Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 8th May 2007 13:19 UTC
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 238506
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-17
Member since:2006-03-12
"At the time of that article vista was released to consumers for a day.
And as someone who has been running it for months I can tell you it is faster. But the only way you'd believe is if I could bring you over here and show you."
And as someone who has been running it for months I can tell you it is faster. But the only way you'd believe is if I could bring you over here and show you."
Every benchmark on the whole internet says Vista is *slower* every one of them. The only difference you see in the benchmarks are those who want to emphasize how good Vista is stick with AMD drivers and show DirectX games and modern benchmarks, but they are still not as good XP. Those that want to show how *bad* Vista is focus on OpenGL based games; 64bit and Nividia cards, and older benchmarks.
The reality you have a hard time facing is Vista is slower for gaming, and *nothing* has changed benchmarks are coming out over 7 months after launch with similar results. Why is graphics slower? DRM; Unoptimized drivers; Poor graphics model; Hell I don't care.
What is really good news is that this extends further than the Desktop; Vista Server is coming out soon, and with benchmarks like those for networking and applications are critical, it looks like Linux servers will be even better TCO.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-03-12
For me everything is faster than XP on the same system, or at least the same speed. Everything. Even my latency has dropped in games.
I went from 2gb of ram to 4gb and noticed no difference. There wasen't much hard drive thrashing before and when it does happen it doesn't affect performance like it does in XP. And it's not a requirement. It's just there so superfetch can cache more to it. Nothing is hurt by not having it.
I am tempted to believe a benchmarked article than you. I only picked this article because you chose it. At the time of the article Vista had been out *2 months*, and nothing has changed now. Oddly enough the one benefit from Vista you say makes no difference.
And even then that DRM is ONLY in effect when protected HD content is being played. Performance should not be affected at any other time despite what your BS article says.
It doesn't affect just affect Video it affects all applications and networking. *You* have actually made me look forward to Vista Server. I can't wait.Its important to note that the article *you* chose to is on an AMD card.
Vista is slower in *every* way than XP apart from application startup In many cases a third slower. Live with it.
Edited 2007-05-08 19:10