backtop


Print 213 comment(s) - last by fabarati.. on Nov 22 at 6:08 PM


InfoWorld claims early Windows 7 benchmarking show it to be virtually identical to Windows Vista in terms of bloat and to have several noticeable compatibility hang-ups.  (Source: New Line Cinema)
If early testing holds true, so much for running Windows 7 reliably on a netbook

One key Windows 7 feature driven home again and again by Microsoft's Windows team is the superior system performance with respect to Vista.  The team, at the recent Professional Developers Conference (PDC), showed off a netbook apparently running the OS smoothly, leading many to hope that their prayers of a smaller-footprint Microsoft OS had been answered.

Unfortunately, it seems the rosy picture painted by the development team at the WinHEC and PDC conferences might have been a bit overly optimistic.  InfoWorld has done some extensive early testing on the pre-beta of Windows 7 and the results aren't very impressive in terms of improvement over Vista.

According to InfoWorld, in terms of basic system design, Windows 7 is shaping up to be a OS X like release, in that it is only a minor iteration over Windows Vista, with little change in performance.

Looking first at the kernel, both Vista and Windows 7 M3 (Milestone 3, the other name for the pre-beta) featured 97 to 100 processes.  The system process also consumes a similar amount of memory to Vista, according to the writer.  He states, "This was not "MinWin," the mythical, streamlined new Windows kernel that promised a clean break with the bloated Vista... In fact, as I worked my way through the process lists of the two operating systems, I was struck by the extent of the similarities."

He continues to reinforce this assertion by pointing to key subsystems such as Desktop Window Manager (dwm) and Client/Server Runtime (csrss), which were virtually identical in Windows Vista and Windows 7.

Using a test suite composed of Clarity Studio's ADO (ActiveX Data Objects), in particular, the MAPI (Messaging Application Programming Interface), and WMP (Windows Media Player) Stress workload objects, InfoWorld set to stress testing the system after examining the kernel.  Windows Vista had been shown in March to be 40 percent slower under load than Windows XP, using this test suite, so how would Windows 7 fare?

The results were that Windows Vista actually beat Windows 7's pre-beta by 5 percent in database tasks, while Windows 7 scraped by with a 2 percent win in workflow tasks.

The memory usage during testing was remarkably similar -- 637MB for Vista and 658MB for Windows 7.  The thread count was also very close -- 712 for Windows 7 versus 810 for Vista.  InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy sums up his conclusions, stating, "In a nutshell, Windows 7 M3 is a virtual twin of Vista when it comes to performance. The few minor variations I observed during comparative testing are easily explained away by slight tweaks to the kernel (such as the aforementioned MDAC changes); they certainly don't indicate a significant performance overhaul."

The reviewer praised the updated UI, stating it was far more than an OS X clone.  He argues this is the key feature of the new version of Windows, not improved performance.

However, he also points out numerous frustrating software compatibility issues that he ran across, which could indicate a repeat of Windows Vista's early problems.  The Daemon Tools suite, an ISO image-mounting utility, installable under Windows XP and Vista, would not install.  When the author tried to use the compatibility tab, he found himself stuck in an "endless loop of failed installations and mandatory reboots".

Additionally, Skype 3.8 would randomly crash with no apparent cause.  Also, VMware Workstation would not launch virtual machines, though the exact cause of this problem was not able to be determined.

So has Microsoft tried to pull a fast one on the audience, preparing a Vista-twin with similar problems to its sibling, while deceptively promising a lean fully-compatible fresh OS?  It remains to be seen if this is the case, as many changes remain in upcoming beta releases.  However, with only a year to go, initial testing is indeed showing a troublesome resemblance to Vista in terms of performance and compatibility problems, a stark departure from the cheery picture painted at Microsoft's PDC.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

How far have we gone...
By Lugaidster on 11/11/2008 10:33:24 AM , Rating: 5
that we already judge software performance from pre-beta releases. If the software was ready then they'd release it now, wouldn't they? People this days just attack windows whenever they have a chance...




RE: How far have we gone...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 10:37:27 AM , Rating: 4
Exactly. Are we supposed to judge programs based on alpha versions now?

This is just one more example of Jason Mick's poor journalism skills. I can picture him scouring the Web to find something new to make an MS-bashing "article".

And anyway, the version running on the netbook at PDC ("PDC build") was NOT the same version that was given to developers (Milestone 3), and will not be the version that is given to the public early next year (Beta 1).


RE: How far have we gone...
By fleshconsumed on 11/11/2008 11:06:02 AM , Rating: 5
The thing is however, Microsoft confirmed Windows 7 release to 2009, only 6-9 months from now. It may be called alpha/beta/bravo/whatever now, but if Microsoft is to stick with 2009 schedule what you see now is pretty much what you will get later. There is just no way to significantly cut down on the bloat with the project this big and still go through full testing/bugfixing cycle. If Microsoft is smart, it will cease feature development 6 months prior to release, meaning 3 months from now, and will do just testing and fixing what's still broken. In the end Windows 7 will be Vista with different taskbar. I hope that Microsoft at least will improve Vista usability and finally fix the damn explorer.


RE: How far have we gone...
By AntDX316 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 11:55:16 AM , Rating: 4
Please do yourself a favor and learn about how computers, OSes, drivers, and applications work.

To address your main concern with Aero taking GPU cycles from games, Aero disables itself when you are running a full-screen DirectX application.

Vista's game performance is at least on par with XP and in some cases faster. There was a time period after Vista's release where ATi's and nVidia's Vista graphics drivers were not performance tuned, and this resulted in slower game performance.

Since MS completely rewrote the graphics driver model for Vista, it took some time for the GPU makers to tune their drivers for optimal performance.


RE: How far have we gone...
By StevoLincolnite on 11/11/2008 1:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately Intel still haven't gotten there act together regarding Vista drivers, it's still got it's performance issues in casual games, which is sad considering Intel sell more Graphics Solutions than nVidia or ATI, and yet they have drivers which are just plain bad, It's not Vista's fault however it's the driver teams.

I mean look at the entire debacle between Creative disabling features on certain sound cards under Vista when they work in XP? And then someone goes to modify and fix the issue and Creative jumps up and down, and then the community jumps up and down and they are forced to apologies!

What a funny world we live in... I just feel some Manufacturers don't care about making good drivers for Vista, probably why the operating system ended up being hit with so much crap. - I just hope we don't have the same issues all over again with Windows 7. (Although I'll be sticking to XP).


RE: How far have we gone...
By BansheeX on 11/11/2008 4:29:05 PM , Rating: 3
I will agree that the driver situation isn't MS's fault. I like the changes they made to directsound, etc.

Unfortunately, I still don't understand why the desktop environment requires so many more resources than XP despite the similar functionality. Maybe MS can find ways to cut down on the amount of background fluff that few people use.


RE: How far have we gone...
By MrPickins on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By BansheeX on 11/12/2008 1:27:48 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, for what, though? Most people really don't care about the sidebar and aero and extra background programs, they just want quickness and battery life. It doesn't affect me much, because I always upgrade my comp and I'm nerdy enough to know how to disable them if I want. But for people with netbooks, or schools with low budgets, or businesses with low budgets, you can't be increasing requirements 4x over XP for these kinds of things. Previous OS changes were major and made improvements like going from 256 to 32-bit colorspace, midi to wav audio. This is entirely different, and I'm considerate enough to understand it.


RE: How far have we gone...
By MrPickins on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By Silver2k7 on 11/16/2008 2:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
"Unfortunately Intel still haven't gotten there act together regarding Vista drivers,"

Everyone knows that intel integrated graphics are weak, if you make plans for gaming on your computer, you buy a standalone video card.


RE: How far have we gone...
By eldakka on 11/12/2008 3:09:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
To address your main concern with Aero taking GPU cycles from games, Aero disables itself when you are running a full-screen DirectX application.


And what if I want to run a game in windowed mode? On an MMO it is likely I will be running multiple simultaneous instances of the client.

Or how about if I want to watch a BluRay movie from my computers player, outputting the video to my TV via HDMI and the sound to my 5.1 home cinema system using SPDIF (either optical or co-ax)? Last I heard this isn't possible, although perhaps that problem has been fixed by now.


RE: How far have we gone...
By theapparition on 11/12/2008 7:37:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or how about if I want to watch a BluRay movie from my computers player, outputting the video to my TV via HDMI and the sound to my 5.1 home cinema system using SPDIF (either optical or co-ax)? Last I heard this isn't possible, although perhaps that problem has been fixed by now.

Don't have a clue what you're talking about. I've been doing this since Vista first came out, and I upgraded my media center from XP MCE.
The only issue I know of was that some had difficulties outputing sound over HDMI, since it required video hardware that would mix sound in, but that was completely irrespective of Vista.
Perhaps it is just your hardware or personal skill that is causing the limitation.


RE: How far have we gone...
By omnicronx on 11/12/2008 10:18:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or how about if I want to watch a BluRay movie from my computers player, outputting the video to my TV via HDMI and the sound to my 5.1 home cinema system using SPDIF (either optical or co-ax)? Last I heard this isn't possible, although perhaps that problem has been fixed by now.
Or perhaps you just don't know what you are doing? Vista works perfectly with HDMI video cards, and it has no problem outputting sound via SPDIF. In fact the audio API in Vista is leaps and bounds ahead of what XP has to offer. It was the one of the changes under the hood that was a night and day comparison. Sound under XP was one of its major flaws of the OS as it ran basically every stream through a DSP, not to mention it wanting to convert everything to 16 bit, but thats another story...


RE: How far have we gone...
By Griswold on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 11:57:39 AM , Rating: 3
MS has stated that Windows 7 will be released in time for OEMs to put it on machines for Christmas 2009.

9 months from now is the beginning of September 2009, plenty of time for OEMs to design and test machines and to get them shipped to retailers.


RE: How far have we gone...
By tastyratz on 11/11/2008 12:41:24 PM , Rating: 1
oh of course, because Microsoft has SUCH a good track record on keeping their release dates.
Sorry I will believe it when I see it.

I am starting to think at this point nobody will be happy with windows 7. It has been so hyped up and pumped up by the media that when its released... it will not meet expectations. The bar is REALLY set high on this one.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 12:48:54 PM , Rating: 2
So far they're a bit ahead of schedule, so I can believe the Christmas 09 release.

Public beta should be available in about two months, so we can see if there is any substance behind the hype.


RE: How far have we gone...
By straycat74 on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By straycat74 on 11/11/2008 5:43:44 PM , Rating: 1
You just can't deal with the fact your guy lost. Get over it. We can finally have a country to be proud of again! My life is going to get so much better now! I can't wait for my first check!


RE: How far have we gone...
By straycat74 on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By straycat74 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By winterspan on 11/11/2008 11:46:08 PM , Rating: 2
So in other words you voted for John McCain of 2000. He definitely had some guy ideas for the country at the time, and was well liked. Then 2006 rolls around and the guy totally lost it pandering to the far right-wing and religious nutcases and went totally off the rocker.

Thank god we had an intelligent, thoughtful, curious, and highly-educated Obama to defeat "McCain 2008" aka the curmudgeon lunatic!


RE: How far have we gone...
By haukionkannel on 11/11/2008 2:53:19 PM , Rating: 4
You are quite right in here. The core is there and as most people has predicted, this is Vista SE, nothing less, nothing more... Not anything bad in that. Ofcource people hope for more, but it's too early to get anything better.
The bugs will be ironed out, or guite many of them, so that is a thing that will be better in next release versions.

Most people who really have looked behind the MS-curtains says that Windows 8 or what ever it's called is the first that can change the things from Vista. We can only hope that it will be released only as an 64bit version. It allows MS to start from more cleaner board. But anyhting about Win8 is just speculations. It can even be more bloated than Vista and Win7 will be, but we can allways hope :-)

I still have somewhat positive feeling about Win7. If it can improve some things that are not so solid in Vista, it will be good upgrade, even though it will not be the "miracle" os that someone hopes for.


RE: How far have we gone...
By VaultDweller on 11/12/2008 7:53:47 AM , Rating: 3
You can't judge performance based on pre-release builds, and that is that. It doesn't matter whether it's a month or a week before the code is locked. Unless it's a beta specifically meant for performance testing, beta builds probably still have instrumentation code enabled that will hurt performance considerably.


RE: How far have we gone...
By dagamer34 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By sbrown23 on 11/11/2008 11:32:01 AM , Rating: 5
So you can't go back and optimize code? It's not possible to rework things to make code run faster? Come on ... it's not that hard.


RE: How far have we gone...
By kelmon on 11/11/2008 11:41:09 AM , Rating: 5
When new betas of the likes of Parallels Desktop or VMWare Fusion are released for the Mac they always come with lots of logging turned on that decreases performance but helps the developers find out what triggered any bugs that the beta tester encounters. It is possible that similar sorts of logging are in place in the Windows 7 beta and that simply disabling them will boost performance.

Basically, it is quite possible for the finished product to be faster (how much is up for debate) but you're going to have to wait for it in order to know. Personally, I don't tend to read too much into betas.


RE: How far have we gone...
By sbrown23 on 11/11/2008 11:29:58 AM , Rating: 5
This is one terrible article based off of another terrible article. Benchmarks of a pre-beta OS. Just brilliant. Geez, I thought Dailytech was better than this.

First, this is pre-beta. Second, it isn't even the newest build. Third, many of the features are specifically turned off in the 6801 build because they were still buggy at the time of that build (given the pre-beta state). The build shown off at PDC (6933) was newer and more stable than the build given to attendees (6801). The build attendees got was several weeks old at the time, per some MS employees at the conference. Apparently it takes time to prepare and dupe several thousand hard drives given out to attendees. It's not a gold release. It's not a release candidate. It's not even beta.

If this was the final release candidate, that'd be one thing. Your not going to make major changes for performance changes at that point. But making snap judgements off a pre-beta build. Lame. I wouldn't make performance judgements this early against any OS, including OS X and Linux distros.


RE: How far have we gone...
By peteh425 on 11/11/2008 3:19:14 PM , Rating: 5
Milestone 3 means "code complete" in MS jargon. It means that no new major feature will be added and no architectural change will be made. So comments on this build about architecture will remains true in the final release. The next year will be used to stabilize the code and address compatibility issues.
In other words, with a Milestone 3 build it is fair to:
- Evaluate the performance: The released product performance will be overall similar to this one.
- Evaluate the Architecture: The architecture won't change a bit
- Evaluate the UI. This should not change.

However, it is unfair and useless to:
- evaluate stability and compatibility, as those will progress significantly over the coming year.
- evaluate non-core components (i.e. drivers...)
- evaluate the setup: A test build might install and run apps and services that will not be ran by default in the release build.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 6:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
On the other hand, it looks like the OS didn't really grow - it's not more bloated (yet). So given that it will be 2.5 years later when 7 gets released, Moore's Law would say that things should be at least incrementally better when 7 comes out than Vista upon release. Combine that with similar driver needs (since this is only an incremental change, and not a complete overhaul), and 7 could work pretty good out of the gate. And so 7 won't be plagued by bad press at release that would discourage upgrading. It's a great strategy for turning Vista into a 'new', reliable, responsive product in the eyes of the average consumer.

Hardware has caught up with the OS by now - except for those pesky netbooks. MS is going to have to do something for those. Is there any possibility they've developed a mini-kernel for netbook editions, or is it just a matter of having non-essential processes disabled that allowed them to run 7 on a netbook?


RE: How far have we gone...
By Cogman on 11/11/2008 5:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is, in almost everything Windows 7 is really just vista with a few polished features and an updated UI. (The reason it is Win 6.1 and not Win 7...). So saying it is completely "Incompatible" and slower is just retarded. It is vista with a new UI. Drivers in Windows 7 will be just as compatible as they are with vista, programs will be just as compatible as they are on vista.

I've seen some reports saying that Windows 7 feels much faster then vista, yet when benchmarked, everything came out the same. So what will have changed? MS removed artificial delays from 7 to make it appear faster. (IE animating an Icon when it is clicked, and waiting for that animation to finish)

But whatever, people will bash MS no matter what they do because its the "cool thing" to do.


RE: How far have we gone...
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 6:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the iPhone does all sorts of tricks to make the UI feel responsive despite a lack of power to back it up.

I'm betting MS also worked on speeding up start up - I know they already have a program where they're working with manufacturers to improve Vista's startup times.


RE: How far have we gone...
By MrPickins on 11/11/2008 7:09:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm betting MS also worked on speeding up start up - I know they already have a program where they're working with manufacturers to improve Vista's startup times.


It's already faster than XP starting up.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Silver2k7 on 11/16/2008 2:43:54 AM , Rating: 2
"It's already faster than XP starting up."

might depend on wich features you turn off etc..
might even depend on how much ram you got installed..
if more it has to read more from the hdd into ram wich might slow down the startup.

atleast i can say for sure that my moms old crappy celeron with xp atleast boots faster than my core2 does with vista. once its up and running of course the faster computer will run rings around the slower one.


RE: How far have we gone...
By winterspan on 11/11/2008 11:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
Um... no. I don't think you understand software development. The iPhone doesn't use "tricks" to appear responsive.. it IS responsive. It has a *very* lean kernel and system configuration, which only requires 128MB of RAM and a 400mhz ARM to actually be responsive.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Cogman on 11/12/2008 8:57:06 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently you don't either.

lean programs have nothing to do with how fast they are. Why do you think that GCC has a -Os option for smallest size possible and -O3 option for the most speed optimizations possible? Its because the speed optimizations cause the file to grow bigger.

Every time you add a feature to you program, it gets bigger. Does that mean it gets slower? Not at all. Microsoft could have totally revamped their help system so that it can read your mind and automatically fix whats wrong, with a huge increase to the OS size. Does that mean that your bootup time will slow down? not at all (unless they are loading the help system). Or does it mean that your games will slowdown? Again, no.

If there is anything that Microsoft and the rest of the developers out there should have learned from Vista, its that perceived speed is just as important as real speed.

The IPhone does use "Tricks" to appear responsive. Why do you think Icons flash up before an application load? Its not just to look pretty, its to make the IPhone appear like its working (and it is). Nothing is more frustrating to a user then to tell the computer to do something and then have it apparently just sit there. Why do you think your mouse changes when you tell any computer to do something? Or why do you think many programs create a splash screen? It is all the same reason, to give the illusion that something is happening. If you do more like slowly fade in the splash screen, then the user feels like even less time was spent loading the program because in their minds "The splash screen had to fade in first, then the program was loaded." when in reality the program was loading the entire time.


RE: How far have we gone...
By omnicronx on 11/12/2008 10:41:51 AM , Rating: 1
Nice post, I fully agree with what you are saying. The iPhone is not this super powerful device everyone makes it out to be, the way it is programmed is just pure genius. You are dead on with your perceived speed theory, my WinMo has the same speed ARM processor, but since it has little to no animation upon pressing a button, and it takes a second to load the program, it just seems like it is running slower. A simple animation, can make the difference between a user seeing a perfect transition, and the belief that their device is running slow.


RE: How far have we gone...
By robinthakur on 11/13/2008 6:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
I would say that the iPhone uses animations to appear more fluid and "futuristic", not to distract users for a fraction of a second while application fires up (in most instances outside of App Store Stuff, they start instantaneously) Then there are the times where you do still get lulls (like the contacts slowdown before they fixed it in 2.1) but most people would call them bugs in the Apple Firmware rather than somewhere that they have yet to put a decent animation in.

Nobody really claims the iPhone is uber powerful, they just use the technology much efficiently than your average HTC phone which has a nice architecture with WiMo shoe-horned into it and a mini-skin on top designed by a gap-year student (and they wonder why they are a poor cousin of the iPhone...)

I must say I forgot how slow Vista felt when I first started using it 2 years ago, until i recently put XP onto a Netbook for my parents. XP feels alot more responsive, but yer, I believe its a perceptual difference more than anything and overall, i love using Vista (and Leopard)


RE: How far have we gone...
By Smilin on 11/11/2008 6:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
Actually that's not what Milestone 3 means at all. By that logic how would you explain Milestone 12? (the milestone of a separate product that is currently running slightly ahead of schedule...not 9 milestones behind).

The number is arbitrary depending on what goals have been set for particular stages of product development.

You're just making crap up or quoting someone else who did.


RE: How far have we gone...
By theapparition on 11/12/2008 7:46:23 AM , Rating: 2
You have a contradiction in your post.

quote:
- Evaluate the performance: The released product performance will be overall similar to this one.

and
quote:
- evaluate the setup: A test build might install and run apps and services that will not be ran by default in the release build.


So would it be fair to say that you cannot accurately asses performance.


RE: How far have we gone...
By omnicronx on 11/12/2008 10:29:49 AM , Rating: 2
Milestone does not mean complete code.. And the UI is disabled in the ML3 release, how can you say it is completed? They don't even have a stable release of it yet..

A milestone is just a completion of a set of goals, it in no way means that all major features have been added, perhaps the base code is there, but that does not mean they are complete and ready for testing.

There will be two more builds before Windows 7 reaches Beta , at that point I think it will be safe to say all the major features have been added have entered widespread testing.

And for the record, milestone 3 was build 6780, Microsoft also previewed (at the same show) build 6933, which should be the final build before the beta, it is this release and not the milestone (which is 2 builds prior) that should have all major features added.


RE: How far have we gone...
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By sweetsauce on 11/11/2008 10:57:44 AM , Rating: 5
Only thing you constantly paint a picture of with your comments and articles is how attached your lips are to steve job's ass.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Garreye on 11/11/2008 11:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
What!? No 6 rating on that one?


RE: How far have we gone...
By hemmy on 11/11/2008 11:08:17 AM , Rating: 2
I am running it as my main OS(build 6801) on my laptop and it is faster than Vista and the only compatibility issue I have encountered is there is no flash player for IE8, which I don't care because I use Firefox anyway.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Griswold on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By lco45 on 11/12/2008 1:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
How rude!
This article was perfectly reasonable and nicely written.
Jason is not submitting work to some English Lit professor for criticism, merely writing a topical tech article for the light entertainment of the masses.
You are the one coming to this (free) website and then complaining what you're offered doesn't come up to your standards.

Luke


RE: How far have we gone...
By Tim Thorpe on 11/11/2008 2:41:46 PM , Rating: 4
Since when has DailyTech staff had to come in and defend their articles...better yet when did it become okay to do so?

My how the mighty have fallen.

I took pride in having worked for this publication. I now feel ashamed :(. Of all the topics on all of the internet this is the low ball journalism you decide to embrace? You're scamming Kris and Co. out of a good deal of money as you drag DailyTech through the dirt.


RE: How far have we gone...
By excelsium on 11/11/2008 5:10:45 PM , Rating: 1
This article irritates me..it seems like mindless FUD.


RE: How far have we gone...
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 6:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
Both Mick and Asher will get involved in the debates in their articles' comments. But that's usually because both suffer from strings of personal attacks by the commenters.

I hope to see Mick continue to post articles on this subject, by the way. Especially if he keeps his word and posts the good news as well as the bad. Or maybe if somebody else posts the good news, that's good enough. Like how Mick and Asher balance each other out on the environment. They're like the Maddow and Limbaugh of DailyTech.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Ringold on 11/11/2008 10:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
Other authors here seem to post as well. I for one like it. Journalists in newspapers are unaccountable and entirely unquestioned in comparison. Their defense and the following discussion can some times be more interesting than the article itself.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Steve Guilliot on 11/11/2008 10:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, who's the lucky one that gets to be Rush?


RE: How far have we gone...
By DigitalFreak on 11/11/2008 8:35:10 PM , Rating: 4
ROFLMAO when the article author gets modded down..


RE: How far have we gone...
By mikefarinha on 11/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By fibreoptik on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By KingViper on 11/11/2008 10:45:11 AM , Rating: 5
Are you serious? Since when did Microsoft force you to use their OS at all? You realize you don't HAVE to use Windows Vista. Use XP if you don't like it. Or, if the reason you don't like it is because you can't properly operate a computer, maybe you should move over to the Mac camp, I'm sure they'd take you in with open arms.


RE: How far have we gone...
By fibreoptik on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By chick0n on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By kelmon on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By kelmon on 11/12/2008 3:41:58 AM , Rating: 1
I hate replying to my own comment but I'm honestly stunned that it still has a 0 rating yet no one has had the decency to dispute what is obviously true. Anyone who thinks that you should need to know about computing in order to use a computer is nothing more than a computing snob. Computing is universal and a modern computer should (and usually is) accessible to anyone of any age and ability. If customers don't like a product then they aren't the problem, or you need to find new customers.


RE: How far have we gone...
By theapparition on 11/12/2008 7:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
In all fairness, can you tell me a single thing about Vista that annoys users?
The casual user will find Vista easy to use (far easier than XP), and will virtally never get a UAC message. Add auxillary programs in the OS make it more feature rich than XP. I've yet to find anyone that can't navigate thier way through Vista, and studies on new OS learning curves are definately in Vista's favor.

It is only Power users that can get somewhat annoyed by Vista. The restrictions it places for system configuration, incompatibility issues, and system actions (UAC messages) are only caused by those who "know computers".

So I disagree with your assertion that the "casual don't know crap about computers" user is somehow dismayed by Vista. It's those users, the ones who buy a complete system at BestBuy, that Vista was designed for and dumbed down for the rest of us, the power users.

While XP was good, Vista has been hands down better.


RE: How far have we gone...
By fibreoptik on 11/12/2008 9:26:13 AM , Rating: 2
You are completely nuts! Explain why SO MANY people are "downgrading" back to XP and LOVING it then.

Vista sucks crap, ADMIT IT.


RE: How far have we gone...
By SuperFly03 on 11/12/2008 5:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
Could it be all the BS Mac vs. PC Ads? Nah that's too easy.

Could it be the reviews more than a year old? Nah, that's too easy.

Could it be people having been using a variation on XP since 2000 and don't want to change "because change is bad"? Nah that's too easy.

Could it be that they are buying $200 systems never meant to meet the minimum Vista requirements because they are cheap? Nah that's too easy.

Could it be people "upgrading" to Vista on PCs that are 3-4 years old and are too slow? Nah, again too easy.

Vista is the best OS to date.


RE: How far have we gone...
By kelmon on 11/13/2008 11:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vista is the best OS to date.


Vista is the best Windows OS to date. Let's not go nuts here - it still can't manage ICC color profiles properly.


RE: How far have we gone...
By kelmon on 11/13/2008 11:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I can't since I have not upgraded beyond XP. My comment is based on the suggestion that if you can't use Vista or don't like it that you're an idiot, as made to a previous commenter. I see an annoying trend in comments on software design that seems to suggest that if the user doesn't "get it" that they are the problem. Ultimately, the end-user is the customer and if you can't satisfy your customer with your product then your product is bad.

Please note that my comment about Vista being bad is based on the following If statement:

quote:
if Vista annoys users then it is a bad product


I do not know if this situation is true, personally. The point that I was trying to make is that IF the customer doesn't like it then it's a bad product. You'll have to ask such a customer to know if the statement is true or false.


RE: How far have we gone...
By mars777 on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By fibreoptik on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By sbrown23 on 11/11/2008 11:35:05 AM , Rating: 5
Wow, then how do all those other people switch? From Apple's commercials, they'd have you believe that the world is leaving Windows en masse for OS X. Why is there even a reason to run Windows anymore?

On a side note, Vista, while not a complete flop, has a black eye because MS messed up the release. SP1 is extremely solid and hardware compat is very good at this point.


RE: How far have we gone...
By xti on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By sweetsauce on 11/11/2008 11:05:12 AM , Rating: 2
If it weren't for MS's "evil empire" pc's would be years behind right now. Their "monopoly" created a standard, and this standard allowed progress. I'll clue you in on a little secret, i can think of several companies off the top of my head that tried and would be in the same dominant role MS is in right now. Just happens that Bill Gates was smarter and more conniving than other CEO's/companies.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By drzoo2 on 11/11/2008 12:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Their "monopoly" created a standard, and this standard allowed progress.


Ok, Like most others I'm just as sick of the Vista rocks, sucks crap that always ends up flying on these threads whenever there is an MS story but....
You can't use the words "Monopoly" and "Standards" in the same sentence. You can't. And then to top it off, you also through in "progress". The whole point of a Monopoly is vendor lock-in in which MS is King. The reason Monopolies are Illegal is the stifling of progress. I can't use Vista. Let me take that back. I could use it. Since I had to learn a new OS why Microsoft? Also I don't understand all of the MS fanboi'ism. The ones doing the attacking in support of Vista are the ones who should understand why alternatives are needed. Be it Mac, Linux, BSD ect, it seems that YOU attack that in which you don't understand. It comes down to this. Either you support competition or you will eventually lose "Control" of your PC.
z


RE: How far have we gone...
By theapparition on 11/12/2008 8:06:56 AM , Rating: 2
Hate to break it to you, but Monopolies are not illegal. Only using your monopolistic position in anti competitive behavior is.

Until Linux actually "standardizes", you'll never see it take any signifigant marketshare.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/12/2008 12:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
You mean how MS did?


RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 11:27:11 AM , Rating: 1
Maybe you shouldn't be running Vista on your old 386. 30 seconds for a context menu to show? Do you honestly expect us to believe that?


RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By sweetsauce on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By inighthawki on 11/11/2008 12:17:34 PM , Rating: 3
Thats not even necessary to say. I have an Athlon 64 X2 4400, 2GB of ram,and vista runs very smoothly for me. A large majority of my friends who have vista have almost the same setup, a few have worse, a few have better, and nobody has issues with speed. Im gonna say your doing something wrong or complaining for no reasons, or trolling us. (@kalak)


RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 12:53:42 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Vista is really painfull slow... I click the right button and wait 20, 30 seconds to open a menu !!!???


Yet you don't have a "speed issue"?

I have Vista on an E6600, 2GB RAM desktop and a T5000 series, 1GB RAM laptop, and I have no issues with slowness.

Either you're lying, or you have some serious problems setting up computers.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/11/2008 1:00:11 PM , Rating: 1
Can't we all just agree the tech minded will have no issues making Vista run properly. The problem is the non-tech people who have no fanboy in them (I know, it is hard to grasp Apple and MS lovers) are having problems with Vista. It is just how it is, you can deny it all day, but the average Joe is having real problems.

Example, girlfriend has a year old laptop with Vista. Runs decently well, has 2GB of RAM, AMD dual core 1.7 if I remember right and a ATI 2600 in it. She hates Vista cause she encounters problems with her programs. I haven't had any issues making it work just fine, but if I wasn't there to take care of things, she would be up a creek.

Jesus, you people live in a fantasy land.


RE: How far have we gone...
By inighthawki on 11/11/2008 1:34:12 PM , Rating: 3
A LOT of people i know have vista who arent tech people and arent fanboys and run the OS just fine, no problems at all. (Besides the usually "how do i do this" or "this doesnt work" with all versions of windows including xp)


RE: How far have we gone...
By snownpaint on 11/11/2008 1:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.. Some find it fun to tinker and make the OS work.. But when I want my computer to run this SW program or render a video, I just want it to work.. I don't want to adjust .dat files, change registries, or any of that junk. I can do it, but I shouldn't have to.


RE: How far have we gone...
By trevelyan15 on 11/11/2008 4:15:32 PM , Rating: 1
I'll take it one step further. I had a Pentium 4 2.4 non-HT with 1 GB RAM that ran Vista just fine. It was over five years old when Vista came out. I even did some lite gaming on it (older games).

The point is, Vista runs fine. Other than a few driver issues, it has always run fine. And driver issues are not MS's fault, they are the hardware vendors'. And I'm fine with driver issues on release, because it means that MS is doing their job and actually updating the core OS components between releases. You cannot possibly expect progress using WinNT core components. MS could have done a better job with getting vendors on board, and with keeping to schedule and what not, but overall Vista has been fine.

If it takes you 20-30 seconds to bring up a context menu, you have done one of two things:
- You installed XP in 2002 and have never reformatted since, but you click all the ads you see on the internet for free stuff and then wonder why "nothing" happens. Then when Vista came out you chose to do an upgrade instead of a clean install. Then you turned off UAC because it kept complaining when you clicked your free stuff ads on the internet. Now your computer is barely usable, and you are not sure why.
- Or, you installed Vista and every other program you could think of on one hard drive that is too small. Now the system has almost no swap space, and every time you click something your computer cries as it tries to figure out how to reclaim some memory.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Fritzr on 11/21/2008 8:01:30 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I can sympathize. All you need is 1GB of memory a slower processor (2GHz in my case) and 5 to 10 programs running in the background. Also had this happen when YM had been running for a few days and Task Manager showed it using 476MB of memory, another time I had this problem was with a BOINC Alpha app that had 100+ processes running when I checked to see why there was a problem ... Of course XP & Win98SE showed this behavior under similar loads :P

Under normal loads (a couple of browsers, YM, notepad and HD TV) it runs just fine :)


RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By MrPickins on 11/11/2008 7:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
Vista feels faster than XP on both of my PC's that are running it. Prefetch FTW.

Sounds like PEBKAC to me.


RE: How far have we gone...
By theapparition on 11/12/2008 8:10:26 AM , Rating: 1
Off topic.......but Corvettes and Camaro's have historically used the same engines and transmissions. For example, both the 97-04 C5 and the 98-02 F-bodies both used the same LS1 engine with the same 4L60E transmission.


RE: How far have we gone...
By rudolphna on 11/11/2008 12:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
personally I just think you dont know how to use a computer. Running Vista right now, on a 3Ghz Pentium 4, with 2GB PC2700, and a Radeon 2600. Guess what? runs perfectly. Rightrclick menu is instantanous unless Im running 50 billion HD intensive programs at one time, in which case it might take... 2 seconds. With SP1 it has great stabiliity and hardware compatability. no problems. Oh and BTW, Will be running it on my new Phenom X3, 4GB, 4670 machine here in a few months... And it will run even faster.


RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By rudolphna on 11/11/2008 2:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I cant understand how you can be having such problems when you obviously have such knowledge. Im not a MS fanboy, I like OSX very much, and I happen to like Vista. I dont love it, it does have flaws, but not of the magnitude you say.


RE: How far have we gone...
By anotherdude on 11/11/2008 5:29:54 PM , Rating: 1
Well I run Vista on four PCs ranging from a 1 gig Pentium laptop to an 8 gig desktop C2d and there are no waits for menus, everything runs fine. Tjhis is also the experience of many others here who are yelling at you. So how did we get the good code and you get the crap? There is something wrong at YOUR end. Hardware, drivers, crapware . .something.


RE: How far have we gone...
By MrPickins on 11/11/2008 7:07:32 PM , Rating: 1
It's not people being fanboys. I'm personally sick of hearing the Vista FUD, especially when I know the vast majority of it is false.


RE: How far have we gone...
By SavagePotato on 11/11/2008 10:36:18 PM , Rating: 1
I really hope for your own sake you are just a troll, since if you really are a consultant with 21 years experience, and are so mind numbingly, incredibly, unbelievably, earth shatteringly IGNORANT... as to come on and try to claim it takes 30 not one not two but THIRTY seconds to bring up a right click menu in Vista, well...

May god have mercy on your ignorant and stupid soul. (If there were a god to, but lets not get into that.)

Please stop trolling, or die in a fire, which ever is appropriate.


RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/12/2008 6:43:22 AM , Rating: 2
And that's a "potato" opinion...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


RE: How far have we gone...
By SavagePotato on 11/12/2008 9:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
You see this here says 21 years experience industry professional all over it doesn't it.

Go back under your bridge mister "30 seconds to open a right click menu" moron.


RE: How far have we gone...
By SoCalBoomer on 11/11/2008 12:51:52 PM , Rating: 2
How about running OS 10.5 on your PPC G3? What? Sucks? Slow?

SO how about running it on an iMac G5 (workstation in my lab. . .)? What? Sucks? Slow? On boot, it's very slow; on app opening, it's very slow. . .

Anyone trying to run Vista or XP on a 386 should have their head examined (unless they're trying to run something embedded or something) - just as they should if they're trying to run 10.5 on a G3 or earlier (if it WILL at all).


RE: How far have we gone...
By kelmon on 11/13/2008 11:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
Is there a problem with your iMac? I can understand 10.5 running slowly on a G3 but I have installed it on my old G4 Ti PowerBook and it runs fine (better than Tiger did) so it ought to fly on your G5.


RE: How far have we gone...
By fabarati on 11/22/2008 6:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
... Really? Leopard runs slow on my 1.5GHz G4 with 1.25GB RAM. Much slower than tiger. It needs more ram to run properly, but unforutnatly, my Powerbook is maxed out. I've been wanting to downgrade, but I haven't had the time, which is why I'm still running it.


RE: How far have we gone...
By fibreoptik on 11/12/2008 9:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
100% true, unfortunately...


RE: How far have we gone...
By bkslopper on 11/12/2008 1:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
"Are you nuts ? All my 6 desktops are Core 2 duos. All of them have 2 GB (my Game Machine has 8 GB and run Vista 64). I know what I'm talking about."

Why the hell would anyone use 8GB on a "Game Machine"? Sounds more like a workstation... or a Death Star.


RE: How far have we gone...
By sbrown23 on 11/11/2008 11:36:50 AM , Rating: 2
I'm cool! I use a $ instead of "s" when spelling Micro$oft. Aren't I so hip???


RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/11/2008 12:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
If my post was "ilegible", why do you care ???

I can understand all DT posts and I can post here to, and people understand my posts, period. Know what ? I will not respond your posts anymore, Mr. perfection. Have a nice day in your throne.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/11/2008 12:21:52 PM , Rating: 2
I've noticed all subsequent posts you have made have been much better written. It would seem that while you got all offended, you have since bettered yourself because of it. You're welcome.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Mitch101 on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: How far have we gone...
By Gzus666 on 11/11/2008 11:07:56 AM , Rating: 2
By this logic, Windows ME and 95 were good because people made them work. Hell, you can get a square peg in a round hole with enough force, doesn't mean it works properly.


RE: How far have we gone...
By kalak on 11/11/2008 11:39:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hell, you can get a square peg in a round hole with enough force, doesn't mean it works properly.


People will rated me down for this...
But I become your fan!
:-)


RE: How far have we gone...
By Mitch101 on 11/11/2008 1:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
That's the problem "you can get a square peg in a round hole with enough force" In reality you shouldn't put square pegs into round holes force them in and expect them to work. It not Microsoft fault people do this constantly yet they are quick to blame Microsoft.

ME and 95 were fine if you had the hardware that was supported by them.

The problem is in the PC world people try too hard to save the extra $1.00 and buy a Off brand knockoff ram or motherboard with no driver support or never update thier drivers, bios, defrag, dont run spyware programs, open attachments from people they don't know, etc and the very first thing they blame is the OS. All to save a Dollar then wonder why a $1500.00 PC with AV and Spyware protection software installed works so much better than thier $350.00 machine malware/virus ridden machine. A decent tech can get those $350.00 machines to run like $1500 ones but because the common Joe cant well it must be the OS. It cant be the $10.00 After rebate video capture card that has 1 star ratings on NewEgg because or poor driver support can it Joe?

Heck look at the Seagate 1.5tb hard drive problems out there. How many will blame the OS when its a Seagate bios or drive issue? People blame Microsoft because its easy to blame the OS because they dont know any better and way too many products are released that shouldn't.

Microsoft can try to make the world idiot proof however the world winds up making a better idiot.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Reclaimer77 on 11/11/2008 5:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ME and 95 were fine if you had the hardware that was supported by them.


How dare you say this... how dare you sir.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Neutrion on 11/11/2008 8:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm opening a pandora's box of flames here but here's my 2 cents on the 95 and ME experience:

Win95, early on, did blue screen for me a lot. I wasn't particularly good at updating drivers and getting patches back then (and patches were a pain back then!). It was usable if you didn't try to do all that much at the same time. You needed sufficient hardware AND software for it.

WinME: The most solid non-NT kernel of Windows at the time (flame suit on). They sucked out DOS and all that which made me furious, but Windows-wise, if you had the hardware AND software, it wasn't all that bad. Like Win95, when you tried to do too much simultaneously, it would lock up/BSOD.

At that point in computer evolution, we expected more from our hardware and software, so WinME seemed to suck worse. That's why I switched to Win2k then. Despite the speed decreases of pre-SP1 Win2k (amazes me people complain about Vista hard drive thrashing), you could do more when you had enough RAM.

On Vista, it's solid. People need to realize that Win7 isn't going to be significantly different than Vista. It's not that "essence" of an OS that makes your crap run 700% faster with no resources, and like all previous operating systems before it, run hardware AND software compatible with it. Same with Vista. 'Nuff said.


RE: How far have we gone...
By duzytata on 11/11/2008 11:45:43 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't heard of PEBCAK before. :) The one that always gets thrown around is PICNIC. Problem In Chair Not In Computer.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Mitch101 on 11/11/2008 2:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
PICNIC I like that. I will be using that one also. Thanks.


RE: How far have we gone...
By fibreoptik on 11/12/2008 9:37:51 AM , Rating: 2
Because NO ONE at DT knows what PEBCAK means... Thanks for the explanation D O U C H E B A G.


RE: How far have we gone...
By TimberJon on 11/11/2008 10:44:55 AM , Rating: 2
If you really read all the releases about how Win7 was supposed to utilize all the same drivers as the vista footprint, and use much less system resources, Etc... it was easy to get excited and optimistic.

This seems like Millenium Ed. all over again. If they were truely going to make progress, then the foundation OS should have been ready in the Beta so that it would shock and convince. Releasing a "backyard" project that is nearly a twin, save for a new skin, is a joke and deserves to get raped by every respectable tech community.


RE: How far have we gone...
By sbrown23 on 11/11/2008 11:41:42 AM , Rating: 5
"If they were truely going to make progress, then the foundation OS should have been ready in the Beta so that it would shock and convince. Releasing a "backyard" project that is nearly a twin, save for a new skin, is a joke and deserves to get raped by every respectable tech community."

Hey guy, here's a couple of clues for ya.

1) It's not beta.
2) It wasn't released to the public.
3) You have no idea what's in it. That much is obvious based on your comments.

Pathetic.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Griswold on 11/11/2008 11:54:20 AM , Rating: 1
If "Respectable" is equal to the load of horse shit the quality of what you just said there, i'd rather not come close to that community ever again.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Elementalism on 11/11/2008 12:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
Nah sounds like the XP version of the Vista kernal.


RE: How far have we gone...
By Souka on 11/11/2008 10:45:59 AM , Rating: 2
I think the critism is far from over because people expect that Windows 7 is suppsed to be fast, stable, and free of the Vista "bugs".

I myself installed Windows 7 onto a test laptop I have. Thinkpad T42: PentiumM 1.7GHz, 80GB 5400rpm HD, 2GB RAM, Intel 2200BG WiFi, Fingerprint + Bluetooth.

Install went fine, pulled down drivers without issue using Lenovo's "System Update" util. Installed various productivity apps, plus an old game or two... no issues.

Peformance seemed equal to Vista Ultimate I had loaded before, but haven't had time to do actual benchmarking yet.

Overall I'm content with this build...and since it's "pre-beta", kudos to MS.

My $.02


RE: How far have we gone...
By fibreoptik on 11/12/2008 9:39:44 AM , Rating: 2
"I myself..."

literary genius at work! stand clear!


RE: How far have we gone...
By Souka on 11/12/2008 10:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well that was helpful...

I was just stating that I had installed Windows 7 on a Thinkpad and not making any claims to greatness...sorry you were confused.


RE: How far have we gone...
By AlexWade on 11/11/2008 11:53:37 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I was thinking. The last Microsoft beta I tested had a ton of programs going that where specifically designed to help debug it. Those things were never going to be in the final.

I am personally looking forward to beta testing Windows 7. I've already bought a new hard drive to put it on.


RE: How far have we gone...
By inighthawki on 11/11/2008 12:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I've used this OS first hand and compared to Vista there is no way this is almost equal. Ive had it install for days and it's still blazing fast, MUCH faster than vista, without a doubt. If they want to say their benchmarks indicate its the same, fine, but i can tell you its not. Like we all know from games, benchmarks are terrible at showing real performance.


RE: How far have we gone...
By croc on 11/11/2008 7:35:22 PM , Rating: 2
Even worse, info world's reporter apparently either has an M3 release and isn't developer enough to understand how the developement process works, (or worse they have an illegal copy) or are reporting based on rumour and innuendo.

I am not doing developer level testing this time around, nor did I do it for Vista. I did for XP, NT4 and NT3, and so have a wee understanding of how the process works. Much of the code right now will be debug code, which to function properly has to be compiled into the processes under developement. So of course at this stage it is 'bloated'. Reports like this are so full of ignorance that I find it laughable. InfoWorld was on my 'doubtful' list before, but now it is in the same league as the inq.


RE: How far have we gone...
By DeepBlue1975 on 11/12/2008 8:03:14 AM , Rating: 2
And I might add:

If at pre-beta state it is already running similar to vista in the performance department, I'd say it could be very promising even once it goes into the RC stage.

Come on, we all know that performance enhancement features are usually turned off in beta releases (not even talking about alpha releases).

If once it is on the final stage it comes up slower than Vista is, then and only then will I give it a thumb down.

Doing a performance evaluation over a pre-beta and taking the results as conclusive is just utterly imprudent and amateurish.


Is it a bad thing
By rudy on 11/11/2008 11:00:43 AM , Rating: 3
When you know exactly who wrote the article just from reading the title?




RE: Is it a bad thing
By BruceLeet on 11/11/2008 11:15:37 AM , Rating: 2
Oh back in 07' I could figure out it was Mick by titles like.

"cutting edge...iPhone"

"profits soar...Apple"

"Leopard impresses, Vista sales stumble"

We dont hate Mick, sometimes its just fun to Label =)


RE: Is it a bad thing
By kelmon on 11/11/2008 12:21:52 PM , Rating: 5
The thing is, Jason knows what "pushes your buttons". He's posted enough articles that are critical of Apple to not be considered a "fanboy". Rather, he's posting articles with titles that are there to generate page hits and comments. I believe the correct term is "flame bait" or something like it. And it does the job, every time.

Frankly, I find it quite entertaining since the comments are always worth a laugh. Jason clearly knows his customers, and that's always important no matter what business you are in.


RE: Is it a bad thing
By BruceLeet on 11/11/2008 8:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
I dont really care its just joy to see the flamewars on the boards sometimes, there are some coffee spitting moments on these quality boards.

However Im too poor to be a fanboy of any product/brand, Im a college student on my own.


RE: Is it a bad thing
By SavagePotato on 11/11/2008 10:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
Welcome to dailytroll, tech tabloid and flame bait blog extraordinaire.


RE: Is it a bad thing
By fibreoptik on 11/12/2008 9:42:13 AM , Rating: 2
Starring MC Potato and masher!!

Mashed taters? yumm!


RE: Is it a bad thing
By guy007 on 11/11/2008 1:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
There's another writer on DT who's article titles always give him away. Just take a guess:

"Arctic ice growing at staggering rate"

"Ice shelf size showing fastest rate of increase in 5k years (based on data taken last tues. during a .24 sec period)"

"New data suggests sun cycle responsible for temp. changes"

"Survey taken show's polar bears prefer the lack of ice"


RE: Is it a bad thing
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 7:12:58 PM , Rating: 1
Don't forget,

"New Nuclear Plant Will Power Entire World With No Risks For $.00001/kWh"

"Wind Farm Costs $7.4 Trillion After Tax Breaks, Powers Toaster"

"4 Thousand-Year Supply of Oil Found Under Florida"

"Greenpeace Blows Up White House"


RE: Is it a bad thing
By omnicronx on 11/12/08, Rating: 0
Imagine that...
By d33pblue on 11/11/2008 10:34:40 AM , Rating: 5
A pre-beta loaded with compatibility issues.

What a worthless article. Sorry.




RE: Imagine that...
By JasonMick (blog) on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Imagine that...
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 11:25:11 AM , Rating: 5
I did read the underlying article, and his methods were ridiculous. He saw the number of threads for the system process was almost the same and came to the conclusion that nothing had changed.

If the M3 build is so bad, why is there only one bad review of it? Looking at the author's other articles, he is clearly biased against Microsoft.


RE: Imagine that...
By SocrPlyr on 11/11/2008 12:09:53 PM , Rating: 3
3 strikes against what was written here and in the old article, should mean that it shouldn't have been written.
1. MS has changed how they implement changes into new OSes. They finish it and then add it to the OS. That means an OS has to have working parts. Where did they come from. An existing OS probably...
2. Thread count and memory usage can in very few ways be equated to system performance. In fact in Windows Vista (and Mac OS X for that matter) memory usage is higher to increase performance (pre-load apps). Now thread count means very little.
3. Typically pre-releases have debug code. I am not sure how much M3 has, but I'll bet it at least has some.

The issue I have with putting up articles like this one is that it was based solely on crap. It explains what is wrong with the internet (including this post), anyone can post worthless crap and it is read and analyzed by those who are unaware that it content is junk.


RE: Imagine that...
By Lugaidster on 11/11/2008 12:41:14 PM , Rating: 3
I in no way intend to say that you or the other author write bad articles as I am in no position to judge you. So please read the following with that in mind.

I must say that any person with a little knowledge on software development should expect Windows 7 as an evolution of vista rather than a revolution.

There is no way that Microsoft can develop an entirely new OS kernel in such a short ammount of time. To expect otherwise would be, for the lack of a better expression, plain stupid. Microsoft took 6 years to develop Vista, it's not reasonable to expect Windows 7 not to be similar if it is to be ready with only 2-3 years of development.

Knowing that, I do have high hopes for Windows 7 since Vista is, arguably, a pretty good OS, and well designed too. And please note that this is my personal oppinion.

I do encourage you to continue to bring articles on the performance of Windows 7 but please try to limit judgements on it's performance since it is pre-release software.


By crystal clear on 11/11/2008 11:24:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to InfoWorld, in terms of basic system design, Windows 7 is shaping up to be a OS X like release, in that it is only a minor iteration over Windows Vista, with little change in performance


InfoWorld had also earlier posted this -

Ballmer: Windows 7 is Vista, just 'a lot better'

"Windows Vista is good, Windows 7 is Windows Vista with clean-up in user interface [and] improvements in performance," Ballmer said.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/10/17/Ballmer_...




By sbrown23 on 11/11/2008 11:48:45 AM , Rating: 2
And your point is what? That MS spent a couple years of development to improve upon their mainstream OS?

OS X SnowLeopard is OS X Leopard, just a lot better. Um, yeah. As one would expect. A company that produces an OS improving upon the previous release. That's news?


By crystal clear on 11/11/2008 12:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
Judging by his (Ballmer) comment,if Windows 7 is Vista (refined) then its more like a service pack rather than a new O.S.

Thats why I gave the title to my comment as it you read it.

Too early to come to conclusions about Win 7 prefer to wait & use it.....to check if....

Is it the same chocolate with a new packaging & a new brand name ?


By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 7:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
And the other poster alluded to OS X versions - which are charged for.

If there's a revamped UI and a reworked kernel, it's a new version. Not necessarily worthy of the '7' moniker, but at least '6.1'.

Although, I do remember the differences between 3.1 and 3.11 being pretty big. I mean, really big, at the time. So maybe this is only '6.01'.


By crystal clear on 11/12/2008 6:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
As for OS.X versions which are charged for - they could be considered as a fairly significant upgrade, but not an overhaul of the operating system.

Anyway not interested in commenting on this OS- as its sold with Apple hardware only- pricey hardware thats NOT worth paying for.

Money put to better use......building your own rig .


By crystal clear on 11/12/2008 7:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting response- heres something more interesting

Microsoft has 200 programmers working on slimming down the Windows kernel for the next version of the operating system, a company engineer revealed in a presentation last weekend at the University of Illinois.

"A lot of people think of Windows as this really large, bloated operating system, and that may be a fair characterization, I have to admit," said Eric Traut, who holds the title of distinguished engineer at Microsoft. "[So] we created what we call MinWin. It's still bigger than I'd like it to be, but we've taken a shot at really stripping out all of the layers above and making sure that we had a clean architectural layer there."

Traut talked about MinWin last Saturday at a conference on computing sponsored by the university's student-led Association for Computing Machinery. Much of the hourlong presentation was taken up with a discussion of Microsoft's virtualization efforts -- Traut's specialty.

Traut showed off MinWin and bragged about how much leaner the microkernel is than the current core of Windows. While Vista uses 5,000 files for its 4GB core, MinWin weighs in at just 100 files and 25MB

MinWin is so small that it lacks a graphical subsystem. When Traut booted MinWin, for example, its start-up screen showed the standard Windows flag logo, but the design was built from ASCII characters, a technique discarded decades ago by everyone except spammers.

The microkernel will be used only internally and won't, as Traut put it, be "productized." Instead, it will be the basis of all upcoming versions of Windows, including the next-generation edition now saddled with the code name Windows 7.

Microsoft has given out almost no information about that operating system other than a delivery timeline that puts its final release in 2010.

"We'll be using [MinWin] to build all the products based on Windows," said Traut. "It's not just the OS that's running on many laptops in this room, it's also the OS used for media centers, for servers, for small embedded devices."


http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com...


By omnicronx on 11/12/2008 11:21:19 AM , Rating: 1
MinWin is not even a kernel..
quote:
MinWin is not, in and of itself a kernel, but rather a set of components that includes both the Windows NT executive and several other components that Russinovich has described as "Cutler's NT",[14] a reference to Dave Cutler, the original architect of Windows NT.[15]
Also MinWin was first incorporated into Vista, what Traut is showing is the newest iteration of it. (which is suppose to be stripped down and more efficient)
quote:
“The word ‘kernel’ is used loosely to mean a whole bunch of different things. … The NTOS kernel is the core of Windows that runs in kernel mode, and it’s got a lot of support components around it that also run in kernel mode. And then there’s layers of system level components that run in user mode but are still a part of the core OS.If I’ve used the word ‘kernel’ around MinWin, I’m really talking about the core of the system.”
The last thing Microsoft wants to do is make major kernel level changes, which was one of the main problems for Vista in terms of compatibility.

Server 08 which was the first Windows OS to make use of the 'Windows Core System' only has a footprint of around 1.5 gigs compared to Vista's 4GB (and this is with most of the base server components loaded, most of which are not needed in a normal user environment). If this is where Windows 7 is headed, then I think we may be in for a nice surprise. I feel MS is definately headed in the right direction, and that is the creation of a streamlined base OS, in which the user gets to pick which components they wish to add.

Unfortunately Vista has put a bad taste in peoples mouths (most of which is without cause), as a result, I don't think some peoples opinions are going to change regardless of how fast and responsive Windows 7 is.. Some people just like to complain, or hear something from a friend of a friend and automatically believe it to be true. The term 'bloat' is so widely used, yet 95% of the people using it, can not explain what they mean (probably because they heard the term on the net or from a friend), or mistake driver issues (which is the fault of the manufacturer) for Windows slowing down their system.


Smells Like Vista, Acts Like Vista,...
By Lord 666 on 11/11/2008 10:38:42 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe its Mojave?

Don't bother rating me down as a Vista hater as I have it on my primary machine at home and find its merits.




RE: Smells Like Vista, Acts Like Vista,...
By fibreoptik on 11/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Smells Like Vista, Acts Like Vista,...
By Aloonatic on 11/11/2008 10:54:41 AM , Rating: 3
*offers fibreoptik a brown paper bag to breath into


By fibreoptik on 11/11/2008 10:57:38 AM , Rating: 1
Hey! There's no glue in here!! but thanks for the gesture ;)


By Ordr on 11/11/2008 6:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather give him a plastic one.


RE: Smells Like Vista, Acts Like Vista,...
By peldor on 11/11/2008 1:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
In many ways it really is Mojave on steroids.

Which is why this is comedy unobtainium, truth stranger than fiction. MS shows us that changing the name and calling it a "new OS" is enough to convince people to like Vista.

Surprise, surprise: They're coming out with a "new OS".

And people are going to fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

Bravo, MS. Well played.


By sweetsauce on 11/11/2008 7:00:11 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Perhaps they should go the apple route and add 100 new and exciting upgrades, like new backgrounds and screen savers. Then its worth calling it an upgrade and selling it for full retail price.


Do you not understand "pre-beta"?
By ScotterMonkey on 11/11/2008 11:04:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sad to see your "top story" be a negative one about a "pre-beta" OS. The writing of this article shows a level of technical understanding I think is below what is needed to write an article on this topic.




RE: Do you not understand "pre-beta"?
By coderman on 11/11/2008 11:45:06 AM , Rating: 2
This news should never have been posted - I'm so SICK of half baked "techies" jumping on the 'we hate Vista, but we don't really know why' camp... just because.

What are you trying to run brand new software on 10 year old equipment or what? Or forgetting to upgrade your software?

How would you have liked it if development of both computers and hardware stopped at around say Windows 95 because we didn't want any more 'bloat'?

I hear loser dev's who think they are gods gift to programming proclaim 'software these days isn't what it was 10-15 or even 20 years go. Today's software is poorly written and bloated. I see no reason to upgrade anymore' Which is almost entirely BS. Obviously SOME code created today does the same thing another piece of source code can do with less lines - but seriously. You want more features, better user interface, full range of compatibility with all hardware and previous software, and faster load times ontop of all that than previous OS's (or on exactly the same level)... well guess what? Upgrade your F'ing hardware then too.

Morons. How dare this MS OS bashing bullsh!t go on AGAIN - what OS do all of you tards want to use once nobody ever wants to upgrade another MS OS again? Linux, Mac? ... I feel very sorry for you folks.


RE: Do you not understand "pre-beta"?
By Gzus666 on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Do you not understand "pre-beta"?
By Spivonious on 11/11/2008 1:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
All of the major problems (bluescreens, horrible performance, odd crashes, etc.) I have seen (I do computer repair work on the side) have been solely due to crappy nVidia drivers.

If anything, blame the OEMs and nVidia for selling unstable computers to customers, not Microsoft.


RE: Do you not understand "pre-beta"?
By snownpaint on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Do you not understand "pre-beta"?
By Gzus666 on 11/11/2008 2:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, hell no, this isn't the answer. Apple with their tyranical ways is not how I want the computer industry to end up. Apple is as bad as MS was 10 years ago.


RE: Do you not understand "pre-beta"?
By kelmon on 11/12/2008 4:08:35 AM , Rating: 2
That's probably true but Microsoft and the rest of the computing industry could learn from Apple. One of the best things about the Mac platform is that it is simple to use. I know that this isn't popular with those who like to customise their computer, and you probably could produce a system that delivers the best of both worlds, but the Mac platform is largely idiot-proof and allows users to do what they need without getting in the way. The Mac platform still has a way to go, I think, but this should be the goal of any OS that seeks to be used on the desktop by anyone. Very few people wish to interact with the OS beyond getting it to run their applications and manage their hardware.

Balancing the desires of the casual and "hardcore" users is always going to be difficult.


By Gzus666 on 11/11/2008 2:32:40 PM , Rating: 2
http://help.lockergnome.com/vista/General-Discussi...

Doesn't seem like all of those problems are driver related. I have a feeling you are trying to make this seem like MS does no wrong again. If MS is so damn good, you would think they would give more help to create drivers for these companies so they don't have to experience the backlash that they do.

In all honesty though, I have had no real issues other than annoyances in general with Vista. But, in reality, I'm not every customer out there, I am merely one user who happens to be well above the average user like most people here. I think it would do well for the MS fanboys here to make the same realization.


Bloat Wars
By fibreoptik on 11/11/2008 10:32:49 AM , Rating: 5
Kudos for choosing a pic of Fat Bastard for this article. It is BEYOND fitting...




RE: Bloat Wars
By judasmachine on 11/11/2008 11:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
I got a chuckle out of it myself.


RE: Bloat Wars
By kelmon on 11/11/2008 12:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
I felt slightly nauseous looking at it. Some things are best forgotten. In this case, Mike Myer's career (sans the Wayne's World movies).


RE: Bloat Wars
By Neutrion on 11/11/2008 8:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, Mike Myer is trying way too hard recently.


I've got an idea....
By Crusty on 11/11/2008 12:16:38 PM , Rating: 1
Why don't you post your articles before they are released and perhaps even before they are even ready for your editor to read them and then we'll post how shitty it is. I mean, with the quality of the crap that actually gets published I'm sure we could have a field day with it.

Arguing performance and bloat factors for an unfinished product is down right retarded.




RE: I've got an idea....
By jonmcc33 on 11/11/2008 12:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that these are blogs and not articles. Jason Mick doesn't actually write articles but interpret BS through FUD filled articles and link to them through his blog.


RE: I've got an idea....
By Crusty on 11/11/2008 2:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
Uhhh no...

http://www.dailytech.com/blogs/~jasonmick

That's his blog, this is an article.


RE: I've got an idea....
By MrPickins on 11/11/2008 6:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
After I read the article and looked back up at the top, I wasn't the least bit surprised to see that Jason Mick had written it...


RE: I've got an idea....
By snownpaint on 11/11/2008 2:12:20 PM , Rating: 2
release of unfinished products is retarded unless you are interested in what the public thinks of it before you finish it up.. It called "looking for constructive criticism" some is Constructive and some is Criticism , but it help develop a better product that will appeal to more people..

So voice your Approval or Disapproval, sitting idle makes you part of the scenery and doesn't help build a product that works for you.


Ridiculous Articles
By Yawgm0th on 11/11/2008 2:48:40 PM , Rating: 4
I read "97-100 processes" and had to stop. I know that isn't right.

I took the liberty of investigating a little further. I had to actually go find the article, since Jason shamefully failed to link to it.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/11/10/46TC-win...
quote:
So when I examined Windows 7 and found a nearly identical thread count (97 to 100) for the System process, I knew right away that I was dealing with a minor point-type of release, as opposed to a major update or rewrite.


That's an excellent misquotation there, Jason. Of course you've regurgitated an article from another site without properly linking to the article, so what should I expect?

Of course is the original worth reading? I think not. Aside from the obvious part of the OS not being out, there are a few glaring examples of and bias incompetence (bias-induced or genuine).

quote:
To test Windows 7, I employed the DMS Clarity Studio tools suite -- the same tools I used in March to show that Vista was 40 percent slower than Windows XP.

He used a synthetic benchmark to test a few very specific examples of performance and came up with results vastly different from what most reputable reviewers have found in real-world tests, especially since SP1. And again -- he used this benchmark on a pre-beta release of an OS. More importantly, if his testing tools are even reliable, the indication I'm given is that they don't really test in a way that is applicable to how anyone uses a desktop or laptop computer.

quote:
while the overall thread count showed a modest reduction under Windows 7 (712 versus 810 for Vista).
Since thread count on its own is somehow indicative of performance, and in the era of multi-core CPUs more threads is obviously worse.

quote:
Interestingly, Clarity Studio's process objects for the database workloads (ADO Stress) spent significantly less time (61 percent less) executing in kernel mode under Windows 7 than under Vista, perhaps indicating that some of the code paths related to Jet 4.0 database access have been moved into user mode...
Wait for this tasty non-sequitur.
quote:
The few minor variations I observed during comparative testing are easily explained away by slight tweaks to the kernel (such as the aforementioned MDAC changes); they certainly don't indicate a significant performance overhaul.


Yes, let's just dismiss all facts that don't support the reality we want to believe.

In fairness to the reviewer, most expectations of "MinWin" or some huge kernel overhaul are unreasonable. But so is the fallacy that Vista's kernel is inherently bad and not at all an improvement on Server 2003's and XP's kernels. I've seen nothing to indicate kernel deficiencies in Vista, aside from the performance loss on some hardware due to the lack of kernel-mode drivers. The performance problems are mostly with UI or specific IO situations, and most of those have been fixed with a mixture of driver updates (I'm looking at you, Nvidia) and SP1. If you run Vista SP1 with Aero and some other extra services off, you will find performance and general feel are eerily similar to XP.

By all accounts, Server 2008 is a substantial improvement -- even in performance -- over Server 2003, as well as a big improvement over Vista. Logically, Windows 7 will show some improvement, if not an outrageous amount. The last time Microsoft released a PC OS with an inferior kernel to a previous existing OS was Windows ME. I sincerely doubt Microsoft will make a blunder like that again. Server 2008's kernel is good stuff, and as a result Windows 7's should be better.

In any case, the reviewer's suspect testing methods and clear bias are inexcusable.

His response to massive reader criticism:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/arch...
quote:
All of this passion over Windows? The product of a multi-billion-dollar global software enterprise that couldn't care a whit about the loyalty or disloyalty of any given dork with a pocket protector living in his mom's basement?...

But I digress. The sad truth is that, for many true believers, Windows 7 is still very much a fantasy product.




RE: Ridiculous Articles
By MickKelleher on 11/12/2008 7:28:52 AM , Rating: 2
This article does have problems with an anti-Vista bias but it still does raise some valid questions.

A lot of people still have the impression (right or wrong) that Vista's performance is not something MS can boast about. MS have indicated that the new Windows will be much more focused on performance.

While benchmarking is a bit unrealistic at a beta phase it is indicating at the moment that this latest Windows is heavily based on Vista in it's current form. For a lot of people this is disappointing, I would have expected it to show performance similar to server 2008 at this time.

The question I have after reading this is are MS serious about improving performance on Win 7 (will it run well on Atom PCs like XP), or are they just putting a new face on Vista.

With the characteristics of the Win 7 kernel being so close to Vista, I'm worried that Win 7 won't be as revolutionary as MS would like us to believe.


RE: Ridiculous Articles
By Lightnix on 11/12/2008 8:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
Regarding Windows 7, release 6801's performance, I found it to be rather resemblant of XP SP3 to be honest. Same 3DMark06 score for one thing, it ran absolutely dandy on a virtual machine with 768MB of RAM allocated to it under virtual PC, well, not any worse than my XP virtual PC with the same settings at any rate.

So I'm lead to think one of the following things:

1: They're lying about windows 7.
2: Vista isn't nearly as bad as people want to believe it is. (I've only tried it on my mum's laptop which has a single core Celeron and 1GB of RAM, but it seemed okay then to be honest)
3: I'm a compulsive liar.

I'm inclined to believe 2, to be honest, and that Vista isn't as bad as people want to make it out to be, I'm gonna wait on Windows 7 before making the switch because of the shiny new features, but really I'm thinking all this 'Vista is ME 2,' is absolute and utter tosh thrown about by "windoez is eval" bandwagonners. Or just people who've tried to use Flip3D with their old S3 Trio DX.

This is just what I'm gathering from having used the Windows 7 pre-beta 6801, Windows XP and reading this article, at any rate.

Long story short: Saying that Windows 7 is going to be bad by saying it's based off Windows Vista a logical fallacy because Windows Vista probably isn't nearly as bad as some people want you to think it is in terms of performance.

Actually, having read this review (see below), I'm thinking that Vista's gaming performance being slammed is almost entirely due to Nvidia's crap drivers, as the ATi setup performs similarly in XP and Vista:

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=354&type=expe...

Then again, secretly I think nVidia was trying to take a chunk out of Microsoft, poor Vista drivers, specifically not supporting DirectX 10.1, that whole thing with Nvidia apparently doing something adverse to the DirectX 10 specification (can't remember what it was exactly...)

I've gone off topic enough though so I'm gonna stop typing.


Tic/Toc strategy for OS's?
By GiantPandaMan on 11/11/2008 1:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I'd like to see MS go this way. Do a major under the hood update, then do a major UI update every two years or so. So people with overpowered PC's (most everyone here) can jump on the new UI as soon as it comes out, then a couple of years later, people with weak PC's or laptops can enjoy it with new efficiencies. I get the feeling this strategy would minimize bugs too.




RE: Tic/Toc strategy for OS's?
By Belard on 11/11/2008 2:40:32 PM , Rating: 1
But a major release has to OFFER something to users as well. Other than DX10 and a few tools, Vista is a skin-job, DRM soaked version of XP (which in itself is a skin job version of Windows 2000).

Most business are NOT using Vista, the US military is NOT using Vista. Many people in the computer field are NOT using Vista. Many people who can get free upgrades to XP with their new Vista-Business versions, DO... so MS's "sales" figures for Vista are like its OS, bloated.

And yes, MS has done a UI touch up. WindowsXP MCE. Which looks quite nice (and was a stepping tone to the Vista look).... its a cheaper version of XP-Pro.

Billy Gates and company PROMISED that Win7 will be an improved, less bloated OS compared to Vista. It was UNDERSTANDABLE that it would be based off of Vista - but fixed.

Then they come back and mostly remove some pre-installed apps for the user to manually install later?

If Windows7 is nothing more than a skin-job, Touch-GUI version of Vista... then its like GWB all over again. No change, people will call it crap like they call vista.

XP has official support until 2014. Win98 supported ended a few years ago, but it took another 2 years for developers to stop making updates to drivers or software... If MS wants to STOP extending new XP installs, Windows7 HAS to fix the problems of vista.

What few "cool" new features of vista don't make up for its problems.


RE: Tic/Toc strategy for OS's?
By GiantPandaMan on 11/11/2008 4:09:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to disagree with you on the break between XP and Vista. Vista, for all its foibles, is much more than a touched up version of XP. If that's all it was then all those driver issues, etc. wouldn't have happned. Now, viewing XP as a touched up version of Windows 2000 I'd absolutely agree with you. Truth is, that's one of the reasons why XP was such a success.

The problem with Vista, if you ask me, is that they tried to change too many things at once. I use Vista Ultimate64. I find it much smoother than XP. That said, I am still running dual boot because I have a few minor programs that have issues with Vista.

To me it looks like Windows 7 will be a relatively nice gui update with some small improvements under the hood. People with Vista probably won't see a need to update, people with XP might want to so they can get 64 bit compatibility and some new UI bells and whistles. Sort of like how with people skip generations of graphics cards because the old one is fine.

No matter the case, though, I agree with most people that judging performance on a pre-beta is foolish. This isn't hardware, it's software, and software can undergo tremendous improvements in speed and efficiency between builds.

Also, I think a lot of people are forgetting that the new chief of Windows, Steven Sinofsky, used to run the Office division. Basically, he ran Office in an almost continuous beta state, with weekly, fairly stable, builds, etc. He's doing the same with Windows from what I can tell. My guess is that's why everyone has been impressed with Windows 7's stability. So, whenever Microsoft wants to release, I'm sure the weekly builds will drop adding features and be focused on increasing efficiency/stability.

As for "most businesses" not using Vista, you're wrong. Businesses are doing what they always do, upgrading as needed. The "slowness" of adoption of Vista is simply because XP satisfies most business requirements just fine. Businesses jumped fairly quickly to Windows2000 because Windows98 was insecure/unstable. Those that didn't jump to Windows2000 jumped to XP. Those that jumped to Windows2000 moved very slowly (or still not at all) to XP.

Back to my initial tic/toc comment. If Microsoft went this way I figure the graphical enhancements would do well for consumers wanting to upgrade, while the under the hood enhancements would drive incentive for businesses to upgrade.


RE: Tic/Toc strategy for OS's?
By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 7:38:11 PM , Rating: 2
We had computers in the DOD that were upgraded to XP last year. Given that fact, is it any surprise the DOD and major corporations haven't decided to upgrade to Vista? There are good reasons to let a platform fully mature before migrating to it.

But I agree, MS either needs to make 7 small enough to go on netbooks or it needs to make an OS that will work there so they can move on from XP - even if it's a '7-ing' of XP. That way they can get XP out of the market and keep it from competing with their new OSes.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Vista doesn't have that many problems anymore.

People won't call 7 crap like they call Vista crap because 7 will have stable drivers at release, and will be released on hardware that has had nearly 3 years to improve. Today's low end hardware was the good quality hardware when Vista was released (that's partly because of Vista).

BTW, what ever happened to WinFS?


so the beta is just as fast as vista eh?
By bond007taz on 11/11/2008 12:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
I know 7 is beta, but dont you find it funny that it is as fast as vista? I would understand if the beta was worse than vista but it is almost the same, if not the same... so this leads me to to believe that 7 is vista but just looks different - very dissapointing that MS is trying to pull something on us




By walk2k on 11/11/2008 1:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, that's pretty good if an Alpha version is just as fast as released Vista. Keep in mind Windows 7 is a whole new version from the ground up while Vista was just a UI update (and some security stuff). To already be running as well as it is means only good things.


By foolsgambit11 on 11/11/2008 7:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
I get just the opposite from that coincidence. I mean, alphas and betas are always slower than the final release, right? Just like you said, you'd understand if 7 pre-beta was worse than Vista. So, if it's currently the same as Vista, then when they finish optimizing code and remove debugging code, it should be faster than Vista. Of course it's based on the same kernel as Vista. But the kernel is getting better with time.


By kilkennycat on 11/11/2008 1:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
.. in their continuing pursuit of domination of the PC market.. And there seems no way back, without sacrificing their near-monopoly....

You have an OS (inc. libraries etc..) and you have an Applications Layer, including the UI and many other convenient utilities. A long, long time ago in the distant past, certainly in the world of the multitasking Amiga ( ~ 1985!) and even in the Microsoft world, these were two very distinct entities. However, in their quest to retain their OS monopoly and attract new customers, starting with Windows 9x, Microsoft began to deliberately tightly bind applications features such as IE with the OS and they accelerated the addition of tightly-bound bells and whistles with the introduction of WinXP, then Vista. Any attempt by governments, 3rd-party developers and other interest-groups around the world to separate the Microsoft applications layers from the core Windows OS has been met by strenous legal resistance from Microsoft.

Microsoft has finally been "hoist on their own petard" with these Microsoft-imposed mandatory applications-offerings bloating the size and slowing the core OS. With Windows 7 endeavoring to continue their OS monopoly, they dare not remove features that people have valued in XP and others that they have started to value in Vista. Microsoft also dare not cleanly separate the now hugely-bloated applications/UI layer from the core OS, (a) because they could not charge anything near the current prices for just the core OS (think Linux..) and (b) that would potentially open up the OS to 3rd-party development of UI and applications packages far superior to those currently packaged with Vista.

Of course, Microsoft could come up with a slimmed down OS just for netbooks ( er, maybe Windows XP.... sorry, I forgot WinXP has been forcibly discontinued...). However, since the typical customer expectations for a netbook is a total transparency between the netbook, laptop and desktop, that might not fly...

There are many thousands of 3rd-party and custom applications developed under XP ( the growth of the PC business literally exploded during this 6 years.. ) that fail under Vista, regardless of the so-called "backward compatibility" of Vista. For that reason, penetration of Vista within business, educational and government entities has been pitiful. Only those businesses using standard office and data-base software have seen any successful penetration of Vista. Intel, for just one example, has refused to adopt Vista as their default Windows OS, due to its poor backward compatibility with 3rd-party and custom applications developed under Win XP. Which business in its right mind and in these recession-type circumstances is going to invest development and test resources just to patch an application for a new OS when it works perfectl;y fine under Windows XP?? There is no declaration from Microsoft of any intent to improve Windows 7 backward-compatibility with WindowsXP-developed apps. And of course, Windows XP has been deliberately discontinued (and Dx 10+ mandatorily only available on Vista/Windows 7), so that Vista (er, I mean Windows 7) can be jammed down the customers' throats. Except that many of those professional customers who cannot or will not accept Vista/Windows7 as an "upgrade" from Win XP are moving to Linux for their future applications development and in the meantime sticking with Windows XP.




By Shmak on 11/11/2008 5:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
This brings to mind the fact that the last true OS that Microsoft made with usability in mind was probably somewhere around Windows 3.0 which got them sued by Apple. Since that point, the focus changed from "how can we make this product better?" to "how can we leverage ourselves into this market?" Their entire philosophy is now built around this question.

After sneaking by Apple, they proceeded to destroy Netscape (who had a superior product with more users than IE at the time), Then on to leverage their OS with media playback and content control, culminating in the Vista fiasco (which didn't work out so well, but was forced on us anyway). Each iteration of the OS focused on something totally unrelated to what should be the fundamental goals of an OS: usability, flexibility, and speed. Instead, MS chose to target internet functionality, media playback, and security, effectively blurring the line as to what an OS actually should do. Minor lip-service paid to the look of the UI with no real innovation at all. The competition was forced to do the same or suffocate. Now that we have integrated all of this unrelated crap into the OS, it is no longer a tool, the OS is an end in itself.

Of course the user-base wants to cut through the fat, but to expect MS to do away with all of the useless functionality that it has fought to integrate for 10+ years is pretty naive. You'll get Windows 7 as big or bigger than Vista.


By Neutrion on 11/11/2008 8:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of this, but the integrated apps to MS operating systems are expected now. They weren't before, and Netscape is a rare example of a better app. If the "better apps bundled" argument worked, a reasonable flavor of Linux would dominate the single user desktop. It hasn't though. GIMP is not a Photoshop replacement, Gnome is not a OSX GUI replacement, etc. at least in the standards of the home user. Now, servers are different....

Most importantly, I don't want to pay for each element of the OS. I'm not going to add $40 for Aero, $50 for IE, $40 for DirectX 10, etc.


Um...
By rs1 on 11/11/2008 5:08:35 PM , Rating: 2
The only people more foolish than the ones who would try to benchmark a pre-beta software release for performance/compatibility issues and then use the results to make assertions about the future performance/compatibility of the finished product are the ones who would actually treat such assertions as valid.




RE: Um...
By Shmak on 11/11/2008 5:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yes completely lacking logic, these people who wish to test the beta, or compare it to something else. Why would they ever want to do something like that? Don't these people know that this test version was only meant for looking and not for using? They certainly shouldn't send their feedback to Microsoft, because Microsoft might actually listen to it.


RE: Um...
By rs1 on 11/11/2008 8:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, there's nothing wrong with testing it, or comparing it to other things. But using the results of the tests draw conclusions regarding what issues the final version will have is absurd. The whole point of having an alpha/beta release is so that those things can be fixed, and thus *not* be present in the release version.

The issue isn't that people ran benchmarks on Windows 7 and weren't happy with the results, it's that they used the results of testing on a pre-beta piece of software to make conclusions about what problems the final version is going to have.


Windows 7 lite?
By mrdeez on 11/11/2008 2:49:12 PM , Rating: 1
Why in the world wont windows just release an edition of their software that has nothing but OS/Drivers and that's it?? I know where to get a browser at. That's what I want just a stripped down version of W7 and Ill be happy....or just let users customize their install. I use Vista and at first I thought it was a POS OS because shit didn't work on my laptop...then found out it was my Laptops motherboard.Sent it in for repair and 0 issues. All this BEFORE SP1.




RE: Windows 7 lite?
By rs1 on 11/11/2008 5:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting...you "know where to get a browser at", but do you know how you would get that browser onto your computer if the OS didn't include a built-in browser that you could use to download it? And even if you do, do you really think the majority of users are clever enough to figure out how to do the same?

And users can customize their install. You can add/remove drivers, software, etc., and modify the system settings that will be applied during the install. The process is called slipstreaming, and there are freely available programs that allow you to do it.


RE: Windows 7 lite?
By mrdeez on 11/12/2008 5:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
You know what I mean......Yes you and I can do this but what about the masses...the people who dont know why all the preinstalled garbage is on thier pc and why they need 4gb rame to run vista.


seriously...
By kattanna on 11/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: seriously...
By GoodBytes on 11/11/2008 11:01:08 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously... did you expect anyone to think you are anything above idiotic?


RE: seriously...
By sbrown23 on 11/11/2008 11:45:38 AM , Rating: 2
Do you think you are A) funny, B) original, or C) a dumbass iTard. Seriously, how original or thoughtful was that post. It's been done a million times, and wasn't even very funny the first time.


It's always like this
By judasmachine on 11/11/2008 11:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
I think you could cut and paste reviews of every MS O/S into this story. You hear the same complaints every time. I am not discounting them, I am merely pointing out that this is the same complaint of years gone by.




RE: It's always like this
By judasmachine on 11/11/2008 11:22:15 AM , Rating: 2
especially the betas, of coarse.


About bloating
By Cache on 11/11/2008 8:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I don't use any of the programs I had (at least, in the form that existed) 15 years ago. As time goes by, programs get bigger, more involved, and reach into all different facets of the computing experience. Too often, I think people call it bloat when it is--quite frankly--the continued evolution of the OS in retrospect to the hardware.

Will it run on that dedicated old Gateway 400-megahertz machine with a roaring 32 megs of RAM your grandparents bought for you back in 1998? Probably not, but then again, very little can. As people use the computer it is only logical Microsoft would try to keep up with consumer demand on what a PC can do. Call it bloat if you want, but I say get a bigger hard drive and get over technology that was dead five years ago.




RE: About bloating
By NubWobble on 11/12/2008 8:20:23 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, yes, the good old days of Windows 95 and how I hated them.


Memory
By Smilin on 11/11/2008 2:49:17 PM , Rating: 3
So plenty of others have commented on the retardedness of benchmarking a pre-beta (not pre-release, pre-BETA) OS with debug code and logging flipped on yada yada. We get the point.

The point I want to bring up is this little gem:
"Looking first at the kernel, both Vista and Windows 7 M3 (Milestone 3, the other name for the pre-beta) featured 97 to 100 processes. The system process also consumes a similar amount of memory to Vista, according to the writer."

This shows the author has no clue about OS architecture. What is a process folks? It's simply a descriptor, handle table, vad list and a handful of other things. Having X number of processes running on a computer means nothing. For all we know each process could have 1-2 threads sitting in a wait state doing jack sh1t.

How about the memory consumption of the system process? You mean Windows has cached things into memory that can be used to speed up the system if necessary or discarded to free up space in the blink of an eye if not? OH NOES!!!

It's not just the author I'm disappointed in, it's dailytech. I come here for informative and entertaining tech articles. If I want a ration of ass I'll go find a porn page.




Runs 3DMark06 fine.
By Lightnix on 11/11/2008 11:52:03 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, even the Forceware 180.43 Vista 32-bit betas worked on it fine, it even scored 8852 against 8843 on XP Pro SP3 on the same system (E2140 @ 2.67GHz, 8800 GTS 320MB, 2GB RAM, respective 180 release drivers).

Hell, I could swear the tests loaded faster under Release 6801 than XP.

Oh right, sorry, I'm supposed to find every fault with the OS that hasn't been released yet, gosh silly me. Where are my manners?

Kind of like grading an essay a couple of weeks before you had to hand it in isn't it?




Smells like FUD
By jonmcc33 on 11/11/2008 11:52:49 AM , Rating: 2
Haven't moved beyond that have you, Jason Mick?

Daemon Tools? Notorious for those that pirate software. It's not common on normal (average) systems.

VMWare? Used mainly by the testing community or enterprises on servers. Not common on normal (average) systems.

Please, talk about something that makes sense for once.




I tested Windows 8 and it sucks
By Elementalism on 11/11/2008 12:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
Damn thing wont even install. I put the disc in and it spins with nothing on it. MS sucks!




Bunch of Twits.
By snownpaint on 11/11/2008 1:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
<Flaming>
I can't believe all of these posts. Some people have their heads so far up Microsoft's Ass, you could tell me what Ballmer ate for Lunch. Microsoft could do no wrong.

Companies put out betas and Pre-Betas for feed back, and notes to tweak. They can't have ever video card, MoBo, CPU on machines for testing and run all the tests on them.. So they send out releases to see what is working and what is not. Simple commenting, direct feedback and writing an article about its flaws, issues, benchmarks, use interface and noticed differences is all the process for making a OS for the diverse PC world.

If you want to look around the internet, you may notice there are endless posts, blogs, about issues with MS OS (98,XP, Vista).. Remember, it comes with a POS instruction manual and all your answers are figured out by other people who take the time to post their issues and fixes. At out of my experience with XP, only one answer to an issue came from MS's site.

Personally, 7 is not going to win my OS update if it is more invasive, or bloated then XP.. XP was fat enough, I want them to trim it up, secure it up, and pull the internet from directly influencing my OS..IE TIED TO MY OS, that was stupid on a level of security.




Is anyone surprised?
By mattclary on 11/11/2008 1:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
Did/does anyone expect MS to actually slim an OS down? Color me skeptical.




Addressing a few posts in one....
By The0ne on 11/11/2008 1:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
A "pre-beta" release would be similar to an Alpha release where the hardware/software isn't quite ready for actual beta yet. However, how MS is doing this is different. In my past work experiences we have never release Alpha products to customers for testing or evaluation. Only those special customers will get a chance to and even then they get a letter stating the software is in Alpha testing. Once you hit beta (or MS RC?), you're already expected to hit most of the milestones and are left with tweaks and bug fixes. I still have hope for Windows7 and I'm not very found of Vista, but things can change. However, the release is right around the corner. A few months is not long when you're developing :)

In regards to Vista's performance in games I still have issues with the OS and drivers giving me the performance I have in XP. I've use official drivers, modded drivers, recommended drivers all to some helpful degree but with always with side effects (which is to be expected). I have a 7900GTX, 8800GTS and 9800GX2 and they don't run well in Vista Ultimate at all. I've tried 3 times to fight this with little success. GUI operations and movements becomes sluggish, dualview to my 72" TV is poor, games have lower FPS. But even after all this, drivers have improve dramatically since Vista's release. I'm just not sure whether they are mature enough yet to survive Vista's cycle until Windows7 come out.

While the article has it's value, the scope needs to be understood by the reader. It wouldn't hurt the author to point this out as well to avoid MASS confusion. Again, this stems from the fact that it seems many readers here don't really know what a alpha, pre-beta, beta, RC or what have you is.




MS could do it, already does it!
By requin99 on 11/11/2008 2:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
The fun part in these discussions is that nobody seems to be aware of the fact that microsoft already made a cut-down version of Vista... it is called windows Server 2008!

I've been using it for the last three months, and the issues I have with respect to compatibility are remarkably similar to those of vista but... the memory footprint is about half! To make matters worse, the computer I test it on is a measly dual xeon (p4 era ) running on just 1.8Ghz, 512kb cache and a paltry 1.5GB system memory! And guess what, it works like a charm. And yes, I know Vista, it was significantly slower than server 2008 (on the same machine, whatever the tuning).

And pardon me, but I don't give a ... if somebody has 2 4 or 128 GB of system memory! Vista, XP etc are an OS, that means its the service provider for other programs to run on! An OS should run in the background, for all I care you shouldn't know it is there, than it is doing a good job! 512MB max for the system at startup no more! And for those who say, well I've got memory enough... Well if every programmer thinks that way, and wastes away 150mb every time, then look what's left of your 8GB...




The Real Cause
By Yawgm0th on 11/11/2008 2:33:53 PM , Rating: 2
I think people are getting too worked up in this debate to remember what causes the misconception that any flavor of Windows is inherently slow.

Now I did a fresh install of Vista Ultimate x64 the other day. After installing drivers and anti-virus (SAV Corp), total processes came to somewhere in the high 60s/low 70s, IIRC. A bit of tweaking in services.msc and msconfig and a reboot later, and it was hovering around 50 with nothing up. That was of course without actually disabling any features -- even though there are several more services that can be disabled.

On my Inspiron E1705 running Vista Ultimate x86, I generally have under 50 processes with nothing up. It has a 7200RPM HDD, so it is very tolerable.

It came with a 5400RPM HDD and Home Premium, stacked to about 90 processes and 1.5GB+ RAM usage. Of course it was just about unbearable. After getting rid of the excess, it was tolerable but load times for anything remotely big were slow. I pop in a new hard drive and everything's fine.

What's interesting about this is that I've done it before, literally dozens of times: with XP. See, the good people at the big OEMs (Dell, HP, Aver, Lenovo, etc.) like to give us lots of extra software. Some of it they're paid to give us, some of it they give on their own. Most of it is useless. Most of it runs at startup. Sometimes the programs are resource-intensive, sometimes not. Having an extra 40 processes and 500MB+ of extra RAM usage has a noticeable affect regardless of what the processes are.

The moral of the story is obvious. Attributing problems to the OS itself that are caused entirely by what's running on the OS doesn't make sense. Vista is not that slow. It multitasks just fine. Doing a Ctrl + Alt + Del or Alt + Tab or even Flip 3D is more likely to get a response when an application has locked up than it was in XP. Virtually all post-release benchmarks, particularly post-SP1 benchmarks, put it within 10% of XP, and that has been my experience. Vista does have its issues and it could be faster, but OEM releases give it worse rap than it deserves.




Remeber?
By toyotabedzrock on 11/13/2008 11:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
They never said Windows 7 would be faster only that it would not be slower.

You gotta love how sometimes what people want turns into what they think a product advertised. And Vista doesn't run with 100 processes normally, unless you have a notebook with a bunch of crap-ware.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki