speed of vista

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Rich said:
Please elaborate on that statement. Assuming you have programmed in it for
years what other technologies are you comparing DOT.NET with?
Click to expand...

Just plain pure C++ is my comparison.

As for concrete examples:

I wrote a utility once that took a multiple gigabyte database and compressed
it by creating a tree search tree out of the keys used to index to retrieve
the data. On top of that the data was split into pages which were then
additionally compressed. Worked quite nicely.

It had several hundred thousand keys to process though along with the data
and compressing the pages.

Execution time to build a database under C#: 1-2 days.
Execution time to build a database under C++: 3 hours

The code was identical save for syntax.

Another application that I am currently working on, my C# engine could
render one of my worst case datasets via DirectX in about 150ms single
core, 90ms dual core on this system. I could live with that seeing how I
rendered the data to an off-screen buffer and the just displayed this
off-screen buffer most the time and only rendered data from the currently
active command on top of it.

And that is on a core 2 duo system, on slower systems there were some
operatins that just were a pain to do becaues they took too long

My new C++ engine will render the identical dataset in 10ms single core. I
haven't even bothered multi-threading it yet. On the same slower systems
render time is about 30ms max.

One thing I've found the .Net framework bad at doing is dealing with lots
and lots of small memory items, especially if they have to be allocated /
deallocated on the fly. That type of stuff will just bring it to its knees.

Don't think I am trying to bash the framework, I actually am not. I do like
it and I definitely think it is absolutely wonderful for probably over 90%
of the apps out there. Most apps generally just have a UI waiting for user
input and things like that it is absolutely wonderful for. I embraced the
framework for that reason while it was still in beta to get away from the
horrible MFC!
Read the article here.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128961-page,1/article.html
Click to expand...

Interesting article, thanks for that.

In my opinion DX10 games are a bad idea for a long time. Anyone that
releases one is essentially annihilating over half their customers right
now that may want to play but can't due to not wanting to move to Vista
just for a game.

And yea, I can imagine games performing worse under Vista simply due to the
reason that Vista now consumes resources that on the same PC were available
to the game under XP. Both in the forms of ram consumed by the OS and
video memory (and ram) consumed by aero.
I have Vista Premium and the minumum recommended memory is 1024MB.
that is the price. Maybe Microsoft is wrong and it can run on 24MB like
NT4?
Click to expand...

Just think about that though for a minute. Minimum reccomended 1024mb. That
is 1024 mb of memory not available for your apps you'd like to run. That is
insane!!


Again Vista premium minimum recommended memory is 1GB. It is better to
have too much than not enough!
Click to expand...

In my case I have 2 gigs in this system and don't wanna see half of it go to
waste for the OS. Could I add another 2 gigs Dual Channel HyperX memory at
over $300? SURE! Do I want to JUST to run a 200some $ OS? No way.
I am running windows 2003 and my peak memory commit charge is 951,880 MB
and without any major programs runnning.
If you are careful and know what you are doing you can stretch your
memory. I do it all the time.
Click to expand...

You call 950 megs without any major apps running stretching memory? =)
What langauge is that? Is that from Vista? What does that mean?
Can you read that?
I need a Chinese interpreter.
Click to expand...

Actually looks like either you don't have support for asian fonts installed
or that your newsreader can't display utf-8.

Either way, it reads:

kimi no koto omoidasu hi nante nai no wa
kimi no koto wasureta toki ga nai kara.

Which basically means:

I haven't for a day remembered you because I haven't for a moment forgotten
you.

It's a quote from one of my favorite songs by Hamasaki Ayumi. Oh and it's
Japanese btw, not chinese.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
Stephan Rose said:
Execution time to build a database under C#: 1-2 days.
Execution time to build a database under C++: 3 hours
Click to expand...

So, nothing else could have possibly been wrong? I build VB.NET
applications and I don't see how processing gigs of info can take 1-2 days.
Plus, which one is it? 1 or 2 days? Did it hit 48 hours of processing or
not?

Just think about that though for a minute. Minimum reccomended 1024mb.
That
is 1024 mb of memory not available for your apps you'd like to run. That
is
insane!!
Click to expand...

Um, no. With 1GB of memory Vista does not use all 1GB. With 1GB of memory
you can run Vista along with many apps. Mail, Office, internet,
Photoshop...
I haven't for a day remembered you because I haven't for a moment
forgotten
you.
Click to expand...

I like that.
 
Justin said:
So, nothing else could have possibly been wrong? I build VB.NET
applications and I don't see how processing gigs of info can take 1-2
days.
Plus, which one is it? 1 or 2 days? Did it hit 48 hours of processing or
not?
Click to expand...

I didn't actually let it finish. I started it...came back a few hours
later...looked at my progress...looked at how much it had to go..and
realized it would still not be done at the same time next day.

The thing that slowed it down was not the amount of gigs really, that's
fine. C# can churn through plenty gigs plenty fine...depending on what you
are doing with it though.

IN my case though, it had to deal with several hundred thousand keys which
it had to then traverse the tree for each item and see where it needs to
add leaf nodes. The resulting leaf node count exceeded a million easy.

That is basically what slowed it down to a crawl as that is something the GC
just absolutely does not like and neither does the bound checking. Stuff
like that really brings the framework to its knees.

C++ doesn't care...

I've seen the same thing happen in multiple apps I've written where I need
to deal with thousands of small data items as quickly as possible.

It was basically a tree based indexing table I was building for a rather
large database. Our competitor directly stored the keys in a large table of
a SQL-like database file and lookups were relatively slow. My tree-based
indexing made data lookups instantaneous and really by magnitudes reduced
the size of the final database.

Their gigabytes of database was compromised 90% of keys for lookups and 10%
of actual useful data...

You would have loved my search feature. =)

Now does any of this make the .Net framework bad? No. Of course not. There
just are a few things, due to the technological differences how it works,
that C++ code is better at.

The garbage collection and runtime bound checks, while nice to have, do
carry an overhead. There are also code optimizations that the JIT just
simply cannot make. Particularly the runtime bound checks brought my code
to its knees as in the sample up there because there was no way for the
compiler to know at compile time if my loop was safe or not. So it has to
make the check at runtime...

To be honest, the only real thing that ever pushed me to C# was the UI
design abilities. It is absolutely beautiful for rapdily designing complex
UIs, that is what it is good at. Compared to MFC it was absolutely
wonderful. And for about 95% of all my apps, the performance of C# was
beyond sufficient.

That though really is more of a MS thing not having a decent unmanaged C++
API.

Maybe if I would have discovered wxWidgets back then already, which is a C++
based cross-platform API I use these days, I may have never gone the .Net
route. I actually prefer its way for UI design over any API I've used so
far, .Net Framework included, as it can use constraints rather than
absolute positions ensuring that the layouts remain the same on different
platforms / languages regardless of changing text and control sizes.
Um, no. With 1GB of memory Vista does not use all 1GB. With 1GB of
memory
you can run Vista along with many apps. Mail, Office, internet,
Photoshop...
Click to expand...

I do know that it does not use the full 1GB but it still uses a significant
enough portion of it.

More in my opinion than is actually necessary.

I probably look at things in a different light though partly because I have
written operating systems for embedded devices (arm based). My largest one
actually being a real-time multi-tasking OS complete with kernel / user
space, memory management including virtual memory paging, etc.

There are some pretty amazing arm based processors out there. =)

So for that reason, I inherently have a thinking that an OS should use the
least amount of resources possible. The less it can use, the better it is
for the hardware it runs on.
I like that.
Click to expand...


ano uta wa suteki desu ne? ;)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
Same issues with speed here tried minimizing visual effects takes forever to
get a program to open like 20sec forever opening firefox

I have dual core 2.13ghz proc
4 gig ram

of course Vista doesnt see 4 gigs it sees like 3072mb but none the less my
AMD 3000 with a gig ram and XP blew this system out of the water
 
I haven't installed Vista and that not only has saved me a lot of time but
also speeded up completion of my work . . . Hmmmm
 
Have been running Vista Pemium for about two weeks and concurr that it uses
2 or 3 times the resources as XP. As for speed, difficult to compare, since
my XP PC was a much slower processor.

The most frustrating thing for me is that many of the things I could
accomplish with one or two clicks in XP now take two or more in Vista, re
opening mail, deleting files etc.
 
My new pent 4 @ 1 GHZ is slower with Vista than My first 386. I am not happy
at all with the performance. I want to go back to XP. Vista looks great, but
so slow that it locks up all the time. Very, Very frustrating.
 
Back
Top