SP1 better not be vaporware


I

iacy

Vista has been out for almost a year.
I have yet to see any coherent explanation from Microsoft for many of the
bizarre decisions that went into the coding of Vista.
I am tired of media Vista apologists and Microsoft spin.
Among the many Vista problems:
Why are dual boot users punished by the way Vista stores system restore
files. The decision that these files would be wiped out when booting to XP
was purposely made by Microsoft to discourage dual booting but it just makes
Vista look even more lame than it is. Microsoft could change this in a
heartbeat but refuses to.
The second thing about Vista that is impossible to undrstand is how
Microsoft could have released an OS out that is just time by your wristwatch
slower than its predecessors for all disk access operations. Explanations
involving increased background software operations are just a euphemism for
code bloat. I have tried Vista in several dual boot configurations where
Vista is on a second hard drive identical to the one XP is installed on or a
hard drive is partitioned with half for Vista and half to XP. Every computer
has been dual core, 2gbs of RAM and an NVIdia 6800 or better video card. In
every instance simple things like program opening, program installation and
file copying are time by your stop watch/go get a cup of coffee slower on
Vista than on XP.
Tonight I did two Photoshop CS3 sessions, one in XP, one in Vista. Guess
which was fast and glitch free and which one wasn't?
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]

Service Packs are common maintenance updates that Microsoft has released for
past versions of Windows everytime. So Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista
nothing new, don't know why you would even put SP1 and Vaporware in the same
sentence.
 
V

vista user 43

O have been saying the same things fore more than a year even before vista
was officiallyt released,

Vista is a horrible monster that should not have been set loose!

dont hold you breath... you wont see any noticible improvment in vista with
SP1
the problem with vista is the way its designed.. and no service pack can
redo all the crap programming that has gotten in.

You might see better copy - move and network speeds, but everything will
still be slower than XP...


VIsta stinks big time.. those who say vista is faster than XP are totally
super MORONS!
 
J

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

"you lie"
Can you prove that statement?
Or is it just a FALSE accusation with no merit?
Many have reported better performance on a computer comparing a Clean
Installation of Windows XP vs. a Clean Install of Windows Vista on the
same hardware.
That is not to say that is typical.
But your statement "you lie" is baseless.
 
F

Frank

iacy said:
Vista has been out for almost a year.
I have yet to see any coherent explanation from Microsoft for many of
the bizarre decisions that went into the coding of Vista.

Such as...?
I am tired of media Vista apologists and Microsoft spin.

Apologizing for what and spinning what?
Among the many Vista problems:
Why are dual boot users punished by the way Vista stores system restore
files. The decision that these files would be wiped out when booting to
XP was purposely made by Microsoft to discourage dual booting but it
just makes Vista look even more lame than it is.

Really? Who told you that ridiculous, incorrect statement?

Microsoft could change
this in a heartbeat but refuses to.

Where did they state they refuse to change it?
The second thing about Vista that is impossible to undrstand is how
Microsoft could have released an OS out that is just time by your
wristwatch slower than its predecessors for all disk access operations.

It is? Do you even have Vista?
Explanations involving increased background software operations are just
a euphemism for code bloat.

Really? So you've looked at the code and decided it's "code bloat" right?

I have tried Vista in several dual boot
configurations where Vista is on a second hard drive identical to the
one XP is installed on or a hard drive is partitioned with half for
Vista and half to XP. Every computer has been dual core, 2gbs of RAM and
an NVIdia 6800 or better video card. In every instance simple things
like program opening, program installation and file copying are time by
your stop watch/go get a cup of coffee slower on Vista than on XP.

If you can get a cup of coffee while waiting for Vista to open then
you've got some really, really old hardware and Vista should not be
installed on it.
Tonight I did two Photoshop CS3 sessions, one in XP, one in Vista. Guess
which was fast and glitch free and which one wasn't?

Vista? That the results I get on 15 installs of X32 & X64 of Vista
Ultimate using CS3.
Frank

oh, btw...are you by any chance related to capin' crunch?
 
Ad

Advertisements

D

DP

Your subject line is that sp1 "better not be vaporware."
Seems like you forgot something. Usually when someone tells somebody they'd
better not do something, it's followed by an "or else."
What's your "or else"? If it IS vaporware by your definition, what will you
do? Stop using it? Seems like you've already decided to do that.
 
N

Not Me

So you had XP configured improperly?
I have yet to see a machine that is faster with a properly configured
install of Vista than with a properly configured install of XP.
But I have only installed it on 40 some machines in dual boot configuration.
The slowest machine was a P4-2.6Ghz/1GB/128MB AGP Video.
Even on a Asus board with the Quad6600 2.4GhzX4/3GB XP Pro runs faster than
Ultimate 32.
And Ultimate is on a SATA drive, XP on an EIDE.
Vista loses every time.
Now that Beta is over and I have to pay for Vista, I only have it on 1
desktop and 1 laptop, and ONLY because I have to support it.
I think it sucks!
 
N

Not Me

Frank said:
Such as...?


Apologizing for what and spinning what?


Really? Who told you that ridiculous, incorrect statement?

Microsoft could change

Where did they state they refuse to change it?


It is? Do you even have Vista?


Really? So you've looked at the code and decided it's "code bloat" right?

I have tried Vista in several dual boot

If you can get a cup of coffee while waiting for Vista to open then you've
got some really, really old hardware and Vista should not be installed on
it.


Vista? That the results I get on 15 installs of X32 & X64 of Vista
Ultimate using CS3.
Frank

oh, btw...are you by any chance related to capin' crunch?

No Frank, he's just capable of rational thought.
Sorry about your problem...
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

Tom Lake

VIsta stinks big time.. those who say vista is faster than XP are totally
super MORONS!

For some things (such as downloading files off the Internet) Vista is faster
than XP
on my dual-boot machine, anyway. For copying files, XP is much faster than
Vista
(again speaking about my machine only). Different hardware may show
different
results. People who say Vista is faster than XP are not morons at all.
They are
speaking from their own experience on their own hardware and probably
speaking
about their own areas of concern . YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).

Tom Lake
 
T

Tom Lake

DC187 said:
I get better performance in some areas on Vista than on XP, for example
Vista enables me to use NUMA which in turn means I get 16Gb/s memory
bandwidth whereas on XP I would only achieve half that.

Is NUMA configurable or is it automatic? If it's configurable, how do we
check its status and/or activate it?

Tom Lake
 
B

Bob

Basic NUMA concept for those that are interested followinf DC187's comment.

Modern CPUs operate considerably faster than the main memory they are
attached to. In the early days of high-speed computing and supercomputers
the CPU generally ran slower than its memory, until the performance lines
crossed in the 1970s. Since then, CPUs, increasingly starved for data, have
had to stall while they wait for memory accesses to complete. Many
supercomputer designs of the 1980s and 90s focused on providing high-speed
memory access as opposed to faster processors, allowing them to work on
large data sets at speeds other systems could not approach.

Limiting the number of memory accesses provided the key to extracting high
performance from a modern computer. For commodity processors, this means
installing an ever-increasing amount of high-speed cache memory and using
increasingly sophisticated algorithms to avoid "cache misses". But the
dramatic increase in size of the operating systems and of the applications
run on them have generally overwhelmed these cache-processing improvements.
Multi-processor systems make the problem considerably worse. Now a system
can starve several processors at the same time, notably because only one
processor can access memory at a time.

NUMA attempts to address this problem by providing separate memory for each
processor, avoiding the performance hit when several processors attempt to
address the same memory. For problems involving spread data (common for
servers and similar applications), NUMA can improve the performance over a
single shared memory by a factor of roughly the number of processors (or
separate memory banks).

Of course, not all data ends up confined to a single task, which means that
more than one processor may require the same data. To handle these cases,
NUMA systems include additional hardware or software to move data between
banks. This operation has the effect of slowing down the processors attached
to those banks, so the overall speed increase due to NUMA will depend
heavily on the exact nature of the tasks run on the system at any given
time.
 
V

vista user 43

XP is faster 100%, (that's twice as fast) than Vista even without that NUMA
RUMBA thing...

its stupid that here I am trying to persuade people of something so obvious
!

Vista is SLOW AS GOOEY CRAP running downhill!
 
Ad

Advertisements

U

Universe_JDJ

vista said:
XP is faster 100%, (that's twice as fast) than Vista even without that NUMA
RUMBA thing...

its stupid that here I am trying to persuade people of something so obvious
!

Vista is SLOW AS GOOEY CRAP running downhill!
If you're that incapable of common sense, maybe you should leave. Don't
bother us here with your technological ignorance.
 
Ad

Advertisements


Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top