Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Aug 2007 22:21 UTC
Windows A curious network performance reduction noticed by many Windows Vista users of the 2CPU forum that became the talk of Slashdot last week has been identified as having been caused not by DRM, as Slashdot users expected, but by a curious prioritization 'feature' of Vista that's intentionally biased toward Media Player at the expense of network and system resources.
Thread beginning with comment 266176
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Article in short
by dylansmrjones on Mon 27th Aug 2007 23:46 UTC in reply to "Article in short"
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

The funny thing is that anything above 1 GhZ is perfectly capable of playback without hiccups even under heavy load - without affecting network bandwith. So one can wonder how come Microsoft felt compelled to make an unnecessary change with Vista.

Reply Parent Score: 15

RE[2]: Article in short
by Marcellus on Tue 28th Aug 2007 06:29 in reply to "RE: Article in short"
Marcellus Member since:
2005-08-26

I suppose you haven't really tried to play back much if that's your opinion.

My experience with Athlon 64 3700+ shows that playback isn't perfect if it's under load. And that's for normal 640x480 videos that are not even encoded with h264.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Article in short
by WereCatf on Tue 28th Aug 2007 10:04 in reply to "RE[2]: Article in short"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Umm, you sure there is nothing wrong with your setup? I've got a Athlon XP 1.43ghz connected to my TV for movie watching pleasures, and it can play back 640x480 videos just fine without any hiccups...Actually, it can even record video at 640x480 at 25fps and still have some spare CPU time left. Though, I haven't tried h264 encoded material on it, but everything else works just peachy.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Article in short
by Almafeta on Tue 28th Aug 2007 14:08 in reply to "RE: Article in short"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

I don't see that as a flaw (maybe because I've never seen the behavior you describe).

What I worry about is the ability to declare yourself as a 'user-critical' process is essentially unrestricted, an on-your-honor thing. The abuses are just too powerful; I would think that there would have to be a whitelist to be allowed to use this priority, at least one controlled by Microsoft if not one controlled by the enduser.

We all remember back when popup ads first reared their ugly head how Microsoft declared that they would not be adding a popup blocker into IE4. They predicted that any site that maliciously used popups would be quickly abandoned by the Internet community, and that sites that used pop-ups as they were intended (to provide information for applets, f'rex) would be punished for other's sins by including a pop-up blocker in IE4. Before that, it was not including memory protection in Windows 95, as there were legitimate uses of it and any company whose products abused it would quickly kill themselves in the market and become dead weight on the shelves.

I think MS trusts third-party companies a little too much...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Article in short
by Kancept on Wed 29th Aug 2007 21:42 in reply to "RE: Article in short"
Kancept Member since:
2006-01-09

Can we say anything above a 233 MHz can? I honestly have not tested slower, but Z! in OS/2 plays great and doesn't slow my network down.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Article in short
by Earl Colby pottinger on Thu 30th Aug 2007 03:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Article in short"
Earl Colby pottinger Member since:
2005-07-06

133Mhz PII run Beos 5.0.3 will run 640*480 video using VLC 0.8.6c run play videos fine if there no other load, my 533MHz desktop plays the video fine unless I use FireFox to do my downloading. Use NetPostive, NetNautiX, NetPenquin or BeShare to download and I see a perfect video with no problems.

The idea that anything over 1GHz should have any problems handling media and networking at the same time is silly. MS messed up in their code somewhere.

Reply Parent Score: 1