|
|
User Controls
|
New User
|
Login
|
Edit/View My Profile
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac
|
Articles
|
Forums
|
Links
|
News
|
News Search
|
Reviews
|
|
|
|
News Centers
|
Windows/Microsoft
|
DVD
|
ActiveHardware
|
Xbox
|
MaINTosh
|
News Search
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats
|
The Lobby
|
Special Events Room
|
Developer's Lounge
|
XBox Chat
|
|
|
|
FAQ's
|
Windows 98/98 SE
|
Windows 2000
|
Windows Me
|
Windows "Whistler" XP
|
Windows CE
|
Internet Explorer 6
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Xbox
|
DirectX
|
DVD's
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips
|
Registry Tips
|
Windows 95/98
|
Windows 2000
|
Internet Explorer 4
|
Internet Explorer 5
|
Windows NT Tips
|
Program Tips
|
Easter Eggs
|
Hardware
|
DVD
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews
|
Applications
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002
|
|
Hardware
|
Intel Personal Audio Player
3000
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse
Explorer
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info
|
About This Site
|
Affiliates
|
ANet Forums
|
Contact Us
|
Default Home Page
|
Link To Us
|
Links
|
Member Pages
|
Site Search
|
Awards
|
|
|
|
Credits
©1997/2004, Active Network. All
Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by
Designer Dream. Content
written by the Active Network team. Please click
here for full terms of
use and restrictions or read our
Privacy Statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time:
01:15 EST/06:15 GMT | News Source:
Microsoft |
Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum |
Another one from Jim Allchin: If there is one thing that can really help applications on Windows Vista run better, it's memory. When comparing the performance of Windows XP and Windows Vista on a PC with 1 GB of main memory, Windows Vista is generally comparable to Windows XP or faster. However, we also know that in some cases, on PCs with 512 MB of main memory, applications on Windows XP may seem more responsive. Why? Mostly because the features in Windows Vista use a bit more memory to do the things that make it so cool, like indexing your data, keeping the fancier AERO UI running using the desktop window manager (DWM), etc. The less memory in your machine, the more often the OS must randomly access the disk. This slows system performs in cases where your applications just barely fit in memory on Windows XP but not quite in Windows Vista.
We redesigned the memory manager in Windows Vista so that if you give the system more memory, it uses that memory much more efficiently than previous operating systems via a technique called SuperFetch -- part of Windows Vista's intelligent heuristic memory management system. And so Windows Vista on a PC with even more than 1 GB of primary memory (say 2 GB) will generally outperform Windows XP on that same machine -- especially once you have been using the machine for some time because Windows Vista learns what you do the most often and optimizes for this.
|
|
#1 By
23275 (68.17.42.38)
at
11/21/2006 12:12:19 PM
|
I'm pretty surprised the memory manager in Vista has not received more attention.
A lot of attention has been paid in tech related press about Vista system requirements - usually with pundits all feeding off of one another as they try and suggest one nefarious thing or another about Microsoft and Vista - I've heard and read some wild speculation that is clever... all of it designed to take down Vista...
The truth is that that Vista doesn't have system requirements - even with Aero enabled, that are at all that high - it runs fine on laptops with integrated video and the same is true of less costly OEM PC's. Our tests have ranged across a lot of different hardware configurations and in each case, the machines have performed better under Vista than they did XP SP2 - with Aero running just fine on laptops with as little as 64 MB of shared memory.
Memory is cheap, but talk is apparently cheaper... many pundits make a lot of statements - broad ones and they leave out any detail. They talk about Vista and have either little or no actual experience with it and one can easily tell. There's a lot to dislike about any OS and Vista is no exception, but there is a lot to like, too and its memory manager is definitely a highlight.
SuperFetch is the over all term used to begin to describe how memory is managed under Vista - it's smart and becomes smarter quickly. It identifies how a user works, when they work and on what they work. It keeps up with total system resources and how user behaviors and applications impact them. It then adjusts and tunes itself as use progresses.
It also looks for non-volatile memory in both ReadyBoost and hybrid ReadyDrives - with the former being the easiest for any user to access.
It's not just about total physical memory - system, ReadyBoost or otherwise... it is about how SuperFetch works with all memory types at once to provide a good experience and increase productivity. ReadyBoost uses any modern USB,or other, SD, for example, memory to act as a fast cache. For people who have never really used that SD slot on a laptop [myself included], it's an ideal way to add to a system's performance. Vista remembers very well and it looks for this memory - it will use it to increase apps performance, but it will also use it as a super fast user data pre-fetch cache that remains resident. A few minutes after a Vista machine starts its drive becomes quiet - normal enough, but with a large ReadyBoost drive, it remains quiet
and that is the difference. On an older PC that has very little RAM, adding a 1 or 2 GB ReadyBoost drive takes Vista to better than average levels of performance. Build on Vista with a ReadyDrive fitted with NVFLM and lookout - it hauls and becomes more like an appliance. Mark my words, a year from now any enthusiast PC not shipping with a ReadyDirve will be downgraded by the same pundits that have actually done very little beyond Yak at one another.
|
#2 By
3 (62.253.128.15)
at
11/21/2006 12:20:38 PM
|
Our review (hopefully tomorrow!) covers a lot of Memory information, ReadyBoost, memory performance etc so this should be able to give people a bit more information about these items.
|
#3 By
7754 (216.160.8.41)
at
11/21/2006 2:46:21 PM
|
I'm using Vista RC2 on a 512 MB machine, and it's ok if you run just a handful of apps (I've got several RDP sessions, Outlook, Word, and about 20 IE tabs open right now... and it's doing fine--78% memory usage; the video card is not DX9-capable, though, so I'm not running Aero Glass, which would increase the memory usage), but it starts to bog down more quickly than an XP install would on the same machine. I haven't been able to try out a USB stick, because I'd like to get a fairly large one with decent speed before I test it.
Speaking of ReadyBoost, the performance on these USB sticks varies a LOT: http://xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/10usbflash-roundup.html. I wonder if anyone will do any benchmarking not just of the USB sticks, but how different sticks affect the performance of ReadyBoost. In the material I've read/seen about it, the benefit seems to assume a certain level of performance, and some are way below that--not just in pure read/write speed (which is lower than that of most hard drives, still), but also in access time. Some are well below that of hard drives, whereas others are well *above* that of hard drives--most of the Transcend sticks in that review, for example, are showing latencies above 60 ms for read, and 90+ for write.
|
#4 By
23275 (68.17.42.38)
at
11/21/2006 3:03:37 PM
|
#3, Vista does test the memory and there are standards Vista applies.
I reason that for it to be useful, one has to have at least a GB stick that is newer - where typically, one would set about 768 MB for use as ReadyBoost memory.
SuperFetch, opposite memory speed uses seek times as a parameter that is as meaningful as avg. or sustained read/write times - these are of course far higher in a newer memory stick than they are on a hard drive, and why IC based drives in emegring laptop and UMPC systems perform better than models with traditional hard drives. In terms of a content cache, fast seek times matter a great deal - especially when the OS does not have to hit a swap file first. I'd add a 1 GB USB thumbdrive [tough drive makes a really fast one] and work normally - after about five minutes your system would run a lot better.
I have also found that the RTM version of Vista has been a lot snappier on our test systems - so that may be a factor, too.
This post was edited by lketchum on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 15:05.
|
#5 By
7754 (216.160.8.41)
at
11/22/2006 2:30:07 AM
|
lketchum--the USB sticks in that review are all new, though. I would imagine some people might be disappointed if they hope to take advantage of ReadyBoost but end up with one of these. The performance difference is staggering. Thankfully, it tests the gear first to make sure it provides some benefit.
I have also found that the RTM version of Vista has been a lot snappier on our test systems - so that may be a factor, too.
Wait--I thought you said the performance was about the same between RC2 and RTM: http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=37372
Has it varied much from machine to machine?
I was hoping to load up one of those Samsung 32 GB solid-state drives in one of our ThinkPad X41 Tablets, but it's unlikely I'd get approval for that. ;) What an improvement that would be over the stock 1.8" internal drive, though!
|
#6 By
23275 (68.17.42.38)
at
11/22/2006 12:02:58 PM
|
#5, Yes, initially, it was about the same. After loading Office 2007 and configuring and under normal use, the RTM has "felt" snappier and the driver coverage is certainly far better, but that
may be due to Office 2007 in RTM over its B2TR bits.
The OS has proven to be about the same in most tasks on various machines - laptops to strong workstations. In some tasks, beefier hardware does matter - as does ReadyBoost.
For example, a stronger laptop with 2 GB RAM and 2 GB ReadyBoost is more responsive than a strong workstation with 2 GB RAM and no ReadyBoost.
As far as processors and processing, that seems to come down to applications, in terms of how a system feels - smooth, or less smooth. Office 2007 loves RAM - feed it RAM and its fine all over the place. Photoshop CS2 really likes multi-core processors and runs better on Vista with a multi-core proc than it does on XP, or a single core w/HT Vista box.
Network performance is about the same - with one exception, Internet browsing - Vista with ReadyBoost makes that really nice as it appears to cache even dynamic objects better with it than without.
In every case, steady use for about 3 days seems to be what is required to get the best sense of what the OS in any config will do.
Anti-Virus does matter... with Windows Live OneCare hardly being noticed and other BETA suites feeling like wet cement - NIS 2007, for example - just awful.
Sites laoded up with externally provided content, art, animations and advertising can be awful - with the Phishing filter in IE 7 taking a month of Sunday's to process all the remote site content. Actions like printing and network file access are the real up-side on all builds - the new stack and print support can definately be felt in Vista RTM - again, likely better driver support working with the RTM OS.
The best configs - in terms of "smooth" which is the target we build for, have lot's of RAM, and slightly smaller drives [200 - 300 GB] with no RAID level and ReadyBoost. Mid to low end video cards over high end have had no impact under Vista outside games. Large RAID arrays, at least with present drivers, seem to slow a system - even at RAID level zero and ReadyBoost seems to lose its edge - again, these are all subjective evaluations, and we do think that how a system feels to a user is very important.
|
#7 By
1204147 (113.173.119.149)
at
7/8/2013 2:25:09 AM
|
toan voi van
This post was edited by dulich01 on Wednesday, March 19, 2014 at 14:23.
|
#8 By
1107599 (213.170.84.210)
at
4/4/2014 11:15:06 AM
|
ООО «Престиж» осуществляет вывоз мусора в любых объемах по низким ценам и в кратчайшие сроки.
Вывоз мусора в СПб производится различными машинами ,исходя из ваших потребностей.
Работаем за наличный и безналичный расчет.
Заключаем договора, с предоставлением полного комплекта документов на вывоз и утилизацию мусора на полигонах.
Предлагаем вывоз мусора :
Вывоз мусора из квартиры (оценивается индивидуально, услуги грузчиков)
Наша компания всегда готова к взаимовыгодному сотрудничеству.
Рассмотрим ваши пожелания и предложения.
Мы любим свою работу и ценим каждого клиента!
по тел +7(921)921-741-54-58
(812)959-88-19
Наш сайт <a href=http://www.zxcars.ru> http://www.zxcars.ru</a>
|
|
|
|
|