Re: OK so vista is annoying....

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by ~misfit~, Oct 1, 2008.

  1. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs "thingy" typed:
    > Some initial thoughts,
    >
    > It has good points, but so far it seems to be change for the sake of
    > change....
    >
    > This is a ready built machine so it should work perfectly?
    >
    > uh huh....
    >
    > I Like the parental control...eldest is spewing though....
    >
    > ;]
    >
    > Why change the management look and feel so much? it does not achieve a
    > thing...trying to find things is annoying me....
    >
    > For some reason the disk is being constantly accessed...its running
    > like a dog because of this...got 4Gb of ram so cant be swapping...not
    > unless mouse clicking now needs 4GB+ with vista...
    >
    > ;]


    <dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a laptop
    supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read: responsiveness)
    unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't get XP
    on it quick enough.

    > hmm can I add the XP disk out of my "being retired" machine into it
    > and get a dual boot easily?


    It's not always easy (at least compared with how easy it was with 98SE) to
    'migrate' an XP install. As Puddle says, there are sites around which tell
    you how to do it. You usually have to remove all the machine-specific device
    drivers, inculding in some cases chipset, PCI bridge, yada yada yada. Even
    after all that, there isa chance that it won't work. That said, if the mobos
    / chipsets are similar enough, sometimes you can just install the drive and
    have it 'repair' itself.

    Then, to top it off, unless you have a BIOS option like my Asus (hit F8
    after the beep to [temporarilly, this restart only,] choose which 'drive'
    [includes USB etc.] to boot from) you'll have no bootloader and have to
    constantly 'permanently' change the settings in BIOS when you want to boot
    the other OS.

    Thirdly you could strike problems with re-activating the install if it's an
    OEM version of XP that came with the other machine....

    Luck,
    --
    Shaun.

    DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
    offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
    If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
    me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-)
    ~misfit~, Oct 1, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:38:18 +1300, "~misfit~"
    <> wrote:

    >Somewhere on teh intarwebs "thingy" typed:
    >> Some initial thoughts,
    >>
    >> It has good points, but so far it seems to be change for the sake of
    >> change....
    >>
    >> This is a ready built machine so it should work perfectly?
    >>
    >> uh huh....
    >>
    >> I Like the parental control...eldest is spewing though....
    >>
    >> ;]
    >>
    >> Why change the management look and feel so much? it does not achieve a
    >> thing...trying to find things is annoying me....
    >>
    >> For some reason the disk is being constantly accessed...its running
    >> like a dog because of this...got 4Gb of ram so cant be swapping...not
    >> unless mouse clicking now needs 4GB+ with vista...
    >>
    >> ;]

    >
    ><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a laptop
    >supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read: responsiveness)
    >unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't get XP
    >on it quick enough.


    No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    they must be running mostly out of the cache.

    When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.

    So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the indexing,
    and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte of
    RAM or less.

    Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
    window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower than
    a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but that
    can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
    download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.

    In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    Vista is considerably superior to XP.

    Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.

    >> hmm can I add the XP disk out of my "being retired" machine into it
    >> and get a dual boot easily?

    >
    >It's not always easy (at least compared with how easy it was with 98SE) to
    >'migrate' an XP install. As Puddle says, there are sites around which tell
    >you how to do it. You usually have to remove all the machine-specific device
    >drivers, inculding in some cases chipset, PCI bridge, yada yada yada. Even
    >after all that, there isa chance that it won't work. That said, if the mobos
    >/ chipsets are similar enough, sometimes you can just install the drive and
    >have it 'repair' itself.
    >
    >Then, to top it off, unless you have a BIOS option like my Asus (hit F8
    >after the beep to [temporarilly, this restart only,] choose which 'drive'
    >[includes USB etc.] to boot from) you'll have no bootloader and have to
    >constantly 'permanently' change the settings in BIOS when you want to boot
    >the other OS.
    >
    >Thirdly you could strike problems with re-activating the install if it's an
    >OEM version of XP that came with the other machine....
    >
    >Luck,
    Stephen Worthington, Oct 2, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. >><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a laptop
    >>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read: responsiveness)
    >>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't get XP
    >>on it quick enough.

    >
    > No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    > each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    > in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    > is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    > than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    > and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    > frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    > they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >
    > When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    > quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    > necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    > background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    > believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    > but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    > would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    > for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.


    I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than a
    couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8 core 64
    bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I don't
    believe simple caching could come close to negating the performance
    penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work finished copying
    100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!

    > So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    > Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the indexing,
    > and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    > SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte of
    > RAM or less.


    No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html ), and before you
    mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing to fix
    performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many a Vista
    installation (see SP1 boot looping).

    > Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
    > window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    > distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    > times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    > to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower than
    > a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    > changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but that
    > can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    > connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    > capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    > dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
    > download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.


    The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
    technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
    technologies...
    http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1250148,00.html

    >
    > In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    > Vista is considerably superior to XP.
    >
    > Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.


    Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations from
    installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely terrible to
    use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be allowed
    to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to have it
    removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core, which takes
    20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores) which nobody
    uses.

    J&H.
    Jekyll and Hyde, Oct 2, 2008
    #3
  4. ~misfit~

    impossible Guest

    "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    news:48e47fc0$...
    >>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
    >>>laptop
    >>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read: responsiveness)
    >>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't get
    >>>XP
    >>>on it quick enough.

    >>
    >> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    >> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    >> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    >> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    >> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    >> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    >> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    >> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >>
    >> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    >> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    >> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    >> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    >> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    >> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    >> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    >> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.

    >
    > I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than a
    > couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8 core 64
    > bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I don't
    > believe simple caching could come close to negating the performance
    > penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work finished copying
    > 100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!
    >


    Anecdotes are wonderful, aren't they? You can create any impression you want
    and never be held accountable for the facts of the matter. Oh, btw....Did
    your company pay this "user" overtikme for that 20 hours?

    >> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    >> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the indexing,
    >> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    >> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte of
    >> RAM or less.

    >
    > No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html ), and before
    > you mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing to
    > fix performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many a
    > Vista installation (see SP1 boot looping).
    >


    Forever slower?!? And you have the evidence to supoporet your claim that SP1
    had no effect where exactly? Just one reputable link will do.


    >> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
    >> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    >> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    >> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    >> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower than
    >> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    >> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but that
    >> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    >> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    >> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    >> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
    >> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.

    >
    > The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
    > technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
    > technologies...
    > http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1250148,00.html
    >


    Says one consultant paid tyo trash Vista. Excellent choice of references.

    >>
    >> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    >> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
    >>
    >> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.

    >
    > Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations from
    > installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely terrible to
    > use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be
    > allowed to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to have
    > it removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core, which
    > takes 20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores) which
    > nobody uses.
    >


    Lies just slide off your keyboard like butter, don't they? Here's the trick
    to getting a grip. Any time you feel the need to rubbish something, find 2
    reputable sources to back up your claim. If you can do that, than feel free
    to type away-- otherwise, hold your wongue lest you get a reputation for
    being a total loser.
    impossible, Oct 2, 2008
    #4
  5. On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:59:44 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
    <jekyll&> wrote:

    >>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a laptop
    >>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read: responsiveness)
    >>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't get XP
    >>>on it quick enough.

    >>
    >> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    >> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    >> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    >> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    >> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    >> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    >> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    >> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >>
    >> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    >> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    >> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    >> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    >> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    >> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    >> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    >> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.

    >
    >I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than a
    >couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8 core 64
    >bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I don't
    >believe simple caching could come close to negating the performance
    >penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work finished copying
    >100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!


    I have not tried much with a USB2 hard disk, but they are simply slow.
    I know this because I have a 1 Tbyte external drive that has both USB2
    and eSATA interfaces. Its performance on a USB2 port is so bad I have
    only ever used it that way once. Its eSATA performance is the same as
    internal drives. So I would not blame Vista for poor USB2 disk
    performance.

    I have modern Seagate 500 Gbyte and 1 Tbyte SATA drives in my PCs, and
    performance is anything but slow. As an example, I just copied a
    732,712,960 byte file from my 500 Gbyte drive to my 1 Tbyte drive in
    18.53 seconds. I made sure that the file was one I had not accessed
    for ages so it would not be cached already. That is 39,541,984 bytes
    per second, or 2.2 Gibytes per minute. At that rate, your 100 Gbyte
    copy would have taken less than 45 minutes.

    >> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    >> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the indexing,
    >> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    >> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte of
    >> RAM or less.

    >
    >No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
    >http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html ), and before you
    >mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing to fix
    >performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many a Vista
    >installation (see SP1 boot looping).


    I did not see a 40% overall figure anywhere in that article. That is
    just bullshit. You could say truthfully say "up to 40%" if you like
    bullshit statistics. Yes, quite a number of benchmarks show slightly
    lower performance, and a few much lower. I am a big skeptic when it
    comes to benchmarks though. They rarely reflect real life
    performance.

    >> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
    >> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    >> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    >> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    >> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower than
    >> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    >> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but that
    >> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    >> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    >> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    >> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
    >> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.

    >
    >The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
    >technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
    >technologies...
    >http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1250148,00.html


    Not my experience. All my Internet and LAN speeds are superior or
    dramatically superior on my Vista boxes. Some of that may simply be
    faster hardware, with the LAN speeds. But Internet speeds are much
    better, and the hardware can not affect that.

    >
    >>
    >> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    >> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
    >>
    >> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.

    >
    >Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations from
    >installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely terrible to
    >use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be allowed
    >to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to have it
    >removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core, which takes
    >20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores) which nobody
    >uses.
    >
    >J&H.
    >


    Actually, my experience is just the opposite. Having UAC on leads to
    silent failures of installers, usually ones that do not understand
    Vista. I have not had any such failures since I turned UAC off.

    I have used XP a lot prior to getting Vista, and I now prefer Vista. I
    have never used XP on a modern PC though - maybe it does run a little
    faster than Vista on the same hardware. But the dramatic performance
    boost I got from changing hardware to the latest far outweighs that.
    And the disk caching performance of Vista is so dramatically better,
    and that matters in real life where benchmarks often do not. I do not
    have to wait around all the time for Vista to reload things it should
    never have flushed from its cache. With XP, I was always waiting for
    things I should not have had to, just because I had copied a file from
    A to B.

    At your work, were you putting Vista on old PCs with too little RAM?
    Or an ancient video card? That would be the most likely reason for it
    to be slow. And did you leave it running for a day or two to get all
    the indexing done, or turn off the indexing service? What Windows
    Experience Index values were the PCs reporting? Mine is currently
    4.8, with the limiting factor being Aero performance.
    Stephen Worthington, Oct 2, 2008
    #5
  6. Hi there,

    Stephen Worthington wrote:
    > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:59:44 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
    > <jekyll&> wrote:
    >
    >>>> <dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a laptop
    >>>> supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read: responsiveness)
    >>>> unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't get XP
    >>>> on it quick enough.
    >>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    >>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    >>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    >>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    >>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    >>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    >>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    >>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >>>
    >>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    >>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    >>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    >>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    >>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    >>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    >>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    >>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.

    >> I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than a
    >> couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8 core 64
    >> bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I don't
    >> believe simple caching could come close to negating the performance
    >> penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work finished copying
    >> 100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!

    >
    > I have not tried much with a USB2 hard disk, but they are simply slow.
    > I know this because I have a 1 Tbyte external drive that has both USB2
    > and eSATA interfaces. Its performance on a USB2 port is so bad I have
    > only ever used it that way once. Its eSATA performance is the same as
    > internal drives. So I would not blame Vista for poor USB2 disk
    > performance.


    Copying any sizeable chunk of data to/from my 40GB Sony camcorder will
    average around 15-20MB/sec over USB2 in openSUSE Linux, so a 10GB copy
    will take around 11-12 minutes at worst. That sounds much better than
    100GB in 20 hours. It also helps to zip up what you're copying if the
    copy job consists of lots of small files.

    Based on my experiences I point the finger squarely at Vista for such
    slow USB2 performance.

    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Edinburgh.
    Chris Wilkinson, Oct 3, 2008
    #6
  7. In message <>, Stephen Worthington
    wrote:

    > I am a big skeptic when it comes to benchmarks though. They rarely
    > reflect real life performance.


    The problem is one of reproducibility. Your "real life performance" figures
    would be meaningless to someone else in a different situation, and simply
    impossible for them to confirm. Whereas benchmarks, as artificial as they
    are, are easier to reproduce, precisely because they are artificial.

    > I have never used XP on a modern PC though ...


    Have you seen these low-cost "netbooks" like the Asus Eee, MSI Wind, Acer
    Aspire One and friends? Three-figure price tag, easy to carry around--and
    Vista is kind of useless in that market.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 3, 2008
    #7
  8. "impossible" <> wrote in message
    news:7g2Fk.369130$yE1.123269@attbi_s21...
    > "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    > news:48e47fc0$...
    >>>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
    >>>>laptop
    >>>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read: responsiveness)
    >>>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't get
    >>>>XP
    >>>>on it quick enough.
    >>>
    >>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    >>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    >>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    >>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    >>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    >>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    >>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    >>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >>>
    >>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    >>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    >>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    >>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    >>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    >>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    >>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    >>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.

    >>
    >> I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than a
    >> couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8 core
    >> 64 bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I don't
    >> believe simple caching could come close to negating the performance
    >> penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work finished copying
    >> 100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!
    >>

    >
    > Anecdotes are wonderful, aren't they? You can create any impression you
    > want and never be held accountable for the facts of the matter. Oh,
    > btw....Did your company pay this "user" overtikme for that 20 hours?


    No, he was at home, and we are on salaries, there is no overtime (excepting
    weekend callouts).
    Don't like that anecdotal example? Well here's another - 7 hours to
    uninstall several languages on a Dell Quad Core running Vista.
    Don't belive me. just google "vista incredibly slow file copy time", or read
    this...
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/26/vista_copying_bug/

    >>> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    >>> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the indexing,
    >>> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    >>> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte of
    >>> RAM or less.

    >>
    >> No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html ), and before
    >> you mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing to
    >> fix performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many a
    >> Vista installation (see SP1 boot looping).
    >>

    >
    > Forever slower?!? And you have the evidence to supoporet your claim that
    > SP1 had no effect where exactly? Just one reputable link will do.


    http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/02/07/performance-results-mixed-with-vista-service-pack-1
    http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/23/1710245.shtml
    http://keznews.com/4056_Performance_Results_Mixed_with_Vista_Service_Pack_1

    Another thing "next to nothing" is not equal to "no effect", a lame attempt
    to twist the meaning of what I said.

    >>> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
    >>> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    >>> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    >>> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    >>> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower than
    >>> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    >>> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but that
    >>> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    >>> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    >>> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    >>> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
    >>> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.

    >>
    >> The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
    >> technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
    >> technologies...
    >> http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1250148,00.html
    >>

    >
    > Says one consultant paid tyo trash Vista. Excellent choice of references.


    Vista IPv6 incompatible...
    http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/060707-microsoft-vista-ipv6-incompatible.html
    Vista inbuilt "tuning" causing network slowness...
    http://thesystemadministrator.com/T...CP_Auto-Tuning_to_Solve_Slow_Network_(Vista)/
    Vista incompatible with managed networks scaling technologies...
    http://lwn.net/Articles/92727/

    The list goes on.
    >>>
    >>> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    >>> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
    >>>
    >>> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.

    >>
    >> Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations from
    >> installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely terrible to
    >> use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be
    >> allowed to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to have
    >> it removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core, which
    >> takes 20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores) which
    >> nobody uses.
    >>

    >
    > Lies just slide off your keyboard like butter, don't they? Here's the
    > trick to getting a grip. Any time you feel the need to rubbish something,
    > find 2 reputable sources to back up your claim. If you can do that, than
    > feel free to type away-- otherwise, hold your wongue lest you get a
    > reputation for being a total loser.


    YOU are the one offering NOTHING to support your opinions. At least I have
    expert links backing up what I say. YOU have NOTHING and try to minimise my
    opinions as "anecdotal", pot - kettle - black. And you call me a liar, well
    you're a tosser.

    Having used XP for about 7 years now I would love to change. But Vista has
    no confidence from me, even though I can get a free licence I'm not going
    near it.

    J&H.
    Jekyll and Hyde, Oct 3, 2008
    #8
  9. "Stephen Worthington" <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
    message news:...
    > On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:59:44 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
    > <jekyll&> wrote:
    >
    >>>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
    >>>>laptop
    >>>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read: responsiveness)
    >>>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't get
    >>>>XP
    >>>>on it quick enough.
    >>>
    >>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    >>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    >>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    >>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    >>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    >>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    >>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    >>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >>>
    >>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    >>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    >>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    >>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    >>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    >>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    >>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    >>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.

    >>
    >>I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than a
    >>couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8 core 64
    >>bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I don't
    >>believe simple caching could come close to negating the performance
    >>penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work finished copying
    >>100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!

    >
    > I have not tried much with a USB2 hard disk, but they are simply slow.
    > I know this because I have a 1 Tbyte external drive that has both USB2
    > and eSATA interfaces. Its performance on a USB2 port is so bad I have
    > only ever used it that way once. Its eSATA performance is the same as
    > internal drives. So I would not blame Vista for poor USB2 disk
    > performance.
    >
    > I have modern Seagate 500 Gbyte and 1 Tbyte SATA drives in my PCs, and
    > performance is anything but slow. As an example, I just copied a
    > 732,712,960 byte file from my 500 Gbyte drive to my 1 Tbyte drive in
    > 18.53 seconds. I made sure that the file was one I had not accessed
    > for ages so it would not be cached already. That is 39,541,984 bytes
    > per second, or 2.2 Gibytes per minute. At that rate, your 100 Gbyte
    > copy would have taken less than 45 minutes.


    It wasn't mine, and it took 20 hours. The problem has been around long
    enough, this is not news. USB2 is usually sufficient for everyday use, even
    when using USMT tools to migrate a user.

    >>> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    >>> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the indexing,
    >>> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    >>> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte of
    >>> RAM or less.

    >>
    >>No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
    >>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html ), and before
    >>you
    >>mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing to fix
    >>performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many a Vista
    >>installation (see SP1 boot looping).

    >
    > I did not see a 40% overall figure anywhere in that article. That is
    > just bullshit. You could say truthfully say "up to 40%" if you like
    > bullshit statistics. Yes, quite a number of benchmarks show slightly
    > lower performance, and a few much lower. I am a big skeptic when it
    > comes to benchmarks though. They rarely reflect real life
    > performance.


    Beg your pardon, but I don't bullshit. I linked the wrong article sorry
    about that, but the 40% was about right from memory. Here's the correct
    link... http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39291081,00.htm
    Like yourself I too am sceptical of benchmarks, and those at Toms in the
    link I find to be particularly kind to Vista, and certainly are a lot better
    for Vista than I would ever have guessed.
    But the ZDNet benchmarks certainly match my subjective experiences more
    closely.
    Also interesting, a rebuttal of Microsofts rebuttal of the bad news...
    http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/04/microsoft-slammed-attacking
    Unlike MSofts claim, Devil Mountains benchmarking methods actually more
    closely represent an actual user than Toms one specific test at a time
    methods. This would explain to me why Toms figures surprised me, but Devil
    Mountains seems spot on to me.

    >>> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
    >>> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    >>> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    >>> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    >>> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower than
    >>> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    >>> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but that
    >>> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    >>> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    >>> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    >>> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
    >>> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.

    >>
    >>The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
    >>technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
    >>technologies...
    >>http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1250148,00.html

    >
    > Not my experience. All my Internet and LAN speeds are superior or
    > dramatically superior on my Vista boxes. Some of that may simply be
    > faster hardware, with the LAN speeds. But Internet speeds are much
    > better, and the hardware can not affect that.


    Transfer rates are just one thing. Reliability etc is another. Try
    installing Office 2007 from a mapped network drive, what happens? Error
    "Invalid Drive X:" is what happens, but not on XP, nooo. Try installing
    something else from the network share, and you guessed it, same error, at
    which point I remorsefully resign myself to the fact I now have to copy a
    3Gb Adobe installer onto the desktop to install it, which with Vista means
    coming back in an hour or so. Copying installers across our network takes
    about twice as long with Vista than it does with XP. Maybe our network is
    quite different to yours? Internet seems slower with Vista, but that's
    subjective only.

    >>> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    >>> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
    >>>
    >>> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.

    >>
    >>Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations from
    >>installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely terrible to
    >>use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be
    >>allowed
    >>to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to have it
    >>removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core, which takes
    >>20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores) which nobody
    >>uses.
    >>
    >>J&H.
    >>

    >
    > Actually, my experience is just the opposite. Having UAC on leads to
    > silent failures of installers, usually ones that do not understand
    > Vista. I have not had any such failures since I turned UAC off.


    You may be right there, I don't have a lot of experience with UAC (except
    for playing along with it's constant nagging), mostly second hand info.

    > I have used XP a lot prior to getting Vista, and I now prefer Vista. I
    > have never used XP on a modern PC though - maybe it does run a little
    > faster than Vista on the same hardware. But the dramatic performance
    > boost I got from changing hardware to the latest far outweighs that.
    > And the disk caching performance of Vista is so dramatically better,
    > and that matters in real life where benchmarks often do not. I do not
    > have to wait around all the time for Vista to reload things it should
    > never have flushed from its cache. With XP, I was always waiting for
    > things I should not have had to, just because I had copied a file from
    > A to B.
    >
    > At your work, were you putting Vista on old PCs with too little RAM?
    > Or an ancient video card? That would be the most likely reason for it
    > to be slow. And did you leave it running for a day or two to get all
    > the indexing done, or turn off the indexing service? What Windows
    > Experience Index values were the PCs reporting? Mine is currently
    > 4.8, with the limiting factor being Aero performance.


    I've never put Vista on anything at work. No they weren't old, they arrive
    new with Vista. Turning off indexing didn't help, either did disabling a
    number of other background processes. They are Quad core Dell Precision
    workstations with 4Gb ram, upgraded 3D cards. Can't remember what the EI
    values were but these are the very best of what's available.

    I'm a Windows user, and I'd love it if Vista was as fast as XP, I'd change
    tonight. I would love to be using Vista instead, I love the aero look, and
    the widgets, and the general coolness of it all. But I refuse to install an
    OS that will handicap my performance and reliabilty so much.

    J&H.
    Jekyll and Hyde, Oct 3, 2008
    #9
  10. In message <>, Jekyll and Hyde wrote:

    > ... Devil Mountains benchmarking methods actually more closely represent
    > an actual user ...


    Weren't they the ones reporting some massive performance speedups with
    Dimdows XP SP3, which turned out not to be the case?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 3, 2008
    #10
  11. ~misfit~

    impossible Guest

    "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "impossible" <> wrote in message
    > news:7g2Fk.369130$yE1.123269@attbi_s21...
    >> "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    >> news:48e47fc0$...
    >>>>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
    >>>>>laptop
    >>>>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read: responsiveness)
    >>>>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't get
    >>>>>XP
    >>>>>on it quick enough.
    >>>>
    >>>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    >>>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    >>>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    >>>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    >>>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    >>>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >>>>
    >>>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    >>>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    >>>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    >>>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    >>>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    >>>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    >>>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    >>>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.
    >>>
    >>> I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than a
    >>> couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8 core
    >>> 64 bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I
    >>> don't believe simple caching could come close to negating the
    >>> performance penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work
    >>> finished copying 100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!
    >>>

    >>
    >> Anecdotes are wonderful, aren't they? You can create any impression you
    >> want and never be held accountable for the facts of the matter. Oh,
    >> btw....Did your company pay this "user" overtikme for that 20 hours?

    >
    > No, he was at home, and we are on salaries, there is no overtime
    > (excepting weekend callouts).
    > Don't like that anecdotal example? Well here's another - 7 hours to
    > uninstall several languages on a Dell Quad Core running Vista.
    > Don't belive me. just google "vista incredibly slow file copy time", or
    > read this...
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/26/vista_copying_bug/
    >


    March 2007? Sure, Vista was a pig before SP1 was released. But this is
    October 2008 and referencing that old news juist makes you look like a
    wanton troll.

    >>>> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    >>>> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the indexing,
    >>>> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    >>>> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte of
    >>>> RAM or less.
    >>>
    >>> No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
    >>> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html ), and before
    >>> you mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing to
    >>> fix performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many a
    >>> Vista installation (see SP1 boot looping).
    >>>

    >>
    >> Forever slower?!? And you have the evidence to supoporet your claim that
    >> SP1 had no effect where exactly? Just one reputable link will do.

    >
    > http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/02/07/performance-results-mixed-with-vista-service-pack-1


    Like Lawrence D'Loser, you make a habit of citing artciles you never even
    bother to read.

    "In our first tests of the service pack, file copying, one of the main
    performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly faster."


    > http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/23/1710245.shtml


    Slashdot quotes from any millenia are utterly useless.

    > http://keznews.com/4056_Performance_Results_Mixed_with_Vista_Service_Pack_1
    >


    Like Lawrence D'Loser, you make a habit of citing artciles you never even
    bother to read. In this case, it's just a duplicate of your previosu
    reference, and duplicates don't count.

    "In our first tests of the service pack, file copying, one of the main
    performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly faster."

    > Another thing "next to nothing" is not equal to "no effect", a lame
    > attempt to twist the meaning of what I said.
    >
    >>>> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
    >>>> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    >>>> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    >>>> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    >>>> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower than
    >>>> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    >>>> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but that
    >>>> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    >>>> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    >>>> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    >>>> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
    >>>> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.
    >>>
    >>> The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
    >>> technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
    >>> technologies...
    >>> http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1250148,00.html
    >>>

    >>
    >> Says one consultant paid tyo trash Vista. Excellent choice of references.

    >
    > Vista IPv6 incompatible...
    > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/060707-microsoft-vista-ipv6-incompatible.html
    > Vista inbuilt "tuning" causing network slowness...
    >


    June 2007. Waste of time.

    ttp://thesystemadministrator.com/The_System_Administrator/Tips_&_Tricks/Disable_TCP_Auto-Tuning_to_Solve_Slow_Network_(Vista)/
    > Vista incompatible with managed networks scaling technologies...


    Sheer ignorance. "Gee, my hd led is laways on -- that must mean that Vista
    is crap". Where have I heard that before.

    > http://lwn.net/Articles/92727/
    >
    > The list goes on.
    >>>>
    >>>> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    >>>> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.
    >>>
    >>> Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations from
    >>> installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely terrible
    >>> to use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be
    >>> allowed to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to
    >>> have it removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core,
    >>> which takes 20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores)
    >>> which nobody uses.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Lies just slide off your keyboard like butter, don't they? Here's the
    >> trick to getting a grip. Any time you feel the need to rubbish something,
    >> find 2 reputable sources to back up your claim. If you can do that, than
    >> feel free to type away-- otherwise, hold your wongue lest you get a
    >> reputation for being a total loser.

    >
    > YOU are the one offering NOTHING to support your opinions. At least I have
    > expert links backing up what I say. YOU have NOTHING and try to minimise
    > my opinions as "anecdotal", pot - kettle - black. And you call me a liar,
    > well you're a tosser.
    >


    Learn to cite reputable sources that are current -- and do read the
    articles, because two of your main references flatly contradictedwild
    anecdote about slow file copying times.

    > Having used XP for about 7 years now I would love to change. But Vista has
    > no confidence from me, even though I can get a free licence I'm not going
    > near it.
    >


    Thank god!
    impossible, Oct 3, 2008
    #11
  12. "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:gc4mcg$n0u$...
    > In message <>, Jekyll and Hyde wrote:
    >
    >> ... Devil Mountains benchmarking methods actually more closely represent
    >> an actual user ...

    >
    > Weren't they the ones reporting some massive performance speedups with
    > Dimdows XP SP3, which turned out not to be the case?


    You might have something there, but since "Lies just slide off [my] keyboard
    like butter", I'm "a total loser", my comments are "just bullshit", maybe
    you would be better to ask someone else.
    Lol, there sure are some tender spots out there, some chill pills are in
    order methinks.

    J&H.
    Jekyll and Hyde, Oct 3, 2008
    #12
  13. "impossible" <> wrote in message
    news:tpnFk.314965$TT4.193106@attbi_s22...
    > "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >> news:7g2Fk.369130$yE1.123269@attbi_s21...
    >>> "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    >>> news:48e47fc0$...
    >>>>>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
    >>>>>>laptop
    >>>>>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read:
    >>>>>>responsiveness)
    >>>>>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't
    >>>>>>get XP
    >>>>>>on it quick enough.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    >>>>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    >>>>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    >>>>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    >>>>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    >>>>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    >>>>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    >>>>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    >>>>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    >>>>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    >>>>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    >>>>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    >>>>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than a
    >>>> couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8 core
    >>>> 64 bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I
    >>>> don't believe simple caching could come close to negating the
    >>>> performance penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work
    >>>> finished copying 100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Anecdotes are wonderful, aren't they? You can create any impression you
    >>> want and never be held accountable for the facts of the matter. Oh,
    >>> btw....Did your company pay this "user" overtikme for that 20 hours?

    >>
    >> No, he was at home, and we are on salaries, there is no overtime
    >> (excepting weekend callouts).
    >> Don't like that anecdotal example? Well here's another - 7 hours to
    >> uninstall several languages on a Dell Quad Core running Vista.
    >> Don't belive me. just google "vista incredibly slow file copy time", or
    >> read this...
    >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/26/vista_copying_bug/
    >>

    >
    > March 2007? Sure, Vista was a pig before SP1 was released. But this is
    > October 2008 and referencing that old news juist makes you look like a
    > wanton troll.
    >
    >>>>> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    >>>>> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the indexing,
    >>>>> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    >>>>> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte of
    >>>>> RAM or less.
    >>>>
    >>>> No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
    >>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html ), and before
    >>>> you mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing
    >>>> to fix performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many
    >>>> a Vista installation (see SP1 boot looping).
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Forever slower?!? And you have the evidence to supoporet your claim that
    >>> SP1 had no effect where exactly? Just one reputable link will do.

    >>
    >> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/02/07/performance-results-mixed-with-vista-service-pack-1

    >
    > Like Lawrence D'Loser, you make a habit of citing artciles you never even
    > bother to read.
    >
    > "In our first tests of the service pack, file copying, one of the main
    > performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly
    > faster."


    Big deal, latch onto the only positive from what was promised to be a
    performance and reliabilty update, and ended up being a near complete flop.
    >> http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/23/1710245.shtml

    >
    > Slashdot quotes from any millenia are utterly useless.
    >
    >> http://keznews.com/4056_Performance_Results_Mixed_with_Vista_Service_Pack_1
    >>

    >
    > Like Lawrence D'Loser, you make a habit of citing artciles you never even
    > bother to read. In this case, it's just a duplicate of your previosu
    > reference, and duplicates don't count.
    >
    > "In our first tests of the service pack, file copying, one of the main
    > performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly
    > faster."


    Sorry, remember "duplicates" don't count. You've already said this (above).

    >> Another thing "next to nothing" is not equal to "no effect", a lame
    >> attempt to twist the meaning of what I said.


    Oh, I see you have no comeback to your dirty tactics here.

    >>
    >>>>> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
    >>>>> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    >>>>> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    >>>>> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    >>>>> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower than
    >>>>> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    >>>>> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but that
    >>>>> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    >>>>> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    >>>>> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    >>>>> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
    >>>>> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.
    >>>>
    >>>> The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
    >>>> technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
    >>>> technologies...
    >>>> http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1250148,00.html
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Says one consultant paid tyo trash Vista. Excellent choice of
    >>> references.

    >>
    >> Vista IPv6 incompatible...
    >> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/060707-microsoft-vista-ipv6-incompatible.html
    >> Vista inbuilt "tuning" causing network slowness...
    >>

    >
    > June 2007. Waste of time.


    Ditto.

    > ttp://thesystemadministrator.com/The_System_Administrator/Tips_&_Tricks/Disable_TCP_Auto-Tuning_to_Solve_Slow_Network_(Vista)/
    >> Vista incompatible with managed networks scaling technologies...

    >
    > Sheer ignorance. "Gee, my hd led is laways on -- that must mean that Vista
    > is crap". Where have I heard that before.


    Oh right, leave it for a couple of days to finish indexing right. Then why
    after 2 months has it still not stopped?
    You obviously have proof that an always on LED is NOT a symptom of Vista
    being crap, cite please.

    >> http://lwn.net/Articles/92727/
    >>
    >> The list goes on.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    >>>>> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.
    >>>>
    >>>> Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations from
    >>>> installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely terrible
    >>>> to use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be
    >>>> allowed to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to
    >>>> have it removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core,
    >>>> which takes 20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores)
    >>>> which nobody uses.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Lies just slide off your keyboard like butter, don't they? Here's the
    >>> trick to getting a grip. Any time you feel the need to rubbish
    >>> something, find 2 reputable sources to back up your claim. If you can do
    >>> that, than feel free to type away-- otherwise, hold your wongue lest you
    >>> get a reputation for being a total loser.

    >>
    >> YOU are the one offering NOTHING to support your opinions. At least I
    >> have expert links backing up what I say. YOU have NOTHING and try to
    >> minimise my opinions as "anecdotal", pot - kettle - black. And you call
    >> me a liar, well you're a tosser.
    >>

    >
    > Learn to cite reputable sources that are current -- and do read the
    > articles, because two of your main references flatly contradictedwild
    > anecdote about slow file copying times.


    Err, no. Not all Vista systems run the same. There are truckloads of
    complaints about very, even hideously slow transfer times, but there are
    those getting good times too. It seems to be a lottery. Call it an anecdote
    all you like, it still happened, just like the 7 hour languages uninstall. I
    have seen these things happen (or rather not happening), I couldn't give a
    toss if you don't believe me.

    >> Having used XP for about 7 years now I would love to change. But Vista
    >> has no confidence from me, even though I can get a free licence I'm not
    >> going near it.
    >>

    >
    > Thank god!


    Sums up your retarded attitude to the whole issue. Like it makes any
    difference to anyone else what I use.
    I need to learn to cite huh. That's rich coming from someone who hasn't
    backed up anything he's said.
    And whinging about the sources and times of benchmarks and reviews, ffs
    they're everywhere, dozens on each topic.
    And so what if they're old bugs, you're alluding that they were patched out
    or fixed in SP1 even though the benchmarks say otherwise.
    Well, where's your fucking cites to prove your assumptions? Not to mention
    the "killer" test was done with XPSP3 and Vista SP1, that not recent enough
    for you?
    You want better ones find your own, why the **** should I find proof against
    your petty whining.
    If you don't notice your OS is slower than a wet hen then I guess that means
    you're obviously not so sharp yourself.
    You and Vista are meant for each other, enjoy.

    J&H.
    Jekyll and Hyde, Oct 3, 2008
    #13
  14. ~misfit~

    AD. Guest

    On Oct 3, 5:34 am, Stephen Worthington
    <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:
    > I have not tried much with a USB2 hard disk, but they are simply slow.


    They aren't anywhere near that slow though. We use 2.5" laptop drives
    (5400rpm) in USB2 enclosures for daily offsite backups of our backup
    server. They take about 3hrs 5min to do a straight copy of 190GB plus
    rsync another 50GB.

    This is on a 5 or 6 yr old PC that needed an el-cheapo Dick Smiths
    USB2 card because the mobo only had USB1.1 ports. I'm sure it would be
    even faster if the external disk was a 3.5" 7200 rpm drive too, as
    USB2 is theoretically roughly 50% faster than the laptop drive itself.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Oct 3, 2008
    #14
  15. On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:11:36 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
    <jekyll&> wrote:

    >"impossible" <> wrote in message
    >news:tpnFk.314965$TT4.193106@attbi_s22...
    >> "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:7g2Fk.369130$yE1.123269@attbi_s21...
    >>>> "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    >>>> news:48e47fc0$...
    >>>>>>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
    >>>>>>>laptop
    >>>>>>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read:
    >>>>>>>responsiveness)
    >>>>>>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't
    >>>>>>>get XP
    >>>>>>>on it quick enough.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>>>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>>>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    >>>>>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    >>>>>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    >>>>>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    >>>>>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    >>>>>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    >>>>>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    >>>>>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    >>>>>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    >>>>>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    >>>>>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    >>>>>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    >>>>>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than a
    >>>>> couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8 core
    >>>>> 64 bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I
    >>>>> don't believe simple caching could come close to negating the
    >>>>> performance penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work
    >>>>> finished copying 100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Anecdotes are wonderful, aren't they? You can create any impression you
    >>>> want and never be held accountable for the facts of the matter. Oh,
    >>>> btw....Did your company pay this "user" overtikme for that 20 hours?
    >>>
    >>> No, he was at home, and we are on salaries, there is no overtime
    >>> (excepting weekend callouts).
    >>> Don't like that anecdotal example? Well here's another - 7 hours to
    >>> uninstall several languages on a Dell Quad Core running Vista.
    >>> Don't belive me. just google "vista incredibly slow file copy time", or
    >>> read this...
    >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/26/vista_copying_bug/
    >>>

    >>
    >> March 2007? Sure, Vista was a pig before SP1 was released. But this is
    >> October 2008 and referencing that old news juist makes you look like a
    >> wanton troll.
    >>
    >>>>>> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    >>>>>> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the indexing,
    >>>>>> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    >>>>>> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte of
    >>>>>> RAM or less.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
    >>>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html ), and before
    >>>>> you mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing
    >>>>> to fix performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many
    >>>>> a Vista installation (see SP1 boot looping).
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Forever slower?!? And you have the evidence to supoporet your claim that
    >>>> SP1 had no effect where exactly? Just one reputable link will do.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/02/07/performance-results-mixed-with-vista-service-pack-1

    >>
    >> Like Lawrence D'Loser, you make a habit of citing artciles you never even
    >> bother to read.
    >>
    >> "In our first tests of the service pack, file copying, one of the main
    >> performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly
    >> faster."

    >
    >Big deal, latch onto the only positive from what was promised to be a
    >performance and reliabilty update, and ended up being a near complete flop.
    >>> http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/23/1710245.shtml

    >>
    >> Slashdot quotes from any millenia are utterly useless.
    >>
    >>> http://keznews.com/4056_Performance_Results_Mixed_with_Vista_Service_Pack_1
    >>>

    >>
    >> Like Lawrence D'Loser, you make a habit of citing artciles you never even
    >> bother to read. In this case, it's just a duplicate of your previosu
    >> reference, and duplicates don't count.
    >>
    >> "In our first tests of the service pack, file copying, one of the main
    >> performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly
    >> faster."

    >
    >Sorry, remember "duplicates" don't count. You've already said this (above).
    >
    >>> Another thing "next to nothing" is not equal to "no effect", a lame
    >>> attempt to twist the meaning of what I said.

    >
    >Oh, I see you have no comeback to your dirty tactics here.
    >
    >>>
    >>>>>> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
    >>>>>> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    >>>>>> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    >>>>>> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    >>>>>> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower than
    >>>>>> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    >>>>>> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but that
    >>>>>> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    >>>>>> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    >>>>>> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    >>>>>> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
    >>>>>> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
    >>>>> technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
    >>>>> technologies...
    >>>>> http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1250148,00.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Says one consultant paid tyo trash Vista. Excellent choice of
    >>>> references.
    >>>
    >>> Vista IPv6 incompatible...
    >>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/060707-microsoft-vista-ipv6-incompatible.html
    >>> Vista inbuilt "tuning" causing network slowness...
    >>>

    >>
    >> June 2007. Waste of time.

    >
    >Ditto.
    >
    >> ttp://thesystemadministrator.com/The_System_Administrator/Tips_&_Tricks/Disable_TCP_Auto-Tuning_to_Solve_Slow_Network_(Vista)/
    >>> Vista incompatible with managed networks scaling technologies...

    >>
    >> Sheer ignorance. "Gee, my hd led is laways on -- that must mean that Vista
    >> is crap". Where have I heard that before.

    >
    >Oh right, leave it for a couple of days to finish indexing right. Then why
    >after 2 months has it still not stopped?
    >You obviously have proof that an always on LED is NOT a symptom of Vista
    >being crap, cite please.
    >
    >>> http://lwn.net/Articles/92727/
    >>>
    >>> The list goes on.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    >>>>>> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations from
    >>>>> installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely terrible
    >>>>> to use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be
    >>>>> allowed to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to
    >>>>> have it removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core,
    >>>>> which takes 20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores)
    >>>>> which nobody uses.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Lies just slide off your keyboard like butter, don't they? Here's the
    >>>> trick to getting a grip. Any time you feel the need to rubbish
    >>>> something, find 2 reputable sources to back up your claim. If you can do
    >>>> that, than feel free to type away-- otherwise, hold your wongue lest you
    >>>> get a reputation for being a total loser.
    >>>
    >>> YOU are the one offering NOTHING to support your opinions. At least I
    >>> have expert links backing up what I say. YOU have NOTHING and try to
    >>> minimise my opinions as "anecdotal", pot - kettle - black. And you call
    >>> me a liar, well you're a tosser.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Learn to cite reputable sources that are current -- and do read the
    >> articles, because two of your main references flatly contradictedwild
    >> anecdote about slow file copying times.

    >
    >Err, no. Not all Vista systems run the same. There are truckloads of
    >complaints about very, even hideously slow transfer times, but there are
    >those getting good times too. It seems to be a lottery. Call it an anecdote
    >all you like, it still happened, just like the 7 hour languages uninstall. I
    >have seen these things happen (or rather not happening), I couldn't give a
    >toss if you don't believe me.


    My laptop came with umpteen languages installed, so I had to uninstall
    them before I could install the first version of SP1 which did not
    support those languages. It took a long time, but not 7 hours. The
    reason for the excessive time was that I had to uninstall one language
    at a time, and reboot each time. The actual uninstall time for each
    language was long enough that I did not want to sit around and wait
    for it, so I went away and did something else while it happened. So I
    was not there to respond each time it became ready for the next
    uninstall - the was a delay until I checked on progress. Even with
    that, I managed to uninstall at least 7 languages in just a couple of
    hours.

    Having to uninstall languages individually is a big pain, and it would
    be nice if Microsoft fixed it. But 7 hours? Nowhere near. I think
    it was more like 3 for me.

    >>> Having used XP for about 7 years now I would love to change. But Vista
    >>> has no confidence from me, even though I can get a free licence I'm not
    >>> going near it.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Thank god!

    >
    >Sums up your retarded attitude to the whole issue. Like it makes any
    >difference to anyone else what I use.
    >I need to learn to cite huh. That's rich coming from someone who hasn't
    >backed up anything he's said.
    >And whinging about the sources and times of benchmarks and reviews, ffs
    >they're everywhere, dozens on each topic.
    >And so what if they're old bugs, you're alluding that they were patched out
    >or fixed in SP1 even though the benchmarks say otherwise.
    >Well, where's your fucking cites to prove your assumptions? Not to mention
    >the "killer" test was done with XPSP3 and Vista SP1, that not recent enough
    >for you?
    >You want better ones find your own, why the **** should I find proof against
    >your petty whining.
    >If you don't notice your OS is slower than a wet hen then I guess that means
    >you're obviously not so sharp yourself.
    >You and Vista are meant for each other, enjoy.
    >
    >J&H.
    >
    Stephen Worthington, Oct 4, 2008
    #15
  16. On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 19:48:17 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
    <jekyll&> wrote:

    >"Stephen Worthington" <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
    >message news:...
    >> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:59:44 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
    >> <jekyll&> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
    >>>>>laptop
    >>>>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read: responsiveness)
    >>>>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't get
    >>>>>XP
    >>>>>on it quick enough.
    >>>>
    >>>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    >>>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    >>>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    >>>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    >>>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    >>>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >>>>
    >>>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    >>>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    >>>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    >>>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    >>>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    >>>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    >>>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    >>>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.
    >>>
    >>>I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than a
    >>>couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8 core 64
    >>>bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I don't
    >>>believe simple caching could come close to negating the performance
    >>>penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work finished copying
    >>>100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!

    >>
    >> I have not tried much with a USB2 hard disk, but they are simply slow.
    >> I know this because I have a 1 Tbyte external drive that has both USB2
    >> and eSATA interfaces. Its performance on a USB2 port is so bad I have
    >> only ever used it that way once. Its eSATA performance is the same as
    >> internal drives. So I would not blame Vista for poor USB2 disk
    >> performance.
    >>
    >> I have modern Seagate 500 Gbyte and 1 Tbyte SATA drives in my PCs, and
    >> performance is anything but slow. As an example, I just copied a
    >> 732,712,960 byte file from my 500 Gbyte drive to my 1 Tbyte drive in
    >> 18.53 seconds. I made sure that the file was one I had not accessed
    >> for ages so it would not be cached already. That is 39,541,984 bytes
    >> per second, or 2.2 Gibytes per minute. At that rate, your 100 Gbyte
    >> copy would have taken less than 45 minutes.

    >
    >It wasn't mine, and it took 20 hours. The problem has been around long
    >enough, this is not news. USB2 is usually sufficient for everyday use, even
    >when using USMT tools to migrate a user.
    >
    >>>> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    >>>> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the indexing,
    >>>> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    >>>> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte of
    >>>> RAM or less.
    >>>
    >>>No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
    >>>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html ), and before
    >>>you
    >>>mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing to fix
    >>>performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many a Vista
    >>>installation (see SP1 boot looping).

    >>
    >> I did not see a 40% overall figure anywhere in that article. That is
    >> just bullshit. You could say truthfully say "up to 40%" if you like
    >> bullshit statistics. Yes, quite a number of benchmarks show slightly
    >> lower performance, and a few much lower. I am a big skeptic when it
    >> comes to benchmarks though. They rarely reflect real life
    >> performance.

    >
    >Beg your pardon, but I don't bullshit. I linked the wrong article sorry
    >about that, but the 40% was about right from memory. Here's the correct
    >link... http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39291081,00.htm
    >Like yourself I too am sceptical of benchmarks, and those at Toms in the
    >link I find to be particularly kind to Vista, and certainly are a lot better
    >for Vista than I would ever have guessed.
    >But the ZDNet benchmarks certainly match my subjective experiences more
    >closely.
    >Also interesting, a rebuttal of Microsofts rebuttal of the bad news...
    >http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/04/microsoft-slammed-attacking
    >Unlike MSofts claim, Devil Mountains benchmarking methods actually more
    >closely represent an actual user than Toms one specific test at a time
    >methods. This would explain to me why Toms figures surprised me, but Devil
    >Mountains seems spot on to me.
    >
    >>>> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
    >>>> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    >>>> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    >>>> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    >>>> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower than
    >>>> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    >>>> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but that
    >>>> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    >>>> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    >>>> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    >>>> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
    >>>> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.
    >>>
    >>>The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
    >>>technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
    >>>technologies...
    >>>http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1250148,00.html

    >>
    >> Not my experience. All my Internet and LAN speeds are superior or
    >> dramatically superior on my Vista boxes. Some of that may simply be
    >> faster hardware, with the LAN speeds. But Internet speeds are much
    >> better, and the hardware can not affect that.

    >
    >Transfer rates are just one thing. Reliability etc is another. Try
    >installing Office 2007 from a mapped network drive, what happens? Error
    >"Invalid Drive X:" is what happens, but not on XP, nooo. Try installing
    >something else from the network share, and you guessed it, same error, at
    >which point I remorsefully resign myself to the fact I now have to copy a
    >3Gb Adobe installer onto the desktop to install it, which with Vista means
    >coming back in an hour or so. Copying installers across our network takes
    >about twice as long with Vista than it does with XP. Maybe our network is
    >quite different to yours? Internet seems slower with Vista, but that's
    >subjective only.
    >
    >>>> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    >>>> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
    >>>>
    >>>> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.
    >>>
    >>>Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations from
    >>>installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely terrible to
    >>>use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be
    >>>allowed
    >>>to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to have it
    >>>removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core, which takes
    >>>20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores) which nobody
    >>>uses.
    >>>
    >>>J&H.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Actually, my experience is just the opposite. Having UAC on leads to
    >> silent failures of installers, usually ones that do not understand
    >> Vista. I have not had any such failures since I turned UAC off.

    >
    >You may be right there, I don't have a lot of experience with UAC (except
    >for playing along with it's constant nagging), mostly second hand info.
    >
    >> I have used XP a lot prior to getting Vista, and I now prefer Vista. I
    >> have never used XP on a modern PC though - maybe it does run a little
    >> faster than Vista on the same hardware. But the dramatic performance
    >> boost I got from changing hardware to the latest far outweighs that.
    >> And the disk caching performance of Vista is so dramatically better,
    >> and that matters in real life where benchmarks often do not. I do not
    >> have to wait around all the time for Vista to reload things it should
    >> never have flushed from its cache. With XP, I was always waiting for
    >> things I should not have had to, just because I had copied a file from
    >> A to B.
    >>
    >> At your work, were you putting Vista on old PCs with too little RAM?
    >> Or an ancient video card? That would be the most likely reason for it
    >> to be slow. And did you leave it running for a day or two to get all
    >> the indexing done, or turn off the indexing service? What Windows
    >> Experience Index values were the PCs reporting? Mine is currently
    >> 4.8, with the limiting factor being Aero performance.

    >
    >I've never put Vista on anything at work. No they weren't old, they arrive
    >new with Vista. Turning off indexing didn't help, either did disabling a
    >number of other background processes. They are Quad core Dell Precision
    >workstations with 4Gb ram, upgraded 3D cards. Can't remember what the EI
    >values were but these are the very best of what's available.


    There should not be performance problems on such machines. So I have
    to suspect that they came with Vista without SP1. SP1 is important -
    it really does fix a number of problems.

    >I'm a Windows user, and I'd love it if Vista was as fast as XP, I'd change
    >tonight. I would love to be using Vista instead, I love the aero look, and
    >the widgets, and the general coolness of it all. But I refuse to install an
    >OS that will handicap my performance and reliabilty so much.
    >
    >J&H.
    >


    Uh, you do realise that each version of Windows is bigger, more
    complicated, and slower than the previous version? So if speed is
    what you want, why are you not still running Windows 2000? Or
    (shudder) Win 98, 95 or 3.11? I ran Windows 2000 at work for ages
    after XP came out because we decided not to upgrade (too expensive).
    It was a fine operating system, compared to Win 98. When I eventually
    got XP (and installed it on the same hardware), it was better than
    2000, but slightly slower. But the benefits outweighed the slight
    loss of speed. Vista is the same. On insufficient hardware (< 1.5
    Gibytes RAM), it will thrash. But with the right hardware, it is
    better than XP, but slightly slower. But the gains in hardware speed
    so far outweigh the loss of speed from XP to Vista that there is no
    problem with that. Hardware from the last 12 months is so
    dramatically faster than old stuff that it seems an order of magnitude
    better to me. Of course, my old motherboard was from 2001!
    Stephen Worthington, Oct 4, 2008
    #16
  17. ~misfit~

    impossible Guest

    "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "impossible" <> wrote in message
    > news:tpnFk.314965$TT4.193106@attbi_s22...
    >> "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:7g2Fk.369130$yE1.123269@attbi_s21...
    >>>> "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    >>>> news:48e47fc0$...
    >>>>>>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
    >>>>>>>laptop
    >>>>>>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read:
    >>>>>>>responsiveness)
    >>>>>>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't
    >>>>>>>get XP
    >>>>>>>on it quick enough.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>>>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>>>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    >>>>>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    >>>>>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    >>>>>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    >>>>>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    >>>>>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    >>>>>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    >>>>>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    >>>>>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    >>>>>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    >>>>>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    >>>>>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    >>>>>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than
    >>>>> a couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8
    >>>>> core 64 bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead
    >>>>> I don't believe simple caching could come close to negating the
    >>>>> performance penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work
    >>>>> finished copying 100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Anecdotes are wonderful, aren't they? You can create any impression you
    >>>> want and never be held accountable for the facts of the matter. Oh,
    >>>> btw....Did your company pay this "user" overtikme for that 20 hours?
    >>>
    >>> No, he was at home, and we are on salaries, there is no overtime
    >>> (excepting weekend callouts).
    >>> Don't like that anecdotal example? Well here's another - 7 hours to
    >>> uninstall several languages on a Dell Quad Core running Vista.
    >>> Don't belive me. just google "vista incredibly slow file copy time", or
    >>> read this...
    >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/26/vista_copying_bug/
    >>>

    >>
    >> March 2007? Sure, Vista was a pig before SP1 was released. But this is
    >> October 2008 and referencing that old news juist makes you look like a
    >> wanton troll.
    >>
    >>>>>> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    >>>>>> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the
    >>>>>> indexing,
    >>>>>> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    >>>>>> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte
    >>>>>> of
    >>>>>> RAM or less.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
    >>>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html ), and
    >>>>> before you mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to
    >>>>> nothing to fix performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1
    >>>>> trashed many a Vista installation (see SP1 boot looping).
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Forever slower?!? And you have the evidence to supoporet your claim
    >>>> that SP1 had no effect where exactly? Just one reputable link will do.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/02/07/performance-results-mixed-with-vista-service-pack-1

    >>
    >> Like Lawrence D'Loser, you make a habit of citing artciles you never even
    >> bother to read.
    >>
    >> "In our first tests of the service pack, file copying, one of the main
    >> performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly
    >> faster."

    >
    > Big deal, latch onto the only positive from what was promised to be a
    > performance and reliabilty update, and ended up being a near complete
    > flop.


    LOL. Your wild anecdote about slow copy times started this discussion. You
    cited an article that purportedly backed your claim. But no, the article
    specifically refutes your claim. It's kind of a "big deal" when you think
    about it.

    >>> http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/23/1710245.shtml

    >>
    >> Slashdot quotes from any millenia are utterly useless.
    >>
    >>> http://keznews.com/4056_Performance_Results_Mixed_with_Vista_Service_Pack_1
    >>>

    >>
    >> Like Lawrence D'Loser, you make a habit of citing artciles you never even
    >> bother to read. In this case, it's just a duplicate of your previosu
    >> reference, and duplicates don't count.
    >>
    >> "In our first tests of the service pack, file copying, one of the main
    >> performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly
    >> faster."

    >
    > Sorry, remember "duplicates" don't count. You've already said this
    > (above).
    >


    When you insist on citing an article twice, I have no choice but to
    humiliate tou twice. Remember, this is the very article that refutes your
    claim. Even Lawrence D'Loser isn't that dumb!

    >>> Another thing "next to nothing" is not equal to "no effect", a lame
    >>> attempt to twist the meaning of what I said.

    >


    I have no idea what you're on about here.

    > Oh, I see you have no comeback to your dirty tactics here.
    >


    Ridicule, when deserved, is not a "dirty tactic". You should consider this a
    good lesson for the future and get on with things. But next time, read the
    articles before citing them -- sensational heradlines alone do not make an
    argument.

    >>>
    >>>>>> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
    >>>>>> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    >>>>>> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    >>>>>> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    >>>>>> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower
    >>>>>> than
    >>>>>> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    >>>>>> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but
    >>>>>> that
    >>>>>> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    >>>>>> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    >>>>>> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    >>>>>> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
    >>>>>> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
    >>>>> technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
    >>>>> technologies...
    >>>>> http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1250148,00.html
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Says one consultant paid tyo trash Vista. Excellent choice of
    >>>> references.
    >>>
    >>> Vista IPv6 incompatible...
    >>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/060707-microsoft-vista-ipv6-incompatible.html
    >>> Vista inbuilt "tuning" causing network slowness...
    >>>

    >>
    >> June 2007. Waste of time.

    >
    > Ditto.
    >
    >> ttp://thesystemadministrator.com/The_System_Administrator/Tips_&_Tricks/Disable_TCP_Auto-Tuning_to_Solve_Slow_Network_(Vista)/
    >>> Vista incompatible with managed networks scaling technologies...

    >>
    >> Sheer ignorance. "Gee, my hd led is laways on -- that must mean that
    >> Vista is crap". Where have I heard that before.

    >
    > Oh right, leave it for a couple of days to finish indexing right. Then why
    > after 2 months has it still not stopped?
    > You obviously have proof that an always on LED is NOT a symptom of Vista
    > being crap, cite please.
    >


    http://tinyurl.com/4vtebw

    This is weightier stuff than you're used to -- nopthing there that can be
    read over a bowl of Wheatbix. But let me suggest that you start with the
    book I recommmewnded to thing-thingy-thing2: Vista for Dummies. You'll find
    an adequate explanation there about Vista's maintenance routines.

    >>> http://lwn.net/Articles/92727/
    >>>
    >>> The list goes on.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    >>>>>> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations
    >>>>> from installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely
    >>>>> terrible to use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and
    >>>>> insisted they be allowed to try it (our policy is to replace it with
    >>>>> XP) has asked to have it removed. There are two installs left, one on
    >>>>> a Dell Quad Core, which takes 20 minutes to boot, and another on a
    >>>>> "server" box (8 cores) which nobody uses.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Lies just slide off your keyboard like butter, don't they? Here's the
    >>>> trick to getting a grip. Any time you feel the need to rubbish
    >>>> something, find 2 reputable sources to back up your claim. If you can
    >>>> do that, than feel free to type away-- otherwise, hold your wongue lest
    >>>> you get a reputation for being a total loser.
    >>>
    >>> YOU are the one offering NOTHING to support your opinions. At least I
    >>> have expert links backing up what I say. YOU have NOTHING and try to
    >>> minimise my opinions as "anecdotal", pot - kettle - black. And you call
    >>> me a liar, well you're a tosser.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Learn to cite reputable sources that are current -- and do read the
    >> articles, because two of your main references flatly contradictedwild
    >> anecdote about slow file copying times.

    >
    > Err, no. Not all Vista systems run the same. There are truckloads of
    > complaints about very, even hideously slow transfer times, but there are
    > those getting good times too. It seems to be a lottery. Call it an
    > anecdote all you like, it still happened, just like the 7 hour languages
    > uninstall. I have seen these things happen (or rather not happening), I
    > couldn't give a toss if you don't believe me.
    >


    Judging by this sub-thread, I'd say you care wa-a-a-ay too much whether I
    beleive you. But just to set the record straight....I **don't** believe you,
    not for a second.

    >>> Having used XP for about 7 years now I would love to change. But Vista
    >>> has no confidence from me, even though I can get a free licence I'm not
    >>> going near it.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Thank god!

    >
    > Sums up your retarded attitude to the whole issue. Like it makes any
    > difference to anyone else what I use.
    > I need to learn to cite huh. That's rich coming from someone who hasn't
    > backed up anything he's said.
    > And whinging about the sources and times of benchmarks and reviews, ffs
    > they're everywhere, dozens on each topic.
    > And so what if they're old bugs, you're alluding that they were patched
    > out or fixed in SP1 even though the benchmarks say otherwise.
    > Well, where's your fucking cites to prove your assumptions? Not to mention
    > the "killer" test was done with XPSP3 and Vista SP1, that not recent
    > enough for you?
    > You want better ones find your own, why the **** should I find proof
    > against your petty whining.
    > If you don't notice your OS is slower than a wet hen then I guess that
    > means you're obviously not so sharp yourself.
    > You and Vista are meant for each other, enjoy.
    >


    I'm guessing this is one of your Mr Hyde moments.
    impossible, Oct 4, 2008
    #17
  18. "Stephen Worthington" <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
    message news:...
    > On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 19:48:17 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
    > <jekyll&> wrote:
    >
    >>"Stephen Worthington" <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote in
    >>message news:...
    >>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 20:59:44 +1200, "Jekyll and Hyde"
    >>> <jekyll&> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
    >>>>>>laptop
    >>>>>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read:
    >>>>>>responsiveness)
    >>>>>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't
    >>>>>>get
    >>>>>>XP
    >>>>>>on it quick enough.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    >>>>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its cache
    >>>>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    >>>>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    >>>>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    >>>>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    >>>>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    >>>>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    >>>>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    >>>>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    >>>>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    >>>>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the Help
    >>>>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.
    >>>>
    >>>>I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than a
    >>>>couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8 core
    >>>>64
    >>>>bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much overhead I don't
    >>>>believe simple caching could come close to negating the performance
    >>>>penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at work finished copying
    >>>>100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!
    >>>
    >>> I have not tried much with a USB2 hard disk, but they are simply slow.
    >>> I know this because I have a 1 Tbyte external drive that has both USB2
    >>> and eSATA interfaces. Its performance on a USB2 port is so bad I have
    >>> only ever used it that way once. Its eSATA performance is the same as
    >>> internal drives. So I would not blame Vista for poor USB2 disk
    >>> performance.
    >>>
    >>> I have modern Seagate 500 Gbyte and 1 Tbyte SATA drives in my PCs, and
    >>> performance is anything but slow. As an example, I just copied a
    >>> 732,712,960 byte file from my 500 Gbyte drive to my 1 Tbyte drive in
    >>> 18.53 seconds. I made sure that the file was one I had not accessed
    >>> for ages so it would not be cached already. That is 39,541,984 bytes
    >>> per second, or 2.2 Gibytes per minute. At that rate, your 100 Gbyte
    >>> copy would have taken less than 45 minutes.

    >>
    >>It wasn't mine, and it took 20 hours. The problem has been around long
    >>enough, this is not news. USB2 is usually sufficient for everyday use,
    >>even
    >>when using USMT tools to migrate a user.
    >>
    >>>>> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    >>>>> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the indexing,
    >>>>> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    >>>>> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte of
    >>>>> RAM or less.
    >>>>
    >>>>No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
    >>>>http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html ), and before
    >>>>you
    >>>>mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to nothing to fix
    >>>>performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1 trashed many a Vista
    >>>>installation (see SP1 boot looping).
    >>>
    >>> I did not see a 40% overall figure anywhere in that article. That is
    >>> just bullshit. You could say truthfully say "up to 40%" if you like
    >>> bullshit statistics. Yes, quite a number of benchmarks show slightly
    >>> lower performance, and a few much lower. I am a big skeptic when it
    >>> comes to benchmarks though. They rarely reflect real life
    >>> performance.

    >>
    >>Beg your pardon, but I don't bullshit. I linked the wrong article sorry
    >>about that, but the 40% was about right from memory. Here's the correct
    >>link... http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39291081,00.htm
    >>Like yourself I too am sceptical of benchmarks, and those at Toms in the
    >>link I find to be particularly kind to Vista, and certainly are a lot
    >>better
    >>for Vista than I would ever have guessed.
    >>But the ZDNet benchmarks certainly match my subjective experiences more
    >>closely.
    >>Also interesting, a rebuttal of Microsofts rebuttal of the bad news...
    >>http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2007/12/04/microsoft-slammed-attacking
    >>Unlike MSofts claim, Devil Mountains benchmarking methods actually more
    >>closely represent an actual user than Toms one specific test at a time
    >>methods. This would explain to me why Toms figures surprised me, but Devil
    >>Mountains seems spot on to me.
    >>
    >>>>> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt their
    >>>>> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    >>>>> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    >>>>> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    >>>>> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower than
    >>>>> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    >>>>> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but that
    >>>>> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    >>>>> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    >>>>> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    >>>>> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot with
    >>>>> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.
    >>>>
    >>>>The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
    >>>>technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
    >>>>technologies...
    >>>>http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1250148,00.html
    >>>
    >>> Not my experience. All my Internet and LAN speeds are superior or
    >>> dramatically superior on my Vista boxes. Some of that may simply be
    >>> faster hardware, with the LAN speeds. But Internet speeds are much
    >>> better, and the hardware can not affect that.

    >>
    >>Transfer rates are just one thing. Reliability etc is another. Try
    >>installing Office 2007 from a mapped network drive, what happens? Error
    >>"Invalid Drive X:" is what happens, but not on XP, nooo. Try installing
    >>something else from the network share, and you guessed it, same error, at
    >>which point I remorsefully resign myself to the fact I now have to copy a
    >>3Gb Adobe installer onto the desktop to install it, which with Vista means
    >>coming back in an hour or so. Copying installers across our network takes
    >>about twice as long with Vista than it does with XP. Maybe our network is
    >>quite different to yours? Internet seems slower with Vista, but that's
    >>subjective only.
    >>
    >>>>> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    >>>>> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.
    >>>>
    >>>>Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations from
    >>>>installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely terrible
    >>>>to
    >>>>use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and insisted they be
    >>>>allowed
    >>>>to try it (our policy is to replace it with XP) has asked to have it
    >>>>removed. There are two installs left, one on a Dell Quad Core, which
    >>>>takes
    >>>>20 minutes to boot, and another on a "server" box (8 cores) which nobody
    >>>>uses.
    >>>>
    >>>>J&H.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Actually, my experience is just the opposite. Having UAC on leads to
    >>> silent failures of installers, usually ones that do not understand
    >>> Vista. I have not had any such failures since I turned UAC off.

    >>
    >>You may be right there, I don't have a lot of experience with UAC (except
    >>for playing along with it's constant nagging), mostly second hand info.
    >>
    >>> I have used XP a lot prior to getting Vista, and I now prefer Vista. I
    >>> have never used XP on a modern PC though - maybe it does run a little
    >>> faster than Vista on the same hardware. But the dramatic performance
    >>> boost I got from changing hardware to the latest far outweighs that.
    >>> And the disk caching performance of Vista is so dramatically better,
    >>> and that matters in real life where benchmarks often do not. I do not
    >>> have to wait around all the time for Vista to reload things it should
    >>> never have flushed from its cache. With XP, I was always waiting for
    >>> things I should not have had to, just because I had copied a file from
    >>> A to B.
    >>>
    >>> At your work, were you putting Vista on old PCs with too little RAM?
    >>> Or an ancient video card? That would be the most likely reason for it
    >>> to be slow. And did you leave it running for a day or two to get all
    >>> the indexing done, or turn off the indexing service? What Windows
    >>> Experience Index values were the PCs reporting? Mine is currently
    >>> 4.8, with the limiting factor being Aero performance.

    >>
    >>I've never put Vista on anything at work. No they weren't old, they arrive
    >>new with Vista. Turning off indexing didn't help, either did disabling a
    >>number of other background processes. They are Quad core Dell Precision
    >>workstations with 4Gb ram, upgraded 3D cards. Can't remember what the EI
    >>values were but these are the very best of what's available.

    >
    > There should not be performance problems on such machines. So I have
    > to suspect that they came with Vista without SP1. SP1 is important -
    > it really does fix a number of problems.
    >
    >>I'm a Windows user, and I'd love it if Vista was as fast as XP, I'd change
    >>tonight. I would love to be using Vista instead, I love the aero look, and
    >>the widgets, and the general coolness of it all. But I refuse to install
    >>an
    >>OS that will handicap my performance and reliabilty so much.
    >>
    >>J&H.
    >>

    >
    > Uh, you do realise that each version of Windows is bigger, more
    > complicated, and slower than the previous version? So if speed is
    > what you want, why are you not still running Windows 2000? Or
    > (shudder) Win 98, 95 or 3.11? I ran Windows 2000 at work for ages
    > after XP came out because we decided not to upgrade (too expensive).
    > It was a fine operating system, compared to Win 98. When I eventually
    > got XP (and installed it on the same hardware), it was better than
    > 2000, but slightly slower. But the benefits outweighed the slight
    > loss of speed. Vista is the same. On insufficient hardware (< 1.5
    > Gibytes RAM), it will thrash. But with the right hardware, it is
    > better than XP, but slightly slower. But the gains in hardware speed
    > so far outweigh the loss of speed from XP to Vista that there is no
    > problem with that. Hardware from the last 12 months is so
    > dramatically faster than old stuff that it seems an order of magnitude
    > better to me. Of course, my old motherboard was from 2001!


    We condiser 2Gb to be the minumum we will give both OSX and XP users, with
    4Gb (3.25Gb) still providing an unsatisfactory user experience on Vista.
    Over the years I have used (and in some cases still use) Msoft DOS through
    to Vista, Commodore GEOS, Commodore Basic V2, Apple OS System 1 through
    Classic 9.2, Mac OSX (All), various Linux and other Unix based OS. In most
    cases the features of the OS were limited or even defined by the hardware of
    their day. Some of these OS I didn't like because they had too many bugs or
    were missing obvious features that the hardware was capable of supporting.

    I have never known any other OS that, 18 months after release, will
    frustrate the user so much that they just get up and walk away from the
    computer. If this ever happens on XP it's because the hardware is faulty,
    and / or the faulty hardware has caused the OS to become corrupted. In my
    view Vista has been uniquely bad in the history of operating systems to the
    extent that our average Vista users currently require about 40X the IT
    support time of our average XP and OSX users, and these are clever and
    skilled people. Vista is so unreliable that the benefits cannot outweigh the
    loss of speed, because too often these computers are rendered completely
    unuseable. For example auto updates caused icons and shortcuts on one users
    computer to stop functioning, clicking anything resulted in nothing. Another
    recent example auto updates caused Vista to hang with the green loading bar
    onscreen. Rebooting initiated the system restore function, which worked,
    once, then back to hang on loading screen after a reboot. Even though it was
    explained we could make Vista ignore this update and fix Vista (albeit
    probably temporarily), the user still requested that Vista be replaced with
    XP (he'd "had enough"), and due to his overuse of helpdesk resources the
    request was fulfilled asap.

    Vista is easily the most troublesome OS I've ever seen, used, or supported.
    Probably also the slowest, when factoring in the wickedly fast hardware we
    have these days.

    J&H.
    Jekyll and Hyde, Oct 4, 2008
    #18
  19. In message <>, Stephen Worthington
    wrote:

    > Uh, you do realise that each version of Windows is bigger, more
    > complicated, and slower than the previous version?


    Who says an OS, or indeed any software, has to be that way?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 4, 2008
    #19
  20. "impossible" <> wrote in message
    news:SlAFk.371421$yE1.98453@attbi_s21...
    > "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >> news:tpnFk.314965$TT4.193106@attbi_s22...
    >>> "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> "impossible" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:7g2Fk.369130$yE1.123269@attbi_s21...
    >>>>> "Jekyll and Hyde" <jekyll&> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:48e47fc0$...
    >>>>>>>><dons flame-proof suit> I think it might. I know a guy who bought a
    >>>>>>>>laptop
    >>>>>>>>supplied with Vista who compared the performance (read:
    >>>>>>>>responsiveness)
    >>>>>>>>unfavourably to an old PII 366 / 64MB RAM running 98SE. He couldn't
    >>>>>>>>get XP
    >>>>>>>>on it quick enough.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> No, it is *not* swapping. I have two Vista PCs with 2 Gibytes of
    >>>>>>> RAM
    >>>>>>> each. Both of them typically only have about 1.0-1.3 Gibytes of RAM
    >>>>>>> in use, despite all the software I have loaded. The rest of the RAM
    >>>>>>> is used for disk cache, and Vista is *much* better at using its
    >>>>>>> cache
    >>>>>>> than XP is. I should qualify that statement - I am using Vista SP1,
    >>>>>>> and I think there were some fixes in SP1 to do with caching. I
    >>>>>>> frequently see disk operations running at speeds so impossible that
    >>>>>>> they must be running mostly out of the cache.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> When Vista is first installed, it indexes all the files. This takes
    >>>>>>> quite a while - just leave the box on for a couple of days if
    >>>>>>> necessary and it should finally stop. Also, Vista has a builtin
    >>>>>>> background defrag program that runs automatically once a week. I
    >>>>>>> believe it senses other PC use and stops until the PC is idle again,
    >>>>>>> but if it was also running at the same time as the indexing, they
    >>>>>>> would make the disk rather busy, probably thrashing. Search the
    >>>>>>> Help
    >>>>>>> for "defragment" to find it and the scheduler that runs it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I have NEVER seen a Vista computer with it's hdd led out or more than
    >>>>>> a couple of seconds, they are ALWAYS lit. This even includes up to 8
    >>>>>> core 64 bit machines with 16Gb ram and raid.Vista has so much
    >>>>>> overhead I don't believe simple caching could come close to negating
    >>>>>> the performance penalties Vista introduced. Today a Vista user at
    >>>>>> work finished copying 100Gb to a USB2 HDD, it took 20 hours!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Anecdotes are wonderful, aren't they? You can create any impression
    >>>>> you want and never be held accountable for the facts of the matter.
    >>>>> Oh, btw....Did your company pay this "user" overtikme for that 20
    >>>>> hours?
    >>>>
    >>>> No, he was at home, and we are on salaries, there is no overtime
    >>>> (excepting weekend callouts).
    >>>> Don't like that anecdotal example? Well here's another - 7 hours to
    >>>> uninstall several languages on a Dell Quad Core running Vista.
    >>>> Don't belive me. just google "vista incredibly slow file copy time", or
    >>>> read this...
    >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/26/vista_copying_bug/
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> March 2007? Sure, Vista was a pig before SP1 was released. But this is
    >>> October 2008 and referencing that old news juist makes you look like a
    >>> wanton troll.
    >>>
    >>>>>>> So I think that many people are getting the wrong impression about
    >>>>>>> Vista because it is slow for the first day or two due to the
    >>>>>>> indexing,
    >>>>>>> and also due to the file copying speed problems that were fixed in
    >>>>>>> SP1. It is not at all slow, unless you try to run it with 1 Gibyte
    >>>>>>> of
    >>>>>>> RAM or less.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> No, it's slower and will be forever, by 40% (
    >>>>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531.html ), and
    >>>>>> before you mention it I know the review was pre SP1. SP1 did next to
    >>>>>> nothing to fix performance and reliability issues. And in fact SP1
    >>>>>> trashed many a Vista installation (see SP1 boot looping).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Forever slower?!? And you have the evidence to supoporet your claim
    >>>>> that SP1 had no effect where exactly? Just one reputable link will do.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/02/07/performance-results-mixed-with-vista-service-pack-1
    >>>
    >>> Like Lawrence D'Loser, you make a habit of citing artciles you never
    >>> even bother to read.
    >>>
    >>> "In our first tests of the service pack, file copying, one of the main
    >>> performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly
    >>> faster."

    >>
    >> Big deal, latch onto the only positive from what was promised to be a
    >> performance and reliabilty update, and ended up being a near complete
    >> flop.

    >
    > LOL. Your wild anecdote about slow copy times started this discussion. You
    > cited an article that purportedly backed your claim. But no, the article
    > specifically refutes your claim. It's kind of a "big deal" when you think
    > about it.
    >
    >>>> http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/23/1710245.shtml
    >>>
    >>> Slashdot quotes from any millenia are utterly useless.
    >>>
    >>>> http://keznews.com/4056_Performance_Results_Mixed_with_Vista_Service_Pack_1
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Like Lawrence D'Loser, you make a habit of citing artciles you never
    >>> even bother to read. In this case, it's just a duplicate of your
    >>> previosu reference, and duplicates don't count.
    >>>
    >>> "In our first tests of the service pack, file copying, one of the main
    >>> performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly
    >>> faster."

    >>
    >> Sorry, remember "duplicates" don't count. You've already said this
    >> (above).
    >>

    >
    > When you insist on citing an article twice, I have no choice but to
    > humiliate tou twice. Remember, this is the very article that refutes your
    > claim. Even Lawrence D'Loser isn't that dumb!
    >
    >>>> Another thing "next to nothing" is not equal to "no effect", a lame
    >>>> attempt to twist the meaning of what I said.

    >>

    >
    > I have no idea what you're on about here.
    >
    >> Oh, I see you have no comeback to your dirty tactics here.
    >>

    >
    > Ridicule, when deserved, is not a "dirty tactic". You should consider this
    > a good lesson for the future and get on with things. But next time, read
    > the articles before citing them -- sensational heradlines alone do not
    > make an argument.
    >
    >>>>
    >>>>>>> Another really great thing is the way its TCP connections adapt
    >>>>>>> their
    >>>>>>> window size to the conditions they find. With XP, due to NZ's
    >>>>>>> distance from the rest of the Internet and the resulting high ping
    >>>>>>> times, ACK packets are too slow to get back to allow the next packet
    >>>>>>> to be sent in time, which makes any one TCP connection run slower
    >>>>>>> than
    >>>>>>> a high speed Internet connection can handle. This can be fixed by
    >>>>>>> changing registry settings in XP to increase the window size, but
    >>>>>>> that
    >>>>>>> can cause other problems. Most people just use multiple http
    >>>>>>> connections to get the download speed their Internet connection is
    >>>>>>> capable of. Vista does not need that - it adapts the window size
    >>>>>>> dynamically to the traffic and the ping times. This helps a lot
    >>>>>>> with
    >>>>>>> download sites like rapidshare that only allow one connection.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The improvements are not sufficient to replace WAN optimisation
    >>>>>> technologies, and in many cases performance is deteriorated by Vistas
    >>>>>> technologies...
    >>>>>> http://searchnetworking.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid7_gci1250148,00.html
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Says one consultant paid tyo trash Vista. Excellent choice of
    >>>>> references.
    >>>>
    >>>> Vista IPv6 incompatible...
    >>>> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/060707-microsoft-vista-ipv6-incompatible.html
    >>>> Vista inbuilt "tuning" causing network slowness...
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> June 2007. Waste of time.

    >>
    >> Ditto.
    >>
    >>> ttp://thesystemadministrator.com/The_System_Administrator/Tips_&_Tricks/Disable_TCP_Auto-Tuning_to_Solve_Slow_Network_(Vista)/
    >>>> Vista incompatible with managed networks scaling technologies...
    >>>
    >>> Sheer ignorance. "Gee, my hd led is laways on -- that must mean that
    >>> Vista is crap". Where have I heard that before.

    >>
    >> Oh right, leave it for a couple of days to finish indexing right. Then
    >> why after 2 months has it still not stopped?
    >> You obviously have proof that an always on LED is NOT a symptom of Vista
    >> being crap, cite please.
    >>

    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/4vtebw
    >
    > This is weightier stuff than you're used to -- nopthing there that can be
    > read over a bowl of Wheatbix. But let me suggest that you start with the
    > book I recommmewnded to thing-thingy-thing2: Vista for Dummies. You'll
    > find an adequate explanation there about Vista's maintenance routines.
    >
    >>>> http://lwn.net/Articles/92727/
    >>>>
    >>>> The list goes on.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> In my opinion, on modern hardware with at least 2 Gibytes of RAM,
    >>>>>>> Vista is considerably superior to XP.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Of course, I have long since turned off UAC.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Turning off UAC can lead to silent failures of software operations
    >>>>>> from installers and the like. Vista is pretty but it is absoultely
    >>>>>> terrible to use. At work just about everyone who got Vista and
    >>>>>> insisted they be allowed to try it (our policy is to replace it with
    >>>>>> XP) has asked to have it removed. There are two installs left, one on
    >>>>>> a Dell Quad Core, which takes 20 minutes to boot, and another on a
    >>>>>> "server" box (8 cores) which nobody uses.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Lies just slide off your keyboard like butter, don't they? Here's the
    >>>>> trick to getting a grip. Any time you feel the need to rubbish
    >>>>> something, find 2 reputable sources to back up your claim. If you can
    >>>>> do that, than feel free to type away-- otherwise, hold your wongue
    >>>>> lest you get a reputation for being a total loser.
    >>>>
    >>>> YOU are the one offering NOTHING to support your opinions. At least I
    >>>> have expert links backing up what I say. YOU have NOTHING and try to
    >>>> minimise my opinions as "anecdotal", pot - kettle - black. And you call
    >>>> me a liar, well you're a tosser.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Learn to cite reputable sources that are current -- and do read the
    >>> articles, because two of your main references flatly contradictedwild
    >>> anecdote about slow file copying times.

    >>
    >> Err, no. Not all Vista systems run the same. There are truckloads of
    >> complaints about very, even hideously slow transfer times, but there are
    >> those getting good times too. It seems to be a lottery. Call it an
    >> anecdote all you like, it still happened, just like the 7 hour languages
    >> uninstall. I have seen these things happen (or rather not happening), I
    >> couldn't give a toss if you don't believe me.
    >>

    >
    > Judging by this sub-thread, I'd say you care wa-a-a-ay too much whether I
    > beleive you. But just to set the record straight....I **don't** believe
    > you, not for a second.
    >
    >>>> Having used XP for about 7 years now I would love to change. But Vista
    >>>> has no confidence from me, even though I can get a free licence I'm not
    >>>> going near it.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Thank god!

    >>
    >> Sums up your retarded attitude to the whole issue. Like it makes any
    >> difference to anyone else what I use.
    >> I need to learn to cite huh. That's rich coming from someone who hasn't
    >> backed up anything he's said.
    >> And whinging about the sources and times of benchmarks and reviews, ffs
    >> they're everywhere, dozens on each topic.
    >> And so what if they're old bugs, you're alluding that they were patched
    >> out or fixed in SP1 even though the benchmarks say otherwise.
    >> Well, where's your fucking cites to prove your assumptions? Not to
    >> mention the "killer" test was done with XPSP3 and Vista SP1, that not
    >> recent enough for you?
    >> You want better ones find your own, why the **** should I find proof
    >> against your petty whining.
    >> If you don't notice your OS is slower than a wet hen then I guess that
    >> means you're obviously not so sharp yourself.
    >> You and Vista are meant for each other, enjoy.
    >>

    >
    > I'm guessing this is one of your Mr Hyde moments.


    Lol, and I guess all of yours are.

    J&H.
    Jekyll and Hyde, Oct 4, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. d

    Re: OK so vista is annoying....

    d, Oct 3, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    734
  2. d

    Re: OK so vista is annoying....

    d, Oct 3, 2008, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    325
  3. wisdomkiller & pain

    Re: Vista - article: make UAC less annoying

    wisdomkiller & pain, Nov 29, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    430
    Bucky Breeder
    Nov 30, 2008
  4. chuckcar

    Re: Vista - article: make UAC less annoying

    chuckcar, Nov 30, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    469
  5. Dennis
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    445
    G. Morgan
    Sep 17, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page