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 246593
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: @cyclops
by cyclops on Sat 9th Jun 2007 18:45 UTC 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