Go Back   Technibble Forums > General Computers > General Computer Chit-Chat

  Technibble Sponsor

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-04-2008, 06:21 PM
gunslinger's Avatar
gunslinger gunslinger is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cookeville, Tennessee
Posts: 3,170
gunslinger has a spectacular aura aboutgunslinger has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Skype™ to gunslinger
Default

Quote:
The problem with Vista really isn't Vista. It's that people don't understand it, don't like change and drivers.

Nope, the problem with Vista is that it does not work as well as XP. People want a computer that works. Thats one reason Mac sells have increased by over 30% sense Vista came out.


Quote:
Superfetch makes people think Vista is using gobs of ram when it's really just making use of idle ram. And within a few days to a few weeks superfetch is monitoring your computing habits and speeding up your commonly used apps and games. It's a good thing.

If this were so and Vista was just "holding" the 700 mb or so it needs to run until something else needed it. When I used a program that used lots of RAM Vista would gladly hand over the extra RAM for the program to use. It does not do this. Vista does not get faster with use, in fact the more programs you install on it the slower and more unstable it becomes.


Quote:
Why Windows 7 will be better is simply because it's using the same driver model as Vista. The same drivers will work and it gives hardware vendors a couple of more years for their drivers to mature.

The only way Windows 7 will be better is if Microsoft starts with a clean slate, takes out all the bloat and useless crap, lowers the install size and RAM use by 50% or more and put more focus on a stable OS instead of trying to put every feature and program on earth inside it.

How about a stripped down, tweaked ,Windows XP pro with aero glass and an install size of maybe 400-500. Now you are talking.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-04-2008, 09:49 PM
archer75 archer75 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6
archer75 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger View Post
Nope, the problem with Vista is that it does not work as well as XP. People want a computer that works..
It works just as well as XP. In some cases better. The issue is really just drivers. With quality drivers it's fast, I would say faster than XP and more stable. Vista itself is fine. It's the drivers that are the problem though they are getting better. When people complain about being slow, crashes or BSOD's the vast majority of the time it's really poor drivers.
Nvidia drivers are still crap but alot of people own Nvidia video cards and motherboards and thus have issues. I don't blame microsoft for this, the blame is clearly Nvidias. They are getting better. I keep an eye on benchmarks regularly and Nvidia's performance of existing cards under Vista improve with each new driver release.
As I stated, ATI cards take no performance hit in Vista over XP. I have tested this on my own system and recent extremetech benchmarks agree.
It's all about drivers.

And yes, XP was indeed the same way at launch. There were quite a few less hardware combinations than to support, much less drivers, but it still had very similar issues. People bitched about it, said they were going back to 98 as it was faster but in time the drivers got better and people came back and now love it.

Macs don't have this same issue as everything is so controlled. But your upgrades are limited as a result.
On the same machine I get better FPS in WoW in Vista than I do in Leopard. And a common complaint in leopard is that it's buggy. That's not me saying that, it's said by mac owners on mac forums. And is evident by apples next OS Snow Leopard. They know Leopard is buggy and not as fast as it could be so they are coming out with what amounts to a maintenance release.
I like Leopard. I use it quite a bit but there are quite a few things that just bug the crap out of me about it, little things that Windows has and does that OSX does not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger View Post
If this were so and Vista was just "holding" the 700 mb or so it needs to run until something else needed it. When I used a program that used lots of RAM Vista would gladly hand over the extra RAM for the program to use. It does not do this. Vista does not get faster with use, in fact the more programs you install on it the slower and more unstable it becomes.
Superfetch caching commonly used apps makes for a faster experience. You are confusing system ram with superfetch.

Obviously Vista needs ram to run, beyond that is caching for superfetch. It does indeed get faster over time. I have personally seen it again and again and a great number of people in the community have seen it as well. It does indeed hand over the ram that superfetch is caching too when other apps need ram and that is all that's available.

I have my desktop Vista install loaded with apps so I only have a few GB available. It runs faster a month after a clean install than it did the day I set it up. And still very stable. Never a BSOD. I also run x64 on my desktop which does seem faster than 32bit which I use on my HTPC.
Head on over to hardforum.com and ask the folks there. Superfetch certainly works and Vista does get faster than it is after a clean install.

Last edited by archer75; 07-04-2008 at 10:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-05-2008, 12:34 AM
gunslinger's Avatar
gunslinger gunslinger is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cookeville, Tennessee
Posts: 3,170
gunslinger has a spectacular aura aboutgunslinger has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Skype™ to gunslinger
Default

Vista absolutely is not faster than XP and I can provide benchmarks to prove it, as can many others. Vista is no where near as stable as XP is, this is a fact. XP has had almost seven years to be patched, and polished. Vista may one day be as stable as XP but as of right now it most certainly is not.

As for Leopard being buggy. Its funny, I hang out in some Mac forums and have yet to hear anyone say they went back to Tiger from Leopard, but I personally know about 30 of my customers that want to go back or have went back to XP from Vista. I can find hundreds more online.

You can dance around the issue of how Vista uses its RAM all you like, the fact is I have seen many Vista machines that are running 3-4 gigs of RAM and are still slow.

Any system running Vista will run XP much faster, and will be more stable and have greater compatibly with almost everything. This is a fact, and anyone who would argue these points is a fool.


Security, I'll give you that one because hackers and crackers have had much longer to work with XP.

Looks, I'll give you that one also, but its nothing that can't be done with third party apps. in XP.

Last edited by gunslinger; 07-05-2008 at 12:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-05-2008, 01:43 AM
MHCG's Avatar
MHCG MHCG is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Southeast Arizona
Posts: 701
MHCG is on a distinguished road
Default

I can't believe someone is actually arguing that Vista is as fast as XP.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-05-2008, 05:35 AM
gunslinger's Avatar
gunslinger gunslinger is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cookeville, Tennessee
Posts: 3,170
gunslinger has a spectacular aura aboutgunslinger has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Skype™ to gunslinger
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MHCG View Post
I can't believe someone is actually arguing that Vista is as fast as XP.

It happens. I have actually been kicked off of other forums for not liking Vista. I guess every OS needs its fanboys, but to make such obviously wrong statements is beyond me.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-05-2008, 06:50 PM
archer75 archer75 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6
archer75 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger View Post
Its funny, I hang out in some Mac forums and have yet to hear anyone say they went back to Tiger from Leopard
I never said anything about going back to Tiger. Only that I have read posts by many people saying that Leopard is buggy. I do agree, I come across some bugs daily in Leopard. It's not a big deal really, I still like it.
You can find most of these comments on appleinsider and macrumors in the sections about the announcement of snow leopard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger View Post
You can dance around the issue of how Vista uses its RAM all you like, the fact is I have seen many Vista machines that are running 3-4 gigs of RAM and are still slow.
Drivers. It keeps coming back to that. You haven't mentioned the specs on these systems either. However I provide benchmarks below showing what superfetch really does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslinger View Post
It happens. I have actually been kicked off of other forums for not liking Vista. I guess every OS needs its fanboys, but to make such obviously wrong statements is beyond me.
Because there are benchmarks to back it up. And many user accounts. You see what you choose to see. Like I said, with good drivers it is certainly as fast as XP if not faster and is more stable. I'm not saying XP is not stable but on my system Vista x64 does not crash, does not lock up and does not BSOD. I have 3 weeks uptime before a power surge forced a reboot. I have not been able to achieve that on Leopard. But it's not a big deal for me.
I have Vista on 2 machines here and can verify this. I have talked with many others who also agree.
It's all about your drivers and your hardware. Drivers which improve all the time so it would need to be tested with each new release. And with the right setup it is rock solid. I also have yet to run into any compatibility issues. I have a Vista HTPC setup to play every video format under the sun, all from within Media Center.

You have to be able to differentiate between OS issues and driver issues.

I'm not sure how I could be a fanboy when i'm writing this in Leopard. I like Leopard, alot. I spend more time in these days than I do in Vista.

Some people simply hate anything Microsoft just because it's Microsoft and see only what they wish.


Here are just some gaming benchmarks showing Vista vs XP. It edges out XP here by a hair. It's also almost 2 months old so there has been several driver updates since then and I imagine performance now would be even better. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2302500,00.asp

Final Thoughts:
If you were expecting a huge drop in performance as your eyes scanned from the XP to the Vista results, well, surprise! As many a tech analyst predicted, Windows Vista's gaming performance conundrum has largely been solved, and it was mainly due to early graphics drivers.

In fact, I'd been planning to run a few other gaming tests, but the results from these were so uninteresting that further work didn't seem merited. Love it or hate it, Vista is performing far better than it used to.

Game performance, it seems, has been exorcised from your concern when choosing a Microsoft operating system. That leaves a few other factors, of course: stability, responsiveness, eye candy, price, DirectX version, and a few other odds and ends.

It took about a year and a half, but the performance gap between Vista and its forerunner has finally evaporated.



Here's another review. This one is 9.5 months old and obviously drivers have matured since then. And issues were addressed in regards to SLI. In some cases Vista is faster, XP in others but in most they are neck and neck.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...rmance_update/

Here's some more from January, Even shows some superfetch benchmarks which you seem to think doesn't work.
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/foru...ad.php?t=72298

It's interesting to see that Vista's performance seems to have progressed since it was released. The general usage tests are either faster or equal to XP. It should be noted that the program load times may be influenced slightly by the fact that the OSs reside on different drives (Samsung/WD). However, Vista is on the slower drive (the WD), so it only makes the results even more impressive. Talking about the program load times, it's obvious that Vista's SuperFetch feature works wonderfully. Even though I've only launched Photoshop and OpenOffice a few times, Vista has already picked this up and loads them into mem right after boot up. Crysis was almost certainly not cached into RAM during the test, but still loaded faster than in XP.

The horrendous file copy performance has been fixed. Performance is definitely higher than in XP. Also gone are the sometimes irritatingly long file deletion times. File deletion seems instantaneous now, just like it's always been in XP.



This is a very old article and performance has changed a great deal since then, but this page on superfetch is a good read:
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/sho...spx?i=2917&p=4

And here is a new link on hardforum to what other users are saying:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1322225




I believe you said XP is 20-40% faster? Maybe you've decided that Microsoft is evil and therefore you can only believe bad things about all that they do? I don't know when you've last tested it, I don't know what patches it had or what the hardware specs were or what driver versions you've used. If you are just setting it up for someone and leaving you wouldn't see that in time superfetch does make it faster as seen by the benchmarks above.
I think it's clear in benchmarks that it all depends on your hardware and drivers. Some show Vista slower, some show it faster. How can the same OS give different results? Again, drivers. One person benchmarks it with poor drivers and you get bad results. You benchmark it with better supported hardware and good drivers and you get better results.
Sure the home user isn't going to care about drivers, they just want it to work. And any problems as a result of drivers is seen by them to be an OS issue.
Luckily Windows 7 uses the same driver model and hardware vendors would have had more than enough time to get it together.

Now i'll tell you what my problem is with Vista. All the different versions of it is just plain stupid. And it's organization is a clusterfuck. I feel like I have to look all over the place for a setting that should all be contained a streamlined in a single location. By comparison Leopard is highly organized and very clean. Does not feel cluttered like Vista at all.

Despite whether or not we like or hate Microsoft, Apple or Linux it's important to stay up to date with the latest info and not to let any personal bias we feel get in the way of that. Of course finding the time to sort through vast amounts of info isn't always so easy.

Last edited by archer75; 07-05-2008 at 07:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-05-2008, 07:29 PM
Wheelie's Avatar
Wheelie Wheelie is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 596
Wheelie is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by archer75 View Post
... It took about a year and a half, but the performance gap between Vista and its forerunner has finally evaporated ...
Who cares? During that whole 18 months things sucked for most of my customers that got duped into Vista. Your whole story of driver this and driver that just makes me dizzy. My customers have no clue about that stuff and would not know how to get the right drivers if their life depended on it.

Forget all your performance tests and proof. I have been exposed to enough Vista machines and XP machines to know for myself - pound for pound - XP is noticeably faster than Vista. Maybe Vista's finally making a comeback? Who cares. The bitterness and pain my customers had to endure for the past 18 months sucked and is enough to forgo being nice to it now. Microsoft beta-tested Vista on the masses and now people are pissed. Hast-La-Vista
__________________
"I clicked on the blue thingy in the little window and now it won't show the screen ... can you fix it?"
"Absolutely. Is today at 3 o'clock good?"
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-05-2008, 07:34 PM
Wheelie's Avatar
Wheelie Wheelie is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 596
Wheelie is on a distinguished road
Default

Furthermore, Vista is NOT a value-added upgrade anyway. There is nothing in Vista that warrants migration from XP over to Vista. When we went from Win98 WinME to XP there were significant advantages and it was truly a "value-added" upgrade. The same cannot be said for Vista IMHO.

Microsoft just moved everything around and changed the names of half the stuff to make you "think" that there's some value to it. One poster said he likes Vista because: "I like shiny things, so the flashy pages won me over" so there ya go! Vista has value for someone!
__________________
"I clicked on the blue thingy in the little window and now it won't show the screen ... can you fix it?"
"Absolutely. Is today at 3 o'clock good?"
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-05-2008, 07:42 PM
Wheelie's Avatar
Wheelie Wheelie is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 596
Wheelie is on a distinguished road
Default

And to add to that ([SIZE="1"]I'm on a roll now[/SIZE]) many of my customers were frustrated and upset because they had to relearn how to use a "damn computer" again because of Vista. This pissed them off. They could care less about snazzy new features and shiny things. Most of my customers are trying to run businesses or households and simply need their machines to work. The last thing they want is to have to spend another $400 for the newest version of QuickBooks, or to spend time with a 6 month learning curve just so they can connect to their old printer, burn a CD, send an e-mail or connect to the net.

Vista was a "perceived" upgrade not a true "Value-added" upgrade (IMHO).
__________________
"I clicked on the blue thingy in the little window and now it won't show the screen ... can you fix it?"
"Absolutely. Is today at 3 o'clock good?"
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-05-2008, 07:44 PM
archer75 archer75 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 6
archer75 is an unknown quantity at this point
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheelie View Post
Forget all your performance tests and proof.
Now that's just funny. Might as well just say, "we don't deal in facts here!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheelie View Post
Your whole story of driver this and driver that just makes me dizzy.
It shouldn't. If you are in the business of repairing computers you should have a full grasp of the subject, even if your clients do not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheelie View Post
Microsoft just moved everything around and changed the names of half the stuff to make you "think" that there's some value to it. One poster said he likes Vista because: "I like shiny things, so the flashy pages won me over" so there ya go! Vista has value for someone!
Vista is not a major upgrade. Windows 7 is supposed to be. Vista just layed the groundwork. 98 was not considered a huge upgrade over 95, though XP was. Because Vista took so long people were just expecting more, and they had every right to. Microsoft just marketed it as something more than it was intended to be.
There were quite a bit architectural changes that needed to happen. Driver models changed which needed to happen.
Yes, you are correct in that some stuff has been changed simply for the sake of change. But there is alot more going on under the hood of Vista than you realize.

Here is a good read on those changes:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/pretty-vista.ars
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/vi...r-the-hood.ars

There has been some changes as a result of SP1 such as UAC pop ups but it's still a good read nonetheless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheelie View Post
And to add to that ([SIZE="1"]I'm on a roll now[/SIZE]) many of my customers were frustrated and upset because they had to relearn how to use a "damn computer" again because of Vista. This pissed them off. They could care less about snazzy new features and shiny things. Most of my customers are trying to run businesses or households and simply need their machines to work. The last thing they want is to have to spend another $400 for the newest version of QuickBooks, or to spend time with a 6 month learning curve just so they can connect to their old printer, burn a CD, send an e-mail or connect to the net.

Vista was a "perceived" upgrade not a true "Value-added" upgrade (IMHO).
People don't like change. These people would use XP till the day they died. It's been around so long that most people started using computers with it. I certainly would'nt put Vista on my Grandparents computer. Getting them going on XP was bad enough.

Yes, some printers no longer work with Vista and it has nothing to do with Microsoft. Rather those hardware vendors saw no benefit in creating drivers for old printers when they could get you to buy a new one. HP seems to be the biggest offender here. It's a lousy thing to do but that's the way it is.
Personally I would love to see Microsoft dump legacy support. Part of Windows bloat is trying to support too much. Dump 32bit support too. Apple has no problem dumping support and getting you to move on. Just look at the transition from OS9 to OSX, PowerPC to Intel. Even apples own software dumps support for older versions of OSX.

If people feel they have to relearn things and don't carry about snazzy new features than there is no reason for them to upgrade. If they have the hardware they want, the features they want, why upgrade?

You right in that customers don't care why it works, how it works or even who's responsible for what(hardware vendors, Microsoft). They just want it to work. But the more we learn, the more we leave any sort of bias behind the better we can help and educate people.

Last edited by archer75; 07-05-2008 at 08:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Technibble.com is based out of MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA.