SP1 doesn't improve Vista's poor performance [Archive]

safan80

11-19-2007, 12:10 PM

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/19/vista-sp1-doesn-improve-poor

ha ha.

Tweaks can't fix it

By Egan Orion: Monday, 19 November 2007, 3:06 PM

A BOG entry reveals that testing of the Vole's first service pack (SP1) for its latest version of Windows shows that it fails to improve on Vista's notably underwhelming performance.

A lot of Microsoft's customers, especially businesses, have put off buying Vista because of its rough edges, high resource utilisations and relatively dismal performance compared to Windows XP. Many have hoped that SP1 would improve Vista's performance to XP levels.

Alas, it appears that's not going to happen. Tests run against the RC0 v.658 build of Vista SP1 have shown virtually no improvement in performance versus an unpatched version of Vista.

The description of the testing performed and the results achieved can be found here (http://exo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vista-sp1-performance-dud.html). µ

vengance_01

11-19-2007, 12:12 PM

I don't understand why people complain about Vista's performance. It runs perfectly fine on my machine and I even find it to be a bit more responsive then XP. I wish the Vista bashing would end.

LexDiamonds

11-19-2007, 12:15 PM

I don't understand why people complain about Vista's performance. It runs perfectly fine on my machine and I even find it to be a bit more responsive then XP. I wish the Vista bashing would end.

+1

People who have a k7 and 512mb of ram and are getting by on XP are going to be in for a serious disapointment by upgrading to Vista.

I find it to be fast and extremely responsive. Very few problems even with the 64bit version.

GAR

11-19-2007, 12:19 PM

The only complaint i have of vista is the poor copy performance, other than that its awsome, vista 64 runs smooth.

Tim

11-19-2007, 12:26 PM

Poor Vista performance? You must be joking.

jbartlett323

11-19-2007, 12:27 PM

zerazax

11-19-2007, 12:33 PM

Obviously if yo uare running 1GB of RAM, much less 512MB, it won't be great performance

But my 4GB computer on Vista 64 is smooth as silk, much more responsive than XP and stable to boot

Shintai

11-19-2007, 12:37 PM

Vista runs perfectly fine here aswell. Only a less educated and intelligent person would ever believe SP1 would yield performance improvement. No servicepack ever did that before.

xenolith

11-19-2007, 12:38 PM

Test bed was a dual-core Dell notebook w/1GB memory? :rolleyes: They don't even say what CPU and GPU was used? :rolleyes:

strange|ife

11-19-2007, 12:40 PM

i agree i think most people are just scared of a small amount of change. Sure vista isnt perfect, no Os is, especially a microsoft one. But its an improvment over xp/2003 if your willing too put in some effort with patchs, and learn a few of the new features and understand them. Im looking forward too the new kernel in sp1 and the 3000+fixes. Looking more forward to server08, which will probably replace vista for me

lots of vista bashing, worse than bush bashing from the democratic candidates..

Slay0r

11-19-2007, 12:44 PM

I don't understand why people complain about Vista's performance. It runs perfectly fine on my machine and I even find it to be a bit more responsive then XP. I wish the Vista bashing would end.

Agreed, been using vista64 on multiple machines now and as long as you have 2+GB of ram and you are able to tune the system it's a tad faster than XP. Hell even my 3d05/06 cpu score is higher on vista64 than on winxp.

mike8913

11-19-2007, 12:45 PM

Vista got bad hype for a good reason when it was released. It doesn't suffer the same problems now but first impressions last a life-time, as they say.

villa1n

11-19-2007, 12:47 PM

Both my oc rig, and my ghetto laptop (tk-53 with egg cooker nvidia 6150) run vista perfectly, although my lappy does have 2gb of ram. I do however hate the slow copy performance, especially transferring things via usb keys. But application responsiveness is much nicer than xp ever was. So if the patch fixes the lag boot/shutdown times, and the copying, which it is supposed too, i ll be happy :)

Rovtar

11-19-2007, 12:48 PM

I don't understand why people complain about Vista's performance. It runs perfectly fine on my machine and I even find it to be a bit more responsive then XP. I wish the Vista bashing would end.

switch back to xp and you will see the boost:up:

anyway looks like my computer won't see vista for a long long time. I was hoping that SP1 will improve performance,stability and other stuff but it seems like that we will have to wait another year for sp2.

RPGWiZaRD

11-19-2007, 12:48 PM

Well for me it does run slower and I'm a tweaker that just wants to have the system running as fast as possible still with great compability etc. and that's why I'm not swapping to it at least yet. But I might sacrifise the performance once games worth running in DX10 mode becomes available. That's the only factor that might get me starting using Vista. Otherwise I don't see the reason to upgrade. It's all about DX10 in my case, if DX10 was released to XP too then I'd see no point in upgrading.

Kurz

11-19-2007, 12:50 PM

Slay0r

11-19-2007, 12:51 PM

celerity

11-19-2007, 12:51 PM

Sure, Vista runs fine. But it's certainly not faster than XP.

Why do we need Vista? It's newer, better driver support, it looks nicer, got Direct X 10. What else? Nothing.

Slay0r

11-19-2007, 12:54 PM

RPGWiZaRD

11-19-2007, 12:55 PM

Shaggy

11-19-2007, 01:02 PM

It did not run well. I went back to XP. I will try it again next year some time.

Microsoft figured out that a lot of people hold off for sp1 so they are rushing this it. I'd call it service pack .5

Kurz

11-19-2007, 01:02 PM

Though does superfetch really matter?
I mean from what I read its rather indiscriminate what kind of data it loads into memory.

Instead it should load memory based on the app you are running.
And stem superfetch on that. Lets say You are playing Battlefield 2142 and there are couple of maps you like to play.
Instead of waiting to load those huge they are in ram already and you just need to switch.

Not on what apps you usually use and what you usually do.
Since at the end of the day you are usually using only part of the immense memory loaded and to me thats a waste.

SnipingWaste

11-19-2007, 01:05 PM

strange|ife

11-19-2007, 01:07 PM

the copy performance is crap out of the box, there is a KB out that fixes the copy performance, after that it works the same as xp.

Cuthalu

11-19-2007, 01:10 PM

for anyone who has an xtream system sure it runs fast...

I have an "extreme system" and XP is clearly faster in normal work. And I think ~all reviews show that Vista performance on games is worse or at the best scenario, almost as good as XP's performance.

Origin_Unknown

11-19-2007, 01:11 PM

RC0 ... so this is like the first release? doesnt that mean there should be a few more beta release's first before final?

`danny

11-19-2007, 01:13 PM

I have been running Vista X64 since on my machine and have been quite happy with it. I don't ever remember having the ability in XP to immediatley execute programs upon logging in. In XP if I did that no matter how fast of a computer I had it would delay. However if I was managing a corporation's infrastructure, I would not install Vista because XP is in my opinion better for legacy hardware. It would be nice if Microsoft could reduce the footprint of Vista and maybe release that one filesystem they were working on (WInfs I believe).

eToh

11-19-2007, 01:16 PM

strange|ife

11-19-2007, 01:16 PM

One of the big problems is the main system builders putting Vista on a system that has a low end CPU and 512meg to 1gig of system memory. What makes it worse is most of the systems have integrated video so thats less memory for the system to use. For vista to run well it need 2gig and up with a good duel core CPU. If you look at what businesses get is the cheapest system they can get so a slow CPU and low amount of memory. Of course Vista will suck on that type of system.

very true, ive seen vista on some OEM machines, where it shouldnt be. Not to mention all the crap they stuff oem's with. My dads laptop, even with a core duo centrino and 2gb ran like crap, till i pruned it out. Now its much faster with vista, the way they shipped it though was horrible

Origin_Unknown

11-19-2007, 01:17 PM

quite true 'danny , as part of the network admin team at the company i work for, vista has not been approved for domain access and i doubt it wil be for a lonnnnngggggg time. Or as part of our gold partner status microsoft give us vista for free (for every machine instead of the 10 copies they give us)

Eastcoasthandle

11-19-2007, 01:19 PM

Sure, Vista runs fine. But it's certainly not faster than XP.

Why do we need Vista? It's newer, better driver support, it looks nicer, got Direct X 10. What else? Nothing.

I have to agree here. There is no tangible reason why those who have Vista don't understand why everyone else doesn't upgrade to it. With the development of Windows 7 coming along I would be very surprise if more then 2, 1 gig sticks of ram is necessary. Some complain they can't OC their systems with 4, 1 gig sticks of ram the same why they could with 2, 1 gig sticks of ram :shakes:

Some who say they don't have problems with Vista usually have more then 2 Gigs of ram.

Example (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2567747&postcount=28)

Obviously if yo uare running 1GB of RAM...

* Abit IP35 Pro * Q6600 G0 3.15GHz (9 x 350) * Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme * 4 x 1 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR2 1066 (@ 875 4-4-4-12) * EVGA 8800 Ultra (690/2250) * Thermalright HR-03 Plus * Western Digital Raptor X * Seagate 7200.10 500GB * Corsair 620HX PSU * Antec P182 SE * Dell 3007WFP-HC * Dell 2007FP (Portrait Mode) *

QFT.

Abit ip-35 pro
Core 2 Quad Q6600 G0 w/ Stock Vapochill ls
Msi 8800 ultra
G.skill 8GB (PC2 8000)
Raptor 150GB Raid 0x4
OCZ GameXStream 700W
M-Audio bx5a BiAmplified Studio Monitor Speakers
SCEPTRE 24" LCD at 1920 x 1200
Thermaltake Armor Case - Black

Vista runs perfectly fine here aswell...

C2D E6600@3Ghz(1.24V) | Asus P5B Deluxe | 4x1GB Kingston Valueram CL5 DDR2-667(1.95V)
Inno3D 8800GT 512MB | Eizo S2110W | Seagate 320GB 7200.10 | Antec Neo He 550W EC

i agree i think most people are just scared of a small amount of change...

AchTung!
Q6600|418x9(g0)|Abit Ip35 Pr0|4x1 G.skill 6400|SilverStone DA750w PSU|eVGA 8800GTS640mb 640/1525/1950|Ultra120-x(lapped)|lian-li G70|2xSeagate 500GB HDs|150GB Raptor -x(games)|250GB WD(Fedora Core 7,Beryl gui)Lite-on sata DVDRW

Agreed, been using vista64 on multiple machines now and as long as you have 2+GB of ram and you are able to tune the system it's a tad faster than XP. Hell even my 3d05/06 cpu score is higher on vista64 than on winxp.

Notice a trend with some who say "I don't have a problem". I am sure others will find that statement hard to believe. Maybe people would be a bit more receptive if that type of blanket statement wasn't made. ;) There is very little need to run more then 2 Gigs of ram for most game and home use.

Pillo-kun

11-19-2007, 01:21 PM

My mom bought a laptop a cheap one, the acer "extenza?" with 512mb ram an a celeron m530 (1.7ghz cpu i think it was) and my God the performace was/is terrible even after buying her an extra gig of ram. And yet vista was/is running like crap.

Shintai

11-19-2007, 01:21 PM

Ye, we got MVLS deals aswell. So use any version you like in short.

I love Vista on the home machine. But its abit like OSX, too much crap to be nice for the corporate. And too many things you need to redo with certain parts of software deployment. Also the image deployment is brand new, its still uphill. I´m sure we will use it one day or the other. But for the corporate part i picked and force XP64 instead the next few years.

Skyline GT-R

11-19-2007, 01:26 PM

RPGWiZaRD

11-19-2007, 01:26 PM

GAR

11-19-2007, 01:30 PM

RPGWiZaRD

11-19-2007, 01:32 PM

tommyshango

11-19-2007, 01:37 PM

I dont understand why anyone is discussing this based on a terrible laptop testbed.. i mean come on. thats ridiculous. i agree some things could be faster, but i can run 4 gb of memory can you on xp ? no. the networking is way way better as well. etc etc of featurs that outperform xp. sorry but its true.

Shintai

11-19-2007, 01:40 PM

Well it's a few months now since I last tried it and it's about time to do a format and reinstall so perhaps I'd give it another shot soon... what should I choose tho if I want the fastest possible performance in 32bit apps? I guess 32bit version should be slightly faster then and it's better to do a 32bit vs 32bit comparision anyways.

64Bit Vista/Xp will execute 32bit just as fast. Maybe even faster in some cases due to 32bit apps having access to the full 32bit memory range.

There is no reason at all anymore for not going 64bit, unless your CPU dont support it.

[XC] Lead Head

11-19-2007, 01:48 PM

Vista runs fast and better then XP here, with an Opteron 165 @ 2.65GHz and only 1GB of PC3600 RAM

SmaKKed

11-19-2007, 01:56 PM

Lost of people are still bashing vista, because they thin k it is slower, like a few hundered more points in 3dmark, which proves nothign unless you are chasing WR scores. Yes ppl with 4 gig or plus think it is good and i am one of them, really with the price of ram there is no reason not to upgrade to 4 gig these days it is hell cheap so whay not. My 64 bit Visat install flys, all tho i have cut out about 50 % of the crap i dont need with vlite. To me it is more fluid then what XP ever was.

bobbobson

11-19-2007, 01:59 PM

If vista is so great. How come i have 52 notebooks that are "Vista Ready" and a) Vista runs like CRAP on them.
b) Vista doesnt have all the drivers ?

What a great OS.

[XC]Atomicpineapple

11-19-2007, 02:00 PM

Vista runs fine on a modern PC, and well, its a modern OS, sooooo whatcha expect? I wish people would stop expecting MS to work miracles and be thankful for what theyve given us (by fair play or foul) in the Windows series the worlds most stable, secure (or at least fast patched), and compatible OS.

RPGWiZaRD

11-19-2007, 02:01 PM

64Bit Vista/Xp will execute 32bit just as fast. Maybe even faster in some cases due to 32bit apps having access to the full 32bit memory range.

There is no reason at all anymore for not going 64bit, unless your CPU dont support it.

So it's different than Win XP x64 then? Cuz 32bit apps were ~3% slower in average (in worst case ~15%) vs 32bit XP. Doesn't it have to emulate the 32bit with the wow emulator or what it was called.

There's a few application incompability with 64bit though due to the annoying having to pay to get Vista certified drivers making some freeware developer's life hard. And the need of booting with unsigned driver support, doesn't that suck too?

I'm not expecting 20%+ performance differences here, more like 5% so every % matters so what's why I'm asking so unless you have accurate info on the 32bit vs 64bit Vista question then don't bother answering. :p: But as usual I trust my own testing most so I might as well have to do both a 32bit and 64bit Vista testing to be sure but I'm not sure if Vista is worth spending that much time on. :)

dengyong

11-19-2007, 02:04 PM

I don't know how you compare the performance between Vista and XP but if you only use your eyes to determine that then I'm not suprised you're saying Vista runs as fast or faster than XP. For me the benchmark results is what I look at.

For me the mystery is why it's slower in CPU/Memory intensive apps?

I agree. I have xp64,vista32 hp and vista64 hp all on my main rig.
I use xp64 for benchmarks and vista32 hp for just about everything else.
Back to the topic of this thread, I installed sp1 on vista64 hp and didn't see a difference in my slow shutdown problem (vista64 only).
I believe thats caused by an nvidia service.

deathman20

11-19-2007, 02:08 PM

I have to agree here. There is no tangible reason why those who have Vista don't understand why everyone else doesn't upgrade to it. With the development of Windows 7 coming along I would be very surprise if more then 2, 1 gig sticks of ram is necessary. Some complain they can't OC their systems with 4, 1 gig sticks of ram the same why they could with 2, 1 gig sticks of ram :shakes:

Some who say they don't have problems with Vista usually have more then 2 Gigs of ram.

Example (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2567747&postcount=28)

Notice a trend with some who say "I don't have a problem". I am sure others will find that statement hard to believe. Maybe people would be a bit more receptive if that type of blanket statement wasn't made. ;) There is very little need to run more then 2 Gigs of ram for most game and home use.

Well I know I have a friend that runs Vista on 2Gigs, 64-bit desktop and another with a 32-bit laptop on 2Gigs. No issues with it. The guy with the desktop plays games as well and I haven't noticed any issues and he can be decently picky about performance but it does very nicely.

As well I'll say it as well no issues on running Vista myself with "4Gigs of Ram". I've topped out roughly 3-3.2Gigs under normal operation. With programs running and gaming that I've noticed.

Ad1tya

11-19-2007, 02:08 PM

The only problem with Vista, is gaming performance.

FPS for me is noticably lower, ~10% at any given point.

I wouldn't call my system low/mid end, by any means.

deathman20

11-19-2007, 02:12 PM

I agree. I have xp64,vista32 hp and vista64 hp all on my main rig.
I use xp64 for benchmarks and vista32 hp for just about everything else.
Back to the topic of this thread, I installed sp1 on vista64 hp and didn't see a difference in my slow shutdown problem (vista64 only).
I believe thats caused by an nvidia service.

I know I had a progressive slow boot up process with my my 64-bit Vista system after a while as well as shut down but that was with my ATI card. I think its another underlining issue and not the actual card drivers.

RPGWiZaRD

11-19-2007, 02:14 PM

I have the slow boot up prob right now too but I think for me it's the later versions of RivaTuner caused it. Because there's a rivatuner service that is running on bootup and dissappears when rest of the services are utilized. Internet doesn't work at first either, takes a few extra seconds until the rest of the services except the important OS ones are loaded.

madmossy

11-19-2007, 02:17 PM

I think the point of the article was more about how vista still doesnt cut it on a mass market level, the requirements for it to run well on mainstream hardware are still to steep and the resources it requires is just way beyond what a majority of users have.

Even the current standard 2Gb available in most "high" end pre-built retail systems just isnt enough for Vista to run smoothly.

Eastcoasthandle

11-19-2007, 02:19 PM

Well I know I have a friend that runs Vista on 2Gigs, 64-bit desktop and another with a 32-bit laptop on 2Gigs. No issues with it. The guy with the desktop plays games as well and I haven't noticed any issues and he can be decently picky about performance but it does very nicely.

As well I'll say it as well no issues on running Vista myself with "4Gigs of Ram". I've topped out roughly 3-3.2Gigs under normal operation. With programs running and gaming that I've noticed.
That doesn't negate the trend in those who posted "no problems" using more then 2 Gigs of ram. Under the impression that Vista is better then XP. :up:

Slay0r

11-19-2007, 02:24 PM

It's not a trend, it's the way it is. If you want to use vista and want it to run smoothly you should really use 2gb of ram, If you don't want to get 2gb stick to XP.

dengyong

11-19-2007, 02:29 PM

I can't tell the difference between 2gb and 4gb. When I first install vista64, I can only have in 2gb else I get the blue screen.( I have to get a patch to run 4gb:bs:)

cozwin

11-19-2007, 02:36 PM

well im just sceptical of the DRM crap in vista and thats the reason i wont move until i have to, im waiting on Sp3 for xp at mo :P

xenolith

11-19-2007, 02:40 PM

The only problem with Vista, is gaming performance.

FPS for me is noticably lower, ~10% at any given point.

I wouldn't call my system low/mid end, by any means.

If you turn off the FPS display I bet it'll magically become un-noticeable. ;)

but seriously, the latest numbers I've seen, with the latest drivers, gaming in Vista is now only 1-2% slower overall (compared to the 10-15% on launch day.)

This site (http://www.neowin.net/news/gamers/07/10/31/crysis-15-more-performance-with-vista-x64) says Crysis has as much as a 10-15% performance increase in 64-bit vs 32-bit, of course - depending on hardware. Will you see the same increase with XP 64-bit? I seriously doubt it due to the incredible lack of driver support.

Edit: sorry I forgot to mention it was Crysis.

celerity

11-19-2007, 02:40 PM

Have anyone of you ever run Vista with 1 GB ram? I have. And you see a HUGE difference compare to XP.

Shintai

11-19-2007, 02:42 PM

So it's different than Win XP x64 then? Cuz 32bit apps were ~3% slower in average (in worst case ~15%) vs 32bit XP. Doesn't it have to emulate the 32bit with the wow emulator or what it was called.

There's a few application incompability with 64bit though due to the annoying having to pay to get Vista certified drivers making some freeware developer's life hard. And the need of booting with unsigned driver support, doesn't that suck too?

I'm not expecting 20%+ performance differences here, more like 5% so every % matters so what's why I'm asking so unless you have accurate info on the 32bit vs 64bit Vista question then don't bother answering. :p: But as usual I trust my own testing most so I might as well have to do both a 32bit and 64bit Vista testing to be sure but I'm not sure if Vista is worth spending that much time on. :)

There was maybe a difference due to drivers not fully optimized yet. However you dont use emulator. The CPU simply changes state from long mode and executes it like standard native 32bit at full speed. The Windows on Windows is still 100% "native 32bit" so to say. There inst any issue there. The only thing it emulates is. When a file calls a DLL. it will be redirected to either 32 or 64bit version depending on what it runs.

Jamesrt2004

11-19-2007, 02:49 PM

Have anyone of you ever run Vista with 1 GB ram? I have. And you see a HUGE difference compare to XP.

I didn't notice anything at all on my Amd64 3200.. + 1GB ram

tweak it a little took me 20/25 mins then it ran just as good if not quicker then my XP then in games i lost 10fps max in games like CS which didnt bother me as i was getting 60+ at 1280 on max settings

RPGWiZaRD

11-19-2007, 02:52 PM

There was maybe a difference due to drivers not fully optimized yet. However you dont use emulator. The CPU simply changes state from long mode and executes it like standard native 32bit at full speed. The Windows on Windows is still 100% "native 32bit" so to say. There inst any issue there. The only thing it emulates is. When a file calls a DLL. it will be redirected to either 32 or 64bit version depending on what it runs.

OK thanks for clearing that up, differences I'd see between 64 and 32bit would most likely be in the drivers then. But yea I think I'll try both.

flopper

11-19-2007, 02:53 PM

People complain on a xtremesystems forum?
And got slow computers?
silly ;)

Vista runs better and are way nicer than XP on the same machine.
And yes 2gb ram, if people dont buy ram today with the prices I cant understand how they think.

We want an OS that are 200mb, who wanna use that?
There are two major forces with OS, gaming and Movies/mp3/photos/video.
Obviously gaming with new DX10 adds a small but needed visual ability to enhance the performance.

And besides, Xp cant be faster than Vista, try run DX10 on XP and see what you got.
Vista is dx10, not the dx9 compatibility backwards to old stuff.

I enjoy LOTRO dx10 features, just add the fairytale look that just blows Dx9 version out of the water.

I wont go back to XP, I however tend to the future not old stuff.
Microsoft however made a error, they didnt say what machine you needed to get a pleasureable experience and then WoW since a lot of people likely run it with low end computers.

dengyong

11-19-2007, 02:54 PM

If you turn off the FPS display I bet it'll magically become un-noticeable. ;)

but seriously, the latest numbers I've seen, with the latest drivers, gaming in Vista is now only 1-2% slower overall (compared to the 10-15% on launch day.)

This site (http://www.neowin.net/news/gamers/07/10/31/crysis-15-more-performance-with-vista-x64) says Crysis has as much as a 10-15% performance increase in 64-bit vs 32-bit, of course - depending on hardware. Will you see the same increase with XP 64-bit? I seriously doubt it due to the incredible lack of driver support.

Edit: sorry I forgot to mention it was Crysis.

Same nvidia driver 169.09 available for xp64.

deathman20

11-19-2007, 02:56 PM

RPGWiZaRD

11-19-2007, 03:00 PM

I'd want a functional ~500MB OS with only the stuff I need which is basic stuff. Classic windows gui is what I've used for years, looks doesn't matter, could be even more simple for all I care but I don't wanna run from a command prompt that's where I draw the line, a simple gui, that's my appearence requirements. As for functionality... as long as it plays games, videos, internet works, apps compability isn't an issue then I'm fine. I don't need these tons of network, business, security crap, but yea the admin tools can stay I guess.

I care about how both old and new stuff runs like even if the computer kills the application already with a massive FPS and the more FPS the easier to notice the difference in the result so yea when I bench I can use 5 year old+ games too as a comparision, both old and new application performance interest me since I'm a tweaker by nature, I want as good performance possible out of my setup (compared to other systems with same/similiar hardware).

And yes even 3 ~ 5% matters to me. :p:

stealthbomber

11-19-2007, 03:03 PM

Lack of drivers for XP-64???

Intel/AMD/ATI/nVidia all have drivers for XP-64, even my Professional E-MU sound card has XP-64 drivers.

XP-64 > XP32/Vista x86/x64, and yes I have 4GB of RAM too.

Eastcoasthandle

11-19-2007, 03:12 PM

It's not a trend, it's the way it is. If you want to use vista and want it to run smoothly you should really use 2gb of ram, If you don't want to get 2gb stick to XP.

Using misdirection (trend (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trend)) by stating the same thing indirectly with a twist doesn't help your cause. The truth of the matter remains the same:
-the current version of SP1 doesn't improve Vista's performance
-most who screaming that "there is nothing wrong with Vista" & "Vista is better...." use more then 2 gigs of ram (as proven in my previous post (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2567756&postcount=31)).

There is no escaping that :shakes:

Shintai

11-19-2007, 03:14 PM

Using misdirection (trend (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trend)) by stating the same thing indirectly with a twist doesn't help your cause. The truth of the matter remains the same:
-SP1 doesn't improve Vista's performance
-most who screaming that "there is nothing wrong with Vista" use more then 2 gigs of ram (as proven in my previous post (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2567756&postcount=31)).

There is no escaping that :shakes:

I have a machine with Vista32 on. 1GB is fine there. It barely uses over 400MB.

Does that count?

nfm

11-19-2007, 03:17 PM

I just don't like the memory management and poor gaming performance in Vista, I don't care about all of the garbage it comes with (You use or you don't, you enable it or disable it). Ms should focus on improving the kernel and memory management which is what Windows 7 will be about I think.

Vista is the step backwards of what an OS/Kernel should be (launch a program and perform fair cpu scheduling and manage resources efficiently), hopefully Windows 7 will leap 2 steps forward and pass Windows XP.

[XC]Atomicpineapple

11-19-2007, 03:21 PM

Why do people complain about needing 4GB RAM? There wasnt anywhere near this level of complaining when games came along that ran smoother with 2GB RAM, as compared to 1GB. And they were just games that were run for a few hours a day, never mind an OS thats run day in day out!

Eastcoasthandle

11-19-2007, 03:23 PM

I have a machine with Vista32 on. 1GB is fine there. It barely uses over 400MB.

Does that count?

Nope that's not the system you tauted earlier as being better then XP :yepp:
Bringing it up now is only an attempt to validate your opinion not the actual situation at hand. :up:

eToh

11-19-2007, 03:23 PM

Lack of drivers for XP-64???

Intel/AMD/ATI/nVidia all have drivers for XP-64, even my Professional E-MU sound card has XP-64 drivers.

XP-64 > XP32/Vista x86/x64, and yes I have 4GB of RAM too.

Do you know if the 1212 can run on vista 64bit??

mstp2009

11-19-2007, 03:25 PM

RPGWiZaRD

11-19-2007, 03:26 PM

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=2568052#post2568052

feedback is appriciated.

Zytek_Fan

11-19-2007, 03:28 PM

As said much before me, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Vista.

mstp2009

11-19-2007, 03:28 PM

switch back to xp and you will see the boost:up:

anyway looks like my computer won't see vista for a long long time. I was hoping that SP1 will improve performance,stability and other stuff but it seems like that we will have to wait another year for sp2.

So basically your making a judgment without trying it? B/c it sounds like you have YET to install Vista, but are suggesting that everyone using Vista revert back to XP.

BIAS. How beautiful.

FYI, I dual boot XP SP2 and Vista X64 and on the same HW w/ 2GB+ of RAM, Vista smokes XP on everything except the File copying (which I've installed the hotfix for and it improves that issue - although not completely fixed yet).

Slay0r

11-19-2007, 03:31 PM

Using misdirection (trend (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trend)) by stating the same thing indirectly with a twist doesn't help your cause. The truth of the matter remains the same:
-SP1 doesn't improve Vista's performance
-most who screaming that "there is nothing wrong with Vista" & "Vista is better...." use more then 2 gigs of ram (as proven in my previous post (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2567756&postcount=31)).

There is no escaping that :shakes:Are you into serials ? Or do you randomly make a drama out of everything ? Yes for the third time vista is smoother on 2gb than it is on 1gb. I hope we won't need a fourth.

stealthbomber

11-19-2007, 03:33 PM

Do you know if the 1212 can run on vista 64bit??

Yes beta drivers have been out for months, the official driver for Vista x86/x64 is due out soon, the 1212M outputs very good card sound quality for the price! :up:

http://www.emu.com/support/vista.asp

Eastcoasthandle

11-19-2007, 03:35 PM

Are you into serials ? Or do you randomly make a drama out of everything ? I don't see what you're getting at. Yes for the third time vista is smoother on 2gb than it is on 1gb. I hope we won't need a fourth.
Simple recognition of your mis-step was noted. Your response to my reply is were the drama started :yepp:. As I've said before, most stating "better then XP" & "no problems" said so with more then 2 gigs of ram. I hope you don't need a fourth :up:

There is no reason to expect those with other OS to upgrade to Vista if there is no tangible benefit.

Slay0r

11-19-2007, 03:37 PM

Simple recognition of your mis-step was noted. Your response to my reply is were the drama started :yepp:. As I've said before, most stating "better then XP" & "no problems" did so have more then 2 gigs of ram. I hope you don't need a fourth :up:

There is no reason to expect those with other OS to upgrade to Vista if there is no tangible benefit.

Well done, you can repeat what I say.

Eastcoasthandle

11-19-2007, 03:39 PM

Well done, you can repeat what I say.
At least you understand an opinion other then your own. :D

Origin_Unknown

11-19-2007, 03:42 PM

Am i right in saying that since this is RC0 then its pre-release?

stealthbomber

11-19-2007, 03:48 PM

Beta, not better. :D

xlink

11-19-2007, 03:55 PM

I have to agree here. There is no tangible reason why those who have Vista don't understand why everyone else doesn't upgrade to it. With the development of Windows 7 coming along I would be very surprise if more then 2, 1 gig sticks of ram is necessary. Some complain they can't OC their systems with 4, 1 gig sticks of ram the same why they could with 2, 1 gig sticks of ram :shakes:

Some who say they don't have problems with Vista usually have more then 2 Gigs of ram.

Example (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2567747&postcount=28)

Notice a trend with some who say "I don't have a problem". I am sure others will find that statement hard to believe. Maybe people would be a bit more receptive if that type of blanket statement wasn't made. ;) There is very little need to run more then 2 Gigs of ram for most game and home use.

yes, they have as much RAM in their systems as a $800 OEM system should in this day and age.

4GB is way way way way overdue for mainstream and you can blame the current use of 32bit OSes for it.

RAM is cheap, you can find 2GB of micron D9 based RAM for as low as $45 after rebate and 2GB cheap stuff for as low as $35.

dengyong

11-19-2007, 04:04 PM

As I've said before, most stating "better then XP" & "no problems" said so with more then 2 gigs of ram.

I like vista better thAn xp even with only 2gb of ram. It's just not as fast in the benchmarks that I run. I don't notice a difference in games though. :2cents:

Eastcoasthandle

11-19-2007, 04:10 PM

I am not debating the price of 4 gigs of ram but the practicality of it for home use. I am sure you've read the reasons why most businesses don't use it. If you are using your Home PC for traditional "home use" (which includes gaming) there really is no need for the additional 2 gigs of ram and the purchase of a new OS IMO. Yes, there is a need for more then 2 gigs of ram for some applications however, thats the exception not the rule. Therefore, some find no tangible need to trash their current none Vista OS at this time. Until applications become Vista only will their be any tangible need for Vista. By then (if it ever happened) Windows 7 should be surfacing.

I am not knocking on those that like Vista, to each his/her own. However, some shouldn't knock those that find no practical reason to buy it. Specially when you imply that more ram is needed. Also, if 4 gigs of ram is overdue we would see a whole lot of 2 Gig sticks in the market then we are currently seeing.

NickS

11-19-2007, 04:10 PM

Vista has poor performance?

icon57

11-19-2007, 04:26 PM

i have vista ultimate on my dell laptop with 2 gigs of ram, and it runs smooth...however, not as smooth as the rig in my sig ;)
..isnt 4 gigs mainstream these days?

rogueagent6

11-19-2007, 04:50 PM

ha ha.

When did a service pack ever improve performance? You're delusional if you think it would, and apparently the idiot writing the article is. But then again this fits well with the quality of the news posts around here lately. :rolleyes:

ChaosMinionX

11-19-2007, 05:06 PM

Vista x64 is the only thing I will use on my rig, and I have ripped alot of vista garbage out of it. bout 800mb usage with Aero on :up:

vengance_01

11-19-2007, 05:25 PM

I am glad to see alot of people supporting my statement. I agree Vista is a resource hog, but it works, and works well. Also because I got my copy for free from my school, I can't complain. I don't even run fraps anymore, I just crank the details to what I consider smooth for that particular game. Most games like HL2, and older games I run with V-SYNC on so I am locked at a constant 60 FPS's.

[XC] leviathan18

11-19-2007, 05:28 PM

To all the ppl that say Vista runs crap and XP runs great... What did you had expected? XP is a 6 year old OS. Go install and run XP on a 6y old MAINSTREAM computer and then come and tell me how well it ran...

I have Vista x64 Ultimate running on my desktop and laptop (both have 2GB of ram) and it runs real smooth :)

the best post this year... go take a 6 years old pc or see the price of ram 6 years ago having 256mb ,that is crap for XP, was OMG WTF BBQ now for 20$ or 30$ you can buy 2gb ram ddr2 that is so damn cheap

Speederlander

11-19-2007, 05:36 PM

switch back to xp and you will see the boost:up:

I've been back and forth between Vista 64 and XP a half dozen times setting systems. Vista is more stable and snappier for me.

Speederlander

11-19-2007, 05:40 PM

I am not knocking on those that like Vista, to each his/her own. However, some shouldn't knock those that find no practical reason to buy it.

Ummm....hasn't the "I hate Vista" crowd been knocking the "Vista isn't so bad" crowd with a baseball bat since the release? I mean, seriously, I have been flamed more often on XS for saying Vista didn't suck than almost anything else, and anyone who knows me from the Speak Freely section would know how funny that actually is.

xlink

11-19-2007, 05:55 PM

vista's good, programs optimized for XP under vista aren't so good.

Zytek_Fan

11-19-2007, 06:02 PM

As Chris Pirillo said, it's not Vista's fault. It's the end user. The end user chooses hardware and software that is not compatible (or for hardware non Vista drivers) and then blames it all on Vista. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Vista.

My brother has Vista on his PC. After experiencing Vista, I don't like XP.

Eastcoasthandle

11-19-2007, 06:05 PM

Ummm....hasn't the "I hate Vista" crowd been knocking the "Vista isn't so bad" crowd with a baseball bat since the release? I mean, seriously, I have been flamed more often on XS for saying Vista didn't suck than almost anything else, and anyone who knows me from the Speak Freely section would know how funny that actually is.

:shakes:

This is a pure fabrication on your part. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and shouldn't be smeared as "Vista Haters" because they don't agree with how you feel about Vista. It's when one attempts some level of forum peer pressure through rabid put downs, insults and name calling (noted in your post) that causes the kind of reaction that offends you so much. Knee jerk posts usually results in knee jerk responses.

tommyshango

11-19-2007, 06:16 PM

i gotta agree with zytek. i used xp for years. once i switched to vista i knew i would never go back. I just purchased another copy for my office pc. it found the network and i never did a thing. automatically detected it. xp would have never done that. never had to mess with a thing just plugged in the cat5 and boom im on the net and in our network viewing network pcs. thats just not possible on xp without a ton of experience and know how and just plain hard work generally. I would NEVER go back to xp for any reason. Even if there is a slight performance hit now it would be worked out eventually. games would become more optimized or whatever. i could care less about a slight decrease there when i have a 8800 gtx and all i see are maxed out settings (havnt tried crysis yet but my point is the same). xp ugg no way. vista all the way.

Rattle

11-19-2007, 06:34 PM

vista 64 was good with single cards like 2900xt and 8800gtx

then i went SLI, then i went back to xp

SLI SUCKS IN VISTA, these :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::b anana:s wanna start pushing SLI and X-fire and the :banana::banana::banana::banana: dont work well in vista, pisses me off

deathman20

11-19-2007, 06:38 PM

NickS

11-19-2007, 06:42 PM

Really the lub in Vista for dual cards sucks? Gah there goes that idea.

From what I've heard it's greatly improved.

Rattle

11-19-2007, 06:43 PM

yeah its functional i guess thats a big improvment from nonexistant lol

xp is much more dialed in with SLI, i dont really care though I dual boot, there's nothing in vista I need nor am I missing anything.

Speederlander

11-19-2007, 06:44 PM

:shakes:

This is a pure fabrication on your part. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and shouldn't be smeared as "Vista Haters" because they don't agree with how you feel about Vista. It's when one attempts some level of forum peer pressure through rabid put downs, insults and name calling (noted in your post) that causes the kind of reaction that offends you so much. Knee jerk posts usually results in knee jerk responses.

"Vista haters" is hardly a smear. The level of vitriol against Vista here and elsewhere has been noted often by many people. Nice thing is that the tide has turned. Most people posting on XS who have actually used Vista tend to prefer it over XP. Just note the response in this thread.

It's when one attempts some level of forum peer pressure through rabid put downs, insults and name calling (noted in your post) that causes the kind of reaction that offends you so much. Knee jerk posts usually results in knee jerk responses.
No, knee jerk responses happen with little assistance in SF. ;)
Heck, or even here. Just question the ethics of the downloading of songs/movies and watch the fireworks.

safan80

11-19-2007, 06:52 PM

Eastcoasthandle

11-19-2007, 07:03 PM

"Vista haters" is hardly a smear. The level of vitriol against Vista here and elsewhere has been noted often by many people. Nice thing is that the tide has turned. Most people posting on XS who have actually used Vista tend to prefer it over XP. Just note the response in this thread.
I think you misunderstand the context of my post. I wasn't asking your for your opinion of how I define "Vista haters" it is a smear (aka, rabid, knee jerk post).

No, knee jerk responses happen with little assistance in SF. ;)
Heck, or even here. Just question the ethics of the downloading of songs/movies and watch the fireworks.
Read the above...again I am not seeking an opinion of what I already know. How you post usually results in how someone response.

Remember, it was you who said:

...I mean, seriously, I have been flamed more often on XS for saying Vista didn't suck than almost anything else...
If you don't want to feel as though you are being flamed maybe a more sensible approach to how you feel about Vista is in order? For example, calling those who don't prefer Vista as "Vista haters" isn't a step in the right direction. As I've said before, everyone is entitled to their opinion. :up:

Speederlander

11-19-2007, 07:13 PM

I think you misunderstand the context of my post. I wasn't asking your for your opinion of how I define "Vista haters" it is a smear (aka, rabid, knee jerk post).

Read the above...again I am not seeking an opinion of what I already know. How you post usually results in how someone response.

Remember, it was you who said:

If you don't want to feel as though you are being flamed maybe a more sensible approach to how you feel about Vista is in order? For example, calling those who don't prefer Vista as "Vista haters" isn't a step in the right direction. As I've said before, everyone is entitled to their opinion. :up:

Alright, last post to you on this topic because you seem to be itching for a fight. My original comment was:
Ummm....hasn't the "I hate Vista" crowd been knocking the "Vista isn't so bad" crowd with a baseball bat since the release? I mean, seriously, I have been flamed more often on XS for saying Vista didn't suck than almost anything else, and anyone who knows me from the Speak Freely section would know how funny that actually is.
So, I didn't even refer to you as anything, though you seem to have personalized "crowd" as meaning you personally. I was referring to (and asking about) a group of people generally of whom you are welcome to not feel a part of. I simply don't care. That group of people DOES exist, I'm sorry to say. But to even mention that group apparently is bothering you. So be it.

RaZz!

11-20-2007, 12:30 AM

I have to agree here. There is no tangible reason why those who have Vista don't understand why everyone else doesn't upgrade to it. With the development of Windows 7 coming along I would be very surprise if more then 2, 1 gig sticks of ram is necessary. Some complain they can't OC their systems with 4, 1 gig sticks of ram the same why they could with 2, 1 gig sticks of ram :shakes:

Some who say they don't have problems with Vista usually have more then 2 Gigs of ram.

Example (http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=2567747&postcount=28)

Notice a trend with some who say "I don't have a problem". I am sure others will find that statement hard to believe. Maybe people would be a bit more receptive if that type of blanket statement wasn't made. ;) There is very little need to run more then 2 Gigs of ram for most game and home use.

yeah, so true :yepp:

it's just funny how people with highend machines and 4gb ram are like "dunno why vista runs bad, for me it's perfectly fine!". cmon, rofl!

and it's very comprehensible why vista isn't liked by many it-professionals. i mean, if i just look at the hardware we have at work (p4 3ghz, 512mb ram, intel integrated gfx): running vista on such a machine with only 512mb ram is impossible. especially if you're running many applications. those machines work just fine with xp, but with vista....
so why would companies upgrade to vista? it needs more ressources (which aren't there and needed huge investment in new hardware), doesn't have any features worth upgrading, and so on...

PowerSlide

11-20-2007, 12:52 AM

some ppl complain just about everything

once my fren complain to me vista runs badly on his P4..so he keep bashing how bad vista

my response to him is work harder buy a better pc

that shut him up for good :D

naokaji

11-20-2007, 01:05 AM

Shintai

11-20-2007, 01:34 AM

the main problem with vista is still the drivers... but thats not microsoft to blame... its companies like creative...

as for performance and sp1... well, it was not to be expected that sp1 would really increase performance a lot, since ms isnt going to remove the junk it delivers along with the os from your computer.

Thats the biggest rubbish I ever read about an OS.

The only thing Vista uses more of is memory. The graphics drivers are moved out of the kernel. So the OS can restart them instead of making a BSOD when AMD or nVidia mess up as usual.

Its not like you can execute things ALOT faster in any OS. You could maybe get 0.1-0.2% from some hardcore optimizations. Just look around when folding. Its just as fast on Vista as it is on Windows 2000, Solaris, Linux, FBSD or the like.

naokaji

11-20-2007, 01:39 AM

i was not talking about the os itself, but about the extra stuff (usually referred to as bloatware) that comes with it...

xlink

11-20-2007, 01:40 AM

Thats the biggest rubbish I ever read about an OS.

The only thing Vista uses more of is memory. The graphics drivers are moved out of the kernel. So the OS can restart them instead of making a BSOD when AMD or nVidia mess up as usual.

Its not like you can execute things ALOT faster in any OS. You could maybe get 0.1-0.2% from some hardcore optimizations. Just look around when folding. Its just as fast on Vista as it is on Windows 2000, Solaris, Linux, FBSD or the like.

that's largely because folding is relatively simple in nature(just a lot of simple things be it) and doesn't require much interaction with the OS.Any efficiency differences are usually negated by the fact that there is probably some greater degree of optimization for less efficient OSes. As you said though real world differences are near nill.

i was not talking about the os itself, but about the extra stuff (usually referred to as bloatware) that comes with it...

back in the day nlite was a craze, now with tons of RAM in our systems it's not as vital(I sitll like it though)
vista is the same if not better. Under vista(vlited) for general use(few games, photoshop 500mb worth of firefox in the background etc.), I notice no tangible difference between 2GB RAM and 4GB RAM. Considering the fact that my 24/7 systems ahve had 2+GB RAM for the last 2.5years I'd say that that's not too bad.

moral of the story

VLITE.

Rilla927

11-20-2007, 01:50 AM

Vista is new and some people don't realize that you can't put it on systems with out the adquate hardware to run it. I don't think it's bad, it will take time for it to mature just like XP did. I hate the awful choice of FW's for Vista right now, but that will change as time goes by. There are a lot of things I do like about Vista, but only a few minor things I don't but I'm not going to bash it because overall it is a good OS. We all as human beings are going to have different opinions on things but it's sad to see/ hear the constant bickering over it. The people that don't like it are just razzing the one's who do to get their goats cuz they have nothing better to do with their time.

I bought the Ultimate version to see what all the fuss was and installed it on a system that had 1gig of ram and I already new it wasn't going to run at it's peak performance because my hardware was lacking. Old 6800 Ultra vid card, 1gig ram, Athlon 64 FX-53 and it ran, but it ran very slow. You learn to do things differently in Vista than you did in XP (at least I did).

The UAC did drive me crazy in the begining, but I learned to except it because it's there for a reason. Disabling it defeats the purpose. I read about the file/ copy problem and there is a work around for this by using the command line. I'm hoping Vista will eventually support my scanner, printer; they are only 3 yrs old.

I think some people would like to upgrade to Vista but they just don't have the money, then they would have to invest in upgrading all their hardware and if it's not upgradable then they need a whole new machine. Some people here go through hardware like I change my clothes, but not everyone can afford to do that.

Now, since I built this new machine with a Q6600, 8800 Ultra, 4gigs Crucial Ballistix Vista will sail a long beautifully. I haven't installed it yet nor can I wait to see the difference.

flopper

11-20-2007, 02:21 AM

Something "new" comes along,
first response, it sucks.
second response, we hate it.
Third response, people use it?
Forth response, why?
Fifth response, beacuse its the future?
Sixth response, you mean?
Seventh response, yes.
eight response, where can i get it?
Ninth response, to late.
Tenth response, silently crying.

Microsofat made one error, they went for the WoW factor and forgot to tell people, you need this hardware (high end) to have the WoW factor.

nn_step

11-20-2007, 02:28 AM

Look Microsoft should of came out with an OS that only marginally needed more processing power/Ram in order to run. Seriously Don't they know that Less = more? Hence XSOS, Win2000, WinServ2003, and XP are so popular. They Don't require that much in terms of system resources.

And I notice everyone who says that Vista = smooth as butter has more than 3GHZ and at least 2 gigs of Ram. Why should an OS need more than 300 Megs is beyond me.
The problem is that if you really cared about system resources you would use the Bourne shell (Which only needs 16Kb) but the honest truth you also care about being compatible with games and ease of use...

The more the OS is able to allocate the workload on the ram rather than on the disk the more i'm all for it. let's see 100MB/sec read 8ms seek versus 8000++MB/sec read ~50ns seek . Which one to choose ?
Some people prefer the appearance a light OS more than the appearance of bloat. If microsoft was a hair smarter they wouldn't include the memory being used by the OS ;)

Exactly, for me the smaller footprint with a good balance between compability and features is what I'd see as "improvement". OS's shouldn't need more than the predecessor, at least not much, I could accept a small sacrifise in ram for some nifty new feature but in Vista I only see features added I would rather just have slipstreamed off the DVD. Too bad slipstreaming it with vLite doesn't help much for Vista although it becomes a lot smaller in size, it's still slower than XP, 2k3, x64 and resource sucking.

Wish XSOS 3 was released. That's how an OS should be like. :/

We are working as fast as we can but we politely request that you are patient. For example we are inventing somethings and you can't dictate the rate of innovation ;)

halo112358

11-20-2007, 03:58 AM

I don't understand why people complain about Vista's performance. It runs perfectly fine on my machine and I even find it to be a bit more responsive then XP. I wish the Vista bashing would end.

Here's one reason, it's unstable.

Both my GF's new laptop and my bosses new laptop crash regularly - both have 2gb ram and modern dual core processors, both have current drivers.

Here's another reason, it's not compatible with a lot of software.

In business you can't always afford the newest software (especially when you're talking about $75,000/license software that controls a 3d laser scanner). What happens when that software doesn't run under Vista?

:down:

Here's another reason: TPM

Here's another reason: enforced driver signing on Vista 64

On a lighter note, the new network stack and DX10 are nice.. What I don't really like is the business practice of pushing the OS out the door and expecting the customers to foot the bill for the beta testing.

G80

11-20-2007, 04:50 AM

Im going to buy Vista X64 in a few months too see what all this fuss is about. Luckily i dont have a 75000$ scanner to worry about. But if i had i wouldent even change anything in the first place.

RaZz!

11-20-2007, 05:00 AM

Vista is new and some people don't realize that you can't put it on systems with out the adquate hardware to run it.

you're right, BUT why is vista so much more hardware hungry than xp? even if i deactivate aero glass and unused services etc, vista is bloated. it doesn't offer anything superior to xp.
and that's what i'm talking about. the useful features that were planned for vista like the new filesystem got screwed and therefore vista basically is xp.

if vista would come along with a lot of new features and stuff (whatever), it would be worth to upgrade. but at the moment vista isn't better than xp featurewise (except of dx10, but that's another story) but needs way more resources...

it's always a question of what do have to give and what do i get.

Kurz

11-20-2007, 07:21 AM

Exactly Razz I expected my friends family to get a lot more with this OS if it was such a memory whore.

However, what I currently do now is spend about 2 hours on each machine to trim down the fat.
Thats my little side job I do is strip down all the features people do not need to have running and wasting CPU cycles.

Rilla927

11-20-2007, 08:21 AM

Here's one reason, it's unstable.

Both my GF's new laptop and my bosses new laptop crash regularly - both have 2gb ram and modern dual core processors, both have current drivers.

Here's another reason, it's not compatible with a lot of software.
I agree, some systems it isn't very stable on for what ever reason, but most of us know when a new OS comes out that's going to happen so you have to be willing to take the curve balls when going into it. I will still use XP as my main OS for now until Vista becomes more mature and they get my drivers for my scanner and printer. I didn't have XP when it first came out but I'm sure everyone had to go through the same thing. It comes with the territory.

In business you can't always afford the newest software (especially when you're talking about $75,000/license software that controls a 3d laser scanner). What happens when that software doesn't run under Vista?

:down:

Here's another reason: TPM

Here's another reason: enforced driver signing on Vista 64
This is only my opinion, but I think when it comes to a business they really don't have a need right now to upgrade to Vista. I'm sure this 75,000 scanner will eventually get a signed driver.

Quote by Razz:

you're right, BUT why is vista so much more hardware hungry than xp? even if i deactivate aero glass and unused services etc, vista is bloated.
You're right, it is more power hungary; as to why I couldn't answer that. Tweakhound & Black Viper has a guide that may be of help
http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/servicecfg.htm

http://tweakhound.com/vista/tweakguide/page_7.htm
This is one of the first things I always went through and disabled in XP.

I don't agree with the way MS marketed Vista to consumers, I think this is where a lot of people were confused because it didn't run so good on a lot of systems (as far as hardware) and that's understandable. I don't care what OS comes out, I would never upgrade from my previous OS because then you have no re-course if you're not happy.

And yes, I was disappointed when they dumped the new file system.

icon57

11-20-2007, 09:04 AM

I happen to like it better than xp. mostly because of the weather channel applet.

the thing I don't is vista can't access my network printer.

yeah, i like that weather app also :)
shame about your printer, is it an older model?

32bit and 64bit ultimate both work fine with my hp7000 series network printer.

anyways...another vote for vista here...i waited about a year b4 making the switch to vista, about the same time i waited to move up to xp.

vista "feels" better with 4 gigs of mem installed.

i remember when bf2 came out, everyone upgraded to 2 gbs of mems, when at the time 1 gb was the norm. I did notice a increase in bf2 with the added gig, but it was smooth as buttah, when i put in 4 gigs....

guess vista is sort of the same...

ewitte

11-20-2007, 09:18 AM

I've had Vista 64 installed on a test drive for the longest time. Recently I was thinking about doing my re-install of XP again because it was slowing down again but my memory died suddenly. I was able to get 4GB of faster ram for $150 so that motivated me to just switch over completely. Very responsive although I'd expect that on a 3+Ghz Core2 with 8800GTX and 4GB ram. Runs pretty decently on my work laptop that has integrated video and 1GB of ram. It was slow as hell with 512MB but not to bad tweaked and with 1GB.

Decami

11-20-2007, 08:43 PM

for anyone who has an xtream system sure it runs fast... you give anything more resources than it needs it will run fast... the problem is too many people (the majority i beleive) don't have xtream systems and therefore don't have the extra resources to throw at it and there for it runs slow. personally with my semi-xtreme system it runs like dog poop... old moldy dog poop... and that doesn't much inspire confidence in an OS... therefore Vista bashing will continue untill either everyones system is up to snuff or Vista stops being a resource hog...

Well, sadly thats whatyour gonna get with any new up and coming OS. They are not gonna back support too far. Thats just the way its always been. New hardware and Vista runs great. Upgrading to it on an old machine and you get dog crap. Thats the way the all cherished an lovable OMGSO AWESOME XP (according to Vista bashers) was when it released. They expect people to move themselves into the future. Not play both sides. Exspecially since the hardware world outdates itself every 2-3 months.

The only complaint I have about Vista is that it literally asks you to do EVERYTHING. But you tweak it and tada, no more of that, easy too. and yeah its a memory hog, but when you can get 4gig of DDR2 (when you really only need maybe 2) for less than $100 bones. Not too bad id say.

Haltech

11-21-2007, 09:41 AM

I run 2 gigs of ram in my HP Laptop, core2duo T7300 and Vista Premium. It runs fast, smooth and is stable as hell. I dont see why people are still :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:ing.

In my workstation, i run a Quadcore with 8 gigs of ram and Vista 64 Bit Ultimate. Again, smooth, fast and stable.

Ive ran several non DRM versions and standard versions. didnt notice one thing different about the two and DRM hype is just that, hype. Encoding/Decoding H264, DivX, MP3, HDTV, HD DVD, etc has yielded no issues with DRM. So, its all smoke. Use Vista, its a nice OS above XP bar far and you really arent going to notice a 2% hit in frames while gaming unless your system truely sucks and cant hang with the modern build machines as of 1 year ago.

Buy your Ram now, its cheap, fast and will buy you better performance.

ghost101

11-21-2007, 09:45 AM

Idiots also use different Office versions for the XP vs Vista tests

http://www.xpnet.com/iworldtest/

mstp2009

11-21-2007, 03:32 PM

Here's one reason, it's unstable.

Both my GF's new laptop and my bosses new laptop crash regularly - both have 2gb ram and modern dual core processors, both have current drivers.

Here's another reason, it's not compatible with a lot of software.

In business you can't always afford the newest software (especially when you're talking about $75,000/license software that controls a 3d laser scanner). What happens when that software doesn't run under Vista?

:down:

Here's another reason: TPM

Here's another reason: enforced driver signing on Vista 64

On a lighter note, the new network stack and DX10 are nice.. What I don't really like is the business practice of pushing the OS out the door and expecting the customers to foot the bill for the beta testing.

And I would be you $5 that both of them use nVidia graphics.

Nvidia's drivers (especially for mobiles) are a POS on Vista.

Don't blame M$ for someone else's problems. They were pushing nVidia 2 YEARS ago to be working on drivers.

My T60p w/ an ATI graphics card hasn't crashed once (only reboots have been for the monthly security fixes).

EDIT - and if you were half as smart as you pretend to be, you would know that you can load a virtualized XP from within Vista (VMWare ring a bell?) for those few apps or peripherals that just pain don't run on Vista.

safan80

11-21-2007, 04:07 PM

yeah, i like that weather app also :)
shame about your printer, is it an older model?

32bit and 64bit ultimate both work fine with my hp7000 series network printer.

it's a samsung ML1651N and it has drivers for it just not for the network connection.. samsung uses a separate piece of software for their network printers.

Mareg

11-22-2007, 02:02 PM

https://cm.idg.se:8288/polopoly/polopoly_fs/1.129504.1194259374!imageManager/4238709263.jpg

Vista is running smoother and faster with SP1 according to a test on swedish site Techworld.
Sorry for swedish link.

http://techworld.idg.se/2.2524/1.129500

RPGWiZaRD

11-22-2007, 02:52 PM

Hmm, I was gonna install Vista very soon but I might as well wait for SP1 now b4 I do a new comparision against XP. Hope the techworld test was accurate and really reflects that there woule be a very slight performance increase, anything is welcome to me.

Shintai

11-22-2007, 03:17 PM

I woudl already conclude its wrong. Simply due to the copy times. It looks more like their non SP1 was filling the superfetch, indexer or so.

That would also explain the extreme little margin in computational benches.

Clint

11-25-2007, 02:43 AM

flopper

11-25-2007, 03:15 AM

Vista will never ever be as fast as XP...period.

It's actually kinda sad to see that 99% of the users of Vista can't realize that fact...and please don't come with "Vista feels much more fast and stable"...that is just stupid without any data backup.

I be careful to not call people stupid on a forum like this.

Are you saying that if someone writes, It subjectivly feel faster than my old OS that such a statement is not true?

That is if thats the case "stupid" to say so if you ask me.

Some people like the old stuff, never embrace the new tech, dont want to embrace and go into a future based, some companies are like that, an invention comes along, it get bought and then laid down and never hit the market.

I dont care if my Ferrari drinks more fuel, it still is faster than the the car my neighbour has, and it still based on the same mechanical engine 100 years old or so.

The implications for people are, some programmers love machinecode, its the fastest way to run code on a machine, why aint the programmers using machinecode so the programs would run even faster?
Keyboard hackers like that should be able to do so, dont you think?

Vista are faster than XP, how they do it, I dont care about.
I put my key in and turn on the engine and put the petal to the metal.

Win XP is so old news.
:welcome:

However, you need some ram to run Vista really smooth, and today since it is dirtcheap its a natural progression to go down the Vista route.

Clint

11-25-2007, 03:49 AM

I be careful to not call people stupid on a forum like this.

Are you saying that if someone writes, It subjectivly feel faster than my old OS that such a statement is not true?

That is if thats the case "stupid" to say so if you ask me.

Some people like the old stuff, never embrace the new tech, dont want to embrace and go into a future based, some companies are like that, an invention comes along, it get bought and then laid down and never hit the market.

I dont care if my Ferrari drinks more fuel, it still is faster than the the car my neighbour has, and it still based on the same mechanical engine 100 years old or so.

The implications for people are, some programmers love machinecode, its the fastest way to run code on a machine, why aint the programmers using machinecode so the programs would run even faster?
Keyboard hackers like that should be able to do so, dont you think?

Vista are faster than XP, how they do it, I dont care about.
I put my key in and turn on the engine and put the petal to the metal.

Win XP is so old news.
:welcome:

However, you need some ram to run Vista really smooth, and today since it is dirtcheap its a natural progression to go down the Vista route.
Again...words as "it is faster" , "smooth", "I don't care how it's done" is used, and nothing substantial to prove your point.....yet another ignorant Vista user.:clap:

You only confirm my statements...:up:

Shintai

11-25-2007, 04:30 AM

Again...words as "it is faster" , "smooth", "I don't care how it's done" is used, and nothing substantial to prove your point.....yet another ignorant Vista user.:clap:

You only confirm my statements...:up:

And I would consider you extreme uneducated. Perhaps you should study a tiny bity more. Also Vista actually dont have much more DRM (if any) than XP SP2.

takamishanoku

11-25-2007, 05:11 AM

What do people expect? Vista is based on a modern platform for modern computers. Hence it is slower on older hardware. It has always been the case. I remember the moans XP recieved when it came out. "It is slow on my pc, i'll stick with 98". Heck my old 486 run 95 should i have stuck with that?
The problem lies that XP after it's SP addons was/is a very stable OS. Vista is just as stable and no real benifits (stability was the key issue why ppl actually did adopt XP instead of sticking with 98).

For my rig, Vista runs smooth as. Yes it is a resource hog, annoying at times (UAC is always annoying). But for me it's far more polished than XP, the performnance drop in games sux, but for my hardware everything should be playable anyway in vista.

ewitte

11-25-2007, 05:45 AM

Vista will never ever be as fast as XP...period.

Not necessarily. For one that GUI is hardware based 3d accelerated. Much faster hardware than doing it with the CPU. Response time goes down pretty quickly with XP too so XP will feel sluggish faster if your actually using it.
Not to mention a LOT of the newer games with the new drivers are getting higher frame rates. Plus a lot of CPU operations. Look at things like PCMark and it will be like 200 points faster or so.

Even if it was slightly slower remember when XP came out what was the typical hardware? It was like a P3-500 with 512MB ram. Extremely sluggish. The majority of us in this forum have a machine that will run Vista way faster than that.

Clint

11-25-2007, 05:46 AM

And I would consider you extreme uneducated. Perhaps you should study a tiny bity more. Also Vista actually dont have much more DRM (if any) than XP SP2.

Hehe, I'm pretty well educated thank you:rolleyes: ...and quite confident that I have a LOT more knowledge than you in this specific matter...and how in heavens have you missed the whole debate regarding the newly implemented tech in Vista??

First, a little orientation:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Second, a bit more specific:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

With "DRM related" I mean the whole content protection apparatus, more specifics can be learned from those links...but I doubt you will spend even 5 min researching about it.

What do people expect? Vista is based on a modern platform for modern computers. Hence it is slower on older hardware. It has always been the case. I remember the moans XP recieved when it came out. "It is slow on my pc, i'll stick with 98". Heck my old 486 run 95 should i have stuck with that?
The problem lies that XP after it's SP addons was/is a very stable OS. Vista is just as stable and no real benifits (stability was the key issue why ppl actually did adopt XP instead of sticking with 98).

For my rig, Vista runs smooth as. Yes it is a resource hog, annoying at times (UAC is always annoying). But for me it's far more polished than XP, the performnance drop in games sux, but for my hardware everything should be playable anyway in vista.

The parallell between going from win98 to XP and going from XP to Vista just aint valid..sorry.

What is "polished"?
..whooshy windows?
..flashy icons with higher res?
..transparent menues?

Please elaborate..

takamishanoku

11-25-2007, 05:50 AM

Won't bother.. You're happy with XP, i'm happy with Vista. We're both happy, some are just afraid of new things :)

ewitte

11-25-2007, 05:52 AM

Won't bother.. You're happy with XP, i'm happy with Vista. We're both happy, some are just afraid of new things :)

To be honest I held off until I got 4GB ram.

Clint

11-25-2007, 05:53 AM

Won't bother.. You're happy with XP, i'm happy with Vista. We're both happy, some are just afraid of new things :)

I never said I don't like Vista, or is "afraid" of it...:D

Simply tried to explain to you guys why Vista never will be as fast as XP is today.

ewitte

11-25-2007, 06:06 AM

I never said I don't like Vista, or is "afraid" of it...:D

Simply tried to explain to you guys why Vista never will be as fast as XP is today.

You will eventually be able to dissable DRM (already is but the guy hasn't released it because he is afraid of the US even though he is protected by Canada law) pretty easy and correct me if I'm wrong its only being used when your watching certain types of copywrited videos isn't it?

I've found most of the stuff Vista doesn't allow me to do (like blocking certain types of video) 3rd party utilities do it just as well as they did in XP.

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 06:13 AM

Wow, all these excuses:
-disabling tweaks
-additional ram not required by the majority of programs
-psychological excuses "must be afraid", "currnet hardware" (which doesn't justify why it's still slower then XP, etc)
-side stepping history: comparison between win98 and XP when most used Win2K by the time XP was released (freaking liars)
-and other rabid responses
just to validate purchasing Vista which offers nothing compelling over XP :shakes:

ewitte

11-25-2007, 06:15 AM

Wow, all these excuses (disabling tweaks) just to validate Vista which offers nothing compelling over XP :shakes:

DRM is coming to XP too. Even if it doesn't hurt performance much it still breaks things. I don't know about you but I'm not buying a new monitor just for HDCP compliance. Also I can put 4GB to use very easy and that will only go up from here. Anyone who says performance is much lower is either using something old or doesn't know what they are doing in 90% of the cases. Its barely slower in a few things and faster in a lot. Barely lower being less than 1% in most cases.

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 06:25 AM

DRM is coming to XP too. Even if it doesn't hurt performance much it still breaks things. I don't know about you but I'm not buying a new monitor just for HDCP compliance. Also I can put 4GB to use very easy and that will only go up from here. Anyone who says performance is much lower is either using something old or doesn't know what they are doing in 90% of the cases. Its barely lower in a few things and faster in a lot.

#1 DRM coming to XP isn't hardly an excuse. You should do a little research XP does incorporate DRM in one form or another so that makes that invalid.

#2 I have no problem watching HDM and HDCP monitors and video cards have been in the market for sometime now. So again, not valid.

#3 Using 4 Gigs of ram is an understatement of the century. When you can actually prove that let me know. System recommended specs that I read on most applications do not require 4 Gigs of ram. So, I honestly believe you are misinformed.

ewitte

11-25-2007, 06:32 AM

#1 DRM coming to XP isn't hardly an excuse. You should do a little research XP does incorporate DRM in one form or another so that make#s that invalid.

#2 I have no problem watching HDM and HDCP monitors and video cards have been in the market for sometime now. So again, not valid.
#3 Using 4 Gigs of ram is an understatement of the century. When you can actually prove that let me know. System recommended specs that I read on most applications do not require 4 Gigs of ram. So, I honestly believe you are misinformed.

Current DRM isn't as intrusive on XP as its going to be in the future. Lol if it was people would not be arguing its a reason why vista is slower.

I've got a monitor thats less than 2 years old that was over $1000. Thank you very much but I'm not upgrading yet. I'd rather patch. I've also got a less than 1 year old $600 video card that doesn't support HDCP.

List of apps I use Photoshop CS3, VMWare and newer games running without closing out of stuff first. What happens if I want to run a test with 2 server OS platforms each with 2GB of ram? I'd need at least 6-8GB. Most current games have a sweet spot of 2GB. I don't think they are going to get less complex over time, its going to be more complex.

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 06:39 AM

I've got a monitor thats less than 2 years old that was over $1000. Thank you very much but I'm not upgrading yet. I'd rather patch.

List of apps I use Photoshop CS3, VMWare and newer games running without closing out of stuff first. What happens if I want to run a test with 2 server OS platforms each with 2GB of ram? I'd need at least 6-8GB. Most current games have a sweet spot of 2GB. I don't think they are going to get less complex over time, its going to be more complex.

HDCP compliance issue was discussed over 2 years ago, so no excuse there. Most PCs that are used for everyday home use don't use PS3, VMWare, etc so this is nothing more then attempt to validate your point which isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Besides, here is the system requirements right here (http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/systemreqs/) if you care to look. If anything that doesn't help your case, ha!

Hornet331

11-25-2007, 06:40 AM

Wow, all these excuses:

-side stepping history: comparison between win98 and XP when most used Win2K by the time XP was released (freaking liars)

thats bs and you know it. Most people where running windows me (forced :p: ), win2k was and is a server os. Not much consumers had there hands on win2k.

And tbh i never used win2k, i just jumped from win98se to winxp, cause as gaming os win2k wasnt that of a winner.

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 06:43 AM

thats bs and you know it. Most people where running windows me (forced :p: ), win2k was and is a server os. Not much consumers had there hands on win2k.

And tbh i never used win2k, i just jumped from win98se to winxp, cause as gaming os win2k wasnt that of a winner.

That's BS, a lot of people migrated over to win2k so don't give me that crap :down:
If you knew your history (and you don't) Win2k came after Win98. Win2k was on every game that I've ever come across during that time. Therefore, your excuse of it being a server only is incorrect! If you knew that much you wouldn't post such nonsense!

Hornet331

11-25-2007, 06:51 AM

That's BS, a lot of people migrated over to win2k so don't give me that crap :down:
If you knew your history (and you don't) Win2k came after Win98. If you knew that much you wouldn't post such nonsense!

lol if you would know history you would know that the successor of win98se was win me and not win2k. :ROTF:

i never saw a box with win2k at the bigger retailers where joe sixpack buys his pcs...

ewitte

11-25-2007, 06:55 AM

The main problem I have is using the word "never" . That has consistantly been shown to fail when being used in the computer industry. Remember all the talk about 640k ram? I'll give you an example. I've seen specs for very aggresively going to 100 cores. What happens if XP stops patching at 8 cores and thats the max you will ever see. Which do you think would run faster at that point?

ewitte

11-25-2007, 06:59 AM

I'm getting deja vu because this conversation looks excessively like the ones I saw back during the win2k to xp migration.

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 07:04 AM

lol if you would know history you would know that the successor of win98se was win me and not win2k. :ROTF:

i never saw a box with win2k at the bigger retailers where joe sixpack buys his pcs...

Oh, so that explains why you could install win2k upgrade disc with win98 :shocked:. Your post is no rebuttal to mine unless you plan on making up other canned remarks implying that I said them. But I had to address this one because you obviously don't know what you are talking about. You do have a rudimentary understanding but have no technical experience (which is shown in your previous post). And, why would I expect you to know that win2k was labeled on most games? You never used it and I wouldn't expect you to even pay attention, for example:
Diablo 2 (http://www.blizzard.com/diablo2/)
UT2004 (http://www.unrealtournament2003.com/ut2004/specs.html)
Here is a list right here (http://www.versiontracker.com/windows/2000/games/action-fps)

Again, you really don't know what you are talking about. I can agree that it's possible you simply never paid attention but to imply that the most popular games (that supported win2k) during that time were not found at the bigger retails simply isn't true.

MikeB12

11-25-2007, 07:12 AM

aiya_au

11-25-2007, 07:18 AM

Hehe, I'm pretty well educated thank you:rolleyes: ...and quite confident that I have a LOT more knowledge than you in this specific matter...and how in heavens have you missed the whole debate regarding the newly implemented tech in Vista??

First, a little orientation:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

Second, a bit more specific:
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

-snip-

You would find a lot of what Peter Gutmann said in that article was well written bs. "Gutmann’s favorite technique is to string together anecdotes he’s plucked from magazines and websites, juxtapose those stories with sentences from presentations by Microsoft engineers and developers, and then speculate on the implications, often with wildly incorrect results." Ed Bott

read Ed Bott's (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299) 3 part article that pulls apart that article and tests a lot of Gutmann's claims.

if you're not much of a reader, listen to his interview with Leo Laporte and Paul Thurrott on 'windows weekly ep39' here (http://twit.tv/ww39).

vista's DRM issn't much different to what was implemented in XP. There's two sides to every story. XP has had 6 years to mature with highly optimised device drivers, Vista has not even had a year yet. give it a year or two and it'll surpass XP.

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 07:21 AM

It's a no brainer really.
run your older sys's with 2gb ram on xp...
run your newer sys's on vista64 with 4gb ram...

they both run good. vista is smoother than xp though...
as for copy speed I dunno, I guess vista is fast enough for me. I copied a 7gb compressed acronis image from my D: drive to my external drive across esata in less than 2 min.

firefox launches faster in xp though :p:

Actually it's:
Run your newer system with 2gigs of ram on XP
Run your newer system with 4gigs of ram with Vista

I believe someone else already posted about the "smoother" comments with no credible source to back them up. For example, Vista cannot be smoother when firefox launches are slower (admission of your own post).

Hornet331

11-25-2007, 07:24 AM

blabering.

what has the upgradeability of an os to do with it?

as i mentioned befor, you said most of the userbase where using win2k as there main os and i call bs on that for various reasons.

sucessor of win98 was winme so that was the os,taht most retailer put in the machines they sold them and not win2k.

win2k was a worksation/server os, you want to tell me people who buy there computers at walmart/dell/gateway get that kind of os?
Oh well i guess you mean the people that are labled as enthusiasts represent the whole market?

win2k sucked befor sp3 for games, i might not have used it myself but i had some friends who used it, and they had dualboot win2k/win98 especial for older games.

anyways belive what you want. :ROTF:

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 07:29 AM

what has the upgradeability of an os to do with it?

as i mentioned befor, you said most of the userbase where using win2k as there main os and i call bs on that for various reasons.

sucessor of win98 was winme so that was the os,taht most retailer put in the machines they sold them and not win2k.

win2k was a worksation/server os, you want to tell me people who buy there computers at walmart/dell/gateway get that kind of os?
Oh well i guess you mean the people that are labled as enthusiasts represent the whole market?

win2k sucked befor sp3 for games, i might not have used it myself but i had some friends who used it, and they had dualboot win2k/win98 especial for older games.

anyways belive what you want. :ROTF:

Since it's obvious you cannot offer any informative rebuttal it's clear that all your can do now is try to save face. My post directly addresses your post, if you are not sure of what or why start by reading your post first then read mine. It should be more clearer for you. :yepp:
Having said that, Win2k was often used for home PCs and part of the proof was showing you the number of games that support win2k. Again, you really don't know what you are talking about.:shakes:

Also your attempt to deflect the issue that some compared win98 to XP has completely failed :rofl: . The truth was and still is win2k vs XP.

mstp2009

11-25-2007, 07:34 AM

Wow. What an e-pen!s pi$$ing contest we have going on here.

If you like XP, STFU.

If you like Vista, STFU.

If you like Mac . . . (I'll stop there).

ewitte

11-25-2007, 07:35 AM

For example, Vista cannot be smoother when firefox launches are slower (admission of your own post).

Its not an all or nothing. Some things run faster in XP while others run faster in Vista. There are plenty of benchmarks showing some of the newer games getting a slight advantage. Not a comment on vista (because XP-64 has this as well) but the extra SSE registers could come in handy improving speed in certain apps. I don't consider XP64 an official OS though... it doesn't get near the same support/updates.

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 07:38 AM

Its not an all or nothing. Some things run faster in XP while others run faster in Vista. There are plenty of benchmarks showing some of the newer games getting a slight advantage. Not a comment on vista (because XP-64 has this as well) but the extra SSE registers could come in handy improving speed in certain apps. I don't consider XP64 an official OS though... it doesn't get near the same support/updates.

You said Vista is smoother yet also say that running FF is slower, to me that completely contradicts Vista being smoother. I've tried Vista myself and I don't find it smoother then XP at all. If anything they are the same! However, that depends on what you are doing, for example:
-IE
-Office
-and a few other smaller applications
run about the same as XP. In other words I don't notice any hiccups that would make me think something is wrong. Therefore, what you posted above has nothing to do with that. We've seen XP vs Vista comparisons that tell us were Vista stands so saying it's smoother really doesn't help.

ewitte

11-25-2007, 07:40 AM

You said Vista is smoother yet also say that running FF is slower, to me that completely contradicts Vista being smoother. I've tried Vista myself and I don't find it smoother then XP at all. If anything they are the same! So what you posted above has nothing to do with that.

That wasn't me talking about FF but the truth is NEITHER one is faster than the other 100% of the time. With XP I turned off visuals ever time I did an install because it slowed the OS down too much. It doesn't bother me one bit with Vista. Have to love hardware acceleration.

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 07:43 AM

That wasn't me talking about FF but the truth is NEITHER one is faster than the other 100% of the time. With XP I turned off visuals ever time I did an install because it slowed the OS down too much. It doesn't bother me one bit with Vista. Have to love hardware acceleration.

That's not completely true this depending on system setup (you would have very low end system). If you had to do it for XP I know you had to do it for vista (using the exact same PC specs). I've even tried disabling all the visuals for XP and obtain the same 3d06 score. :shakes:

ludeboy12

11-25-2007, 07:43 AM

Wow didn't realize this was such a big deal.

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 07:47 AM

Wow didn't realize this was such a big deal.

It isn't to each his/her own (which I posted before). However, when people start posting information that's not true to say Vista is better then it must be corrected.

MikeB12

11-25-2007, 07:47 AM

Actually it's:
Run your newer system with 2gigs of ram on XP
Run your newer system with 4gigs of ram with Vista

I believe someone else already posted about the "smoother" comments with no credible source to back them up. For example, Vista cannot be smoother when firefox launches are slower (admission of your own post).

the only credible source you'll get is if you run both side by side and use them daily. when I switch between the 2 I feel vista has a smooth fluid type feel ( especially in aero), while xp still feels snappier, yet choppy compared to vista.

but I prefer to run them both since I have 5 comps and licenses for xp and vista. my 2 higher end machines get vista by personal preference. been that way since may or so. When I first starting using Vista I cringed and cussed it because I was not familiar with it, but as time progressed and I built a few more machines with hardware in mind to run it, I liked it more and more. now it's main main goto on my quad.

don't really know what you're looking for as proof or professional documentation, this is just personal opinion and personal preference of choice about software and hardware to run it. on Vista, XP, and the upcoming service packs that haven't even seen official releases.

What puzzles me, and I guess it's just human nature...
some threads turn into a "you are wrong"/"I am right" type thread... somehow a friendly thread to get everyone's input on a subject turns into a debate based on the comments or opinions within. it's sad really to watch members turn on one another based on simple non aggressive informative comments.

ewitte

11-25-2007, 07:48 AM

That's not completely true this depending on system setup (you would have very low end system). If you had to do it for XP I know you had to do it for vista (using the exact same PC specs). I've even tried disabling all the visuals for XP and obtain the same 3d06 score. :shakes:

I'm talking about my system with a 8800GTX and not benchmarks, but general usage. I'd turn turn it off in vista too if I were going for the highest 3dmark score.

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 07:49 AM

I'm talking about my system with a 8800GTX and not benchmarks, but general usage. I'd turn turn it off in vista too if I were going for the highest 3dmark score.

See that, you are not being honest here and the reason is apparent.

ewitte

11-25-2007, 07:50 AM

However, when people start posting information that's not true to say Vista is better then it must be corrected.

Whats to be corrected? Most people are posting about how they "feel" about one OS versus the other. Last I checked people didn't need proof to form a preference.

Clint

11-25-2007, 07:52 AM

It isn't to each his/her own (which I posted before). However, when people start posting information that's not true to say Vista is better then it must be corrected.

+1:)

ewitte

11-25-2007, 07:53 AM

See that, you are not being honest here and the reason is apparent.

LMAO. So I'm not being honest because I don't "like" the response of XP with visuals on but it doesn't bother me with vista? Whatever.

Clint

11-25-2007, 07:53 AM

Whats to be corrected? Most people are posting about how they "feel" about one OS versus the other. Last I checked people didn't need proof to form a preference.

Look at this threads title..we talk about performance...not "feeling"

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 07:55 AM

the only credible source you'll get is if you run both side by side and use them daily. when I switch between the 2 I feel vista has a smooth fluid type feel ( especially in aero), while xp still feels snappier, yet choppy compared to vista.

but I prefer to run them both since I have 5 comps and licenses for xp and vista. my 2 higher end machines get vista by personal preference. been that way since may or so. When I first starting using Vista I cringed and cussed it because I was not familiar with it, but as time progressed and I built a few more machines with hardware in mind to run it, I liked it more and more. now it's main main goto on my quad.

don't really know what you're looking for as proof or professional documentation, this is just personal opinion and personal preference of choice about software and hardware to run it. on Vista, XP, and the upcoming service packs that haven't even seen official releases.

What puzzles me, and I guess it's just human nature...
some threads turn into a "you are wrong"/"I am right" type thread... somehow a friendly thread to get everyone's input on a subject turns into a debate based on the comments or opinions within. it's sad really to watch members turn on one another based on simple non aggressive informative comments.

What I find sad is the fact that others who decide to get involved know the misinformation being posted about XP to say Vista is better and ignore it. Then want to criticize the person who points it out (in a off hand kind of way)! I also run both and found no compelling reason to use Vista, it offers nothing over XP that I cannot do on XP. As I've posted before, there are plenty of reviews that clearly inform you of were Vista stands with XP.

ewitte

11-25-2007, 07:57 AM

Look at this threads title..we talk about performance...not "feeling"

Thats a part of performance which IMO is better than any benchmark. If you want to talk benchmarks look at PCMark scores math operations and half of the newer games. There are plenty of them that are slightly faster. Newer stuff because things are way different than they were even 4 months ago.

Clint

11-25-2007, 08:02 AM

Thats a part of performance which IMO is better than any benchmark. If you want to talk benchmarks look at PCMark scores math operations and half of the newer games. There are plenty of them that are slightly faster.

So you are saying that your feeling that Vista feels "smoother" is better than a real benchmark :rofl:

Show me the benchmarks where Vista does better than XP...and please stay away from the MS apps ones...ok?

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 08:03 AM

LMAO. So I'm not being honest because I don't "like" the response of XP with visuals on but it doesn't bother me with vista? Whatever.

:shakes: Another mis-stepping post. You are being dishonest because you stated:

With XP I turned off visuals ever time I did an install because it slowed the OS down too much.

Which I know is not true unless you have a very low end system or something is screwy with your installed copy of XP

But then you stated:

I'm talking about my system with a 8800GTX and not benchmarks, but general usage. I'd turn turn it off in vista too if I were going for the highest 3dmark score.

What I said was simple, if visuals caused a problem I would have experienced it as well. With applications like 3d06 which does tax your system it would have been a difference between visuals enabled vs disabled. Therefore, with the system specs you provided so far you come off as being dishonest. :up:

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 08:06 AM

So you are saying that your feeling that Vista feels "smoother" is better than a real benchmark :rofl:

Show me the benchmarks where Vista does better than XP...and please stay away from the MS apps ones...ok?

See what I am dealing with here? If you notice, most of their posts appear based on just that, feelings!

ewitte

11-25-2007, 08:07 AM

:shakes: Another mis-stepping post. You are being dishonest because you stated:

Which I know is not true unless you have a very low end system or something is screwy with your installed copy of XP

No I have a low tolerance for latencies. Even modern computers bother me with XP visuals. Nothing dishonest there at all... your just drawing conclusions because you "feel" modern computers run XP visuals decently. I don't feel the same way.

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 08:08 AM

No I have a low tolerance for latencies. Even modern computers bother me with XP visuals. Nothing dishonest there at all... your just drawing conclusions because you "feel" modern computers run XP visuals decently. I don't feel the same way.

Actually my response to you is logical. What you experience in XP must be experienced in Vista bottom line.
If it isn't then there are other factors that come into play why you experienced those problems. Some examples are bad install of XP, corrupt registry, etc! :yepp:

ewitte

11-25-2007, 08:08 AM

See what I am dealing with here? If you notice, most of their posts appear based on just that, feelings!

Yours are based on "feelings" just as much as anyone else. You "feel" xp visuals run fine on higher end computers. I don't "feel" the same way. It bothers me period. Last I checked XP GUI was CPU based. Whats to not understand that a hardware based solution can be more enjoyable/responsive?

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 08:11 AM

Yours are based on "feelings" just as much as anyone else. You "feel" xp visuals run fine on higher end computers. I don't "feel" the same way. It bothers me period.

That's incorrect as I posted that I ran 3d06 with visuals enabled and disabled and found no difference. :yepp:

I've even tried disabling all the visuals for XP and obtain the same 3d06 score.

ewitte

11-25-2007, 08:12 AM

That's incorrect as I posted that I ran 3d06 with visuals enabled and disabled and found no difference. :yepp:

Lol. whatever. I'll keep that in mind when I no longer use my computer and just want to run benchmarks all day.

[XC] leviathan18

11-25-2007, 08:40 AM

with 800$ you can buy a pretty decent machine

with a core 2 duo 2gb of ram ddr2 800mhz 8400gs video card and pcpc 750w psu a lian li case and 250gb hdd with that kind of pc you can run vista perfectly fine been there done that...

Clint

11-25-2007, 08:51 AM

leviathan18;2580856']with 800$ you can buy a pretty decent machine

with a core 2 duo 2gb of ram ddr2 800mhz 8400gs video card and pcpc 750w psu a lian li case and 250gb hdd with that kind of pc you can run vista perfectly fine been there done that...

Yeeeees, and XP will still give better performance....:)

Hornet331

11-25-2007, 08:57 AM

Since it's obvious you cannot offer any informative rebuttal it's clear that all your can do now is try to save face. My post directly addresses your post, if you are not sure of what or why start by reading your post first then read mine. It should be more clearer for you. :yepp:
Having said that, Win2k was often used for home PCs and part of the proof was showing you the number of games that support win2k. Again, you really don't know what you are talking about.:shakes:

Also your attempt to deflect the issue that some compared win98 to XP has completely failed :rofl: . The truth was and still is win2k vs XP.

to settel this with facts:

http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P2719

end of 04 there where still 21% of people using win95/98/me and more then 65% where using xp at the same time only 14-15% where using win2k...

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpdt=1&qpct=4&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=70&qpnp=12

now tell me again that win2k was the most used os when winxp was introduced.

Eastcoasthandle

11-25-2007, 08:59 AM

to settel this with facts:

http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P2719

end of 04 there where still 21% of people using win95/98/me and more then 65% where using xp at the same time only 14-15% where using win2k...

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5&qpdt=1&qpct=4&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=70&qpnp=12

now tell me again that win2k was the most used os when winxp was introduced.

:shakes: The 1st link has no source, therefore 21% of what? What are they reporting as used by the other 78%? It doesn't say because the source is no longer available. The second link shows no comparison between win98 and win2k so this post is a bit misleading. FYI, win2k was released Feb 17, 2000 and has 4 versions Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server.

Win2k wins Windows 2000 Professional Wins Popular Mechanics' "Design & Engineering Award" (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/01-17windows2000award.mspx)

DoubleZero

11-25-2007, 11:09 AM

Yeeeees, and XP will still give better performance....:)
And windows 3.1 will give even better performance, i'm sorry but you're a dumbass.

I've been using Vista since day one, i have XP dual booting, and everytime i boot XP it feels like a downgrade.

And yes sp1 makes vista a lot more responsive, i don't care what a stupid blog says, i care about what i experience. I'm 100% sure everyone who have used Sp1 for some time and then install vista without sp1 will notice the diference.

Clint

11-25-2007, 11:42 AM

And windows 3.1 will give even better performance, i'm sorry but you're a dumbass.

I've been using Vista since day one, i have XP dual booting, and everytime i boot XP it feels like a downgrade.

And yes sp1 makes vista a lot more responsive, i don't care what a stupid blog says, i care about what i experience. I'm 100% sure everyone who have used Sp1 for some time and then install vista without sp1 will notice the diference.

Ohh, this is sooo amusing...these Vista people that can't come with any fact or numbers what so ever but only with rants and "feeling" that it's faster.:rofl:
It's really amazing how some swooshy transparent windows can trick ppl to believe it's "smoother" than XP, don't you realize that it's the blinkin status icons and the swishyswoshy windows that you sit and glare at that keeps you from actually reflecting over delays and small hickups when copy and moving around....?

Oh well, I'm off this thread anyway...have fun.:D

SNiiPE_DoGG

11-25-2007, 01:12 PM

Hornet331

11-25-2007, 02:03 PM

:shakes: The 1st link has no source, therefore 21% of what? What are they reporting as used by the other 78%? It doesn't say because the source is no longer available. The second link shows no comparison between win98 and win2k so this post is a bit misleading. FYI, win2k was released Feb 17, 2000 and has 4 versions Professional, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server.

Win2k wins Windows 2000 Professional Wins Popular Mechanics' "Design & Engineering Award" (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2000/01-17windows2000award.mspx)

IDC is no source? :confused: :rofl:

oh but sorry i dont have $3,5k to shell out just that you are satisfied. :rofl:

also nice that win2k has won an pm award, what has this todo with marketshare?

aiya_au

11-25-2007, 03:59 PM

Ohh, this is sooo amusing...these Vista people that can't come with any fact or numbers what so ever but only with rants and "feeling" that it's faster.:rofl:
It's really amazing how some swooshy transparent windows can trick ppl to believe it's "smoother" than XP, don't you realize that it's the blinkin status icons and the swishyswoshy windows that you sit and glare at that keeps you from actually reflecting over delays and small hickups when copy and moving around....?

Oh well, I'm off this thread anyway...have fun.:D

maybe you should install vista and experience it for yourself. you seem to be very anti-vista probably due to the scare article from Peter Gutmann which was written before vista had even come out, and updated over time. It seems to have biased your opinion.

you dont need 'facts' to notice how much faster vista is. in my own experience, thanks to super fetch, the time between vista booting and being able to use it is substantially faster than xp. xp thrashes the hard drive for a good 30secs+ during startup before i can even use it. and yes, its a lot more stable as someone else has pointed out, it hardly crashes and BSOD's. If by faster you mean fps in games, vista is slowly catching up to XP. i'm confident that by this time next year, vista will be on par if not faster than xp by a small margin. (vista is already within %2 performance difference compared to XP, and sometimes BEATING xp like the 8800GTS in the FEAR (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096947,00.asp) benchmark)

no one here is trying to convert you to vista, if XP does everything you need then i'm happy for you. but saying things like vista will NEVER be faster than xp is just hyprocritical, where are your facts to back that statement up?

edit: typo

[XC] leviathan18

11-25-2007, 04:12 PM

XP is damn old vista is brand new and still is just as fast give vista 6 years and you will see it will be faster than xp and in 6 years for sure all of you will have this same discussion about the new win OS

xenolith

11-25-2007, 04:15 PM

Vista will never ever be as fast as XP...period.

They are both based on the same NT tech, and same file system.

The difference between them is the DRM related trailer (with locked wheels)Vista has to pull with it...

Read up on the driver polling Vista has to go through every 30ms...there you have the performance difference...and this is what you'll have to pay for those swooshy windows and DX10.

It's actually kinda sad to see that 99% of the users of Vista can't realize that fact...and please don't come with "Vista feels much more fast and stable"...that is just stupid without any data backup.

Again, Vista will never be as fast as XP is today...but with the SP3 for XP we might very well see a performance drop in XP instead...again DRM related.

Complete FUD. The myth of "tilt-bits": (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299&page=5)

Wow, polling the underlying hardware every 30 ms? What a taxing demand on a modern PC! That’s more than 30 separate instructions operations that have to be processed every single second! That will impose a tremendous drag on performance, won’t it?

Oh. Wait. I just looked it up. An entry-level dual-core CPU running at 2.0 GHz or higher (the target for most video playback applications) can typically process a minimum of 14 billion instructions per second. A quad-core Intel Core 2 Extreme CPU (which is expensive today but will be an entry-level part in two years) can deal with nearly 60 billion instructions per second. Even a four-year-old Pentium 4 can handle around 10 billion instructions per second. Even an additional 30 million instructions per second (allowing for one million instructions per operation) would only affect a tiny fraction (well under 1%) of the CPU’s processing power.

And Gutmann’s examples assume that this polling happens all the time, as soon as you turn on a Windows PC. That’s ridiculous. The only time this activity occurs is if you’re playing back premium content using a software player that exercises this feature. If you choose not to play back premium content, you’ll never be affected. - Ed Bott, Microsoft Report, ZDNet

Rilla927

11-25-2007, 09:05 PM

i would just like chime in here and say that when i ran xp my system crashed A LOT, now that i switched to vista, it never crashes, ever. maybe I'm an anomaly, but its the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I second that;)

Aiya_au
maybe you should install vista and experience it for yourself. you seem to be very anti-vista probably due to the scare article from Peter Gutmann which was written before vista had even come out, and updated over time. It seems to have biased your opinion.

you dont need 'facts' to notice how much faster vista is. in my own experience, thanks to super fetch, the time between vista booting and being able to use it is substantially faster than xp. xp thrashes the hard drive for a good 30secs+ during startup before i can even use it. and yes, its a lot more stable as someone else has pointed out, it hardly crashes and BSOD's. If by faster you mean fps in games, vista is slowly catching up to XP. i'm confident that by this time next year, vista will be on par if not faster than xp by a small margin. (vista is already within %2 performance difference compared to XP, and sometimes BEATING xp like the 8800GTS in the FEAR benchmark)

no one here is trying to convert you to vista, if XP does everything you need then i'm happy for you. but saying things like vista will NEVER be faster than xp is just hyprocritical, where are your facts to back that statement up?

I agree with everything that you have said, I have seen it for my self.

Vista will surpass XP eventually in the ways it hasn't already, but don't forget it's new XP isn't. I don't really understand all the bickering between the two. We have likes and dis-likes, so what is the big deal? Use what makes you happy!

On my machine Vista boots up faster than XP ever will and I never thought that could be possible, but it's fact. I'm not a OC'er yet but my machine runs beautifully with Vista, never had a BSOD. I just had one earlier in XP today do to a USB driver with the external. Vista is a lot nicer to look at while your on your computer for hours on end. When I went back to XP it was boring to me.

I even installed Vista on my old AMD and it still booted faster than XP. That blew my mind.

[quote]leviathan18
XP is damn old vista is brand new and still is just as fast give vista 6 years and you will see it will be faster than xp and in 6 years for sure all of you will have this same discussion about the new win OS[quote]

You got that right, ah ha;)

Clint

11-25-2007, 09:52 PM

JumpingJack

11-25-2007, 10:08 PM

The only complaint i have of vista is the poor copy performance, other than that its awsome, vista 64 runs smooth.

No kiddin' here.... what's funny I was on vacation recently and ran out of laptop drive space for photos, so I decided to simply USB them over to my iPod.

It is faster copying iPod to hard drive than it is copying hard drive to hard drive in Vista...

I have searched and searched for a solution, but nothing works. Bugger me.

FischOderAal

11-26-2007, 06:56 AM

damn. why does every single thread about Vista and XP turn out to be Vista vs XP. it's like Intel vs AMD that just sucks.

I don't feel like Vista is slower than XP, but overall Vista has been disappointing. it still looks and feels like it's XP with a candy GUI and that's all of it. no innovation, no interesting new things that improve the work flow :( if Linux wouldn't be too complicated for me and OS-X be able to run on any PC (and the games would run on OS-X) I wouldn't be using Vista any more. but who knows if OS-X would be any better if it had to work on any machine?

last Windows I was really satisfied with was Windows 2k. and XP looked and felt just like 2k with a new GUI. I really wonder what Microsoft has been doing all the years.

€: but I have to admit, Vista is really stable and hasn't even crashed once. but there were other little annoyances (like the Sidebar producing 100% load).

MikeB12

11-26-2007, 07:08 AM

I really wonder what Microsoft has been doing all the years.

ROFL!

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/bill_gates/index.html?inline=nyt-per

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/24/timestopics/gates.topic190.jpg
Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft and the world's wealthiest man, is heading toward his new role as a full-time philanthropist. By mid-2008, Mr. Gates will walk away from his day-to-day duties at Microsoft and shift his energies to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

btw: I agree on why certain topics take on a bad vibe. wasn't so long ago linux and MS users went to battling each other, now the MS crowd has turned on each other and have a civil war going. blue vs grey -north vs south all over again.

Eastcoasthandle

11-26-2007, 07:49 AM

Ok ok ok, I will leave this topic for real now...only saying this:

Let's do that comparison in a year then, between a "mature" Vista and XP SP2 as it is today...and then we can compare...ok?

Peace!:)
Here is something you will find interesting
link
(http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2&qpmr=15&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=Y)
All this arguing and Vista only commands a whopping 4.17% of the market!
Windows 2k holds 4.09%
XP holds 81.95% of the market

So, if this information is accurate Vista recently beat windows 2000 only by .08%. :shakes:

Cnet's terrible tech products...guess who made the list (http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49293700-10,00.htm) :shakes:

xenolith

11-26-2007, 10:34 AM

Here is something you will find interesting
link
(http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2&qpmr=15&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=Y)
All this arguing and Vista only commands a whopping 4.17% of the market!
Windows 2k holds 4.09%
XP holds 81.95% of the market

So, if this information is accurate Vista recently beat windows 2000 only by .08%. :shakes:

Is it any wonder given so many media outlets, blogs, and all the sheeple that have safely sat back and said "Vista sucks" or "Vista is loaded evil DRM" or for some other unchallenged ideologically driven FUD? If you were Joe Sixpack today, you too would swear Vista was a total disaster. (i.e. Dell had to roll-back to XP due to the flood of customer requests.)

NapalmV5

11-26-2007, 03:33 PM

no matter what what anyone says^.. ms is the one making the billions :rofl:

Shintai

11-26-2007, 03:36 PM

Here is something you will find interesting
link
(http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2&qpmr=15&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=Y)
All this arguing and Vista only commands a whopping 4.17% of the market!
Windows 2k holds 4.09%
XP holds 81.95% of the market

So, if this information is accurate Vista recently beat windows 2000 only by .08%. :shakes:

Try check XPs market share after a year. Its the same dull story we have to hear from people each year. In 3-5 years you sit again and say who wants Windows Seven..it doesnt sell and my Vista rocks compared to Windows Sevens memory hog.

We heard the same story since the early windows.
Rise and repeat...

It also depends where you look and who you trust in these surveys.

Windows Version Market share
All versions 92.63%
Windows XP 79.07%
Windows Vista 7.91%
Windows 2000 3.16%
Windows 98 0.82%
Windows NT 0.61%
Windows ME 0.46%
Windows CE 0.06%

[XC] leviathan18

11-26-2007, 05:00 PM

Try check XPs market share after a year. Its the same dull story we have to hear from people each year. In 3-5 years you sit again and say who wants Windows Seven..it doesnt sell and my Vista rocks compared to Windows Sevens memory hog.

We heard the same story since the early windows.
Rise and repeat...

It also depends where you look and who you trust in these surveys.

Windows Version Market share
All versions 92.63%
Windows XP 79.07%
Windows Vista 7.91%
Windows 2000 3.16%
Windows 98 0.82%
Windows NT 0.61%
Windows ME 0.46%
Windows CE 0.06%

exactly my point i remember all this rage in the XP era everyone was saying XP sux you need a monster machine to run bla bla bla i will use win98 all my life etc and now everyone stands by XP in 2 years we will see everyone using vista and in 5 no one wants to change to win 7

FischOderAal

11-27-2007, 02:02 AM

leviathan18;2584145']exactly my point i remember all this rage in the XP era everyone was saying XP sux you need a monster machine to run bla bla bla i will use win98 all my life etc and now everyone stands by XP in 2 years we will see everyone using vista and in 5 no one wants to change to win 7

qft. ppl will always be like that :shakes: I don't understand ppl who complain about requirements of games, too. in one year time (or a bit later) most will have enough power to play for instance Crysis on highest details. but all you hear is "whaawaaaa *cry* crysis sucks I can't play it on high with my 7900GT"... :down:

a bit puzzling, as I always thought germans were the only ones who like to complain about everything.

NickS

11-27-2007, 04:12 AM

qft. ppl will always be like that :shakes: I don't understand ppl who complain about requirements of games, too. in one year time (or a bit later) most will have enough power to play for instance Crysis on highest details. but all you hear is "whaawaaaa *cry* crysis sucks I can't play it on high with my 7900GT... :down:

+1 :up:

fart_plume

11-27-2007, 06:02 AM

I just saw this on cnet an actual performance comparison done in a lab.

Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmarking test
In a recent test, XP with the beta Service Pack 3 performed two times faster than Vista with the beta Service Pack 1.
By Suzanne Tindal
Special to CNET News.com

Published: November 27, 2007, 5:13 AM PST

New tests have revealed that XP with the beta Service Pack 3 has twice the performance of Vista, even with its long-awaited Service Pack 1.

Vista's first service pack, to be released early next year, is intended to boost the operating system's performance. However, when Vista with the Service Pack 1 (SP1) beta was put through benchmark testing by researchers at Florida-based software-development company Devil Mountain Software, the improvement was not overwhelming, leaving the latest Windows iteration outshined by its predecessor.

Vista, both with and without SP1, performed over two times slower than XP with SP3 in the test, taking over 80 seconds to complete the test, compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP's 35 seconds.

Vista's performance with the service pack increased less than 2 percent compared to performance without SP1--much lower than XP's SP3 improvement of 10 percent. The tests, run on a Dell XPS M1710 test bed with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 1GB of RAM, put Microsoft Office 2007 through a set of productivity tasks, including creating a compound document and supporting workbooks and presentation materials.

In response to the test, a Microsoft spokesperson said in a statement that although the company understood the interest in the service packs, they are "still in development" and will continue to evolve before their release. "It has always been our goal to deliver service packs that meet the full spectrum of customer needs," the spokesperson said.

If SP1 does not evolve sufficiently, it could be another setback for Vista, with many businesses waiting to adopt the operating system until the service pack is released.

A year after its launch, only 13 percent of businesses have adopted Vista, according to a survey of IT professionals.

Microsoft admits that the launch has not gone as well as the company would have liked. "Frankly, the world wasn't 100 percent ready for Windows Vista," corporate vice president Mike Sievert said in a recent interview at Microsoft's partner conference in Denver.

Microsoft has not done enough to make users aware of the benefits of Vista, NPD analyst Chris Swenson said at the conference. "The problem is that there are a lot of complex new features in Vista, and you need to educate consumers about them... Much like Apple educating the masses about the possibilities of the iPhone or focusing on a single feature or benefit of the Mac OS in the Mac-versus-PC commercials. Microsoft should be educating the masses about the various new features in a heavy rotation of Vista in TV, radio, and print ads. But the volume of ads (for Vista) has paled in comparison to the ads run for XP."

XP has proved to be more popular than its younger sibling, with the first six months of U.S. retail sales of box copies of Vista 59.7 percent below those of XP's in the equivalent period after its release.

Microsoft has had to allow PC manufacturers to continue to sell XP on new PCs, setting a deadline for the last sale at January 31. However, the pressure from manufacturers and consumers has been so great that Microsoft has been forced to extend the deadline another five months, until June.

According to Microsoft, sales of Vista have been picking up, with the software giant reporting 88 million units sold.

NapalmV5

11-27-2007, 06:32 AM

^XP For The Win!!! :ROTF: again and again

:shrug:

oh, and its not so much about the increased requirements, people have upgraded their pc for vista yet it still disapoints

i'd gladly do 8GB @ 64-bit vista but whats the point when 2GB 32-bit XP spanks the blood out of it

unfortunately for 64-bit, most progs/apps/games are run @ 32-bit

gallardo

11-27-2007, 10:34 AM

The tests were done with a computer that has 1GB of RAM. I wonder how big that gap would be with a computer with 2GB or 4GB. ;)

Rilla927

12-08-2007, 03:30 AM

He, he

Now this is really impressed me. I have been having some issues with incompatible driver(s) in Vista Ultimate and there is a feature called "Problem Reports and Solutions" and I clicked on it and it told me exactly what the problem (my Chipset was wrong) was and gave a link to d/l a new file so I d/l it and I compared it to the file I installed and it had some missing files.

I got the original file from the mobo manufacturer (Gigabyte).

That's a smart OS.

KiD0M4N

12-08-2007, 03:40 AM

The tests were done with a computer that has 1GB of RAM. I wonder how big that gap would be with a computer with 2GB or 4GB. ;)

+1

Why do the test on a machine with 1GB of ram? How many here have 1GB of ram? I guess not many. Do the same set of tests on a 4GB ram machine and then we are talking :P I bet the difference wont be that much :P

Clint

12-08-2007, 07:34 AM

I just saw this on cnet an actual performance comparison done in a lab.

Is it only me that can see what is going on..?

Faster in MS office, so what?

They (MS) already have those swiishy swooshy liking ppl in the bag, you know those that are screaming like the kids in the sandbox when you dissing their new shiny and blingy toy...yes, ppl here that says "Vista feels faster, and more stable" and gets ridiculously emotional about it:rolleyes:

Theese "benches" is only to convince the users that refuse to go over to the "other side" just because it only gives them worse performance.

So what do they do?
..they tweak things to look faster in....MS apps..., and then throw out the reviews.

It cannot be faster, period. (why?, read previous posts)

..bah.

Eastcoasthandle

12-08-2007, 08:10 AM

Here is yet another article:
What Went Wrong with Windows Vista? (http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/what_went_wrong_with_windows_vista.html)

1. The Windows XP ecosystem.
2. The "good enough" problem.
3. Complexity is a killer.
4. Bad timing.
5. Design by committee.
6. The ecosystem wasn't ready.
7. WOW went away.
8. Office 2007 missing link
9. DOJ and the EU
10. Too many versions.

NickS

12-08-2007, 08:20 AM

Is it only me that can see what is going on..?

Faster in MS office, so what?

They (MS) already have those swiishy swooshy liking ppl in the bag, you know those that are screaming like the kids in the sandbox when you dissing their new shiny and blingy toy...yes, ppl here that says "Vista feels faster, and more stable" and gets ridiculously emotional about it:rolleyes:

Theese "benches" is only to convince the users that refuse to go over to the "other side" just because it only gives them worse performance.

So what do they do?
..they tweak things to look faster in....MS apps..., and then throw out the reviews.

It cannot be faster, period. (why?, read previous posts)

..bah.

Actually in a lot of games Vista is faster. Consistently with my own testing I averaged about 6-9fps faster in Vista (32 and 64) in CS:S stress test than I did in XP Home 32.

flopper

12-08-2007, 08:35 AM

I use word from time to time to write a letter now and then, thats about it.
I havent found any difference in speed regarding xp and Vista in that regard yet.
That is how stupid that test is since it can not cover all users use of computers and OS.
Its not even scientific enough to qualify a worthy note.

Proving what is faster is due to syntetic applications, I see for example a lot of praise goes to overclockers who has the world fastest machine on the planet, I will beat those fastest machines running 24/7 over a lenghty time since their chips either will fail, they run out of Ln2 to feed it due to a need to sleep.
My machine then is the fastest macine on Earth due to having the ability to sustain itself over a lengthy time. WooHoo in Homers word.

Then to dismiss how people "feel" a OS is behaving is to quantify peoples subjective experience not being acurate enough to be able to judge if an OS is faster to them.
I see a lot of people saying, you know people cant see the difference in fps from 60 to 100 or even 500, since the eye cant do that. I guess combat pilots would disagree.

Prefetching doing my work in the background over a few weeks will have programs preloaded in my ram, now Vista is not even faster its as fast as my ram can feed my fingers pressing my keyboard, now XP is NOT even close, anymore.
XP then sucks badly.:rofl:

Sp then I just proved that Vista is superior to Xp. Its as simple as that.
Juding by my feelings and use of Vista I feel superiour by having the fastest machine on Earth 24/7 that not Kingpin, Hipro5 or the other so called masters of overclocking would be crying to have.

If I throw the bomb into the electrical current after I run my tests and then someone else tries to run without power, my machine will beat anyones with such a visual graphical superiority.

I now can go and gloat my being superior and superiority for a long time and drinking my coffe.
Your all :welcome:

Test like that are such foolish attempt to stop progress.
Its one thing Apple got right about human beings, we want something new and shiny, and the design and applets has to keep up with demand, which is another reason mobile phones more become a gadget and visual look and not so much about using them to call people.

My coffe taste great btw.:up:

Oh I am writing this using Vista.:yepp:
Listening to an mp3 which never glitch on me when loading programs, no sudden loosing of sound due to Vista being able to set aside some special mojo for my mp3 playing.

Vista Rules.
What was that?
Did you use XP and just got a BSOD?
Strange never get those using Vista.
:soap:

Have a great weekend!

Clint

12-08-2007, 08:43 AM

Actually in a lot of games Vista is faster. Consistently with my own testing I averaged about 6-9fps faster in Vista (32 and 64) in CS:S stress test than I did in XP Home 32.

I find that very hard to believe..."a lot of games" ..is wich games exactly?

And this is a comparison with same hardware config I assume?

NickS

12-08-2007, 09:35 AM

I find that very hard to believe..."a lot of games" ..is wich games exactly?

And this is a comparison with same hardware config I assume?

Obviously :rolleyes: The config was basically my second rig (as my main rig) with a Biostar TF560 A2+, 2GB of Tracer 1000's, and a 2900 XT

Clint

12-08-2007, 09:43 AM

Obviously :rolleyes: The config was basically my second rig (as my main rig) with a Biostar TF560 A2+, 2GB of Tracer 1000's, and a 2900 XT

Care to share which games you are referring to when you say "a lot of games"?

skynet666

12-08-2007, 10:18 AM

Truckchase!

12-08-2007, 10:40 AM

Clint

12-08-2007, 12:15 PM

Xp fanboys need to realise vista is the future. Its just a natural progression, I either hear, get confronted, asked or see someone complaining about vista every day, and is sooooooooooooooo sick of it. Sure vista is going to slow you down if you dont know how to tune it properly, and have 60 running processes on startup, but if you know what your doing vista should almost always be snappier than xp, even though it may lose the occasional benchy. Even on my slow laptop - amd turion 1.6ghz, 512mb ram, iv got vista running faster on it than xp ever did.

I know very well how to tune any NT based OS, may it be XP or Vista...it's basically the same...Vista will never get faster than what XP SP2 is today, period.

Your laptop aint faster with Vista, you only think it is bacause you are focusing on the animations and transparent windows and whatnot while waiting for things to get executed....sorry pal, but that's the way it is.

This is so typical Vista boys, you weigh your experience and opinion wich you label as "snappier", against multiple benchmarks that actually are real number based on real tests...

Emotions based on "feelings of snappiness" contra real facts based of real benches and games...the typical scenario when discussing with these ppl :rolleyes:

Truckchase!

12-08-2007, 02:27 PM

Did anyone get the new RC SP1 release? I'd like to get my hands on it to do some performance testing this weekend. My Microsoft connect account is locked because (get this) they are having "problems" sending to my e-mail address.

My registered connect e-mail is a hotmail account.

:rofl:

Nevermind that request... Found this:

http://blog.sebastianfoss.com/2007/12/06/guide-to-upgrade-or-install-windows-vista-sp1-rc-1-build-600117052-v668-online/

I'm installing now and will report on gaming performance changes. (if any)

NJDevilsFan21

12-08-2007, 03:02 PM

I know very well how to tune any NT based OS, may it be XP or Vista...it's basically the same...Vista will never get faster than what XP SP2 is today, period.

Your laptop aint faster with Vista, you only think it is bacause you are focusing on the animations and transparent windows and whatnot while waiting for things to get executed....sorry pal, but that's the way it is.

This is so typical Vista boys, you weigh your experience and opinion wich you label as "snappier", against multiple benchmarks that actually are real number based on real tests...

Emotions based on "feelings of snappiness" contra real facts based of real benches and games...the typical scenario when discussing with these ppl :rolleyes:

I'm not feeling the performance hit using Vista x64 as opposed to XP32 at all. Except in Crysis, where it definitely feels slower than XP32.

Vista x64 actually boots faster than XP32, and Vista has to load up 55-60 processes at startup, where my XP32 is loading up 27-28. So I'm actually very impressed at the way Vista boots first of all. I was so impressed, I didn't bother doing much tweaking to my startup like I did with XP32 where I disabled like 75% of the services.

I used to be against Vista, very much. But now that I've used it, I actually enjoy using it more than XP32.

And here's a real bench - if I can't feel the performance hit (or if it actually feels faster regardless of weather it's a placebo effect or not), I'll gladly take the new pretty animations and extra little features that Vista offers. :)

halo112358

12-08-2007, 03:59 PM

Xp fanboys need to realise vista is the future. Its just a natural progression, I either hear, get confronted, asked or see someone complaining about vista every day, and is sooooooooooooooo sick of it. Sure vista is going to slow you down if you dont know how to tune it properly, and have 60 running processes on startup, but if you know what your doing vista should almost always be snappier than xp, even though it may lose the occasional benchy. Even on my slow laptop - amd turion 1.6ghz, 512mb ram, iv got vista running faster on it than xp ever did.

I lol'd - every vista machine that I've seen at home (girlfriend's new laptop, couldn't buy with XP because it was EOL'd) or at work (bosses's new desktop, laptop - again, can't get XP because it's EOL'd for new machines) have random driver problems and other OS stability problems. For every 1 problem I see with an XP machine (and I have about 30 of them at the office) there are 50 problems with the vista machines.

Now I don't know about you, but when I buy an OS for a business I expect my hardware and software to work correctly out of the box - not to spend months "tuning."

NickS

12-08-2007, 04:04 PM

I lol'd - every vista machine that I've seen at home (girlfriend's new laptop, couldn't buy with XP because it was EOL'd) or at work (bosses's new desktop, laptop - again, can't get XP because it's EOL'd for new machines) have random driver problems and other OS stability problems. For every 1 problem I see with an XP machine (and I have about 30 of them at the office) there are 50 problems with the vista machines.

Now I don't know about you, but when I buy an OS for a business I expect my hardware and software to work correctly out of the box - not to spend months "tuning."

Are all those Vista installs the Factory installed ones w/tons of bloatware and old drivers by any chance?

Zytek_Fan

12-08-2007, 04:15 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yYIfyDENTIY
Great explanation.

BTW, the BSOD at the end isn't actually a BSOD. It's a screensaver :rofl:

skynet666

12-08-2007, 04:56 PM

I know very well how to tune any NT based OS, may it be XP or Vista...it's basically the same...Vista will never get faster than what XP SP2 is today, period.

Your laptop aint faster with Vista, you only think it is bacause you are focusing on the animations and transparent windows and whatnot while waiting for things to get executed....sorry pal, but that's the way it is.

This is so typical Vista boys, you weigh your experience and opinion wich you label as "snappier", against multiple benchmarks that actually are real number based on real tests...

Emotions based on "feelings of snappiness" contra real facts based of real benches and games...the typical scenario when discussing with these ppl :rolleyes:

No, im saying my laptop is faster, because is it faster!
It opens up my programs faster, boots faster. gaming performance is similar, as is encoding. Sure, granted vista will lose every time in super pi or 3dmark slightly when compared to xp running 13 processes, but who really cares? what does super pi mean when it comes to general pc usage? Is it so when you go to your lan partys you can feel like the big man because you can run it .3 seconds faster than someone using vista? btw, tighten those timings :rofl:

halo112358

12-08-2007, 05:03 PM

Are all those Vista installs the Factory installed ones w/tons of bloatware and old drivers by any chance?

Nope, I stripped all of the bloatware and updated all of the drivers. I've only been administering machines for 15 years, if I failed to do that I'd have to go find a bridge to jump off of :D

Honestly, it's an alright OS, the problem is that it's not mature yet. There are inherent flaws (read: bugs) and there are a whole stack of immature drivers, that means that the overall quality and reliability is still low. This is the same reason most businesses aren't rolling the new OS out unless they're forced to somehow.

STaRGaZeR

12-08-2007, 05:03 PM

Zytek_Fan

12-08-2007, 05:18 PM

When will ppl realize that is impossible to convice each other? If you use Vista and actually you like it, good for you. Let XP users away. And the same goes to XP users.

BTW, Zytek great avatar :lol:

It was time to move onto Gundam 00 :up:
Now if somebody would post all the episodes on MySpace again (someone was, but they were taken down :( )

Dynames > Exia :D

edit: Or did you see my Gilliam avatar when you posted that?

b1lk1

12-08-2007, 06:10 PM

3 completely different machines running Vista 64 here. No issues at all. THe only driver problem ever was my older Logitech web cam being unuseable. Luckily, I never used it anyways......

Circaflex

12-08-2007, 06:23 PM