XP twice as fast as vista

  • Thread starter Thread starter kirk jim
  • Start date Start date
Way to be specific there, Skippy. It's clear you have quite a bit of
learning yet to do.
 
Stephan,

Wow, thanks for the extended reply... much appreciated.

As to Vista and the high hw requirement... I'm not sure I understand. Are
you saying one shouldn't need a card with pixel 2 shading or whatever it's
called, to get Aero or the other "benefits" of WDDM?

Thanks,

Lang
 
Stephan said:
Oh let's see....useless eye candy...
Ridiculous hardware requirements...
Restrictive environment..
Software and hardware incompatibility....
Less resources available for your apps...
Click to expand...

One could argue Microsoft invented such exclusive "capabilities" such as
DX10... which will likely end up in XP some way or another.
 
Lang said:
So speaketh the expert on all things Windows...
Click to expand...

So speaketh all who rightfully say no to DRM and shakling of hardward
(read: drastically limited how drivers can be made, changing the PC fro
mthe openess that made it from what it is.)

This is why Vista is so bad for computing. Only mindless automatons like
you who are blindly giving your money for the so called "latest and
greatest" are the problem, acting like Vista is a great thing without
knowing what it's real purpose is: to coral all the sheep from the
realtively open pastures to a place where people can be better
controled. Plain ans simple.

See the links below, especially the first one. THEN tell me you think
Vista is a good idea for computing.
 
Hurricane said:
Likely the graphics card, I'd wager. Since Vista uses a new display
model, the graphics card can be the most "visible" (pardon the pun)
sign of "sluggishness". In fact, under the hood, Vista is doing a
lot more on a regular basis, from indexing, to superfetch, etc. I
run Folding@Home on all of my systems, and on my dual boot Vista/XP
boxes, it is quite easy to measure the true speed difference between
the two OS's, and consistently Vista processes work units 6-10%
faster than XP on identical hardware.
Click to expand...

Again, you don't mention the *state* of your XP install vs the state of
your Vista machine. The Vista setup is probably a clean install, while
the XP has likely been around (your original setup.) Am I right? If so,
then that isn't really a direct comparison, as there isn't any way to
tell what you have on your XP setup, what procress, services, and if
there are any malware infections.

I ay this because on every well kept installs, as well as fresh install,
XP has beaten Vista in speed hands down on any systems I've worked with
both OSes on. Hell, for one customer, which needed some apps that
refused to run on Vista (big suprise) we installed a VM running a fresh
XP Pro, and it actually ran faster (again as a VM guest OS) than the
Vista host! No joke. Tested with VM Ware 5.5.3 on an HP Media Center
dual core system, after throwing out all the usual preloaded garbage.
 
It was a part time staff member who had to look at one list in word and read
the odd email. As I said it took a long time to load but once finally loaded
and all the loaded unused parts were swapped out to the swap file one could
switch between Word and Outlook ok.
 
Lang said:
Stephan,

Wow, thanks for the extended reply... much appreciated.

As to Vista and the high hw requirement... I'm not sure I understand. Are
you saying one shouldn't need a card with pixel 2 shading or whatever it's
called, to get Aero or the other "benefits" of WDDM?
Click to expand...

That is basically what I am saying.

The most basic task that aero provides, an off-screen texture to render to
and then display it on a set of polygons including transparency...like I
said...can easily be handled by a TNT2.

And from what I can gather from aero...those are its key abilities. The new
look of the buttons and GUI is irrelevant, the card doesn't care about
that. It only cares how much data you throw at it.

The fading in and out of the windows is just changing the alpha component of
the vertices over time and telling the card to re-draw the desktop. No
problem there either.

The same thing with the preview when alt-tabbing, it just requires to render
each application window one additional time.

None of this is anything that requires Pixel Shader 2.0 or that couldn't be
handled by a TNT2.

The only potential problem I would see with a card that age is full motion
video because that can potentially exceed the card's available bandwidth.
Especially if it's an HD video or something. But I am purposely using such
an old card as an example as that would be its one and only limitation.

And even if aero has some little feature somewhere I am not aware of that
for some reason absolutely HAS to be done with pixel shaders...just make
that feature unavailable for people that don't have a card with that
capability...easy enough to do.

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™ã²ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸæ™‚ãŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
Vronans said:
One could argue Microsoft invented such exclusive "capabilities" such as
DX10... which will likely end up in XP some way or another.
Click to expand...

It already is in XP...MacOS...Linux...

It's called OpenGL though.

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™ã²ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸæ™‚ãŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰
 
I'm not, as you seem to think, a mindless automaton. I certainly don't
appreciate trolls who come in here calling other folks names and proclaiming
they know, beyond doubt, what the future of computing is.

Here are a couple of suggestions:

1. Learn English betterer...
2. Go back to the Linux NG's and stay there.

PLONK!

Lang
 
Stephan,

Well, your points all seem rational... unusual for a Linux geek ;-D

Of course, I'm just "ribbing" you... I fully appreciate your detailed
responses as they surely are food for thought.

Thanks,

Lang
 
Lang said:
Stephan,

Well, your points all seem rational... unusual for a Linux geek ;-D
Click to expand...

Hahaha well thank you. =) Don't forget though that I do have somewhere
around 10 XP licenses =P

See when MS released Vista and expected everyone to switch operating
systems, well..I did what they wanted me to. I switched OS. I just didn't
switch to Vista. =)
Of course, I'm just "ribbing" you... I fully appreciate your detailed
responses as they surely are food for thought.
Click to expand...

Np ;) Thanks!

Stephan

--
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‚‰
 
Hahaha well thank you. =) Don't forget though that I do have somewhere
around 10 XP licenses =P

See when MS released Vista and expected everyone to switch operating
systems, well..I did what they wanted me to. I switched OS. I just didn't
switch to Vista. =)
Click to expand...
Right -- Often enough I suggest to clients the 'one OS back' rule.
When Microsoft releases a new OS, it is time for them to move up to a
newer OS. So they are looking at the move from Win2K SP4 to WinXP SP2
as they deploy new systems.
 
BSchnur said:
Right -- Often enough I suggest to clients the 'one OS back' rule.
When Microsoft releases a new OS, it is time for them to move up to a
newer OS. So they are looking at the move from Win2K SP4 to WinXP SP2
as they deploy new systems.
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea. They eventually will still catch up with Vista though. =)

I personally don't see myself ever switching back to Windows the more I use
ubuntu. I am already at the point where beyond a few games I have
absolutely no more use for windows. That has simply resulted in me actually
putting my PS2 to use a little bit more. Not a bad thing either. =)

I really despise being treated as a thief in MS' latest masterpiece there
and being constantly monitored. I just simply don't see Vista as an OS that
has any place in any business. I don't even want to imagine an office with
a few hundred installations that all of a sudden think they are no longer
genuine for some weird reason. Caused by a potential bug or virus or
whatever...

Or worse yet, the servers I plan to put up in the near future. I could never
warrant to run something like Vista (or its server version once released)
on it if it may randomly decide to require re-activation. Those servers
will actually be monitoring security data that can potentially affect
peoples safety. Systems like that *can't* be allowed to have problems! MS
has come to the point where I no longer believe they are releasing products
in which I can place my trust.

It's really sad...I used to really like their products.

--
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‚‰
 
After a month or more of Vista usage, my take so far is that Vista is
to XP as Me was to 98. A few fairly unnecessary bells and whistles, a
few handy tools, and a lot of resource overhead, driver issues and
stability problems.

The issue is that Microsoft knew that Windows ME was going to be
replaced by the NT kernel consumer product known as XP, so Me didn't
have a very long product life cycle. There really is no expectation
that Vista will be replaced anytime soon. Making it a bigger concern
for people trying to decide what to do about new hardware purchases
for the next few years.

At this time, Vista isn't a good upgrade for people concerned about
getting the best performance from their hardware. I believe that
continued improvements in the Drivers will rectify SOME of this.
However, Microsoft has altered enough of the guts of the XP kernel
to leave me worried that the performance loss will never be
regained.
 
Back
Top