backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by kondor999.. on Feb 20 at 4:31 PM

SP1 for Windows Vista shines in some areas and introduces inconsistencies in others

Many Windows customers are excited about finally getting their hands on Windows Vista's first service pack, SP1, which promised to deliver not only bugfixes, but performance upgrades.  After a slow release schedule, Microsoft picked up the pace and made plans to ship early to select customers.  The service pack already went out to testers; volume English-language customers will be receiving it before the end of the week, and MSDN and TechNet subscribers will receive it by the end of the month.

One key question on Windows Vista users' minds is exactly how does Windows post SP1 measure up against the initial copy of Windows Vista in terms of performance.  In initial testing at CNET Labs, the results are in, and they are rather mixed.  Testers found that while SP1 improves performance under some condition, it actually decreases performance under others.  For the most part, testers concluded, few will notice the difference between the base installation and an SP1 installed system.

Vista does offer bundled updated third party drivers which do upgrade performance significantly, but most of these were already available.  Customers who have kept current with Window's Updates and their third party driver updates will find little new here, and thus will see no real performance change.  Microsoft definitely can take credit in a big picture sense for providing improved performance, though, as it has been devoting considerable resources to helping third party vendors make their products better compatible with Windows, gradually improving performance over the last year.

Probably the single biggest changes in performance have to do with file copying.  Windows XP used an cached I/O mode to improve write times.  Windows Vista on the other hand used a slower predominately uncached I/O system.  The upgrade to SP1 adds caching back into the mix, which in most cases, testers discovered, improves results.

Another CNET blogger, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, claims just the opposite: that Vista file transfers increase dramatically with the new service pack. Some of his file transfer tests demonstrated performance increases of up to 63% in benchmarks.

Mark Russinovich, a technical fellow for Microsoft, explains the inconsistencies in another post on Microsoft's TechNet forum.  He summarizes, "You’ll see the biggest improvements over older versions of Windows when copying files on high-latency, high-bandwidth networks where the large I/Os, SMB2’s I/O pipelining, and Vista’s TCP/IP stack receive-window auto-tuning can literally deliver what would be a ten minute copy on Windows XP or Server 2003 in one minute."

On the other side of things, CNET reports the SP1 update has somehow created a performance degradation in copy times to external USB 2.0 hard drives.  Something is going wrong in Windows Vista SP1 during USB copies, and the issue is currently under investigation.  Meanwhile Windows Vista SP1 takes a 40 to 50 percent performance hit in this type of file copies, when compared to base Windows Vista.

Testers did comment on SP1's rather good job in delivering bug fixes.  This leads to a more stable environment.  Still, feelings towards SP1 will probably depend heavily on users' expectations as it delivers a mixed bag of performance changes.


Comments     Threshold


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

Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Sahrin on 2/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By pauluskc on 2/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By pauluskc on 2/14/2008 5:01:01 PM , Rating: 5
Plus, how in the world do they come up with this:

quote:
On the other side of things, the SP1 update has somehow created a performance degradation in copy times to external USB 2.0 hard drives. Something is going wrong in Windows Vista SP1 during USB copies, and the issue is currently under investigation. Meanwhile Windows Vista SP1 takes a 40 to 50 percent performance hit in this type of file copies, when compared to base Windows Vista.


Pure stupidity. This must be a conversation in their developer farm:

dev 12187: direct i/o is fastest
dev 47623: cached i/o is fastest
dev 82716: USB is too fast, slow it down
dev 97863: I want my mommy!

Ugh.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By SavagePotato on 2/14/2008 5:09:55 PM , Rating: 5
You have built computers for 10 years.
And you could not master the networking in Vista.

Lets say that again for effect

You have built computers for 10 years.
And you could not master the networking in Vista.

I'm sorry but there is really no way to sugar coat it, but you are stuck in the mud and have forgotten how to learn. It took me about one and a half minutes to get used to how networking was arranged.

It takes three clicks flat to get to the place to turn UAC off, and you will never be asked to confirm anything again.

Not even going to go into office. Same theme, you have lost all ability to learn if you couldn't figure out where the advanced options in office 2007 were in less than a minute.

So very sick and tired of so called experts slamming down the "I'm a tech" or "I build systems" bomb then proceeding on to talk about how they couldn't master the simplest of tasks a 12 year old could find in under a minute in Vista. Give everyone a break.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Xerio on 2/14/2008 5:27:33 PM , Rating: 3
I was thinking the same thing. I have been building computers for about 15 years (on and off) and I had no problems acclimating to Vista. My wife on the other hand... :)

Another thing: UAC is annoying, but it serves a purpose. I have cleaned up millions (it seems) of computers from crap. UAC keeps the average home user from doing things they don't need to be messing with. If it could be turned off easily, then it would serve no purpose. For the rest of us, as mentioned, it is easily disabled.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By SavagePotato on 2/14/2008 5:42:46 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not a genius, not a 20 year industry veteran. Just the average technician that's been playing with computers since they were 10 years old and ended up in it out of inevitability. I don't consider myself anything but of average intelligence.

Yet somehow Vista was easy as pie for me and everyone around me to learn. So that begs the question. How is it that these "professionals" these "experts" are managing to get so confused and put out by the so called abomination that Vista is?

How is it these self proclaimed system builders or self proclaimed "techs" have managed to find this so abysmally difficult that they couldn't even figure out how to turn off bloody UAC?

All I am left to come up with, is stupidity. What else can it be but stupidity or maybe assumption. Every single person thats come up to me and said "Vista sucks", I've asked really? why?

The answer comes back time and time again, uhhhh well because my buddy Jim said it sucks, or it's slow, or it's buggy and crashes. Inevitably leading to the next question which is, Have you used it?

Now it's easy to lie on a forum, face to face looking someone in the eye is different. The answer that comes back again and again is "uhh well no..."

So is it that these proclaimed pros are just really stupid as mud? Or are they just lying and exaggerating the level of evaluation they have put into the software to draw these asinine conclusions?


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/14/2008 5:59:03 PM , Rating: 5
More than likely its the "Unable to adapt to change" philosophy. I've got some 15 year vets on my current team and I want to fire them in the worst kind of way. Management wants to "retrain" them, and provide a 3-4 year plan to advance their skills to the level needed today. I hate it. In 3-4 years all of our capable engineers will be 3-4 years into the future (alot changes in that amount of time) yet these losers will be still behind, if not further. I'm laughing when we do a widespread rollout of Vista at work, most of these morons will be digging themselves an early grave trying to adjust to the changes (that are for the better).


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Mitch101 on 2/14/2008 6:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly that dead wight manages to survive or be protected by someone else in the company. Meanwhile we have a revolving door of some great contractors who we would love to keep but keep leaving to get a perm job somewhere else because we cant get rid of the dead wood.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Xerio on 2/14/2008 6:11:48 PM , Rating: 3
Those guys really are annoying. I have a friend that runs a small business in SoCal. He took over the business from his dad who had a guy with 30 years of computer experience. The guy wasn't worth $5/hr and they were paying him six figures for his antiquated experience. One of the first things my friend did was let the guy go and took over the IT stuff himself.

It is a sad situation, but I also know guys that have been doing it for 30 years that have kept their skills up to date. Now those guys are worth the six figures.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Xodus Maximus on 2/14/2008 7:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
And you call yourself a jedi, you want somebody fired, you fire them! Just concentrate hard enough and im sure "the force" will ignite those people without difficulty...oh, thats not what you meant, oops.

And I know exactly what you mean, I hate that kind of mentality which I like to call "What I have now is good enough". I just want to scream, humanity would still be in the caves with no technology if everyone was like you...and its pure laziness because they have no consequences for their incompetence, so they never learn.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Southpaws on 2/15/2008 10:31:40 PM , Rating: 4
I'd like to play the Devil's advocate here and suggest that the "What I have now is good enough" attitude can be perfectly acceptable. Upgrading to a new OS, just for the sake of updating makes no sense. There's got to be a tangible, financial benefit achieved by doing so.

For most companies it will not be a matter of staying ahead of the curve, it will be a matter of cost. Windows XP is fast, stable and its drivers are mature. Vista, while having numerous new security and usability enhancements, is plagued by stability and compatibility problems. The decision, as to whether or not to upgrade to Vista, should be a product of a cost/benfit analysis.

I'm pretty sure that right now Windows XP has a lower TCO than Vista.


By Xodus Maximus on 2/16/2008 6:11:11 PM , Rating: 2
That view is acceptable for an organization but not for an individual's personal creed, at least in my view.

Especially in technology and science people should always be striving for something better, and it is your responsibly as a human to learn and do as much as you can before you die. Again that is my personal belief, which is why lazy people who neglect their skills, just because they can, make me scream(see previous post ;).


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Aloonatic on 2/15/2008 5:15:07 AM , Rating: 3
Give it 10/15 years and see how you feel about vets then :)

Holographic displays and mind controlled devices will probably have us all scratching our heads and knocking the electrodes out of place much to the amusement of the fresh faced youngsters at our places of work who will laugh at us all and want us fired too :)


By DeepBlue1975 on 2/15/2008 7:44:23 AM , Rating: 3
Not necessarily.
I'm 33yo and been playing with computers since 1985 (my first one was a c64, and I still remember that a sys 64738 command soft resets that machine, as I remember the "tortured souls" game hidden on excel's 95 95th row, and how you could see the credits of windows 3.1 including a funny picture of Bill Gates).

And I could "learn" to use vista... I say "learn" because after using Xp, adapting to vista was pretty much straightforward. Come on, it's now rocket science at all...

Learning new stuff it's only a matter of attitude and personal predisposition. If you've got your mind set on the idea that anything new is horrendous and only old things are good, you're lost.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By FITCamaro on 2/15/2008 7:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
I feel your pain Kenobi. Try doing it with people who aren't actually engineers.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/16/2008 7:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
I do. I've got many who aren't engineers, and I have many who claim to be "technical". Good ole management and labor laws prevent us from touching many of these people because they are "protected".


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Mitch101 on 2/14/2008 5:54:52 PM , Rating: 2
You bring up a good point.

Who is benchmarking the machine 3 months after a fresh OS install? Fresh vs Fresh is core OS comparison but not how that machine will be a year from now.

As for the USB disk performance where did they get the formatted drive from? Was it formatted from factory, xp, or vista. There are revisions to NTFS.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Aloonatic on 2/15/2008 5:27:23 AM , Rating: 3
USB performance in vista appears to be just weird

I was copying a load of files of varying sizes to an external drive yesterday, about 180GB worth and it stated that it would take 30 days and 18 hours or something silly.

Also, the transfer speed got to a max of about 5MBps which didn't seem right either.

The progress bar was moving along nicely but the time estimate never really decreased that much.

I walked off and left it too it, and was finished within a couple of hours, no idea when exactly.

The silly time estimate thing doesn't help at all, why do they bother?


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Mitch101 on 2/15/2008 2:16:48 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds like the USB drivers might be defaulting to a USB 1.1 speed or Vista is identifying the USB port as a much slower speed port. I might look for some Vista certified Mobo drivers for the USB port if that's the case. It could be Vista installed what it thinks is the best driver for your USB ports knocking the speed way down. Certainly Vista could be the problem but I kind of feel those USB drivers might be optimized for XP and Vista doesn't like something about them and they are running into maybe a security layer. Could also be the Anti-Virus software too choking on something. Wouldnt be the first time I saw an AV program choke a machines performance. Cough TREND Cough choking the file system because its not letting the files go.

Brings me back to the best copy estimate program of all time was LapLink.

Sorry dude I hope you find the solution soon.


By Aloonatic on 2/16/2008 5:36:36 AM , Rating: 1
in a quiet moment i'll have a look at a few of your suggestions, thanks :)

the transfer speed ultimately wasn't that bad, just the estimates were weird.

Just so you know i was using a couple of month old machine that has only ever had vista on it and has AVG antivirus.

There were some other usb devices (an old scanner and a printer) attached so maybe they were up to something.

At least vista is keeping me amused and occupied at work.

XP was way too easy to maintain after a while (but was by no means as perfect as some people seem to remember??) so now I look busy again :D


By aftlizard01 on 2/14/2008 7:01:49 PM , Rating: 1
I have to agree with also. I am a networking neophyte and I found networking on Vista far easier to learn than anything in the past such as XP.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By pauluskc on 2/15/2008 9:20:13 AM , Rating: 1
yeah. I hate those "experts" too. they sound like Mac owners.

the point is a bigger toolbar. i know, i know - I should have a .3 second old system with quad-dual hyperthreaded cores on each anus, but I don't see the point. when people you support are working in 1024 resolution, it kinda sucks when you have the damn toolbar taking up so much space. I use the keyboard shortcuts.

aparently my company, my aparently idiot self included, has fallen in with the ole "why do I have to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade" to do the same stuff...

I'm sure I can figure it out and do whatever is needed to make it work. the real point is that I don't give a rat's ass to. Not forgotten how to learn - nice jest though, ye 13 year old nutlicker - just no real reason. Woo-Hoo. Computers. Someone fetch the tube of sticky-holographic-keyboard-de-stikitizer. Good for me!

The point is that MS is treating us all like 8 year olds (yes, younger than 12 year olds) by forcing all this crap down on us. In my 10+ years of computers, I've never had a single virus. Sorry - Never Happened. Why do I need all this spoon fed to me like I am going to click everything I see? This wasn't a OCLB computer, ya know.

Blah blah blah, etc. ad naseum.


By Xenoterranos on 2/15/2008 10:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
Well, WinXP gets cut off after 2014, so you have until then to get over it. Or buy a mac. Or learn linux.

(damn it feels weird writing the year 2014 like that)


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By SavagePotato on 2/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By pauluskc on 2/15/2008 11:33:49 AM , Rating: 2
like a potato. :)


By SavagePotato on 2/15/2008 12:24:53 PM , Rating: 1
Being a living growing organism no.

Being a fence post, kind of like the one you must have hit your head on to get where you are, yes.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By pauluskc on 2/15/2008 11:52:15 AM , Rating: 2
nothing about too important to learn anything... just nothing really "new" to learn. Just another marketing blitz by the best in the biz (although yahoo doesn't think they're best enough to let them in). you are nobody unless you are vista. yup. that's the ticket!

Hey guess what, I've got a shiny new 2008 quarter, wanna trade your ancient 1932 S quarter for it? It's 2008 man. That makes it better!

i have half my servers with 64bit and half without. whoop-d-doo.

once I need to start working with numbers like 2.38 trillion on an everyday basis (counting my own butthairs I guess) then 64bit desktop makes sense.

people like you are the reason the chinese enforce firing squad executions.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By noirsoft on 2/15/2008 12:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
No, if you want more than 3.2 gigs of RAM available, then you want 64-bit computing NOW.

And as for the new interface, the organization of options in Vista and Office 2007 is far more logical than in previous versions. You just seem to be upset because you spent who knows how long memorizing where things were in the old versions, and now that skill is useless because things are now easy to find.

Kids these days with their "10 years" of esperience. When did they become old curmudgeons?


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By SavagePotato on 2/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By pauluskc on 2/15/2008 12:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
only because the Model T gets better mileage.

only because it requires that much ram. Why can I get the same stuff done (maybe not 500 fps in killallrealhumans 47) with 256MB or whoa! 512MB to your 8 G?

you are the man. I am not.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By VashHT on 2/15/2008 5:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
We have engineers here who wait for their computers to load things for more than 10 minutes because they only have 512mb of ram. I can not run our company email and do anything else because I only have 256mb of ram. Yeah you'll still get it done, but you're pissing away tons of time because your computer is past outdated. You could get the same stuff done with 256mb as 8Gb, but it'll take you a hell of a lot longer. Hell I could get by with 128mb if I wanted to spend half my workday sitting on my ass watching my computer load things.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Donkeyshins on 2/15/2008 7:38:12 PM , Rating: 1
Mileage maybe better than a Ford SUV. Per Wikipedia:

quote:
According to Ford Motor, the Model T had fuel economy on the order of 13 to 21 mpg

Yeah, I'll take my 318i, thanks. Or maybe a 123d.

And with regard to your rant against memory usage, I bet you bitched up a storm when XP shipped because <gasp!> you needed at least 512MB of RAM! But you know what? The cost of that 512MB of RAM in 2001 is approximately the same as the cost of 2GB of RAM in 2008 when adjusted for inflation. Imagine that!

Tell you what, I've got a copy of DOS 6.22 lying around somewhere - perhaps that will suit your purposes.

Sheesh.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Darkskypoet on 2/16/2008 5:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, there are many applications where XP or Gasp windows 2000 simply fits the task better. (read: Especially very expensive older production hardware. (Large format Printers, Decal machines, CNC, etc. As in $40k-$250k pus pieces of equipment) And because some of the firms I work for are not going to jump and spend a tonne to upgrade everything, they will ride the older bus and get there much Cheaper, for now.

Some interesting points have been raised. It is precisely because Vista 64 actually has some support that makes me happy. A 32 bit os, and a 3.2gb physical memory limit (not to mention the 2gb user space / app limit) sucks ass in light of the cheap ddr / ddr2 prices

However... My biggest complaint with vista, is that they made, and by default distribute, a 32 bit version of the OS. That pisses me off. Why in the hell would you release a mammoth memory eating OS with same said limits. I have respect for vista 64, because it will have far more vendor support then XP64 has... However, Vista 32 is a piece of s**t. I don't say this because I hate vista, I say this because MS didn;t have to make it easy on hardware / software vendors.

1.) No cpu without 64 bit extensions currently ships with Vista.

2.) No one in their right mind should really be buying cpu's without 64bit extensions for Vista.

3.) XP will run circles around vista on any CPU lacking (as in old enough to not have) 64bit extensions.

4.) Rolling out millions of copies of the "new and improved" vista, with the same memory, etc limitations as XP is stupid, and almost criminal (it is the only 'new' desktop os still only 32 bit.)

5.) Far greater device / proper software support for Vista 64 would have been made available more quickly, if there were only derivatives of the 64bit os, and not a split field to code for.

6.) OEM's could just ship systems with 4gb and not 3gb. That must irk many OEMs. (you mean we can't just buy 2 million 1gb ddr2 dimms? We still have to stock 512's? Come on!!!)

7.) MS has now delayed the proper full acceptance of a 64 bit Windows OS, because... because... They wanted people with older hardware to be able to run vista? Come on! (Why increase their expense? Why bother making two different code bases? You'd think they would've taken the 98 + NT = XP logic, and made it a 64bit platform. 32bit vista isn't much better the XP.)

Honestly, do I run vista now? No. Will I eventually? Maybe. Will I run vista 32? NO. Why? Cause I want a new OS that will let me cram 8gb of ram into my machine and let me use it. I want apps coded for a larger then 2gb user space, I want a 64bit environment. Not a half and half sham.

I installed and tested 64 bit Linux distros almost 2 years ago now. Mainly to play with a system with 4gb plus of memory. Hell, Mac OS X doesn't come in 32 or 64bit versions... Jobs was smart there. Hack off the Mac OS 9 users, and make them upgrade. I like. Mac OS X works wonderfully with 4gb's plus. As I am sure Vista does too. However, sadly, the majority of users running vista right now will never ever be able to use 4gb. At least, until they pony up more cash to MS... and that makes me sick.

So; upgrading to Vista 64? Not so bright for the standard user with a preexisting XP machine... No real benefit. And any power user wanting any advanced functionality out of vista, ie DX10, etc. Should get Vista 64! But vista 32, is just plain dumb.


By Darkskypoet on 2/16/2008 5:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
TextSo; upgrading to Vista 64? Not so bright for the standard user with a preexisting XP machine... No real benefit. And any power user wanting any advanced functionality out of vista, ie DX10, etc. Should get Vista 64! But vista 32, is just plain dumb.


Should read:

So; upgrading to Vista 32? Not so bright for the standard user with a preexisting XP machine... No real benefit. And any power user wanting any advanced functionality out of vista, ie DX10, etc. Should get Vista 64! But vista 32, is just plain dumb, IMO.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Xodus Maximus on 2/16/2008 6:00:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
full on 64 bit os penetration


whoa dude, you make it sound so sexy and seductive, im sold!

and from your posts may I suggest you try and find a girl to give you an 80bit float job, it sounds like you are tense.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Darkskypoet on 2/16/2008 6:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
Dude... If your pulling titillation from an OS rant, might I suggest you need someone to give you the mentioned float job? (ensure proper termination as well, in this case, a stack over flow might be a good thing ;) )


By Xodus Maximus on 2/16/2008 6:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
lol, touche! and I thought that my comment was being a smart-ass but yours is pure win.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Sahrin on 2/14/2008 5:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
Every single point you made (even being "trained to upgrade" as a matter of fact) boils down to user laziness.

So how is this Microsoft's problem?

Also, could you link me to those "farting apps?" I like my bathroom humor as much as the next guy.

(On a more serious note, hasn't the whole UAC-debate been settled by the fact that people who get UAC prompts a lot are idiots that don't know how to configure their app installs? Are we really still having this conversation?)


By BruceLeet on 2/14/2008 5:44:51 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So how is this Microsoft's problem?


It's not. Simply put, the problem sits in front of the keyboard =)


By Donkeyshins on 2/15/2008 7:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, could you link me to those "farting apps?" I like my bathroom humor as much as the next guy.


Windows need your permission to pass gas. Pull finger? <CONTINUE> <CANCEL>


By Locutus465 on 2/14/2008 5:35:26 PM , Rating: 3
Hmmm.... I just don't know what to say... You seriously have been building computers for 10 years and you couldn't figure out vista? Have you ever switched OS's durring these 10 years?


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Iger on 2/15/2008 4:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
Well-well... Yup, it's strange that someone building systems for 10 years couldn't cope with simple tasks (google ftw?)
I've installed Vista, I've had a couple of small issues (HDD I/O related), but also had some fun with the new ui...

But my main question is "what's wrong with XP?" What does Vista bring to table? The window management doesn't feel so much better - and that's what does matter for me in OS.
DX10? Yes... nasty for MS to not include DX10 in XP. Still not overly viable event at newes videocards if you haven't spent a fortune. Anything else? Well nothing for me at least...

XP is lighting-responsive on modern systems, time-tested, has good driver and software support... Why upgrade?


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By mrboo on 2/16/2008 2:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
I agree file transfer is sometimes okay but many times slow as a wet weasel so the fix is well due.
Just like to add my two bobs worth, at work I recently was given a new PC loaded with Vista Business, every few hours the PC was auto rebooting. After a while Vista reported that it may be a memory problem and asked if I wanted to run memory diagnostics which I selected yes, after the diag Vista found the problem to be indeed my ram. I then contacted our store which originally stated that they couldn't fix my PC for three weeks but after telling them what Vista reported they took the PC in and replaced the ram right then & there. I believe Vistas problem reporting tools are indeed a huge cost saving for businesses. One of the other benefits is the preview window in explorer, which previews pretty much any file including email. More often than not this works and the amount of time saved by not starting an individual programs window is fantastic.
As more employees PC’s die and are replaced with Vista the better. For one, when they can’t find what they are looking for (which happens a lot especially after a long weekend on the turps) they search for it.
For business, Vista so far has proven to be a time saver and I don’t have to tell you but I will time is money.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By Screwballl on 2/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By StormEffect on 2/14/2008 9:17:09 PM , Rating: 4
Three things.

1. Vista does not require wipes/re-installs to continue to operate smoothly, XP does.
2. Vista requires at least a week of use before it is operating at peak performance. XP does not use nearly the same level of caching/heuristics. Comparing two fresh installs only tells you that at the moment of install, XP is zippier. Try the test 1 month or 1 week later.
3. "real experience"

What? Where? How do I compare "Vista ran...well, like crap."
What the heck is the point of listing all of your computer hardware if you are not going to back your statements up with actual data? Subjective "like crap" statements do not count as data.

I don't know if it is my superior hardware, consiting of an Intel T7700, 4GB of RAM at 667, and a 60 GB partition on a 7200 RPM laptop drive, or simply my luck, but Vista is faster. It never crashes, it doesn't bluescreen, and I don't have to worry as much about being instantly infested with Malware ala XP, pre-SP2. Over time the OS actually reaches higher levels of responsiveness and levels off. XP is a slippery downhill slope. Every install is nicking off 1/3 an FPS in a game or 1 second per startup.

The point is moot anyway, people who hate Vista don't need to upgrade to it. Nobody should force them to. I find Vista superior than XP, but that is just through my experience, through my hardware.


By Spivonious on 2/15/2008 8:04:49 AM , Rating: 2
Totally agree with you. I have pretty much the same system as the poster you responded to and Vista x64 runs noticeably faster than XP did. It boots faster, the desktop is more responsive, and applications load almost instantaneously thanks to ReadyBoost.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By nidomus on 2/16/2008 4:43:40 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
1. Vista does not require wipes/re-installs to continue to operate smoothly, XP does.


FALSE!

About 2 or 3 months ago a random problem happened with any steam game that as soon as it launched i got a hl2.exe has experienced a problem and needs to close. I won't go into the details because they're tedious, but nothing i did fixed the problem. I probably spent the better part of 2 days researching reinstalling/uninstalling, scanning etc etc etc, and nothing fixed it aside from a complete and total system wipe.

Same with my windows experience rating thingamajig, i tried numerous hotfixes for that from microsoft that were supposed to fix the problem but never did. Total system wipe did.

I've gotten blue screens and whatnot, but that was because I overclocked... teehee.

I do like it though, i am a bit curmudgeony when it comes to upgrading at first... God when we went from a windows 3.1 machine (486 DX2 66mhz) and upgraded it to windows 95,(i was 15 at the time) i was so pissy trying to figure everything out and hated it. I remember myself saying, "GOD THIS IS STUPID" and pounding my desk. Now I couldn't imagine going back to program manager.


RE: Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By noirsoft on 2/15/2008 12:12:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The only time XP should ever FEEL slower is when you have the system running for 2+ years without any AV or spyware or security software plus have never used msconfig to remove all the extra junk that may have been installed.


Spoken like someone who knows nothing about Vista.

Vista's UI should always feel more responsive than XP, because XP uses the CPU to update the GUI, while any reasonable Vista computer will use the GPU to do it. Is your CPU bogged down with a task? Then XP barely updates the screen. Vista keeps on drawing. Ever have those moments when you drag a window around the screen on XP and you get garbage filling the screen? Or when the taskbar has holes in it? That absolutely _NEVER_ happens on Vista with Aero enabled.

Aside from UI, frequently used apps load faster on Vista because of more aggressive caching. Example: I launch Paint Shop Pro X2 for the first time in Vista: ~15 seconds until I can begin working. I exit and launch again: 3 seconds due to caching. VIsta devotes more resources to this (the apparent "memory bloat" ignorant people coimplain about) so more apps load quickly than under XP.

Two of the biggest reasons why Vista really is faster than XP on well-prepared machines.


By wallijonn on 2/15/2008 11:27:08 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm not sure when it was decided that an OS update needs to improve performance.


When it was perceived that Vista was slower than XP (since Vista needs twice as much memory), when copying files, when network connectivity was seen as slower and when DX10 was seen as slower than DX9c.


Not worried
By Domicinator on 2/14/2008 5:34:17 PM , Rating: 5
I take any Windows articles written by Jason Mick with a grain of salt. He candy coats problems with Apple stuff, and blows MS stuff way out of proportion.

One thing you can say for Vista--it may have some pre-SP1 file copy performance issues, but at least it doesn't completely destroy your files in the process like on OSX.




RE: Not worried
By GoodBytes on 2/14/2008 9:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
I also don't worry, as Vista SP1 is not out to the public YET, and it will be probably fixed before it comes out, and that is this problem is real. So far CNet is the only one complaining about SP1. So I suspect it was a bad test, or probably a lie. As I find The Inquire having better facts and test than CNet (perhaps because they accept too much money from certain companies).

For example, they are some product that many trusted review site claim to be amazing, recommended, or simply great (7/10) but CNet basically says it is totally abysmal.
For example, for my CRT monitor (I can't find the 2002 review to show you), they claimed to extreme blurry text and images, that you cannot see anything, terrible navigation on the menus, and that you see 2 vertical lines on the screen.

Well, I have that monitor as all reviews proven to be totatlly wrong, still have it now, and use it. And it surpasses any LCD (even this one:http://www.trustedreviews.com/displays/review/2007... Witch I have, at all aspects (1600x1200 at 85Hz CRT 17inch... can't complain on flickering and resolution :P). (except screen thickness and weight ;) )

As for the 2 claimed lines, well anyone that used a high-end CRT see those 2 very very thin lines (1/10 pixel, I would say). And that it is used so that the screen doesn't have static.


RE: Not worried
By mondo1234 on 2/14/2008 11:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
Thats True, but "Daily Tech" should be called "Tech Opinion" since it is more opinion then news. You are correct about Jason Mick, but the same is true in reverse of Brandon Hill (the Anti-Mick?). Everything bad about MS is downplayed. The problem with DT is that the writing is biased towards the writers preference and not towards general interest. I like the sites that report the tech news straight up - "like it or not, here it is".


RE: Not worried
By James Holden on 2/16/2008 4:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
It seems to me you should be chastising CNET since all Jason did was quote them anyway.


RE: Not worried
By Locutus465 on 2/15/2008 12:17:11 AM , Rating: 2
I'm running the public beta on my desktop right now, and I can tell you if that's any indication then he's blowing a whole lot way out of proportion. For instance I use USB hard drives all the darn time for work, and yet I've never noticed that what was it? 40% drop in speed? Seriously now, I actually noticed no speed difference at all truth be told. I've also not noticed anything else decrees in performance.

One thing he did get right, is that on the other hand I also didn't notice a whole lot of a performance increase either. the only major exception to that rule is file copies, that's it.


RE: Not worried
By SavagePotato on 2/15/08, Rating: 0
Pleased with Vista
By lakingsgeek on 2/14/2008 6:51:19 PM , Rating: 5
Mark me down as another one who will take Vista over XP any day of the week.

Just like many others here, I'll point out that I too am in the IT field. I do basic desktop support. I only have a few years experience but to get to the point, I know what I'm doing on a PC (or a MAC for that matter).

My gaming rig at home is running Vista x64 and it's been near flawless. The interface is more intuitive, not to mention much much prettier. I have not been disappointed with performance at all. Crysis x64 is actually playable with all setting maxed and 2x AA. I couldn't aim when running it in x86.

At work I'm running Vista x86 in Boot Camp on a Mac Mini. It's got an Intel Core Duo T2300 processor (1.66GHz) and I've upgraded the RAM to 2 gigs. It runs much better than XP did. I love Office 2007 compared to 2003. I was also pleasantly surprised that the Mac Mini could easily handle the Aero interface. Based on what I had heard and read I was under the impression that you needed some kind of dedicated video card to run it smoothly, but this is not the case.

The point is that Vista has been great to me on both a brand new high end gaming rig and a low end Mac Mini that is close to two years old.




RE: Pleased with Vista
By falacy on 2/15/2008 10:17:03 AM , Rating: 2
"The interface is more intuitive"

Taking a step back and looking at 98, 2000, XP, and Vista one can't really say that any of their interfaces are "intuative". Really, about the only intuative GUI I have used is Gnome and I personally don't like it (KDE 3.5 is my favorite computer GUI for my own use).

The trouble with most GUIs, particularly with Vista's, is that the control interfaces are made up of so many haphazardly slapped together windows and options it's not funny. Microsoft really dropped the ball by using so many blatently Windows XP menus/sub-windows for Control Panel options, rather than making a new cohesive control panel. The computer management tool does have some nice upgrades over the XP one, but it's still not "intuative" nor is it complete.

In the default layout of Gnome, every option is one step off a sensibly named main menu (or scroll-over sub menu) and [whether I like it or not] I'd call that "intuative".

As a person who has been using Microsoft stuff since DOS in the late 80s, I still had to root around in Vista to find things when I used it for a week or so. To me, that was a step in the wrong direction for Microsoft, because Vista's GUI should have been its own product, rather than a slap-on evolutionary upgrade to XP's. Objectively, as a person who has been doing Windows tech support for years, I can say with authority that XP's GUI was convoluted and Vista's GUI is just more of the same in that regard. It's actually the most dissapointing aspect of Vista.

On a good note however, there's nothing stopping Microsoft releasing an update to the computer management tool that is complete, cohesive, and completely replaces the current Control Panel and miriad of right click menus. Sticking it on the Start Menu as a single left click would sure help we tech support monkeys...

One tool to rule them all!


SP1 Experience
By Murst on 2/14/2008 5:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
I've been pretty happy w/ SP1 for Vista so far.

I did experience one huge issue (and it seems to be affecting other users as well). After installing SP1 beta, my installation of Vista was deactivated. I got the message that I have 30 days left to activate. Well, attempting to re-activate brought up the error that a version with this key has already been activated (of course it has... I've been using it for 9 months). I called MS and they gave me a sequence of numbers to type in w/o really asking any questions and I was activated again. Since they didn't really bother to ask me that many questions, I'm assuming that they've had to do this quite a bit for other SP1 beta adopters.




RE: SP1 Experience
By nitrous9200 on 2/14/2008 7:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
I did a Vista install (no SP) which simply wouldn't activate, but I got through to a real person who just gave me the numbers no questions asked.


RE: SP1 Experience
By AlexWade on 2/18/2008 8:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
I just installed the final SP1 today on my laptop (32-bit) and desktop (64-bit). The memory usage on my 32-bit laptop doubled from around 25% to 30% of 2 GB to 50% to 60%. However, the memory usage on my 64-bit desktop dropped from around 75% to 80% of 2 GB to 60% to 70%. That was good news to me, since for some strange reason the 64-bit version requires much more memory and I turned off many services to stay below 80%. I keep Outlook running all the time.

So far, the 64-bit SP1 seems much more responsive. It seems as good as when I first installed it in January of last year. I'm thinking about turning back on the services I turned off to help with memory. Make no mistake, Vista still sucks. But it sucks a lot less now. Now I have no reservations recommending it. I have yet to fully play around with it. However, already I can tell you that Microsoft has yet to fix the issue where your folder preferences are forgotten the moment you close the window. I'm still waiting to see if I get the green ribbon of very long waits. That is (or was) a common issue I had where Vista would for no good reason take a very long time to read a folder. The green ribbon would slowly advance, stop near the end, and then you had to wait a very long time for ANY disk reads to happen.

Other than memory usage, I really haven't messed with the 32-bit SP1 yet.

Installation takes about an hour no matter what. The ISO from TechNet is 1.13 GB and includes both the 32-bit and 64-bit SP1.


Slipstreaming
By Etern205 on 2/14/2008 6:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
For those that's wondering if you can slipstream SP1 into your Vista. Technically you can, but you'll have to do the reverse integration method.




I'd like to just say this:
By A5un on 2/14/2008 7:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
My CAD programs run faster in XP than they do in Vista.




OSX has its problems too. Worse.
By Omega215D on 2/15/2008 9:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
I've been playing with my new MacBook that came with Leopard 10.5.1 and just discovered the software that works with OS X no longer works with Leopard. The message tells me that Classic environment is no longer supported. Good job Apple, I have a $50 that now doesn't work and cannot be returned.

To all those thinking Windows Vista is a hassle well it's not as bad as OSX 10.5. Looks like I'm gonna have to get the Academic version of Windows XP Professional.




Hard disk file copy.
By Captain Orgazmo on 2/16/2008 12:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
I currently have XP SP2 and Vista Premium (no SP1). installed on a system with 200, 320, and 500 GB HDDs. Average file copy speed in XP is 57 MB/s (from one drive to another, about 40 MB/s intradrive), in Vista it is 18 MB/s (any drive, both intra- and inter-drive copying). This patch had better fix this, or I will shake my fist at MS in fury... or maybe drive down to Redmond and pee on their potted plants.




Upgrades
By AskTheChief on 2/17/2008 6:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
OK guys, everyone keeps fighting over which OS is better. And while some people have had good experiences with Vista, I have not. In our office we have Dell D820's with 7200 rpm drives, T7200 Core2 Duo processors, and 2 gigs of ram. Some of us have Vista, and some have XP. XP beats Vista down in our office. Boot up times, file copy, and network stability are all better on XP, actually compared side by side. We do have one user who acutally likes Vista, even though it is slower because of all the "eye candy" in Vista.
The Vista users experience weekly network failures that require using the "repair" utiltiy in Vista, but we are rock solid in XP.
Most of us have external USB drives to add storage capacity. We work various Virtual Machine images that are always being updated with our product releases, and VPN's that don't play well when another VPN is installed on it. So we are constantly swapping around 5-8GB VM images, and can not afford to lose another 10 minutes everytime we swap VM images.
I don't mind learning somthing new, but at what expense? Maybe when there is a fix for the USB transfer bug I'll consider Vista 64 on my next laptop, right now I need all the processing power I can get.
But why move everything around on us? Thank god for classic view, that helps some. But here is something for you experts who claim to find this or that in only a minute:
we changed out a hard drive on the only laptop that is not a Dell 820 in the office, and installed Office 2007. Now anytime the user wants to do what would be an easy function in word 2002 on word 2007, we hear cussing, then see a handful of people gather around and spend at least 3-5 minutes figuring out where this option is now hidden. So, is there a classic view for word 2007? Cause the 3-5 minutes here and there with a couple of people really add up.
Another annoying thing is the big fat tool bar in Office. We all run multiple windows open at the same time, and when trying to look at several windows at once, the fat tool really eats at the available veiwing area. I don't have it on my PC, cause Office 2003 works fine for me, otherwise I would have looked for a way to shrink that tool bar. Maybe a reg setting to fix it?




Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2
By teckytech9 on 2/17/2008 11:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Another CNET blogger, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, claims just the opposite: that Vista file transfers increase dramatically with the new service pack.

The 63% is skewed and moot:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332
quote:
"You’ll see the biggest improvements over older versions of Windows when copying files on high-latency, high-bandwidth networks where the large I/Os,

Its no secret that "older" versions are MUCH more stable and with the proper registry tweaks, can deliver performance on par and better:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/224829
http://www.speedguide.net/read_articles.php?id=157
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314053

Today, a transfer of a GB file takes time to complete, just like the MB files did 10 years ago. (Mechanical limitations of the Hard Drive, SSD's fair better)

Somewhere on the top of the food chain it was decided that bigger files, aka "Fat Media," and "Bloatware" is the future. Someday a TB file will be benchmarked.




So what's exactly is vista worth?
By Belard on 2/15/2008 11:49:03 PM , Rating: 1
Its been over a year... SP1 is coming out. Still a slow OS compared to XP. Vista *IS STILL* nothing more than a WindowsME 2.0.

It offers NOTHING over XP... DX10 is the most valueable feature, but MS didn't make it work for XP. Funny how DX9 works fine on Windows98~XP just fine. hmmmm.

The look and feel of vista can be added to XP without all DRM junk. Sure vista looks prettier in some areas... especially when its coping files, and it needs to be since it TAKES SO LOOONG to do what XP can do in seconds. I've compared on the same computer. Taking about 10mins to copy about 50GB files (Of course it took Vista 2 minutes just to calculate how long it would take - oh goy), once I reformatted the drive in installed XP, those same files took about 20 seconds to transfer. The Vista PC was sooooo slooooow and crashed all the time, that the owner bought XP to replace it. No more complaints. No crashes, no slow downs, no lock-ups. Of course getting XP drivers wasn't easy since HP hid them and requires an HP online-TECH to send you hidden links.

Is vista faster: No.
Vista 64bit uses 4gb+ RAM better than XP... but a 4GB Vista PC is like a 1-2GB XP PC.

Is Vista more secure?: No. Turn off the bothersome UAC (Reminds me of TRON's OCP) which can pop up dozens of times every day for mundane things like renaming a desktop icon or going into Display properties.

XP and a big upgrade and difference from Windows98 (We don't talk about WinMe) Vista? Blah, more problems than solutions. And think, it took Microsoft 6 years to develop this garbage. Perhaps in 2 years their next OS will be worth using.

Is XP a bit old, yes. Is a newer more advance OS needed and desired yes. But things SHOULD be easier, faster, better - that is why we call it UPGRADE!

The only list of features I've seen listed by someone in a forum was things like TurboCache, which doesn't really help anyone... oh well. Vista should have been better... simple as that.




Too Bad.
By mendocinosummit on 2/14/08, Rating: -1
Cue the fanboys
By diablofreak on 2/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Cue the fanboys
By ElFenix on 2/14/2008 5:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
but windows 2000 was worth using and is still going strong today...


RE: Cue the fanboys
By Locutus465 on 2/14/2008 5:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
2000 was a solid OS and with a smidge of smart administering (only one admin acct, not logged into regularly, not named "administrator") and some basic a/v and anti-spyware it didn't take a lot to keep 2000 running. My parents ran a windows 2000 box until the mother board in the machine gave out not all to long ago and has now been replaced with vista home prem.

Specs on the 2000 machine were:
Athlon 64 3000+ (S 754)
512MB DDR400
80GB ATA hard drive (7200 RMP)
ATI Radeon 9600Pro
Chaintech ZNF-250Z (never using anything other than asus again)

That box was QUICK as one would expect. The only problem we were running into was the latest versions of certain programs not being 2000 compatible any more (Zune/iTunes).


RE: Cue the fanboys
By PandaBear on 2/14/2008 8:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
I am still running 2000 right now on a AXP 1600 and a PIII 1GHz, still faster than my work PC running 2.4Ghz P4 and XP. I would imagine all the upgrade to Vista is pointless.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By StevoLincolnite on 2/14/2008 9:49:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'm also running Windows 2000 - Modified and Slipstreamed (I did that by myself) And edited some registry tweaks in order to improve memory management and caches, I gained about 7fps in Crysis over Windows XP Service pack 2, And XP Usually has a 5fps performance boost over Vista in Crysis, so I was rather pleased with myself.

The system I'm running it on is a Pentium 2160 1.8ghz @ 3.9ghz
2gb DDR2 memory, and Crossfire 3850's which are overclocked to 3870 stock speeds - So I'm not lacking in Hardware or performance, but it's nice to get a free Performance boost :)

I Also have a "Vista Transformation pack" which makes Windows 2k look like Vista, And it works flawlessly thus far, without any performance drop!


RE: Cue the fanboys
By Oroka on 2/15/2008 12:23:02 AM , Rating: 2
yeah, it is that kinda people that make Vista out to be worse than it really is.

'OMG, I LOST 5FPS WHEN I INSTALLED VISTA! VISTA SUCKS, XP FOREVAH!!!11!!one!!!1!'

WHO CARES IF YOU GET AN EXTRA 5FPS IN A GAME WITH A 7 YEAR OLD OS!!!!!

I did the whole overclocking, watercooling, custom mod thing. Only thing I got out of it all was a significantly lighter wallet.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By StevoLincolnite on 2/15/2008 12:43:14 PM , Rating: 2
I CARE! That 5 FPS allowed me to Increase Resolutions, thus better graphics! Isn't that what it is all about in the end?
Graphics and Performance?


RE: Cue the fanboys
By eye smite on 2/18/2008 7:06:08 AM , Rating: 3
Hehe, this guy is wigging out cause of your accomplishments with Win 2k. I'm still chuckling at his comment. He's too young to value the longevity of a product and certainly doesn't understand the old saying of "If it ain't broke don't fix it". He'll get older one day and maybe understand. When Windows Late, Cafe' Ole' or some other flavor comes out he'll stay on Vista screaming " OMG QQ BBQ, WHY WOULD YOU TRADE VISTA IN FOR A COFFEE FLAVORED VERSION OF WINDOWS".

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins


RE: Cue the fanboys
By Locutus465 on 2/15/2008 12:13:55 AM , Rating: 2
For that particular machine, I would tend to agree. As long as you're not running into compatibility issues with applications you would like to use then there's no reason to switch out your Windows 2000.

I will say on the other hand that with more modern hardware Windows Vista is a dream. The UI is fantastic, it looks sharp and it has a host of great built in featurs. My desktop is a good example of a reasnoble starting point for Vista.

Athlon 64 x2 3800+
2GB DDR 400 (if you can go 4GB so much the better).
400GB SATA 7200 primary disk
(optional) 350GB SATA 7200 disk (run page file on this disk)
nForce 4 chipset
Geforce 7800GT graphics
yada yada, the rest of the specs won't hurt/help you much.

That will give you a pretty decent starting point preformance wise, basically you'll be able to run everything absolutly smoothly short of Crysis (by default this goes into DX10 mode and is murder on the 7800GT, I don't know how to DX9 it but I'm told if you do then it performs very well in vista).


RE: Cue the fanboys
By SlipDizzy on 2/14/2008 5:08:37 PM , Rating: 1
I'm still waiting for the "MAC 4 Life" comments. I can feel them coming anytime now. We may even get something in regards to the Macbook Air, for no real reason at all.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By BrownJohn on 2/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Cue the fanboys
By Mitch101 on 2/14/2008 6:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
I heard that people who cant figure out how to turn off UAC are greeted with a popup inviting them to be on the show "Are you smarter than a 5th grader"


RE: Cue the fanboys
By bnutz on 2/14/2008 7:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
SLast time I check Apple fans have the same problems with compability. How many times has Apple asked for a $129.99 upgrade to they new OSX in the past 5 years. And everytime the was issues and software and devices that did not work. I have an apple powerbook, but I also have 4 computers on Vista an one XP Pro. I can say that my Vista machines have 2GB of RAM and the work great. People have to realize that software and devices are getting more demanding and require more specs. When I had 128MB in my win98 machine and my OS9 I thought that was crazy. But I never thought I would be editing movies and on my computer, or watching youtube and playing games like crysis.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By winterspan on 2/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Cue the fanboys
By bnutz on 2/14/2008 10:41:24 PM , Rating: 3
It's not faster on older machines. That's why on the box the are system requirement even on OSX. And did you try to upgrade from OS9 to OSX? Absolute nightmare. And maybe you should try to understand what I am saying before you bash my post #1 fan. They charge you for updates not upgrades. Look what they are doing to the itouch. When microsoft upgraded the zunes firmware for free. You are just another apple fanboy that thinks microsoft is evil, but if the was not for microsoft to bail them out there would be no apple. And I sure Ubuntu can do everything vista can.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By SavagePotato on 2/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: Cue the fanboys
By qwertyz on 2/14/2008 8:57:48 PM , Rating: 1
If u couldn't figure how to turn off UAC you're not even allowed to use a computer because you're to stupid by nature.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By B3an on 2/14/2008 10:52:58 PM , Rating: 2
It's sad so many people are as stupid as you, and rate him down too. BrownJohn was clearly taking the piss.

What he said is completely true for many Vista users, they are like that stupid, and i deal with them on a daily basis.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By qwertyz on 2/15/2008 2:23:29 PM , Rating: 1
B3an calling someone else stupid for no reason doesn't make u smarter.

BTW can u speak my base language as good as I speak yours ?

Sa ma sugi de pula, if u know what I mean.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By Mitch101 on 2/14/2008 6:02:29 PM , Rating: 1
Your right where are the Jesus OS comments?


RE: Cue the fanboys
By mmntech on 2/14/2008 8:31:53 PM , Rating: 1
And Vista fanboys aren't like that? Jeeze, you think anybody who has a negative experience with Vista was denying the holocaust, or global warming. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

There's a few reasons I haven't moved to Vista. I have XP SP2 running smooth as butter first off. Vista offers no additional features I find useful with the exception of DX10. Second, I don't like the new activation and DRM policies. I'm an advocate of restriction free computing. I don't need Big Brother making sure I'm not pirating their stuff, because I'm not. Lastly, some of my legacy hardware (my TV tuner) is not Vista compatible. Therefore rather than buy new hardware, I just keep using XP and save some cash. I might get either Home Basic or Business (dual boot of course) for gaming if I ever get around to buying a DX10 GPU, but for now, it's pointless to spend the money. Yes, I HAVE actually used Vista so this isn't FUD, or whatever acronym the kids are using these days.

I also run OSX and PCLinuxOS on separate systems. For the record, Linux runs faster than XP, Vista, and OS X, even with Beryl. I'm not going to argue this though because frankly, I don't really care.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By Pandamonium on 2/15/2008 1:23:58 AM , Rating: 2
I don't need big brother watching over my shoulder because I am pirating. I just don't want to get caught.

In all seriousness, DRM doesn't do anything for the consumer. I can't stand it, but I can see why some companies feel it's the only way to make people pay. IMHO, they shouldn't bother trying to squeeze allowance money out of the 12-22 year old age bracket. After we get jobs, we tend to buy because it's more convenient than finding pirated versions of ____, and because the cost is reasonable compared to our income.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By Mitch101 on 2/15/2008 9:31:53 AM , Rating: 3
I run XP and I run Vista on my main rig. Im not saying that Vista is perfect but the majority of people I know who complain about vista are the ones who tried it when they came out or have a laptop with insufficient memory. I too have the now rare hicup with Vista but the problems I can usually attribute to new drivers or apps that aren't really Vista compliant as they were written with XP in mind. A patch or two later and things improve. So really I haven't come across any real inherent flaws of the OS. Is it perfect yet. No. But it does have a lot of great features and functions that I have grown to like a lot.

Is there a performance hit. Yes I expect there to be because of the additional layers of security that they put in place and second because DX10 adds a lot of features and detail level that can only come with a performance hit. How can you draw or have the ability with deeper programming depth without a loss of performance? It like adding 20 items to your car and wondering why the additional weight slows the car down slightly.

Are there other decent OS's out there. Yes. Ubuntu is pretty great. I tell my linux friends this is the Linux to watch. Does it rival windows. No but its pretty darn good and has a chance to become something really great.

Apple is just met with arrogance that its perfect and we can see by the complaints its not. Sure its a good OS but it has its flaws too but really Apple has such a small base of applications compared to windows. I don't attribute this to being Microsoft domination but to Apples lack of development tools available.

Really all I hear Vista sucks but you never really hear why? Little slows yes. The benchmarks show a small decrease in performance but that will be erased as hardware moves forward and I am looking forward to better graphics and improved features that I am finding in Vista. Can it replace XP 100% for me. Not yet but its close.

I could also care less about a game that gets 130FPS in XP and only gets 115FPS in Vista. The game is still playable. But its slower is a lame response to something that offers 20 additional items that we may not use today but in a year will wonder how we lived without them.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By pauluskc on 2/15/2008 9:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
yeah - 20 additional items we won't use today? like ... firewire? finally seeing consumer grade video equipment with firewire connectivity. good thing I've had a plug on my computer for 10+ years now with Windows 98 driver support. What else is needed? $1500 in operating system money I've been spending on my real children instead.

And I can do what your fancy Vista OS can do. More With Less - that's the catchphrase of today, eh?


RE: Cue the fanboys
By SavagePotato on 2/15/2008 10:10:23 AM , Rating: 1
ahahaha! we have a winner, a win98 forever user, not even a winxp forever user.

That answers my earlier question, I guess it is just stupidity.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By Mitch101 on 2/15/2008 2:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
I guess Windows 98 serves his needs. Most users aren't power users. Dont we all have a boss who needs the top of the line laptop to read his e-mail? Most people don't use items beyond the function of Microsoft Word 4.3 any more than they would if they had the 2007 version. Which is why I am surprised some people swear they need it when they would be perfectly fine with Open Office. We all can agree most people dont need 3ghz cpu's either. Hey I cant fault the guy for that. Im sure he has no urge or is compelled to play Crysis either. There are times I wish I could be like him and to tell you I think my 4ghz Wolfdale with Radeon 3870 will last me a lot longer than previous machines did because the hardware for me is starting to catch up with the things I want to do while the software cant utilize multi core effectively. Its like I have a whole second computer core waiting to do something.

Somewhere in the 8ghz, 16 core, quad GPU machines that renders Jurrasic Park in real time at 300 FPS I wont be looking for my next PC because its too slow for what I do.

His needs are Windows 98 and kudos to him for not having a need for something newer. Unfortunately I am an enthusiast with a need for more power still and I like what Vista offers that I cant get without 20 add ons to XP.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By DEredita on 2/14/2008 8:33:14 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I am a Mac fan, and I do 99% of my work on my Macbook. But, lately, I have been looking away from Apple. I am sick of their overpriced hardware, and Leopard(10.5.x) is getting very bloated and sluggish. In my opinion, Leopard is a HUGE step backwards from Tiger (10.4.x).

I need more performance than what my Macbook can give me. I installed 4GB of ram, but it still a bit sluggish. Start up time seems to get longer and longer with each passing update. I want a desktop, but forced to either get an iMac with its horribly slow and outdated video card, or a $3000 Mac Pro.

I think I am going to switch back to Windows after Intel releases their Core 2 Quad Q9450 processor. Apple doesn't offer me what I need in terms of hardware, and before I spend $2000 on some overpriced bullshit iMac, I'll build myself a killer 2.66 GHz Q9450 quad core, 64-bit Vista machine with 8GB of ram, and a high end video card.

I got very turned off to Apple with their Leopard OS, and then this past Mac World, which was Steve Jobs waltzing around the stage like the candy ass he is, and instead of unveiling much needed updates to his current models, or filling in the gap with a mid-range desktop - he releases the Macbook air. WTF!!?!?!?!?!?


RE: Cue the fanboys
By DEredita on 2/14/2008 8:21:02 PM , Rating: 3
I installed Vista Business x64 on my work computer after being very frustrated by the performance of the 32-bit version. It was lightning quick compared to the x32 bit version. I was very very impressed with the performance. I then reinstalled all my software, data, etc... and it's still significantly quicker than the 32-bit version.

It's unfortunate that all these computer makers like Dell are holding back on releasing their computers with the 64-bit versions of Vista. The performance difference is very noticeable, and I have yet to have any problems with software or drivers.

I'm using a Dell Optiplex 745 w/ an E6600 C2D (2.4 GHz), 4GB ram, 256MB X1300 Pro video card, and a 250GB hard drive. Vista 64-bit seems to run very very good on my machine, ad I have to recommend it. Hopefully, Windows next OS is a 64-bit only OS.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By gramboh on 2/14/2008 8:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
x64 is awesome with 4gb of RAM. I'm using it now as my only OS on my home pc (C2D E6600 @ 3.3GHz, 4GB DDR2-800) and it is very fast both in boot time and general use. The file copy thing is insanely stupid though, and I'm annoyed to hear of this USB2 copy issue as one of my external backup drives is USB2, luckily the bigger one I use more is eSATA.


RE: Cue the fanboys
By DEredita on 2/14/2008 9:09:28 PM , Rating: 2

Hopefully, it's better and not worse. I am very strongly considering switching from my Macbook for home use to Vista 64-bit once Intel releases the Q9450 processor. Apple just doesn't have what I want in terms of performance and I don't want to spend $3000+ on a Mac Pro.


By Ashrac on 2/14/2008 6:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
I had a similar system to you when I first installed x64 vista back during release. Just upgrading to 4gb of ram, significantly improved vista's OS performance.

After upgrading to a c2d e8400 w/4gb, I have to say Vista runs incredibly smoothly. I even keep a dream scene desktop background going 24/7, with no impact on 3d gaming or anything I run. Wincustomize.com has a lot of really nice free .dreams now with Stardocks deskscapes format.

Vista is great for newer machines. it wasn't as great as xp for older machines.


By aftlizard01 on 2/14/2008 7:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
I have essentially identical specs as you and frankly I dont have those issues you say you are. In fact when I am on a XP pc at the university I am feel like taking the dell and drop kicking it because of the slow reaction times I get.


By murphyslabrat on 2/14/2008 8:24:35 PM , Rating: 3
Of course, here at Gateway Technical College (Kenosha, Wisconsin, they have PC's with an e6600/2GB/x1300 setup. Windows XP runs like a dream.

Vista just has greater requirements, (barring these reported speed drops) that is the source of the problems people are noticing. XP isn't magically faster, it just has a much smaller footprint.

I don't care much for the eye-candy in Vista, and I value both my money and my computing experience. XP for life...or for the next three years, at least, when I have a cushy job that will pay for my obscenely overpowered systems.


By GoodBytes on 2/14/2008 8:51:04 PM , Rating: 3
Get the latest BIOS and latest drivers for your computer (this include sound card, motherboard, video card, webcam, printer, scanner, and any other devices), and update Windows. Before updating your drivers, uninstall the old ones first and reboot your computer THEN install the new ones.

Also, right click on "Computer" select "Properties", Click on "Advance system settings", go to the "hardware" tab, click on "device manager", go to your Hard Drive controller properties, and check to make sure that all the Ports have DMA Mode enabled. You can Also perform a speed test (I am at 120.5 Burst rate, and Sustained speed at 65.2).

Also, still within the device manager, go to your hard drive properties, go to "policies" tab, and make sure the following is selected:
- Optimize for performance
- Enable write caching on the disk
- Enable advanced performance

They should all be selected after you install Vista 64-bit. If not, your motherboard has issues, and not functioning at 100% or have bad drivers.

On your way make sure that all your devices in the "Device manager" are found.

I have an AMD Athlon 64 4400+ S939, 2GB of RAM 3-3-3-8 2T (2 sticks), ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe, Creative X-Fi (just to make things worst), 250GB 7200RPM HDD 16MB of Cache. Vista 64-bit Ultimate RETAIL (pre SP1).
Vista perform well better then XP SP2 fully updated.
Folders opens instantly too.

If you have a 100 RPM HDD with 0.01kb of cache, then you need to upgrade your HDD to something that is newer, with today (or even yesterday) market standards.

**ALSO, DEFRAGMENT YOUR FREAKING HARDDRIVE!**
I suggest O&O Defrag, or Perfect Disk.
In O&O Defrag do first a defragmentation by organizing your files in access time.

If the above does not help at all, then you screwed up Vista by probably installing bad Anti-virus software (probably Norton crap or something similar), or you packed with malware (use AVG anti-spyware free edition, or Ad-aware free edition). OR you simply cannot install Vista.

Installing Vista:
- Set your BIOS to boot form your DVD-rom drive first
- Insert Vista disk
- Restart your computer
- Click Install
- Insert Activation Serial code.
- Wait until it is installed
- Set your user name and password
- Select your network type (pick Home if you are not at work, even thus you have a or some routers with wired and wireless)
And you are done!

Something came up on my mind, In Business and Ultimate edition of Vista, open "gpedit.msc". It is PACKED with options... maybe something is set wrong inside... check everything inside.


By GoodBytes on 2/14/2008 9:09:03 PM , Rating: 1
I know who gave me 1 as a rating... before reducing my rating, try it, then you will see how correct I am.


By Ashrac on 2/14/2008 11:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
I can Honestly tell you I don't have that problem. Like I said earlier I'm running 4gb of ram, have Vista installed on a 80gb WD w/6mb cache. All games/apps are installed on WD Raptor 16mb cache drives, and storage on a 500GB 16mb cache drive.

I am using Vista Ultimate Retail with supercache on and using a 4gb flash stick(sandisk cruzer) with ReadyBoost. A 8800GTS video card, e8400 c2d processor. I have the dreamscene desktop background 24/7 and full aero glass at 2560x1600 resolution.

Games run great, and even alt tabbing out, I don't have any "lag" after the game minimizes when interacting with the desktop. Even the dreamscene quickly starts back up.

Now as far as file transfers go, yes, they do seem slower overall when copying large amounts of files from one drive to another, or from one PC to another, or even sometimes 1 large file. But I don't do that frequently enough for it to bother me.

I hated Vista when I first bought it, un-installed it and didn't go back till about 3 months ago. But since then, and installing those 3 big updates that they released before SP1 (the ones that sp1 is supposed to include) I have sincerely enjoyed my Vista Experience(tm)


By ChronoReverse on 2/15/2008 12:44:41 PM , Rating: 6
http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008...

Looks like someone got faster rates with USB under SP1.

Have you ever even consider that you might be having driver/hardware issues? It's the usual Blame Vista game.


By tomal on 2/15/2008 3:37:44 AM , Rating: 2
why are you comparing 32 bit OS to a 64 bit OS? Was your XP 32 bit or 64 bit?

Why did u enable advanced performance in hard drive policy? This setting does not improve performance if you use latest softwares; rather it is used for backward compatibility.

Vista is good for normal use. But for gaming it is totally bad. So those who are not into games or professional audio production can use Vista.


By Spivonious on 2/15/2008 8:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
I can lose the 2 fps and get all the benefits of Vista.

And audio production? Nice to throw that in there with no explanation. I do some minor multi-track recording and my X-Fi gets me along just fine in Vista x64.


By noirsoft on 2/15/2008 12:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
He is actually correct about audio production. Many of the companies that produce professional audio devices have yet to make Vista drivers. Sad, but true.

If you notice my other posts, you will see that I am definitely a Vista defender, but my music PC is still running XP home because of a lack of Vista drivers for some crucial components. Thankfully, all the major software is now vista-compatible, so I just need to wait for a few more drivers.


By Donkeyshins on 2/15/2008 7:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vista is good for normal use. But for gaming it is totally bad.


Ummm...no. Nice try, though. Get the most up-to-date video card drivers and you should see equivalent if not better performance under Vista than XP. That has been my experience FPS-wise in a variety of games.

WRT professional audio production, you may be right, but how is that Microsoft's fault? Seems as if it is the fault of the folks that write these 3rd party audio apps for not pulling their collective thumbs out of their asses and writing new code.


By neothe0ne on 2/16/2008 2:23:33 AM , Rating: 2
Who said anything about advanced performance in hard drive policy? I suggest you read the context surrounded "Performance" more carefully. I'm not going to bother further defending my claim that Vista's interface has delay compared to XP's.. as obviously no one even considers it likely even though I'm not the only one who thinks so, as another poster said himself.


By kondor999 on 2/20/2008 4:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
The USB 2.0 performance on even base Vista is a deal-breaker for me. It already takes a ridiculous amount of time to copy files between internal SATA drives - forget about USB2 drives and such.

It's simply night and day between Vista and XP. How they could mess up one of the core functionalities of an OS (file copying, for God's sake) is beyond me. Did they do any testing at all?


Service Pack != Driver Upgrade
By trackercanada on 2/14/08, Rating: -1
"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














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