Vista Sales Up 47 Percent Since July

[AddSub]

It's not just the bloat issues. Vista is such a mess. Some personal observations on my primary machine: 3DMark2006 is about 11% slower, 3DMark2003 is about 14% slower, and 3DMark2001 is 44% slower (19k vs. 34k). GLExcess runs @ 2-3FPS max, final score being less than 1k (vs. 26k on 2K/XP), this is due to shitty implementation of OpenGL. HD Tune benchmarks report much slower read/burst rates on my RAID0 (about 20% slower overall) and CPU usage is reported (in HD Tune) about 30% higher than 2k/XP (31% vs. 39% in Vista). WinRAR benchmark (3.71) also shows about 8% slower performance. Encoding with VirtualDub takes similar performance hits. Every game and/or applications either runs slower or it fails to run at all.

Also, you can forget about serious overclocking. On three separate machines (one of mine and two of various family members) I have run into problems with Vista and overclocking. For example, my primary machine (<-- info on the left) does not boot unless I take the overclocks almost back to stock settings. My CPU is just fine @ 3.05Ghz with 2k/XP (18+ hours Prime95 stable), best I could get Vista to boot with was 2.6Ghz.

Someone mentioned that 2k is XP. Yup, pretty much true. XP is 2k, just with a hallucinogenic lego color theme and fisher price interface and dialogs for the inept.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

What I don't understand is, what new CPU is coming out that will simply overpower that which is Vista? The only other CPU that's coming out after C2D is Penryn and the results from that are no were as dramatic going from P4 to C2D. So with Wolfdales do out next year there are no indicators that suggest that anyone will have the hardware that will cast a shadow of performance enhancements for Vista.

Even with the G100 and R700 do out next year they cannot help with some of the problems that Addsub descibed so we are back to square one. What I don't understand is why people are defending an OS which has obvious problems and will have a shorter life cycle then XP? Maybe if there was no other OS in the near future we would just have to deal with it but that's not the case at all. It makes me wonder if those who defend Vista so vigilantly are even aware that MS is working on a new OS?

 

[bassmasta]

I've had no problems with vista at all. granted, there are some programs I need xp for, but they are few and far between. vista works for everything I use more than once a week.

 

[eidairaman1]

I bet the people in the advertising department of Apple get paid a sh** load.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEAGmBRC1dc

 

[Wile E]

It's not just the bloat issues. Vista is such a mess. Some personal observations on my primary machine: 3DMark2006 is about 11% slower, 3DMark2003 is about 14% slower, and 3DMark2001 is 44% slower (19k vs. 34k). GLExcess runs @ 2-3FPS max, final score being less than 1k (vs. 26k on 2K/XP), this is due to shitty implementation of OpenGL. HD Tune benchmarks report much slower read/burst rates on my RAID0 (about 20% slower overall) and CPU usage is reported (in HD Tune) about 30% higher than 2k/XP (31% vs. 39% in Vista). WinRAR benchmark (3.71) also shows about 8% slower performance. Encoding with VirtualDub takes similar performance hits. Every game and/or applications either runs slower or it fails to run at all.

Also, you can forget about serious overclocking. On three separate machines (one of mine and two of various family members) I have run into problems with Vista and overclocking. For example, my primary machine (<-- info on the left) does not boot unless I take the overclocks almost back to stock settings. My CPU is just fine @ 3.05Ghz with 2k/XP (18+ hours Prime95 stable), best I could get Vista to boot with was 2.6Ghz.

Someone mentioned that 2k is XP. Yup, pretty much true. XP is 2k, just with a hallucinogenic lego color theme and fisher price interface and dialogs for the inept.

Upgrade to a multi core machine, and see the difference. Vista actually uses multi cores more efficiently. And just because your OC passes 18hrs of Prime95, doesn't mean it's stable. You have a bad OC if Vista won't run on it, period.





I also have had no problems with Vista.

I 100% agree with those that say it's just like when XP first came out. Everybody was reverting back to their previous OS, because performance and hardware support sucked. It's no different with Vista.

And for the people complaining about resource usage, saying that it's a MS Windows thing, BULLSHIT! Every single new OS that comes out from any of the camps, be it OS X, Linux, or otherwise, uses more resources to achieve more features with every major revision.

I just installed Leopard on my iMac, and it uses about 30% more ram, just sitting idle. Even the latest versions of Linux are getting bloated (compared to older Linux distros). It's the natural progression of things. More features = the need for more resources.

 

[AddSub]

Upgrade to a multi core machine, and see the difference.

Like I said in a previous post, and to quote myself: three separate machines (one of mine and two of various family members)

In fact one of the machines had a multicore Athlon 64 X2 5200+ CPU. There were severe issues with Vista even before I got to overclocking that particular system. There were serious issues with RAM timings @ stock settings. No such issues were experienced with WinXP SP2, which booted just fine. Interestingly, 2Mhz oc on the RAM would cause Vista to go into convulsions, while a nearly 30Mhz OC was perfectly stable on XP. Issues with CPU overclocking were even greater than what I experienced with other single core systems.

and just because your OC passes 18hrs of Prime95, doesn't mean it's stable. You have a bad OC if Vista won't run on it, period.

My stability testing process is quite rigorous and I used the Prime95 example as just that, an example. I use OCCT, Memtest86, 48+ hour long loops of GLExcess(mostly for GPU/VRAM overclocks), 3DMark2001/03/05/06 (mostly for personal performance comparisons), Passmark Suite(somewhat inconsistent but still decent). You name it, I've ran it, and ran it long and hard. The primary system in my profile is rock stable and has been at those settings for the past 14 months. As far as Win2k/XP are concerned at least (Note: various distros of Linux experienced similar issues with the overclocks on several of my test machines, including my media box and my primary machine. So, that’s another thing Linux has in common with Vista, aside from pointless and resource grabbing eyecandy)


As for XP, I did an in depth performance review on DSLReports.com (aka BroadbandReports.com) back in February 2002. And even then, in its buggy and unpatched form, with severe driver shortage, my tests showed a 1 to 5 percent of difference in favor of Win98SE, mostly when it came to 2D/3D performance. (A difference that is measurable even today, with fresher drivers) Although, I must admit XP did perform better in most CPU based computational/MMX tests. (vs. Win98SE) I still have the results/charts/data files archived somewhere. I could probably dig em up, for reference's sake.

The differences in performance are much grater between Vista and previous iterations of NT (2k/XP) than when compared to differences found in XP vs. 2k, or XP vs. Win98SE.

Oh, by the way, I haven't ran into a machine, single or dual core, with or without large amount of RAM that can run Vista flawlessly. Like I said, this is not a just about bloat.

 

[Bundy]

just because your machine is tuned for XP doesn't mean its best for vista

 

[Wile E]

Like I said in a previous post, and to quote myself: three separate machines (one of mine and two of various family members)

In fact one of the machines had a multicore Athlon 64 X2 5200+ CPU. There were severe issues with Vista even before I got to overclocking that particular system. There were serious issues with RAM timings @ stock settings. No such issues were experienced with WinXP SP2, which booted just fine. Interestingly, 2Mhz oc on the RAM would cause Vista to go into convulsions, while a nearly 30Mhz OC was perfectly stable on XP. Issues with CPU overclocking were even greater than what I experienced with other single core systems.



My stability testing process is quite rigorous and I used the Prime95 example as just that, an example. I use OCCT, Memtest86, 48+ hour long loops of GLExcess(mostly for GPU/VRAM overclocks), 3DMark2001/03/05/06 (mostly for personal performance comparisons), Passmark Suite(somewhat inconsistent but still decent). You name it, I've ran it, and ran it long and hard. The primary system in my profile is rock stable and has been at those settings for the past 14 months. As far as Win2k/XP are concerned at least (Note: various distros of Linux experienced similar issues with the overclocks on several of my test machines, including my media box and my primary machine. So, that’s another thing Linux has in common with Vista, aside from pointless and resource grabbing eyecandy)


As for XP, I did an in depth performance review on DSLReports.com (aka BroadbandReports.com) back in February 2002. And even then, in its buggy and unpatched form, with severe driver shortage, my tests showed a 1 to 5 percent of difference in favor of Win98SE, mostly when it came to 2D/3D performance. (A difference that is measurable even today, with fresher drivers) Although, I must admit XP did perform better in most CPU based computational/MMX tests. (vs. Win98SE) I still have the results/charts/data files archived somewhere. I could probably dig em up, for reference's sake.

The differences in performance are much grater between Vista and previous iterations of NT (2k/XP) than when compared to differences found in XP vs. 2k, or XP vs. Win98SE.

Oh, by the way, I haven't ran into a machine, single or dual core, with or without large amount of RAM that can run Vista flawlessly. Like I said, this is not a just about bloat.

I honestly don't understand where your issues stem from, then. I have had no issues with Vista that can be blamed on the OS itself. Not with overclocks, not with anything. The only real issue I had was a BSOD at boot with Cats 7.2 (iirc), and that was ATI's fault. As far as gaming, my in-game settings are identical between the 2, and Vista doesn't degrade the experience in any way. In fact, I actually saw gains in a few titles. GRAW jumps to mind immediately. Most issues I ran into, I caused myself by messing with things I shouldn't have.

I take that back, I did have one problem with Vista. I had extraordinarily long boot up times at one point, on a clean install. We're talking 15min boot times here. Messed with it for a few days with no results. Re-installed and the problem was gone. Seems I just had a bad install that time around. XP does that upon occasion too, so I don't really think it's a Vista problem so much as a general Windows problem.

And I stand by my statement that you don't have a stable OC if Vista (or Linux for that matter) won't run it. Again, no issues here on that front.