What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.158 Comments
- randomgeek, on 10/12/2007, -16/+107@estvir2
It's amusing to me that your entire counter argument revolves around percentages, then at the bottom you say "don't quote me on the percentages". - Serigei, on 10/12/2007, -32/+110I've been messing with Vista 5536-16385 for the last 16 hours on my main system:
AMD64 3500+
2GB RAM
nVidia 6800GS 256MB
5536-16385 is definately better than Beta 2 in all the ways that annoyed me - resource usage (default memory footprint down to ~380MB from ~600MB), UAC nagging (MUCH more reasonable, but still a bit much in places), etc, and I'm looking forward to trying out RC1. HOWEVER, if this is the best they can do, Microsoft is in deep *****. Mac OS X 10.5, GNOME 2.16, KDE4 and XGL are going to mop the floor with this garbage. Maybe not market share-wise, but those of us using them will be LOLing at those who aren't.
My major complaint right now is about Aero. It's slow and hogs resources. The elements I do like (the window buttons which glow on hover, transparent/blurred/reflective window frames) have been ported to Compiz + CGWD and not only look better/run smoother/feel faster, but can be tweaked in any way you want and run perfectly on much weaker hardware, like my old PIII/256MB/GeForce 2 MX400 64MB. XGL FTW. - ttkgeek, on 10/12/2007, -17/+54I agree. Windows Vista build 5536 (Pre-RC1) is an excellent and stable build. It's speedy and doesn't have as many bugs as Beta 2.
- estvir, on 10/12/2007, -11/+48This article is obvious 'flamebait' - that's aside from the title too.
He acknowledges that MS hasn't been focusing on performance in earlier builds and says at least twice that the latest builds show a very big increase in performance as that is now the focus when they start hitting the RC road.
Also, the people who email him are clueless.
"One message, from reader Randall Asato, warned that folks thinking they can run Aero on older hardware will be out of luck."
Aero Glass or Aero Express ? Aero Express is as fine (If not better due to WDDM and so on) as the normal XP GUI.
"The only graphics cards that'll do justice for Vista Aero will probably be in PCIe [Express] by that time—out of luck for those with and AGP or (gasp!) only standard PCI"
You've got to be kidding me, cards in Nvidia's FX range and ATI's 9x00 series should run it perfectly fine and those are all many years old AGP cards.
From all the reviews/articles I've read about the latest build, 5536, most performance/driver issues are gone, or quickly disappearing and while the "It's a beta" argument seems a bit old, it's perfectly valid.. still.
Wait till at least RC1, or preferably post RC1 or even RTM. - Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -9/+42@diggywiggit
Sigh....it's amazing to me how quickly people will jump to conclusions based on an article that I submitted (that I'm a linux fanboy). And to boot, he can tell that I'm a linux fanboy based on my profile. Wow, I don't remember checking the "linuxfanboy" mark on my profile.
Except for one older Compaq that I try different flavors of unix on (it currently has BSD that I SSH to), I run Windows XP and love it.
So if you care to come back and offer up some proof that I'm a linux fanboy, I'd love to hear it. - panique, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29~ 1yr old qualifies as "relatively ancient" ??? (X800)
- randomgeek, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32@kupop
Then maybe he should have verified them before spouting out statistics? People will call a researched article flame bait, but allow for commenter's to just blather on about things they don't know and even say they don't know at the bottom?
Priceless. - mikm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17While I agree that one should wait longer to berate Microsoft over Vista's performance, the arguement that there are "Machines built specifically" is incorrect and weak. A machine that meets the recommended system requirements for VIsta should be able to run it smoothly regardless of whether or not the builder had Vista in mind.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20No offence, but an x800 is a pretty good gfx card. Which is WAY above average for the average user.
Try running aero on a x300 or a 9200, the kind of cards that will run xgl and compiz fine, and I think you'll find that you can't. Not that I agree with this article, but I think that the system requirements for vista (with aero enabled, which is a selling point), are hefty.
Apart from that, I'm waiting until vista is actually out to comment on it again. - harshbarj, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20The odd thing is people I talk to can't say enough about their overall experience with vista. Sure a few places it slows down a bit but those are the areas where, in the latest builds, speed has picked up. Seems to be yet another article trying to slam Microsoft for no good reason (and their have been a lot of those lately).
- hankyone, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Vista is full of debugging code, off course it will be sluggish
- byronm, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19I've been beta testing vista since may and it has improved greatly. I can run Vista with Media Center on an Athlon XP 1700 with 512 megs ram and an old geforce video card and play hi-def content, record 1 show from cable and one show from OTA HD and its fine.
Xbox 360 extender support was terrible for a hwile but 5536 pre RC1 has fixed most of those issues. I'm even able to play RAW and hi bit rate HD content over 802.11g without frame loss or lag.
Application compatibility has increased 10 folder, vendors are catching up and companies are looking forward to running in vista.
Slower??? nope.. for most people that have a real 3d card and at least 512 megs of ram VIsta will appear snappier when running multiple tasks because the video card is better handling UI elements - ESPECIALLY with the new .net 3 and vista aware applications.
Vista isn't for everyone, if you have a slow PC in XP it won't be faster in vista but to say vista is a dog is downright WRONG. - Burmask, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18That defines much of the MS content on Digg. Why? It's easy to pick low hanging fruit.
Ironically, MS is sure it talked about on digg but does not have a category. - byronm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Vista is far more granular in security, drivers, application installation and management. DX10 will be the most notable improvement for gamers looking to do some insane stuff,
The administration and installation of VIsta and the new slipstreaming of patches, drivers and standard applications is amazingly quick and simple..
Networking - wifi management, hotspot and browsing/roaming support. Private, shared and public network simplifaction.
Media sharing - manage your catalog in WMP and users can connect to the catalog through media connect and play your media. even most subscription services allow other pcs to connect to your main PC and play protected content easily. Works even to the xbox 360 without requiring media center/ultimate edition.
new device driver model - vista aware drivers can do soft boots instead of hard boots.
Much more granular security and file permissions.
laptop support is amazing compared to the bugger that XP and especially 2k were in everything from power management to hardware support/awareness.
i personally like the cleanliness, performance and ease of use. I'm growing fond of the gadget bar which on wide screen laptops and montors makes great use of the real estate. - Damhna, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19Flamebait is right.
I might take his comments more seriously if his entire review was based on anything other than heresay. Everything is based of the reports of other people and not his own experience What sort of review is that ? - Judahgabriel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11How slow? I'm running Vista beta 2 on my 1GB ram, 2.2GHZ Intel, and it runs just fine. I understand the newer CTP builds are improving performance as well.
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -20/+30I've been playing around with Vista since Beta 2 on my relatively *ancient* Athlon 64 3000 and Radeon X800 and Aero works just FINE.
Build 5536 runs so much smoother than Beta 2 and my games run just as well as they do in XP.
This article is pure flamebait and pointless. And to the fella complaining about Vista sucking next to XGL/OSX/Gnome/etc...the difference is that Vista actually has apps you can run on it. And if Aero runs smoothly on my 3 year old video card, it will work just fine for about anybody. - alwaysmc2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13"build 5536 runs like crap on my PII 300Mhz machine. I think we have another Windows ME here!"
Perfect! :) (I realize that you are being sarcastic, btw.) What people don't realize is Vista takes a better computer because it does more.
So.... Build 5536 runs GREAT on my Pentium 4, 2.5GHz box with 700(ish)MB RAM, and an ATI All-In-Wonder 2006 edition. In previous versions I have to turn Aero off because the system would be too sluggish, but I have it on now and it works great. - Gregd, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22"What I meant by "profile" is that you digg linux stories. Thats why I called you a linuxfanboy aka "a guy that likes linux". No offence."
Calling someone a "fanboy" of anything doesn't imply that they simply like something. It implies that they fervently promote something to the exclusion of everything else.
I don't promote any OS over another. I recommend the correct OS for the correct job. Dirt poor non-profits, aren't good candidates for Active Directory, MS Office, Exchange and Server 2003. They are better candidates for *nix and Open Office. - hotdamn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10One of my main concerns about Vista is, wheter or not it will keep its speed or lack thereof over the course of time or if it will need regular reformats.
As soon as they fix that, I might give the Windows world another shot.
It's not like OSX is the OS to end all OSs. - kazkernel, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19Lets see I have OS X 10.2 ( that is the latest version it will supprot with xpostfacto) running on a PowerComputing PowerBase 200 with a 350MHz G3 upgrade. I believe the bus speed it 67MHz. 769MB of Ram. Surfs the web and s email just fine. This machine was release on 1996. 10.2 is far slower than 10.3 or 10.4.
Also have a PowerBook G4 667 from 2002 that has gotten faster with every update to OS X it is running 10.4.7. I still run Digital Performer, Indesign, Photoshop etc. It is faster than when I purchased it.
Lastly my mother in law is using a 350MHz G4 running 10.4.5. does Office email and the web just fine. Came out in 1999. Again when I installed 10.4 it became faster.
Now I don't care what OS you use. Just don't spout about what you don't know about. - seanmc303, on 10/12/2007, -14/+22Point of article = Vista is not efficient at this point. All of those who say that if you don't like how fast your computer runs, "buy new hardware", just don't get it. Vista is playing catch up in the cool user interface world. Many flavors of Linux and OS X have been ahead of Windows for quite some time now as far as pretty goes. The funny thing is that Linux and Mac run "pretty" desktops and beat the crap out of Vista's performance running the same hardware. Windows has and most likely will always be the fat cow of the OSs.
- Tom_Riddle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15I have 10.3 on an old 500Mhz Blue and white.
and its real fast.
Do your research. - chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I agree with you.
- golgotha, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13"XGL uses about the same resources as Aero by the way."
Are you kidding me?
I'm running XGL/Compiz on my laptop:
1130MHz
512MB RAM
This thing totally screams. When the Windows users in my office stop by and see my XGL/Gnome desktop, they all say the same thing, "Uh oh, Microsoft is in trouble..." - byronm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7DX10 isn't about backwards compatibility, its about moving forward and thus if a game requires DX10 it will require vista.
However Vista has no problems running older DX games. I've been playing many games through out the beta and none of them failed because of DX support.
As for 16bit? that is only removed in the x64 version and it actually makes X64 just that much "snappier" not having the legacy stuff involved.
DX10 isn't justa new API its a new interface to the graphics hardware in vista and short of re-writing that interface to XP it wouldn't be cost effective. Games that can't use DX10 will fall back to 8 in most cases and work on older releases just not taking advantage of what hardware and software DX10 and supported video cards will offer. - WinGeek, on 10/15/2008, -19/+26build 5536 runs like crap on my PII 300Mhz machine. I think we have another Windows ME here!
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -16/+22how s-l-o-w... almost as s-l-o-w as this news day.
Lets trying running OSX on a 10yr old mac and see how slow it runs. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Marked as VERY VERY VERY ACCURATE.
- Hungryhaney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Wow - If an Athlon x64 is ancient, then what would my Athlon XP 2000 be called? Adam?
LOL - ZepFloyd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8story buried...
5536 is rather speedy and has somewhat restored my faith that vista wont be another ME. it runs just as well as xp for me so hopefully the final product is even better. - Tom_Riddle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Thats a stupid arguement.
Virtually no computers are designed to run linux and I'm runnning version 0.2 of Korroraa with XGL blazingly fast on a 1 GHz processor with 512 Mb of SDR.
choke on that. - Fritzed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Why has every recent article that points out problems with Vista been flagged as inaccurate? The only argument I see against this article is that the test system wasn't fast enough. That just proves the point of the article! You shouldn't need dual channel memory or a high-grade processor to run the operating system. The operating system is not a "power app" it is the most basic thing on your system. If you think that it is okay to require a top of the line pc just to run windows you are simply out of touch with reality.
-> Fritz
notepad.exe on Vista - System Requirements
CPU - 1.5ghz required - 2ghz recommended
RAM - 512MB required - 1GB recommended - Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@Ramble
I'm running compiz/xgl+cgwd along with an open terminal, amaroK, gaim and firefox with six tabs open. My current total Ram usage: 297 megs.
After rebooting Windows XP MCE no apps open aside from what the system runs during startup, my ram usage is just over 400 megs.
I can only imagine how much system resources Vista will suck up, but I can sure as hell bet you that it won't be under 300 megs. - byronm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5A fresh install of vista seems to last really well through multiple-add-remove cycles much more so than XP however your point is moot since XP really hasn't had many problems with needing to be whiped out everyonce in a while as long as you don't get hit with spyware, viruses and other "garbage". a poorly managed computer is bad no matter what OS you run after a while.
- cantabro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I have a pentium m 1'7 Ghz, 1GB ram, and a mobility radeon x700 with 64MB, and vista 5536 is FAST, at least as fast as XP. This article is just flamebait
- byronm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7My athlon 1700, generic white box with a 440mx video card runs vista better than it ran XP.
- jma06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"
The two main points I find exception with in Vista are:
1. Direct X 10 - Which will not be 100% backward compatible with previous versions of Direct X. From what I know right now it will only be compatible back to DX8 and will do OpenGL in emulation. This will effect a lot of popular games that people still play on XP. If this stays the same Microsoft will be shooting themselves in the foot when (and if) Vista ships.
"
You don't know Microsoft too well. This is a company which changed the OS to preserve compatibility with Sims. They know what games mean to their platform.
"
2. No 16-Bit Binaries - This will prevent you from installing your favorite software since most use pre-packaged installation software which are 16-bit rather than 32-bit. Most software publisher and game developers buy their install programs rather than write them. This will restricted the number of programs and games you can run on Vista immensely.
These two points make Vista a non-viable operating system in my honest opinion for home users. Any major screw up on MS's part could have serious negative effects on the PC industry.
"
Really? None of the installers (commercial and open source) I use are 16-bit. Which ones are you talking about?'' - Kliend, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I heard somewhere that they didn't even get into optimization untill after beta 2?
- superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Perhaps you should have read your own post - the computer you linked to was introduced in 95, and sold through 96 - discontinued mid year!
About five seconds in Google found the computer the other fellow was talking about:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/powercc/powerbase/powerbase200.html
Introduced in 96 - just as he said. Unlike your end-of-model life unit you drug up to try (unsucessfully) to prove your point. Sadly for you, the rest of us are able to use the Internet as well. - nazadus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9uhh, it's in debuggin mode dudes.
I'll place this on a little more perspective.
A coworker was working in debugging mode. It took about 45 seconds to load up a form (when running). When not in debuggin, it took about 3 seconds.
These are rough values, but I reemmber debugging seriously slowed down the speed -- especially in .NET (which, IIRC, is by nature because of it's interpreted nature? I haven't done my full research on why though, but I think that's it). - Dominatus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Oh this is ridiculous.
You have a *heavily* upgraded machine that you are claiming was built in 1996? Are you kidding me?
In 1998 I spent a lot of money on a 300 mhz machine. The 350 mhz upgrade was therefore no where close to 1996. Furthermore, look at the amount of RAM you have in that thing! In 1996 you were lucky to have a very small fraction of that. That much RAM didn't become common until the 2000's. How could you possibly say the machine is from 1996?
Here, THIS is a 1996 mac:
http://www.lowendmac.com/ppc/9500.shtml
16 MB of RAM, 200 mhz. No, OS X would *NOT* run on it. Niether would vista, not even close, but can we just not ***** around here.
Disclaimer: I do own a mac, I'm actually typing this on a MBP as we speak. I love OS X but I just think saying that machine is 10 years old is ridiculous. - Wang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I can't say i've had a problem with Vista at all....I switched one of my desktops to the latest beta recently, and the speed seems to be the same as XP (even with aero). Ok, I wish it was faster than XP, but it's certainly better than XP in most areas and if the speed is at least the same then I am happy.
- ratbear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Read this article, also from David Morgenstern, from just about a month ago:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1990335,00.asp
Basically he is reporting, uncritically, on the possibility of Apple cutting off legacy hardware support for Leopard. - BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Panique - the X800 series chipsets are at least 2 years old now.
The X300 GPU in my laptop handles Aero just fine as well. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Serious question: what does Vista do better than nice eye-candy compared to XP?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista - xxdesmus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What a useless article.
Marked as Inaccurate, if nothing else except for the pathetic title. - byronm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4PC gaming is changing to be the hub for everything from consoles to phones to portable devices. Xboxlive anywhere, XNA and other tools allow people to play games independant of the platform and interconnect. Not everyone can afford or chooses to buy one over the other for the same reasons you do.
As for administrating lots of clients, i've been at test sites with 30,000 seats running vista and being patched and maintained and secured much better than any other os we have come across and this includes some divisions running managed redhat releases, OSX desktops and other environments. - stoffe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"If you're lucky enough to have bought a machine with an Nvidia or Intel"
Luck does not have anything to do with it. ;-) - stoffe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Have you at least filed a bug that it isn't working in (K)ubuntu first? That's the only way these things are moving forward, you know.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 160 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is