David3k Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 meh. This isn't a review, it's just whining. I think you should have just posted your "review" on /b/. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raskren Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) hi,* well it is not yet demonstrated, but the decrease of performance is often attributed to DRM. * when Vista takes forever to copy a file, Vista is suspected to check the legitimacy of your file. * a similar bug happen: if you transfer a file through network and listen music at the same time, bandwidth is divided by two. (I've read this at slashdot). Also some feature of hardware are not anymore compatible vista. For instance my Video card support video capture, which doesn't anymore work with Vista. Eax (music effects with sound blaster cards) are not compatible Vista. But to be honest, I wasn't aware before Vista , that my graphic card was supporting video capture, and didn't even know what was this EAX thing. What else: I observe lot of attempt by Vista to connect to internet. Are they trying to spying me ? I don't like also the need of Vista to regularly phone home in order to check the license. I'm surprised how many neowinian, are convinced by the future success of vista. Just read slashdot comments, that's often the contrary. At least Vista is very controverted.... Maybe Vista won't be a total success nor a total failure. Just a moderate adoption. I LOL in your general direction. Can you provide a reputable source that claims the "decrease in performance" is attributed to DRM? Why would digital rights management slow down the entire system? Isn't it just for protected media? Please think before you post. Edit: I think you're referring to Peter Gutman and "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection". Probably one of the most poorly tested and researched academic papers in the history of academia. George Ou has done a pretty thorough job of refuting the paper, point-by-point. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673 Edited December 18, 2007 by raskren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shockz Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 I agree with the moving/copying files issue... It honestly takes forever. Updates supposed to fix the problem don't do anything. I haven't tried the beta sp yet... so I'm hoping this is corrected already or will be soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairlytayleree Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Well What about superfetch's improved disk caching system, and the lower default quantum (MS themselves have said a quantum of 2 seems optimal generally, though multimedia apps set it to 1... I think Vista is set to 12). Also, on the other hand, Aero was a bit heavy, and lots of services can be disabled (Vlite ideally!). And I'm not sure about the extra abstraction on the Audio side of things, though I understand an old problem in XP of 16 bit sound being calculated to around 15.5 bits was fixed... Hopefully with SP1 and a good clean install without all the "Ultimate" (lol) features it would be comparably quick in operation to XP. The builds of the OS executables certainly seem to be more responsive in Vista then XP, probably compiler improvement(s). Vista doesn't seem to need as much tweaking out of the box as Windows XP Pro seemed to benefit from, as well. Personally, I would probably run both for a while on similar disks and then decide for certain once Vista SP1 is out (maybe march/april next year?). The Vista installer certainly seemed to be heavier then it might have needed to be, but then, Vista is gonna be good fun on hardware in 1 or 2 years time :) I would disagree with the original post simply because of the superfetch prefetcher improvements. I was a big fan of running Windows 3.1 with 2mb smartdrv cache through DOS back in the old days (with Qemm), after I got 8mb main memory :) myself so I like caching technologies and am 100% convinced of the performance advantages of better hard drive caching. Not sure that Vista is quite as good as it as smartdrv was but that's progress lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Geek Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 (edited) IMHO i didnt like vista, i mean here i have XP SP2 and its working perfectly fine with me. So the leap to vista is just unjustified, and with the incompatibilty issues i think i'm gona wait a year or so before making the switch and now with the news about SP3 it might take me a longer time before considering vista. In the last couple of weeks, two of my friends got new Toshiba laptops with vista home editions pre-installed, i just finished formated one of them and trying to convince the other friend to let me do the same for his computer. I don't really like vista home edition but installing windows xp that they don't have a licence for is piracy... Planning to skip Windows Vista altogether and wait for Microsoft's next operating system instead?For some companies it's a tempting option, but they need to consider it carefully or they could end up feeling some pain down the line, according to analyst group Gartner. Gartner said companies have "significantly delayed" the start of their Windows Vista migrations, with most now planning to begin deployment in late 2008 or even 2009, making some think of skipping Vista altogether. But Gartner research vice president Michael Silver has warned that the next version of Windows ? code-named "Windows 7" ? may also suffer from the delays that dogged Vista and be just as difficult to adopt. "Organisations that tried to skip Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows XP often had ISV support issues and a difficult and rushed or forced migration. Organisations that try to skip Windows Vista are likely to undergo the same perils," the Gartner research warned. https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...90&hl=vista Edited December 19, 2007 by MvT Cracker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhangm Supervisor Posted December 19, 2007 Supervisor Share Posted December 19, 2007 I don't really like vista home edition but installing windows xp that they don't have a licence for is piracy... Not to mention his friends paid for a better operating system than the one he's putting onto their computers. I hate it when computer savvy people betray the trust of others to push a personal agenda, i.e. "I hate Vista, so no one should use it." Its no less equivalent to someone wiping your box and putting Ubuntu onto it because your prior OS was not good enough in their opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Geek Posted December 19, 2007 Share Posted December 19, 2007 Not to mention his friends paid for a better operating system than the one he's putting onto their computers. I hate it when computer savvy people betray the trust of others to push a personal agenda, i.e. "I hate Vista, so no one should use it." Its no less equivalent to someone wiping your box and putting Ubuntu onto it because your prior OS was not good enough in their opinion. I agree just to make sure its clear downgrade rights apply only to ultimate and business editions of vista and can only be provided from gold certified microsoft partners/oems No Warez (links) & Cracks. Help, requests or posts that discuss circumvention. This includes linking to illegally obtained software, movies & music files - posting about it, and suggesting obtaining it. https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=boardrules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian M. Veteran Posted December 19, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 19, 2007 I agree just to make sure its clear downgrade rights apply only to ultimate and business editions of vista and can only be provided from gold certified microsoft partners/oems No Warez (links) & Cracks. Help, requests or posts that discuss circumvention. This includes linking to illegally obtained software, movies & music files - posting about it, and suggesting obtaining it. https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=boardrules I don't see where it states that he pirated it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Geek Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 IMHO i didnt like vista, i mean here i have XP SP2 and its working perfectly fine with me. So the leap to vista is just unjustified, and with the incompatibilty issues i think i'm gona wait a year or so before making the switch and now with the news about SP3 it might take me a longer time before considering vista. In the last couple of weeks, two of my friends got new Toshiba laptops with vista home editions pre-installed, i just finished formated one of them and trying to convince the other friend to let me do the same for his computer. I don't see where it states that he pirated it.. he states he dose not like vista and says he "formated it" he would not erase everything and leave it without an operating system and reinstalling vista that works fine makes no sense at all so I'm sure that he installed xp and because its home he dose not have downgrade rights so where did the keys come from? would he spend $100-200 for xp to give to his friends :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unholy Moley! Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 This is just poor... you just don't know how to use your computer or you've got a load of crap installed if your getting system locks and crashes.NO problems with Vista.. David. -9000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Geek Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 -9000 this is not digg..... and I agree with Garnett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANova Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 (edited) this is not digg..... and I agree with Garnett Of course you do, your avatar is point enough. The amount of people that feel the need to come in here and bash the post starter one after the other in defense of a piece of software is utterly pathetic, especially considering he actually provided screenshots indicating the proof of his claims, something which none of you seem to be capable of in support of your own purported statements. Ah, but he obviously knows not how to work his own damn computer (despite the fact he seems to be able to find the reliability and performance monitor just fine). The Microsoft fanclub everyone. Most or all of you have probably forgotten about Palladium; or how about the many names it was changed to. But no, DRM doesn't exist and the little that does takes absolutely no resources to check, encode and decode every frame of a video right? How about checking and rechecking for audio and the scanning of files to see if they have DRM. Newer software is supposed to be slower right? Edited December 23, 2007 by ANova Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhangm Supervisor Posted December 23, 2007 Supervisor Share Posted December 23, 2007 Of course you do, your avatar is point enough.The amount of people that feel the need to come in here and bash the post starter one after the other in defense of a piece of software is utterly pathetic, especially considering he actually provided screenshots indicating the proof of his claims, something which none of you seem to be capable of in support of your own purported statements. Ah, but he obviously knows not how to work his own damn computer (despite the fact he seems to be able to find the reliability and performance monitor just fine). The Microsoft fanclub everyone. Btw, have all you numbnuts forgotten about Palladium or the many names it has been changed to already? Are you all so blind that you cannot even admit to yourselves that Vista is slower? For those that do what the hell do you attribute that to? Oh but newer software is supposed to be slower right? Lets just remedy that by throwing more money at a faster system and be damned as to finding out the reasons for the sluggishness. Ram is so cheap, I'll just double it so the bloat has more room to roam around in. That's what technology is for, to make way for ever increasing bloatware that demands more power just to remain the same in speed for a slightly better animated UI and a couple small improvements here and there. I got a bridge to sell you all, cheap! Its not slower for everyone. Also, some of the new features facilitate doing things faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chconline Veteran Posted December 23, 2007 Veteran Share Posted December 23, 2007 Vista FTW. I would not say it's worth my $165 CAD I paid for Vista Ultimate (Even though it was a good price), since I can do a lot with $165 -- but it's an excellent OS. Had Vista Home Premium on my laptop since March and zero complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLien_0 Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 why do we keep getting dump threads like this posted this is all just de-ja-vu from when xp came out and when 2000 came out and when me came out etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANova Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Its not slower for everyone. Also, some of the new features facilitate doing things faster. Correction, some people think it is not slower, it is. The difference is their systems are now much faster as well, or they've simply tricked themselves into believing it is. Sorry but an os that runs three times as many processes, dlls, services, WGA/activation/DRM checks, and communicates and transfers data between chips and busses (aka DWM) alot more is going to be slower, period. Not all of Vista's greater than 7GBs in size (compared to XP's less than 2) is for hardware support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Correction, some people think it is not slower, it is. The difference is their systems are now much faster as well, or they've simply tricked themselves into believing it is.Sorry but an os that runs three times as many processes, dlls, services, WGA/activation/DRM checks, and communicates and transfers data between chips and busses (aka DWM) alot more is going to be slower, period. Not all of Vista's greater than 7GBs in size (compared to XP's less than 2) is for hardware support. Yeahhh...this is how it's supposed to work. Welcome to the evolution of operating systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornett Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 +2 You've been very lucky. I've been helping a friend add some machines to her office, unfortunately they came with Vista licences. We have had endless reliability problems with Samba sharing (from XP, Linux and Vista servers) and severe problems with printing, leading her to give up and buy a new printer marked specifically for use with Vista, which still exhibits problems (albeit different ones). Now documents get 3/4 through printing, change their status to 'error' (very helpful) then lock the queue, requiring a reboot to remove it, as the delete command does sweet FA. Installing updates is hellishly slow, as is booting up and shutting down the systems. Also I don't understand why Microsoft have done away with the good tried and tested method of using menubars in applications. Especially when some functions have no means of access without enabling them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulCabby Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 i rofled Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlakByte Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 Guys seriusly. XP is faster than vista.. It just is.. Im so sure that you guys just use Vista for the visual and you refuse to realize that it isn't better. Which pathetic since its ****ing official that XP is faster than vista.. So the only pathetic here is you.. and the fact that you can't even let this guy do this "review" is also pathetic.. This is just his opinion but infact, his opinion is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 I can reboot my XP machine in about 20 seconds, where my vista laptop (core 2, 2GB) takes about 100 seconds for the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digitalx Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 id say vista is fast and usable but it doesn't offer the whole end user usability package like XP does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeta_immersion Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 i have ultimate and i went back to xp ... i have too much hardware that is not compatible with vista and it just a waste not to use it... no doubt vista is good, but for me to get new ahrdware compatible with it is just not an option ... it all comes down to the user and what he will use the os for ... hence everyone should put forth their priorities and the pros and cons to each os and choose the best one ... this way no more ****ing around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternalStorm Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Guys seriusly. XP is faster than vista.. It just is.. Im so sure that you guys just use Vista for the visual and you refuse to realize that it isn't better. Which pathetic since its ****ing official that XP is faster than vista.. So the only pathetic here is you.. and the fact that you can't even let this guy do this "review" is also pathetic.. This is just his opinion but infact, his opinion is true. Buddy, get your reasoning straight. Every single release of Windows has been slower than the last, that's because in 5 years, technology improves both on the software side and the hardware side and those technologies are more advanced. In the software world, that means that you get new efficiencies in terms of memory management and process management that you never saw in XP which leads to better overall system stability while running. Booting seems to be a different matter but Vista doesn't boot THAT slow compared to XP for me, I think it depends on your hardware. Once it's booted it can feel faster for many people if you have enough memory because of the new memory management and caching technologies. Vista isn't that much better than XP, but what's better in it is stuff you learn to appreciate and it makes life a bit easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XIII Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 Have anyone who have bashed Vista for performance actually try Vista x64? Vista x86 is slow and unstable because of the backward 16 bit compatibility. I will give you credit for that much. But in my Vista x64, Windows boots up in 15 seconds, loads maps of COD4 in SP mode in 5 seconds. Frame rate is always high and stable compared to XP. Furthermore, I can use all 8 GB of RAM, the system is always responsive, no crash ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts