Windows Vista SP1 Benchmarks Highlight Performance Improvements, Penalties

[zekrahminator]

Most of you know that Microsoft created a new Service Pack for Windows Vista, and is in the middle of getting it out to people. Some select testers, such as CNET, already have a copy of the final batch, and were obliged to give it a test drive. What they found confused and made people wonder why Microsoft worked so hard in the first place. While, yes, Vista SP1 is a lot more stable, and there are performance boosts in some areas, there are a sizable chunk of tests where Vista SP1 performed worse in than it's predecessor. The CNET tests concluded that while Vista SP1 definitely oozes with effort, most users will hardly notice the difference between vanilla Vista and Vista SP1. Most of the performance hits were seen when copying or transferring files. If you'd like to read the full review, please check out CNET here.

Source: DailyTech

[ChillyMyst]

ooozes with effort but ends in fail.........

meh, i will stick with my trusty x64 pro, its stable, good drivers, fast, oh yeah, and ITS NOT VISTA!!!!

[broke]

what the hell? wasn't it one of SP1s' main purposes' to improve the already slow (relative to XP) transfer speeds found in the vanilla version?

[Kreij]

Most of what I do is disk-disk, or over-network transfers. If they can improve that it's a good thing. The only thing I saw from the article that was a degridation was the disk-USB transfers.

While not an upside for people who do lots of USB transfering, it's not a SP1 killer for me.

As far as being more stable, I don't have any stability problems with Vista now.

Just remember that before SP2, XP was not all that golden.

[ChillyMyst]

Originally Posted by Kreij

Most of what I do is disk-disk, or over-network transfers. If they can improve that it's a good thing. The only thing I saw from the article that was a degridation was the disk-USB transfers.

While not an upside for people who do lots of USB transfering, it's not a SP1 killer for me.

As far as being more stable, I don't have any stability problems with Vista now.

Just remember that before SP2, XP was not all that golden.

2k usp5>xp sp2>vista
2k3 sp2>2k usp5>xp sp2>vista
and since xp x64 is just server 2003 64bit in pro mode it=win or it=golden

[Kreij]

[QUOTE=ChillyMyst;659164]2k usp5>xp sp2>vistaQUOTE]

What are you basing your perceptions of the OS's on?
Why is 2ksp5 better than the newer OS's?

[AddSub]

Why is 2ksp5 better than the newer OS's?

Less overhead in general and no activation scheme. Not having to call Microsoft every time you swap/add few components is priceless.

[ChillyMyst]

[QUOTE=Kreij;659190]

Originally Posted by ChillyMyst

2k usp5>xp sp2>vistaQUOTE]

What are you basing your perceptions of the OS's on?
Why is 2ksp5 better than the newer OS's?

im basing it off os my 12+ years of experiance as a computer tech, the ammounts of problems i see with each personaly and from cleints as well as friends, many people i know have gone back to 2k dispite it nolonger being officialy supported.

first, 2k is VERY light on the system, unless you have a p4 with hyperthreding enabled it will be faster then xp or vista.

xp is just 2k with ALOT of bloat added if you get down to it, some of the "fetures" ms added are handy for noobs, but some of the crap they added makes it HARDER to do stuff, like that simple shares bs, cant tell you how many times i have had to go in and manualy dissable that and just setup a normal workgroup based network in order for people to share files in their homes.

I cant tell you how many times I have spent HOURS trying to track down problems with xp that ended up tracking back to a singel critical hotfix that broke something the user needs(like the video drivers!!!)

XP was rushed out to replace ME/98se because MS had already marketed 2k as a buisness only os, now i agree with some of their logic, 2k dosnt have a bunch of excess wizzards, its not friendly to people who cant deal with reading a guide on how to setup a network or enable file sharing(cake for anybody who has google).
but thats part of what makes 2k better in many ways, it dosnt have all that CRAP getting in your way, you can just dive in and get stuff done.

2k uses less memory, dosnt backup viruses(system restore is known to backup viruses and even allow them to reinfect the system from said backups)

now xp is better then vista for the same reasions 2k is better then xp.

it has less bloat, uses less ram, and runs FASTER ON THE SAME HARDWARE, it also has FAR more stable/mature drivers and software support, xp isnt exectly golden in my eyes but its better then vista.

as to vista, i have had no less then 200 people come to me to have their shiney new vista install/system removed and have xp or even 2k put back on the system, because it dosnt work with alot of software, it is LESS STABLE AND RELIABLE then xp or 2k, it uses alot more ram, it dosnt let them do stuff they are use to doing without making them say "yes im sure i really want to do this" 15 times(ok not quite that many but u get the point)

ms has effectivly admited that vista=fail, they have acctualy detocated more resorces to getting windows 7 out on time because of it.

oh and add to the above negitives of vista the fact that its designed from the core out to be a drm monster catering to the riaa/mpaa to stop you from using your system as you see fit, soon you wont beable to watch a movie at full res if u dont have hardware the mpaa approves of, you wont beable to listen to high quility music without hardware/speekers that the riaa approve of, vista has a built in system to degrade video and audio quility on systems that dont match the **aa specs.

oh as to 2003/xp64, they are really what xp should have been from the start, fast, stable, reliable, very few buggs that are os related.

i have a system in the other room thats been running 2003 since about 2 weeks b4 it hit the market, no reinstalls, i just updated to sp1 then sp2, it sits there so people can check their email or whatever with it, never crashes, never errors out, show me an xp system that in the past 5 years has the same track record?

i can show you win 2k systems with a better record then that!!!

there are still millions of windows 2000 servers in use allover the world, and 2k pro is THE SAME EXECT OS AS SERVER, they use the same updates, only diffrance is a few reg keys.

there are still companys paying MS for extended 2k support, no joke, one in this area still uses 2k on ALL their systems, they get new computers from dell or whoever and wipe then and install 2k because ITS 100% reliable and JUST WORKS.

how that answers your question why i say 2k>xp>vista

[ChillyMyst]

Originally Posted by AddSub

Less overhead in general and no activation scheme. Not having to call Microsoft every time you swap/add few components is priceless.

forgot that part, yeah, 2k is a gem, even to a gamer like me, use to and still laugh at ppl who say 2k sucks for games but say xp rocks.....when really its the same os just less bloated.

[Triprift]

I can put up with slower usb transfers no big deal.

[ChillyMyst]

Originally Posted by Triprift

I can put up with slower usb transfers no big deal.

the point is you shouldnt have to if Vista is all ms and vistaiots claim it should be faster and better in every way not slower lol

[phanbuey]

Originally Posted by ChillyMyst

2k usp5>xp sp2>vista
2k3 sp2>2k usp5>xp sp2>vista
and since xp x64 is just server 2003 64bit in pro mode it=win or it=golden

hell yeah! i miss my XP64 which i had to "find" since they didnt friggin sell it.

[ChillyMyst]

ms sold it but u could only find it online here, and then at the time it wasnt worth the bother because no driver support really excisted, now theres plenty of driver support, but its had a few years to mature

[qwerty_lesh]

ChillyMyst, thats a nice rant u had there
i agree with you especially on the system restore letting viruses into the sys vol info sub folders, its shite and maybe if m$ baught out GIANT sooner people who have to service other peoples (and even ppl who do it themselvs) wouldnt have had to do such thorough virus removal seeing how it shouldnt be getting into a folder which by default doesnt give the user account enough premissions to even browse.

altho at the same time, enjoy remote code execution vaunerabilities. the older os's may still be supported on the side but the support is no longer main stream which means that either any updates are private (and commonly wont address security issues, moreso only compatability issues) or just helpdesk related support (ie, knowledge base,ect. )

so, with pros, like more efficient and lite os'es their still out dated and their are still cons to factor in when using them.

but hey awesome read none the less

[warhammer]

ChillyMyst well put.

I am running SP1 and it is as per the article it states the facts, file transfer is still a pain but IE doesn’t crash that often and I do load up beta drivers and programs and do push my system.
I will say VISTA 64bit is a lot faster than 32bit.
How people forget XP is famous for BSOD, VISTA you can luv it or hate it.
But people have their comfort zone and don’t like change."DO it you will like it"
But I have heard that longhorns code is being updated into VISTA.
For me the VISTA experience has been good just as with LONGHORN, XP, NT, 2000, 98, 95,windows 3.1 and good old dos.

I know some one that is still running 95

VISTA ROCKS

[kenkickr]

IE has had issues since back in win95 days. Why not try Firefox or Opera? I'm not sure if I'll jump on SP1 because my install has been very nice and stable and whoever said 64bit Vista is faster than 32bit Vista is dead on!! Noticable difference between the two and alot of my friends that see my system agree all the time.

[candle_86]

heck id still be using Windows 2K if Crysis and CnC3 supported it, you can make them run, but its a bitch and affects Multiplayer online also which really sucks. As for XP x64 I have a copy, but are the Nvidia drivers caught up for it yet, or is 32bit still faster?

[candle_86]

Originally Posted by warhammer

ChillyMyst well put.

I am running SP1 and it is as per the article it states the facts, file transfer is still a pain but IE doesn’t crash that often and I do load up beta drivers and programs and do push my system.
I will say VISTA 64bit is a lot faster than 32bit.
How people forget XP is famous for BSOD, VISTA you can luv it or hate it.
But people have their comfort zone and don’t like change."DO it you will like it"
But I have heard that longhorns code is being updated into VISTA.
For me the VISTA experience has been good just as with LONGHORN, XP, NT, 2000, 98, 95,windows 3.1 and good old dos.

I know some one that is still running 95

VISTA ROCKS

you mean being readded, get an early beta build of Vista, it doubles as a server OS, it wasnt untill Vista Beta 2 that Longhorn and Vista Split

[Laurijan]

I wouldnt run Vista if DX10 would be availible for XP and i am sure SP1 for Vista wont change that..

[ManofGod]

Originally Posted by ChillyMyst

2k usp5>xp sp2>vista
2k3 sp2>2k usp5>xp sp2>vista
and since xp x64 is just server 2003 64bit in pro mode it=win or it=golden

Maybe it was a typo but there is no Win2k SP5. The last one that was produced was win2k SP4 unless I am missing something.

Joe

[AddSub]

Maybe it was a typo but there is no Win2k SP5. The last one that was produced was win2k SP4 unless I am missing something.

There are unofficial service packs out there for various WinOS, including Windows 2000. Heck, there are several unofficial service packs for Windows 98 SE, up to version 2 last time I checked.

People like to believe once Microsoft discontinues support for a certain OS that fixes and patches stop. It don't work that way. There are millions upon millions of developers, businesses, regular and power users out there who depend on and actively use "older" WinOS releases. Example: MSFN forums has a huge Win95/Win98/Win98SE community. They even got some kind of project going for patching the kernel and various libraries/DLL's on Win98 so it would run Win2k/XP games/apps.

[ChillyMyst]

yes i was refering to the unofficial service pack 5, when ms didnt put out an SP5 like they promised after xp came out some user on MSFN, cant remmber his name, started making unofficial sp5, its a completion of hotfixes and updates that leave very few hotfixes to download, there was work being done for a newer version that would also update WMp/ie and other built in apps in order to ease setup for everybody, but it hasnt gotten that far since from what i reammber the head of the project got sick or something (like cancer type sick not just a cold)

and MS is STILL putting out patches for 2000 to slect companys because they are paying for extended support plans and NEED 2k, there are apps that wont run on any version of windows but the one they here made for/on, these apps tend to be costom made and very hard to get updated, and many times they are mission critical, so keeping 2k servers and desktops working is a must even now 8 years after it came out.

hell i have seen companys with production servers still running nt3 and 4 because the program they have running on that server REQUIERS the older version of windows......ms isnt stupid they know that if they dont offer a way for large companys to get support for older mission critical servers and systems that large corps will start to move away from ms to something like linux.

[WarEagleAU]

My thing is, if they spend time on a service pack, it should be all pluses with very very very few if any, negatives to it. Personally, I dont care about slow usb storage transfer speeds.

[phanbuey]

obviously the people who dont care about USb transfers dont have a digital camera, or camcorder, or iPod, since all of those things are affected. Also ReadyBoost or whatever, might be affected as well. We'll see when this comes out... real bad when you fix something only to have something else break.