LOLs Money Well Spent

W

Wrench00

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2003
Messages
3,423
Well I got Windows Vista Ultimate. It was so fancy and all. Loved it.. Speed was nice.. But guess what, it wasn't fast enough..


Disabled Aero (also got sick of my xtx1900 kicking in full speed in the middle of the night). Turned of my background, Theme Windows Clasic.. Windows 2000 Taskbar..... 1 Icon on my desktop and a blue desktop..


WOOT I got Windows 2000 the 2007 Version Yeppie..

The only thing I kept is the side bar.. Which only monitors my system performance..

Hehehe Rather pathetic isn't it.. I should have stayed on winxp 64 at least it crashed less.. :( Well Video Drivers any way...
 
I don't know about everyone else but Vista seems more snappy to me (in comparison to XP). The only thing that is noticeably slower is boot time, and that I can live with.
 
fair enough....

one thing i dont understand is: many, many tests have shown that the Aero interface is as fast as the classic one when run with semi-decent hardware....
 
Its not Aero necessarily that is the problem, but the memory requirements in general. Windows is caching things now great! But it shouldn't require twice as much memory just to get the same amount of work done. Thats what I saw, to get the same level of performance as xp I needed at least twice as much memory. Caching aside, that is not an improvement in my mind. Now if I had stock in Kingston or something like that, I would be like this is glorius!! however that is not the case.
 
Vista is plenty fast enough for me using a 7900GT, 2gb ram and single core 3500+ cpu. I'm also finding browsing with IE7 in Vista faster than Firefox in XP too. What I don't like is that Vista is causing my fan on the vid card to run at full speed. My 7900GT raises the rpm on the fan when it detects 3D, which is a bit on the noisy side for my liking.
 
Wrench00 said:
Theme Windows Clasic..
Click to expand...

Aero will give you better performance since the most of your GUI tasks will be handled by your GPU instead of your CPU.

(also, on my 8800GTS, the fan doesn't spin up from the standard speed unless I'm playing a 3D game; Desktop usage doesn't seem to generate enough load to cause the fan to speed up)
 
Must be the way my card is designed then because when I start up my TV tuner in XP the fan speeds up then too and that's not even 3D. The card thinks it is for some reason. it goes back to idle speed after about one minute though. It's an EVGA 7900GT KO. Could be the fact my card is factory overclocked that is causing it.
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
fair enough....

one thing i dont understand is: many, many tests have shown that the Aero interface is as fast as the classic one when run with semi-decent hardware....
Click to expand...


Thats far from the truth.. Use any CAD/CAM application and you will see its not true at all.

Maya is at a crawl when I use aero. My port views become a not so funny slideshow..

I also mentioned I hate it when my 1900xtx kicks in full gear in the middle of the night.. It wakes me up.

Its my right to buy any os and If I don't want the feature I will disable it or uninstall it all together...
 
FiZ said:
I don't know about everyone else but Vista seems more snappy to me (in comparison to XP). The only thing that is noticeably slower is boot time, and that I can live with.
Click to expand...

It probably is "snappier" since Vista finally enters the age of ACTUALLY using yr RAM rather then flushing it
 
Wrench00 said:
Thats far from the truth.. Use any CAD/CAM application and you will see its not true at all.

Maya is at a crawl when I use aero. My port views become a not so funny slideshow..

I also mentioned I hate it when my 1900xtx kicks in full gear in the middle of the night.. It wakes me up.

Its my right to buy any os and If I don't want the feature I will disable it or uninstall it all together...
Click to expand...

Exactly! I run CAD softare and the whole Aero thing (as well as greater overhead) is putting me off upgrading to Vista
 
My main problem with aero was all the fancy animations. I don't like to wait, and I know it probably sounds crazy but those milliseconds when an animation is going on drive me nuts.

Right now I'm running aero with zero animations (on XP I was running windows classic) and it's running great.
 
eeyrjmr said:
Exactly! I run CAD softare and the whole Aero thing (as well as greater overhead) is putting me off upgrading to Vista
Click to expand...

CTRL+SHIFT+F9 to turn off Aero.

CTRL+SHIFT+F9 again to turn it back on.

edit: on second glance, it appears they changed the keyboard shortcut in Vista RTM. I'll update when I find out what it is.
 
calebb said:
CTRL+SHIFT+F9 to turn off Aero.

CTRL+SHIFT+F9 again to turn it back on.

edit: on second glance, it appears they changed the keyboard shortcut in Vista RTM. I'll update when I find out what it is.
Click to expand...

That only sorts out the GFX lag in CAD, still got the overhead which slows sim's down with Vista (will stop here, don't want to turn this into a Vista great/crap thread)
 
eeyrjmr said:
That only sorts out the GFX lag in CAD, still got the overhead which slows sim's down with Vista (will stop here, don't want to turn this into a Vista great/crap thread)
Click to expand...

Interesting. However, any increase in overhead due to Vista cannot be the only factor in the simulation slowdowns you are experiencing. My guess would be that the simulations are offloading some computations to your GPU - and Vista GPU drivers are definitely not ready for prime time yet.

Molecular Modeling calculations (ab initio, 6-31G*, Gaussian 98 - very FPU intensive) are actually faster in Vista than WinXP on the same hardware. If there was some sort of overhead effect in play, we would see a similar slowdown with these calculations.
 
FiZ said:
I don't know about everyone else but Vista seems more snappy to me (in comparison to XP). The only thing that is noticeably slower is boot time, and that I can live with.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. Not much faster but definately no slower.
 
Not sure if you guys trust toms but here is a good link about vista 3d application performance

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page6.html


They do really need to fix the drivers for opengl. They are horific.. Crash all the time. Otherwise I would say that Mental Ray is slightly faster then winxp 32 even 64... I am running 64 bit mental ray there is a nice performance increase.
 
The only real problem with that article, Wrench, is that it's based upon a ridiculous premise. Anybody with half a microgram of common sense would know that you don't run tests on a single system, using initial release, unmatured device drivers, and then draw general conclusions about performance potential of a new OS version.

Of course 'enthusiasts' aren't going to run to it yet for enhanced performance.

Hell, Nvidia are openly stating that benchtests of their hardware should be run under XP just yet. ATi are too busy trying to score brownie points over being 'ready' before Nvidia to be as honest and open as that. Why would an 'enthusiast' try to maximise performance by moving to Vista just yet? The move to Vista is for other reasons at this point in time.

These type of articles basically only get written to fill page space, and to generate pay checks for the people writing them!
 
Lol guys, Vista is newer software that can do more than XP. Naturally, this means it is going to require more power to run.

Windows XP is slower than Windows 95 if I run it on my Pentium Pro with 64MB of RAM.

Moreover, it is going to take some time for hardware to catch up with Vista. When I first got XP, I too had to disable all the extra fluff to get it to run fast enough. Now, however, I can run with every visual option enabled and not notice any speed reduction at all.

Just be patient. As with every OS release, Vista will soon be used to its full potential by future hardware.
 
Well said.

To be quite honest, Vista is surprisingly well performed on recent systems, and most people who aren't running a complete clunker will at worst only need to add a bit more RAM to get it running smoothly. XP introduced fancy features and an accompanying performance overhead. Vista introduces more 'pretties' which don't carry that overhead.
 
Catweazle said:
The only real problem with that article, Wrench, is that it's based upon a ridiculous premise. Anybody with half a microgram of common sense would know that you don't run tests on a single system, using initial release, unmatured device drivers, and then draw general conclusions about performance potential of a new OS version.

Of course 'enthusiasts' aren't going to run to it yet for enhanced performance.

Hell, Nvidia are openly stating that benchtests of their hardware should be run under XP just yet. ATi are too busy trying to score brownie points over being 'ready' before Nvidia to be as honest and open as that. Why would an 'enthusiast' try to maximise performance by moving to Vista just yet? The move to Vista is for other reasons at this point in time.

These type of articles basically only get written to fill page space, and to generate pay checks for the people writing them!
Click to expand...

Well you know journalists job are to write articles and get paid for them.

I knew the downsides of vista I knew the consequences. I tried Maya on Vista and it sucked. Plus I don't actually LIKE AERO. I just wanted search feature because its pathetic in XP. I don't use my desktop any ways.. I prefer my laptop for work. Its got a quadro card and win2k its actually FASTER in view ports then my Desktop. I just Mental ray satelite to render on it.

I don't have a junker for a desktop, sure it ain't a spring chicken but its not a POS.

Oh please don't defend Nvidia cause they fucked up badly. ATI at least tried but failed.

May I ask what the rediculos premise is? Seriously? The OS is final the DX is final the Drivers are WHQL. These are final releases. Seriously it sounds like you have a beef with MS but not with 3rd parties that have really droped the ball.

I just stated that I got better performance without Aero and that really meant the only redeeming feature of the OS is gone.. Not sure if you can read between the Lines but Vista was advertised as a Eye candy gui, I managed to disable it.. You know its called irony. Hence the LOL money well spent THREAD title.. If your talking about Microgram of common sence maybe you should start looking for some..
 
Well aware what the job of journos is. I'm one if them :)

The intial release of a WHQL driver for a new OS isn't a "final release". Not by a long shot. It's an initial release, and usually a very immature one. You're quite wron in assuming otherwise.

The rest of your response has missed the point completely. I'm quite happy with the job MS has done with Vista, and place blame for any performance issues squarely upon the shoulders of 3rd party developers, where it belongs. Ati are also not up to scratch yet. Accepting that isn't "sticking up for Nvidia". It's accepting reality. Both ATi and Nvidia display drivers are currently rather horrible. I merely remarked upon the fact that Nvidia have basically admitted so.

You should really not be seeing a performance difference with and without Aero enabled. There's something wrong on your system if you're seeing that, I suspect. any testing of its impact I've seen conducted has demonstrated that there's basically no appreciable difference.
 
Its the opengl thats sucking Maya is a pure opengl app.. I don't have this problem on my laptop and its much slower then my desktop. Oh well no biggy.
 
Wrench00 said:
Well I got Windows Vista Ultimate. It was so fancy and all. Loved it.. Speed was nice.. But guess what, it wasn't fast enough..


Disabled Aero (also got sick of my xtx1900 kicking in full speed in the middle of the night). Turned of my background, Theme Windows Clasic.. Windows 2000 Taskbar..... 1 Icon on my desktop and a blue desktop..


WOOT I got Windows 2000 the 2007 Version Yeppie..

The only thing I kept is the side bar.. Which only monitors my system performance..

Hehehe Rather pathetic isn't it.. I should have stayed on winxp 64 at least it crashed less.. :( Well Video Drivers any way...
Click to expand...

Not meant to be cynical...but you paid a lot to get only a sidebar.
With all the compatibility issues out there it's looking like my
upgrade will be down the road for a while.

Seems like this has been the biggest compatibility gap between OS
upgrades. Not pointing fingers but seems manufactures and MS
had some commucations gaps on drivers, software and hardware.
 
I ran Vista Beta 2 w/ Aero on an Optiplex GX520 ... it has an integrated Intel chipset w/ 8 or 16MB of video memory. It was a tad choppy, but certainly quite bearable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top