Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 8th Jun 2007 03:44 UTC
Windows "In "Windows Vista: more than just a pretty face," we began our extensive assessment of Windows Vista with a focus on the changes to the graphical framework of Windows. We also talked about improvements to the general Windows API, the media foundation, and improvements in sound. In what follows, we look at three remaining areas of major improvement for Vista: security, networking, and storage. At the end, we present the first round of our criticisms of the new OS. In the coming weeks, we will unveil our performance-oriented examination of the OS."
Thread beginning with comment 246519
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: @cyclops
by cyclops on Sat 9th Jun 2007 07:12 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: @cyclops"
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

I'm pretty positive that my web browser does not make any sound. I'm sure that embedded video within my browser comes with a....sound control does yours not. Oddly my IM comes with a volume control does MSN messenger not do, you really should upgrade that. Although I love the idea that Vista uses *less* resources when everything points to the reverse your lying.

I do like your API stuff, you have invalidated everything you have said...nice, and all available for XP too, again why even mention it. I think you are lying when you say Microsoft have shaped up in terms of security. http://secunia.com/product/22/?task=statistics not those are WOW. Clearly Microsoft have got this security thing nailed tightly shut. Like I say I'm happy for you to produce benchmarks to the contrary. Although I do like the way you blame the drivers again for Vista's failings. It does seem to be quite common its not like drivers are part of Vista.

The article is quite clear XP is 41% faster at networking than Vista when benchmarked. Like I say I don't think applications starting quickly is a bad thing. I simply think is is negligible, and not as important as the performance loss in actually running the application. I know which I'd rather have, btw who had these motherboards. Your not allowed to fit them in Vista under its license...will you have to buy another computer!? Again 3rd party search tools are available for free on XP. Is the layout of Vista so bad that you have to use it all the time.

I don't think you do argue otherwise you wouldn't have to lower yourself to name calling.

Edited 2007-06-09 07:13

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: @cyclops
by stare on Sat 9th Jun 2007 12:11 in reply to "RE[5]: @cyclops"
stare Member since:
2005-07-06

The article is quite clear XP is 41% faster at networking than Vista when benchmarked.

They probably have a NIC driver issue. I've got a completely reverse results, Vista network speed is much faster than XP -- on 100Mbit RTL8139 network XP is about 6-7Mb/sec, while Vista is 8-9Mb/sec. Quick googling confirms Vista is faster:

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/2070

I simply think is is negligible, and not as important as the performance loss in actually running the application.

The performance loss is shocking 1-3% average and that's due to immature drivers.
http://techgage.com/article/windows_vista_system_performance_report...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: @cyclops
by cyclops on Sat 9th Jun 2007 18:45 in reply to "RE[6]: @cyclops"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"They probably have a NIC driver issue. I've got a completely reverse results, Vista network speed is much faster than XP -- on 100Mbit RTL8139 network XP is about 6-7Mb/sec, while Vista is 8-9Mb/sec. Quick googling confirms Vista is faster:

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/2070"

To be fair, a simple blog spot is not good enough. OTH that article chosen by me is also poor on networking, A single test on one machine is not good enough. The whole article is looking less than honest in regards of graphics, although still significantly slower than XP they are not at the same level as they once were. The reality of a simple google search is it brings up nothing. I even got the same blog spot you did. I'd rather have some more benchmarks. I suspect when server is out, proper results will come out. I'd love to know them, becuase I'd just ignore that particular benchmark.

"The performance loss is shocking 1-3% average and that's due to immature drivers.
http://techgage.com/article/windows_vista_system_performance_report...

Thats the point. The performance difference of applications is slower. In the example they have chosen to encode a video is 6% slower. This means a Video to encode takes 35 seconds longer. When the only performance increase is application startup time, this is seriously outweighed by the fact everything is slower. In reality other than OpenOffice I cannot think of an application that doesn't respond instantly. I think the whole thing is a nonsense.

This does not mean the application startup time isn't important. I remember an old article that did tests on how people chose software and startup time was their main choice for choosing an application, computers where slower then, and competition did exist, but I have searched for similar articles on google, and never found one.

When applications used to have slow start up time, applications used to give you the first screen so the user could start because the slowest thing was the user. I don't see this done anymore.

What irritates me is the excuses over Vista. Its the "drivers" being the silliest excuse. Its Vista not the drivers. Drivers are part and parcel of the OS. It also shows that the development of OS like Linux where drivers share code is a better solution.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: @cyclops
by google_ninja on Sun 10th Jun 2007 04:33 in reply to "RE[5]: @cyclops"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I'm pretty positive that my web browser does not make any sound. I'm sure that embedded video within my browser comes with a....sound control does yours not.


Every web browser I have ever used has a click effect, and some sort of sound when a modal dialog comes up.

Oddly my IM comes with a volume control does MSN messenger not do, you really should upgrade that.


What client do you use? I am not talking about video conferencing, I am talking about the audible notification that is given when you receive a new message.

Those are just two examples. Another one that happens every once in awhile is when an installer starts playing music, it is nice to be able to mute the process.

Although I love the idea that Vista uses *less* resources when everything points to the reverse your lying.


I am paraphrasing the article on which these comments are attached. I know peoples mileage varies considerably with vista, but for me the difference between aero and no aero is about 20 megs of ram. There is no perceptable additional cpu load, and destop operations (moving, resizing windows, etc) are significantly smoother with aero then without it.

I do like your API stuff, you have invalidated everything you have said...nice, and all available for XP too, again why even mention it.


Because as the core API, there is additional encouragment for developers to use it, as no new developement is ever going to be done for win32/user32. All the new internals are well integrated into the framework, and a signficant amount of the system has been migrated to managed code. Again, I am paraphrasing from the article about the various internal changes in windows.

http://secunia.com/product/22/?task=statistics not those are WOW. Clearly Microsoft have got this security thing nailed tightly shut. Like I say I'm happy for you to produce benchmarks to the contrary.


Either windows is a monopoly, or it is not. If it is, that makes it by FAR the biggest target for malware of all kinds. How many virii exist for Be? or Atheos? or QNX? or SkyOS? does that make them secure systems? Of course it doesnt, what it means is that people who want to do all the damage they can will consistantly do it to 90% of the world.

If you had actually read the article, you would see that they are talking about the technology used. The user/superuser paradigm is obsolete, we are now in the age of ACLs.

Again, if you want to read up more on this, read the article, or read about SELinux. The technology used for security in vista is the way of the future, and will eventually be implemented accross the board in linux. The reason that it isnt is because there isnt the same need for it, as linux really isnt a target. You could be on a desktop machine running as root with all the NAT magic in IPTables disabled and be reasonably safe.


Although I do like the way you blame the drivers again for Vista's failings. It does seem to be quite common its not like drivers are part of Vista.


The article you love to link to about network performance blames it on their drivers, not me. And that article is in the minority.

The article is quite clear XP is 41% faster at networking than Vista when benchmarked. Like I say I don't think applications starting quickly is a bad thing. I simply think is is negligible, and not as important as the performance loss in actually running the application. I know which I'd rather have, btw who had these motherboards. Your not allowed to fit them in Vista under its license...will you have to buy another computer!? Again 3rd party search tools are available for free on XP. Is the layout of Vista so bad that you have to use it all the time.


We arent agueing about how great vista is compared to everything else, we are argueing that the author of the articles did not give a single improvement in vista over xp.

As for caching, it is nice not to wait if you use professional applications frequently. It isnt the greatest thing ever, but it is a nice improvement over XP. Combined with the I/O prioritization, you get a significantly more responsive system over XP, as long as have the hardware to support it (i do). As the next generation hybrid harddrives come out, the additional RAM usage will be mitigated, this again is an improvement over XP which did not have the capability to use Flash drives as highspeed caches.

As for the search tools, like I said, they do exist for XP, but do not integrate well into the UI. the new search tools are nowhere near what they can be (again, look at my comments about kde-nepomuk), but they are better then XP, which was basically a search tool sitting in your taskbar.

As for my example of how I use it the most, yes, as I said the layout of vista is that bad, as has been every previous version of windows. The application menu in linux is better (at least they categorize by category rather then wasting a click on corporation), but I still MUCH perfer launching applications via the keyboard rather then navigating maze-like cascading menus. Linux gave the option, as did OSX, and it was one of the big frustrations I had with XP. With Vista, that is fixed.

I don't think you do argue otherwise you wouldn't have to lower yourself to name calling.


What am I doing now? We are argueing. Like I said before, I love debating with people, especially about things that dont matter much. Gets my blood pumping. If you don't think Vista is all that, thats fine. But theres a difference between a civilized discussion about technology, and a viscious arguement. There is no need to get viscious, this is just an operating system, and no matter what you say, your opinions will have as little impact on the world as mine.

If you look at the first page or two, you trolled the hell out of this comments section, and thats not cool. Not only that, but you expressed some real animosity about vista. If you don't like something, don't use it. If you like debating about it, fine, debate. But hating it is just silly. If you actually read the articles, you will find they are not an MS love fest a la paul theurott. They are a levelheaded discussion about the changes to the OS. If you have any legitimate interest in the technology behind vista, it may be informative to actually read them.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: @cyclops
by cyclops on Sun 10th Jun 2007 05:42 in reply to "RE[6]: @cyclops"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I'm sorry I cannot find your click effect in firefox, or even want one, I would be happy for you to point it out. I use pidgin sound volume is under preferences-->sound, I didn't even know it was there until you suggested that its a must have(sic) feature...does msn not have this feature!?

Vista needs more of everything to run than XP, anything you say otherwise is a lie.

You made a claim that Microsoft was not the Malware beast it once was...I show graphs that show if anything its worse today than its ever been. You lied.

You make the dubious claim that Linux is more secure simply because its not a target. The amount of servers connected to net may say otherwise, but the reality is it doesn't matter if its more secure because its been sprinkled with pixie dust, it just is.

The article does not say its the drivers thats a lie. Although I will repeat again. Is Vista not ready for the desktop with so many poorly supported devices, even by large companies like Nvidia; Creative 7 months after launch...and still waiting. There is something wrong with Vista.

Its a shame all this fancy caching comes with a 4GB price on its head, but seriously I think most people would rather have faster applications, than startup times, like I say I could only think of one application that didn't have an instant start-up time, and that was OpenOffice.

I'm glad you are talking about the possibility of Vista being supported by future hardware again is Vista not ready for the desktop.

I'm sorry that google desktop search does not fit with your ui http://news.com.com/Screenshot+1+of+4+Google+Desktop+Search+tool/20...
although its a lie, and its not the only alternative.

I'm sorry that XP doesn't have a mired of small programs to assign keys to launch applications...oh yes it does http://www.softpedia.com/reviews/windows/MaxKeys-Review-56153.shtml in fact is has loads.

I know its hard to find stuff in Vista of value over XP. Thats been my point all along. It even has disadvantages from performance everywhere; less restrictive Licensing, relatively DRM unencumberd; Better hardware and software compatibility etc etc

Reply Parent Score: 2