The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

kingsize — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 02:29:25 GMT

Every newer version of windows has reflected a performance drop. There was a significant drop from 95 to 98, not too bad to XP. I can't speak for Vista yet - but its coming pre-installed on a Dell laptop. I'm looking forward to fiddling with all the bells and whistles. I'm not too worried about the performance, as long as it works.

...And I can allways dual boot with SUSE if Vista fails to perform. I get to wobble windows and play with 3d desktop environments on an 850 duron with 386MB RAM on that platform, so I know it will be pretty smooth even on a single core 1.8Ghz celeron and a few GB of RAM.

DX10 isn't enough to tempt me to Vista for the other PC's, although I'd describe myself as a hardware enthusiast. In fact, no, really, buying a console is cheaper and better for games. MMPOG'S are ported to Linux now - and that's an OS I can upgrade and re-install as many times as I like for free.

I like MS products - but, really, when we talk performance I'd like to see some real improvements and clever stuff - INNVOATION - like optional platter striping for the OS, programs or VM. I want "green" innovations for using "retired" memory modules over a dedicated bus - that would be cool, and much better power management, clever power management. I want better self-diagnostics. I don't want hangs BSODS and freezes and problems with drivers and IRQ's. I want windows to repair itself better. I want more control of what gets swapped and what is in RAM. And I want an OS that can run previous generations of operating systems virtually so the software I have will allways run and so that better, braver and faster solutions can be found without worrying about backwards-compatability too much.

And I don't want bloat.

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

session0 — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:29:12 GMT

Hey Nick: I would love to see an update to this now that Windows Vista SP1 has released to manufacturing. May people want to know what the performance story of Vista is and if SP1 changes it and how do we measure that.

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

ChicagoBobt — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:16:17 GMT

Will they be industry standard or

MS standard?

Will these benchmarks contain video/audio compression of several compressors, simutaneous processes, statistical analysis,

time to start applications, start applications

like Visual Studio 2005, time to start Vista from a cold start, thread benchmarks, and raytracing, database query and record retrival?

Or?

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

Nick White — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:07:30 GMT

Hey session0: we'll have more news and guidance on benchmarking Windows Vista SP1 at its RTM, which is coming soon ...

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

session0 — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:16:55 GMT

Nick,

If the Devil Mountain benchmarks are flawed, but you agree that benchmarking is important, then what is the correct methodology? The Principled Technologies tests reference proprietary tools that were lent to them from Microsoft for the tests (ScenCap), I don’t see how independent tests can reproduced independently. Can you advise on a tool or methodology for benchmarking that you do think would produce accurate results?

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

Smaug — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:22:22 GMT

I bougth a notebook with Windows Vista and WOW, my new pc was as slow as a 486, the solution: install a free operating system "UBUNTU"

WOW i lost my money... WOW

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

eponymousnyc — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 06:53:14 GMT

I just bought a new Core 2 processor and couldn't wait to put in my Vista machine to see it fly. The result was absolutly no increase in speed at all. So I disconnected the primary hard drive and installed xp on the secondary hd I used for mirroring. It's the exact same hard drive as the primary and I even used the same cables. So how does the exact same machine run with xp instead of Vista? Incredibly faster. No contest. I'm wiping the Vista drive and considering the money lost. Was this the correct way to assess Vista or am I doing something wrong?

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

ChicagoBobt — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:01:32 GMT

Considering it was to be launched in 07

then backed to early 08 and now early 08 means

first half (June) I would call that sliping.

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

Nick White — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 21:37:47 GMT

Hey ChicagoBobt: not sure what you're referring to, as the release of Windows XP SP3 has not been delayed - it is on track and progressing according to schedule.

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

ChicagoBobt — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:24:42 GMT

Not hearing anything more on the topic I was wondering why XP SP3 was delayed?

Could it be because it wiped the floor with Vista? Thats what some would think. Even

I wonder though I normally dont way a tin foil

hat.

I was reading the comments you made on performance above and noted that nothing

in the study was done for multimedia.

Compression number of simultaneous video stream playback (which tests Threading and multitasking)

The bench marks you provided a PDf for are

a very sad group indeed.

When you see bench marks you normally look at the hardest tasks first then look at the simpler tasks.

None for 2003 office? Why not?

Most people have not moved to 2007 yet.

I am sorry Nick that Vista seems to perform so poorly. But it seems that the desire for PC users has not changed.

this link should give you some idea of how well Vista is doing.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/01/08/pcs-shipped-without-windows

No matter what Mr Bill says.

It seems from development tools to OS tools

MS has really lost its primary vision and trying to market its way out of everything.

Vista is starting to bump into the release of the next OS and may become as obscure as windows ME.

So what does MS going to do about that?

Nothing I guess. You can ride on the billions

of monopoly money you have until you make a better OS. This is why monopolies are bad. They no longer have the pressure to deliver and

inovate. I will say it again. MS used to make fun of IBM. Its departmetns and groups that have NO idea what the other groups are doing.

Welcome to the new MS. IBM as it was in the 80's. How many bosses do you have Nick? How many people do you need to make a command decision? I bet its a LOT more than before.

Anyway thats my view of the internal problems that plauge the mighty 10,000 pound gorilla.

Its so full of cash kings and groups its got a tummy ache.

Bob

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

Nick White — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 01:49:40 GMT

Hey hexaae: prior to SP1 RTM, we're releasing updates that improve performance and reliability on most machines. Thus, it's likely that most or all the issues you may have today will be alleviated via these updates, but it's also wise to read the documentation that will accompany SP1 at it RTM and consider installing it at that point if a review of the documentation warrants it.

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

ChicagoBobt — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:25:26 GMT

Every video/audio application that needs speed and has a Vista driver turns off Aero for starters. Then it has you turn off all the great features that are supposed to protect you from virus etc.. In short any power user has to turn off anything that makes Vista, Vista to get performance.

The OS is too busy trying to send MS information that you have a legal version than performing its main duty,

providing FAST bug free performance.

OK so the last bit was a cheap shot but it remains for MS to prove that this OS is worth owning. Is 64 bit faster? No not so far. Is 32 bit Faster? no not so far.

Where are the numbers that state you can compress video 20 or 30% faster (should be able to with 64 bit I/O)

Where are the numbers that state you can have HD playing without skiping while you compress and burn a DVD on a Quad CPU machine?

Where are the features for the power users that

would make us stand up and take notice?

Instead you get annoying pop ups and folders you can not access. What a nightmare.

I belong to several Video user lists and the feeling is the same. Vista YUCK..

And for the average user the spin the Mac -vs- PC commercial hits it right on the head.

HOW many Mac OS versions? 1 How Many PC Vista

Versions? Well you have about 10 or is that 12? How completely insane. Fire that decision maker NOW. Worst Idea ever. There should be 2 versions Server and Non Server.

Mr White I leave it to you. Your a PM there.

I have been in this for 20 years beta tested

3.1 windows and more.. I love tech

so can you tell me when you will deliver a real

OS upgrade? One with blinding speed that boots

in no time? Can multitask with these new multicore CPU's. Can actually NOT use SLOW virtual memory and doesnt have a memory foot print the size of a house?

I remember DOS 3.1 started to use more than a few KB and people screamed. Are you guys going for the GB OS? Why? What do I get for that GB?

Waiting for some sort of reply.

Tell me what Vista can do and keep performance.

Oh and one more thing..

I bought a laptop and they charged me $40 to tune it up so it would boot faster. Is that

what you get from Vista? More charges?

Bob

re: The right time to assess Windows Vista's performance

thecollective — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:44:03 GMT

I recently installed Vista Enterprise on a 1.6GHz AMD Semperon Notebook with 1GB of RAM (32MB shared video) and an 80GB 7200RPM HDD.

My prior experience with Windows Vista had been very negative from the performance side of things. I was doing this informal "test" as a way of showing a worst case scenario for performance as the organization I work for will be migrating to Vista next summer.

I have to say that I was very pleasantly surprised. On the machine I am running:

Vista Enterprise 32bit

Office 2007

Adobe Createive Suite 3 Design Premium

AVG Anti-Virus

While the performance is nowhere near earth-shattering, I am pleased to say its very usable. I can open and close applications 2 or so at a time without having any slowdowns. In addition, despite the rather large at-boot memory footprint, the system seems content returning to that footprint when the applications are closed.

Now, I'm not doing any major design work, nor am I opening 4 to 5 heavy-duty apps at once, but again, this was a usability test for old hardware.

I was very surprised that Vista was up to the task. I will be doing more of these subjective tests in the future. For now, call me pleasantly surprised.

More on the differences between real world Vista performance and that of a benchmark

David Overton's Blog — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:41:53 GMT

Following up on my articles that discuss Vista performance (I still stick by my statement that it is

Windows Vista SP1 Release Candidate Announcement

External Links & References (SSQA.net) — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:38:45 GMT

Windows Vista SP1 RC is released on 05th December to the Beta Testers on the Microsoft-Connect and on