Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Jul 2007 15:08 UTC, submitted by Uncle Fester
Hardware, Embedded Systems The head of PC maker Acer, Gianfranco Lanci, has hit out at Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system, saying that the 'entire industry' was disappointed by it. Few buyers have purchased new PCs specifically for Vista, Acer's chief says "The entire industry is disappointed by Windows Vista," the head of the world's fourth-biggest PC maker told the Financial Times Deutschland in its online edition on Monday. Never before had a new version of Windows done so little to boost PC sales, he said. "And that's not going to change in the second half of this year," Mr Lanci said. "I really don't think that someone has bought a new PC specifically for Vista."
Permalink for comment 258190
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I've heard this before......
by makfu on Wed 25th Jul 2007 22:46 UTC in reply to "I've heard this before......"
Member since:

Dropping all the anti-hype, and other nonsense, there are some really compelling reasons to like Vista such as prioritized IO, prioritized paging, a fairer scheduler, vastly improved audio, video and network stacks and a solid security model. That said, there is no denying that Vista hit some non-trivial initial snags that revolved around three key problems:

1. Several big hardware vendorsí drivers simply were not ready (as in badly, badly broken). While this problem has gotten much better, driver maturity is still a problem for some vendors and will likely remain so for a while to come. Some of this is due to the radical changes in several key driver stacks, some of it is Microsoftís fault for not pushing hardware vendors harder and a lot of this is just apathy and sloppiness on the part of some vendors.

2. Vista is big. You canít get around the fact that its in-memory footprint is bigger than XP. Yes, people have been misreading the memory counters and such. Yes, much of what people perceive as memory utilization is actually pre-fetched pages in the system cache (standby list). However, the actual working set of many of the base system processes is simply larger and there are new subsystems that just didnít exist in XP. This isnít all bad, as the system tends to scale much better on large memory configurations. That said, Vista really doesnít run well (e.g. as well as XP) with 1GB. It needs at least 1.5 to run well, which means 2GB for most peoples configurations.

3. Vista implements some cool IO technologies (IO priority, bandwidth reservation), but itís also susceptible to poor IO subsystem implementations. Some hardware vendors implemented disk subsystems with serious latency issues. The biggest problem is these systems may still obtain decent winsat scores, but actually perform very poorly in terms of actual user experience. Given item 2, Vista endís up doing more IOís (especially) on 1GB and less configurations than XP, thus highlighting the problem much more clearly. Systems with good storage subsystems (7200 RPM disks or 5400 RPM disks with large caches and a quality controller implementation) tend to perform quite well, even on lower memory configurations.

Now, with all that said, the above problems are in the process of being resolved or will simply become non-issues as the relative power of common hardware increases. Remaining issues that ARE actual bugs will get fixed (software isn't perfect people).

The Windows folks made some very hard decisions with Vista, including breaking a lot of drivers and legacy code in order to move the platform forward. These were good and necessary changes that will pay BIG dividends over the next few years. Furthermore, on a modern machine, with plenty of memory, a modern (dx9+) GPU and fast disk subsystem, Vista today is a better OS than XP.

Edited 2007-07-25 22:52

Reply Parent Score: 1