Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 19th Nov 2007 08:01 UTC, submitted by Research Staff
Windows Some testing by the exo.performance.network research staff shows that SP1 provides no measurable relief to users saddled with sub-par performance under Vista.
Order by: Score:
i'd like to see them repeat the tests
by anyweb on Mon 19th Nov 2007 08:25 UTC
anyweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

with at least 2gb of ram or more and then see are there noticable improvements. 1gb and vista is like XP with 128mb ram, ie: it's not enough ram at all.

cheers
anyweb

Reply Score: 5

CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

I run Vista with 1.25GB and don't have any problems.

Reply Score: 1

makc Member since:
2006-01-11

what's wrong with people modding down this? :/

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I run Vista with 1.25GB and don't have any problems.


Rather at odds with this type of survey:
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS5118924882.html

Reply Score: 2

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

This had me laughing pretty hard.

1.) DesktopLinux - center of gravity for fanatical Linux fanboys

2.) Article by Steven J. Vaughan Nichols, enough said.

3.) KACE, a systems management appliance company. One need only spend 2 minutes looking at them to see their angle. One might also consider they are NOT a professional research and survey company.

4.) "The online survey with 961 respondents..." - Best part, I did not think it took a rocket scientist to see how flawed this survey is.

5.)"44 percent would consider deploying Macs or Linux-based systems to avoid Vista migration." - well ignoring who the source is, the whole arguments here are just laughable, not to mention the manner in which they gathered this response.

6.) "Still, 44 percent are considering switching from Windows to an alternative.." - just wonder, did anyone ever bother to ask whether their responses were gathered using credible survey techniques?

Reply Score: 2

dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

Get some therapy.


I could say the same about any MS Fanboy.

Reply Score: 1

stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Aah, nostalgia. I remeber the days when MollyC and NotParker would tagteam any criticism of Microsoft by posting lists of links.

Reply Score: 2

6c1452 Member since:
2007-08-29

lemur2, do you keep dozens of links at the ready to use as ammo in fanboy message board pissing contests?

The other theory is that he knows how to use google...

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The other theory is that he knows how to use google...


I think you are on to something there ...

Actually, it isn't normally an effective response, but I did find it useful to counter a suggestion that just one (by implication biased) journalist was saying something skewed by posting a number of links to recent articles from different journalists saying more-or-less the same thing.

Reply Score: 1

bthylafh Member since:
2006-09-21

Wrong. 1 GB of RAM is what you need run stuff under Vista. The system will boot with 512MB but swaps heavily if you actually run anything, so if anything 512 is closer to XP and 2K with 128.

Reply Score: 1

Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

I know someone that installed 3GB of RAM on the same Asus mobo that I have (I still only have 1GB) and he says that he notices no difference.

I gave up with Vista and went to Ubuntu, my macbook pro ran vista reasonably well but I had to kill that partition when I upgraded to Leopard.

I help a lot of people with both XP and Vista so I'll probably at least install Vista for testing.... the funny thing is that it seems to run slightly better in the machine with 1GB on vmware in ubuntu, go figure.

I'm not trying to bash Vista but that's partially my real world experience with the OS.

Reply Score: 4

Chatbox Member since:
2007-03-06

Maya and Softimage XSI both run on Linux very well...and they are "professional" modeling/animation/rendering software.

Edited 2007-11-19 16:34

Reply Score: 7

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Maya and Softimage XSI both run on Linux very well...and they are "professional" modeling/animation/rendering software.


I'm down in Christchurch studying at Canterbury University - the universities claim to fame being the Hamilton Waterjet. Years ago people moved from 'big expensive UNIX machines' - I remember when I was at CIT they had a whole lab of SGI O2's loaded with the latest and greatest IRIX. They moved to x86 machines running NT. Now it seems that we've got 'back to UNIX" as I see lecturer's and students either with Mac laptops or laptops loaded with Linux.

The migration is starting; it starts at the top niche areas and works their way down - people aren't just fed up with Windows Vista, they're sick and tired of the hollow promises, rising memory demands and very little provided in return for the steep system requirements. What sits at the top? just how out of touch Microsoft is with the end users requirements.

Reply Score: 4

Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

yeah I've only been using Windows since the early 90's... believe me I did not 'just' switch OS's

Reply Score: 4

dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

Well said. Anyone switching operating systems just like that is not doing much important in first place.


Oh gimme a break. I used to do contracting work for the New Zealand Pharmaceutical Management Agency (which was a division of the government), and while I was there, the techie transparently rolled over their previous file and print server to Linux overnight, as well as set up a Debian Stable/Postgres server, and migrated the data from SQL server the following day. Don't give me any bull that you can't switch just like that because believe me, you can.

Reply Score: 9

cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

"So you gave up on Vista and went to Ubuntu. Do you know what that shows? Either you just like to play around with your computer, or you do not do anything important or run any business application (open office is not a business application) on your PC.

Well said. Anyone switching operating systems just like that is not doing much important in first place."

You're insinuating that Linux is merely a toy to play around with and not a serious OS intended for mission critical tasks or operations. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that the commenter was able to "just switch" to Linux speaks volumes about how Linux has progressed through the years. I switched over to Linux completely about five years ago and am proud to say that I don't use Microsoft products in my business. Everything I need to do to maintain my business I do with Linux and open source applications . Ironically, my business involves IT consulting so most of my bread and butter comes from people who are having lots of problems with Windows (especially Vista.) My own dalliance with Vista was only to ensure that I had no reason to try another go at Windows. Vista is a step backward, if anything. Anyone who thinks an operating system needs 1 GB of RAM (let alone 2 GB) to function smoothly is seriously misguided. The OS should stay the hell out of your way while you get to work with your applications. It shouldn't be eating up the lion's share of your resources.

Reply Score: 7

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Well said. Anyone switching operating systems just like that is not doing much important in first place."

You're insinuating that Linux is merely a toy to play around with and not a serious OS intended for mission critical tasks or operations.


He's insinuating no such thing. What he is saying is that if you were able to switch from one OS to the other 'just like that', you're doing simple 'bread and butter' tasks like browsing the web, checking email, listening to music, etc. But if you're a power user with 30-40 apps installed that you absolutely depend on, you ain't switching platforms overnight, no matter what OS it is. Assuming you can find capable equivalents to everything you're using (which, when it comes to Linux, you might be able to depending on what you're doing), or you decide to live with lesser/no equivalents, that's going to take quite a bit of time.

Edited 2007-11-19 23:49

Reply Score: 3

shaniadollinger Member since:
2007-07-04

I assume you are not trolling, so do you really think that people can't do anything constructive under GNU/Linux (in this case Ubuntu) ? It is impossible for me to believe that. Why ? Because I do lots of constructive things under my Slackware: PHP developing, Java programming, system administration, self company business accounting program (Java client), ... and yes, I also browse Internet and chat sometimes, or post notes at OSNews.

If you mean that I cannot watch to all those stupid PowerPoints around Internet: you are wrong too, I can view them with OpenOffice, it is just that I don't want to. Neither do I want to have a virus/spyware protection software making my OS to underperform.

If you mean that I cannot use a pirated copy of Photoshop:you're right. I don't like pirated software, I'd prefer to run it under VMware if I needed it. Anyway, for me The Gimp is "good" enough, feel free to disagree.

Reply Score: 10

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

No, I think the point the troll was trying to make was this....

His/her friends and family look to him/her as a "computer guru", if they have any problems they will give the guru a call.

So, said guru tries Linux, as he wants to be seen as Uber-guru, but freaks out because things in Linuxland are different.

Now, this guru, given time, can learn to live with the differences, and he will enjoy the mantle of uber-guru.....

EXCEPT

He cannot work out how to do some things, and feels stupid, so stupid that he is afraid the friends and family find out that he is not a guru at all, he only knows how to do certain things in one operating system.
So, he tells all and sundry that Linux sucks and there is nothing to see.

However, us people who have made the leap know differently.

Reply Score: 7

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Off-Topic Probably
==================
I read your comments, and they did not sit with me comfortably. It is true that so-called Windows power-users(sic) have a regression in there knowledge, and I have *always* asserted that power-users(sic) are the ones that have the problems moving between OS's I think its an artificial barrier. If you examine what these experts do its quite basic; download codec packs; 20 tips on improving XXXX; how to steal stuff effectively; virus/spyware programs, and we see their solutions with comments "its the drivers" solution="install new drivers"...and they can find new drivers; "it needs a fresh install" which is no solution at all I can't help but smirk every time I hear the term slipstreaming. The bottom line is being a windows users is pretty much about *waiting* as far as I understand, and well SP1 is well the solution(sic).

Reply Score: 1

psychicist Member since:
2007-01-27

I agree it's amazing how some people have their heads stuck into the sand. I've seen and used all versions of Windows except the very first ones and a miserable brief encounter with Vista on a relative's new notebook.

The fact that an accountant friend of mine runs his business on Slackware and my accounting software should silence this troll for good. It's already better, faster and easier than many packages available for his "OS" and when I have the time I'm improving it too.

What free operating systems and frameworks give you is the possibility as a programmer to write solutions that you truly own and can improve instead of building something on a quicksand foundation such as Windows and .Net.

Reply Score: 1

Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

>>>> So you gave up on Vista and went to Ubuntu. Do you know what that shows? Either you just like to play around with your computer, or you do not do anything important or run any business applications (open office is not a business application) on your PC.<<<<


You're right, I use OSX for anything business related. There is nothing on Windows I cant do in OSX. Linux however is fine for all my home needs. And fantastic for my geekery.


>>>>To make sure you understand. There are no business accounting programs that can run any business in Linux. There are no real investment software program that run in Linux. There aren't any good graphic software for professionals in Linux (no, the Gimp is not a professional software).
So in the end, your switch to Ubuntu shows that all you do is get on the Internet, email and chat and write little notes like you did above. You do nothing constructive with Ubuntu, why?...Because you can't! <<<<


What about Maya then? is that not an industry standard 'graphics software'? or does Pixar not count as a leading professional company? Linux and OSX are on the bleeding edge of 3D animation and distributed computing. Throw the other sciences into that and you'll find that education & research is BUILT on the foundation of Unix.

You'll find if you actually open your eyes that on one side you have the industry respected WORLD standards of Sun, IBM, Novell, Apple, Redhat etc etc etc and then on the other side you have Microsoft and err Microsoft.

Microsoft is a flash in the pan when it comes to the history of computing, a self-leveraged monopoly that will topple when they run out of customers to squeeze.

As you say, some people are trapped in Windows and admittedly they have no choice but to stay, BUT when vista breaks the compatibility of almost every application you previously relied on then what is the incentive to stay?

As a programmer I have access to multiple open SDKs that I cant get with Windows, as a server admin I have access to all the best virtulization and server related tools. If someones code breaks I can fix it and not worry about the stupid marketing or patent violations of some large conglomerate.

Then of course you're going to bitch that not everyone is a programmer... well so fookin what? my mother manages just fine with her Ubuntu box and yes, all she does is what you mention above, that accounts for how many million people that use Windows? 80% of people use 20% of Office? I think your bullshitting when you say Open Office / Gimp isnt a business application... it does ALMOST all of what an average user needs. Need Exchange? virtual machine it!

DONT get on at me because YOUR platform is closed, incompatible and restrictive. DONT get on at me because your company was retarded enough to enter into using closed software that locked you into using documents that cant be opened with another application. DONT get on at me because YOUR country has made it so that you cant submit your tax forms in any other format that doesn't run on Windows. THAT sir is your problem.. not mine.

FYI I can run Photoshop (up to CS2) in Linux, I can run Office (up to 2k3) in Linux and in all honesty its not that much harder or less compatible than running it natively.

I do kinda miss some elements of Office 2k7, and I miss my games... but for everything else there is either alternatives, better software or at the very worst virtulization.

If you dont think MS is a monopolist, look at the development cycle of Office 2k8 for the mac, but hell who cares when everyone can use Pages?

Microsoft is floundering. Jesus, even Balmer expects MS to make 25% of its profits from advertising within the next 5 years. What does that show?

I dont really care what OS you use, I just want there to be a choice. And that people are educated to those choices.

I've used windows since the days of 3.0. I've seen Microsoft do some interesting things, and I've also seen them embrace, extend and extinguish technologies that were far superior to their own. I dont really have a problem using most Microsoft software up till Vista, but Vista for me and many others was the last straw.

If MS had done what they said they would do with Longhorn (including a 64bit BeOS like file system called WinFS etc) then Vista could have matured into something fantastic. Sadly, however, their promises were once again empty and what they provided was another Windows Millennium. All you have now with their backtracking is a DRM encumbered XP with a pretty skirt.


You sir, take your MCSE - and GTFO!

Reply Score: 11

raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

You sir, take your MCSE - and GTFO!

hehehehe Classic !

I can see that becoming a major quote around here

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"so you gave up on Vista and went to Ubuntu. Do you know what that shows? Either you just like to play around with your computer, or you do not do anything important or run any business application (open office is not a business application) on your PC. "

Can I have what you are smoking?

"You do nothing constructive with Ubuntu, why?...Because you can't!'

That's the most ignorant, stupid statement I've ever heard. Lots of people are wonderfully productive on Linux, using opensource software. Just because YOU can't don't mean that nobody can't. Every one has to pick the tools that suits them best, so stop browbeating other peoples choices.

Reply Score: 6

polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

While I agree with the examples you've given (accounting, graphics), you simply cannot make a blanket statement such as "you do nothing constructive with Ubuntu, why? Because you can't".

That's absurd.

There's a large portion of my office that could use Ubuntu (or any other distro that has access to OOo and Evolution w/ Exchange connector) successfully for their job function.

OOo is a valid business application for a large percentage of MS Office users, because many people don't dive deep enough into Office for the differences to matter.

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

There's a large portion of my office that could use Ubuntu (or any other distro that has access to OOo and Evolution w/ Exchange connector) successfully for their job function.


If you want to make it really easy on yourself, your company and your company's IT budget, then get rid of Exchange and Sharepoint and use better and cheaper alternatives that are platform neutral.

http://www.zimbra.com/about/
http://www.open-xchange.com/header/home.html

This way you can use without hassle any platform you want for the desktop clients.

Reply Score: 3

orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

Especially with the advent of Office 2007 - OOo does a fantastic job in my experience of allowing one to open files that are unreadable, or unsavable in a compatible native format, with an older version of MS Office, once files have been made readable with the application of a 'compatibility' patch. Hats off just in the realm of empirical excellence alone here.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

with at least 2gb of ram or more and then see are there noticable improvements. 1gb and vista is like XP with 128mb ram, ie: it's not enough ram at all.


I don't know about you, but 2gigs seems very excessive when it comes to simply getting an operating system up and running along with running some general purpose applications. Maybe I'm getting old and senile in my old age, but 2gigs is overly excessive just to run a computer.

I don't want to turn this into a 'Windows vs. the rest of the universe' - but I'm here, running Leopard on a MacBook. GMA 950 graphics card, share graphics - I've tested this using 1gig and 2gigs. In the Windows world, this would be considered 'low end specs' and yet, under Leopard it works wonderfully.

Microsoft really do need to go back to the drawing board and admit that demanding an end user who just wants to write letters, to install 2gigs to get acceptable performance is completely unacceptable. This end user isn't simulating nuclear explosions or doing climatic analysis, all they want to do is use their computer; when is Microsoft, in all their infinite wisdom going to allow the end user do that without needing a super-computer class machine?

Reply Score: 1

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

I don't know about you, but 2gigs seems very excessive when it comes to simply getting an operating system up and running along with running some general purpose applications. Maybe I'm getting old and senile in my old age, but 2gigs is overly excessive just to run a computer.

I am running Vista on AMD X2 2.2HGz with 2GB RAM. Visual Studio 2005 (2008 soon), SQL Server 2005, Firefox, IE, Outlook, Paint.NET and some other small utilities are running all the time. From time to time I'll open Word, Excel or some other app (WinAMP, etc). No problems.

Don't believe everything you read.

Edited 2007-11-20 19:13

Reply Score: 2

dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

I am running Vista on AMD X2 2.2HGz with 2GB RAM. Visual Studio 2005 (2008 soon), SQL Server 2005, Firefox, IE, Outlook, Paint.NET and some other small utilities are running all the time. From time to time I'll open Word, Excel or some other app (WinAMP, etc). No problems.


Really? I also run an IDE, a Postgres server, Firefox, Evolution, GIMP, and some other small utilities are running all the time. From time to time I also open OpenOffice.org Writer, Calc or some other app (XMMS, etc). Except I do this on a laptop computer that is 4 years old, with a Pentum4-M CPU and only 512MB RAM. No problems.

Who knows what I could do if I had your computer.

Reply Score: 2

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Really? I also run an IDE, a Postgres server, Firefox, Evolution, GIMP, and some other small utilities are running all the time. From time to time I also open OpenOffice.org Writer, Calc or some other app (XMMS, etc). Except I do this on a laptop computer that is 4 years old, with a Pentum4-M CPU and only 512MB RAM. No problems.

Who knows what I could do if I had your computer.


Perhaps, you'd be using Windows Vista.

Anyway, what made you upgrade to Pentuim4 and 512MB? Why aren't you using Pentim 2 and 128MB?

That guy said that 2GB is enough to just run Vista and I responded to that. I really don't care what you can do with Pentium 4 and 512MB. CPUs and RAM are priced so low these days that I had no problems in purchasing this configuration. As soon as prices go down even more, I'll be getting Quad core CPU and possibly even more memory. You don't have to.

Edited 2007-11-20 20:48

Reply Score: 0

dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

Anyway, what made you upgrade to Pentuim4 and 512MB?


Certainly not the operating system I chose to use.

Reply Score: 1

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Certainly not the operating system I chose to use.

But you see, you did upgrade. So case closed.

Reply Score: 0

dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

But you see, you did upgrade. So case closed.


I'm sorry, case closed how? People upgrade for all sorts of reasons; computers die, get written off, stolen or lost etc. I didn't "upgrade" at all, technically. I needed a laptop so I bought one second hand.

See, because of Vista, you have a nice grunty machine to do the tasks of what I expect a 4 year old computer to do just as well.

Reply Score: 2

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Don't forget to mod this one down too ;)

Reply Score: 0

Vista and 1GB
by jdrake on Mon 19th Nov 2007 08:39 UTC
jdrake
Member since:
2005-07-07

I run a laptop, core duo, with 1 GB and it is quite fine.

I turn off that compositing stuff and visual styles mind you. Much nicer and better than XP (they removed some annoyances).

Reply Score: 5

RE: Vista and 1GB
by monodeldiablo on Mon 19th Nov 2007 16:03 UTC in reply to "Vista and 1GB"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

I did that, too. Not much speedup.

Of course, my brand new laptop "only" has 2GB of RAM and a Core 2 Duo. Application startup takes forever. Network transfers take forever. UAC prompts can make things unusable for over a minute, as the screen greys out, but the prompt itself never appears. Hell, local files unzip at around 5k/sec, for Christ's sake!

And that says nothing about the occasional crashes, the broad application incompatibility and the inconsistent use of Microsoft's own APIs by Microsoft themselves.

Don't believe me?

Try locating your Outlook .pst files on a network store and then using Vista's new Sync Center to make them persistent offline. Then watch Outlook explode.

Hell, even if you make no changes to the offline files, it still takes upwards of 5 minutes to sync... AND THE SERVER THEY'RE STORED ON IS 10 FEET AWAY ON A 100MBPS INTERNAL NETWORK!

Vista is a huge step backwards, in every sense, for operating systems. I thank the good lord that Friday was the last day I'd ever use it. Good riddance.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: Vista and 1GB
by Nossie on Mon 19th Nov 2007 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Vista and 1GB"
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

That pretty much sums up my experience with Vista :-| I thought it could only get better after beta but retail is hardly different.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Vista and 1GB
by linumax on Tue 20th Nov 2007 03:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Vista and 1GB"
linumax Member since:
2007-02-07

On My MBP I have Leopard and Vista Business (had to install Windows because of VC++ 2005 and school assignments, at least it was free).

Vista is running under Fusion with 1GB Ram and 1GB left goes to Leopard, of course no Aero under vmware.

Currently running Eclipse 3.3, VC++ 2005 Express, MSN Messenger, WMP and MS Powerpoint 2007 and Vista works perfectly fine. I don't understand (but do not deny) how it could run any worse outside of VM using much more resources, maybe Aero is the culprit.

Also, since I installed and configured the apps I wanted, I get very few UAC prompts.

OFFTOPIC NOTE: Spaces is SWEET, one thing that I was really missing from Linux, now I run Vista Full Screen on one space and can just switch (ctrl-arrow) between OSs. I even prefer it to Unity view of Fusion.

Edited 2007-11-20 03:06

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Vista and 1GB
by monodeldiablo on Tue 20th Nov 2007 05:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Vista and 1GB"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd agree that the problems I've had with Vista don't make sense. In fact, were I not on the receiving end of that fustercluck, I'd have been very skeptical of anybody telling me that Vista was such a pathetic hog. But I not only had the joy of experiencing each of those pains myself; I also had to support a small office, with each Vista box blowing up in its own special, incomprehensible way.

There are lots of little things (i.e. different .NET execution policies between the various Vista Distros) that make migration and compatibility testing a nightmare. And when you throw in the blatant failings in other areas (network I/O, zip decompression, network storage, and more), it was enough to make any reasonable person question the value that Vista is supposed to deliver.

Oh, and P.S.: There's no way Spaces is something that you were "really missing from Linux". Virtual desktops have been around in the Linux world since forever. That statement makes me seriously doubt you've ever used Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Vista and 1GB
by Nossie on Tue 20th Nov 2007 05:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Vista and 1GB"
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

I think the guy was implying that when he used OSX, he missed virtual desktops out the box like he was used to in Linux -- that's my guess anyways.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Vista and 1GB
by linumax on Tue 20th Nov 2007 20:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Vista and 1GB"
linumax Member since:
2007-02-07

Oh, and P.S.: There's no way Spaces is something that you were "really missing from Linux". Virtual desktops have been around in the Linux world since forever. That statement makes me seriously doubt you've ever used Linux.

As Nossie commented above, what I meant was that OSX didn't have Virtual Desktops, and I was missing it when migrated from Linux to OSX.

Edited 2007-11-20 20:08

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Vista and 1GB
by monodeldiablo on Mon 26th Nov 2007 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Vista and 1GB"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

My bad. Sincerest apologies.

Reply Score: 2

Not clear what they are testing
by PlatformAgnostic on Mon 19th Nov 2007 08:48 UTC
PlatformAgnostic
Member since:
2006-01-02

This looks like an interesting series of articles based on a testing suite that those xpnet people have developed. I think it's important to pay attention to what they are doing in those tests. If they're scripting UI actions and trying to blast through them as quickly as possible, I could see Vista being slower than XP. The reason for this is that things that require human interactions are made fast enough that they can keep up with a person. Inherently graphical operations are not necessarily optimized for happening quickly under a script.

If he's measuring things that are deemed "fast enough" (i.e. that a user won't really even notice slowness), then it makes sense that no work was done to speed those things up for SP1.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not clear what they are testing
by Nossie on Mon 19th Nov 2007 18:31 UTC in reply to "Not clear what they are testing"
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

is it not down to the perception of speed rather than the reality anyway?

I cant remember anything on the MS platform but didn't they reduce the dock bouncing in OSX apps so that it at least appeared the app opened quicker?

So maybe for that reason alone you cant just script things for benchmarking... although its probably difficult to get truly independent results using humans.

Reply Score: 1

Who expected otherwise ?
by Nephelim on Mon 19th Nov 2007 12:05 UTC
Nephelim
Member since:
2006-07-26

I have been installing Windows Service Packs from NT 4.0 Service Pack 1 and I have neither seen nor expected them to speed up the system at all.

I don't think that's the purpose of the Service Packs anyway, they're supposed to fix things, add funcionality, and the so ... in this case, besides, I bet Microsoft couldn't improve system performance with a Service Pack even if they wanted to do so.

About the testing, Vista does include that new scoring thing that tells you your system score: if the Service Pack does not modify that score, I doubt that any improvement (if it existed) was noticeable at all.

By the way, a P4/2.4GHz (no hyperthreading) with 1.5GB RAM DDR/333MHz, two 320GB UDMA/100 hard disks and an ATI Radeon Pro 9600 256MB gives me a 3.5 (the range is from 1.0 up to 5.9 if I am not wrong) score (CPU=3.5, RAM = 4.4, hard disk = 4.6, graphics card = 3.6) ... but the performance degrades once you install software, especially virus protection one.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Who expected otherwise ?
by 1c3d0g on Mon 19th Nov 2007 13:35 UTC in reply to "Who expected otherwise ?"
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, that's why you should install a light-weight Anti-Virus engine like ClamWin, which doesn't hog resources like Norton/McAfee.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Who expected otherwise ?
by Nephelim on Mon 19th Nov 2007 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Who expected otherwise ?"
Nephelim Member since:
2006-07-26

At my mail servers I use clamav and sometimes f-prot, but under Windows I prefer Eset Nod32, I find it really light and effective and totally undisturbing.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Who expected otherwise ?
by MamiyaOtaru on Tue 20th Nov 2007 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Who expected otherwise ?"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

While I fully agree with your sentiments about Norton/McAfee, Clamwin will be insufficient for a lot of people as long as this remains true: ClamWin Free Antivirus does not include an on-access real-time scanner - http://forums.clamwin.com/viewtopic.php?t=10

I use it myself, but lack of on access scanning (thus far) is a bit of a disadvantage. Moon Secure Antivirus is also clam based, and apparently has on access scanning (google it if you want). I have no personal experience with it though, and they seem to hide their use of clam pretty well.

ANYWAY I would have been pretty surprised to see SP1 bring noticeable improvements. It's sort of like people who are told not to complain about a game in beta (not saying Vista is beta) as the final game will be "optimized". It never happens. Just like we'd all need new hardware to play Crysis, some folks will need new hardware to get over performance issues in Vista. I hope the added features and security are worth it (I don't know, again no personal experience yet).

Reply Score: 2

Most performance issues were corner cases
by joshv on Mon 19th Nov 2007 12:15 UTC
joshv
Member since:
2006-03-18

Most of the issues with Vista performance were odd corner cases. I am not saying I haven't experienced problems, but the performance issues I've experienced haven't been in the realm of Office application performance (which is what the linked article benchmarks).

It doesn't surprise me at all that an office application benchmark performs the same on RTM vs. SP1 - go figure - the release team did a good job in making sure RTM performed well in most common, easily testable scenarios.

Reply Score: 2

Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

Its funny you say that...

In my own experience Office 2007 was one of the only applications that seemed to perform faster under Vista.

I'm guessing this could be because that was what the application was designed for but people are awfully quick to turn that argument around when it comes down to other OS's

"It doesnt matter what 'x' could do for you in the future, it only matters what 'x' can do for you today"

In all honesty I kinda half wish Microsoft ripped the whole backwards compatible crap out, emulated old apps and started fresh (like apple did with OSX) ... but I get the impression that Microsoft didnt like the idea of releasing the marketshare back to the competition.

I do believe however they would be getting less criticism today and might have a better OS for it. Instead they are sandwiching people within an OS that can't decide if its XP compatible or not.

Reply Score: 1

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

In all honesty I kinda half wish Microsoft ripped the whole backwards compatible crap out, emulated old apps and started fresh (like apple did with OSX) ... but I get the impression that Microsoft didnt like the idea of releasing the marketshare back to the competition.

Why would you need an operating system from Microsoft then?

I mean, if you want brand-new OS that is not Windows compatibile, can't you just get MacOS or.. errr.. Linux? ;) Seriously.

Reply Score: 0

Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

"Why would you need an operating system from Microsoft then? "

Thats exactly my point. I agree its a two edged sword for Microsoft. But I dont bash them because I'm an 'MS hater' I bash them because I love operating systems of all kinds and I adore checking out advancements in technology... What I do bash MS on is their manipulation of the market and business practices in general. In many ways (if not more) Apple is no better, things imho could have been far worse if Apple was the monopoly.

The point is, I dont think any company should be allowed such relief, people should be kept informed that 'Windows' does not mean computer. The internet is not just Internet Explorer and internet search is not just Google.

If people have those choices before them and choose Windows then all is fair, but within the last 10 years Microsoft has forced the market so that you can only play games on Windows, if Microsoft really cared for the customer then direct X would be a truly open development platform. Unlike OpenGL, DirectX is used once again to pervert games development and to manipulate peoples choices.

As an OS 'freak' I guess I could be considered as, I would like to see an OS be popular because of its technical merits... not because some marketing department threw $1 billion dollars at it.

But the world is not perfect, and I may be one of the few that misses BeOS, Commodore and the Amiga.

The Amiga 1200 was faster than the equivalent intel 486.... history is littered with dead companies that provided superior products. I just stick up for those that deserve it.

Reply Score: 2

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

If people have those choices before them and choose Windows then all is fair, but within the last 10 years Microsoft has forced the market so that you can only play games on Windows,

Funny, I thought there are other platforms to play games on such as Nintendo, PS, etc.

Besides, Microsoft forced the market? I mean, Microsoft forced gaming companies not to develop games for, for example, Linux? How is that??

if Microsoft really cared for the customer then direct X would be a truly open development platform. Unlike OpenGL, DirectX is used once again to pervert games development and to manipulate peoples choices.

Can you play PS2 games on Wii?
Can you play PS3 games on XBox 360?
Etc.

Stop blaming MS for doing what any other company is doing - providing something specific for their platform so that they can sell it easier.

Reply Score: 0

dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

Can you play PS2 games on Wii?
Can you play PS3 games on XBox 360?
Etc.


Of course you can't because the hardware is different! That is not a fair comparison. People have a choice when it comes to what OS they install on a PC.

Microsoft provide a lock-in by forcing DirectX into the gaming market by either slandering other available development possibilities or by providing the big names in the industry with DirectX SDKs etc. They further lock consumers in by releasing DirectX only for a particular version of Windows and dropping development support for earlier versions, meaning people will be forced to upgrade their OS just to play the latest games that undoubtedly will run on XP anyway.

Edited 2007-11-19 22:13

Reply Score: 2

dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

So why the f*** is hardware different?

And why can hardware be different, but not the software??


Sony hold the exclusive rights to the PlayStation hardware and the operating system that runs on it, as well as the PlayStation's hardware design, and they also hold exclusive copyright to the development kits which they provide to game companies.

Microsoft only own the operating system that you install on your computer. Nothing about your computer's essential hardware belongs to Microsoft (i.e. not keyboards or mice). They don't design and manufacture CPUs, graphics processors, motherboards etc etc.

What Microsoft are doing is limiting what customers can play on the customer's own hardware by locking vendors into exclusively using Microsoft technologies to develop games. For a flawed analogy, imagine a company other than Sony limiting what games could be developed for the PS2.

Edited 2007-11-20 00:24

Reply Score: 1

Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

"Can you play PS2 games on Wii?
Can you play PS3 games on XBox 360?
Etc.

Stop blaming MS for doing what any other company is doing - providing something specific for their platform so that they can sell it easier."

That would be all very well but its not a Windows PC. its a PC. so your logic is totally flawed. The same applies to the Sony PS2, the Nintendo Wii, the MICROSOFT 360.

Look at how Direct X is constructed, LOOK at how openGL in Vista only runs on TOP of direct X..

I realise that the reason games 'is' windows is because of Microsofts general monopoly but that does not give Microsoft ANY right to make games that would run perfectly well in XP Vista only if ONLY to make Vista seem like an upgrade.

I'm just glad things will change... whether its Cider, Wine or some other technology that wedges the lack of choice I'm happy.

The better analogy would be not allowing Capcom to develop games for the Wii while Konami is given full access to the SDK. Once Microsoft has their own hardware (in the case of MS branded PC's in india) or the 360 THEN they can dictate what goes on that platform.

Reply Score: 2

going back
by duckie on Mon 19th Nov 2007 14:09 UTC
duckie
Member since:
2006-04-10

I tried to like it, but i simply had to go back to my previous version of windows(2003), i simply could not stand it any more.

Having used it since it came out, i really feel that vista is a step back in performance and usability.

I now feel lost in "windows-land", hoping win2008 is the "solution". Kind of sad.

Reply Score: 3

v meta
by bthylafh on Mon 19th Nov 2007 14:31 UTC
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

The SP1 performance and compatibility updates have been released as they have been completed through windows update. AFAIK there have been 3 major patches so far.

Reply Score: 2

good ol' DOS
by alucinor on Mon 19th Nov 2007 15:31 UTC
alucinor
Member since:
2006-01-06

I'll stick with DOS thank you very much.

Reply Score: 1

Vista feels fine....
by polaris20 on Mon 19th Nov 2007 15:34 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

on a Dual Core 4000+ AMD, but this machine has 4GB of RAM and an nVidia 7600GT. Not top of the line, but not old either.

IMO OSes shouldn't need 2GB to not feel sluggish. What happens when you actually start doing something with it, like video editing and the like?

With XP Pro on my 2Gz Core 2 Duo/2GB RAM system, I can render video in Vegas, surf the net, work in Office, all at the same time without a hiccup.

Will I have that same comfort with Vista?

Hardware should progress for better performance....not just so it can keep up with the latest wiz-bang OS with lots of eye candy.

Edited 2007-11-19 15:34

Reply Score: 4

RE: Vista feels fine....
by Nossie on Mon 19th Nov 2007 15:46 UTC in reply to "Vista feels fine...."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

Thats the point....

With EVERY new version of Mac OS X I've noticed a speed increase in my ancient 450mhz G4 cube, Yes I've turned the core animation effects off with Leopard server.

With every new version of Windows all I've seen is speed decreases and if you turn Aero off it makes the system no faster.

Personally I dont blame Microsoft per say.. Microsoft has been cutting security for years and when they finally add it in properly things break - no surprise.

But I still blame this on all the unneeded DRM. Its built straight into the kernel and I think its ignorant to believe its not effecting performance in a bad way. Its like putting tank tracks on all cars for when you *might* need to go through some snow.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Vista feels fine....
by BluenoseJake on Mon 19th Nov 2007 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Vista feels fine...."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

if you aren't using HD, then the DRM is not active, so you're blaming the wrong thing

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Vista feels fine....
by Nossie on Mon 19th Nov 2007 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Vista feels fine...."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

Of course its there... otherwise how is it to poll that you're watching legit porn?

Its that whole framework that's flawed. If you dont have hdmi hardware and dont watch any DRM infected media... you should have the option to remove it from your system, otherwise its just more unnecessary bloat.

It even loads up with Vista business.... Why cant you just turn the services off if its not used unless you 'need' it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Vista feels fine....
by Nossie on Mon 19th Nov 2007 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Vista feels fine...."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

"If you aren't using HD, then the DRM is not active"

I cant remember the last time I listened to HD mp3's can you?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Vista feels fine....
by google_ninja on Mon 19th Nov 2007 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Vista feels fine...."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Of course its there... otherwise how is it to poll that you're watching legit porn?

Its that whole framework that's flawed. If you dont have hdmi hardware and dont watch any DRM infected media... you should have the option to remove it from your system, otherwise its just more unnecessary bloat.

It even loads up with Vista business.... Why cant you just turn the services off if its not used unless you 'need' it?


Its part of the multimedia pipeline, not a service. It is an additional process that loads up when you launch an HD movie, it doesn't constantly poll the system, searching for HD content. The xvid codec is requested when you try to play xvid content, this works in a similar fashion.

There was alot of FUD generated by the Gutmann article awhile back (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html). The official response to this paper by the guys who implemented the HD DRM stuff is here http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/w..., and does a good job explaining what actually goes on. Of course, Gutmann came back with a rebuttal. But now that Vista is more widely used, his claims have been debunked in a few places (like here http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284)

I have used WMP11 on both Vista and on XP on the same machine, and I can tell you that on Vista it is much quicker to load content, more responsive, and doesnt kill the system the way the same software on XP does. In fact, on XP I would much rather use VLC, even with its lack of on screen controls during fullscreen playback. The same software I like in Vista, I really can't stand using in XP. If there is more resources being used, or quality degradation, it is unnoticeable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Vista feels fine....
by Nossie on Mon 19th Nov 2007 18:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Vista feels fine...."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

I did actually listen to an interview with Ed Bott (sp?????) on rebutting the FUD surrounding the DRM in Vista and did find it quite insightful. But I can only come to two conclusions from the interview:

1. It might not be active, but the whole subsystem for audio and video is engineered around the protection of the movie studios... not the performance of the media. I'm sorry but having polls to check the graphics bus for violations and the recent audio /networking issue found in Vista where networking crawls when your playing music is proof that their system is flawed. I just believe that if all this CRAP was not there then half of the issues people are having would not exist in the first place.

2. Microsoft still should have spent more time on WinFS and all the nice features of Vista rather than bowing to the wishes of the media cartels.

If you want to see what those bastards do look at what has happened to Sony, Sony used to make some of the best hardware ever. Since the Media arm has taken over the company has went downhill FAST.

I realise that the DRM does not directly effect performance but in the overall scheme of the OS it just adds another lead weight to the system in general.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Vista feels fine....
by google_ninja on Mon 19th Nov 2007 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Vista feels fine...."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I'm sorry but having polls to check the graphics bus for violations and the recent audio /networking issue found in Vista where networking crawls when your playing music is proof that their system is flawed. I just believe that if all this CRAP was not there then half of the issues people are having would not exist in the first place.


I can't find the article at the moment, but the problem with network and system performance in vista is because of a badly implemented design decision. Basically, anything that identifies itself as a media user process gets a guaranteed slice of cpu time and (if it is downloading) network traffic. Everyone thought it was the DRM, but it actually wasnt. The problem is they were too aggressive in what they were dedicating to media. (the link was posted to OSNews, don't remember what it was called though)

Microsoft still should have spent more time on WinFS and all the nice features of Vista rather than bowing to the wishes of the media cartels.


Agreed. WDS is a poor substitute, and even if I were willing to buy HD media, I would rather have WinFS then HD playback.

If you want to see what those bastards do look at what has happened to Sony, Sony used to make some of the best hardware ever. Since the Media arm has taken over the company has went downhill FAST.


Sony is actually a publisher, MS isn't. The same requirements that they implemented for Vista are requirements for any device that plays that kind of media. Since I boycott HD media on principal, I would have preferred that MS told hollywood to take a flying leap when they saw what was required, but I doubt we will see the same kind of focus that took out sony, until MS starts publishing movies and forms a record label that is.


I realise that the DRM does not directly effect performance but in the overall scheme of the OS it just adds another lead weight to the system in general.


The problem is that DRM is here to stay, until the market starts saying they have had enough of it. That hasn't really happened yet in the mainstream, until it does, DRM schemes will just keep getting more and more draconian. Not only that, but since the people fighting it tend to be anti big corporations in general, there has been a serious lack of focus in communicating to people what will make a difference. I have a friend who actually cited ACSS DRM in Vista as a reason he switched to Apple, but has a HD-DVD player/tv/speakers in his living room, and a PS3. I tried explaining that he kinda missed the point, but he just quoted me some FSF style jargon that barely made sense.

If you are against DRM in all forms, you need to chuck your DVDs, commercial software with piracy protection, your TiVO, and any Macrovision VHS you happen to still have lying around. If you don't have a problem with DRM in principal, but draw the line in how far is far enough, then you need to be consistant in where you draw the line.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Vista feels fine....
by gonzo on Mon 19th Nov 2007 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Vista feels fine...."
gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Agreed. WDS is a poor substitute, and even if I were willing to buy HD media, I would rather have WinFS then HD playback.

Do you realize that Microsoft demonstrated beta 1 of WinFS? It is not like they could not have it done by the time SP1 or SP2 is done. There's even a video on Channel9 with WinFS guys demonstrating WinFS beta 1.

Considering that:

1. NTFS got support for transactions.
2. There's built-in instant search.
3. There's volume shadow copy (Previous Versions) client in Vista.

What exactly do you miss from WinFS?

Reply Score: 1

v RE[7]: Vista feels fine....
by cyclops on Mon 19th Nov 2007 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Vista feels fine...."
RE[7]: Vista feels fine....
by Nossie on Mon 19th Nov 2007 19:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Vista feels fine...."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

Interesting points ;)

I realise that the network/audio issue is not directly related to DRM but I cant help but feel its related indirectly.

Since I realise the reality of DRM, I just boycott all DRM that can't be broken.. which is err none of them. But thats also another good reason why MS should never have bowed to the idea in the first place.

From what I remember of the Edd Bott interview, he said that the DRM foundations were laid to let media player developers build HD DRM compatible devices rather than let each of them independently code compatible interfaces on thier own. The idea being that this would save those small developers time and money.

BUT, when developers such as WinDVD are being locked out because their key gets cracked and revoked and you have to rely on them releasing an update, then I fail to understand where Microsoft thought the benefit really lay.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Vista feels fine....
by PlatformAgnostic on Tue 20th Nov 2007 02:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Vista feels fine...."
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I'm the person who owns the testing for MMCSS (the service which was causing network slowdowns when playing audio). I can assure you completely that the problem has nothing to do with DRM.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Vista feels fine....
by kaiwai on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Vista feels fine...."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If you want to see what those bastards do look at what has happened to Sony, Sony used to make some of the best hardware ever. Since the Media arm has taken over the company has went downhill FAST.


Sony went down way before then - the moment they decided to out source their production and leave someone else to sort out the QA, is the moment their products down hill.

They also never took their products to a whole new level; MiniDisc that should have evolved far beyond the 1gig limit on their current mini Disc HD, and yet, nothing done to make it possible. Their UMD format for PSP - why didn't they make it possible to use it as a form of write able storage which would be cheaper than flash (which is the only sort of storage available on PSP).

The moment they took their eye off product development in favour of cutting costs - the lost their way; their media division is merely a by-product of that lust for money - using draconian licencing and lawsuits in the naive assumption that it'll protect their money. Long term they're fighting a losing battle.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Vista feels fine....
by Nossie on Tue 20th Nov 2007 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Vista feels fine...."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

Sorry but I dont believe that entirely.

"They also never took their products to a whole new level; MiniDisc that should have evolved far beyond the 1gig limit on their current mini Disc HD, and yet, nothing done to make it possible. Their UMD format for PSP - why didn't they make it possible to use it as a form of write able storage which would be cheaper than flash (which is the only sort of storage available on PSP)."

Look at MiniDisc, UMD they werent popular because Sony wanted to control the license, same with MemoryStick & blu-ray to some extent (without the PS3 blu-ray would be DOA)

This is not about technology, it's about licensing. It's about giving the consumer too may 'rights'.

If that was not the case,
Blue-ray writers wouldn't be £400+
Memorysticks would be in non sony products
UMD would be in non sony products and would be writable
Minidisc would be in non sony products and wouldnt need propitiatory software to write to.
Can you get a non-vaio laptop with blu-ray?

Sony products have been far superior in tech for years and yet their inferior lust to control media and markets is greater. Admittedly this has been going on before Sony media took over the board but its been festering at an even greater pace since.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Vista feels fine....
by NxStY on Mon 19th Nov 2007 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Vista feels fine...."
NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12

if you aren't using HD, then the DRM is not active, so you're blaming the wrong thing

It's just the HD DRM that's not active. There is a lot of other DRM stuff in vista too. For example:
http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=68158

Apparently Vista can't even play a DRM free mp3 without hogging the CPU with its DRM stuff.

Edited 2007-11-19 18:01

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Vista feels fine....
by google_ninja on Mon 19th Nov 2007 17:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Vista feels fine...."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

when was the last time apple re-wrote their I/O stack, multimedia subsystem, desktop compositing subsystem, network stack, and security subsystem? The closest you can get to comparing the XP-> Vista transition is the OS9->OSX transition, and even that is apples and oranges (to make a bad pun). The slowdown from windows 2000 to windows XP was a lot less excusable then the slowdown from XP to Vista. By the time SP1 hits, Vista will be at the equivilent of OSX 10.1, which is considered to be the first widely usable version.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Vista feels fine....
by Nossie on Mon 19th Nov 2007 17:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Vista feels fine...."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

sorry no.

OS9 and OSX were completely different OS's on completely different codebases. backwards compatibility had to be re-enginered so that it was kinda compatible with OS9

THAT is like saying Win98 compatibility had to be re-engineered so that old games would work on XP. Microsoft changed codebases between 98 and 2000. Microsoft couldnt achieve this with XP in time so threw in the infamous ME as a cash cow.

By your analogy.
Microsoft changed codebases between XP and blackcomb. Microsoft couldn't achieve this with blackcomb in time so threw in the infamous Vista/Longhorn aka ME II as a cash cow.

Sounds similar does it not?

EDIT:
just to add some independence to this, OSX 10.X Puma? was pretty much a dead dog compared to XP, I never had the opportunity to try OSX before Tiger, but I'm pretty glad for that.

But the reality of it is that OSX keeps getting faster with each new release on the same hardware and Windows seems to keep getting slower.

Edited 2007-11-19 18:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Vista feels fine....
by google_ninja on Mon 19th Nov 2007 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Vista feels fine...."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

This is why I said it is still like comparing apples and oranges. The whole codebase didnt change, but half the major subsystems were re-written, which is as close a comparison as you will get. Quartz was at 1.0 in 10.0, so is Aero in Vista. That is what I meant.

Microsoft changed codebases between XP and blackcomb. Microsoft couldn't achieve this with blackcomb in time so threw in the infamous Vista/Longhorn aka ME II as a cash cow.


You do realize that Vista was built on the server 2k3 codebase, server 2k8 is built on the Vista codebase, and that Vista sp1 will re-merge the Vista and server 2k8 kernels?

EDIT:

just to add some independence to this, OSX 10.X Puma? was pretty much a dead dog compared to XP, I never had the opportunity to try OSX before Tiger, but I'm pretty glad for that.


I just had to comment on this. 10.0 was a dead dog compared to XP, because XP was revision 5 of the same old NT, there was barely anything new (other then the compatibility layer), and 10.0 was new everything. Vista was a total overhaul of half the OS, so it isnt exactly the same (half instead of whole), but comparing Vista to leopard is almost as bad as comparing Puma to XP.

Edited 2007-11-19 18:12 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Vista feels fine....
by Nossie on Mon 19th Nov 2007 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Vista feels fine...."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

For the most part I do agree with you but:

"You do realize that Vista was built on the server 2k3 codebase, server 2k8 is built on the Vista codebase, and that Vista sp1 will re-merge the Vista and server 2k8 kernels?"

XP was built on the 2k server codebase. I ran 2k3 for a long while and enjoyed every minute using it minus its small incompatibilities with XP. Vista in theory should have solved and improved those compatibilities.

"server 2k8 is built on the Vista codebase"

I think you'll find that's not entirely true. Server 2k8 will be based on what Vista was meant to be.

I'm sure that Vista was planned to be great. I'm sure that Vista was planned to have some fantastic new features. I'm also sure that Microsoft could not achieve those promises and cut the balls off the home system to get it out on time.

I think you'll find that MS has a large pool of code that was meant to have been put into Vista and for whatever reason was not. Server 2k8 will bring some of that together in the business market and the NEXT version of Windows for home users will be what Vista was intended.

Its for that reason I feel strongly that Vista is just an ME II in the interm till they actually deliver what they cut out of Vista 2 years ago.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Vista feels fine....
by kaiwai on Tue 20th Nov 2007 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Vista feels fine...."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

when was the last time apple re-wrote their I/O stack, multimedia subsystem, desktop compositing subsystem, network stack, and security subsystem? The closest you can get to comparing the XP-> Vista transition is the OS9->OSX transition, and even that is apples and oranges (to make a bad pun). The slowdown from windows 2000 to windows XP was a lot less excusable then the slowdown from XP to Vista. By the time SP1 hits, Vista will be at the equivilent of OSX 10.1, which is considered to be the first widely usable version.


Mate, Microsoft has $50 billion in the bank and 79,000 employees - you're telling me that they couldn't provide an operating system evolution within a space of 5 years that didn't go backwards in terms of performance? Sure, I may believe in God, I may believe in Jesus being a prophet, but good lord, believing that they couldn't move the operating system forward without a major performance penalty is something I'm no going to make a leap of faith over.

Windows Vista isn't a re-write, and it doesn't matter how many times you say it, its not going to make it true. Microsoft cocked up Windows Vista, Service Pack 1 was going to be their last reprieve - many have bought Windows Vista assuming that SP1 will fix all those problems in SP1. Microsoft have failed to deliver - again.

Apple made the painful decisions 6 years ago, and now we the Apple customer are reaping the rewards; Microsoft could have made those same tough decisions, but decided not too; now here we are 6 years later, with all their assets they've been unable to deliver.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Vista feels fine....
by google_ninja on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Vista feels fine...."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I NEVER said it was a rewrite. I said the desktop compositing, printing system, multimedia system, sound system, security system, and disk i/o are completely different, and with that amount of new stuff in an OS you cannot treat it the same as something that has been optimized for 5 years. IF YOU ARE going to compare it to OSX, the best comparison is to the OS9->)OSX transition. It is not a good comparison (remember, I wasn't the one who started comparing), but it is as good as you'll get. It is not anywhere near as big a shift as what happened to OSX, but Vista is also far better off then 10.0.

Microsoft cocked up Windows Vista, Service Pack 1 was going to be their last reprieve - many have bought Windows Vista assuming that SP1 will fix all those problems in SP1. Microsoft have failed to deliver - again.


Microsoft has already delivered, most of the stuff in SP1 is already here. The performance and compatibility fixes have been coming through windows update over the last few months. People who couldn't run it before, are no having no issues (one test I saw showed a 180% increase in file copy performance after a patch). This is why half the comments on this story are incredulity and disbelief.

Apple made the painful decisions 6 years ago, and now we the Apple customer are reaping the rewards; Microsoft could have made those same tough decisions, but decided not too; now here we are 6 years later, with all their assets they've been unable to deliver.


I don't understand what the difference is. MS just overhauled most of their APIs and broke with libraries they have been using for almost a decade. This is a far bigger deal then apple breaking backwards compatibility due to the size and shape of the MS install base. Sure, apple did it 6 years ago, and MS is doing it now, but both moves equate to the same thing, modernizing the OS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Vista feels fine....
by Nossie on Tue 20th Nov 2007 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Vista feels fine...."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

Sooo... lets see

"This is a far bigger deal then apple breaking backwards compatibility due to the size and shape of the MS install base. Sure, apple did it 6 years ago, and MS is doing it now, but both moves equate to the same thing, modernizing the OS."

Apple moves from Motorola to PowerPC for 9.0.x
Apple moves from Mac OS to NeXT (which is not MacOS at all)
Apple builds a MacOS compatibility layer into NeXT and calls it MacOS X
Apple moves from PPC to Intel in MacOS 10.4 keeping backwards compatibility with PPC.
Apple drops PPC *Classic MacOS 9* supoort with the release of MacOS X 10.5
And rumour is that PPC support will be dropped in MacOS X 10.6

And I wont start on the PPC and Intel 32/64 bit variants since atleast MS seems to be managing that - if badly.

Sooo, your telling me that Microsoft with 75,000 employees and a bazillion dollars in the bank cant rewrite a few subsystems and services while Apple has not only changed operating systems, sustains reasonable compatibility AND changed over multiple processor architectures multiple times?

For the love of all things noodly appendaged, no wonder Microsoft dropped Itanium support, errr and Alpha support... and errr SPARC....

I guess MS should just stick to what they are good at.... oh wait! nvm.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Vista feels fine....
by dreamlax on Tue 20th Nov 2007 20:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Vista feels fine...."
dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

Apple moves from Motorola to PowerPC for 9.0.x


Actually, I'm quite sure MacOS 8.1 was the last release for the 68k. MacOS 8.5 was the first all PowerPC version, I think.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Vista feels fine....
by Nossie on Tue 20th Nov 2007 21:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Vista feels fine...."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

oops ;) hehe yeah I knew I'd missed the mark on that one but couldn't be bothered sourcing ... thanks for clearing that up ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Vista feels fine....
by kaiwai on Tue 20th Nov 2007 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Vista feels fine...."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I NEVER said it was a rewrite. I said the desktop compositing, printing system, multimedia system, sound system, security system, and disk i/o are completely different, and with that amount of new stuff in an OS you cannot treat it the same as something that has been optimized for 5 years. IF YOU ARE going to compare it to OSX, the best comparison is to the OS9->)OSX transition. It is not a good comparison (remember, I wasn't the one who started comparing), but it is as good as you'll get. It is not anywhere near as big a shift as what happened to OSX, but Vista is also far better off then 10.0.


And yet, they compromised with backwards compatibility - GDI now sits unaccelerated ontop of their new engine, thus adding unneeded weight to the operating system. Their new printing system backwards compatible with their old one - why? needless backwards compatibility included, adding weight to an operating system, which should be provided through VirtualPC + Windows XP.

Microsoft has already delivered, most of the stuff in SP1 is already here. The performance and compatibility fixes have been coming through windows update over the last few months. People who couldn't run it before, are no having no issues (one test I saw showed a 180% increase in file copy performance after a patch). This is why half the comments on this story are incredulity and disbelief.


I've installed Windows Vista, and all the additions (I had an HP laptop up to the 20 October, I installed all the latest updates - and yes, performance has increased, but it was never to the same level as Windows XP or Mac OS X Leopard.

I'm running Mac OS X Leopard, its sitting at 10.5.1 and it runs beautifully - fast, reliable and all my applications work nicely. I can handle a little incompatible with software, thats a fact of life, but what I am not going to tolerate is a step backwards, on the same hardware, of speed.

I don't understand what the difference is. MS just overhauled most of their APIs and broke with libraries they have been using for almost a decade. This is a far bigger deal then apple breaking backwards compatibility due to the size and shape of the MS install base. Sure, apple did it 6 years ago, and MS is doing it now, but both moves equate to the same thing, modernizing the OS.


They could have broken compatibily, provided a bundled copy of Windows XP as a Virtual PC image along with a copy of Virtual PC - they chose not to do that. They chose to make improvement alot harder than it needed to be.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Vista feels fine....
by MollyC on Wed 21st Nov 2007 03:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Vista feels fine...."
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

The Windows team doesn't have 79,000 employees. And even the Windows team had more than just Vista to do.

As for Vista not being a "rewrite", neither was OSX. OSX is NeXT (which already had Cocoa) + Carbon Manager (which is mondern version of the very primitive out-of-date old Mac Toolbox api) + Quartz + Aqua. And despite OSX being based on NeXT rather than a *new* OS, the first version was still near unusable; Apple needed 2 more years and 3 more releases (at $130 a pop) to get it right.


"Apple made the painful decisions 6 years ago, and now we the Apple customer are reaping the rewards; Microsoft could have made those same tough decisions, but decided not too; now here we are 6 years later, with all their assets they've been unable to deliver."

Apple did what they did because they proved to be totally incompetent at delivering modern OS. So they bought NeXT. Microsoft already had a modern OS for years before. And what "benefits" are Mac users reaping? The inability to play HD discs? The lockin to Apple products? The nearly dead game market? OSX is a fine OS that I use everyday, but I don't know what "benefits" you're talking about, unless you're just referring to no longer having to run Classic Mac
OS.

Edited 2007-11-21 04:06

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Vista feels fine....
by 6c1452 on Wed 21st Nov 2007 05:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Vista feels fine...."
6c1452 Member since:
2007-08-29

Apple did what they did because they proved to be totally incompetent at delivering modern OS. So they bought NeXT. Microsoft already had a modern OS for years before. And what "benefits" are Mac users reaping? The inability to play HD discs? The lockin to Apple products? The nearly dead game market? OSX is a fine OS that I use everyday, but I don't know what "benefits" you're talking about, unless you're just referring to no longer having to run Classic Mac
OS.


Maybe he is referring to it being a fast, modern, mature, fairly secure, high performance operating system with very little legacy ***p and much less bloat. It you think it's no better than XP, well that's fine; but I wouldn't recommend trying to convince anybody else of it.

As far as the NeXT thing goes, NeXT was founded by Steve Jobs, and Steve Jobs Is Apple (tm). Also, last time I checked, aquisitions were a legitimate way for a company to gain new technology.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Vista feels fine....
by Nossie on Thu 22nd Nov 2007 03:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Vista feels fine...."
Nossie Member since:
2007-07-31

<<<< Also, last time I checked, aquisitions were a legitimate way for a company to gain new technology. >>>>

hehe yeah, just ask Microsoft ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Vista feels fine....
by ssa2204 on Wed 21st Nov 2007 05:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Vista feels fine...."
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

You hit on a point here. I really do not understand why certain people who do not like Windows, do not use Windows, always pop up in these threads to start flaming. They are always more than welcome to stick with Ubuntu and watch their HD movies on that....

Apple could also do a complete re-write of their OS because they have a small market share, and more importantly an even smaller share in the business world. They also have a loyal user base that tends to prefer using Apple simply because they are Apple. Enough said.

Reply Score: 1

Well...
by fretinator on Mon 19th Nov 2007 20:03 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

It.......works.......fine......for...............me

Reply Score: 2

here's some things I wonder if sp1 fixes
by sgtarky on Mon 19th Nov 2007 20:20 UTC
sgtarky
Member since:
2006-01-02

I notice when a standard user plays a .vob file, windows media says"wrong resolution or codec need" but admin users can view the file fine. Also divx movies will play audio whereas admin users will see audio and video.
I also found I can not open 2 excel documents at the same time, you know to display one on one monitor and another on the other,side by side comparison. In xp you go to folder options, file types .xls uncheck browse in same window. You do not have that option in vista.

Reply Score: 1

vista is awesome.
by graigsmith on Mon 19th Nov 2007 23:23 UTC
graigsmith
Member since:
2006-04-05

ok, i have run vista AND ubuntu. and they are both nice os's. in fact i ran ubuntu for two years. and i was convinced vista sucked till i tried it. Honestly vista is awesome. startup is only a little bit slower than ubuntu. but the system is stable responsive, and more beautiful than compiz running in ubuntu. compiz feels like a hack compared to vista's aero. i haven't run into any drm problems yet. suspend actually works in vista! where as in ubuntu suspend actually corrupted my hard drive. (i stopped using suspend after that happened in ubuntu) compiz is really still a beta, and it shows. my videocard is a slower onboard one, and while it's really smooth and nice in vista, it's slow and laggy and annoying on ubuntu. probably not all ubuntu's fault though, closed source drivers probably don't help them much.

search on the start menu was a very nice addon. it searches instantly and shows me programs and files that matches. ubuntu already has desktop search, but it's a nice addition compared to xp. (and thankfully they got rid of the word start, that was annoying, and it looks better too now with just the icon)

and security seems much improved on vista. i haven't had any problems sofar.

why'd i switch back to windows from ubuntu? ubuntu was just a tad bit buggy. there was one bug where my hard drive would click, and it sounded like the heads were getting smacked around. it scared me, that was the main reason. the other reason, there are lots of cool games coming out for windows lately, and i want to play some.

Edited 2007-11-19 23:25

Reply Score: 3

RE: vista is awesome.
by lemur2 on Mon 19th Nov 2007 23:54 UTC in reply to "vista is awesome."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

i was convinced vista sucked till i tried it. Honestly vista is awesome. startup is only a little bit slower than ubuntu. but the system is stable responsive, and more beautiful than compiz running in ubuntu. compiz feels like a hack compared to vista's aero. i haven't run into any drm problems yet.


A quote seen on the web (and brazenly plagiarised by me):

"Today's top Vista items articles (from Google News)... the 5th is my favourite:

1) Vista Migration Scaring Off IT Pros

2) Vista SP1 no faster than stock OS, say testing experts

3) mcafee: Businesses 'leery' of Vista

4) 90% of IT Professionals Don't Want Vista

5) Windows for Supercomputers needs less memory than Vista"

Honestly vista is awesome


I think you must have somehow mis-spelled "awful".

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/11/19/vista-needs-...

Edited 2007-11-19 23:58

Reply Score: 3

Vista / Linux both have acceptable uses
by Rugxulo on Tue 20th Nov 2007 00:36 UTC
Rugxulo
Member since:
2007-10-09


Microsoft is floundering. Jesus, even Balmer expects MS to make 25% of its profits from advertising within the next 5 years. What does that show?


All that shows is that Ballmer is weird (as always). Who knows what the 72,000 MS employees have planned? I don't wish them all to be unemployed, just hoping for improvements. If they can't do it, oh well. Certainly, even in a MS-less world, there will still be tons of problems needing to be fixed.


I've used windows since the days of 3.0. I've seen Microsoft do some interesting things, and I've also seen them embrace, extend and extinguish technologies that were far superior to their own.


Do we really have to keep using such cliches over and over again?


If MS had done what they said they would do with Longhorn (including a 64bit BeOS like file system called WinFS etc) then Vista could have matured into something fantastic.


I don't think MS could ever please some people no matter what they do. People maybe expect too much.


Sadly, however, their promises were once again empty and what they provided was another Windows Millennium. All you have now with their backtracking is a DRM encumbered XP with a pretty skirt.


I do wish that new MS OSes weren't less compatible because that's certainly annoying. And I personally feel virtualization is kinda a copout for "we didn't want to fix it". But to be fair, compatibility is a dirty word to some people (which seems strange to me). There's always some newer way of doing things that kicks the old to the curb (deserving or otherwise).


You sir, take your MCSE - and GTFO!


You don't have to be rude back, that's unnecessary. Besides, it's not your house, you don't have the authority to banish anyone.

Reply Score: 2

dreamlax Member since:
2007-01-04

I don't think MS could ever please some people no matter what they do. People maybe expect too much.


You're right, people should learn the fact that Microsoft have a reputation for overpromising and underdelivering.

Reply Score: 2

Gonzo loves Microsoft
by jverage on Tue 20th Nov 2007 10:11 UTC
jverage
Member since:
2007-11-16

Gonzo = member of the Microsoft Defense Brigade.

I wonder how much Microsoft pays him or maybe he is trying to get paid by Microsoft. His declaration of love and support of Microsoft should have been written down in the Bible. Maybe people would take him seriously if he pulled Bill Gates's flaccid penis out of his mouth. Until then he is nothing more than a cheap troll.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Gonzo loves Microsoft
by ssa2204 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 10:23 UTC in reply to "Gonzo loves Microsoft"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

So, someone you do not agree with is automatically a troll to which you must insult. Real mature, great way to build credibility. I would advise you to re-read your post, then please do go look up the definition of troll.

Reply Score: 1

Nailed it
by mbot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:40 UTC
mbot
Member since:
2007-09-18

Vista requires too much to do too little

I see hardly any productivity gains using Vista. Security? XP SP2 is secure if you don't click on 'Bad Stuff.' Superfetch helps productivity? Ya, like 5 seconds is going to kill you. Besides, Superfetch's benefits are worthless since Explorer feels much slower. Well it gets slower with each new release, but it's even slow on an X2 3600+ with 1 GB of DDR2 RAM. Remember, this is a dual-core machine.

Let that sink in- Vista is slow on a modern machine. In fact, it's a tad slower than my XP box running on a P4 Willamette with 512 MB of DDR RAM.

The goal of an operating system is to improve your productivity. Vista does not improve productivity.

Reply Score: 2

Performance Reset
by jamome on Wed 28th Nov 2007 19:37 UTC
jamome
Member since:
2007-07-08

Personally, I think Microsoft needs a performance reset. As I've said in previous posts, I think software in general, and Microsoft software in particular, is getting slower at faster rate than hardware is getting faster. And this problem acutely affects Vista.... (Pingback)
http://dataland.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/performance-reset/

Reply Score: 1