What does Vista do better than XP?

panhead said:
One thing Vista doesn't do better than XP is run software faster. Vista has lots of nice features, but the fact remains that Windows XP SP3 runs software the fastest. There may be exceptions, but for the most part the XP kernel runs software faster.
Click to expand...

the thing is, people would say that for win2k vs. xp. Of course the same hardware is not going to run them both at the same speed.. XP was released in 2001, vista in 2006. brand new hardware would run windows 3.1 faster than either of them
 
panhead said:
One thing Vista doesn't do better than XP is run software faster. Vista has lots of nice features, but the fact remains that Windows XP SP3 runs software the fastest. There may be exceptions, but for the most part the XP kernel runs software faster.
Click to expand...
By that dated logic, we should all be running Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE.
 
I've seen absolutely zero evidence anywhere that can be substantiated and replicated myself that XP, even with SP3 installed, is faster than Vista in the execution of the same code - aka run the same app on both, and magically it runs faster on XP than Vista.

I've seen those benchmarks that one website put out late last year, the Exo people. I downloaded the software they used (basically scripts for Office 2003) and ran the exact same tests they did, I got results that were absolutely inconclusive aside from saying: XP with a beta candidate of SP3 performed within .05% of Vista with a beta candidate of SP1.

I just redid the same benchmarks last night with Vista SP1 RTM and XP SP3 RTM and... again, about a .05% difference on the same hardware - and yes they were both the 32 bit versions of each OS.

So really, unless someone can actually show me some benchmark results that I can duplicate here at home on my own hardware (Q6600 @ 3 GHz, 8GB DDR2 800 5-5-5-12, Seagate 320GB SATA, ATI 3870 512MB) then, I don't see the point of people just spouting off what they read someplace on the Net.

Unlike the overwhelming majority of people around here in the [H]ardness, I actually do my own benchmarks, always. I never take any website's claims for performance because personally, I've been doing this shit longer than they have. And I don't trust 'em, simple. :p
 
Joe Average said:
Unlike the overwhelming majority of people around here in the [H]ardness, I actually do my own benchmarks, always. I never take any website's claims for performance because personally, I've been doing this shit longer than they have. And I don't trust 'em, simple. :p
Click to expand...
I'm quoting this because it's exceptional advice to live by.
 
Joe Average said:
I've seen those benchmarks that one website put out late last year, the Exo people. I downloaded the software they used (basically scripts for Office 2003) and ran the exact same tests they did, I got results that were absolutely inconclusive aside from saying: XP with a beta candidate of SP3 performed within .05% of Vista with a beta candidate of SP1.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. That Officebench test that got so much media attention was a total sham. It was a benchmark that did things like copy and paste, scroll windows, open and close windows etc. All it took to slow down vista comparative to XP were the animations for opening and closing to show a massive difference. And even then All of this stuff was hundreds of times faster than any human would be able to replicate. Even worse, These tests were performed on a Virtual Machine and not a standalone install.
 
DeaconFrost said:
By that dated logic, we should all be running Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE.
Click to expand...
I still do run Windows 2000 you insensitive clod!

Running an OS which matches the resources you have may be dated logic, in the sense that it's an old idea; but it's still valid and relevant today.
 
jimmyb said:
I still do run Windows 2000 you insensitive clod!

Running an OS which matches the resources you have may be dated logic, in the sense that it's an old idea; but it's still valid and relevant today.
Click to expand...
I hope you are either being sarcastic, or that you've missed my point entirely.
 
sumofatguy said:
except 'they' can run benchmarks on hardware you don't have... ie before you buy it you can see how good it actually is
Click to expand...

But they're testing the software, not the hardware. They are testing software performance on hardware, with the software running on a particular OS that's installed. Hence, testing the same software on different OSes on the same hardware = results show the difference in performance due to the OS which becomes the only variable that changes.
 
sumofatguy said:
the thing is, people would say that for win2k vs. xp. Of course the same hardware is not going to run them both at the same speed.. XP was released in 2001, vista in 2006. brand new hardware would run windows 3.1 faster than either of them
Click to expand...

DeaconFrost said:
By that dated logic, we should all be running Windows 2000 or Windows 98 SE.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are incorrect. Microsoft feels Windows XP is fastest.

WinXP faster than Win2K and Win98SE

Straight from MS;
..."Windows XP to be overall the fastest version of the Windows operating system ever created for a wide range of desktop computing tasks..."

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/whyupgrade/performance.mspx
 
And speaking from my own experience and testing, Windows Server 2003 is the fastest OS overall that Microsoft has ever created, hence my continuing to use XP x64 which is actually "Windows Workstation 2003" in most if not all respects.

XP is fast for what it is, but Server 2003 on the same hardware leaves it in the dust... not sure what Microsoft was thinking when they came up with that report but but but...

And you never trust benchmarks from the company that makes the OS:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070827...m/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.html

(taken from Archive.org because the original webpage - still around - is lacking the graph data necessary to understand the differences)

You trust a third-party, if anyone. Or someone like me that doesn't trust any website at all... ;)
 
http://www.computeruser.com/articles/2105,5,17,1,0501,02.html
Prior to Windows XP Professional, Windows 2000 Professional was Microsoft's most stable operating system. Many users would argue that it still is and that XP doesn't really bring enough to the table to go through the hassle of upgrading. So why should you switch?
Click to expand...

hahaha something sounds very similar here...

If you're running anything less than a 400MHz system with 256MB of RAM you're probably better off with Windows 2000. The older OS requires less computing power, making things run much more smoothly on an older system.
Click to expand...

now just switch that with "2ghz system with 1gb of RAM you're probably better off with Windows XP"
 
jimmyb said:
I still do run Windows 2000 you insensitive clod!

Running an OS which matches the resources you have may be dated logic, in the sense that it's an old idea; but it's still valid and relevant today.
Click to expand...

I second that. I still have a PC running <gasp!> WinME and still use it too.
 
Hooligan said:
same reason why everyone was saying XP sucked compared to Win98SE... then everyone started using XP...
Click to expand...

exactly. The people who get shafted are always louder than the people who have everything go smoothly. The silent majority are the people who run vista and are perfectly happy with it. Worst of all are the people who download it from a torrent, it doesn't work and they start making posts about how terrible Vista is. Those people annoy me to no end.

A few off the top of my head:

  1. Indexing - winkey --> type "CPU" (typing auto focus's the search box, no need to click on it) --> enter --> cpu-z is running. winkey --> type "ste" --> enter ---> Steam is running. its useful and when I'm on an XP box it really is annoying not to have it. That said there is an indexing tool for XP, I forget what its called, but its pretty good. Not as quick as the vista one though.
  2. Superfetch - My IE7/8 launch is instant. I click the button and my IE8 window and homepage are just there. I would presume thats superfetch.
  3. Direct X 10 - of course you can do it on XP. That was one of the most "omg I can't believe you people are argueing over this...". XP is C, Vista is C. Its not like Vista is programmed in some radical new language and new way that makes it revolutionary. Anyways, back on topic, yeah, the only good looking direct X 10 game I've seen is world in conflict, and Lost Planet. In WIC, the smoke is no longer "chopped up" into multiple 2D images (sprites) and then lapped over a 3d object. The smoke is a shader effect, and it looks damn good.
  4. "emergancy" stabillity/usabillity - Every single time I've hit Ctrl+alt+del I've got the windows splash screen. Every single time a program has become non-responsive I've been able to move it around on my screen to an area where I can continue working.
  5. security - I'm not a security guru but my security guru friends say Vista is far more secure then XP especially when the user is not an administrator. When your running in vista as a normal user your far more securily sandboxed in. The security is also far more low level then that, such as the new IP stack.

I also think some of the anti-vista stuff out there is really cheap. Yes, on your Pentium 4 with 512MB of PC2100 memory vista will run like crap. Trying to run an operating system released in 2006 on a machine built in 2004 is not a good idea. I definatly think vista needs to be a little more adaptive to the resources it has, case in point a modern day econo-class laptop has maybe a gig of ram and a celery stick CPU. I think if the operating system could detect system settings, it should disable parts of itself to allow for a smoother operation. But since it doesn't I redirect you to BlackViper.

panhead said:
Actually, you are incorrect. Microsoft feels Windows XP is fastest.

WinXP faster than Win2K and Win98SE

Straight from MS;
..."Windows XP to be overall the fastest version of the Windows operating system ever created for a wide range of desktop computing tasks..."
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Look at the date man! Thats like... Intel says now "The fastest thing out there is two QX9770s on Skulltrail!" Does that make it true when Nehalem is released?

... -1 IT point 4 u.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
I also think some of the anti-vista stuff out there is really cheap. Yes, on your Pentium 4 with 512MB of PC2100 memory vista will run like crap. Trying to run an operating system released in 2006 on a machine built in 2004 is not a good idea
Click to expand...

I don't think this is cheap at all. Arguably this is a major design flaw.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
Yes, on your Pentium 4 with 512MB of PC2100 memory vista will run like crap.
Click to expand...
Actually I have it running on a P4 with 2.5GB of RAM and it runs just fine.

The RAM is the key, and it's so cheap it's ridiculous. Everyone I have given RAM to in older systems has ALWAYS said it was WELL worth the money.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
Are you serious? Look at the date man!
Click to expand...

I realize the article is old. My point is that all the pro-Vista users state that because Vista is new it is going to be slower and require more resources than XP. The truth is that MS stated that XP ran faster than Win2K or Win98SE. I have not seen MS make that statement regarding Vista. In fact, with the new kernel's architecture containing the 'protected process'; it is now just a bloated DRM'ed OS.
You would not like rootkits, virus, etc running on your PC, why would you allow a 'protected process' to run on your PC. You have no idea what these 'protected process' do nor can you debug them to verify them.
 
panhead said:
it is now just a bloated DRM'ed OS.
You would not like rootkits, virus, etc running on your PC, why would you allow a 'protected process' to run on your PC. You have no idea what these 'protected process' do nor can you debug them to verify them.
Click to expand...

1.5 years in and we still can't get people past these ridiculous attempts at a basis for debates... geez.

It's not our OS anyway, so get over it. If you want an OS you can know everything about, either code it yourself, or compile a Linux distro from source. What's so hard about that?

DRM only comes into play (no pun intended) at the moment you play DRM content. Aside from that, it's a non-issue. Even Linux distros have issues with such things, and require "restricted repositories" that offer drivers or codecs that will get around such limitations. No surprise there.

It's truly amazing how closely Vista resembles Linux and OSX these days. Unfortunately, the blind dump stupid asinine childish ignorant Vista bashing that continues to this day simply stops people from noticing the similarities.

Amazing how that works...
 
Joe Average said:
It's not our OS anyway, so get over it. If you want an OS you can know everything about, either code it yourself, or compile a Linux distro from source. What's so hard about that?

DRM only comes into play (no pun intended) at the moment you play DRM content. Aside from that, it's a non-issue. Even Linux distros have issues with such things, and require "restricted repositories" that offer drivers or codecs that will get around such limitations. No surprise there.
Click to expand...

I am not referring to the OS code, I am referring to processes running on your PC. I am not aware of any other OS that does not allow you to attach a debugger to a process and verify what it is doing. Vista has this feature in the 'protected process'. Protected processes can be DRM processes, but it is not a requirement. Hackers are going to have a field day with this new architecture.
 
Like I said, it's not our OS, so Microsoft is not obligated to allow us (or you, for that matter) to see what's going on inside. You accept this when you license it and install it - assuming of course you did such a thing or have a legitimate copy of the OS in the first place.

Here's what I think:

Hackers are better off designing better OSes to bury Microsoft instead of constantly bitching and making threats like that statement about "having a field day" and wasting their talents on breaking an OS that works as long as you leave it the fuck alone.

The sheer amount of talent out there could easily create an OS that Microsoft would foam at the mouth over and simply not be able to come to grips with - or even compete with especially if it was open source.

Linux is not the answer there. OSX obviously isn't either. But someone out there has the right idea, they just don't know how to bring it to fruition...

yet.
 
Joe Average said:
Like I said, it's not our OS, so Microsoft is not obligated to allow us (or you, for that matter) to see what's going on inside. You accept this when you license it and install it - assuming of course you did such a thing or have a legitimate copy of the OS in the first place.
Click to expand...

1) Vista is the first OS release by MS that does not allow users to 'see' what is going on inside your PC.
2) I have legitimate copies of Windows including Vista.

I have to support Vista, but I choose not to use it myself.

I understand why MS created the 'protected process' for DRM, to prevent users from making copies of media. Copies of BR and HD DVDs are occuring anyway so why do we need 'protected processes' and the bloat to support it?
 
panhead said:
1)Copies of BR and HD DVDs are occuring anyway so why do we need 'protected processes' and the bloat to support it?
Click to expand...

And seat belts save lives, yet people still die in car accidents even when they're wearing them. What's your point?

You do what you can with what you've got, and Microsoft chose to do what it could with what it had, deal with it. Whining about it incessantly... it's unbecoming, really. We've been dealing with this crap over 1.5 years now, actually a lot more than that in the long run, and people making these arguments have gained no ground whatsoever and yet they still persist.

Talk about beating a dead horse, good lord...
 
Joe Average said:
And seat belts save lives, yet people still die in car accidents even when they're wearing them. What's your point?
Click to expand...

My point is that Vista is a 'media appliance' not an OS. Secure and corporate environemnts should not allow an OS that has the concept of a 'protected process' because it cannot be verified. The 'protected process' may be a key logger, you have no idea and the OS prevents users from verifing it.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, I just don't understand why the anyone would accept an OS with the protected process concept.
 
panhead said:
1) Vista is the first OS release by MS that does not allow users to 'see' what is going on inside your PC.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure by what you mean here. What can I "see" under XP that Microsoft doesn't allow me to see under Vista?

I understand why MS created the 'protected process' for DRM, to prevent users from making copies of media. Copies of BR and HD DVDs are occuring anyway so why do we need 'protected processes' and the bloat to support it?
Click to expand...

MS had to include the DRM scheme to protect HD content because if they wanted Windows to be able to play protected content they had to comply with it. Any Operating system that wants to play HDCP flagged media will have to do the same thing.
Of course that so called bloat isn't accessed unless you are actively using protected media. All that FUD was debunked months and months ago.
 
Vista can hold a thread better than XP.

Vista would also make a better pet name than XP.

and science and proven a Vista dvd to fly farther when thrown than an XP CD this is a scientific fact passed down from the master of science God Christ himself.

I subscribed to this thread and I can't stop peaking my head in....I want to stop but for some reason I can't.
 
stevedave said:
I subscribed to this thread and I can't stop peaking my head in....I want to stop but for some reason I can't.
Click to expand...
If you pop in enough times, you'll actually learn that VIsta isn't "the devil" and that it works quite well. Then, after that, you'll learn so much, that you'll be able to spot FUD on your own! It really can be fun.
 
DeaconFrost said:
If you pop in enough times, you'll actually learn that VIsta isn't "the devil" and that it works quite well. Then, after that, you'll learn so much, that you'll be able to spot FUD on your own! It really can be fun.
Click to expand...

QFT

Or, if you actually try it yourself, you might realize that its not bad and that 90% of the people who bitch haven't actually used it themselves.
 
griffinhart said:
I'm not sure by what you mean here. What can I "see" under XP that Microsoft doesn't allow me to see under Vista?
Click to expand...

Running XP, you can have a debugger attach to any process running on the computer and 'see' exactly what the process is doing. Running Vista, you can only suspend or terminate a protect process. You can not determine what a protected process is doing independently. The whole concept of a protect process running on a PC violates basic security principles.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/vista/process_vista.mspx
 
DeaconFrost said:
If you pop in enough times, you'll actually learn that VIsta isn't "the devil" and that it works quite well. Then, after that, you'll learn so much, that you'll be able to spot FUD on your own! It really can be fun.
Click to expand...

Vista isn't the devil it is the comander of all the evil doers in the world above da Osoma and right under Hitler.

I have no problem with Vista aside from the fact I keep going to post about vista due to curiosity. I use vista in a VM and it has worked fine for me with every app I use. I peek into the threads about it to see if the "vista sucks" "no it doesn't" argument has changed any over the past day or so and it hasn't.
 
panhead said:
The truth is that MS stated that XP ran faster than Win2K or Win98SE. I have not seen MS make that statement regarding Vista.
Click to expand...
All under the assumption (And the FACTS- look at the requirements 2000/XP and XP/Vista) you have better hardware.

And anyone here can attest to the fact Superfetch, with the right hardware, can run faster than XP.

panhead said:
1) Vista is the first OS release by MS that does not allow users to 'see' what is going on inside your PC.
Click to expand...
Although this may be (Not a programmer so I've never cared), Microsoft has always had this provisioned in their EULA.

griffinhart said:
MS had to include the DRM scheme to protect HD content because if they wanted Windows to be able to play protected content they had to comply with it.
Click to expand...
This is exactly right. I think some ignorant people use this argument as anti-Vista when it really isn't.

Microsoft has nothing to do with DRM.

If they didn't support it, much of the advantage (being able to play that content) would be gone from Vista. I, for one, love Vista's better support in this area.
 
TechieSooner said:
Microsoft has nothing to do with DRM.

If they didn't support it, much of the advantage (being able to play that content) would be gone from Vista. I, for one, love Vista's better support in this area.
Click to expand...

While in the case of BD and HD-DVD I largely agree with you (though I strongly believe they should have taken a stand), it is entirely MS's fault that RPC1 DVD drives no longer function.

So yes, they have something to do with it.


Also, whether something is provisioned in the EULA has no bearing on whether it's desirable or not. In this particular case I don't really care about protected processes, but it's fallacious to write-off a complaint because it's provisioned in the EULA.
 
panhead said:
Running XP, you can have a debugger attach to any process running on the computer and 'see' exactly what the process is doing. Running Vista, you can only suspend or terminate a protect process. You can not determine what a protected process is doing independently. The whole concept of a protect process running on a PC violates basic security principles.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/vista/process_vista.mspx
Click to expand...

But what is running on that protected process. From what I understand, HDCP protected content. Which, you can't even run under XP at all.
 
griffinhart said:
But what is running on that protected process. From what I understand, HDCP protected content. Which, you can't even run under XP at all.
Click to expand...

HDCP protected content is a protected process, but any application can attempt to create a protected process. However, due to the restrictions of running inside a protected process, the operating system requires that these processes be specially signed.

Hackers will have a field day with this architecture. :(
 
jimmyb said:
While in the case of BD and HD-DVD I largely agree with you (though I strongly believe they should have taken a stand), it is entirely MS's fault that RPC1 DVD drives no longer function.
Click to expand...


Interesting on the Region stuff. I had never heard of that myself. So, I did a little research. Vista does not support DVD-ROM drivers that are region free.

Here are some of the technical reasons MS gives for it.

-It was impossible for third-parties to compile their own CDROM.SYS from the source code in the DDK because the region code enforcement code was not included in the DDK.

-The region code enforcement code would sometimes mistake a new drive for an old one, resulting in customers unable to play DVDs. Even worse, the driver test team could not reproduce the problem reliably, and the problem went away entirely once a debugger was attached to the system.
Click to expand...

Even if you think the answers are total BS, this restriction isn't an issue for the vast majority of PC owners. Any DVD-ROM manufactured after 1999 wasn't region free anymore. How many 9 year old DVD-ROMs are people even using out there these days?

The practical result is that almost no one sees any difference here. Especially for people upgrading to new systems, this means absolutely nothing. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
 
panhead said:
HDCP protected content is a protected process, but any application can attempt to create a protected process. However, due to the restrictions of running inside a protected process, the operating system requires that these processes be specially signed.

Hackers will have a field day with this architecture. :(
Click to expand...

How so? So far there is zero indication of what you are claiming at all.

As far as I know, you can not execute code on these protected paths. In fact, reading the white paper you linked, there doesn't seem to be anything that hackers would have a field day with.

Please, feel free to provide an example of the protected path being used to compromise a Vista install. The OS is well over a year old now, but as far as I know there are zero attacks. None, not real, not theoretical. If that is incorrect, please provide me a link.
 
jimmyb said:
but it's fallacious to write-off a complaint because it's provisioned in the EULA.
Click to expand...

How so?

Yes, I guess you have every reason to complain about it.

But Microsoft can do whatever the hell they want with their code and how their OS works... It's all there in the OS.

Just like Honda can build their cars however the hell the want.

Yes, users can complain about either. The joy of having CHOICES however is that users don't have to use it. It's just that select few complain.
 
griffinhart said:
Even if you think the answers are total BS, this restriction isn't an issue for the vast majority of PC owners. Any DVD-ROM manufactured after 1999 wasn't region free anymore. How many 9 year old DVD-ROMs are people even using out there these days?

The practical result is that almost no one sees any difference here. Especially for people upgrading to new systems, this means absolutely nothing. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Click to expand...

Although a minority, there is a community of us who flash our DVD drives to RPC1 firmware because we wish to watch DVDs from varying regions. Fortunately there are now software solutions to decrypting DVDs which don't require a key to be handed over by the drive (like libdecss - which is illegal in the US), but nonetheless this is a reduction is functionality, which is inarguably a bad thing.

I certainly don't know why MS disabled support for RPC1 drives in Vista. I can speculate (and I do!), but I doubt we'll ever know for sure. It's really irrelevant to me though; I don't care why they did it, I care that they did it.

TechieSooner said:
How so?

Yes, I guess you have every reason to complain about it.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what people are doing. These discussions aren't about the legal rights MS has to make design decisions in their OSes. These discussions are about whether people like the decisions MS makes.

I don't not necessarily agree with everyone's criticisms, but it's absurd to think that they're negated by the fact that the EULA makes provisions for them.
 
jimmyb said:
I don't not necessarily agree with everyone's criticisms, but it's absurd to think that they're negated by the fact that the EULA makes provisions for them.
Click to expand...

I'd agree. It's just that most of these things are "Damn you, Microsoft! How dare you rape my wife and children!!!! This should be illegal!!!"
 
This bullshit question/thread has now dribbled into more semantical B.S..

Now we have ppl debating about Microosft's support for future technologies (HDCP)--by flipping the "DRM" switch? As if any of us who choose one OS over the other agree with the company 110%?

Most retarded argument I've ever heard. And you've made a few, pinhead..er.. pan.

It's about as good as: Last time I checked, Businesses weren't in dire need of using content that would require DRM...

See how narrow and stupid that sounds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top