Good gods why? (Vista)

[ddrueding]

I've gone nearly entirely to Vista. All my own systems run it or Server 2003, all my new client machines run it (or Ubuntu). Here I will try to explain why.

1. I like it. I like the new UI. Yes, it is different, and requires a whole new learning curve, but I was trying to be open and accepting when I was trying out Linux for the first time, and it kind of held over.

2. Speed. Yes, if you have a slow system, it is slower. But if you are trying to make a slow system snappy, you should be running Linux anyway. If you have a quick system (see sig) it really is quick. It's pre-caching tricks and other things do make a difference.

3. Less fussy. Yes, I said less. Have a system where the hard drive is on an expansion card? A fingerprint reader? A tablet? Need to sync files for offline use? All these things are easier in Vista.

I've heard all the complaints about Vista, and most of them are right. But I still think it's worth it. Besides, it lets me up-sell hardware like theres no tomorrow

 

[Chewy509]

I would like to go to Vista on both my home development PC and my work laptop, however there are a few catches that I would have to live with...

Vista no longer supports Tape Drives with the inbuilt backup utilities, and since I actively use a tape for backups (VXA) this would be a problem. Investment in affordable 3rd party software that is compatible with Vista x64 is under way. Additionally, lack of drivers is also a factor. (There are no AMD-8000 chipset drivers available from AMD, however Vista does include "legacy support" drivers for this chipset. Similarly with the Adaptec SCSI cards I have, eg AHA-39160 and ASR-2120S).

While those are not major issues, they can be a reason not to upgrade, considering I have a working Windows XP x64 installation. (dual booting FreeBSD, which to be honest I am considering migrating solely to FreeBSD 7.0 once 7.0 goes to RELEASE).

With my work laptop (2yr old Asus M6N), there is an issue with BIOS that doesn't allow Vista to operate, unless I disable ACPI and APM. That means I lose all power management functionality, which is not ideal for a laptop.

I've played with Vista at work, and am impressed with the product. It does have some good features, just a pity the negatives (in my case) out weigh the positives.

PS. Both PC and Laptop are both adequate to run Vista, but those points mentioned means at least in my book, it's a no-go.

PC = Dual Opteron 242, Tyan K8W, 2GB DDR, 3x 10K SCSI on ASR-2120S, ATI R9600XT (with a fixed fan), 400GB Data Drive, VXA Tape on AHA-39160, Pioneer 8x DVD-RW, 20" Widescreen LCD.

Laptop = Asus M6N, P-M 1.6GHz, 1GB RAM, 80GB 7200rpm HDD, R9600 Mobile, DVD Burner, 15" LCD etc.

 

[e_dawg]

Just started using Vista a few days ago, and I can't believe that I didn't know how to do a lot of things that I took for granted with 2000 and then XP. It was so different to me, almost like using an X graphical shell in Linux for the first time.

 

[e_dawg]

...For example, now that Apple commercial makes sense -- copy file? allow. create folder? allow. That user account control, Windows Security warnings, etc. Even changing the size of the menu / scrollbar / title bar took me a while to figure out. And the darn keyboard language keeps switching to Canadian French when replying in SF!

 

[CougTek]

And the darn keyboard language keeps switching to Canadian French when replying in SF!

I have a mighty influence over the site.

 

[Mercutio]

The huge, offensive "Why not?" comes down to this:

Vista, sitting at an empty desktop, is using 250MB more RAM than XP, which could be going to something useful. What's Vista doing with that RAM? Is it making my computer work better in any way at all?

People with notebooks are finding that Aero is causing their GPUs to use more power, and therefore Vista actually shortens battery life.

Aero is inconsistent. Run certain applications, and the whole system drops down to standard mode anyway.

Vista has no compelling applications that are Vista-only. There are many, many incompatible programs. Supposedly new features, were they compelling enough to use, can easily be replaced by free apps found elsewhere.

UAC.

Gaming: There are no DX10 games. DX9 games more or less have a 10% penalty for being played on Vista. How funny is it to know that you spend several thousand dollars getting a state of the art PC just to get the same level of performance as a person who spent far less, who happens to be running XP?

I have yet to see any circumstance where Vista is faster than XP, let alone Server 2003 which, unlike Vista, actually is faster.

 

[ddrueding]

The huge, offensive "Why not?" comes down to this:

Vista, sitting at an empty desktop, is using 250MB more RAM than XP, which could be going to something useful. What's Vista doing with that RAM? Is it making my computer work better in any way at all?

Actually, yes. Vista pre-caches the most commonly used apps even before you use them (provided your HDD isn't busy) and clears the RAM if it mis-predicted what you were going to be doing. What is completely unused RAM getting you, anyway?

People with notebooks are finding that Aero is causing their GPUs to use more power, and therefore Vista actually shortens battery life.

"True." But more importantly. "Of course." Aero is eye candy. Eye candy = compute cycles. Compute cycles = power consumption. Don't like it? Turn it off.

Aero is inconsistent. Run certain applications, and the whole system drops down to standard mode anyway.

Some programs aren't compatible with Aero. I use one of them; a 30-second section at the beginning of AutoGK's sequence for processing video. Then it switches back all on it's own. I can't imagine it handling legacy stuff better.

Vista has no compelling applications that are Vista-only. There are many, many incompatible programs. Supposedly new features, were they compelling enough to use, can easily be replaced by free apps found elsewhere.

Texas Hold-Em is way better than solitare But honestly, there are few compelling applications that are XP-only, either. If you were on the back-end of the adoption pool (waiting until you had to), you would just now be switching over from 2000.

UAC.

Disabled. It's easy. Why is this a problem?

Gaming: There are no DX10 games. DX9 games more or less have a 10% penalty for being played on Vista. How funny is it to know that you spend several thousand dollars getting a state of the art PC just to get the same level of performance as a person who spent far less, who happens to be running XP?

I recall the same being true for 2000/XP vs. Win98. Many gamers stuck to the old "slimmer" OS for quite a while.

I have yet to see any circumstance where Vista is faster than XP, let alone Server 2003 which, unlike Vista, actually is faster.

The pre-caching stuff makes launching common apps faster. (but as you leave them open all the time, you wouldn't notice). The indexing makes browsing folders with lots of files faster (including thumbnails, you should appreciate this one).

But all things considered, I don't wait for my machine. If you have the hardware, then it isn't a concern.

 

[ddrueding]

Chewy,

Your issues are why I don't recommend that anyone upgrade their system to Vista. Even though your system is a powerhouse, legacy support is not a strong point. And as the server version hasn't been released yet, support for server hardware is still a ways off (my 3Ware card is barely covered).

 

[Mercutio]

Actually, yes. Vista pre-caches the most commonly used apps even before you use them (provided your HDD isn't busy) and clears the RAM if it mis-predicted what you were going to be doing. What is completely unused RAM getting you, anyway?

Really? Then why isn't Vista subjectively any faster?
Windows Server is truly, subjectively faster than XP. Vista isn't. Whatever it's doing with that extra memory, it's not making the computer work any more quickly.

Unused RAM will be used to load additional programs and work with large files. Vista pigging more RAM leaves less for those other things.

Why should I have to pay a 100% (200% compared to Server) RAM penalty to use my OS?

Don't like it? Turn it off.

Do other people know how? Do you expect everyone to change an unreasonable default?
This likewise speaks to UAC: I know how to turn it off, but just about every Vista user I've met so far has asked me how to do it.

But honestly, there are few compelling applications that are XP-only, either. If you were on the back-end of the adoption pool (waiting until you had to), you would just now be switching over from 2000.

I stayed on Windows 2000 until I found a compelling reason to switch to something else. "Something else" for me personally was Server 2003's noticeably lower hardware requirements and faster performance. For users, I suggested that they stay on 2000 until there was a compelling reason to move to XP (I have clients who are still waiting, by the way). The only people I had switch to XP quickly were Win98 users.

Nowadays, if I could do so legally, I'd distribute TinyXP to home users without a second thought.

Why is this a problem?[/url

'Cause people don't know they can turn it off. And the OS repeatedly tells them, when they do, that it's not a good idea. It's a horribly stupid default.

The pre-caching stuff makes launching common apps faster.

Personally I turn thumbnails off, too.
And I flatly do not believe Vista's pre-caching is doing anything useful. If I cannot tell a subjective difference, it's not enough difference to matter.

But all things considered, I don't wait for my machine. If you have the hardware, then it isn't a concern.

I don't, either, but my god-box is probably quite a bit faster than yours in every way that counts, anyway. Why would I want to slow it down?

 

[MaxBurn]

For me it's rather simple, I have legit copies for XP and I am very happy with them. If you want to give me Vista I am very open to that

I also had a pretty negative experience on the trial I did for vista, lots of crashing with network access. Really nasty instant hardware reset and reboot. Prepared to give that another go as drivers move along.

I will eventually be going all vista, probably around end of life for XP unless some good deals come along. Not in a particular rush to get there.

 

[sechs]

Actually, yes. Vista pre-caches the most commonly used apps even before you use them (provided your HDD isn't busy) and clears the RAM if it mis-predicted what you were going to be doing. What is completely unused RAM getting you, anyway?

Isn't "pre-cache" a bit repetitive? Everything in a cache is there for speculative future use, and is, therefore, cached before needed.

I'd like to point out that there is no "completely unused RAM" in Windows XP. Any "free" memory is used by the system cache. That is to say, any memory recorded as in use is actually being actively used by a real process to do something.

If Vista is eating up more memory, then it isn't for caching.

But all things considered, I don't wait for my machine. If you have the hardware, then it isn't a concern.

Part of the point here is that I shouldn't need "the hardware." Vista *should* run just as well as XP, or better, on the same hardware; it doesn't.

Microsoft pretty much cut out any compelling reason to buy this operating system. Heck, the whole shut down button thing has my head spinning.

Considering that you run Raptors in RAID 0, it's hard to believe that you have a reasonable idea of what good performance is, let alone an acceptable operating system. If Vista makes you happy, go with it; but the rest of us will stay in sensible land.

 

[MaxBurn]

Oh yeah, where the heck did winFS go? I was looking forward to that, seems like a good idea.

 

[Bozo]

In XP, if you look in the Windows directory, you will find a 'prefetch' folder that does about the same thing as Vista. It monitors your computer use and tries to preload what it thinks you will be using.
A resource hog too.
I usually disable it in the registry.

Bozo :joker:

 

[Fushigi]

Sechs, I think it's pre-populating the cache based on past activity instead of the normal behavior of populating the cache as something is actually used. I can see this as useful for people who use just a few apps most of the time, like me at home. However, it probably wouldn't benefit those who use a wide variety of apps all the time, like me at work.

 

[e_dawg]

I like the Vista GUI system, though. I am getting to the point where I like everything bigger on screen... Vista is better than XP and especially 2000 in that it shows everything nice and crisp even with the larger font and appearance settings.

 

[ddrueding]

Vista *should* run just as well as XP, or better, on the same hardware; it doesn't.

Where did this crazy idea come from? When did a new version of any OS (or any program) *ever* run better on the same hardware? New version = new "features", new features = more computing to be done.

 

[Will Rickards]

Come on ddrueding, think about it.
Having a new OS be better on the same hardware isn't a crazy idea. The opposite is what is crazy. Linux has been improving performance with kernel changes.

For those using vista good for you. But be sure to report the bugs and get them fixed before I have to use it.

 

[ddrueding]

Come on ddrueding, think about it.
Having a new OS be better on the same hardware isn't a crazy idea. The opposite is what is crazy. Linux has been improving performance with kernel changes.

So you're saying Ubuntu "Feisty" has lower system requirements than "Edgy"? I checked the release notes, but I could only find the requirements for the current version.

However version 5.10 required 128MB of RAM and 2GB. Version 4.04 requires twice as much RAM.

 

[Will Rickards]

I'm just talking about kernel versions not full distros.
With a full release you are talking memory and disk space requirements for all the installed packages. Those are likely to increase the requirements.

But the nt kernel improved for 2000 -> XP -> server 2003.
The kernel got better & faster, I believe. Comments?
The anomaly is vista. Or is it? I hear a lot of talk about UAC and Aero but not about the core.
If I am recalling correctly, I think they rewrote the kernel for some reason. Can anybody confirm/deny?

Either way if you turn off aero and uac and run just the base vista on last years hardware, I would think it should be at least the same if not faster than XP. I don't really know whether it actually is. But that would be my expectation from a new MS OS.

There's a tinyXP maybe there will be a TinyVista?

 

[Mercutio]

I believe there is already a TinyVista.
But it may be just XP with some skinning and free tools that resemble Vista features.
There's also a vLite, similar to nLite.

 

[Bozo]

Either way if you turn off aero and uac and run just the base vista on last years hardware, I would think it should be at least the same if not faster than XP. I don't really know whether it actually is. But that would be my expectation from a new MS OS.

There's a tinyXP maybe there will be a TinyVista?

Not in my testing of Vista. My old system [3.0GHz p4, 1 GB ram, Radeon 9800] was dog slow compared to XP on the same box. Aero wouldn't run, and UAC was one of the first things I turned off. On a clean install, a cold boot and after waithg a few minutes, the RAM usage was ~600Meg. This was with Vista Ultimate installed. The Business version was about the same; the lesser versions did some what better. All the lesser versions amount to is XP with a bloated GUI and some bells and whistles.

The kernal was supposed to be new, but after two years in developement, MS scrapped it and went back to modifying the original Server 2003/XP kernal. That's when the WFS was canned.

Bozo :joker:

 

[CougTek]

This guy thinks Vista is an improvement over whatever else got out of Redmond.

About the kernel, here's what he wrote :

Vista Kernel which offers not only improved security but also better SMP scalability, larger heaps, and reduced memory fragmention. Compared to Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista is six to eight thousand times faster when it comes to dealing fragmentation, and offers near-linear scaling for random allocation of memory with each additional thread (versus Windows Server 2003’s zero-slope performance). In addition to his work on the Windows Kernel, he is part of Microsoft’s team in developing “dynamic translation” technology as a novel way of defeating polymorphism in malware.

That made me plan to try Vista 64bit a second time. I know I won't fall in love with it, but July is coming quickly and I'll have to try to make it usable for my customers sooner than later. I can't sell Win2K3 to people looking for a 500$ box.

If Vista is pushing people to buy new hardware, then I suppose it will have a positive effect on my income (needed these days...nobody buy stuff since March!).

 

[e_dawg]

Actually that's a good point Coug. If you're in the retail PC business, why wouldn't you love Vista, seeing as it drives new sales and upgrades like nothing else.

 

[Mercutio]

I'm not a retailer but I certainly build enough systems (40 this month, for classrooms, and possibly 60 - 70 next month). My concerns are the possibility of Vista-related support calls (how do I turn the little prompts off?), complaints of poor performance and lack of application compatibility.

Those would be serious downsides to Vista.
What I've been telling people is that if they're buying Vista right now, they're getting a PC that feels like it needs an upgrade, no matter how fast it is, whereas XP just flies on modern hardware.

 

[CougTek]

I'm not a retailer but I certainly build enough systems (40 this month, for classrooms, and possibly 60 - 70 next month).

No, I'm not jealous at all. You only beat me by a factor of ten. What's your secret outside being handsome? Are you looking for employees?

In fact, I'm pretty sure you sell more than Buck or Tony these days.

Regarding the support calls on Vista : we won't avoid it no matter what. Better make money on the hardware in the meanwhile. Whatever we tell them, users will buy Vista. And I'm sick of trying to cure humanity from stupidity.

 

[CougTek]

Maybe I should start teaching... Imagine me in a classroom full of old people who don't understand a damn thing about computers. How many minutes would I tough before beating one of the old buggers?

 

[Chewy509]

Re: Vista Kernel performance...

Speaking to our dev guys, a lot of work went into the kernel and there has been improvement within the kernel in regards to performance.

However improvements within the kernel, don't mean much if you change the driver model associated (which is what they did with NT6).

The catch that most people are missing, is that all video drivers no longer run in kernel space, (as they did in NT4 and NT5). MS took the video driver model back to the NT3.51 days, and no longer allow video drivers to operate at the same level as the kernel. Video drivers operate at the same level as normal user code now. (There are some neat tricks that allow the drivers to call hardware directly, even though they run as user mode code). So every time there is a call to the driver, several more context switches take place, vs the NT4 or NT5 video driver models. Which funny enough equals roughly a 5-10% slow down in performance (depending on how good the drivers are and number of calls to the driver).

So NT6 is slower (and will always be slower than NT5) due to changes in the basic architecture of how Windows handles device drivers. However this will lead to a more stable OS in the long term...

Anyone remember the boost in performance from NT3.51 to NT4.0! Same thing, but in reverse...

And funny enough MS now use the SAME execution model as XFree86 or X.org do on the various other OSs that they run on. So people complaining about the slower graphic performance between X.org and Windows, well that gap just diminished considerably with the introduction of Vista!

PS. A context switch on a P4 takes roughly 32K CPU cycles, K8 is roughly 24K CPU cycles, provided no page faults occur. (I don't have numbers for a Core2). And a context switch occurs every 10ms or when an application/kernel/API/driver calls another application/server/API/driver/etc. I'll let you do the math...

 

[Chewy509]

And I'm sick of trying to cure humanity from stupidity.

Reminds me of the IQ scale. If I have an IQ of 100, then every second person I meet is less intelligent that I am...

 

[Bozo]

Maybe I should start teaching... Imagine me in a classroom full of old people who don't understand a damn thing about computers. How many minutes would I tough before beating one of the old buggers?

Carful how you talk about us old buggers :-D

Bozo :joker:

 

[Mercutio]

No, I'm not jealous at all. You only beat me by a factor of ten. What's your secret outside being handsome? Are you looking for employees?

Um... it's just how my company's upgrade cycle hit. We got a gigantic paycheck from a client that had been holding out on us, and we've needed to get new machines for a while.
Basically, we have computers that are in nine year old cases. They aren't made to deal with the thermal load of an AthlonXP, so the motherboards suffer BADLY. Between that and the fact that they cosmetically look like shit and don't have little things like front USB, I didn't have too hard a time convincing beancounters to spend some money.

Our standard is now a C2D E6320, 2GB Micron DDR2/667, 160GB SATA drive, 18x NEC SATA DVD Burner, all on an Intel 946GZ and stuffed in a beautiful and silent Antec NSK3300. Cost per system is about $520.

The other 60 systems are going to high school seniors who are going off to college and who are the children of welfare recipients.

My personal sales remain stead at 4 - 6 per month, which is pretty much as it's always been. I don't even bother to make a real profit. I round up to the nearest $10 and add another $10 on top of that. Hilariously, sometimes I get *tipped* after I explain my reasoning behind wanting to build. But I don't try to make a living from it.

In fact, I'm pretty sure you sell more than Buck or Tony these days.

Egads I hope not.

And I'm sick of trying to cure humanity from stupidity.

Some Windmills are better for the jousting, sir.

 

[Mercutio]

Anyone remember the boost in performance from NT3.51 to NT4.0!

Yes. I do remember that. I daresay there aren't many people here who used NT3.5.

Graphics drivers should never have been in the kernel to begin with. It was a dumb idea, and I'm completely certain that it was the largest single contributor to NT's reputation as an unstable OS. 3.5 was *not* unstable. It was actually pretty decent in that regard. It was just *slow* (not just graphically, but also its networking code).

I'm sure it doesn't hurt that Microsoft has a graphical three-ring circus going on with Vista, but I don't notice any particular speedups in turning all that crap off, either.

I honestly can't think of one thing that Vista does subjectively faster than XP, let alone Server 2003.

 

[CougTek]

What I've been telling people is that if they're buying Vista right now, they're getting a PC that feels like it needs an upgrade, no matter how fast it is, whereas XP just flies on modern hardware.

Confirmed. It feels slow on the fastest system I have. And the "long goodbye" bug doesn't help either (5 seconds to delete a 1.89KB shortcut is revolting). Vista 64bit on a C2Duo E6400 with 2GB of RAM feels about as snappy as WinXP on a P3 1GHz with 256MB of RAM. No more. I'm not exagerating. It looks better than XP, but at what cost?

And you need to turn off UAC in order to install the FAH SMP client. UAC = PITA.

Some Windmills are better for the jousting, sir.

This is where my understanding of the english language hits a wall. I don't get it.

 

[LiamC]

Yes. I do remember that. I daresay there aren't many people here who used NT3.5.

Hah! I still have a copy of 3.5 (not 3.51!) somewhere.

 

[LiamC]

Vista look and feel (Theme) for XP updated
http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/12/26/vista-transformation-pack-6-for-windows-xp2003-releasedwow/

 

[Will Rickards]

This is where my understanding of the english language hits a wall. I don't get it.

A reference to Don Quixote

 

[CougTek]

The FAH SMP client runs about 5% slower than on WinXP on similar hardware.

After a few days of use, I think I'll be able to survive Vista. But I plan to demo Vista 64bit and Kubuntu systems side to side and let customers decide which one is better considering the fact that the Linux distro will shave a hundred bucks off their invoice. IMO, people only surfing the Net, doing Office work and chatting should use Linux instead of Windows anything. Less maintenance.

 

[CougTek]

Oh and thanks for the explanation regarding the famous illuminated Spanish.

 

[ddrueding]

MO, people only surfing the Net, doing Office work and chatting should use Linux instead of Windows anything. Less maintenance.

Agreed. Unless you "need" Microsoft, Linux should be preferred. Unfortunately, most people I work with have at least one app where it won't work.

 

[Mercutio]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,131742/article.html

 

[LiamC]

Can't figure out if this is a Vista or Intel issue--I'm leaning towards Intel

..."The site reports that users of Windows Vista who run RAID arrays with an Intel ICH8R chipset are vulnerable to a QuickTime problem that causes RAID errors.

I discovered that there is an issue with QuickTime and Windows Vista (32-bit and 64-bit versions). Whenever you attempt to play a QuickTime movie file that is on the RAID array, it will crash QuickTime and leave you thinking you have a dead drive that needs to be replaced. In actual fact, once you have Intel Matrix Storage Console installed and in Advanced View, you can just mark the bad drive as normal and then the array will automatically rebuild."...​