Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th May 2007 13:19 UTC
Windows Months go, I reviewed Windows Vista, and concluded: "All in all, I am impressed by Windows Vista [...]. Windows Vista is better than XP, and definitely more than just an improved look as many say." After 5 months of usage, it is time to put that statement into perspective.
Thread beginning with comment 238392
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Sorry, but..
by Kroc on Tue 8th May 2007 15:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sorry, but.."
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Vista is a good gaming OS? What are you smoking. On the same hardware Vista is alower, takes longer to boot up, takes longer to shutdown, existing games run slower, often severely slower, and sometimes not at all.

No games currently use DX10, when they do, you'll be looking at 2GB realistic RAM requirements, if not 4GB for any serious gaming.

Sorry, what you've been sold is a polished turd.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Sorry, but..
by stare on Tue 8th May 2007 15:37 in reply to "RE[3]: Sorry, but.."
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

On the same hardware Vista is alower,

On modern hardware Vista is faster.

takes longer to boot up

Roughly the same time or 2-5 seconds slower than XP (15 vs 20 seconds). Which is still considerably faster than OSX, not to mention Linux.

takes longer to shutdown

Rougly the same time, cannot discuss the exact times since I rarely boot or shutdown the OS -- sleep/hibernate works better.

existing games run slower

Can confirm this. It's shocking 5-10% slower, which is due to still not polished video drivers.

No games currently use DX10, when they do, you'll be looking at 2GB realistic RAM requirements, if not 4GB for any serious gaming.

No big deal, considering 2GB will be standart at the end of the year.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Sorry, but..
by Kroc on Tue 8th May 2007 15:50 in reply to "RE[4]: Sorry, but.."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"On modern hardware Vista is faster."
Irrelevant, you avoided the statement. On the same hardware Vista is slower than XP, Ubuntu & OS X.

"Roughly the same time or 2-5 seconds slower than XP (15 vs 20 seconds). Which is still considerably faster than OSX, not to mention Linux."
Where did you pull this figure from?? A fresh install of OS X boots in 30-35 seconds and shuts down in 5-10 seconds. I ran Vista on the same hardware (1.83GHzCD 1.5GB RAM) and it took 1:30 to boot up and far too long to shut down, compared to 45 seconds to start with XP

"No big deal, considering 2GB will be standart at the end of the year."
Yes big deal. Having to upgrade solely because your OS is slow and bloated is throwing good money away. Where is the value in having to buy Vista, new RAM and the game, or a new machine entirely? You seem to have decided to stop thinking because you have money to burn.

Reply Parent Score: 5

bootup
by pcfixaren on Fri 11th May 2007 15:41 in reply to "RE[4]: Sorry, but.."
pcfixaren Member since:
2006-06-21

If I compere my own experiences with Xp and linux

The actual bootup process feels a bit slower on linux but that depends on how its messured
If we take into count that linux is detecting new hardware each time its booted and the fact that it dosn't load a couple of programs like antiviurus antispyware and a firewall which is often the case of any windows based machine, then Linux might ewen be faster to boot. Windows Xp detects new hardware when its booted up so sometimes the user has to deal with installing drivers for different fings and do at least one reboot before he or she can start to actual use the computer

so the question is:
Is the bootup process messured from the moment the user push the startbuttom to the moment he or she can start to use the computer, or is it messured from the startbutton is pushed to the moment in witch the user can type in their username and password?
Most windows XP users dont ewen have a username and pasword that needs to be typed in

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Sorry, but..
by archer75 on Tue 8th May 2007 16:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Sorry, but.."
archer75 Member since:
2005-10-17

It's only slower on benchmarks from BETA drivers several months ago. That's shocking! Nvidia drivers are still bad so performance is down a bit there but ATI users have the same performance as XP.

In fact anandtech has a review up showing oblivion running faster in vista than in XP.

4gb of ram is no where near a requirement. It's not even necessary. I speak from first hand experience.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Sorry, but..
by cyclops on Tue 8th May 2007 17:38 in reply to "RE[4]: Sorry, but.."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

It's only slower on benchmarks from BETA drivers several months ago. That's shocking! Nvidia drivers are still bad so performance is down a bit there but ATI users have the same performance as XP.

In fact anandtech has a review up showing oblivion running faster in vista than in XP.

4gb of ram is no where near a requirement. It's not even necessary. I speak from first hand experience.


do you mean this review http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917 I do hope so.

It states
How much RAM do you really need for Windows Vista? We recommend a bare minimum of 1GB of memory for all Vista users, 2GB if you're a power user but don't have a lot running at the same time, and 4GB if you hate the sound of swapping to disk.
that sounds like 4gb to me.

Interestingly the article shows.

1) Networking performance is faster under XP (20% to 30% faster)
2) OS performace faster under XP (6% to 13% faster with graphics being 30% faster under XP)
3) for applications XP was faster in everything by between 5% and 20% with the *exception* of startup times thanks to readyboost; even *word* was faster.

With gaming your right Oblibion is a smigin faster. for quake4 25% slower. On 64bit vista half life 2 is 33% slower and thats on a AMD card.

Basically the results are in every single area apart from from application launch time your better ungrading 64bit Vista to 32 bit XP.

Edited 2007-05-08 17:41

Reply Parent Score: 3