| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
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 |
 |
Why You Don't Need Vista Now | |
|
||
| Time: 11:24 EST/16:24 GMT | News Source: Wired | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Windows Vista will have a major impact on the personal computing experience of millions of users worldwide during the coming years, but that doesn't mean Microsoft's latest operating system is a killer product, nor something you necessarily need or want. Wired News recently obtained a copy of the final RTM, or Release to Manufacturing, build of Windows Vista Ultimate from Microsoft. This edition of the operating system is the most powerful and advanced of the four editions Microsoft will make widely available Jan. 30, 2007. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 243 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:22:09 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 12/13/2006 11:46:59 AM |
| nonsense. we are all buying it in 2007. We might as well just admit it. |
| #2 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 12/13/2006 12:04:06 PM |
|
Hmmmmm... he's skilled enough to leverage multiple OSes; skilled enough to leverage the Linuces to the point that Windows operating systems are irrelevant in every way to him... BUT
He can't figure out how to leverage Logitech's MP camera version drivers to make older PTZ based cameras work under Vista... <yes, Virginia, one can do that...> Really...? I think he's not very skilled at all and not qaulified to offer a meaningful review of Vista - much less whether one should or should not consider moving to it. The facts are that everything that was possible in XP is now much easier, faster, more reliable and less likely to be exploited in Vista - most especially as regards digital entertainment and the integration thereof. Now, I don't base my opinion about this on one shred of science at all... but upon one very evident example... my own home. Since Vista's availability in RC2 and certainly RTM, my internal, in-house support of a very busy batch of teens has been cut to nill. The two test stations we have running Vista, alongside Xbox 360 and all other connected systems and devices has been a very welcome change. Things that were "possible" before are now, "easy" and simply work - all the time. This post was edited by lketchum on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 12:09. |
| #3 By 61 (72.64.142.151) at 12/13/2006 12:37:33 PM |
|
#2, NOTHING in Vista is faster.
Disk writes are HORRENDOUS, hell, even unzipping a file using the built-in tool gets about 250bytes/sec (and that is a high number, actually). Network performance is mediocre at best, UI isn't as snappy (yet, anyway), a lot of work still needs to be done on Vista. |
| #4 By 53078 (72.252.15.246) at 12/13/2006 12:45:57 PM |
|
i dont know what your talking about #3 ... from what i can tell i've noticed a small increase in network performance, my UI with my 6600gt card works great, and my ui is the same if not a bit faster... the instant search speeds things drasticaly up... and i dont know what kinda crapy pc you are using but when i unzip files i get a hella lot more than 250bytes per second its about average for even xp standalone utilities....
copying and moving files since rc2 has been perfect... what are you on beta 1 ? rc1? cause you really dont know what your talking about.. and then theirs the #1 feature in a YEAR of using vista i have yet to have a SINGLE virus or spyware make it onto my pc... and thats without an antivirus installed. |
| #5 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 12/13/2006 1:17:34 PM |
|
#3, Yikes, sounds like you've had a rough Vista test experience. How much RAM are you using?
I'd definately try the RTM, if you have not and if you are using the RTM, share some details about the setup and environment. I sure noted what you are speaking to in BETA2 and into pre-RC1. By RC2 things were looking quite good and RTM has been great. Now, grant it, our RTM builds have been on relatively new hardware - about two years old, with 2 GB RAM in each case [one laptop and one custom WMC box]. I specifically set up two groups - one in a WG parallel to our home domain [W2K3]. Interop has been flawless and even very large MS DVR recordings have moved around butter smooth and very fast - far faster than in XP SP2 [in both directions - say from an older MCE 2005 box back to the WMC system, or from the latop all around the NW. I do use great GB switching, but not crazy [layer II with support for jumbo frames]. All systems XP system run Panda with network secure and the Vista boxes run WLOC BETA 1.5 None are Core 2 Duo - Pent D on one and P4 w/HT in the laptop - nothing really special. Video is 6600 series GT w/256 MB on the WMC and X600 128 MB on the test laptop. ***Also, I hardly see any HDD drive activity at all - even on the laptop - after boot, Vista's memory manager has used the RAM and system cache really well - so it's been light on the drives unless one is moving large files. Day to day email and web hardly touch either system and each has sustained a perfect 10.0 reliability rating since installed in Nov - despite very aggressive testing of different SW and HW additions and deletions. The Zune SW is on a really old P4 3.06, but its integration with the 360 has been great. |
| #6 By 2332 (66.92.78.241) at 12/13/2006 2:13:18 PM |
|
I must say, my experience with Vista RTM has been 95% great.
I've been running it on my IBM T42P laptop (about 3 years old), which has 1.8Ghz / 1GB RAM / 128MB graphics, and it's been significantly more responsive than XP on that same machine. While I haven't run any benchmarks, everything just "feels" a lot faster. I have run into a few bugs (see my blog post here: http://www.robertdowney.com/2006/11/my-first-windows-vista-rtm-bug.html), but they have been minor. |
| #7 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 12/13/2006 2:59:32 PM |
|
RMD is a godless heathen.
;-) |
| #8 By 2332 (66.92.78.241) at 12/13/2006 3:19:55 PM |
| Praise Jebus. ;) |
| #9 By 3 (62.253.128.14) at 12/13/2006 3:20:04 PM |
| #3 - sounds like you've had more problems than most people. My experience on 3 different vista machine has been great from a 3000+ AMD to a 5200+ i'm using now. 1GB to 4 GB Ram etc, all great. The UI is excellent and for me personally on my graphics card its as fast as XP if not faster. Disk wites have been fine here too. Only let down has been the amount of problems ive seen in some games, but that is mostly sound a 3d problems that are fixed with each driver update. |
| #10 By 2459 (69.22.124.202) at 12/13/2006 3:21:52 PM |
| RMD, I'd have to look into it further, but your Notepad2 issue may have something to do with the redirection of writes to the Program Files directory. |
| #11 By 61 (72.64.142.151) at 12/13/2006 3:24:03 PM |
|
I am using RTM and am an official beta tester and will tell you right now that all of the things I've mentioned are all problems that many other people are having.
7Zip runs great on Vista, unzips files of just about any size nearly instantly, but the Explorer zip util. is just 10x worse than XP's (which was slow enough, as compared to other products). I didn't say the GUI was bad, but it is not nearly as snappy (don't believe me? Stick a fresh install of XP or 2000 on your computer, there is a HUGE difference). Hell, Vista with no apps running at all takes 500-600+mb of RAM. I am not saying I don't like Vista, I enjoy the UI changes, I enjoy the composited desktop, etc... but saying that Vista is faster is just an outright lie (or perhaps you forgot how fast XP or 2000 was). BTW, AthlonXP 2800+ on Asus A7N8x-E Deluxe (nForce2) 1.5gb CorsairXMS Geforce 6800 |
| #12 By 3 (62.253.128.14) at 12/13/2006 3:52:18 PM |
|
I'm using Windows XP and Windows Vista side by side, XP on the 5000+ and Vista on the 5200+ both with 2GB Ram, Vista is faster at doing its tasks, yeah it uses up more memory, but as a beta tester you should know it makes far, far better use of that memory than XP ever did. It's not outright lie that it runs faster on some peoples machines. On mine it does. It's a shame if it isn't for everyone.
I will agree that the explorer zip is awful though, very slow. Which is why I don't use it. |
| #13 By 2459 (69.22.124.202) at 12/13/2006 3:55:30 PM |
|
RMD, it turns out it was an ACL issue. The fix is the following:
Open the properties of the folder you created in Program Files for Notepad2. Go to the Security tab of that folder and temporarily give the Users group Modify permissions, which also enables Write permissions. Apply/OK out of that properties dialog. Right-click the Notepad2 executable in that directory, and open its properties dialog. Click the Unblock button on the General tab, press Apply, then OK to exit the dialog. Execute Notepad2 to make sure the settings applied. Go back to the properties dialog for the folder and remove the Modify and Write permissions from the Users group. Notepad2 should still execute without the code signing dialog displaying. Note: I performed this test on Windows Vista Ultimate x64 with a folder called Notepad2 that I placed in the Program Files (x86) folder. |
| #14 By 2332 (66.92.78.241) at 12/13/2006 3:58:10 PM |
|
#11 - "Hell, Vista with no apps running at all takes 500-600+mb of RAM."
You can't judge memory usage in Vista by what Task Manager says. Vista will use more memory on some machines than others. It's all based on how much RAM you have installed. For instance, on a machine with 512MB of ram, Vista only uses about 230MB on startup. On a machine with 2GB, it uses 700MB+. Furthermore, it will give up memory when there is memory pressure. #13 - I know what the solution is... I wrote about it in my blog post. :) |
| #15 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 12/13/2006 4:02:28 PM |
|
#11, I can't comment in your case, because we don't build on AMD, or its compatible boards - so I have zero experience with XP, or Vista on that kind of platform.
We do however hand build many machines each week and I work on many of them - all XP SP2 Pro, or MCE2005. While we have great images, we also hand test each and I inspect them across a great many customizations. Each of them, our base builds, exceed any specs I have running test Vista machines and just from my personal experience, Vista is faster. One thought I would have would be your RAM - not the amount, but how is it matched in your board? Looks like you have one 1 GB stick and a 512 MB stick. I'd try two modules of the same exact specifications and place them according to your MB manufacturer's recommended and optimal slots. Since that board only has three DIMM slots, I'd use the two matched for optimal performance. Memory should be really inexpensive, since the board only supports, Max. 3 GB unbuffered PC3200/PC2700/PC2100/PC1600 non-ECC DDR RAM - making DDR 400 about the best one could get. 2 x 512 would be pretty easy to find. |
| #16 By 2459 (69.22.124.202) at 12/13/2006 4:09:37 PM |
|
doh, I misread the post the first time through - sorry.
The bug is the Unblock button (and the "Always ask..." checkbox) not prompting for elevation for standard users. |
| #17 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 12/13/2006 4:15:57 PM |
|
I love the arguments that vista "consumes more ram"
The "wet thumb in the air" test you're doing, comparatively speaking, doesn't really match up. I could cite several examples (SQL, Exchange, etc) that use a similar memory management scheme, and all have proven track records of speed and efficiency -- basically: it's easier to release memory than to reload (from SLOW DISK) things that you repetitively need, on demand. Think outside the box a bit; adding up memory consumed is not the only way to judge performance or efficiency. This post was edited by mram on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 at 16:16. |
| #18 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 12/13/2006 4:18:26 PM |
|
guys,
i personally have to agree with RMD. i did a clean install of xp and vista rc2 on the same machine - pentium m 1.9ghz, 1 gig of ram and a raptor hd and the performance of xp is clearly superior in every way. is xp prettier? no. is xp as functional? yes. is xp less secure? to soon to tell. but vista is clearly not as fast on my machine comparing apples to apples (no pun intended). |
| #19 By 3 (62.253.128.14) at 12/13/2006 4:38:07 PM |
| #17 - praise be, a good post! |
| #20 By 3 (62.253.128.14) at 12/13/2006 4:38:50 PM |
| #18 - I think RMD said Vista was faster! |
| #21 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 12/13/2006 5:43:39 PM |
|
"NOTHING in Vista is faster."
My experience is that Vista RC2 is faster than a fresh install of XP on the same box. I had to bounce back and forth a bit, and I won't go back to XP if I can help it. |
| #22 By 48398 (130.13.156.190) at 12/13/2006 5:52:03 PM |
| CPUGuy an official beta tester? How many bugs did you submit? |
| #23 By 53078 (72.252.15.246) at 12/13/2006 9:01:06 PM |
|
500mb of ram eh cpu guy... lets see im at home on an old rc2 build here ... and guess what with my ie open and 5 tabs, utorrent running... wmplayer playing a divx file .... and ... im using 320mb of ram .. hell this PC only has 512mb of ram ... and i have Aero forced started even though my pc doesnt meat the requirements.
and guess what my pc is extremely efficient and is responding perfectly, no slow downs, barely any disk thrashing (except from utorrent but thats in xp as well) If your having issues your having driver issues end of story! And great if your a beta tester, so am i for alot of programs including vista and i know it WAS buggy hell i submitted 50-100 bugs for rc1-rc2 , the fact is you saying xp is faster than vista is just BS or in most cases its BS as you can see from most of these posts... and how i can see from looking at 5 of my PC's i test vista on |
| #24 By 61 (72.64.142.151) at 12/13/2006 9:59:56 PM |
|
First, Ik, haveing non-matched pairs of RAM will NOT EVER do that.
Secon, I have a matched pair (packaged and sold as such) of 512mb and a third 512mb stick in the 3rd slot (only 3 slots on the motherboard). Crand, if it gave me an actual bug count, I might actually think about telling you, but it doesn't, and I don't see how that's any of your business. Been beta testing for MS since about '99 or so. mram: I didn't say anything about performance and how much RAM is taken up as being connected. However, when I play WoW (Which sucks down about 400-500mb of RAM) I don't want to be pageing to disk because Vista is using it. Absolutely insane the number of people on here that are absolutely one-sided. People that have been on this site awhile now know that I post mostly things that are debunking crap that other people have said about MS, or Windows, etc... that I personally know to be untrue. But some of you people are absolutely rediculous. cchance: Yes, there are driver issues, hell, I put up with them every day (crappy nVidia drivers, anyone?). But even a good driver doesn't make up for the fact that Vista is chewing up my RAM that I would like to have for other apps. It doesn't change the fact that other people, even in the beta program, are having the same exact issues that I detailed here. I still claim BS to anyone that says that Vista is snappier than XP or 2000. |
| #25 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 12/13/2006 10:22:18 PM |
|
#24, What I was looking to is if you had a matched pair at say, PC3200, or DDRII 400 in the colored slots [blue, or yellow], in your case and another off-speed DIMM in the black slot nearest the CPU. If that third DIMM was slower, say PC2100, then yes, it would throttle all RAM to the lower speed and impact performance. Here's what I would try - remove the third DIMM and make sure the matched DIMMS are in the two colored slots. Set your system swap file to "Systems Managed" vice a default 2 x over RAM. Next, if you have a high-speed USB 2.0 port on that board, install a 2 GB USB Thumb drive to it and set it to use Vista's ReadyBoost. Vista's SuperFetch memory manager will use it as a cache [not just as more RAM], but an intelligent cache. Reboot the box and use it normally for a few days. SuperFetch will pick up on how you use the machine. These things may help speed the system up, and as is likely so, you've tried these things, let us know and maybe others who are having similar performance issues can share what they are seeing and what their configurations are.
Curious, what kind of drive set up do you have? |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 243 Last | Next |
The time now is
12:22:09 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
