30 Days with Vista @ [H]

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
According to this article, Windows Vista is the main upgrade that's really a downgrade.
Rafe Needleman said:
Vista

The obvious number one product for this list. Vista is the new shiny operating system Microsoft released to replace Windows XP. Except it hasn't, because it's a poor upgrade. It's slower, bigger, and buggier. Many people, not just those in the opportunistic Apple ads (and Apple has its own problems), would rather get a new computer with the old XP operating system.

Why it happened: Books will be written about Vista's failures, which, in fairness, probably have as much to do with Microsoft's need to support a vast universe of third-party hardware and software products as with flaws in Microsoft's marketing and software development strategy.
 

Gorankar

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,465
According to this article, Windows Vista is the main upgrade that's really a downgrade.
The opinion offered in that article has been duly noted, and discarded. For my own needs, my own personal experience with a product trumps whatever is regurgitated out of the mouth of some doof that jumped on the "Vista sucks" bandwagon for page hits.
 

Finn

Gawd
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
888
Wow, this guy is pretty clueless. From his article:


I'm not sure where he is getting his facts from, but if he can't get basic info right, like how many copies of Vista have been sold I'm not going to take him seriously.

According to:http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/ArticleID/97467/97467.html?Ad=1


The 20 million number was from it's first month of sales. The guy simply isn't fact checking and just writing anti-vista FUD to increase the traffic to his articles.
The only reason Vista is spreading like it is, is because MS is forcing every hardware vendor into Vista. Either agree to preinstall Vista on every new machine or lose MS product licensing. Period.

So every new box that you get from the shop comes with Vista preinstalled, doesn't matter if it's underspeced hopelessly or not, it's got Vista on it. Most people wouldn't want Vista on their machines, especially the lower end ones. But they have little choice over it as the forced decision has been made for them.

Sure you can still get XP - if you pay extra and make a special order.

Pretty much like MS response to EU demands, make the N version without embedded mediaplayer etc. Then fanbois scream nobody's buying the N. Well guess what, after removing the mediaplayer etc. they slapped $40 price premium on N versions (instead of dropping the price which was the goal of N version).

So Vista 'success' is as far from truth as can be. It's being sold solely because vendors no longer offer XP. Pure and simple.
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
The opinion offered in that article has been duly noted, and discarded. For my own needs, my own personal experience with a product trumps whatever is regurgitated out of the mouth of some doof that jumped on the "Vista sucks" bandwagon for page hits.
Of course, your opinion about Vista is also just that - an opinion. ;) That's great it's working out so well for you.

I don't have any firsthand opinion since I don't have Vista and wouldn't even consider it until SP1 is officially released and in the field for "a while".
 

Gorankar

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
10,465
Of course, your opinion about Vista is also just that - an opinion. ;) That's great it's working out so well for you.

I don't have any firsthand opinion since I don't have Vista and wouldn't even consider it until SP1 is officially released and in the field for "a while".
I did not actually offer an opinion regarding Vista in the post you quoted. Not one way or the other. :)

I only stated that I prefer my own firsthand experience over someone else's opinion regarding something they may not have even tried. Or that they just heard rumors that something sucks and decided to propagate the the rumor further. That sort of thing seems to be common with Vista. I have just grown exceedingly tired and annoyed with the stupidity, half-truths, and outright lies regarding Vista being spewed out all over the net.

Since, as you said, you have no first hand experience with Vista, comparing our opinions on that would be rather useless. ;)
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
I did not actually offer an opinion regarding Vista in the post you quoted. Not one way or the other. :)

I only stated that I prefer my own firsthand experience over someone else's opinion regarding something they may not have even tried. Or that they just heard rumors that something sucks and decided to propagate the the rumor further. That sort of thing seems to be common with Vista. I have just grown exceedingly tired and annoyed with the stupidity, half-truths, and outright lies regarding Vista being spewed out all over the net.

Since, as you said, you have no first hand experience with Vista, comparing our opinions on that would be rather useless. ;)
I should clarify that I have no firsthand Vista experience on my PC. I used it briefly on some friends' PCs and laptops. It is a very pretty OS, but from the few hours of total time I've had on it, I didn't see it as a significant step-up when taking other factors into account. Also, I know many people who have firsthand exp. of it; some like it and some don't - one good friend calls it "Pissed-a". :D
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
Ironically, next year, Windows XP's SP3 could become a hindrance to Windows Vista (SP1 or not).

Will XP fill need for speed in 2008 better than Vista?

By Jessica Mintz, Associated Press

SEATTLE — Microsoft's Windows XP operating system is about to get faster and Windows Vista isn't, according to a report that caused a stir online this week as industry watchers speculated that a zippier XP could keep customers from upgrading to Vista.

Microsoft, however, said it's too early to evaluate the two service packs it plans to release next year.

Early versions are already in the hands of testers like Devil Mountain Software, which helps big financial services companies track trading-floor computer performance.

Wellington, Fla.-based Devil Mountain Software ran several versions of XP and Vista through a test simulating common desktop computing tasks. It found the original Vista performed 50% to 100% slower than the prevalent XP Service Pack 2, or SP2.

Vista SP1, due out in the first quarter of 2008, barely improved the operating system's performance.

But XP SP3, scheduled for the first half of 2008, did improve on XP's earlier performance, running 10% faster than SP2.

That's a strike against Vista for IT professionals on the fence about switching, according to Craig Barth, the company's chief technology officer.

Kevin Kutz, director of Microsoft's Windows Client group, said the company is working on speeding up tasks like moving files between PCs, but it's a work in progress.

Michael Cherry, an analyst for research group Directions on Microsoft, said it's impossible to say if Microsoft has started tuning Vista SP1 for speed. Even if XP gets faster, consumers and businesses may still switch to Vista.

"It might be an acceptable thing to me if it were slightly slower but more stable," Cherry said.

Benjamin Gray, an analyst for Forrester Research, said businesses will upgrade to Vista regardless, to "stay current with Microsoft's support life cycle."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
Source: Virginian - Pilot
Publication date: 2007-12-03

XP vs. VISTA

XP is faster than Vista and getting faster, according to a new report on the Microsoft Windows operating systems.

Devil Mountain Software, a Florida company that tracks computer performance for financial service companies, found that Vista performed 50 to 100 percent slower than the prevalent XP Service Pack 2.

The company also got its hands on early versions of the new Service Packs due out next year for both operating systems. The result? Vista Service Pack 1 barely improved performance, while XP Service Pack 3 ran about 10 percent faster than the XP SP2 .

That's not good news for the not-yet-year-old Vista, but Microsoft said it's too early to evaluate the two service packs.
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
So, why two posts mentioning the same "officebench" test?


The mentioned differences are in specific scripts designed by Devil Mountain software and as far as anyone can tell so far, was done on Virtual machines and not standalone OS installs.

Get back to me when there are real tests with actual testing methods reported and details listed. How about some other types of performance tests as well. Something more than just scripts run under office that 90% of all PC users would never actualy come close to. Nor does it seem to be a practical test of performance since the scripts being run are emulating tasks that no human would ever be doing so quickly.

Let's compare real world stuff. How fast does it encode audio/video, how fast does it perform photoshop tasks, how fast does it handle CAD/CAM jobs functions, how fast does it handle games, how fast does it handle office macro's and tasks on large documents? Any efforts to declare a victor between xp and vista based on this officebench script is just meaningless.

Here is a video of Vista running the officebench script in question. http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&vid=bfa15f1d-b232-4177-b558-0e70b434701c
It shows why I say the scripts are running tasks that no human would ever be running at that speed and why I'd like to see real world usefull performance comparisons.
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
^ I'm just reporting Vista news. Speaking of Vista news, this surprises me. :eek:


Microsoft Softens Attack on Piracy
Source: Deseret News (Salt Lake City)
Publication date: 2007-12-04

By Associated Press

SEATTLE -- Microsoft Corp. is pulling back from a system that disables programs on users' computers if it suspects the software is pirated, opting instead for a gentler approach based on nagging alerts.

Microsoft said late Monday it will roll out the new version of Windows Genuine Advantage with the first "service pack" for Windows Vista, due in the first quarter of 2008.

In the new version, PC users found to have a pirated copy of Vista will continue to be able to use their computers but with unmistakable signs their operating system is a fake. The desktop wallpaper will turn black, and a white notice will appear alerting users to the problem. Each time they log in, they will be prompted to buy legitimate software, and every hour, a reminder bubble will appear on the screen.

(c) 2007 Deseret News (Salt Lake City). Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.

Edit: Here's a more detailed article from ZDNet.
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
Check out the following article:
Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked

For those who don't want to read the thorough 6-page article (including detailed testing results), I've copied and pasted the conclusion for your convenience.

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes said:
Looking at the data there’s only one conclusion that can be drawn - Windows XP SP2 is faster than Windows Vista SP1. End of story. Out of the fifteen tests carried out, XP SP2 beat Vista SP1 in eleven, Vista SP1 beat XP SP2 in two of the tests, and two of the tests resulted in a draw.
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
Check out the following article:
Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked

For those who don't want to read the thorough 6-page article (including detailed testing results), I've copied and pasted the conclusion for your convenience.
There is one part that's worth stressing...

What I did was simple. I took out the boot drive and found two identical 250GB drives. I fitted one, installed Vista Ultimate 32-bit, set up the system and got it up and running. Then I took out that drive and replaced it with the second drive, installed Windows XP SP2 onto this one and got this OS up and running. Both systems are fresh and have all the latest drivers installed.
The nature of Vista's self tuning means that it's going to be at a disadvantage in this test. Vista is at its slowest when it's newly installed. It takes a week or two of regular use before it finishes all its self optimizing and tuning. Until it has done this it is noticably slower than it would normally be.

I would be more interested to see the benchmarks of two identicle systems, one Vista one XP , and see what the performance on both machines are like after 1 week, one month and 6 months of regular daily use on both.
 

Vashypooh

2[H]4U
Joined
May 25, 2006
Messages
2,422
Also worth noting is their horrible methodology of not using a medium for their Zip testing. The vista zip handler and XP is vastly different. They should have used winrar or another commonly used medium. Their results are flawed.
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
Also worth noting is their horrible methodology of not using a medium for their Zip testing. The vista zip handler and XP is vastly different. They should have used winrar or another commonly used medium. Their results are flawed.
But how many people (outside us [H]ardcore enthusiasts) use WinRar or WinZip instead of whatever compression mechanism is provided with the OS? Heck, how many people even bother installing an alternate browser, such as Firefox or Opera?

I'd be curious to see how the tests would change when XP SP3 is finally out.
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
Taking Windows XP out of the occasion, a benchmark test was conducted to compare Vista 32-bit and Vista 64-bit for both RTM and SP1 versions. Here's that article, some of which copied and pasted below.

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes said:
...

Conclusions

The results from this set of benchmark runs have turned out to be quite clear. Let me summarize the results here:

* SP1 causes a drop in PassMark Performance ratings on both Vista 32-bit and Vista 64-bit.
* The drop in the PassMark Performance ratings is greater for 64-bit Vista than it is for 32-bit Vista.
* However, both RTM and SP1 versions of Windows Vista 64-bit show a much higher PassMark Performance rating Windows Vista 32-bit.
* Boot times for Vista 64-bit are longer than Vista 32-bit.

Later I hope to see which platform delivers the best frame rates in some of my favorite games.
 

Unit44

n00b
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
46
I really don't want to wait up to two weeks for my OS to "learn" and "tune" it's self to be as fast as it can be - the fact that it has to "learn" was all I needed to hear - that shows me more bloat that is unneeded in a OS....:(
 

TheRapture

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,871
I really don't want to wait up to two weeks for my OS to "learn" and "tune" it's self to be as fast as it can be - the fact that it has to "learn" was all I needed to hear - that shows me more bloat that is unneeded in a OS....:(

So you'd rather it stay a little less fast and not use your ram to make the OS better? Yeah, that's smart...by your reasoning, you should just go back to Windows 98.

*sigh* another misinformed, ignorant post....:rolleyes:
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
3,244
I really don't want to wait up to two weeks for my OS to "learn" and "tune" it's self to be as fast as it can be - the fact that it has to "learn" was all I needed to hear - that shows me more bloat that is unneeded in a OS....:(
Are you going to kill your kid because when he's born, he's not as smart as he's going to be in two years? :p

I kid, I kid... I couldn't resist, sorry. :)
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
I really don't want to wait up to two weeks for my OS to "learn" and "tune" it's self to be as fast as it can be - the fact that it has to "learn" was all I needed to hear - that shows me more bloat that is unneeded in a OS....:(
So you would rather have your machine get slower as it ages rather than have a week or two break in period? That's one of the biggest differences between XP and Vista.
 

rhexis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
1,171
I really don't want to wait up to two weeks for my OS to "learn" and "tune" it's self to be as fast as it can be - the fact that it has to "learn" was all I needed to hear - that shows me more bloat that is unneeded in a OS....:(
im guessing this wasnt a facetious post and you are actually serious. if so wow you should be in the noob hall of fame in boise, idaho.
 

Unit44

n00b
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
46
Woww ..... a bunch of Vista fan boys here I see.......:( I have a copy of vista Ult and tried it on my main gaming rig for two months when it came out last year, got tired of waiting for drivers for printer, soundcard, and my gaming keyboard so I switched back. (a few of my games would not play on vista too) All I was saying is I don't see any benefits to loading vista again, it looked nicer but thats the only thing I saw that was better, I guess I'm not as bitter as some HERE that shelled out money for a new OS that does not have any real world tangible benefits and call other noobs to make themselves feel better about pounding it out over vista...... an operating system......... I spent my cash and learned, I may even give it another go when SP2 comes out - until then flame on :)
 

TheRapture

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,871
Woww ..... a bunch of Vista fan boys here I see.......:( I have a copy of vista Ult and tried it on my main gaming rig for two months when it came out last year, got tired of waiting for drivers for printer, soundcard, and my gaming keyboard so I switched back. (a few of my games would not play on vista too) , it looked nicer but thats the only thing I saw that was better, I guess I'm not as bitter as some HERE that shelled out money for a new OS that does not have any real world tangible benefits and call other noobs to make themselves feel better about pounding it out over vista...... an operating system......... I spent my cash and learned, I may even give it another go when SP2 comes out - until then flame on :)

I got my copy, FREE, from MS, for being on the beta team, so price was not an issue....I also researched my hardware, to make sure it was supported, before I went Vista full time. Don't blame Vista for your ignorance.

If you think Vista is just prettier, you truly are noobish and have no idea what is really different "under the hood".

People like you, that have not a clue, are the ones that give n00bs a bad name here, so why don't you stop being obtuse and actually try to learn something, and contribute instead of making bland, ignorant, misinformed statements.
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
When my friends ask me which OS to select for a new computer (Dell, HP, etc.), I tell them XP Pro. I said Vista is just fine, but if they want my free tech support (maybe I should start charging, LOL), I only support XP. That is usually a pretty big influence on their decisions. ;)
 

Unit44

n00b
Joined
Jul 12, 2004
Messages
46
I got my copy, FREE, from MS, for being on the beta team, so price was not an issue....I also researched my hardware, to make sure it was supported, before I went Vista full time. Don't blame Vista for your ignorance.

If you think Vista is just prettier, you truly are noobish and have no idea what is really different "under the hood".

People like you, that have not a clue, are the ones that give n00bs a bad name here, so why don't you stop being obtuse and actually try to learn something, and contribute instead of making bland, ignorant, misinformed statements.
WOW.... misinformed....... now you can judge my experience with vista sitting in your chair..... you truly are a geek god.... and I am just a noob....... however we still have a lot of vista fanboi rage here don't we.......
Oh I am a MS beta tester too..... have been for 12.5 years..... however I have never beta tested a OS...... since I feel we get to do enough of that after the final release of each version anyway :D
Kinda like the early adopters are doing right now......:confused:
All my hardware was current and worked with XP......mmmmm..... but I guess it's my job to make sure it will work with vista..... if ya got to do that why not run a variant of Linux....:confused:
:D
 

odoe

Madministrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 10, 2001
Messages
9,746
You folks need to stop jumping down peoples throats for their opinions.
It's a valid opinion and one that you see voiced quite a bit in this forum. The "break-in" period can be a real headache for some people. Maybe it pays off, but don't pounce on people that don't like it.
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
Changing gears here, what do people think about SP1? Good, bad, or indifferent compared to the RTM version of Vista?
 

VolvoR

Gawd
Joined
Jan 28, 2004
Messages
878
Ok, here are my two cents.

I've had Vista since a couple of weeks after it's initial retail release. My friends made fun of me, saying I was in for a [H]ard time, (LOL)... And I was...drivers were an issue, and some of my favorite little pieces of software didn't work properly. That was only for a couple of months though.

Now, I go to a pc running XP and it just feels "old" somehow. Something's missing. It's not as slick or intuitive. I know that Vista uses more RAM and CPU power to run, but let's face it, if you can't afford the $30 for an extra gig of ram, you probably shouldn't have shelled out the dough for Vista in the first place.

As of right now, there is no reason not to use Vista, except the financial aspect of it. If you can afford it, use it. It's amazing and the driver issues have all (afaik) been resolved.

As for Vista not being ready for Prime Time...why not?
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
^ Volvo, unfortunately, some RAM costs a lot more than $30. Yes, I'm referring to DDR. I'm a Socket 939 hold-out. I do have 2x1 GB, so I think in theory, that should be enough to run Vista w/o sacrificing other apps. I thought about "upgrading" to Vista 64-bit, but so far I don't see a compelling reason to part w/ a C note and then some.
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
While this article is not about Windows Vista, it is as a result of Vista.

Users petition to keep Windows XP

...

No matter how hard Microsoft works to persuade people to embrace Vista, some just can't be wowed. They complain about Vista's hefty hardware requirements, its less-than-peppy performance, occasional incompatibility with other programs and devices and frequent, irritating security pop-up windows.

For them, the impending disappearance of XP computers from retailers, and the phased withdrawal of technical support in coming years, is causing a minor panic.

...
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
It's also old news. That petition started back in January and was written about then as well. 4 month old news. Frankly it's just IDG trying to drive more views to their site and using the AP to do so. The cynic may also note that IDG is the company that runs the Macworld and Linuxworld conferences.
 

TheRapture

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,871
While this article is not about Windows Vista, it is as a result of Vista.

Users petition to keep Windows XP

Blah blah blah blah, and more blah :rolleyes:...the same stuff was said about XP when it came out vs. Win2k...the same thing was said about Win2k when it came out vs. Win98SE....it's all bullshit. In 2 years Vista will be the best thing since cold beer and all of the XP whiners will start whining about Windows 7 or whatever....
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
Blah blah blah blah, and more blah :rolleyes:...the same stuff was said about XP when it came out vs. Win2k...the same thing was said about Win2k when it came out vs. Win98SE....it's all bullshit. In 2 years Vista will be the best thing since cold beer and all of the XP whiners will start whining about Windows 7 or whatever....
I had to LOL at the part of the article that said, "But you'd never confuse a Windows user with the passionate fans of Mac OS X or even the free Linux operating system." :D

In any case, while people were always whining when a new OS came out and a preceding one was going to be put to rest, I never heard it more passionately as I do now w/ XP vs. Vista. Remember, XP was just 2k w/ some window dressing and "home user" appeal, whereas 2k was marketed for the NT crowed (i.e. businesses).
 

TheRapture

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
May 31, 2000
Messages
6,871
When Win2k came out, I dual booted with Win98SE for a couple months, 98 being for my games and Win2k for everything else. As soon as vid card drivers were out for Win2k that performed closely, Win98 got the drop kick like a yapping shit dog....:)

But I had the advantage of being on every MS OS Beta team since Win2k was a beta build...so I knew what was coming. I had been dual booting since the Win2k days, and was running Vista back when it was called another name....those early days were bad, bad....
 

beowulf7

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,431
When Win2k came out, I dual booted with Win98SE for a couple months, 98 being for my games and Win2k for everything else. As soon as vid card drivers were out for Win2k that performed closely, Win98 got the drop kick like a yapping shit dog....:)

But I had the advantage of being on every MS OS Beta team since Win2k was a beta build...so I knew what was coming. I had been dual booting since the Win2k days, and was running Vista back when it was called another name....those early days were bad, bad....
Vista was called Longhorn back then. Fans of University of Texas often still refer to this new OS as Windows Longhorn. (The Longhorns is the nickname of the U. of TX.)
 

KamuiRSX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
207
Vista was called Longhorn back then. Fans of University of Texas often still refer to this new OS as Windows Longhorn. (The Longhorns is the nickname of the U. of TX.)
Longhorn is now the name for Server 2008. I guess MS didn't want to scrap the name. Also for those that didn't know, XP was actually a 2nd choice by MS. Originally, they were going to release Windows Neptune but scrapped it and built XP. I just wonder if they'll ever finish Neptune. I got the last beta copy they released and would actually like to see it completed one day.

I hated Vista at first and I still do because of the licensing agreement. I mean has anyone ever read it. You're basically stating MS can do whatever they want and you don't actually own the copy of Vista that you purchased, it's in essence, leased to you by MS.
 
Top