An amusing read
http://dotnet.org.za/codingsanity/archive/...windows-xp.aspx
Full Version: What if Vista had come before XP?
I don't think MS will like that article. 
Followed a link from one of the comments at that site.
Not Happy Bill
Followed a link from one of the comments at that site.
QUOTE
In the meantime Microsoft has left a really bad taste in my mouth and I am feeling just a tad bit ripped off considering that a core functionality of an OS is so badly borked and they still took money from loyal customers for a faulty operating system. I hope Bill and all those shareholders are happy because I know a shirtload of customers aren’t.
Not Happy Bill
What nonsense. Vista and Win Server 08 have over 300% better network performance than say Windows Server 03 and XP when copying large files over a network. Its plain and simple PEBKAC on poor network file performance from the bloke.
Now that NVIDIA has its act together with its drivers, gaming on Vista is better - not due only to DirectX10.1 but also importantly due to tri sli and quad crossfire that will only be fully supported on Vista. Why? Because DX9 is locked into rendering a limit of 3 frames ahead.
The argument about DRM is a slippery slope. Patent pools *own* the multimedia. MS can either choose to:
1. Break the law and suffer billions in court
2. Not implement the technology and have customers complain
3. Try to negotiate with the IP owners and come up with a way of implementing the technology that keeps the IP owners happy about their copyrights.
Chucking a Linux stunt of disregarding the law and doing it anyway is not a solution for a legitimate commercial entity. Its only a matter of time before Linux distros get hit with law suits for infringing upon IP owners rights. Theyve gotten away with it but as the desktop OS moves from a geekfest fringe thing to mainstream, theyre in for a shock.
The main problem is Mums and Dads who dont like UAC - which ironically is MS's own doing in educating a generation of users what not to do when it comes to security. These days with dirt cheap dual core 2GB RAM etcetc machines the WEI score of bottom shelf gear is pretty high on Vista. Its not about performance - the "problem" is they want to use a personal computer as it was used in 1988.
Now that NVIDIA has its act together with its drivers, gaming on Vista is better - not due only to DirectX10.1 but also importantly due to tri sli and quad crossfire that will only be fully supported on Vista. Why? Because DX9 is locked into rendering a limit of 3 frames ahead.
The argument about DRM is a slippery slope. Patent pools *own* the multimedia. MS can either choose to:
1. Break the law and suffer billions in court
2. Not implement the technology and have customers complain
3. Try to negotiate with the IP owners and come up with a way of implementing the technology that keeps the IP owners happy about their copyrights.
Chucking a Linux stunt of disregarding the law and doing it anyway is not a solution for a legitimate commercial entity. Its only a matter of time before Linux distros get hit with law suits for infringing upon IP owners rights. Theyve gotten away with it but as the desktop OS moves from a geekfest fringe thing to mainstream, theyre in for a shock.
The main problem is Mums and Dads who dont like UAC - which ironically is MS's own doing in educating a generation of users what not to do when it comes to security. These days with dirt cheap dual core 2GB RAM etcetc machines the WEI score of bottom shelf gear is pretty high on Vista. Its not about performance - the "problem" is they want to use a personal computer as it was used in 1988.
Caldor, the proof is in the pudding.
Fast and sorta up to date duo core here with about ten hard drives, both ide and sata of different sizes and Widows/Linux operating systems.Plugged - Unplugged as needed.
XP Pro boots faster and was far more resposive than Vista Ultimate untril I set Prefetch parameters to 1 and Superfetch to 2 within the reg settings of Vista.
No more waiting for up to a minute to load apps into memory after desktop comes up with Vista!
After a reboot Vista seems to be nearly as fast as XP!
Can't understand why MS left both Prefetch and Superfetch at 3 which seems to me would conflict with each other.
Fast and sorta up to date duo core here with about ten hard drives, both ide and sata of different sizes and Widows/Linux operating systems.Plugged - Unplugged as needed.
XP Pro boots faster and was far more resposive than Vista Ultimate untril I set Prefetch parameters to 1 and Superfetch to 2 within the reg settings of Vista.
No more waiting for up to a minute to load apps into memory after desktop comes up with Vista!
After a reboot Vista seems to be nearly as fast as XP!
Can't understand why MS left both Prefetch and Superfetch at 3 which seems to me would conflict with each other.
The advantages to dyanmic prediction of kernel needs in Vista, especially with the "learning" of a users likely usage patterns, as you say does improve performance.
The fact is, network performance on Vista SP1 and Win Server 08 is over 300% from XP. Sure MS used that metric to spin up its marketng but the science of it remains.
As for boot times I respectfully dont accept your test results Humpty because honestly all of the tests Ive seen that showed Vista to be slower on boot than XP did not have comparable configurations. There is alot of things going on Vista that are not immediately obvious. There is numerous new things in the Vista boot process that make it faster. Not all of them are in the Linux kernel yet either.
I encourage you to look at objective performance rather than subjective performance. Do some network tests and see the metrics for yourself
I havent looked into any registry tweaks for Vista kernel behaviour.
The fact is, network performance on Vista SP1 and Win Server 08 is over 300% from XP. Sure MS used that metric to spin up its marketng but the science of it remains.
As for boot times I respectfully dont accept your test results Humpty because honestly all of the tests Ive seen that showed Vista to be slower on boot than XP did not have comparable configurations. There is alot of things going on Vista that are not immediately obvious. There is numerous new things in the Vista boot process that make it faster. Not all of them are in the Linux kernel yet either.
I encourage you to look at objective performance rather than subjective performance. Do some network tests and see the metrics for yourself
I havent looked into any registry tweaks for Vista kernel behaviour.
Lolz, this article made me laugh at least 
But a whole lot of it isn't exactly the most truthful. Yes, Vista's memory requirements are higher, and at the current time it will be running slightly slower than XP. But I seem to remember that back when XP came out, everyone was sticking with Windows 98 because it ran faster...
But a whole lot of it isn't exactly the most truthful. Yes, Vista's memory requirements are higher, and at the current time it will be running slightly slower than XP. But I seem to remember that back when XP came out, everyone was sticking with Windows 98 because it ran faster...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.