Windows Vista thoughts

[Doobie]

I had the opportunity to examine Vista. Without hardware acceleration (i.e. using the video driver provided by MS), even the included game Solitaire brought a moderately high-end machine to its knees (that's also without the Aero graphics). Mercy! The computer exceeds the high-end machines that existed when Vista was first released (according the the help file)!

The included game, Chess Titans plays like a child. It has no concept of strategy and sometimes it makes complete blunders. I've never played chess competitively, yet I can easily beat it on the highest skill level. It really shakes my faith in the whole OS.

The OS is too obsessed with security. It's annoying. It harms ease-of-use. It degrades the performance of the computer. And, that's without considering the future impact of Vista's crippling DRM.

The eye candy is almost excessive, I'm reminded of the talking cars of the 1980s. "Your door is ajar" didn't last very long. Maybe that's just me. Still, the new interface is nice.

MS really dropped the ball. The door is opened to Linux and Apple, and Apple is exploiting the situation. I suggest that MS release XPB. I'd buy it, XP with DirectX 10 and only enhancements that don't hurt performance or that can be easily turned off for original XP performance. I hear SP3 significantly boosts the speed of XP!

[Dark Shikari]

This has already been discussed to death.

[Guest]

This has already been discussed to death. Please post only if you have something useful to say, per rule 11. Thank you.

[Shinigami-Sama]

Please post only if you have something useful to say, per rule 11. Thank you.

I would've just agreed with him and locked the thread but hey if we're ganna keep it open...


my thoughts on vista
at this point Vista is still not worth it for 32bit - 64bit go with vista, XP64 is pretty dead outside enterprise level equipment

once Vista fixes its network issues and cleans up the bloat some more( ~9months-14months )
from what I've been reading they're making slow progresses on it

if I were microsoft I'd can vista32 and start on 64bit only as well as extended XP support another year

then we'd finally see some real progress on it
but with windows7 slated for release in 2 years(prolly 4) I don't think they're going to be a hell of a lot of effort in vista other than some easy bandaid fixes...

[communist]

I suggest that MS release XPB. (...) I hear SP3 significantly boosts the speed of XP!
What is XPB?

AFAIK SP3 is just SP2 + all the fixes released after it bundled up in one package. So nothing new if you have an up-to-date system anyway.

[Shinigami-Sama]

What is XPB?

AFAIK SP3 is just SP2 + all the fixes released after it bundled up in one package. So nothing new if you have an up-to-date system anyway.

I've seen reports of up to 10% performance increases

if I followed it right SP3 is sp2 + ryanVM's post SP2 update pack + Server 2k3's kernel but stripped down
hence the gains
don't quote me though, I read this a few months ago

[Ryokurin]

Its a newer kernel yes, but at the same time 2k3's kernel was based off of XP. If the kernel made a big difference in speed then Vista should have gotten a speed increase since they revised its kernel to match Server 2008's kernel.

I did a quick search on it, and everyone seems to parrot the same blog post of the 10% gain being in officebench. The only thing that I've seen on my test box is that shutdown takes longer, and everything else is basically the same. I'm beginning to wonder if the gains that others are seeing more because SP3 includes multiprocessor updates that some people didn't have access to before, than MS purposely making XP better in the face of Vista.

As others have said, If you are running more than 2gb of memory than Vista 64 is the only way to go. Everyone else should probably wait, unless Vista offers something you need, like better power management or DX10 support.

[JohnnyMalaria]

The included game, Chess Titans plays like a child. It has no concept of strategy and sometimes it makes complete blunders. I've never played chess competitively, yet I can easily beat it on the highest skill level. It really shakes my faith in the whole OS.

That has got to be one of the most idiotic and ignorant statements I have ever read on this forum.

[Sharktooth]

... unless Vista offers something you need, like better power management ...
False. Vista may have more advanced features in power management but it consumes much more power than XP.
Several tests were conducted on the internet and even if Vista seems to have a better power management, batteries last much longer when XP is installed.
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/notebooks/0,39050495,61992932-2,00.htm
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=40
http://www.news.com/2100-1044_3-6181366.html
etc...

someone says it's Aero that sucks up the batteries... well, it's not true: http://www.errorforum.com/microsoft-windows-vista-error/19746-vista-aero-vs-battery-life-myth.html

[Ryokurin]

I was refering more towards sleep and hibernation. Personally I've only had one XP pc that handled both well, and even then eventually you still just had to reboot every week or so or weird things just started to happen. Its working fine on a vista box that used to outright crash when sleep was attempted on the XP install on it previously.

[JohnnyMalaria]

False. Vista may have more advanced features in power management but it consumes much more power than XP.
Several tests were conducted on the internet and even if Vista seems to have a better power management, batteries last much longer when XP is installed.
http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/notebooks/0,39050495,61992932-2,00.htm
http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=40
http://www.news.com/2100-1044_3-6181366.html
etc...

someone says it's Aero that sucks up the batteries... well, it's not true: http://www.errorforum.com/microsoft-windows-vista-error/19746-vista-aero-vs-battery-life-myth.html

You aren't very scientific, are you? ;)

One article claiming Aero doesn't affect battery life doesn't prove a thing especially when the article is just subjective and lacking detail. There are other articles that claim Aero does consume more power, e.g.,

http://www.ghacks.net/2007/05/12/extend-windows-vista-battery-live-for-notebooks/

The first three of your links are also full of flaws such as running software not designed for Vista on Vista and then claiming poor performance is Vista's fault.

The biggest flaw in all of the XP vs Vista comparison is absolutely no discussion of how the hardware was configured from a power management perspective. Defaults in XP may be different in Vista. Most particularly - and unmentioned - the brightness of the display. How do we know that the display was brighter under Vista than XP? How do we know that both OSes had the same abilities to vary the brightness?

Without these (and other) details, the articles are worthless. But that's why that are in 'net rags rather than peer-reviewed journals.

BTW, I do believe a Vista laptop will consume a bit more power than an XP one. If it's that much of a problem, get a spare battery.

[burfadel]

First of all, I'd like to point out the validity of using the Microsoft driver for comparison. The standard VGA driver is NOT designed for performance, more a means of displaying the screen properly so a proper driver can be downloaded and/or installed. Even the inbuilt nvidia/ati drivers for specific cards are just stripped down very old drivers that 'are supposedly perfectly stable'.

Before doing any tests in display speed, you need to get the same latest driver version for both vista and xp before making comparisons.

In vista you can turn off all the eye candy stuff, and the only people to blame for the eye candy stuff is the consumer as if they didn't change the interface consumers wouldn't recognise it as different. An example of this is the old Win NT 4 and Windows 95. Completely and utterly different operating systems back then, but because the interface is the same people without knowing would just say that win nt 4 is like server 2008 over Vista.

So, in terms of battery life people with some level of intelligence should turn off all the graphical features of vista. This includes even things like sliding/fading menu's etc (and aero). If this is done, the battery life would probably be similar to XP. Alpha blending, fade effects, even full window dragging all use processing power that you probably don't need to use if worried about battery life.

I am still wondering why Microsoft brought out Vista 32 bit, I think its a complete waste of time for an upgrade and it was only brought out to try and profit more because they know people are reluctant to go 64 bit but yet they may want something new.

More of a disgusting surprise, but in a sense it shouldn't be unexpected... is that Microsoft from what I've read will bring out a 32 and 64 bit version of Windows 7. WHY?!! If Microsoft only had vista x64, there would be many more x64 programmes and games, and more people would use vista x64 to take advantage of the performance increase of (a properly written) x64 programme. The increases are generally 40 percent unless not done correctly.

This would in affect, not only increase the sales of vista but means Microsoft has to provide one less level (vista 32 bit) of support!

Running 32 bit on the latest hardware when Windows 7 comes out would be akin to running a pentium 4/Athlon 64 on Windows 3.51!

[Doobie]

What is XPB?

AFAIK SP3 is just SP2 + all the fixes released after it bundled up in one package. So nothing new if you have an up-to-date system anyway.

XPB a reference to Windows v95B, which is the version between 95 and 98. I would have said "XP Plus" but I didn't want confusion with the Plus packages. It would be good of MS to come out with something between XP and Vista.

My comments apply to the recently released SP1, and obviously, MS didn't really fix very much.

[Doobie]

That has got to be one of the most idiotic and ignorant statements I have ever read on this forum.

Just because Chess Titans kicks your behind doesn't mean the program doesn't play like a child, it just means that you couldn't beat a child, at least not a child without severe developmental problems.

[Manao]

The increases are generally 40 percent unless not done correctly.Huh ??? Cut that down to 10 percents. 64 bits is great, but it's not magical either. And what are you calling "properly written x64 program" ? Assembly written code ?

[JohnnyMalaria]

There are lot of PCs out there that have the horsepower to run Vista but have IA32 CPUs.

If Vista were only 64-bit, I can guarantee you that there would not have been a huge surge in 64-bit software.

Right now, the market has spoken clearly. Firstly, your average PC buyer doesn't know or care about 32- vs 64-bit. Secondly, software vendors continue to put out 32-bit because that's what sells and the legacy application base is 32-bit.

Probably >99.9% of the Windows source code is identical for 32-bit and 64-bit. The 32-bit version is a gimme for MS.

I agree that a 32-bit Windows 7 would be unnecessary - as long as the 64-bit has WOW64.

[Malphas]

We have a few recent machines in our household running Vista, I've yet to see anything from it that offers any advantage over XP whatsoever, frankly. My primary PC will continue to use XP, probably until at least a while after Windows 7 has been released.

[Doobie]

First of all, I'd like to point out the validity of using the Microsoft driver for comparison. The standard VGA driver is NOT designed for performance, more a means of displaying the screen properly so a proper driver can be downloaded and/or installed.

I see no reason why even a basic VGA driver should suffer from poor performance - just relatively poor performance. It reflects poor programming. One of the negative things about modern computers is that their horsepower allows programmers to get away with poor code.

In vista you can turn off all the eye candy stuff, and the only people to blame for the eye candy stuff is the consumer as if they didn't change the interface consumers wouldn't recognise it as different.

Without Vista's eye candy, consumers would be left wondering what they got for their money, besides bloat and hassles.

I am still wondering why Microsoft brought out Vista 32 bit, I think its a complete waste of time for an upgrade and it was only brought out to try and profit more because they know people are reluctant to go 64 bit but yet they may want something new.

It's very clear why MS pushes 32-bit Vista, backward compatability with 16-bit software and 32-bit-processors. And, simplified compatability with drivers. 64-bit Vista doesn't really offer most people any benefits, not until 64-bit software is common. Sure, MS could push this, but consumer satisfaction would take a big hit in the near term. MS will be happy to sell everyone 64-bit upgrades in the future.

Running 32 bit on the latest hardware when Windows 7 comes out would be akin to running a pentium 4/Athlon 64 on Windows 3.51!

I wouldn't be surprised at all if MS decides not to release a 32-bit version of the Next Windows. Even if they do, it won't sell many copies.

[Sharktooth]

You aren't very scientific, are you? ;)

One article claiming Aero doesn't affect battery life doesn't prove a thing especially when the article is just subjective and lacking detail. There are other articles that claim Aero does consume more power, e.g.,

http://www.ghacks.net/2007/05/12/extend-windows-vista-battery-live-for-notebooks/

The first three of your links are also full of flaws such as running software not designed for Vista on Vista and then claiming poor performance is Vista's fault.

The biggest flaw in all of the XP vs Vista comparison is absolutely no discussion of how the hardware was configured from a power management perspective. Defaults in XP may be different in Vista. Most particularly - and unmentioned - the brightness of the display. How do we know that the display was brighter under Vista than XP? How do we know that both OSes had the same abilities to vary the brightness?

Without these (and other) details, the articles are worthless. But that's why that are in 'net rags rather than peer-reviewed journals.

BTW, I do believe a Vista laptop will consume a bit more power than an XP one. If it's that much of a problem, get a spare battery.
ok, let's say Aero does "its dirty job" (even if it isnt (http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/05/14/aero-and-battery-life.aspx))... is this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Vista+battery+life&btnG=Google+Search) enough for you?
a simple google search reveals that vista is a battery drainer...
however if you still think it isnt, then you're either an a$$ or a M$ employee...

[JohnnyMalaria]

ok, let's say does "its job"... is this enough for you?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Vista+battery+life&btnG=Google+Search
vista is a battery drainer...

Absolutely not. Nothing remotely objective, quantitative, verifiable or credible. Just people's ramblings from both sides of the glass.

Most of these don't understand dwm.exe and what activities determine the CPU usage. Setting up a so-called benchmark and walking away is different than interactively running and using multiple applications.

I'm using Vista via Remote Desktop and dwm.exe is using zero CPU time. When I'm at the PC, it typically uses 4 to 6% for my particular working habits.

A Google search yielding >500,000 hits as proof is daft. Did you check every one?

Just another rather odd damnation of Vista by Vista-haters who waste inordinate amounts of time running Vista to prove their points. Twisted. And unfathomable.

[Sharktooth]

i edited my previous post...
look at the google search i linked... and you'll see there are even programs made by desperate ppl to improve vista battery life.
there's nothing wrong in admitting vista sux (and it really does in almost everything!). you cant just do it for some mysterious reasons. you try to find every way out of any evidence.
im sorry, but you're the third case: fanboy.
and fanboys just cant give up even if they face the evidence they're wrong...

[Ryokurin]

The 32-bit version of Windows 7 is supposed to be the last one.

Actually I can think of a few reasons why the general public still needs a 32-bit version.

1. We still have small businesses out there that use archaic software from the 1980s today. They absolutely refuse to go to something else for various reasons. 64-bit does not have 16-bit support so that guy who is running FoxPro 2 is simply going to be assed out.

2. There are still a considerable amount of pc's still around that are only 32-bit, some of them are just a year old. People complain now how Vista is so slow on their two year old PC, they would be livid if their PC is more than two years old it probably won't run it at all.

3. It wasn't that long ago that you still found some 32-bit programs using 16-bit installers. People ran into them on the regular back when XP64 was new. Again people who don't know whats going on would flip.

64-bit is a power user thing for right now. Some of the above can still be worked around, but technology is not there yet. For instance, for point 1, why not have it run in a virtual machine? Virtualization is almost there, but it still needs a year or two of work before its mainstream.

[JohnnyMalaria]

i edited my previous post...
look at the google search i linked... and you'll see there are even programs made by desperate ppl to improve vista battery life.
there's nothing wrong in admitting vista sux (and it really does in almost everything!). you cant just do it for some mysterious reasons. you try to find every way out of any evidence.
im sorry, but you're the third case: fanboy.
and fanboys just cant give up even if they face the evidence they're wrong...

Try READING my post.

I'm talking about the Aero issue.

I stated - in direct reply to you - that I agree that Vista uses more battery power.

Let me say it again:

I AGREE THAT VISTA USES MORE BATTERY POWER.

You claim that Aero doesn't add to that.

You haven't provided any valid evidence that Aero does not contribute to the power use. Some of the programs out there to help improve Vista's power consumption directly contradict the point you are trying to make.

[Sharktooth]

the indexing service or the sidebar, for example, make more difference than Aero...
however, yes, if you think 2-4% is a big difference, then aero does influence battery life a lot...

[burfadel]

Huh ??? Cut that down to 10 percents. 64 bits is great, but it's not magical either. And what are you calling "properly written x64 program" ? Assembly written code ?

If the 64 bit version is no faster or slightly slower than the 32 bit version I'd say there's probably something wrong there!

[Shinigami-Sama]

If the 64 bit version is no faster or slightly slower than the 32 bit version I'd say there's probably something wrong there!

64bit C code gets ~10% increase from larger registers, and depending on what you're doing faster 'cause it can process 64bits rather than 32, really only on math stuffage though

as for properly written X64 code
code thats optimized for 64bit rather than just being 64bit compatible

[burfadel]

There are lot of PCs out there that have the horsepower to run Vista but have IA32 CPUs.

If Vista were only 64-bit, I can guarantee you that there would not have been a huge surge in 64-bit software.

Right now, the market has spoken clearly. Firstly, your average PC buyer doesn't know or care about 32- vs 64-bit. Secondly, software vendors continue to put out 32-bit because that's what sells and the legacy application base is 32-bit.

Probably >99.9% of the Windows source code is identical for 32-bit and 64-bit. The 32-bit version is a gimme for MS.

I agree that a 32-bit Windows 7 would be unnecessary - as long as the 64-bit has WOW64.

True but most new computers have EM64T/AMD64, thats the market I was referring to. As an upgrade for older machines Vista is pointless in my opinion!

If Vista was 64 bit only Intel probably wouldn't bring out the very low end 32 bit CPU's, as thats just a marketing thing for profit IMO. Even on a budget machine a couple of extra dollars to include EM64T isn't a biggie, especially since there the added cost of bringing out a CPU that is cut down and different.

[foxyshadis]

Just because Chess Titans kicks your behind doesn't mean the program doesn't play like a child, it just means that you couldn't beat a child, at least not a child without severe developmental problems.

Please don't post this kind of tripe unless you're genuinely trolling, in which case you'll be struck.

I see no reason why even a basic VGA driver should suffer from poor performance - just relatively poor performance. It reflects poor programming. One of the negative things about modern computers is that their horsepower allows programmers to get away with poor code.
Because the default VGA driver is pure software, single-threaded, doesn't even use DMA, just not designed for efficiency. This is because literally every windows install is meant to have proper video drivers. There's simply no reason to bother optimizing it.

[Inventive Software]

64-bit computing's been around for the last 5 years or so, it's time for Microsoft to buck the trend and not release Windows 7 in 32-bit. I won't install it on my "current" desktop (Celeron 800 MHz, 512 MB RAM, 120 GB HDD, GeForce FX5200 PCI), just as I won't install Vista on that machine.

[Sharktooth]

Eventually M$ is thinking to "replace" Vista with Windows 7.
If i had bought Vista i would ask M$ to replace it with Win 7 for free (when available), coz Vista is just a joke...

[Doobie]

Please don't post this kind of tripe unless you're genuinely trolling, in which case you'll be struck.

My comment is a completely appropriate response to what was said.

Because the default VGA driver is pure software, single-threaded, doesn't even use DMA, just not designed for efficiency. This is because literally every windows install is meant to have proper video drivers. There's simply no reason to bother optimizing it.

Pffft, a high-end computer should be able to easily handle a simple card game and 2D graphics, with even the most crude of VGA drivers. And, every non-Vista OS would handle the similar conditions without a problem. The difference is Vista's high overhead and poor coding from a company only worried about aesthetics.

Computers are thousands of times faster than they were a few decades ago; but, sadly, applications aren't any faster. There's a saying, "What Intel gives, Microsoft takes away." What's even more sad is that there are people ready to run to the defense of this travesty.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Computers are thousands of times faster than they were a few decades ago; but, sadly, applications aren't any faster.

Oh, please.

Have you ever used an editor such as Premiere 1.5 (not Pro but the original 1.5) on a 386DX2-33 with a co-processor to edit CIF-sized MJPEG video?

Or audio/midi sequencing software such as Cakewalk?

Or CAD software?

(If you need a hint to when in prehistory this is: 1993).

[Sharktooth]

... that's gotta hurt ...
speaking of old school times, 3D Studio (not "Max" but the DOS versions!) renderings were also a PITA...

[CruNcher]

yeah we are almost in real lighting and fluid behaviour nowdays comparing this with the old times is really strange, ofcourse really proffesional such things are only used in Films (that was allways the case also back then) but nowdays more and more the public can do such stuff easily not that type of quality tough but it comes really near it (because you don't have clusters todo it fast enough), tough on the Desktop you nowdays have stuff like GPU rendering and that is a big big thing you could do stuff like Toy Story that has been done on so many render machines back then in Realtime nowdays on a Desktop PC if that is no advancement i don't know what else should be. :D

[Doobie]

Oh, please.

Have you ever used an editor such as Premiere 1.5 (not Pro but the original 1.5) on a 386DX2-33 with a co-processor to edit CIF-sized MJPEG video?

You prove my point. To find fault with my statement, you have to go to math-intensive applications which hardly matter to the average user, least of all to someone just playing a simple card game.

[JohnnyMalaria]

... that's gotta hurt ...
speaking of old school times, 3D Studio (not "Max" but the DOS versions!) renderings were also a PITA...

I remember the delight of watching my ZX Spectrum plot a sine wave in a mind-blowing 20 seconds. Such is the great power of a 4MHz 8-bit Z80 with 16K RAM (and a cassette deck!)

[prOnorama]

Eventually M$ is thinking to "replace" Vista with Windows 7.
If i had bought Vista i would ask M$ to replace it with Win 7 for free (when available), coz Vista is just a joke...

Writing MS as M$ is so 2005 :p

I'm getting Vista because it comes with my new PC and I need it for games

Which does not mean I think it's the greatest, I'd rather install Ubuntu, but for my purposes (gaming on PC platform) there are sadly not many options

[burfadel]

Vista runs quite well on 4gb of RAM :) x64 only of course :D Anyone gone for 8gb?

[masken]

In a corporate environment, there are definetly a few administrative advantages with Vista vs XP. But the drawbacks of huge system requirements to run in the same speed as XP makes the decision easy.

Truthfully, there's really no reason to change - you've got the administrative powers you need in XP. The things you miss as a sysadmin are scriptable. There simply too much costs involved in an upgrade.