Vista 64 RTM, fastest MS consumer OS

Everywhere you go you hear people saying XP is faster than Vista, as if it's an established fact. It is not an established fact. The benchmarks are actually all over the place. I've looked at all I can find and it's

tough to find any pattern. The only pattern I see is that most benchmarks show it to be a close call and therefore probably moot. Anyway here are the latest from Adrian Kingsly-Hughes at Zdnet.



http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1772

Vista certainly uses more ram. I think it does utilize multi-core processors better though.

Obviously, and that's where Vista utterly fails, real world performances suck on it. Also, funny how there's no XP 64 thrown in there?

It's also a known fact that everybody has 4GB RAM & C2D/C2Q processors with add-on video cards of at LEAST 128MB, amiright?

Just as a REAL WORLD example, our department has looked into Vista, about a full month testing of all our hardware/apps. 26000 users, over 45000 desktops/laptops. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of our tests showed a MINIMUM of 5% performance loss over XP SP2 on our highest performance systems, near 15% performance loss on our median systems and not even thinkable on our really, really crappy systems. That was with the 32bit Vista too. Over 15% of our apps literally didn't run on Vista 64 (or wouldn't even run on XP 64 for that matter)

Enterprises/schools/governments/etc... run far behind what "we" consider good hardware. We're (again, the big "we" ) enthousiasts that strive for performance & efficiency of whatever we buy. OC'ing CPUs in a programming work environment? lolno. OC'ing @ home as high as electronically possible, hell yes.

Vista is a MASSIVE failure, ALMOST as worst as ME. For Balmer himself to "sorta" say those exact words & M$ to extend the life of XP even longer, should raise big red flags surrounding Vista.

Less than 15% of enterprises under M$ contracts (any contracts) have flocked to Vista. There is ZERO advantages to Vista that would warrant such massive costs.

Intel stated the GPU dead, nVidia stated the CPU dead, M$ themselves have almost stated Vista dead (overexageration, but you get the point).

Welcome to 2008… 4GB RAM & C2D/C2Q processors are pretty much standard. Hell I can get 8gigs of ram for what I use to pay for 2.

Vista is bloatware, no question... but I don’t see any performance decrease during gaming. Yes I might get 59 FPS instead of 60... But do I notice a difference? NO. Fact of the matter I for one like it more then XP except for the networking aspects of it (because it’s a little different/learning curve)

Seriously people enough already! Accept the fact that Vista is here, buy a machine that can run it and get on with life.

The sooner you accept Vista the sooner you can contribute NEW knowledge, until then your just whining over nothing.

Why would I want to install Vista when I can use XP?
I was at one of my brothers yesterday and his 2GB Vista machine uses about the same amount of RAM to do -nothing- as my 2GB machine uses to run 4 security programs,seed 6 torrents -and- play Frontlines:Fuel of War all at the same time (my RAM use 49%).

The problem with your logic is that vista is doing something. Its got commonly used programs cached in the unused ram. I view this as a good thing for everyday consumers. Of course you could always turn off this feature.

I'm getting a little sick of this whiny I don't want Vista cos it uses up more resources.....

If we did what all you whiners are advocating then we'd still be stuck using DOS, there'd be no internet and games wouldn't have advanced further than pong...

This is also aimed at the people who complain about the required system specs of Crysis, yes it requires more computing power than say the Unreal 3 engine, it's also a couple of years newer.

I remember when people were saying exactly the same things about G-Police and Total Annihalation: Kingdoms.

Don't forget next gen. consoles are allready approximately 2 to 3 generations behind todays current high end PC's. The most you can squease out of a PS3 or an X-box is 1920x1080 graphics, my computer in 2002 could easilly exceed that.

My logic?
What logic?

I just said what I see on my XP machines vs his Vista install.
The facts speak for themselfs.

He could care less...he likes it,he also likes a 64 bit OS even if he never runs any 64 bit programs.
He's happy with it and thats all that really matters.

I on the other hand have zero need for it and it offers me nothing over XP other than DX10....and we all see how worthless that is at this point.

^ stating that while vista is idle, it is doing nothing. This is not correct, it is filling unused ram with frequently used programs.

Its a nice feature for the everyday consumer.

I want to know if I'm an everyday consumer ...

quicktest:

Are you typing this on a dell or other OEM?

I don't, I was playing Quake 3 at 1920/1200 in 2003 when I first bought my Radeon 9800....

This is the same thing that was said when XP came out and Windows 95(Come on 13 Disks). People say "It eats up alot more RAM, HD Space, Slower.... Come on in three years we will say the same thing for the next Windows OS.

Install DOS 6.22 and Windows for Workgroups and be happy with the speed on your 386SX25! It wont run Vista I Tried! Even with the Math Co-Processor installed!

1Haplo

well in that comparison of what is better in vista over XP
then what was so much better of XP over win2000?
XP eats more ram and runs slower then win2000.
and when XP first came out Enterprises/schools/governments/etc... would not run XP and stayed with 2000.

so it is no different then before... people resisting change.

but change is inevitable... then it gets heavy in your pocket
my 2¢

WOW alot of confused and angry people here bashing Vista again. Ok fact XP will no longer be sold after june/july. Most of the problems people have with Vista is very outdated software/hardware. Do some searching on why people had so many issues with Vista on launch day with new PC/Laptops. The reason the damn hardware/PC makers put from 512MB to 1GB of ram. Vista's sweet spot is 4GB. Think of when you went from 98 to xp. It was tough, it required more ram and the interface was different. Seems similar to the xp to Vista.

I understand that if you have an xp machine that works, why change. I understand that. Just like you I had my doubts about Vista. I heard bad things about games, software and hardware. I got Vista Ultimate and installed the 64 bit on my system. I got 8GB of ram and put in a Q6600vs my 3GB, E6600 xp build. I have been very happy so far. After figuring out my x-fi sound card was all of my problems(NOT VISTA) i took it out and have been 110% stable for about 3 months. I get no BSOD(unless pushing OC to far) and my system is very responsive. After Vista learns your habits(superfetch) apps load(as long as you keep your computer on, restarting unloads them) almost instantly. I have my page file at 512MB(because some of my older software needs a page file) so everything runs out of my ram. I have not had any spyware/adware since the vista install. I dont know about everyone here, but if something works better than what you have and what you have is on its way out, why not just update what you have. It took a whole 5 minutes to format and install Vista 64 vs around 40 minutes with XP. The first lauch of it takes a bit, but with some tweaks(yes xp has them too) its dammed fantastic.

One benchmark does not really prove anything.
It can be written so to perform better.

Vista is inherently slower due to the fact drivers are no longer allowed direct kernel access.
You can add new features enhancements to Vista to improve performance but those same items could have been added to XP. Any decision to not add various features is more marketing than engineering.

MS is trying to force people to Vista more than people are Choosing Vista.

And I have not even begun to start to get into general Overhead.

I am looking at the brighter side.
Hopefully the migration from Vista to Windows 7 will be a blessing.
XP to Windows 7 could be a long jump.

I agree

My view is DX10 is more of a marketing tactic to sell copies of Vista, MS say there's no possibility of DX10 being XP compatible, but to my knowledge an Unofficial hacked DX10 can be installed in XP...so I don't trust MS. MS hyped Flight simulator X for DX10 compatibility, but when the SP2 DX10 patch arrived it was rushed and causes a flickering bug for many (including me) when at airports, The only difference I saw between FSX DX9 and DX10, was DX10 had slightly better water quality. Crytek jumped onto the marketing bandwagon too by claiming only Vista would have 'Very High settings' so they could sell more copies of Crysis because of the DX10 hype, this has turned out to be false and Crysis in XP can be hacked to have those Very high settings, it's just Crytek hid the feature. Once the very high settings are enabled, then the only other difference between the two is DX10 appears to have slightly better lighting. Considering DX10 needs far more graphics power for little quality gain, it does not seem worthwhile and this is coming from a person who has played a selection of such games first hand.

I'm not a linux fan, but Ubuntu is a good distribution and not bloated like Vista

Understand that:

(1) DX10 is a completely different set of API's. It is not backward compatible. It will never be. This is a technical fact of life.

(2) Vista includes two versions of Direct X - 9ex, and 10/10.1 (depending on if you have SP1 installed or not)

(3) DX-9ex includes some functionality of DX 10 and uses the WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model) to communicate instead of the older system. It also has a subset of compatible calls - Vendors use some of these and label their products as DX10 - Misleading to say the least... Anyways: When you see comparisons of the two, you are actually seeing DX9c in XP compared to DX9ex on Vista. NOT really 9 to 10.

(4) Any game that runs both on XP and on Vista is, by definition, *NOT* a real "DX10" game.

(5) The Alky project you are referring to has written a bridge/wrapper to translate DX10 calls into XP compatible DX9. Pardon me if I point out how... interesting... it is that the same folks who LOVE saying how they hate drivers not being able to communicate directly to the Kernel, are - in the very next breath - talking about this project. There is no free lunch using bridges, wrappers, and translation layers: You are Absolutely One Hundred Percent Guaranteed to LOSE performance because of the overhead involved in the translation. Not to mention the whole 'unsupported software off the internet written by god knows who.." thing.

So *know* this: The very thing you hate about the first part is E-X-A-C-T-L-Y what the Alky guys are doing in the second part. Therefore using the first to justify the second is just plain asinine.


<Kindly and Gently> I don't care if you like Vista, or not. I don't care if you use it or not. But at the very least, please use a little common sense in creating your arguments.