ie8 fix
madison

Vista SP1 will deliver big network speed boost

By | December 6, 2007, 8:49am PST

Summary: I was prepared to wait till the public debut of Vista Service Pack 1 release candidate next week before writing about it. But after upgrading two machines here and doing some tests, I changed my mind. If Microsoft’s decision to ditch the WGA kill switch in SP1 didn’t convince you, would you be interested in tripling your network file transfer speeds?

[Update 6-Dec 14:30 PST: Corrected several errors in reporting percentage increases. Thanks to Jeff for pointing out the error in a Talkback comment.]  

I downloaded the release candidate of Vista Service Pack 1 yesterday and was prepared to wait till its public debut next week before writing about it. But after upgrading a few machines here and doing some tests, I changed my mind. If Microsoft’s decision to ditch the WGA kill switch in SP1 didn’t convince you, would you be interested in a 300% increase in tripling your network file transfer speeds?

Forget the reports you might have read about SP1 resulting in no performance boost. That story was based on a silly artificial benchmark involving scripting of Office applications. Back here in the real world, where gigabit network connections are now commonplace, you’ll see at least one huge improvement when transferring files over network connections.

In its original release, Vista had some design problems with its networking stack, resulting in slow file transfers, especially when connecting to computers running Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, or Windows Home Server (all three of these products share a great deal of their code base, including core networking components). In Vista SP1, file transfer speeds are dramatically improved. In this post, I’ll describe what I saw.

I did two sets of file-transfer tests using two separate systems configured to dual boot between Vista RTM and the new Vista SP1 release candidate. Both systems have dual- or quad-core processors (both in the Intel Core 2 Duo family) The first group of files consisted of two large DVD images in ISO format, totaling 4.2 GB. The second group of files was a folder filled with more than 3,000 files of all types, in 299 subfolders, totaling roughly 6.5 GB.

For the first test, I transferred the two groups of files from a shared folder on an HP MediaSmart Windows Home Server to the two test systems running Windows Vista RTM, recording the total transfer time for each one. Then I rebooted the two systems into an SP1 installation and repeated the test. I converted the times into throughput rates; here’s the result (note that bigger bars equal higher throughput and thus better performance):

Throughput for file transfer from Windows Home Server

As you can see, the file transfers under Vista SP1 were dramatically faster than the Vista RTM times. For the directory full of many small files, the performance increase throughput was more than 300%; for the large files, the speed increase was roughly 260%. Note that you can expect similar results when transferring files from Vista to systems running Windows XP or Windows Server 2003.

For the second set of tests, I performed transfers between the two machines running equivalent versions of Windows Vista: RTM to RTM, SP1 to SP1. Here, the results were less dramatic. For the folder full of small files, the throughput rate increased by about 50% under SP1, and the large files transferred slightly slower, although still faster than the transfer from Windows Home Server.

File transfer between machines running Windows Vista

When I spoke with Microsoft about this phenomenon a few months ago, they explained that the issue was caused by a design change in Vista that eliminated the buffering used by XP and its siblings when transferring files over a network. Bypassing the cache read-aheads and deferred writes makes for better disk-to-disk performance and provides better control over how much data you’re pushing over the network, but the mismatch slowed down transfer speeds in Vista RTM. That’s been addressed effectively in SP1, as these results show.

Unfortunately, the other big Vista networking issue doesn’t appear to be addressed in SP1. If you run an application that uses the Multimedia Class Scheduler (such as Windows Media Player), you’ll continue to see a performance hit when transferring files over gigabit network connections. For more details, see this explanation from Microsoft’s Mark Russinovich and earlier test results from ZDNet’s Adrian Kingsley-Hughes.

But when I fired up Windows Media Player while a network file transfer was in operation I saw a sharp drop in throughput when the music began playing and then saw throughput pick back up when WMP was closed.

Even with the “release candidate” label, this is still a beta, so I can’t recommend SP1 yet unless you’re willing to assume the risks that come with beta software. But so far, the results I’m seeing are extremely encouraging.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

192
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

512 MB?
notsofast 15th Jan 2008
Why would someone who's spending 100-150 bucks on an OS going to worry about spending 20 bucks on ram?

You can EASILY buy 2gb of ram for under $50.00. I believe I've actually seen it as low as $20.00 for 2GB!

If that's too much for your friends to spend, then they can't afford the OS.

I ran RC2 on an Athlon 64 3000 with 2GB and a then 2 year old GPU and it ran fine, so any semi modern Graphics card can handle it (if your friends bought a low end computer 3 or 4 years ago, then yeah, you'll have problems....welcome to the world of computers and software).

I just don't get this comparing it with these so called average computers. The average computer user doesn't upgrade an OS. They buy new computers and get whatever the current version of Windows is.

And your friends below average computers -- 512mb? My 70 year old moms 2.25 year old laptop has 1GB of ram -- are probably poor candidates for Vista. This is no different than win 9x machines that were poor candidates for XP (though for some reason everyone now seems to think XP was loved by all from day one).

The tests aren't needed. If your friend's computer is over 3 years old and the GPU wasn't at least a 6600gt, he/she probably shouldn't upgrade. Their computer is probably used mostly for web browsing, and XP is perfectly capable of doing that.

They should wait till they buy a new system and let the builder install Vista for them.
0 Votes
+ -
Other Performance Test
soonerproud 6th Dec 2007
Will you be publishing other test on any performance changes between RTM and SP1? The file transfer performance increase is a very encouraging sign that some one at Redmond is listening to us Vista users along with removing the kill switch.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
(nt)
0 Votes
+ -
Here are a few things
soonerproud 6th Dec 2007
Some encoding test, simple gaming benchmarks and office productivity test. Just a few basic real world test to see if there is any difference in performance for every day task.
0 Votes
+ -
nt
0 Votes
+ -
What is 'NT' supposed to mean?
Your Mom 2.0 6th Dec 2007
Forgive my ignorance here, but I see this quite a bit and thought I would figure it out from context by now, but I haven't.

Thing is, I've only noticed it coming from snarky posters and flamers until now and assumed it was some kind of 'burn'.

Wait a minute...let's utilize the power of Google:

Narrower term: A term that is one level below this term in the hierarchy
ds.dial.pipex.com/hom-inform/Thespub5.htm

Have I found the answer? A shorthand way of saying 'my comment is only relevant to the post directly above it'?
0 Votes
+ -
(NT)
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
No text
Ed Bott 6th Dec 2007
The comment form won't allow you to submit a comment with no text, so convention is to use (nt) if your full comment is in the subject line.
0 Votes
+ -
line though so that people don't have to open the message. happy
0 Votes
+ -
Waht is NT supposed to mean?
Unknown 7th Dec 2007
NT means NEW TECHNOLOGY. It does NOT mean No Text as some people are saying. This was a change in technology from Windows 3.11 and from Lan Manager
0 Votes
+ -
Context, its all about the context (nt)
darcyfreak 7th Dec 2007
(nt)
0 Votes
+ -
you can't see the reply text. Hence, the alternative text "nt". happy
0 Votes
+ -
Comparisons of these two operating systems with the latest updates would be the most benificial. Even better yet do it using machines that the majority of people own. I only have 2 friends I know running a computer with the dual core processors and none with a quad. Plus of the ones who do have the 2 cores one only has 512mb of memory and the other 1gig. Which would make even them poor for Vista. The rest of my friends and other aquaintences are stuck with single core processors and usually a gig or less of memory. So using an average computer Vista won't run.
Victory XP
The new computers at work all came with Vista. I have noticed that with out the top of the line tech inside they are extremely slow. It takes them forever to do even simple tasks. The seriously bloated and resource tasking vista just demands to much. I wouldn't be suprised to find out that the computers, that my work just bought, are not up to the demands that Vista needs. Trouble is I have also been to many retail outlets and have seen that there are quite a few computers selling that don't meet this requirement.
So a comparison with average computers that most consumers own running both would be benificial. Then use the average computer bought today and run both Vista and XP to see the effects. I was seriously looking forward to Vista but after the few experianes I have had with it. I scream all the way back to my XP. PLus the fancy new design is Ok but heck it only lasts until I do something. I don't see all that fancy work 90+% of the time. Heck once I go online or load a game or program no more fancy Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
512 MB of memory
Ed Bott 8th Dec 2007
There's your answer right there. 1GB of RAM costs $20. Those "seriously slow" machines would improve instantly with a $20 upgrade.

Sounds like whoever buys your computers for work needs to be replaced. It's not like the system requirements for Vista are some sort of classified secret. It's been out for over a year, for heaven's sake.

I've shown my test results on a five (nearly six) year old computer running Vista. It's impressively fast on most actions, as long as it has a least 1GB of memory. Now, if you throw a six-year-old Celeron at it, that might be a different story.
0 Votes
+ -
512 MB?
notsofast 15th Jan 2008
Why would someone who's spending 100-150 bucks on an OS going to worry about spending 20 bucks on ram?

You can EASILY buy 2gb of ram for under $50.00. I believe I've actually seen it as low as $20.00 for 2GB!

If that's too much for your friends to spend, then they can't afford the OS.

I ran RC2 on an Athlon 64 3000 with 2GB and a then 2 year old GPU and it ran fine, so any semi modern Graphics card can handle it (if your friends bought a low end computer 3 or 4 years ago, then yeah, you'll have problems....welcome to the world of computers and software).

I just don't get this comparing it with these so called average computers. The average computer user doesn't upgrade an OS. They buy new computers and get whatever the current version of Windows is.

And your friends below average computers -- 512mb? My 70 year old moms 2.25 year old laptop has 1GB of ram -- are probably poor candidates for Vista. This is no different than win 9x machines that were poor candidates for XP (though for some reason everyone now seems to think XP was loved by all from day one).

The tests aren't needed. If your friend's computer is over 3 years old and the GPU wasn't at least a 6600gt, he/she probably shouldn't upgrade. Their computer is probably used mostly for web browsing, and XP is perfectly capable of doing that.

They should wait till they buy a new system and let the builder install Vista for them.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Most office productivity stuff to me is pretty much dictated by usability and not by any hardware or software speed limits. Can you suggest some areas where performance might come into play? I can definitely do some encoding and decoding tests. Might have to leave gaming for others, though. I am not a gamer!
http://reviews.cnet.com/Labs/4520-6603_7-5142378-1.html

This measures how fast some one can complete a number of task using Office.

If this is too time consuming or beyond what you want to get into, I understand if you decline. Some one will eventually do all these test and post the results.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Not a question of complexity
Ed Bott 6th Dec 2007
I'm skeptical of the benchmark for Office. All it's testing is macro execution speed, which can be affected by any number of things. The point of a macro is to automate a process that would normally have to be done manually. If hypothetically I have a 50-step process that would take me 15 minutes to do manually, I could do it in 1 minute with a macro, but more importantly, i can do it with one click. So if it takes one minute or 2 minutes, I really don't care that much; it's the automation that matters.

This is my objection to the Devil's Mountain Software OfficeBench suite as well, which simply simulates a bunch of clicks in a non-real-world way.

Anyway, I don't have their test macros so the question is moot. If you (or anyone reading this) can think of a test that will really simulate a real-world experience i'm game.
0 Votes
+ -
Good Point (NT)
soonerproud 6th Dec 2007
nt
0 Votes
+ -
XP!
lhartje 6th Dec 2007
Can you run XP in the same enviornment, so we can compare the SP1 Vista results against XP SP2 results?

Thanks!
0 Votes
+ -
Vista SP1 vs XP SP2
kcollins@... 6th Dec 2007
I agree...if Vista (either version) can't compete with XP, then there really isn't anything to worry about, is there?
0 Votes
+ -
TalkBack: Reply to message
sy34010 6th Dec 2007
I'm not the biggest fan of Vista, I have an E6750 machine with a dual boot setup and it runs XP 80% of the time, although the pendulum is starting to swing. That said I don't get the desire to compare the speed of XP to Vista on the same hardware. Was 2000 faster that NT or XP faster than 2000? You can install old software on new hardware and the old stuff will be faster just about every time. It?s about moving forward that?s all and if the only thing that matters to you is gaming you?re leaving out a whole bunch of the market.
Was 2000 faster that NT or XP faster than 2000?

XP was basically a "2000 Themes Plus Pack" so it's really not relevant - yes, of course it was slower than 2000, it was 2000 with Bluetooth and some cripped versions of third party applications (like Citrix terminal server) added, but 2000 was faster than NT for a lot of stuff, about the only place it slowed down was when you were hurt by the higher RAM requirements. More importantly, 2000 added important stuff to NT4 that was missing - many many more drivers, and real support for USB at a time when USB was taking off.

XP didn't really replace 2000, it replaced Windows 9x and Me. If Microsoft had been smarter they'd have released 2000 as the replacement for 9x and skipped Me altogether.

Vista doesn't add anything to XP that people actually need. That's the difference between it and when people had a REASON to move to 2000/XP from NT4/9x/Me.
0 Votes
+ -
2000 and XP
boomchuck1 6th Dec 2007
They couldn't release 2000 to replace 98 or Me. It was truly made for business and didn't run many of the games and consumer software that people with 98 would have wanted.
0 Votes
+ -
Say WHAT????
Wolfie2K3 6th Dec 2007
More importantly, 2000 added important stuff to NT4 that was missing - many many more drivers, and real support for USB at a time when USB was taking off. XP didn't really replace 2000, it replaced Windows 9x and Me. If Microsoft had been smarter they'd have released 2000 as the replacement for 9x and skipped Me altogether. Vista doesn't add anything to XP that people actually need. That's the difference between it and when people had a REASON to move to 2000/XP from NT4/9x/Me.

1.) XP did indeed replace 2000. it ALSO replaced 98/ME. XP was the first NT flavored OS that "converged" the MS code base into one package that was defined more by the licensed capabilities - Home mainly concentrated on more stand alone installations while the Pro version allowed you more robust networking options - such as the ability to join domains and the ability to allow up to 10 people to connect to a share on a Pro box (vs only 5 on a Home box). There were numeous other fixes and changes made to the 2000 Pro code base as well.

2.) 2000 would NOT have made a suitable replacement for 98/ME. There were aspects of 2000 that made it less than desirable for mainstream consumer use - like the inability to install many of the games of the day and run them correctly.

3.) As far as skipping ME... That probably would have been a good plan. But hindsight is 20/20.

4.) Vista not adding anything people need...? If, by that, you mean the wiz-bang graphics, the widgets/gadgets, and such aren't needed, then yes. We've gotten along without them before, we can continue to do so. BUT - and that's a rather large BUT, Vista does have some very useful things going on under the hood - like the improved security, the sandboxing of IE 7, and so forth. If you're the careful sort who doesn't surf porn sites and other dark alleys on the web and you're happy with the way XP runs for you, then eh... Vista is possibly not that big a deal for you. But if you're the sort who likes to play in dangerous waters, then it might not be such a bad thing.
0 Votes
+ -
To Wolfie
alaniane@... 7th Dec 2007
Do you know whether Vista has taken advantage of the new duo and quad core architectures? Also, do you know how it behaves with the latest Visual Studio and SQL Server?
0 Votes
+ -
If XP is still faster than Vista, then why go to Vista? What is there in Vista that can justify the expense and hassle of upgrading? Moving forward should not involve the sacrifice of performance just to have something new.
0 Votes
+ -
XP SP3?
erik.t 6th Dec 2007
Comparing to XP SP2 does not make too much sense, given the upcoming SP3, which will change the game again.

But I am glad that Vista SP1 will result in a more mature operating system. It just confirms my standard policy: always wait at least till SP1 of anything.

My current hardware cannot run Vista, so I stay with XP. And I am still waiting for the day that you can refresh or upgrade the operating system without the need to re-install everything else as well.
0 Votes
+ -
Why wait?
zarathustra2010 9th Dec 2007
Why wait for a non-existent day?

That day is already here. Simply purchase a version of XP which has all the necessary drivers for your hardware.

But if you mean you are waiting for the day when you can simply install a newer OS without having to install new drivers or software, Vista has help in that respect:

Download and use this tool from Microsoft: http://tinyurl.com/387c75

It will give you a pretty good idea which programs/drivers will not be compatible with Vista. Then remove them BEFORE upgrading to Vista.

Donald L McDaniel
0 Votes
+ -
Vista SP1 vs XP SP3
chessmen 14th Jan 2008
XP is still faster than Vista. I have heard that the new SP3 is even faster than XP SP2. Why not compare XP SP3 to Vista SP1?
0 Votes
+ -
any UI improvements?
Jim Johnson 6th Dec 2007
I am curious if MS has improved 'responsiveness' to the user interface. Vista feels a bit doggy for example, when opening cascading menus or giving control over to a different application when the user tries to bring a window over to the foreground.

Sports cars are fun to drive, not because of how fast they go, but how fast they can get to that speed (acceleration), cornering and braking. For me, that's the 'Wow' factor that hasn't truly been there.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
No "doggy" feeling here
Ed Bott 6th Dec 2007
I've sen that in the past, usually related to suboptimal video drivers or memory shortages in DWM.
0 Votes
+ -
video driver - maybe, memory - no
Jim Johnson 7th Dec 2007
It's a notebook with the nVidia 6100 mobile GPU and 2GB DDR2 RAM. RAM isn't an issue, it's not being fully utilized as is. As for the video driver, I'm stuck. nVidia has released updates, but not the notebook OEM. The video driver is customized to support the keyboard video controls and detect the lid position.

I've done Registry tweaks to shorten the menu 'lag' time - but this does nothing to improve the time it takes to generate a cascading menu (I use classic menus). Turning off Aero makes no noticeable difference in this regard.

Subjectively, it feels like Vista doesn't transfer CPU priority as quickly as it should upon mouse or keyboard events. I want to clarify that it isn't bad, just not as good as it should be.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Memory in DWM is different
Ed Bott 7th Dec 2007
And yeah, the absence of an updated video driver from the notebook OEM is hurting you here. In my experience that is the cause of what you're seeing. I find it very frustrating that notebook makers can't get their stuff together and deliver proper driver updates. Most are still shipping February drivers, which are truly awful relative current updates.
0 Votes
+ -
WOW!
hbashman@... 7th Dec 2007
""I want to clarify that it isn't bad, just not as good as it should be.""
0 Votes
+ -
Haven't seen this problem
Rndmacts 7th Dec 2007
Factors that would affent the GUI are on-board video using shared memory, while Vista will give the Aero interface with 128 Mb memory, like all memory applications it is faster with 256 Mb or more. Also drivers being used affect performance so it is wise to check for updates often.
0 Votes
+ -
The truth would be nice...
3dtodd 7th Dec 2007
Now we're getting these "impressive" reports on Vista SP1. Triple your network transfer speed!! WOW!! Open Windows Media Player while transferring? AWWWWW! Super fast transfer speed suddenly slows down to wittle tiny crawl. WHAAAA! Pathetic. What's the excuse this time?

Who's getting kickbacks for these blogs?
0 Votes
+ -
This was important information.
Rndmacts 7th Dec 2007
In a business environment running Vista Business these changes are very important and as they aren't burdened with the media player or media centre, they will appreciate the file transfer speed improvements. As Home Server is based on the 2003 server code, these improvements in speed will be appreciated by the IT departments of large business.
0 Votes
+ -
something else to test
pjurancich@... 7th Dec 2007
Ed, With regards to the changes to TCP/IP, I am seeing problems with some VPN products. Have you seen/heard any issues? (SSL VPN client) Behind some routers, a Win2K can connect, Vista machine cannot. Kind of like when we ran into NAT traversal issues a few years ago with IPSec VPNs. Any suggestions?
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
RTM or SP1?
Ed Bott 7th Dec 2007
In any case, this isn;t something I can test. But yes, there were some significant changes to the TCP/IP stack in Vista RTM, so it's expected that VPNs will be impacted. The VPN softwware makers and router mfrs should be on top of this by now.
0 Votes
+ -
How about head to head with non-MS platforms?
randy.baker@... 7th Dec 2007
My anecdotal experience is that XP, Linux (Ubuntu) and Mac are all way faster at large downloads than a dual core Vista desktop I bought 2 months ago (an Inspiron). So much so, that I converted the Vista machine to Ubuntu, and haven't looked back.

It would be interesting to compare the VISTA SP1 results with these other platforms.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Two problems
Ed Bott 7th Dec 2007
First, I would need about five times the lab I have now, and it wouldn't help my core readership, which runs Vista and wants information on how to make it work better.

Second, if you're talking about downloads, that's completely different from transfers over a local network.
0 Votes
+ -
********!! nt
hbashman@... 7th Dec 2007
nt
0 Votes
+ -
You ARE joking?
anthony_hunt 10th Dec 2007
Your "core readership" runs Vista? Must be a small circulation then.

Who are these people? Not business. Not gamers. So who?

Apart from the non-technical people who buy a new laptop and egt lumbered with Vista and don't knwo how to re-format, who keeps Vista?
0 Votes
+ -
If you do this, then you need to do as many combinations as possible -the first one being XP-XP - which my quess will be close to XP-VS-SP1 results. It would be nice to know how all of the OS's compare.
0 Votes
+ -
Especially internal bandwidth
alewisa 14th Jan 2008
I'd be interested in knowing what the internal data transfer of Vista is.

A decade ago Compaq published a report comparing the internal throughput of NT4 vs Netware 4, on identical hardware (Proliant 5000, dual PPro/200, 128mb RAM, iirc). NT topped out at about 600mb/sec, NW4 at about 800mb/sec. So on identical hardware NW had a faster software architecture.

A decade has passed, it would be interesting seeing how the internal throughout has - presumably - risen, in light of the advances in hardware: PCI-e/PCI-X vs PCI, DDR/DDR2 vs EDO, x.xxGHz processors vs 200MHz P8 architecture.

And for a giggle, stick NW4 on the test box(es) to see just how much difference hardware makes.

Hmm, wonder if Vista would run on a 6400R, with quad Xeon 500 and 2GB RAM.. vs NW4 on same box wink
0 Votes
+ -
gamming
thomaswort@... 8th Dec 2007
id like to see some gameing marks to see if performance is any were in the SP1
0 Votes
+ -
Other tests I'd like to see
anthony_hunt 10th Dec 2007
Why i ditched Vista.

Copying 9GB of data from C:\ to D:\ under XP takes 20 minutes on my PC under XP and 3 hours on Vista. Is file transfer (local) faster?

My Logitech Webcam was unsupported (because Logitech is an unknown brand).
My 3 year old scanner (ACER) was unsupported and as it was quite expensive, scanning negatives etc., I wasn't prepared to have to buy a new one.

If it works on XP, it should work on Vista. If it doesn't that IS MICROSOFT's fault. If they cannot get new 3rd party drivers for all the devices certified for XP, they they should put an XP driver virtualisation layer into Vista.

Has Vista's memory footprint gone down? I buy RAM to run my programs, not Microsoft's OS. That goes double for CPU! When using Vista Ultimate Retail, my 4600 X2 with 2GB had 14% CPU and 40% RAM consumed AT THE DESKTOP!!! That's poor by any stretch.
0 Votes
+ -
VISTA vs. XP
PI_z 7th Dec 2007
Comparisons of these two operating systems with the latest updates would be the most benificial. Even better yet do it using machines that the majority of people own. I only have 2 friends I know running a computer with the dual core processors and none with a quad. Plus of the ones who do have the 2 cores one only has 512mb of memory and the other 1gig. Which would make even them poor for Vista. The rest of my friends and other aquaintences are stuck with single core processors and usually a gig or less of memory. So using an average computer Vista won't run.
Victory XP
The new computers at work all came with Vista. I have noticed that with out the top of the line tech inside they are extremely slow. It takes them forever to do even simple tasks. The seriously bloated and resource tasking vista just demands to much. I wouldn't be suprised to find out that the computers, that my work just bought, are not up to the demands that Vista needs. Trouble is I have also been to many retail outlets and have seen that there are quite a few computers selling that don't meet this requirement.
So a comparison with average computers that most consumers own running both would be benificial. Then use the average computer bought today and run both Vista and XP to see the effects. I was seriously looking forward to Vista but after the few experianes I have had with it. I scream all the way back to my XP. PLus the fancy new design is Ok but heck it only lasts until I do something. I don't see all that fancy work 90+% of the time. Heck once I go online or load a game or program no more fancy Vista.
0 Votes
+ -
Jumbo frames?
NetArch. 6th Dec 2007
Did you check to see if SP-1 enables jumbo frames by default? That would certainly explain the speed increase and reduction in CPU utilization.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
No change to jumbo frames
Ed Bott 6th Dec 2007
In fact, the SP1 system is using a generic older driver rather than the newer driver that the RTM install is using. The generic driver doesn't even allow control of jumbo frames. And I explicitly checked settings on the WHS machine and confirmed that jumbo frames were not enabled.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix