Vista Minimum System Requirements are Wishful Thinking

[RonK]

Dual Core.

Nice setup. Man, 700 watts. That'll scare the kids. I gotta get me on
of
them. Oh, and I gotta remember to buy stock in a power company. Call me
crazy, but I'm getting the feeling power consumption globally is going to
increase in the coming decades.

I must have a problem talking more gooder. You're the second person under
the mistaken impression that my installations of Vista were done as an
upgrade.

None of the installations of Vista that I've done have been an "upgrade."
Maybe in the philosophical sense, if you consider Vista an "upgrade" to
XP,
but not in the computing sense. Every installation, whether Beta, RC1 or
RC2
were clean, fresh installs, on a freshly formatted hard-drive. The very
first time I tried to install Vista I attempted what Vista calls an
"upgrade." That is, I sat there in XP Pro x64, popped in the DVD and
clicked
the "upgrade" button. That installation failed. The O.S. refused to see
the
RAID. So I tore the RAID down, formatted the drives, and booted off the
DVD
and did a clean installation to a non-RAIDed, single drive.

My score wasn't as high as yours, but it wasn't amazingly far off. I
think
I got a 4.6. The screamenest component according to Vista was the
hard-drive, which logged a 5.1, the worst was the graphics at 4.6 (3d
Gaming
performance. I think 2d scored a 4.9 or 5.0). I'm running PCIe, and I'm
SLI
capable, but I have the only the one adapter because I don't do 3d gaming.
Despite the similarity of our systems, I would not characterize Vista as
"screaming." I'd characterize it more closely to "whimpering."
"Whimpering"
annoyingly.

You may have mentioned it, but I didn't see it in your post (I'm going a
little cross-eyed staring at the same screen for 16 hours so far today).
Are
you running Dual Core or single core? If single core there might be an
"aha"
in the works. If dual core, then back to well of confusion and lack of
definitive answers as that's what I'm running. I had problems with 32-bit
XP
running on a dual core. It actually worked better on a single core Von
Neumann architecture. Dunno why. I presume it just wasn't optimized for
dual core and was there, "sub optimal." XP Pro x64 screams. Way faster
than
x86, and way faster than Vista. I gots no insight as to "why." The
difference is truly remarkable.

Maybe my hardware is faulty in a way that doesn't show up in XP Pro x64.
My
experience with flaky hardware suggests that flaky components fail in ways
I'm not seeing.

Let me know about the CPU, and thanks for all the info.

 

[Richard Urban]

The default search (and indexing I presume) only searches your personal
files/folders. If you want to search the whole drive or system, you have to
modify the settings to do so. Then, after indexing (which may take quite a
while) search really takes on a new light.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Richard Urban]

That is 700 watts "possible" output, when the current draw demands such. It
may well be idling along at 402 watts. (-:

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Robert Moir]

you are delusional...

Please do some scientific mesurements

Vista is not faster than xp on current technology computers.

I have tested 12 computers now in a big range of setups...

XP is faster and better in my opinion

"Delusional" is thinking that your experiences are the world.

 

[Robert Moir]

You know, it could be a x64 problem. I have heard a lot of people
say their 32-bit Vista version smokes, and far fewer (though a
significant number) say their x64 Vista version smokes. Might also
be a dual-core vs. single core issue. Might be an AMD versus Intel
problem.

Might well be a driver issue. I've seen early betas where we had to scramble
to get all kinds of odd bodges for drivers that performed terribly because
of these drivers, in more or less the way you describe actually.

 

[Robert Moir]

I feel sorry for anybody that buys a Mac. Sad, sort of lonely
people. They seem to be rebels just for the sake of being
contrarian. Bad childhood, I suppose. When you factor in the
aforementioned purchase of inadequate RAM, it just makes a pathetic
situation seem that much sadder. And many of those Mac users seem
suspiciously different from the rest of us. Somebody ought to look
into that. Maybe some special sort of regulatory agency, or police
force, or something.

heh. My Mac has been the best platform for Vista that I have found so far.
There's a special kind of irony in that, I guess.

 

[Richard Urban]

Traitor! (-:

Microsoft doesn't care where you run it, as long as you run it.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

 

[Jeppe]

I really can't say that has been my experience and I am running Vista 5744
(32 bit) on a system well below yours.

I did a clean install of each beta. Each one has been faster and more stable
than the last one.

Sorry you are having problems.

Ditto. My setups performance is just about what I expected.

Overall, the general rule is this. Whenever you have new operating
system, it is going to need more resources.

 

[Robert Moir]

Traitor! (-:

Microsoft doesn't care where you run it, as long as you run it.

Indeed.

I've had a mac laptop as well as a Windows one for a long time. I was
delighted when the Intel macs came out because i could only take one laptop
with me and be sure of having everything I needed.

 

[MICHAEL]

I always chuckle when I see folks say "Vista is faster
than XP". I think they really want to believe that.
There is no way that a clean install of XP is slower
than a clean install of Vista. IMO, I think some haven't
cleaned up XP in years. They have 200 programs installed.
50 programs that startup, and residue from another 200
programs they have uninstalled. Maybe, a few critters
thrown in, too.

I have Vista on a laptop and a desktop, neither of these
are nearly as fast as XP on the same machines.

RC2 works well for me, the progress since 5384 has been
great. However, it may be wise for some who swear Vista
is faster than XP, to check what's in their Kool-aid.


-Michael

 

[MICHAEL]

Yes, the two machines I am testing 5744 on, Vista
runs "very well", too. One laptop and one desktop.
For me, Vista actually runs better on my laptop.

However, neither machine is nearly as fast compared
to when they're running XP.


-Michael

 

[MICHAEL]

I agree. IMO, the indexing and search feature in Vista is
great, and I use it often.

-Michael

 

[John Jay Smith]

I have turned windows resource hog avoiding, into a science....

I have found ways to convert almost 80% of the programs that I use into
no-install applications...
This way I have a windows installation that works fast for a very long time
and I have hundreds of applications.
More than anyone would normally dare.... say 500...



Because I have studied this matter in great detail I have a 6th sense in
when a computer is performing ok, or not... I have meters that count
everything so I can see how a computer reacts when loading a program....

Now you have these vista slaves... who know nothing about computer
performance and they claim its faster...

Vista loads too many things.. this is apparent even if you glimpse in the
task manager...

As I have said, vista is ok if you have a quadruple CPU and 4 gb of ram....
then it will match a well tuned XP computer that's running on 1 core and 1
gig of ram.

In other words by upgrading to Vista you are degrading your computer. And
for what reason? The only nice thing I like from vista,
is the ability to see thumbails on the desktop.. LOL.... (I have not found
an app that does this for xp yet...).

On the other hand I can name at least 20 things that are WORSE gui- wise...

 

[Guest]

I don't know, I seem to make it just fine. My Notebook rocks on Vista, as
well as does my home computer.

Notebook:
HP Pavilion 7030us: P4ht, 2Gb PC 2700, NVidia GeForce FX Go5600, 80Gbhdd

Desktop
HP Pavilion a1630n: AMD 64 X2 Live, 2Gb DDR2 4200, NVivia GeForce 6150LE,
250Gb SATA, 250Gb Firewire (external), 250Gb USB (external)

My experience is that every program I have installed that Vista supports has
just rocked my socks off. I can burn a DVD, watch a Movie in MCE, surf the
internet, carry on constant E-Mule downloads, and still conduct another
download, no issues, no problems, not even a skip of the medial player.
Man, if you are having such problems, and it seems like you are rockin a
much stronger system than mine, maybe you have a bad load, or maybe you have
your priorities set wrong.
As for the minimum requirementd go, for Vista Basic. Basic users, as long as
their computer supports the minimum requirements should run without any major
issues.
But you have to think about it. No matter whether you are running XP or
Vista. If you are running on the BARE MINIMUM requirements, it isn't going to
run at lightspeed. In the end, a program only runs as fast as the computer it
is on.
I mean, hell, XP could run on a P2, I think even slower systems, but it
still wouldn't run as well as it would on a P4.
Now I know, not everyone can afford to have a fancy state of the art
computer. In the past, this has been a problem with Windows. With 95 & 98,
there was just one release Win95 and win98. with minimum requirements, and if
you were at the minimum, you had to just deal with "well, some things just
won't work." XP was the same, other than having the 2 basic releases, home
and pro (Later MCE that was built on PRO) But then as well, if you were
running a slow system, you had to deal with some options just not working.
With Vista, they seem to have found another way, by offering different
levels. And I think that is great. I can run Ultimate on my desktop, and Home
Premium on my notebook. If I have a slower computer, I can run Home Basic.
You can get the windows that is best for your computer.
Honestly, I don't see the issue.

 

[Guest]

I agree. I have a MAC at my studio. It isn't running Vista, because ProTools
is a OSX program, but hey, for audio & visual work, you can't beat a mac.
Everything has a place, and I know many MAC loyals that will have nothing
else. I have used both PC and MAC, and I can honestly say that there are
things I like about both of them.
Vista seems to be a wonderful meeting point between the systems though. (I
will probably be flamed for this)
Some of the visual elements and the way that some of the systems work, seem
to have a touch of a MAC influence. That isn't a bad thing. One of my
co-wirkers, who is a "MAC addict" simply loves my Vista notebook, and said,
"I want this OS for my Mac," which if you know any hard core MAC enthusiasts,
is quite the compliment.
MAC people and PC people, both can be pretty hard core. I don't think that
PCs are actually any better, they are just my prefrence. But in the
beginning, I could have as easily gotten an APPLE instead of an IBM. If I
had, I would probably be writing this on an iMAC.
So come on, stop flaming people. If you have something productive to say,
friggin say it. If you just want to talk trash, find another group.

 

[Lang Murphy]

Randy,

Yes, all Intel... all x86. And, no, I'm not gloating, dude... I feel your
pain. I don't think the duos are 64 bit CPU's... if I'm wrong I'm sure
someone will delight in calling me on it.

Certainly there can be quite a few different reasons why one might have
problems with Vista, beyond bugs with the OS... a bad install, for whatever
reason. I think a lot of performance issues are related to drivers. I've
seen others post that ATI does a less than stellar job with their drivers..
I dunno, my ATI Radeon 9800 driver seems to be working just fine... but
maybe the x64 driver for your ATI card has issues... or your sound card...
or maybe it's a config with the sound card... I've seen some posts about
changing the settings for sound cards that definitely impact their
performance for the folks talking about it... I guess I'm just lucky in that
I haven't had to tweak any of the systems I have Vista running on... it
installs... the systems run fine, all things considered.

Glad to post the hw info... gave me a chance to know what I'm using... LOL.

Yeah, I'm not saying the indexer is the be-all and end-all solution to
finding stuff on your PC... just that I hadn't seen system performance
deteriorate in the latest build while using it.

I don't mind Mac's... way too expensive, but they aren't bad machines. My
sister-in-law came to visit a couple of months ago and she had a Macbook.
Haw, I could barely figure out how to use the UI. Just different than that
with which I'm accustomed. Plugged a two button mouse into it... don't
recall that the right button did anything...

I entered the world of PC's around 1987 or so. Was dumb as a rock about 'em.
I think we were running DOS 3.0 then, although it might've been 2.something.
I remember that when I first started using it, I didn't know any commands
other that how to start Word, so to clear the screen, we'd start Word and
exit it and then one day someone from the "main office", i.e., someone with
more PC experience than a rock, showed us hillbillies the "cls" command. We
were stunned! Whoooooeeee! Now THAT's computing! I remember running Excel in
a run-time version of Windows! Start Excel and you could minimize it to a
non-functional desktop, meaning you couldn't do anything else other than run
Excel. Quit Excel and the RT version of Windows closed. Got into Windows
with 2.1. Been through every version since, with the exception of
Millenium... I wouldn't, and didn't, touch that with a ten foot pole.

Never did any mainframe programming. Taught myself dBase which was a good
experience and now do all my programming (small utility type programs for
the enterprise) in WinBatch, which I love. Being forced to move to C# cause
it, I kid you not... "It sounds cooler than WinBatch." Ugh. WB has so many
functions that let you do in one or two lines of code what would take
literally hundreds, well, "tens" maybe, of lines of code in C#. Probably a
good addtion to one's resume, but I ain't kidding myself... I'll never be a
"real" C# programmer.

I don't think you whine like a spoiled schoolgirl just for the sake of being
disagreeable, but I have to say I like that line alot and will no doubt put
it use during a team con call accusing one of my co-workers of being such.
LOL. Around here I think it's refered to as a "hissy fit." ;-D

Liked your post quite a lot. If no one else read it all the way through, I
did, and found it quite entertaining, to say the least.

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

Randy,

Yes, all Intel... all x86. And, no, I'm not gloating, dude... I feel your
pain. I don't think the duos are 64 bit CPU's... if I'm wrong I'm sure
someone will delight in calling me on it.

Certainly there can be quite a few different reasons why one might have
problems with Vista, beyond bugs with the OS... a bad install, for whatever
reason. I think a lot of performance issues are related to drivers. I've
seen others post that ATI does a less than stellar job with their drivers..
I dunno, my ATI Radeon 9800 driver seems to be working just fine... but
maybe the x64 driver for your ATI card has issues... or your sound card...
or maybe it's a config with the sound card... I've seen some posts about
changing the settings for sound cards that definitely impact their
performance for the folks talking about it... I guess I'm just lucky in that
I haven't had to tweak any of the systems I have Vista running on... it
installs... the systems run fine, all things considered.

Glad to post the hw info... gave me a chance to know what I'm using... LOL.

Yeah, I'm not saying the indexer is the be-all and end-all solution to
finding stuff on your PC... just that I hadn't seen system performance
deteriorate in the latest build while using it.

I don't mind Mac's... way too expensive, but they aren't bad machines. My
sister-in-law came to visit a couple of months ago and she had a Macbook.
Haw, I could barely figure out how to use the UI. Just different than that
with which I'm accustomed. Plugged a two button mouse into it... don't
recall that the right button did anything...

I entered the world of PC's around 1987 or so. Was dumb as a rock about 'em.
I think we were running DOS 3.0 then, although it might've been 2.something.
I remember that when I first started using it, I didn't know any commands
other that how to start Word, so to clear the screen, we'd start Word and
exit it and then one day someone from the "main office", i.e., someone with
more PC experience than a rock, showed us hillbillies the "cls" command. We
were stunned! Whoooooeeee! Now THAT's computing! I remember running Excel in
a run-time version of Windows! Start Excel and you could minimize it to a
non-functional desktop, meaning you couldn't do anything else other than run
Excel. Quit Excel and the RT version of Windows closed. Got into Windows
with 2.1. Been through every version since, with the exception of
Millenium... I wouldn't, and didn't, touch that with a ten foot pole.

Never did any mainframe programming. Taught myself dBase which was a good
experience and now do all my programming (small utility type programs for
the enterprise) in WinBatch, which I love. Being forced to move to C# cause
it, I kid you not... "It sounds cooler than WinBatch." Ugh. WB has so many
functions that let you do in one or two lines of code what would take
literally hundreds, well, "tens" maybe, of lines of code in C#. Probably a
good addtion to one's resume, but I ain't kidding myself... I'll never be a
"real" C# programmer.

I don't think you whine like a spoiled schoolgirl just for the sake of being
disagreeable, but I have to say I like that line alot and will no doubt put
it use during a team con call accusing one of my co-workers of being such.
LOL. Around here I think it's refered to as a "hissy fit." ;-D

Liked your post quite a lot. If no one else read it all the way through, I
did, and found it quite entertaining, to say the least.

Lang

 

[Lang Murphy]

Good thinkin' there, bud.

Lang

How about a suggestion fellas ...
if you have a spare drive Randy, do a 32 bit install on the same h/w and
compare results.

 

[Guest]

Oh, I understand. I know a 700 watt power supply isn't cramming amperage
down devices throat's.

That characteristic doesn't make me less impressed.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, maybe, except for the most part I was running stock drivers and still
experiencing terrible slowness.

The stock drivers being all Microsoft, and all being part of Vista, I
wouldn't even try to figure out what part of Vista was causing the problem,
nor should I be expected to. Running 3rd party drivers is a different story,
but if the drivers are all Vista native and its a driver issue, then its a
Vista issue.