Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Jan 2007 19:22 UTC, submitted by Deathspawner
Windows "Does performance suck on Vista when compared to XP? That's what I was set out to find out. I was worried at first, since the performance in Beta 2 was quite bad. While there is indeed a performance decrease, it's quite minimal as you'll find out."
Thread beginning with comment 205811
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Big whoop
by Bounty on Thu 25th Jan 2007 19:41 UTC
Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

So it's basically more of the same + some incompatabilities. I wish they would just extend XP support for another 8 years, and continue to make it stable etc. Then add DX10.

-Bounty

Reply Score: 5

RE: Big whoop
by jjmckay on Thu 25th Jan 2007 21:01 in reply to "Big whoop"
jjmckay Member since:
2005-11-11

Well, not exactly. The reviewer noted that with a 1GB of RAM, Vista would be much slower. Vista seems to be much more of a memory hog, but not relative to when XP was released. Once that bottleneck is overcome, then yes performance seems roughly similar.

I think when XP came out, the typical PC had 128MB of RAM and XP uses that much ram on boot, and doesn't really open up until 256 or 512MB IMHO. Vista seems similar in that the typical new PC today has about 1GB of ram but doesn't really open up until 2GB, and 4GB seems more than ample (today).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Big whoop
by butters on Fri 26th Jan 2007 02:25 in reply to "Big whoop"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I agree with your subject. Big deal. Given a hefty amount of memory (2GB is still pretty hefty by today's standards), Vista runs the same single-threaded code slightly slower than XP. How much slower was anyone expecting Vista to be, especially on a dual-core system?

Vista is a memory hog. Given enough memory, it should do just as poorly as previous versions of Windows. It has more system services going on in the background, but if you've got two processors, they shouldn't be impacting your active single-threaded process very much.

Sadly, while Vista pretty much requires a dual-core system to let the applications get some processor time, it doesn't really scale much further than that. They still haven't designed their process management code with SMP in mind. Still a single system runqueue, no CPU affinity, no cache warmth considerations, no priority boost for threads holding locks, and load balancing means dispatch to the next available CPU. For Microsoft, designing for SMP begins and ends with serialization. They can't even get the basics right, yet they think giving Media Player 80% of each timeslice is a brilliant innovation.

That's my rant. Hey, if all you care about is Media Player and DirectX, then Vista should satisfy your addictions quite nicely.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Big whoop
by MikeekiM on Fri 26th Jan 2007 13:50 in reply to "RE: Big whoop"
MikeekiM Member since:
2005-11-16

>> Sadly, while Vista pretty much requires a dual-core system to let the applications get some processor time, it doesn't really scale much further than that. They still haven't designed their process management code with SMP in mind. Still a single system runqueue, no CPU affinity, no cache warmth considerations, no priority boost for threads holding locks, and load balancing means dispatch to the next available CPU. For Microsoft, designing for SMP begins and ends with serialization. They can't even get the basics right, yet they think giving Media Player 80% of each timeslice is a brilliant innovation.

Butters, aren't you being a Bit harsh?
It's YOU that's the problem. You sound like you've got like a Comp Sci degree. YOU are the one on the wrong platform, if this kind of thing bothers you.

Reply Parent Score: 0