003 Enterprise is a 32-bit OS and can use 32 GB max RAM.  The 64-bit versions of Server 2003 Enterprise can use 1 TB max RAM.

I can re-install and screencap my old 32-bit Server 2003 Enterprise if you don't believe me.  

Other proof can be found here  --  https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-server-2003/cc739866(v=ws.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN

[Dixel]

4 hours ago, hidao said:

I remember that all of 32bit OS couldn't used 4GB RAM, not only XP...

Wrong, XP 32bit, before SP2, can use 32GB. But it's not the main subject, I'm waiting for the test results with 360EE.

[VistaLover]

4 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Not true.  Server 2003 Enterprise is a 32-bit OS

... I believe the focus by users here is on Client versions of Windows (XP) 32-bit, not on their Server counterparts; WinXP SP1 (x86), as pointed out by @Dixel, as well as the x86 Server Editions, had PAE enabled by default; MS disabled PAE in SP2+ x86; at least that's what I understood after a bit of searching (was not having a computer around the Win XP SP1 era ) ...

Edited July 26, 2023 by VistaLover

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, VistaLover said:

... I believe the focus by users here is on Client versions of Windows (XP) 32-bit, not on their Server counterparts; WinXP SP1 (x86), as pointed out by @Dixel), as well as the x86 Server Editions, had PAE enabled by default; MS disabled PAE in SP2+ x86; at least that's what I understood after a bit of searching (was not having a computer around the Win XP SP1 era ) ...

In 2003-2004, I had a 4GB DDR (yes, simple DDR, not DDR2) notebook which came with preinstalled XP 32bit (without SP2). XP was able to use 32GB of RAM. Of course it could use all 4GB of its memory. When I "upgraded" to SP2, the amount of the usable RAM dropped to just 3.2, not to mention the terrible speed SP2 brought! I reverted back and never used SP2 again. 

[UCyborg]

If the hardware and software (OS + drivers) supports PAE, 64 GB may be addressed by 32-bit OS, that's the maximum the CPU can allow. XP SP2+ do in fact support and use PAE just like SP1, it's necessary to be able to use NX bit (for marking memory pages as non-executable), client (non-server) OS just have the maximum addressable memory capped to 4 GB since XP SP2 so hardware manufacturers didn't have to fix their drivers.

[Dixel]

4 hours ago, UCyborg said:

If the hardware and software (OS + drivers) supports PAE, 64 GB may be addressed by 32-bit OS, that's the maximum the CPU can allow

Even so, still 32GB was the limit set by Microsoft for XP32 without SP2.