Linked by David Adams on Fri 27th Jun 2008 05:10 UTC, submitted by Ager Ignis
Windows For any given release of Windows, there are companies that choose to skip it. But when the company is Intel, it's a big deal. Intel's IT department "found no compelling case" for upgrading to Windows Vista.
Thread beginning with comment 320464
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
gilboa
Member since:
2005-07-06

You shouldn't. However, when you do upgrade your machine, vista will run fine on it.


... you are still missing the main point.
The CPU and memory should be used to run -applications- and not the bare OS. (... And I'm not even talking about DRM and friends)
-Even- if I should only spend 1000$ on a Vista compatible hardware, shouldn't -I- be better served by having to spend only 500$ on Linux/XP compatible hardware instead? What exactly am I getting for the additional money? (In terms of actual features)

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 4

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I misunderstood what you were trying to say ;)

The thing is, if you buy a modern machine, you need an os that will take advantage of the power. What use is your NVidia 9600 GTX card, or 8 gigs of ram if you are browsing the web?

Vista have very aggressive caching to make the apps you use more responsive. It has self diagnostic processes, and indexers. All three of these mean fairly consistent disc I/O. If you have a fast HD, chances are you wont notice it. If you have an old IDE HD, Vista will slow to a crawl.

Ditto with the video card. You are actually saving CPU with Aero, because you are using a computer resource that typically goes almost idle when you aren't gaming or doing graphics work. Sure, if you have a shoddy vid card, Aero will just slow everything down. If you have modern hardware though, you aren't really getting penalized for the improved experience.

I have installed XP on my home machine for testing purposes, and honestly, I only noticed the slightest of differences overall. For me personally, the only time I feel a noticeable lag from vista is when i am using Visual Studio, which is probably the most I/O intensive app on the planet. Because of that I tone down the indexers on my dev machine (only indexes the start menu). I am planning on getting a new rig soon though, and my number one requirement is RAID-0 SATAIII 7200rpm configuration, which I am pretty sure will make studio fly.

This is why I always tell people not to bother buying a new machine for vista, but when they do get a new machine that it will be a nice upgrade. This is the first version of windows I find has an acceptable level of polish, and while it is far from my favorite operating system out there, I really don't mind using it to make my living.

Edited 2008-06-28 00:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

I misunderstood what you were trying to say ;)


Problem might have been on my side ;)

The thing is, if you buy a modern machine, you need an os that will take advantage of the power. What use is your NVidia 9600 GTX card, or 8 gigs of ram if you are browsing the web?


Simple:
-Don't- buy a 2000$, 600w-peak machine.
Buy a 300$, 80w-idle machine instead.

... The baby seals will thank you!

Vista have very aggressive caching to make the apps you use more responsive. It has self diagnostic processes, and indexers. All three of these mean fairly consistent disc I/O. If you have a fast HD, chances are you wont notice it. If you have an old IDE HD, Vista will slow to a crawl.


The self indexing might have been called a beneficial feature if it didn't have such hideous counter-intuitive interface. (Most Vista users that I know simply disable it)
As it stands, it just eats away IO and CPU time.

Ditto with the video card. You are actually saving CPU with Aero, because you are using a computer resource that typically goes almost idle when you aren't gaming or doing graphics work. Sure, if you have a shoddy vid card, Aero will just slow everything down. If you have modern hardware though, you aren't really getting penalized for the improved experience.


Gaah. I know what you mean... but... Nope.
Power-wise, even a low-end GPU will spend far more power on the 3D interface then the CPU cycles required by XP/Linux/etc to draw their 2D interface.

I have installed XP on my home machine for testing purposes, and honestly, I only noticed the slightest of differences overall. For me personally, the only time I feel a noticeable lag from vista is when i am using Visual Studio, which is probably the most I/O intensive app on the planet.


I wouldn't call VS I/O intensive - unless you're building huge projects 24x7 (And if you are, you should consider switching to a GNU Makefile instead of using project files - distributing the builds to multiple concurrent jobs.)
Try testing the same application on 6 different VM guests on the same host and you'll see what I/O intensive means... ;)

Because of that I tone down the indexers on my dev machine (only indexes the start menu). I am planning on getting a new rig soon though, and my number one requirement is RAID-0 SATAIII 7200rpm configuration, which I am pretty sure will make studio fly.


Then again, having the CPU spent on building your code is better then having it spent on Vista tasks, don't you agree?

This is why I always tell people not to bother buying a new machine for vista, but when they do get a new machine that it will be a nice upgrade. This is the first version of windows I find has an acceptable level of polish, and while it is far from my favorite operating system out there, I really don't mind using it to make my living.


My advise to Windows-using-friends (As I said, I'm a Linux users and I use Windows [XP/Vista/2K3] just to test my software) is more-or-less the same:
Don't upgrade unless you have to, but buy Vista compatible hardware once you do. (Even-though I recommend against using Vista as long as XP is alive and well)

Even though I'm far from being a tree-hugging-environmentalist (Especially given the fact that I'm currently building a dual Xeon as my next home workstation...) I still dislike the idea of spending money and electricity just to run a bare OS. To each its own, I guess...

- Gilboa

Edited 2008-06-28 01:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

dude,

you are missing the point... the machine is not just barely running the OS. and BTW, the OS IS an application.

What magic land do you live in that your OS does not take up resources from the computer?

Can vista run on an older machine? no, but it was not designed for older machines. I twas designed to run on a computer that had the resources that a modern low and mid range computer can offer. If you want a OS that will run in the memory, then you better be using DSL or Peanut linux, otherwise... gasp!.. the OS is using a lot of system resources!

Reply Parent Score: 1

gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

...otherwise... gasp!.. the OS is using a lot of system resources!


Why should it eat a lot of system resources?
In the case of Vista vs Win2K/XP/2K3/2K8 (let alone Linux), what exactly am I getting in return?

- Gilboa

Reply Parent Score: 4

OlympicSoftworks Member since:
2008-06-11

The OS exists to run applications, it is not _the_ application, it should be nearly invisible to the user, and should have a very minor impact on the hardware on it's own.

If the machine spec doubled or better from XP that is a damn good indicator that it is 2 to 3 times less efficient. How busy is the proc when the computer is idle, and how much memory is used by the always resident portions of the OS is how to judge bloat. Vista is full of it.

You would indeed be better off buying a lower cost machine and putting a more efficient system onto it. I recommend GNU/Linux, the Ubuntu distribution if this is your first time thinking of using it.

Reply Parent Score: 1