What is Digg?50 Comments
- Evoguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Who mentioned anything about Macs? This article is about Aero power consumption in today's graphics hardware!? Honestly, the need to put in a little pro-Apple PR in every Vista story is getting a little old.
- pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I think you missed the purpose of this article ... it isn't really talking about GUI performance. It's measuring the power consumption of the GPU, and determines in the end that Vista doesn't cause your GPU to consume much more power than when it's idling.
- pcgeek101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17"Perhaps a reason that vendors like Dell, HP and Gateway are committed to Microsoft and not to exploring other options for their customers is because this forced cycle of obsolesence is an avenue of profit."
Dell sells servers with Redhat subcriptions. Get your facts straight. - Evoguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Yes, it's nice to see the fears of power consumption were unfounded. Incidentally, normal Aero interface uses very little power because it runs an extrememly simple shader, and doesn't actually engage most features of the GPU (i'm sure this intended). The reason power spikes during the quick-switch effect is because the Aniso-Filtering and AA hardware needs to come online to handle the on-angle windows all of a sudden, AF idles while all geometry is 0deg from the camera, and AA idles when most polygons edges are at right angles.
- Agret, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16"If only people understood...it's like a car. Sure an old beat up Ford will get you from point A to point B just as well as a Jaguar. But isn't it nice to own the Jaguar? I haven't touched Windows other than to test Vista & for BCIS homework since I got my MacBook Pro."
Cool, except with your crappy analogy my car won't use 97% of the fuels avaliable and I always regarded people who bought expensive cars as people with more money than sense, nothing against the Mac, just saying your analogy sucks. - marcusb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@threepio:
Car manufacturers come out with newer car models that get less MPG than previous generations all the time - geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@Vektuz
"It eats -video- RAM. Which will definitely have a negative impact on games."
Good point, since we all know that Vista will continue draw the desktop even when it isn't bieng displayed. /sarcasm
- joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7When I tried out Vista I was really surprised at how little impact Aero had on the system.
I installed a GPU temp monitor and it didn't rise one degree on my X850pro whilst spinning through the flip 3D thing. And the CPU didn't use any cycles either.
It's really cool. Even playing a DVD raises the temp a few degrees in XP.
The new slide-show app (which is a pretty cool looking feature) does use a lot of GPU juice though. The fans spun up for that. - ElGuano, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9This shouldn't be too surprising. (I'm not a Mac fan but) OS X has been reported to drain a laptop's batteries at about the same rate as XP; the former makes modest but regular use of the GPU, the latter doesn't. So Vista, RAM-hogging aside, should in theory be able to integrate GPU into the GUI without too significant a hit on power as well.
- theonlyvlad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Each new release of Mac OS X runs faster on existing hardware."
I'm sorry... moronic statement. Take a machine that natively runs OS 9. Now put OS X on it. Umm, would you say it runs faster than OS 9 on that hardware?
From a graphical standpoint the interface of Vista is a big leap from XP, similar to OS X from 9. You got GPU effects built in to the GUI itself.
Now, I'm sure that after Vista ships, some service packs will come out that might improve performance. That will be more similar to the versions of OS X coming out. - xyqxyq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"and the answer may surprise you"
Not when the title is (probably) the most simple and direct form of said answer, genious. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I was prepared to dig you down as another idiot bringing up Macs in an unrelated story, then you ruin the mood by making your post on topic and relevant. If we could have more intelligent exchanges of ideas and information--rather than stupid holy wars--PCs and Macs would both be better for it.
- sdrawkcaB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Vista has always run even better than XP ever has on my machine. Lately the newest builds are amazingly fast and take up very little resources. Not to mention I was running vista on a really old 15GB harddrive! My computer isn't anywhere near special even: P4 3Ghz 1.75GB RAM Radeon 9800Pro...
- DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Vektuz that's incorrect. FULL SCREEN games take exclusive control of the display and the DWM shuts down when this happens.
Also you CAN page video RAM smoothly thanks to the new driver model. Direct3D 10 cards will build on this and allow better pre-emptive scheduling. - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@marcusb
great point! tell him who's boss....lol
@threepio
Let us look at one key difference between Apple and Microsoft in terms of obsolecence.
Apple products go out of date faster than PC products. (they're still quite usable, but they aren't new and trendy anymore after a few months when the next gen comes out) As for obsolecence difference in philosophy. OSX is pretty much entirely incompatable with OS9. Forget OS8...and on down the line.
Microsoft on the other hand has supported old software from a decade ago (XP to 95), (as will be the case in Vista essentially) now you may say that this is a hinderance, and you're right it is, because if you keep clinging to compatability eventually you reach the end of your rope on innovation. Vista is the end of their rope.
But performance is a relative thing, Windows must run on all x86 processors (essentially). Each architecture is different, they are obviously all x86, but their implementations are different.
Linux is the case and point, linux users who want the absolute best performance of their software download the source and compile it to be processor/architecture specific. The software self optimizes itself to the hardware you have. That's something microsoft doesn't have the luxury of doing, and apple, well, does.
For example, if microsoft compiled Vista to use SSE4 instuctions to boost performance (which it would), then if you didn't have a Core based processor you wouldn't be able to run Vista at all (which is 98% of the planet). More goes into "performance" than the relative perspective humans put on it. Performance is a calculatable entity, it's about clock cycles and latency.
OSX can be compiled with the compiler optimized to take advantage of the specific hardware configurations that Apple provides. For example, all the MacTels support SSE3, while most PC's only support SSE2. And various other things like this happen, apple is at the strategic advantage of controlling the hardware AND software. So even if there was a performance dip, (which i haven't really seen), big deal, i understand from a hardware/software perspective there isn't much they can do about it. - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Let us look at one thing objectively. Since the statements have been cropping up.
Vista will require an upgrade in hardware for essentially all people who are at the bottom of the computer chain. However, it's about time that they got off their hardware anyway. I know people who are still using PC 2700 memory. I've even got a machine at home that uses PC 66 memory. That thing is over a decade old, i don't expect much out of it, if anything.
The expected lifespan in terms or hardware and software of a personal computer is 5-6 years. With the exception of very select parts, you can't get a warranty on your computer parts or whole for more than 5 years. Why, because by then, your technology is essentially obsolete.
XP is now about 5 years old, if you bought a machine when XP came out, or before it did, it's pretty much expected that for today's personal computing purposes your machine is obsolete. If you're computer is between when XP came out and now, you're in that touchy grey area. The closer to today you are, the more likely you are to be ready. However, becoming vista capable will most likely only require a few hardware upgrades if you wanted to go that far, no need to get a new machine.
I'm sure that Vista will run just fine on a 1.7Ghz Pent M, 1GB of DDR2 333, a 60GB 5400 RPM drive, and 128MB mobility graphics on a laptop that is 3 years old. Why? Because i've done it, and it works just great, even with Aero. Scored in the 3's on the experience scale.
Honostly i was concerned my machine wouldn't have the graphics horse power to handle it, but as of Beta 2, with only the tiniest of lag on the advance aero features (like flip 3d) it's performed as good or better than XP on the same machine.
This whole crap about not having a PC ready to run Vista is really just marketing. Most Machines bought in the last 3 years will be able to run Vista with minor upgrades (new graphics card) at most.
Never-the-less i was caught in the spell and i've built a new machine just for Vista, get's an amazing 5.0 on the experience scale.
But the article's point is clear, Vista doesn't demand so much more out of the hardware it's on, rather it's requiring the buffer to be in place before you use it.
I can't wait till RC2 tomorrow!!!!!!! - usefulidiot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I highly doubt this, even storing all the visual data in an uncompressed format for all the windows supposing you have 10 windows open would barely take 32MB. Given that the new video card standard for video ram is 256MB(min 128), it wouldnt be that hard to page-out 30mb of data when required to leave space for a game.
- mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3TheZorch, I don't know what you are complaining about. I use WMV9 video in Linux (including those HD video demos from microsoft.com). Look for a "win32codec" package.
I'd suggest converting your video to Vorbis/MP4/H.264 anyway. WMV9 is just a MP4 hack. - joeydoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's probably best not to take getting dugg down too seriously.
I just dugg you down (in that post ^) because you sound whinny. That had nothing to do with the Mac stuff. You get dugg up and down for a multiple of reasons. - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I suppose i should clarify before i'm flamed for saying something dumb. The numbers are the RAM usage with the page file usage throw in to the mix, so Vista requires ~400MB and about 600MB of page, while XP is about 256MB and 200MB of page, just trying to clarify.
- maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't know why he's getting dugg down, it's funny.
And it's not an insult, just humor! - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2These test results don't come as a surprise, the system isn't rendering the screen if everything is sitting idle. Even with Aero Glass its not a video game and only updates when needed.
I get an hour more battery life on Vista than XP on this Core 2 Duo laptop (Dell Inspiron E1505). Vista is a lot more aggressive at throttling the CPU than XP. - t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>I'm sorry... moronic statement. Take a machine that natively runs OS 9. Now put OS X on it. Umm, would you say it runs faster than OS 9 on that hardware
Was Mac OS 9 a release of Mac OS X? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Cool. I`m holding out for a good Direct X 10 card ;)
- Lynn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The Ram usage does not seem too bad on RC1. With 6 tabs open in IE7, 7 Gadgets in the sidebar and Aero running I am using 400MB of my 1 Gig.
- TheZorch, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@n0yd
"So get Gentoo"
The Gentoo LiveCD is the only Linux distro besides Knoppix which would work with my hardware without having to reconfigure anything. X.org's Nvidia drives worked perfectly and my USB SoundBlaster Live works great also. One difference between Knoppix and Gentoo LiveCD is that you can install Gentoo to your HDD but its a little tricky to get Knoppix to boot off your HDD. I'll still need a Windows partition though for certain games which Wine/Cedaga won't run like the MMORPG Final Fantasy XI which I'm heavily into (I think it pwns World of Warcraft). If I can find a Windows Media codec for Linux I'd be installing Linxux ASAP. I have a few Anime fansubs in WMV9 format and they don't work right in Linux. - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@lynn
OS paging obscures alot of window's bloat. In x64 (notibly going to have integer bloat, but ignoring that) Vista ultimate requires ~1GB RAM + page x64 while XP pro requires about ~480MB RAM + page. If you disable your page file you'll notice that your RAM usage explodes.
I was shocked cause i thought 2GB was all the memory i'd need. But i turned off that page file and it resource monitor was sitting there at 51% usage after boot. Enabling pagefile dropped it down to 22% or about 400MB. (as you reported)
I prefer to turn off my pagefile since i almost never run out of memory (until Vista + VMware (oops)), i like the little performance boost i get. - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@sdraw
I'm curious what the RPM's are on your harddrive.
15GB is pretty small, but it may be 5400RPM, which for the dimensions of the harddisk might give you a huge boost in HDD to RAM performance.
However, you could probably get even more out of Vista if you disabled your pagefile and really take the HDD out of the mix with all that memory you've got. - Vektuz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2The funny thing about your sarcasm is that it isn't sarcasm.
Due to the new driver model in vista, the desktop and games share the same memory pool, and yes, the desktop is always allocated, because game windows are actually just 'full screen' windows on the desktop, which can be slid aside to show the underlying deskop, or even stacked in that ever-so-fancy stacked view that keeps showing up in fancy screenshots.
Bear in mind that at 1600x1200, you're talking 7 megs (32bit RGBA) usage per full screen app, plus extra for alpha masking, backbuffer and stuff. So you will likely see usages like 32-64mb of video ram used up, if not more.
NOw, that seems like a drop in the bucket to a 256mb video card, that -will- impact games which use up large amounts. You might find that you can do 'ultra mode' in XP, but have to go back to 'high detail' mode in Vista ;)
And no, you can't really 'page' video ram out smoothly. you can deallocate it and reallocate later, but that does cause clunkiness beyond what you'd expect for normal RAM page and unpage operations. - foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2which is why i'll be getting windows vista home basic, if at all within the next two years! :D
- Vektuz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1But it eats a crapload of OTHER resources such as RAM
and more importantly
It eats -video- RAM. Which will definitely have a negative impact on games. - Tsutsu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Both that beat up old Ford as the Jaguar have the same lighter plug (unless that Ford is really, really old) allowing you to install whatever cellphone charger/GPS device/handsfree system you want. This is not the case with computers.
Plus there's other things to consider. Some people don't want to have a car with power steering or cruise control or automatic transmission. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@ vandread
So get Gentoo
--omg-optimize
;) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I went to read this article then i realized i don't care. 2000 and XP is good enough what is vista going to offer that XP can't do? allow MS to see what I'm doing? keep me from pirating music? I'll pay for that!
If i can help it XP will be the last latest MS product I will ever use. Linux is good and instead of getting more bloated and less secure each time Linux gets faster and more hack resistant. (generaly) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4I'd rather have an RX-7 over a jaguar.
- eclectro, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Say that it's only 3.5 watts of power increase. Then if 75 million people/companies/libraries/pirates buy/use vista and upgrade, then that will be over 262 kilowatt hours, which according to carbon footprint is nearly a quarter of a million pounds of additional icecap melting CO2 in the enviroment every year.
Bloated code can make things warm. - NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4All that glittery crap just makes it harder to figure out what the hell is going on. Classic all the way.
- Agret, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Right on, not to mention the black aero theme looks like *****
- pidge, on 10/12/2007, -22/+7Yep, I went Mac as well. Many reasons for me not liking Vista so I picked up an iMac so that I can make a gradual switch as opposed to a quick switch at a bad time. So far, I like my new iMac very much. Still keeping my PC since there are many programs I purchased for the PC which are too expensive to replace.
- threepio, on 10/12/2007, -29/+8It's interesting that a new operating system brings about a performance *cut*. Would we accept this in any other industry - where a newer purchase will actually make your existing technology run slower?
Each new release of Mac OS X runs faster on existing hardware. Many distributions of Linux provide speed boosts over previous releases. Why is it that Windows makes old hardware obsolete? Perhaps a reason that vendors like Dell, HP and Gateway are committed to Microsoft and not to exploring other options for their customers is because this forced cycle of obsolesence is an avenue of profit.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is