Vista may go the way of Millenium
Drifting
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,340
Likes: 249
From: Tucson Az
Originally Posted by #1 DOUCHER
So you went from a craplet infested Vista to craplet free version of XP and you're blaming the problems on Vista?
I did the same thing this weekend, some lady my dad knows was having problems with her virus and spyware infested Vista e-machine that she bought from a pawn shop for $300 so he had me talk to her. She was having all sorts of crazy problems and she wanted to blame vista. I did a little research on her problems and they all led back to craplets, spyware or viruses. So I overnighted her a Vista install disc with SP1 walked her through the install process and now all her problems are gone. It must've been Vista's fault!
Why don't you install a bone stock version of Vista and THEN if you have the same problems (which you won't) I'll believe it's Vista.
I did the same thing this weekend, some lady my dad knows was having problems with her virus and spyware infested Vista e-machine that she bought from a pawn shop for $300 so he had me talk to her. She was having all sorts of crazy problems and she wanted to blame vista. I did a little research on her problems and they all led back to craplets, spyware or viruses. So I overnighted her a Vista install disc with SP1 walked her through the install process and now all her problems are gone. It must've been Vista's fault!
Why don't you install a bone stock version of Vista and THEN if you have the same problems (which you won't) I'll believe it's Vista.
I have this sort of setup, I have a hard drive bay and swappable trays.
One disk is Vista business 32 bit
One disk is Xp pro 64 bit
One disk is ubuntu 64 bit
I do find vista to be a fair amount slower when doing multiple things, especially if i'm moving large files over the network.
Both xp and vista for some reason feel very clunky compared to ubuntu for multitasking though. I find that if I run folding@home (in background mode), listen to music (usually streamed from another computer on the network), have a couple firefox windows open, and edit large photos in either xp or vista it just becomes unusable. It makes me kinda wonder if the network is the key thing for me though, when I move date over it everything gets a bit slower on the vista machine.
Also I love the fact that I installed vista 64 bitand the installer wouldn't boot unless it had under 4 gigs of ram. Had to put 1 stick in, install and update the system, get the specific update for the problem (which didn't install automatically), and then reinstall the ram. The disk I installed from is only a couple months old too, it's not like it's from the first run or anything.
You are right about allot of things though. I pretty much got screwed by creative's drivers for the audigy 2 till someone else made some good ones. Nvidia's 8800gt driver was unstable for a while. The ram problem is probably partly dfi's fault. Epson doesn't make 64 bit vista drivers for my scanner. Same was true for my old printer. Starforce's 64 bit cd driver requires hoops be jumped through. It's a 3rd party cluster****. Still I've had those problems with other os's, vista gets under my skin with other stuff.
Intermediate
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by #1 DOUCHER
Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself. Well in fact I did earlier in this thread. It happens every time but now with blogs it gets taken as truth. This internet is a double edged sword, you know. I see blogs replacing news -just look at the success of Engadget and Gizmodo- where anyones opinion or agenda can become truth cause no one especially bloggers fact check anymore so they read an article do no fact checking take it as the truth and post it. Engadget's done it many times like with the whole Apple fiasco of last year that leopard and the iPhone was going to be delayed which made Apple's stock drop $4 billion dollars in one day, end up it was false. Also the article put out by some douchebag reaming Vista over supposed DRM features it would have that would limit or stop Vista ability to play non DRMed media and would add DRM to media that didn't have it all while being a huge resource hog, etc. Then it ends up the bag had never even used Vista he just came up with this article be reading some shit about Vista and it's ability to play DRM capable files. Or how about the one Engadget posted yesterday that MS was hooking up with NBC to enforce some DRM on the Zune that would scan and delete pirated media from your PC, then of course they release an update saying whoops guess it isn't happening. Douchebags!
Kang Ho
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,872
Likes: 0
From: SJ, CA
Originally Posted by acuracl6
And even when something IS true, you never heard about the fix. The blog post from the guy ranting about how bad Vista is because there's no driver for his scanner on launch day gets crossposted all over the Internet. But a month later when HP gets the driver posted to their web site and Windows Update, and 100,000 people have a successful PnP experience, no one posts about that.
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46,006
Likes: 11,782
From: Florida
Originally Posted by Stapler
I have this sort of setup, I have a hard drive bay and swappable trays.
One disk is Vista business 32 bit
One disk is Xp pro 64 bit
One disk is ubuntu 64 bit
I do find vista to be a fair amount slower when doing multiple things, especially if i'm moving large files over the network.
Both xp and vista for some reason feel very clunky compared to ubuntu for multitasking though. I find that if I run folding@home (in background mode), listen to music (usually streamed from another computer on the network), have a couple firefox windows open, and edit large photos in either xp or vista it just becomes unusable. It makes me kinda wonder if the network is the key thing for me though, when I move date over it everything gets a bit slower on the vista machine.
Also I love the fact that I installed vista 64 bitand the installer wouldn't boot unless it had under 4 gigs of ram. Had to put 1 stick in, install and update the system, get the specific update for the problem (which didn't install automatically), and then reinstall the ram. The disk I installed from is only a couple months old too, it's not like it's from the first run or anything.
You are right about allot of things though. I pretty much got screwed by creative's drivers for the audigy 2 till someone else made some good ones. Nvidia's 8800gt driver was unstable for a while. The ram problem is probably partly dfi's fault. Epson doesn't make 64 bit vista drivers for my scanner. Same was true for my old printer. Starforce's 64 bit cd driver requires hoops be jumped through. It's a 3rd party cluster****. Still I've had those problems with other os's, vista gets under my skin with other stuff.
One disk is Vista business 32 bit
One disk is Xp pro 64 bit
One disk is ubuntu 64 bit
I do find vista to be a fair amount slower when doing multiple things, especially if i'm moving large files over the network.
Both xp and vista for some reason feel very clunky compared to ubuntu for multitasking though. I find that if I run folding@home (in background mode), listen to music (usually streamed from another computer on the network), have a couple firefox windows open, and edit large photos in either xp or vista it just becomes unusable. It makes me kinda wonder if the network is the key thing for me though, when I move date over it everything gets a bit slower on the vista machine.
Also I love the fact that I installed vista 64 bitand the installer wouldn't boot unless it had under 4 gigs of ram. Had to put 1 stick in, install and update the system, get the specific update for the problem (which didn't install automatically), and then reinstall the ram. The disk I installed from is only a couple months old too, it's not like it's from the first run or anything.
You are right about allot of things though. I pretty much got screwed by creative's drivers for the audigy 2 till someone else made some good ones. Nvidia's 8800gt driver was unstable for a while. The ram problem is probably partly dfi's fault. Epson doesn't make 64 bit vista drivers for my scanner. Same was true for my old printer. Starforce's 64 bit cd driver requires hoops be jumped through. It's a 3rd party cluster****. Still I've had those problems with other os's, vista gets under my skin with other stuff.
Now in regards to network transfer this still sort of is and definitely was one of it's slow points but there's huge improvements in SP1 that drastically speed up network speeds. Instead of explaining it I'll post a good article with graphs
<P><EM>[Update 6-Dec 14:30 PST: Corrected several errors in reporting percentage
increases. Thanks to Jeff for pointing out the error in <A
href="http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=41970&messageID= 774474&start=-9962">a
Talkback comment</A>.] </EM> </P>
<P>I downloaded the release candidate of Vista Service Pack 1 yesterday and was
prepared to wait till <A href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1013">its
public debut next week</A> before writing about it. But after upgrading a few
machines here and doing some tests, I changed my mind. If Microsoft’s decision
to <A href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=334">ditch the WGA kill switch</A> in
SP1 didn’t convince you, would you be interested in <STRIKE>a 300% increase
in</STRIKE> tripling your network file transfer speeds?</P>
<P>Forget the reports you might have read about <A
href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9590_22-6220201.html">SP1 resulting in no
performance boost</A>. That story was based on a silly artificial benchmark
involving scripting of Office applications. Back here in the real world, where
gigabit network connections are now commonplace, you’ll see at least one huge
improvement when transferring files over network connections.</P>
<P>In its original release, Vista had some design problems with its networking
stack, resulting in slow file transfers, especially when connecting to computers
running Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, or Windows Home Server (all three of
these products share a great deal of their code base, including core networking
components). In Vista SP1, file transfer speeds are dramatically improved. In
this post, I’ll describe what I saw.<A id=more-336></A></P>
<P>I did two sets of file-transfer tests using two separate systems configured
to dual boot between Vista RTM and the new Vista SP1 release candidate. Both
systems have dual- or quad-core processors (both in the Intel Core 2 Duo
family) The first group of files consisted of two large DVD images in ISO
format, totaling 4.2 GB. The second group of files was a folder filled with more
than 3,000 files of all types, in 299 subfolders, totaling roughly 6.5 GB.</P>
<P>For the first test, I transferred the two groups of files from a shared
folder on an HP MediaSmart Windows Home Server to the two test systems running
Windows Vista RTM, recording the total transfer time for each one. Then I
rebooted the two systems into an SP1 installation and repeated the test. I
converted the times into throughput rates; here’s the result (note that bigger
bars equal higher throughput and thus better performance):</P>
<P>
</P>
<P>As you can see, the file transfers under Vista SP1 were dramatically faster
than the Vista RTM times. For the directory full of many small files, the
<STRIKE>performance increase</STRIKE> <EM>throughput</EM> was more than 300%;
for the large files, the speed <STRIKE>increase</STRIKE> was roughly 260%. Note
that you can expect similar results when transferring files from Vista to
systems running Windows XP or Windows Server 2003.</P>
<p>For the second set of tests, I performed transfers between the two machines
running equivalent versions of Windows Vista: RTM to RTM, SP1 to SP1. Here, the
results were less dramatic. For the folder full of small files, the throughput
rate increased by about 50% under SP1, and the large files transferred slightly
slower, although still faster than the transfer from Windows Home Server.</p>
<p>
</p>
<P>When I spoke with Microsoft about this phenomenon a few months ago, they
explained that the issue was caused by a design change in Vista that eliminated
the buffering used by XP and its siblings when transferring files over
a network. Bypassing the cache read-aheads and deferred writes makes for better
disk-to-disk performance and provides better control over how much data you’re
pushing over the network, but the mismatch slowed down transfer
speeds in Vista RTM. That’s been addressed effectively in SP1, as these
results show.</P>
<P>Unfortunately, the other big Vista networking issue doesn’t appear to be
addressed in SP1. If you run an application that uses the Multimedia Class
Scheduler (such as Windows Media Player), you’ll continue to see a performance
hit when transferring files over gigabit network connections. For more details,
see <a
href="http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspx">this
explanation from Microsoft’s Mark Russinovich</a><FONT color=#800080> </FONT>and
<a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=702">earlier test results</a> from
ZDNet’s Adrian Kingsley-Hughes.</P>
<P>But when I fired up Windows Media Player while a network file transfer was in
operation I saw a sharp drop in throughput when the music began
playing and then saw throughput pick back up when WMP was closed.</P>
<P>Even with the “release candidate” label, this is still a beta, so I can’t
recommend SP1 yet unless you’re willing to assume the risks that come with beta
software. But so far, the results I’m seeing are extremely encouraging.</P>
increases. Thanks to Jeff for pointing out the error in <A
href="http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=41970&messageID= 774474&start=-9962">a
Talkback comment</A>.] </EM> </P>
<P>I downloaded the release candidate of Vista Service Pack 1 yesterday and was
prepared to wait till <A href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1013">its
public debut next week</A> before writing about it. But after upgrading a few
machines here and doing some tests, I changed my mind. If Microsoft’s decision
to <A href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=334">ditch the WGA kill switch</A> in
SP1 didn’t convince you, would you be interested in <STRIKE>a 300% increase
in</STRIKE> tripling your network file transfer speeds?</P>
<P>Forget the reports you might have read about <A
href="http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9590_22-6220201.html">SP1 resulting in no
performance boost</A>. That story was based on a silly artificial benchmark
involving scripting of Office applications. Back here in the real world, where
gigabit network connections are now commonplace, you’ll see at least one huge
improvement when transferring files over network connections.</P>
<P>In its original release, Vista had some design problems with its networking
stack, resulting in slow file transfers, especially when connecting to computers
running Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, or Windows Home Server (all three of
these products share a great deal of their code base, including core networking
components). In Vista SP1, file transfer speeds are dramatically improved. In
this post, I’ll describe what I saw.<A id=more-336></A></P>
<P>I did two sets of file-transfer tests using two separate systems configured
to dual boot between Vista RTM and the new Vista SP1 release candidate. Both
systems have dual- or quad-core processors (both in the Intel Core 2 Duo
family) The first group of files consisted of two large DVD images in ISO
format, totaling 4.2 GB. The second group of files was a folder filled with more
than 3,000 files of all types, in 299 subfolders, totaling roughly 6.5 GB.</P>
<P>For the first test, I transferred the two groups of files from a shared
folder on an HP MediaSmart Windows Home Server to the two test systems running
Windows Vista RTM, recording the total transfer time for each one. Then I
rebooted the two systems into an SP1 installation and repeated the test. I
converted the times into throughput rates; here’s the result (note that bigger
bars equal higher throughput and thus better performance):</P>
<P>
</P><P>As you can see, the file transfers under Vista SP1 were dramatically faster
than the Vista RTM times. For the directory full of many small files, the
<STRIKE>performance increase</STRIKE> <EM>throughput</EM> was more than 300%;
for the large files, the speed <STRIKE>increase</STRIKE> was roughly 260%. Note
that you can expect similar results when transferring files from Vista to
systems running Windows XP or Windows Server 2003.</P>
<p>For the second set of tests, I performed transfers between the two machines
running equivalent versions of Windows Vista: RTM to RTM, SP1 to SP1. Here, the
results were less dramatic. For the folder full of small files, the throughput
rate increased by about 50% under SP1, and the large files transferred slightly
slower, although still faster than the transfer from Windows Home Server.</p>
<p>
</p><P>When I spoke with Microsoft about this phenomenon a few months ago, they
explained that the issue was caused by a design change in Vista that eliminated
the buffering used by XP and its siblings when transferring files over
a network. Bypassing the cache read-aheads and deferred writes makes for better
disk-to-disk performance and provides better control over how much data you’re
pushing over the network, but the mismatch slowed down transfer
speeds in Vista RTM. That’s been addressed effectively in SP1, as these
results show.</P>
<P>Unfortunately, the other big Vista networking issue doesn’t appear to be
addressed in SP1. If you run an application that uses the Multimedia Class
Scheduler (such as Windows Media Player), you’ll continue to see a performance
hit when transferring files over gigabit network connections. For more details,
see <a
href="http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspx">this
explanation from Microsoft’s Mark Russinovich</a><FONT color=#800080> </FONT>and
<a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=702">earlier test results</a> from
ZDNet’s Adrian Kingsley-Hughes.</P>
<P>But when I fired up Windows Media Player while a network file transfer was in
operation I saw a sharp drop in throughput when the music began
playing and then saw throughput pick back up when WMP was closed.</P>
<P>Even with the “release candidate” label, this is still a beta, so I can’t
recommend SP1 yet unless you’re willing to assume the risks that come with beta
software. But so far, the results I’m seeing are extremely encouraging.</P>
Now another problem your probably having was related to MMCSS or Multimedia Class Scheduler Service. This was mentioned in the article above but the above is incorrect in stating that SP1 doesn't address this. It does but not in a user friendly way, it requires editing a registry key but it's not difficult. If you want I'll show you how. The purpose of MMCSS is to throttle network bandwidth while playing music on Vista, this is cause music runs at a high priority process and if it's interrupted it will lead to glitches, clicks and pauses in the music playback which is quite annoying so instead of doing that they throttle back the network bandwidth. While that seems like an OK thing to do in RTM there's 3 problems with this especially if running a 1Gbps ethernet connection.
1. An oversight in Vista coding led to to 1Gbps network connections being throttled to 15mbps which is alittle bit more than 10% of it's capability. Now if running a 100mbps ethernet you're less likely to run in to this problem cause it's theoretical peaks is 12mbps so it's under the 15mbps cap.
2. This cap is made even worse if you have more than one NIC, so if you have dual ethernet, Wi-fi and bluetooth NIC take that 15mbps and divide it by 4!! So yeah it'll be about 3.5mbps. This only in extreme circumstances but guess how happened to have that setup with 4 NIC, this guy! Since I really only used two gigabit and bluetooth it wasn't as bad but still playing music and transferring files is gonna slow it down.
3. This 15mbps cap is WAY too low of a cap, todays processors are way more than capable of doing both at the same time, which is why it was an oversight in the coding that got the MMCSS cap set so low.
The Epson scanner is the fault of Epson cause honestly they'd rather have you buy a new scanner from them then to make drivers for an old scanner. It costs them money and potential business to make drivers. Unfortunately everyone has to deal with the greed of corporations even OS X leopard users have to deal with this. I got printer that work on Tiger but not on Leopard.
So anyways moral of the story is update to SP1 and your networking problems should be solved and if you want I'll show you how to edit the MMCSS registry key!, it's easy!
Drifting
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,340
Likes: 249
From: Tucson Az
Yeah, I've seen that. My main issue isn't the transfer speed itself (it's only a 100mbps network with only 1 nic in this computer), it's the computer being noticeably less responsive during the transfer or even just with doing multiple things. Also I have had the rc of sp1 for a while. It didn't really do much to make me feel any different. Thanks for offering to show me the key to edit, but anymore I only boot windows a couple times a month to play games.
Also I let the windows update run after the install and let it run through it's ritual of restarting like 10 times, then it told me there were no more updates to install. For some reason it didn't see a need for that specific patch.
Also I let the windows update run after the install and let it run through it's ritual of restarting like 10 times, then it told me there were no more updates to install. For some reason it didn't see a need for that specific patch.
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46,006
Likes: 11,782
From: Florida
Oh yeah you were the guy helping me with the Ubuntu install a couple weeks ago! hey thanks for that! Even though I probably can't boot back to it since I can't install grub on an NTFS partition. Well if I set the Ubuntu partition to the active partition and reinstalled Ubuntu with the grub than I should be able to boot to it then right?
Intermediate
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Converted
Yay, now we're all forced to upgrade again!!! 
*hugs mac*
*hugs mac*
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,134
Likes: 14,284
Originally Posted by #1 DOUCHER
Someone else who believes and proves that it's not Vista it PC manufacturers and their crapware!
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429
Intermediate
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by srika
my friend (who I referenced earlier as going back to XP) had reformatted his laptop and installed Vista from a Vista cd (not a Dell CD) already - i.e. he was not running the out-of-the-box pre-installed configuration. He also deleted the Dell partition, he is a very technical person. Now, keep in mind, this is not something the great majority of users would ever do themselves. If there is some "trick" to installing Vista such that it runs as fast as XP, nobody knows it.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,134
Likes: 14,284
Originally Posted by acuracl6
www.blackviper.com. Turn off a bunch of services and it'll run better. Of course this applies to XP and 2000 too.
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46,006
Likes: 11,782
From: Florida
I've seen many Xp vs Vista benchmarks in fact I was looking at a few last night. Like I said before Vista isn't as fast as XP but in the benchmarks I saw Vista was usually about 5-15% slower not 200% or some ridiculous bullshit that you claim. I mean seriously if it was 200% slower across the board there's no way in hell I'd be using it.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,134
Likes: 14,284
Originally Posted by #1 DOUCHER
I've seen many Xp vs Vista benchmarks in fact I was looking at a few last night. Like I said before Vista isn't as fast as XP but in the benchmarks I saw Vista was usually about 5-15% slower not 200% or some ridiculous bullshit that you claim. I mean seriously if it was 200% slower across the board there's no way in hell I'd be using it.
ps. how's the douching coming along?
Intermediate
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by srika
Cool site. It's URL should come affixed to all Vista CD's. :lol:
Registered but harmless
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,888
Likes: 1,164
From: Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted by Whiskers
Idiots...All of you...You can easily make Vista act / look like XP and perform the same...
Vista is a RAM hog compared to XP-- so making Vista act and perform like XP means either adding memory or installing XP, right?
I also don't get the "display driver igfx stopped responding" message on my XP laptop that the Vista one generates when playing Doom3. The problem occurred AFTER downloading the SP1 update, and is less prevalent since downloading the most recent Intel driver, which was apparently not the one included on the Vista SP1 update.
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46,006
Likes: 11,782
From: Florida
Well I was bored today so I decided to download a benchmark and run it on my tri-boot system which consists of Vista Ultimate SP1 32-bit, XP Pro SP3 32-bit and Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit. I didn't want to pay for a benchmark so I used Performance Test 6.1 which was the one I saw that worked on all my platforms. This is the same system with one exception, my Vista 32 bit OS is on a RAID 0 Raptors which is why it's HD score is higher than the other two which share the same HD. Also XP and Vista x64 are virtually clean installs that I've hardly touched besides installing all updates and current drivers, while Vista 32 bit has been my main OS for months and has tons of shit on it but I cleaned it up the best I could for this. I took screen shots and here are the results:
IN order from top to bottom:
Vista 32 bit
XP 32 bit
Vista 64 bit
my system is
Gigabyte P35-DS4 mobo
Intel Q6600
Nvidia 8800GT
4gb DDR2 RAM 800mhz
RAID 0 Raptor 150Gb 10k RPM (contains Vista 32)
Maxtor 750Gb 7.2k RPM (contains XP and Vista 64)
24in Gateway LCD
So not much of a difference between the 3 OSes. For the record I was expecting XP to win by 5 to 10%.
IN order from top to bottom:
Vista 32 bit
XP 32 bit
Vista 64 bit
my system is
Gigabyte P35-DS4 mobo
Intel Q6600
Nvidia 8800GT
4gb DDR2 RAM 800mhz
RAID 0 Raptor 150Gb 10k RPM (contains Vista 32)
Maxtor 750Gb 7.2k RPM (contains XP and Vista 64)
24in Gateway LCD
So not much of a difference between the 3 OSes. For the record I was expecting XP to win by 5 to 10%.
Last edited by #1 STUNNA; May 21, 2008 at 06:43 PM.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,134
Likes: 14,284
Originally Posted by #1 DOUCHER
Well I was bored today so I decided to download a benchmark and run it on my tri-boot system which consists of Vista Ultimate SP1 32-bit, XP Pro SP3 32-bit and Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit. I didn't want to pay for a benchmark so I used Performance Test 6.1 which was the one I saw that worked on all my platforms. This is the same system with one exception, my Vista 32 bit OS is on a RAID 0 Raptors which is why it's HD score is higher than the other two which share the same HD. Also XP and Vista x64 are virtually clean installs that I've hardly touched besides installing all updates and current drivers, while Vista 32 bit has been my main OS for months and has tons of shit on it but I cleaned it up the best I could for this. I took screen shots and here are the results:
IN order from top to bottom:
Vista 32 bit
XP 32 bit
Vista 64 bit
my system is
Gigabyte P35-DS4 mobo
Intel Q6600
Nvidia 8800GT
4gb DDR2 RAM 800mhz
RAID 0 Raptor 150Gb 10k RPM (contains Vista 32)
Maxtor 750Gb 7.2k RPM (contains XP and Vista 64)
24in Gateway LCD
So not much of a difference between the 3 OSes. For the record I was expecting XP to win by 5 to 10%.
IN order from top to bottom:
Vista 32 bit
XP 32 bit
Vista 64 bit
my system is
Gigabyte P35-DS4 mobo
Intel Q6600
Nvidia 8800GT
4gb DDR2 RAM 800mhz
RAID 0 Raptor 150Gb 10k RPM (contains Vista 32)
Maxtor 750Gb 7.2k RPM (contains XP and Vista 64)
24in Gateway LCD
So not much of a difference between the 3 OSes. For the record I was expecting XP to win by 5 to 10%.
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46,006
Likes: 11,782
From: Florida
My machine is an average desktop now a days. Go to dell.com and you can build this same system for $1100 it's the dell xps 420:blaze:. Same processor, ram, and graphic card. It's not that great. my processor is outdated by today's standards.
Srika what are your PC specs? Since you're into photog and run PS and LR all the time you must like to keep on the edge of technology right? You're not running an AMD Duron with 256mb or RAM are you?
Srika what are your PC specs? Since you're into photog and run PS and LR all the time you must like to keep on the edge of technology right? You're not running an AMD Duron with 256mb or RAM are you?
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,134
Likes: 14,284
no, your machine is not an average desktop that is in the homes of the majority of people. That's what I was talking about when I said a more typical machine. Most people do not have QC machines with 4GB, 8800GT, and Raptor drives at home.
My primary photo machine is a ~2-yr old Dell C2D 17" laptop w 2gb, 100gb, Geforce 7900GS 1920x1200. Also have a few older desktops at home.
I will be getting a desktop similar to yours within a month or two.
My primary photo machine is a ~2-yr old Dell C2D 17" laptop w 2gb, 100gb, Geforce 7900GS 1920x1200. Also have a few older desktops at home.
I will be getting a desktop similar to yours within a month or two.
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46,006
Likes: 11,782
From: Florida
Tru but if you're looking to buy a new PC my system isn't that esoteric it's about average for new PC and 3gb is starting to become the standard, you can get laptops with 3gb of ram for $600 now. Since the vast majority of Vista sales come with new computers anyone buying an average PC today would get about the same performance.
Your system is more than capable of running Vista and if you ran this test on your system you'd probably have similar results. I do have a POS e-machine that was purchased on clearance open box for like $300 and it came with XP media center but it qualified for the Vista upgrade cause of when it was purchased (late 2006), it's got a pentium D and 512mb RAM there's no way in fuck I'd put vista on there without throwing another 1gb of RAM on there but if I did I'd like to see how it performed. It wouldn't be capable of Aero, though. I'll look into it since the machine basically isn't being used at all.
Your system is more than capable of running Vista and if you ran this test on your system you'd probably have similar results. I do have a POS e-machine that was purchased on clearance open box for like $300 and it came with XP media center but it qualified for the Vista upgrade cause of when it was purchased (late 2006), it's got a pentium D and 512mb RAM there's no way in fuck I'd put vista on there without throwing another 1gb of RAM on there but if I did I'd like to see how it performed. It wouldn't be capable of Aero, though. I'll look into it since the machine basically isn't being used at all.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,134
Likes: 14,284
most people are not looking to buy new computers right now. and this can be seen with the trouble Microsoft is having with selling Vista.
my system came with XP Pro +free Vista upgrade - I never installed the upgrade, obviously.
coworker who I mentioned earlier has pretty much the identical setup as my laptop - he had been running Vista out of the box. Reformatted with XP Pro a little while ago, after which he said his machine was now "smoking fast". He had been very pro-Vista since he got the machine initially. He was not even running Aero.
my system came with XP Pro +free Vista upgrade - I never installed the upgrade, obviously.
coworker who I mentioned earlier has pretty much the identical setup as my laptop - he had been running Vista out of the box. Reformatted with XP Pro a little while ago, after which he said his machine was now "smoking fast". He had been very pro-Vista since he got the machine initially. He was not even running Aero.
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46,006
Likes: 11,782
From: Florida
I read that Vista has sold over 140million copies and is sellinag at a faster rate than XP did in it's time and slightly faster than Xp in business too but I can't find where I read that.
Anyways while looking for that I stumbled across this. It's the exact same benchmark I did but on a Dell m1330 and with every MS OS under the sun (not really)
it's got in order from top to bottom
Server 2008 64 bit
Vista 64 bit SP1
Vista RTM SP1
XP 64 bit (a great OS, one of my favs)
Server 2008 32 bit
Vista Sp1 32 bit
Vista RTM 32 bit
XP 32 bit (Sp2 I guess)
the PC specs are much more average
200GB 5400RPM Hard Disk in ATA, not AHCI mode
2 Gigs RAM
Core 2 Duo T7500 @ 2.2GHz
NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS
174.94 GeForce Drivers
The overall rating of each OS is the last ones at the bottom.
The results, XP competes better on my PC than it does on this one. Overall XP 64 bit is the winner
while XP 32 is teh loser 
! 64 bit Vista is looking promising I might have to switch full time pretty soon!
http://winbeta.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=34&t=9186
Anyways while looking for that I stumbled across this. It's the exact same benchmark I did but on a Dell m1330 and with every MS OS under the sun (not really)
it's got in order from top to bottom
Server 2008 64 bit
Vista 64 bit SP1
Vista RTM SP1
XP 64 bit (a great OS, one of my favs)
Server 2008 32 bit
Vista Sp1 32 bit
Vista RTM 32 bit
XP 32 bit (Sp2 I guess)
the PC specs are much more average
200GB 5400RPM Hard Disk in ATA, not AHCI mode
2 Gigs RAM
Core 2 Duo T7500 @ 2.2GHz
NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS
174.94 GeForce Drivers
The overall rating of each OS is the last ones at the bottom.
The results, XP competes better on my PC than it does on this one. Overall XP 64 bit is the winner
while XP 32 is teh loser ! 64 bit Vista is looking promising I might have to switch full time pretty soon!
64-bit is improving and shows a better overall average performance. The 3D graphics are dependent upon the drivers released and I have seen consistently improving performance with nVidia's drivers. The 64-bit performance has exceeded in this benchmark which surprised me. The push for Vista has finally exceeded XP's performance, but SP1 has been a step back for gaming in vista. I've also noticed this in 3dMark tests I have run.
Vista has provided more stability with more compatibility per year of existence vs XP. I could never install XP 64 with 100% drivers on any of my computers until last year. I could install Vista 64 years before that. I noticed XP would constantly become corrupted after certain software was installed. Beta software could actually damage the operating system. I have not once run into this for Vista. Furthermore, Vista has been much more tolerance to installing and uninstalling tons of trial software. XP would constantly become slower without an install monitor to protect it. This prompted me to reinstall XP about once ever four to six months. I only reinstalled vista because I accidentally hit the magic "format me" media direct button included with the M1330.
Server is not designed to be a desktop operating system, but it is designed to be very stable. Currently, you can use Vista drivers, but as changes continue, this may not be an option. Server did perform noticeably better than Vista or XP having been in development longer than any other Windows operating system. Server 2008 would probably be the better choice over XP 64 due to XP 64's compatibility issues it still suffers from. The only real downside would be the cost of obtaining a server software.
I expected XP to perform better in graphics but the push has been making some headway with Vista. The only real show of XP's performance is on the disk performance and non of the tests I conducted included a boot timing. PCMark does include a boot speed test, but can be inaccurate due to AHCI drivers and DMA changes during the boot process. The best result you can obtain would be to use a stopwatch and time the boot, but this can even change due to prefetching.
The boot results differs between computers with different performances. My M1330 Boots Vista faster than XP and about the same as Server 2008. My wife's HP dv2000 boots much faster in XP than in Vista. The drives are the same speed, but she has 1GB of RAM and a slower CPU. I don't have an answer to that swing in performance, but my guess is that it has to do with Vista using more RAM than the pagefile.
Another important thing to note is that even though Vista without SP1 performs better in these tests, I would not recommend staying that way due to several bugs such as transfers between drives going 10% of the speed of XP. The same logic is applicable with running games on windows 98 to gain even more performance.
For those who think the plunge into 64-bit will leave you missing drivers and having compatibility issues, don't worry. Most computer vendors do not provide 64-bit drivers or are very slow to update them, but with a little googling you will find around 95% of Vista 64's drivers, if not all. The drivers for XP 64 tend to be more difficult to find. The 64-bit side does not support 16-bit software (it won't function at all) and drivers have to be digitally signed. Be aware that while most software will work, there may be issues with custom software schools use for VPN or similar.
Vista has provided more stability with more compatibility per year of existence vs XP. I could never install XP 64 with 100% drivers on any of my computers until last year. I could install Vista 64 years before that. I noticed XP would constantly become corrupted after certain software was installed. Beta software could actually damage the operating system. I have not once run into this for Vista. Furthermore, Vista has been much more tolerance to installing and uninstalling tons of trial software. XP would constantly become slower without an install monitor to protect it. This prompted me to reinstall XP about once ever four to six months. I only reinstalled vista because I accidentally hit the magic "format me" media direct button included with the M1330.
Server is not designed to be a desktop operating system, but it is designed to be very stable. Currently, you can use Vista drivers, but as changes continue, this may not be an option. Server did perform noticeably better than Vista or XP having been in development longer than any other Windows operating system. Server 2008 would probably be the better choice over XP 64 due to XP 64's compatibility issues it still suffers from. The only real downside would be the cost of obtaining a server software.
I expected XP to perform better in graphics but the push has been making some headway with Vista. The only real show of XP's performance is on the disk performance and non of the tests I conducted included a boot timing. PCMark does include a boot speed test, but can be inaccurate due to AHCI drivers and DMA changes during the boot process. The best result you can obtain would be to use a stopwatch and time the boot, but this can even change due to prefetching.
The boot results differs between computers with different performances. My M1330 Boots Vista faster than XP and about the same as Server 2008. My wife's HP dv2000 boots much faster in XP than in Vista. The drives are the same speed, but she has 1GB of RAM and a slower CPU. I don't have an answer to that swing in performance, but my guess is that it has to do with Vista using more RAM than the pagefile.
Another important thing to note is that even though Vista without SP1 performs better in these tests, I would not recommend staying that way due to several bugs such as transfers between drives going 10% of the speed of XP. The same logic is applicable with running games on windows 98 to gain even more performance.
For those who think the plunge into 64-bit will leave you missing drivers and having compatibility issues, don't worry. Most computer vendors do not provide 64-bit drivers or are very slow to update them, but with a little googling you will find around 95% of Vista 64's drivers, if not all. The drivers for XP 64 tend to be more difficult to find. The 64-bit side does not support 16-bit software (it won't function at all) and drivers have to be digitally signed. Be aware that while most software will work, there may be issues with custom software schools use for VPN or similar.
Last edited by #1 STUNNA; May 22, 2008 at 01:18 AM.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,134
Likes: 14,284
point taken on the Vista sales - let me ask you this - what percentage of those 140 mil computers do you think can truly handle Vista? Judging from my friend's recent experience, I would not rate my laptop as one.
The chart is nice but real life experience means more to me Although, it looks like the 64-bit versions are the place to be, assuming you have the setup and firepower to run them.
The chart is nice but real life experience means more to me
Although, it looks like the 64-bit versions are the place to be, assuming you have the setup and firepower to run them.
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46,006
Likes: 11,782
From: Florida
If you got 2Gb of RAM Vista will run fine if not great as seen in the benchmark above and by my EXPERIENCE. It'll run fine with 1Gb too but not with less and I'd assume that the vast majority of these 140million have 1gb+ of RAM cause that is what was standard when Vista launched except for the e-machines. I've run vista on 512mb, 1gb, 2gb, and 4gb and as long as you got at least 1gb you'll get a good experience with Vista. 512mb = 
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46,006
Likes: 11,782
From: Florida
Originally Posted by srika
all of this tells me - there may be hope for an OS like Vista... a few years from now.
In two years when Windows 7 comes out (it ain't coming out in 2009) you'll be saying how great Vista is and how much Windows 7 is teh :ghey: just like you said about XP!
Administrator Alumnus
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 26,326
Likes: 131
From: Northwest IN
Having just spent 3 hours helping my brother in-law configure his new HP laptop, I can say I'm less than satisfied with Vista. Performance was absolutely abysmal. I have a similarly configured Thinkpad with half the RAM and XP just seems to run better. I even turned off Aero and removed all unnecessary services and startup apps. Even simple things like connecting to a network automatically didn't work. Yet, no issues on my work laptop or MBP.
While my exposure with Vista is certainly limited, I can say my initial experience has been less than positive.
While my exposure with Vista is certainly limited, I can say my initial experience has been less than positive.
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46,006
Likes: 11,782
From: Florida
Uninstall the AV that came with it and install AVG instead and watch your performance double. It's not the fault of Vista it's the fault of HP which is known for loading craplets with their PC, which is why I build my own. If I ever buy a non Mac laptop the first thing I'll do is boot to a Vista install cd and do a clean install of Vista which only takes 30 min and I'll have a perfect clean slate to start with. That's quicker, easier, less tedious and more fail proof than uninstalling craplets that came with a PC to get it up to speed.
Scrib if you ever install Vista in bootcamp you'll see what I'm talking about, it runs great in bootcamp cause it doesn't come with craplets. That's probably why PC world said they were the fastest laptops to run Windows cause it won't come with craplets.
Did you guys try decrapifier. download it here it's a program that's supposed to automatically uninstall all the craplets for you. I just heard about it yesterday so I' haven't tried it nor do I have a need since I don't buy my PCs.
http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/
Scrib if you ever install Vista in bootcamp you'll see what I'm talking about, it runs great in bootcamp cause it doesn't come with craplets. That's probably why PC world said they were the fastest laptops to run Windows cause it won't come with craplets.
Did you guys try decrapifier. download it here it's a program that's supposed to automatically uninstall all the craplets for you. I just heard about it yesterday so I' haven't tried it nor do I have a need since I don't buy my PCs.
http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/
Needs more Lemon Pledge
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 52,768
Likes: 2,000
From: Phoenix, AZ
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46,006
Likes: 11,782
From: Florida
ACtually you know what I"m bored so I'm gonna try it on my system and see what it says. I really do love my Wild tangent games! Polar bowler is the shit!
Last edited by #1 STUNNA; May 26, 2008 at 12:51 AM.
Registered but harmless
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 14,888
Likes: 1,164
From: Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted by #1 DOUCHER
Did you guys try decrapifier. download it here it's a program that's supposed to automatically uninstall all the craplets for you. I just heard about it yesterday so I' haven't tried it nor do I have a need since I don't buy my PCs.
http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/
http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/
Sanest Florida Man
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 46,006
Likes: 11,782
From: Florida
So I checked my MSDNAA tonight and saw they had added Server 2008 to the list of software I can get for free! Soooo, I quickly got to it and now have it installed on my PC so I'm quad-booting Xp/Vistax86/Vistax64/Server2008x64 and I decided to run the benchmark on Server 2008 and see what happened. Here's my results just about the same as the big benchmark above
Server gets the best score but not by much.
Here's my previous benchmark for easier comparasion
Soooo, I quickly got to it and now have it installed on my PC so I'm quad-booting Xp/Vistax86/Vistax64/Server2008x64 and I decided to run the benchmark on Server 2008 and see what happened. Here's my results just about the same as the big benchmark aboveServer gets the best score but not by much.
Here's my previous benchmark for easier comparasion
Last edited by #1 STUNNA; Jun 9, 2008 at 02:10 AM.
Moderator Alumnus
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,134
Likes: 14,284
so I got a Vista machine from work. Q9450 Quad 2.66, 2GB ram, ATI HD 2400 256mb video. It's Ultimate, I'm running it in Basic Aero mode.
I was just working on it, browsing some sites and doing some random stuff here and there - the stupid thing STARTS SHUTTING DOWN on me, by itself, no warning - starts closing all my windows. Closes everything (prompts me to save a doc, gee thanks) - and logs off, and then it says Configuring updates and shutting down. Fuking garbage. And I am pretty tired of all the stupid prompts and shit. I have trouble connecting to secure sites such as Citrix with Juniper clients, and other connectivity issues. Today I had to resort to getting some networking done with my own personal XP laptop, thank god I have that. The menus, windows and directory tree system are counter-intuitive and annoying to use, the way the search function works is DUMB, it is so easy to right-click and search anywhere in XP, this is so convoluted and illogical. Vista blows.
I was just working on it, browsing some sites and doing some random stuff here and there - the stupid thing STARTS SHUTTING DOWN on me, by itself, no warning - starts closing all my windows. Closes everything (prompts me to save a doc, gee thanks) - and logs off, and then it says Configuring updates and shutting down. Fuking garbage. And I am pretty tired of all the stupid prompts and shit. I have trouble connecting to secure sites such as Citrix with Juniper clients, and other connectivity issues. Today I had to resort to getting some networking done with my own personal XP laptop, thank god I have that. The menus, windows and directory tree system are counter-intuitive and annoying to use, the way the search function works is DUMB, it is so easy to right-click and search anywhere in XP, this is so convoluted and illogical. Vista blows.
