ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
Home / News & Blogs / Hardware 2.0

Vista SP1 - The promised performance gains are there

By | February 7, 2008, 12:45pm PST

Summary: People are very anxious to know whether Windows Vista SP1 brings with it any noticeable performance gains when carrying out day to day tasks. My preliminary results seem to indicate that SP1 offers measurable benefits when carrying out a variety of tasks.

Note: These are very preliminary results - I’ll be carrying out more tests over the coming days.

People are very anxious to know whether Windows Vista SP1 brings with it any noticeable performance gains when carrying out day to day tasks. My preliminary results seem to indicate that SP1 offers measurable benefits when carrying out a variety of tasks.

I’ve carried out a number of tests:

Real world tests

  • File copy (disk to disk)
  • Copy files to compressed folder
  • Extract files from compressed folder

Synthetic

  Vista
RTM		 Vista
SP1		 Change
PassMark PerformanceTest 6.1 489.2 pts 479.5 pts -9.7 pts
Boot time (from BIOS handover to usable desktop) 53 sec 44 sec 9 sec
PCMark Vantage 2701 pts 2683 pts -18 pts
Copy 2477 files (20 folders) 239 sec 199 sec 40 sec
Copy 55 files, 193MB to compressed file 26 sec 25 sec 1 sec
Expand 55 files, 193MB from compressed folder 28 sec 27 sec 1 sec
Copy 1 file, 664MB to compressed folder 79 sec 84 sec -5 sec
Expand 1 file, 664MB from compressed folder 80 sec 57 sec 23 sec

All scores based on averages over three runs.

Note: No system tweaking was carried out to improve the score (no disabling services and so on). I did make sure that all idle tasks were processed and defraged the drives prior to testing, but that was it. I’ve tried to keep these are real world as possible.

So, overall, real world tests show an improvement while synthetic benchmarks show a small drop in performance (I’m putting this down to drivers - and possibly even the bench software - not being SP1 ready yet). This is promising, but since this data is based on the results from a single test machine, it’s too early to declare SP1 a winner.

More to come real soon …

Over the next few days I’ll be sharing more of my experiences here. If you want to keep updated about SP1 and how it handles a variety of tasks on a selection of PCs, subscribe to the Hardware 2.0 RSS feed.

Thoughts?

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

More from “Hardware 2.0”

Topics

Folder, Performance, Microsoft Windows Vista, Microsoft Windows Vista SP1, Performance Management, Microsoft Windows Vista (Longhorn), Human Resources, Workforce Management, Operating Systems, Microsoft Windows, Software, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

94
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

Copying from a CD is painfully slow
gjampol@... 6th May 2008
Whenever I copy files from a CD to my Vista PC (Dell Inspiron 531), the amount of time the copying process spends "calculating" I could play several rounds of poker by the time the files are actually copied to my hard drive.

On the other hand, copying files from CD to my XP (SP2) PC is immediate.

Who though up this silly time-waster in Vista? Will this problem be solved in SP1?
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
My experience
ajv123 7th Feb 2008
Vista spends a lot of time thinking before it executes. Did you take the measurements for the execution time or when you placed the order, so to speak?
0 Votes
+ -
Good point!
Kromaethius 7th Feb 2008
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Do you mean "calculating remaining time"?
PB_z 7th Feb 2008
I'm pretty sure that in most situations, Windows starts the copy right away, but waits a given amount of time before making a time estimate -- enough so that the transfer rate evens out. According to Mark Russinovich (http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/02/04/2826167.aspx) the wait used to be 12 seconds but has been reduced in SP1.
0 Votes
+ -
Copying from a CD is painfully slow
gjampol@... 6th May 2008
Whenever I copy files from a CD to my Vista PC (Dell Inspiron 531), the amount of time the copying process spends "calculating" I could play several rounds of poker by the time the files are actually copied to my hard drive.

On the other hand, copying files from CD to my XP (SP2) PC is immediate.

Who though up this silly time-waster in Vista? Will this problem be solved in SP1?
0 Votes
+ -
Performance gains
fr0thy 8th Feb 2008
The Nascar team enjoyed performance gains at a recent test when they removed the kitchen sink from the DRM caravan they were towing around.
0 Votes
+ -
Developing for the past, or the future?
NewlyVistafied 8th Feb 2008
If you are in charge of developing a new software product that is likely to have a 80% plus market share, do you develop a product that is meant to look backwards and work on all older machines and maximize immediate saturation, or do you, realizing that people are going to buy new computers every 2 or 3 years on average anyway, develop a product that can grow in market share organically, encourage new computer sales (good for everyone), and bring some new functionality that won't look and act dated a month after it is released?

Seriously, I don't see why so many people have a problem with MS's development methodology. They are making an operating system that has to run on an infinite combination of parts and other software... there is absolutely no way that you can test a piece of software with EVERY combination. The only way to do it, is to test as much as you can and then release to the public, get as much feedback as you can and react as quickly as possible. Does it suck for those that end up with problems? Sure, to some extent. But who are those people? Early adopters who, in general, should expect that they are going to have problems to deal with (not like this is the first buggy release in the history of the world). I've helped a few people who have purchased new computers with Vista on them and they have all been very stable out of the box. It is generally only when people are adding older software to new equipment with Vista or Vista to older machines that problems occur. I just can't bring myself to be surprised by that if I'm being a rational person. I mean, really... go to Newegg.com and just browse motherboards, RAM, and processors. Now do the math on how many combinations of those three basic building blocks of a computer there are. Now add video cards. Sound cards. Hard Drives. Then start thinking about software. The combinations are mind boggling. It is impossible for a finite group of developers of any software to account for all of these things.
0 Votes
+ -
Finally, someone who gets it...
jmiller1978 8th Feb 2008
I love hearing from all of the anti-Microsoft zealots who always point out how "inferior" Windows is to other OSes but they always don't think about the things you just stated.

Oh, OSX is stable they say? Well if I developed an OS for a small handful of hardware components, it damn well should be. If MS had to develop and test every single combo of hardware and software, they'd never release the next version of Windows because it would be impossible. Instead, it's up to the hardware and software vendors to get off of their butts and put out quality drivers.

Even Linux, in all of it's glory, is forced to use, in some cases, generic compatible drivers to get basic funtions out of hardware.

No OS is perfect. No OS is 100% secure. After all, Vista RTM was a heck of alot better than XP RTM but I guess there weren't blogs like this that people could spew anti-MS propaganda.
0 Votes
+ -
Completely agree!
jnoooo 8th Feb 2008
I completely agree with your statement that there's no such thing as a perfect and 100% secure OS.
I've been working with Linux and Windows (For both server and personal use), And I can tell that I've had more problems with Linux than with Windows.
About Vista:
I've had less problems with Vista than with Windows XP.
Though Windows XP SP2 was a very stable OS.
So far, I've had just a few problems getting my programs to run on Windows Vista, But I was able to resolve them all quickly with a bit of additional coding.

Vista's security isn't perfect, But if you'll look at the Secunia vulnerabilities tracking stats, You'll probably notice that so far, Windows Vista have 1 unpatched low-risk security vulnerability.

About peroformance issue:
Well, Windows Vista official requirements are higher than the Windows XP official requirements, But Windows XP is more than 5 years old.
Windows Vista should run just fine on most current PCs.
I've never had any performance issues on any of my current Vista-Based PCs.
I've even worked with some quite old Vista-Based PCs, And they all worked fine.
0 Votes
+ -
OSX stability myth
loren_jones@... 10th Feb 2008
While you're absolutely correct that OSX should be much more stable than Windows in light of Apples's control of both the hardware and software, my experience living with both is that this edge is marginal, at best. I've regularly had issues with my iMac that rival the problems I experience in Windows....they just have a slightly different look and feel. Don't get me wrong...I think the Mac is way-cool and the interface gurus at Apple are second to none in design, but the myth that OSX is fault-free is just that...a myth.
0 Votes
+ -
There's a flaw in your analysis...
Wolfie2K3 8th Feb 2008
Yes, there are TONS of hardware options and so forth - but Microsoft doesn't simply release a product as important to their bankroll - like Windows - without ANY sort of testing.

For Vista, there were alpha and beta builds released to MSDN and other sources for testing purposes. In addition, Microsoft released Beta 2 and RCs 1 and 2 to the general public for testing purposes.

While such testing only yields a random sampling of the hardware available, it DOES provide some feedback to the programmers as to what needs to be fixed. It's also true that this does not cover EVERY possible combination of hardware out there - it certainly DOES cover a fairly wide selection.
0 Votes
+ -
Test possibilities
johnfenjackson@... 8th Feb 2008
1. Network throttling on media playback (sorted yet?)
2. Machine- machine copy
3. Comparison to XP (you're 'XP is Vistas biggest competitior theme'). Too much hassle I know but I'd really like to see the figures for W2K!
4. DX9 graphics speed test.

Q. What happened to the 'my EULA does not allow me to post benchmarks' slant wink
0 Votes
+ -
Pls add XPSP3 stats as well
xTalk 8th Feb 2008
(nt)
0 Votes
+ -
I'm Sure He WIll When XPSP3 Goes Gold/RTM
dumptux 8th Feb 2008
XP SP3 is still in beta, so any benchmarks he could generate now would be tentative at best, misleading at worst.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Vista SP1 - The promised performance gains are there
jhurst747 8th Feb 2008
Good benchmarks. Thanks for adding pros/cons.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Vista+SP1+-+The+promised+performance+gains+are+there
rrrgroup@... 8th Feb 2008
Adrian:

Your tests/measurements don't really impact Vista users and leave much of Vista's SP1 to the imagination.

A rush to judgement?

Rich Reynolds
0 Votes
+ -
No, It is Slower!
president@... 8th Feb 2008
Oh My God! You actually consider this a performance test?!! These tasks could not measure performance my friend! Why don't you try to load applications and games and see for yourself! I tried it with Flight Simulator X, and is much slower with sp1!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Vista+SP1+-+The+promised+performance+gains+are+there
LBean 8th Feb 2008
This sure doesn't soound like the touted 25% speed increase in copying files from one folder to another on the same computer. At best I see twenty percent tops; at worst just shy of five percent.

So will there be tests conducted in transferring files from one computer to another with the same OS and SP? How about from a Vista SP1 machine to a non-Windows machine?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Vista SP1 - The promised performance gains are there
MarkyGoldstein 8th Feb 2008
Vista is still the joke of the year...
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Vista+SP1+-+The+promised+performance+gains+are+there
ramnet@... 8th Feb 2008
If you think these figures are an improvement - then you must be one of the eskimo's who bought the ice back.

I cannot believe any credible reviewer could announce this as being good .. unless of course there are a lot of free lunches coming your way courtesy of Bill or Microsoft.

Ken
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft should concentrate on their core business
MarkyGoldstein 8th Feb 2008
Vista is still the joke of the year...
0 Votes
+ -
Works Well
crypt2121 8th Feb 2008
I've been using the release candidate for a while now - no problems. The File I/O is def faster to external devices. [While I never saw it mentioned, external drives seemed to have the same issues as network drives]. I haven't noticed any other changes, neither better nor worse, but I was not having any problems with VISTA to start with.
0 Votes
+ -
I think not....
gazzawazza 8th Feb 2008
I am a Vista user and whilst I see its faults/problems I am generally happy with it, although I was eagerly awaiting SP1.....

But after seeing those benchmarks I'm not sure I'll bother:

1. Minor improvements at best considering how bad the whole file copy situation is at the moment

2. I can't believe you posted benchmarks based on a single test as showing a promised improvement...weak, very weak.
0 Votes
+ -
re
jimk_z 9th Feb 2008
On top of that lets compare those copy/move file benchmarks with XP. I'm willing to bet they are still a lot slower.

Vista is such a big mess for MS. Sure all their new windows had some issues at launch, but Vista is probably the first that had flaws to very common basic routines in the operating system. Is this the result of Bill leaving? The result of new blood thinking they can improve on something? Linux/unix mentality thinking they can improve on windows?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Vista+SP1+-+The+promised+performance+gains+are+there
jim.denny@... 8th Feb 2008
I tried Vista, I will need years of counselling to get over it. Until I see the comparison to XP I won't even consider the enhancements. And until I can load up a piece of software and have it run (without downloading 25 patches and drivers), I won't consider it an OS, just a flop. I am using Linux more and more, and I am starting to be a convert.
0 Votes
+ -
Im confused, does Vista suck or does it blow?
jim.denny@... 8th Feb 2008
I tried Vista, I will need years of counselling to get over it. Until I see the comparison to XP I won't even consider the enhancements. And until I can load up a piece of software and have it run (without downloading 25 patches and drivers), I won't consider it an OS, just a flop. I am using Linux more and more, and I am starting to be a convert.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista DOESN'T sux!!!!
mikeholli 8th Feb 2008
I've been using it since post Beta 3 days. SURE it takes some tweaking to get it running the WAY you want it too. BUT heck, seems everyone has forgotten the 30 days Windows XP commited sucide. Think back to the days of yore. Like clockwork WinXP
CRASHED !!! and she CRASHED hard!!!! Finally when SP1 for XP arrived, we finally had the real WinXP! Right now Vista isn't saying screw this and killing itself! And as for SP1 for Vista, you can go to the Vista update site, there are a few morsels to nibble on till the full SP1 is released. I would suggest all your good people to download TweakVI for Vista. IT's NOT only fun, but can help you sort out any rough spots you may still have on your Vista install.
0 Votes
+ -
re: Im confused, does Vista suck or does it blow?
schmandel@... 8th Feb 2008
If it could do either one well, it might actually be worth having around. As it stands now Vista is not something for folks who like to get work done *with* computers as opposed to get work done *on* them.
0 Votes
+ -
General consensus is
Ole Man 8th Feb 2008
it blows the heck out of any sucking most
people have ever seen.
0 Votes
+ -
re: Im confused, does Vista suck or does it blow?
morph000 8th Feb 2008
Agreed. Most folks I know wish to "use" an OS not "fight" with it constantly with tweaks etc. Many have no idea how to tweak etc. They don't see it as a "toy" to play with .. they want production.

Seems to me with the vast knowledge available an OS could be much more trouble free. Then again maybe I'm in a dream world with such a notion.
0 Votes
+ -
trying out Fedora 8.0
lijujg@... 8th Feb 2008
I just downloaded a Fedora 8.0 VM and was informed that a 185 patches needed to be installed. to install vmware tools required that it be recompiled for the kernel... and this is easier to use?
0 Votes
+ -
re
jimk_z 9th Feb 2008
compared to XP its a flop so far Although personally I prefer XP Pro to Linux. Linux is nice but for home use it just does not have the commercial software support or hardware support. Its a great OS shell with nothing but mostly home brewed software available to it. Good server platform.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Vista+SP1+-+The+promised+performance+gains+are+there
jpgeorgia 8th Feb 2008
I have used Vista since last July. Runs fine. Very stable. I highly recommend it. I know many organizations are waiting for one or two SP releases before they adopt, but I think they shouldn't wait any longer. Also, I use Office 7 and it is well worth the upgrade. Shame on the bashers! Vista is a great product.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Vista SP1 - The promised performance gains are there
ronchap@... 8th Feb 2008
Has the Slowww network file transfer bug been fixed in SP1?

http://www.ads-links.com/index.php/how-to-fix-windows-vista-slow-network-transfer.html

This did not work for me.

Rumor has it that this has been fixed ib SP1.
0 Votes
+ -
Did you read the article?
RocketEater 8th Feb 2008
His "fix" for Vista was to uninstall McAfee. "Sure enough. After removing McAfee, LAN transfer speeds went from 225KB/s to over 5 MB/s." I don't think SP1 will uninstall McAfee for you.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista -- Shame on the Bashers
jpgeorgia 8th Feb 2008
As a Vista user, I think all the bashing is uncalled for and unfair. In July 07, I decided to build a new PC. I don't like to buy PCs off-the-shelf. This one is an ASUS P5B Motherboard, an Intel quad-core CPU, 8GB RAM, an ATI Radeon X1950 Pro video card, and an Acer 24-inch monitor. I had to reload the OS 4 times. On the 5th try, I decided nopt to load my Visual Fox Pro software and Vista has worked just fine ever since. There were some difficulties at first. The Windows games would not display. Plus, my Hauppauge TV card would not work right, or so it appeared. I got a video card patch from ATI and both problems were solved. There was also a problem with Internet Explorer inexplicably quitting. This appeared to be a Windows problem, but it turned out to be a motherboard driver that called Windows APIs. Another problem solved. Now, everything is working right and Vista has been very stable. In fact, the other day I loaded a Real Player upgrade. That was a big mistake because it deleted a Windows DLL and there were all sorts of problems. I don't know why I still use Real Player after experiencing all kinds of strange problems over the years. So, I uninstalled it and even that turned out to be a problem. After several reboots, I finally got rid of Real Player (goodbye forever!). Before going through the pain of reloading the OS from scratch, I decided to try to restore the OS from an earlier point in time. I found a restore point only a day old. I tried it and to my great astonishment, it worked! I didn't think Vista could pull it off, but it did! Now, everything is fine again. Good for you, Vista! By the way, I also use Office 7. If you're on the fence and thinking about upgrading, run, do not walk to your PC store and buy it! It is great!
0 Votes
+ -
you're happy now ?
bee@... 8th Feb 2008
and what did Vista bring to your table other than you loosing tons of time and throwing out non Microsoft software while you could have been productive all that time with Windows XP ?
If pc's & tweaking are your hobby, well, fine , have fun, but some people have work to do on a pc
0 Votes
+ -
fanboys will always swear by even lousy products
royalef 8th Feb 2008
That is a very substantial point. I hear a lot of fanboy responses about Vista, but the bottom line is what can you do that you couldn't do before? People say how fast their BRAND NEW Vista PC is. Of course it's fast, you bought a new PC! If it was XP it would probably be even faster and more responsive. My landlord has a new Vista laptop and he immediately was confused by all the changes--changes which Microsoft is FORCING on users because they DON'T CARE what the CUSTOMER WANTS. I turned on the old WINdows-95 style START Menu, so it would be easier for a 70 year old man with arthritis to navigate. Isn't it funny that Microsoft left the checkbox to make the win95-2000 style Start menu available, but didn't bother to make the WIndows XP style available so people could transition easy. The most logical thing, is what Redmond won't do.

Sadly I've know Vista fanboys who were fored to rebuild Vista PCs into XP PCs, because their customers had so many problems last year. While they were getting boners over how hella-kewl the useless visuals were, they forgot that people like to use their PC, not have to re-learn everything every few years.
0 Votes
+ -
Oh come now....
Wolfie2K3 8th Feb 2008
Sadly I've know Vista fanboys who were fored to rebuild Vista PCs into XP PCs, because their customers had so many problems last year. While they were getting boners over how hella-kewl the useless visuals were, they forgot that people like to use their PC, not have to re-learn everything every few years.

Puleese... You make it seem like using Vista requires a 6 month retraining course. It's not like Vista's start menu changed THAT much - they got rid of the word "Start" and substituted an icon. Ooooooh... It's SOooo Confusing..!

NOT!

The search option integrated into the Start menu is actually quite useful. Turning it off is like taking the turbo charger off of a sports car because it's got too much power and the driver's having a bit of difficulty adjusting to it.

So it takes a bit of getting used to. Geeze. Vista's interface isn't THAT much different from previous versions and the new tweaks, for the most part are actually USEFUL. You still click in the same place to get the start menu up. You still get a menu of programs available.

In fact, the changes in Vista are LESS traumatic than those changes made in the interface between Windows 3.1x and Windows 95.
0 Votes
+ -
seems to me
ivanotter 8th Feb 2008
None of his issues were VISTA, they were OTHER CRAP SOFTWARE. (real Player is a huge crap software culprit). His point, which you seemed to have missed, was that Vista was stable unless something half ass programme got in with it (the MB drivers, the video drivers, the Real Player.... heck even mentioned above, McAfee).
0 Votes
+ -
Um...what OS was he trying to use?
devlin_X 8th Feb 2008
" None of his issues were VISTA, they were OTHER CRAP SOFTWARE. (real Player is a huge crap software culprit). His point, which you seemed to have missed, was that Vista was stable unless something half ass programme got in with it (the MB drivers, the video drivers, the Real Player.... heck even mentioned above, McAfee)."

But it was REAL WORLD USAGE. If Vista can't handle the day to day usage of well known software packages what good is it? You mean Vista's great, but don't whine if you don't use strictly MS software? You've got to be kidding me...

Do you realize how many different software packages are in the average Linux repository? Do you here them screaming about 3rd party software killing their OS to the point of having to re-install the OS? It's pretty bad when an OS craps the bead on drivers written specifically for that OS.
0 Votes
+ -
bash this
knowledgefreak 8th Feb 2008
Wow what a useless waste of a post updating everyone on your new pc purchase.

Vista bashing is there because Vista is bloated. It requires an expense of a new machine. That should not be the case with an os.

People are not adopting it because it causes other software programs to be unstable. We have to first upgrade all hardware and means of deploying and supporting vista and change everything that is installed or wait for drivers to be made to support it.

In a business sense this is not worth anyones time in the enterprise world. It may be fine for you as a web surfing photo displaying machine at home but nothing beyond that. Not even gaming. Why run an os that is a memory hog that takes speed away from my applications that should matter most?

Microsoft has made a huge mistake in the approach it took of forcing upgrades on everything. Why would anyone want the headaches of sloppy code?
0 Votes
+ -
hrmm heard this years ago...
ivanotter 8th Feb 2008
Wow what a useless waste of a post updating everyone on your new pc purchase.

Windows XP bashing is there because WindowsXP is bloated. It requires an expense of a new machine. That should not be the case with an os.

People are not adopting it because it causes other software programs to be unstable. We have to first upgrade all hardware and means of deploying and supporting Windows XP and change everything that is installed or wait for drivers to be made to support it.

In a business sense this is not worth anyones time in the enterprise world. It may be fine for you as a web surfing photo displaying machine at home but nothing beyond that. Not even gaming. Why run an os that is a memory hog that takes speed away from my applications that should matter most?

Microsoft has made a huge mistake in the approach it took of forcing upgrades on everything. Why would anyone want the headaches of sloppy code?

(note the changes)

Having been in the tech field 7 years, I remember when XP came out. EXACT same argument, ad nausem.
0 Votes
+ -
After WindowsME people upgraded to XP in droves.
devlin_X 8th Feb 2008
Windows ME was the one every one was complaining about. I'm not saying XP was perfect 1st time out but people did line up for it and the ME users loved it! A huge sore spot for many is that with the roll out of XP it easily was able to deal with the older machines. Hell I had upgraded a Windows98 machine to XP with out a problem. The only upgrade I did was the memory. It ran on 128MB at the time of original release, after SP2 anything less than 256MB was an act of futility. Vista on the other hand, forced you to upgrade more hardware and a lot of software. This is not a way to gain customer support but an opening where a customer will say "since I'm buying all new hardware and software anyway maybe it's time to give Mac a try..." or "well I can't afford to upgrade my system much less re-purchase all my software, maybe Linux is worth a look..." This is what Microsoft has done... Give people a reason to consider other systems...and they will.
0 Votes
+ -
Vista Upgrades...
Wolfie2K3 8th Feb 2008
Vista on the other hand, forced you to upgrade more hardware and a lot of software. This is not a way to gain customer support but an opening where a customer will say "since I'm buying all new hardware and software anyway maybe it's time to give Mac a try..." or "well I can't afford to upgrade my system much less re-purchase all my software, maybe Linux is worth a look..." This is what Microsoft has done...

First of all, the hardware landscape's changed immensely in the years between Windows XP's release and Vista's release. When XP was first released computers typically came with 128 or 256 MB RAM tops. Better ones came with 512 MB. Since then, RAM's gotten cheaper, faster and bigger. This was true even before Vista was released.

Computers, by June of '06 were coming with a minimum of 512 MB and more commonly 1 GB installed. More extreme users were already installing 2 GB or more. Ok... So Vista won't run on the same hardware that a Windows 2000 ran perfectly well on. Gee. That's like asking a Windows 3.11 era box to run Windows 2000 - it isn't gonna happen. The sooner people let go of their doorstop 485's and move onto modern hardware, the happier they'll be.

Secondly, there's a reason why some software doesn't run on Vista. BAD coding. Case in point: Intuit Quickbooks. Intuit has, for years, used bad programming practices - i.e. writing stuff to the registry to communicate between modules - even though Microsoft's API guidelines and other documentation has specified that is NOT an acceptable practice since Windows XP was released. In fact, the only way you can run Quickbooks is if you're an administrator because of this.

So Microsoft finally put the hammer down in Vista's API and enforced that rule. If you ask me, not having programs write willy-nilly to the registry is actually a GOOD thing. There IS method to the apparent madness.

Oh... And buying the latest version of Quickbooks is a fait acompli (accomplished fact) given that Intuit pretty much keeps forcing their users to upgrade by dropping support for older versions anyhow. Should you need support for QB 2003, the first thing they'll tell you is you need an upgrade to the latest and greatest and give you pricing options.

The same pretty much goes for all sorts of other software - Norton/Symantec Antivirus and most other AV apps likewise have similar upgrade policies.
0 Votes
+ -
It's a matter of affordablity sometimes.....
devlin_X 9th Feb 2008
" Computers, by June of '06 were coming with a minimum of 512 MB and more commonly 1 GB installed. More extreme users were already installing 2 GB or more. Ok... So Vista won't run on the same hardware that a Windows 2000 ran perfectly well on. Gee. That's like asking a Windows 3.11 era box to run Windows 2000 - it isn't gonna happen. The sooner people let go of their doorstop 485's and move onto modern hardware, the happier they'll be.
"

Did you ever stop to think, not everyone can afford a new computer. With more and more people living paycheck to paycheck many can not afford to buy a new PC. There is also the fact that Micro$oft has a version of Vista that can run on older lower spec systems but *gasp and look of shock* they will not sell it in the US!

From Microsoft own site ( http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/starter/default.mspx ) on Vista Starter Edition:
" Windows Vista Starter is not available in developed technology markets such as the United States, the European Union, Australia, or Japan. Windows Vista Starter ships on lower-cost computers sold by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and Microsoft OEM distributors in 139 countries. "
Nice company...... they even boast how affordable it is. The specs. say it will run on Celeron/Pentium III 800mhz and higher processors, 512MB RAM up to a maximum of 1024 MB (1 Gig). this is the hidden WOW of Vista....
You see, they can make a modern OS that will run on lower specs they just don't want you to have the choice of if you'd like to upgrade or not. They did this with XP as well..... Why should someone be basically forced to toss their old PC that they are perfectly happy with because MS is ending support for their version of Windows and though Microsoft has a version that will run perfectly well on their computer they refuse to sell it to them.

Someday the environmentalists will take note of this and take Microsoft to task on it....
0 Votes
+ -
Depression?
Furiousrog 9th Feb 2008
"More and more people living paycheck to paycheck" Really? I must have missed the news of the Depression we're in then. I haven't seen any soup lines lately.

With the prices of PC's these days it's hard for me to believe that many people can't afford a new PC. Heck you can get a brand new desktop with 2 GB of ram and Vista Home Premium or a laptop with 1 GB of ram and Vista Basic for $300 at Office Depot starting tomorrow.
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Depression?
devlin_X 13th Feb 2008
" With the prices of PC's these days it's hard for me to believe that many people can't afford a new PC. Heck you can get a brand new desktop with 2 GB of ram and Vista Home Premium or a laptop with 1 GB of ram and Vista Basic for $300 at Office Depot starting tomorrow. "

Odd I checked out Office Depot's site and it's not surprisingly missing the said systems.
People especially in times when the economy is so uncertain can't part with what money they have. You may make a very good living but many don't but still need a computer. This need I personally try to fill by taking in used PC's people donate via FreeCycle ( http://www.freecycle.org ) and refurbing them and placing them with people that can't afford a computer but have children in school that need one, are elderly or disabled. Which brings me to a personal b*tch... Why do the schools these days ASSUME everyone can afford a PC and a TI-83 calculator (a 99.99 graphing calculator)????? Crap when I was in school I'd have gotten a detention at minimum if I got caught with a calculator in class (1980's).

Either your not aware of the present economic crisis and the growing class of the working poor or are just a f*cking idiot.
0 Votes
+ -
Look at it this way OK
atari8bit@... 10th Feb 2008
I had Vista running. After install after install or favorite things that worked fine on XP and NOT in Vista it went bye bye.

This country is spoiled rotten and it's showing. Hit the streets where nobody gives a $&%* about computers. Block to block warfare.

M$ did NOT have to do what they did with Vista. Alot of people aren't just unhappy, they're upset.

I sold my Sony Viao laptop to a guy that could not find a laptop without Vista on it. he was no tweaker, so it was perfect for him. I met him at Staples where he was getting ready to get upset and I mentioned my Viao and he bought it and is happy with it. What he wanted to use wouldn't work with Vista anyway.

When I get 70-100fps in Oblivion indoors and outdoors then I'm happy. That's on a Opteron 185 and two 8600GTS (720-2100). Why upgrade? Why throw out my software that works just fine only the OS won't let it. Tell me I'm wrong, OK?
0 Votes
+ -
years ago
atari8bit@... 10th Feb 2008
well back then there weren't dual and quad core cpu's. No Nvidia 8800's No ATI problems. I rem that XP installed pretty darn fast on a amd 3000xp and ran ok, because alot of drivers worked in XP that were written for 98. There was no huge memory allocation issues, no rewriting of how everything should work now, no Shader model 4 which slows eveything down because the card makers wanted it one way but M$ said NO FRIGGIN WAY.

It's really a waste of time trying to defend something that even the hardware vendors have yet to figure out, to get performance up to XP's level. How can they? The OS is a resource HOG, everything has to be written to the HD in a new way and it does more than suck, it's wrong.
0 Votes
+ -
Shame on your parochial attitude
schmandel@... 8th Feb 2008
Rest assured that not everyone needs to wait for some new wonderful gift from Microsoft to do useful work with a computer.

You really shouldn't assume other people are subject to your personal limitations.

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
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix