What is Digg?92 Comments
- Trention, on 10/12/2007, -20/+67The "Aero slows your computer down" meme is another pathetic attempt to dogpile on an operating system that few of these "journalists" have ever even used. This study, while good enough to shut people up (for now), shouldn't have even been needed. Anyone who has used Vista on recent hardware could plainly see the BS.
- rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28Of course the Aero interface has little effect on the performance of "common business operations". Reading email and opening a word document aren't exactly a huge strain on the GPU.
- ShrimpCrackers, on 10/12/2007, -23/+43Yes, we that have used Vista RTM on various machines know that Aero isn't anything. In fact Window Blinds can mostly copy Aero's theme and it has barely any performance impact...
However what about those who are guilty of spreading FUD? There was a small crowd of people even claiming that you'd need the latest video cards just to run Aero even though I've been able to run Vista Aero on a 4 year old laptop.
Simply put, they won't shut up, they'll just switch to something else to complain drastically about. Their mind is made up to hate Vista no matter what. - rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18I think the vast majority of people will run the interface the way it comes installed and will never alter it. Look at your grandmas, moms, dads, sisters, brothers, roommates, friends computer and chances are it is using the default XP theme. The majority of people never change the themes because, well, they don't really care all that much. Once everybody is on Vista and using the Aero interface they'll think "Hmmm. That's pretty cool, I guess. Now where's solitaire?"
- PueSi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Aero turns itself off when you run games.
- chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -13/+27I had an old 300mhz PC with Windows 95 on. I put Vista on it and it got really slow... I wonder why :s
[do I really need to put the tag?] - PueSi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Obviously...
Aero is done by the GPU, it shouldn't affect anything if your system meets the requirements.
Vista is a great OS just like XP, get over it. - stou, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21"I bet principled was funded by ms"
Holy ***** man, did the statement: "Principled Technologies... piloted a study for Microsoft" tip you off to that? Good Job. - rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11@TimTim
I wouldn't necessarily blame that on the interface. There are A LOT of things a complicated video game must do between frames. It must calculate collision detection, run search algorithms, initialize sounds, begin and end events, etc. This is all done between each frame (not all possible game calculations are executed every frame, of course) and can be quite the strain on your CPU(s). Now lets face it. Vista uses more resources than XP. This means that if you install Vista on a machine that was previously using XP, you are going to have slightly less resources available to applications, because those resources are being used by the Operating System.
You can't expect your performance to stay the same from one version of an Operating System to another. This is especially true when the OS changes so drastically between versions. You are going to suffer some performance loss. For most people it won't be noticeable. For gamers, it probably will be. The only solution is to update your hardware. - danfuturo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11This is a null point. The casual user isnt going to care about performance if their common tasks aren't hindered/gimped out in some way. Besides, creative professionals know better to turn off flashy stuff like Aero for optimal performance anyway. I'm a Mac lover all the way, but all this Vista calamity is ridiculous. Dugg for the sake of helping abolish fanboyism.
- rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14If you're running the game in fullscreen mode (as most GPU intensive games do by default) DirectX isn't going to bother rendering an interface that isn't being seen by the user.
- rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12@cooldude
I recommend it for developers. You're the ones making the programs for the shiny business executives and the companies they work for. You better be developing and testing on the system they are using. If you're not then you're out of a job. - somerandomnerd, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13"There was a small crowd of people even claiming that you'd need the latest video cards just to run Aero even though I've been able to run Vista Aero on a 4 year old laptop."
Yeah- that "small crown of people" who happen to run Microsoft.com... - esquilax, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11does the thread crash if you dereference a null point?
- Slovenian6474, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7""Aero" is just mind-bogglingly, unbelievably, migraine-inducingly gaudy"
That's quite a description from someone who has never used it.
Prejudice? - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+7i call shenanigans: http://www.djlosch.com/post_retrieve.php?pid=102
PT only tested Aero with a single computer that surpasses Vista's requirements. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"If Adobe doesn't make Photoshop CS3 for Linux then it is NOT Linux's fault, it can't be!"
So what? Photoshop and other programs I need do not, in fact, run on Linux. Why should I care if it's the fault of Adobe, Linux, or Timmy in the mail room? I like Linux, but I'm not going to consider permanently switching until the applications I need are available. - betterth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@AkshayGenius
Try running a version of Vista that isn't eight months old.
You can't compare RC1 and the current release or RC2. You just can't. RC1 was almost as bad as beta was. That's like going out and buying a 2002 Honda Civic, and then complaining that all new civics suck. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"From what I've been reading at "tweakguides" is that the Aero interface slows certain gaming functions by a second or more. "
We can't say one way or another as for games yet, as both ATI's and NVIDIA's drivers are still incomplete.
Let's wait until February 2007 or so for them to mature a bit before we start involving Aero Glass performance in gaming?
AFAIK from my DWM process checks, Aero Glass is not consuming any special amounts of CPU cycles to be noticeable when not used, like when you're playing a game. - topcat5, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Ahh yeah. A report that tests Vista on a $3000 laptop and says its not much slower than XP. It really inspires confidence about Vista.
- spartyms2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm not sure why computergod is getting dugg down.
I have Vista installed on my PC and while I'm for the most part very satisfied with it, he is very right when it comes to opening up folders with a lot of files. When opening up a DVD with roughly 500 files on it explorer comes to a standstill. And this is coming from someone with well over a gig of ram. - twtmc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10I'm not sure what caused it, but Vista ate up 512mb ram at start up and was really sketchy for me. I have a 3 ghz p4 single core processor and an NVidia 6600GT 128mb. You tell me what is wrong with it
- etx313, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Aero is great. I tried with it enabled, and disabled. The machine ran the same, and with it running I didn't notice any slow down at all. It feels very smooth, and seems to be very well optimized!
I've been very happy with microsoft products as of late, especially their hardware. (Xbox 360 and the Zune) Unfortunately I had to remove Vista because it did not run my 3D applications very well or at all. Modo 202 wouldn't even start up, probably just needs a quick fix from the vendor. And Maya ran but the preview was extremely slow, and I figure that's something to do with the new display system vista uses.
I'll probably install it again in 6 months or so once the bugs are worked out. Going back to XP was really a drag. I almost kept it on there and used my 3d apps on my Mac, but I need them on both machines. Get well soon Vista!! - VarianX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm curious if others are seeing what I see, or if I just screwed something up. Aero isn't really the biggest resource hog, and disabling it seems to have very little effect on the main processes eating my resources.
On RTM the biggest culprits seem to be:
1. sidebar.exe (using 165MB of Ram with only 5 gadgets running - 24MB with no gadgets)
2. svchost.exe (using 108MB -- so much for a ground-up rebuild, this is the same as XP)
3. dwm.exe (using 98MB - disabling/enabling aero has no effect -- also, this one is the biggest CPU hog)
This is on an AMD X2 4400, 2GB of Corsair, a SATA2 7200 HD, GeForce 7900. However, to be fair, my mobo is a VIA chipset and I've heard NForce boards fair much better. My System Rating is a 4.1 according to Vista (whatever that means, I can't tell if that's on a scale of 1-5, 1-10 or something else)
a straight virgin installation of Vista eats up a total of 584MB of Physical Memory. DWM (Desktop Windows Manager) will run at 100% CPU for a minute, then go idle for about 10, then it fires back up again. I have no idea what it's doing.
Disabling disk cache, at least for me, is suicidal. I have 2GB of RAM and high memory consumption apps such as Photoshop just grind my system to a halt. With XP, this was not the case. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Typical developer configuration:
1) MS Visual studio.net 2005
2) MS Word
3) MSSQL Server
4) Oracle 10G
5) ISS or Apache or some other webserver.
6) 4 Windows explorer windows.
7) 2 command line windows.
8) Outlook
9) 1 Messenger.
If you are working in corporate environment.
10) Semantic security client
11) Some firewall.
Please test with above configuration not after effects of rebooting. Because this is the typical windows developer configuration. And please do tell me how much RAM i need for above config.
Thanks. - balls187, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@cooldude, if you're not a windows developer, why are you trying to argue a point like you know what we need to use?
Anyone with 1/2 a brain for development knows that you DON'T have to develop software on your target platform. You need to run/test/debug (and compile if you don't have a cross compiler) it.
And even if you do decide to develop on Vista, any IT dept. with 1/2 a brain will either ensure that the PC's are beefy enuff to handle to the task, or disable the vista eye candy for performance. - VarianX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think what they mean is you don't have to wait for everything to fire up before you can use the OS. After login on XP, click on the start menu. It will hang until all services/startup processes are running before you can really do anything.
On Vista, you have near-immediate access to the OS, you can open explorer, start an app, etc before the OS is completely loaded. Note, I said "near" immediate. - afreytes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Did they get some free laptops in the mail?
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"But from Vista and because of its transparency you have to maintain in memory buffer of the view of the windows in order to do transparency composition."
Um, so run in classic mode--it's no different than XP. (also please use something resembling English next time--your comments are painful to read) - cjoey19, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4those that agree with the report, get a copy of vista, RTM or whatever and run it on your pc, first with aero and then turn it off and use aero basic.. you'll see big difference in responsiveness and performance.
- Xilon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Argh! Stupid angled brackets being removed!
Most of my post vanished :(
I guess both of these will get dugg down since the above one is now totally useless :/ - Grimboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yeah, I'm a free unix head but I'm digging this for the same reason. You know, the truth is the most important thing. [Lies and statistics quote (can't remember it or who said it but hey)]
- biggbrother, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2How about if we run Vista on the minimum requirements for XP? With enough hardware, anything will run without a problem, this is the most uninformative waste of time I've ever seen. OBVIOUSLY Vista requires more expensive hardware than XP. To say they run equally well on a high-end system is interesting only if you breathe through your mouth and need supervision when going to the bathroom.
- Ademan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Honest question. I thought Microsoft was the one that claimed Aero could only be run on dx9 generation cards... I realize that's not exactly saying it's a memory hog. But i do know this: Rendering such an interface through Direct3D requires a couple things, texture mapping, alpha transparency (preferably textures with alpha channels as well), and vertex buffers. Those features have been available in Direct3D since, at least Direct3d 2.0.
- fremeer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Been vista for a while now and aero is actually slightly faster then the normal non-aero version because CPU doesnt need to work as much(its neglible in real life but still kinda cool, now they need to make GPU take care of as much stuff as possible).
The biggest problem is its damn cacheing feature that really does clog it down but that has nothing to do with vista and more with MS trying to "speed up" searches and useless stuff like that. - AkshayGenius, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Well, personally, vista has really slowed down my computer like hell. I have RC1 and a gig of ram, 3.2Ghz P4 HT, and since i put vista on it, it has been working really slow. I ran a test running in vista on ma computer at www.pcpitstop.com and then ran the same test on xp, and the results were quite shocking. The RAM speed was half the speed on vista, and also the hard drive transfer speed was also much slower when I ran the test on vista. All in all, I felt that vista has really slowed my computer and I found nothing special in it. Btw, I use vista ultimate rc1 with aero and all the fancy effects.
- siMac, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"After several common business operations, Vista was more responsive after rebooting as compared to Windows XP"
Can anyone explain what that means please? Was Vista less responsive before rebooting? Why should we be rebooting a modern OS anyway? - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It doesn't REQUIRE any of those things. If you want to look at pretty Aero UI effects, you'll need that graphics card. The rest is bunk.
- tsupersonic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Toshiba Tecra M4 (table)"
Haha, a table running Windows Vista with Aero... That's crazy talk - lopla, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5It has a big effect on personal performance. I get brain lock when I try to look at the damn thing. It's the most intolerable heinous looking interface I've ever seen, I almost threwup in the short time it took me to switch to classic mode. MS is so done for.
- Xilon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Sorry to be a spelling nazi but this one really pisses me off. It's "there" not "their".
- imyke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1just get a mac!
- keije, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't get it, their point seems to be that Aero doesn't slow down a compatible system. That's not what I expect a comparison to do, look at OS X, moving GUI rendering to GPU improved performance, by a lot (from what I see on my friend's Mac). If all Vista does is keep the same speed, then it didn't live up to expectations, and is not something I'd consider as a bonus when upgrading (eventually).
- michaelpe2051, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i have been using the various versions of vista since june on an hp sr1610nx with 512mb and 200mbdisks with older model ati radion ex300. i actually removed a 256mb module to see if i can run it. i terminated all unessessary services like defender and UAC and used build 5384 for several months like that. i had to startup the themes service manualy but it worked quite well. i took the ex300 video/128mb vram and enabled the integrated video. it ran fine, but slow. when 5600 came out. i put its 512mb back in. with that move. i had some elements of the aero interface but, no flip3d.
in a move i really don't understand. i pulled my old toshiba tecra pentium ii/366 laptop out of the closet. this machine only had 256mb ram a 20gb hard disk and an "unknown" chips and technologies videoset with a whopping 4 mb video. i was really impressed. it installed and ran better than expected (allthough no aero).. it was really slow though. thrashing my hard disk all the way.
the moral(s) of this story would be:
1. i think vista's performance (with/without aero) may be slightly exagerated. - Xilon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fair enough, but I just hate it when people expect Linux (the developer community) to port or program alternatives to their Windows counterparts, it's just ignorant and plain stupid. If a company is unwilling to port their application then blame them, and bitch to them about it.
- IslandDog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who needs Aero anyways?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/islanddog/344767472/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Xilon
I am not windows developer but that's the config of serious developer on windows.
In WIN2K or earlier operating systems there were no themes so all gui components were just painted in plain color.
But from Windows XP You have to maintain bitmaps in memory to draw the stuff.
But from Vista and because of its transparency you have to maintain in memory buffer of the view of the windows in order to do transparency composition.
Once you starting using 10 utorrent like slim applications which won't take much memory for their operation but vista will take mem to maintain above said details. And as you increase the amount of GUI applications you start to use that amount of GUI resources vista is going to consume. And eventually vista has to page out some stuff to disk and we are back in our history.
Once you combine the fatty developer applications then you will see the real drag.
The problem worsts as the gigs of mem you are going to add. Sure GPU are going to do lot of tasks but CPU still has to transfer buffers and maintain them.
And if you add DRM to this situation then... - biggbrother, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Oh, now I have a reason to upgrade from XP. If I add more hardware to my system to meet the minimum requirements, Vista and XP will run at the same speed. I wonder if MS got a patent on this idea.
- Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4"Principled Technologies, a North Carolina-based company that conducts technology assessments, recently piloted a study for Microsoft"
STOP RIGHT THERE! - NowakFilms, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The study is probably correct when it states that the UI is not the culprit in performance related issues with Vista. If this is true then why the beefy hardware requirements? The hardware drain comes primarily from the DRM which can check your configuration 30 times a second. I'm sure most of you have read the article that was posted about Vista's hidden costs. If not, check it out at http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
-
Show 51 - 88 of 88 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is