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 266271
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Good and Bad
by MollyC on Tue 28th Aug 2007 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good and Bad"
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

"Yes, but CoreAudio works here, now, on just about any Mac, since 10.2

It's quaint that Vista could give CoreAudio a run for it's money, but that money has long been earnt / spent in audio production based on Macs for years now. "


I don't know how Vista's audio stack compares with CoreAudio, but I've never understood the line of thinking that underlies your statement. Are you saying that because CoreAudio achived a certain level of audio capabilities a few years ago that Microsoft should make no attempt to improve their own audio stack, or if they do, they should be bashed for the effort? That, as a general principle, if Product A had feature X before product B, then it's bad for Product B to ever include similar features? Makes no sense.


"All Vista's new audio stack is going to do for end users is maybe prevent the startup sound from stuttering."

Um, no.
This avsforum thread started by Amir Majidimehr, head of MS multimidea, explains Vista's audio improvements in great detail. I don't know how it compares with CoreAudio (from reading the avsforum thread I suspect that it surpasses CoreAudio, but I don't really know), but I do know that it blows away XP, which is Vista's prime competition, not OSX.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=713073

(Amir ( http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/amirm/default.mspx ) is a frequent poster to avsforum.com, used to work for Sony, and knows of what he speaks.)

Edited 2007-08-28 11:23

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Good and Bad
by Kroc on Tue 28th Aug 2007 12:36 in reply to "RE[3]: Good and Bad"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

My point is that being late to the game isn't exactly worth celebrating, especially with Vista's under-performance in every other area compared to XP.

CoreAudio being here ages ago doesn't mean that Vista's sound stack is irrelevant, but that Microsoft have been holding back the industry, and still largely, are.

The start-up sound digg is a hit at Vista's atrocious performance on anything but high end equipment. If you're a Vista user, go to a shop and try out Mac OS. Regardless if you don't like OS X, try starting it up and shutting it down and that'll give you some perspective at what an absolute arse Vista is for performance, good hardware or not.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Good and Bad
by google_ninja on Tue 28th Aug 2007 15:57 in reply to "RE[4]: Good and Bad"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

CoreAudio being here ages ago doesn't mean that Vista's sound stack is irrelevant, but that Microsoft have been holding back the industry, and still largely, are.


Serious audio production has been done on macs with pro tools as far back as I can remember. Thats not saying that it can't be done on windows, but every sound engineer i have ever run accross has had a mac (just like how even though adobe cs on windows is just fine, every serious illustrator i have ever run accross has a mac). While vista's multimedia api overhaul has been a long time coming, I don't think the industry was suffering too terribly much.

The start-up sound digg is a hit at Vista's atrocious performance on anything but high end equipment. If you're a Vista user, go to a shop and try out Mac OS. Regardless if you don't like OS X, try starting it up and shutting it down and that'll give you some perspective at what an absolute arse Vista is for performance, good hardware or not.


Ever since the patches a few weeks ago, vista's startup and shutdown on my machine takes about as long as osx on my buddys macbook pro (which has comparable specs). Not only that, but boot time has nothing to do with performance, it has to do with how the boot process is done. On a modern rig, XP boots in under 20 seconds, while a new linux can take upwards of a minute to a minute and a half, even though the throughput on linux is much higher then xp.

Reply Parent Score: 2