Users to Microsoft: 'Just make Windows faster'

[13Gigatons]

http://www.betanews.com/articl...dows_faster/1219167670

"The most frequent request," Sinofsky wrote, "was to discuss Windows performance and/or just 'make Windows faster.' There's a lot to this topic so we expect to talk about this quite a bit over the next months."

As one blog reader TimOR commented in response to Sinofsky last Thursday, "Vista really is a dog compared to XP performance-wise and compatibility-wise. Yes, it is prettier and it has the search facility. But its UAC, networking and compatibility just sux. I always turn UAC off it is so annoying. For overall compatibility and speed XP is still the gold standard for me. I truly hope Microsoft listens to its customers and makes Windows 7 everything Vista should have been - faster, as compatible (hardware and software) and easier to use than XP. (Hey, and dump the DRM bloat too - your customers don't need it!)."

It would be great if Windows 7 was 40% faster then Vista but I doubt they will be able to do much with it since it's pretty bogged down.

 

[Sylvanas]

Vista is plenty fast. Don't expect to use it on a *relatively* crap system though. You cannot expect to have more eye candy, better effects and newer technology and consume half the memory footprint and run it on a Pentium 266mhz. XP was the same at launch, but as time went on and people moved on to faster machines in general we saw it perform much more admirably.

 

[degibson]

<rant>
I honestly don't see why OS's vendors feel they need to be the ones using all the system resources -- they should, in essence, just manage. OS's should be as light as possible (relatively speaking, we're talking about multi-million-line code here), and should be measured by just how crappy a system will actually boot the OS -- not the minimum required system. I realize Windows will never be a microkernel -- but why is that search 'part of' the OS?

For instance, since 'explorer.exe' ala WinXp is just a process, make it a bloody optional process in Windows 7 -- it is just a front-end. Not only do you get a chance to tweak performance on older HW, but you can also maintain interfaces. If its the fancy bells and whistles that make the machine crawl (btw, its not the bells and whistles most of the time -- BION its the compatibility), just make them optional...

</rant>

 

[nerp]

I have an awesome solution for people who want windows to be faster.

Get a new computer.

The same goes to people who use OSX and linux. If the latest version crawls on your machine, buy a new machine.

I know, hard to grasp. But it works every time.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: nerp
I have an awesome solution for people who want windows to be faster.

Get a new computer.

The same goes to people who use OSX and linux. If the latest version crawls on your machine, buy a new machine.

I know, hard to grasp. But it works every time.

The sad thing is a P4 running Windows XP is about as fast as Vista on a quad core.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: nerp
I have an awesome solution for people who want windows to be faster.

Get a new computer.

The same goes to people who use OSX and linux. If the latest version crawls on your machine, buy a new machine.

I know, hard to grasp. But it works every time.

The sad thing is a P4 running Windows XP is about as fast as Vista on a quad core.

Benchmarks?

Hate to say it, but I doubt a P4 running XP can beat a quad in encoding tasks or gaming.

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

Originally posted by: nerp
I have an awesome solution for people who want windows to be faster.

Get a new computer.

The same goes to people who use OSX and linux. If the latest version crawls on your machine, buy a new machine.

I know, hard to grasp. But it works every time.

The sad thing is a P4 running Windows XP is about as fast as Vista on a quad core.

Can you prove that ?

I think you may want to retract that statement.

 

[Snapster]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

The sad thing is a P4 running Windows XP is about as fast as Vista on a quad core.

My last system a P4 Prescott running XP
My current system a dual core running Vista

What's faster? The Vista rig by far and it's not even a contest.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Snapster

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

The sad thing is a P4 running Windows XP is about as fast as Vista on a quad core.

My last system a P4 Prescott running XP
My current system a dual core running Vista

What's faster? The Vista rig by far and it's not even a contest.

Yup, my last system was a P4 Northy with HT at 3.5ghz with 1gb of ram, and my current system is a E6600 at 3.33ghz with 4gb ram(also has run at 2gb), and they aren't even on the same ball field, much less close in speed.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons

The sad thing is a P4 running Windows XP is about as fast as Vista on a quad core.

That's a pretty big exaggeration there.

But, I'll give you that the p4 ran XP as well as the Core 2 series runs Vista. Of course, that is to be expected since the P4, being released the same year as XP, was the fastest intel processor on the market.

On the other hand my 3 year old $750 laptop runs Vista better than any three year old PII did when XP was released.

 

[drebo]

I would have to say that the vast, huge majority of people complaining that Vista is slow have never actually used it. Working in a computer shop for several years, I get people in who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to computers, yet they'll come in and swear up and down that Vista is the worst thing since Lucifer betrayed God.

Why? Because someone their friend knew who once had a sister whose boyfriend took a computer class told them so. Go to the Mojave project website.

Much of the blame for poor Vista adoption rates stem directly from hardware vendors, big box sellers, and OEMs, rather than Microsoft. On a properly configured computer, Vista is far, far faster than XP. Yet, in the quest to provide every cheaper computers and save as much money as possible, OEMs will do stupid things like sell Vista Home Premium on a system with integrated graphics and 512mb RAM. They'll sell this computer for $600, and it might score a 3 on the WEI. End users don't know what this means, and big box "salespeople" don't know enough to explain it to them. All they understand is that the system they bought that's running Vista is slow. Ergo, Vista must be slow.

As an experiment, and to prove to my ever skeptical coworkers that Vista is not the spawn of Satan, I decided I'd build the cheapest possible Vista computer that'd get a 5 on the WEI and that I'd fit it in the same small form factor case that we use for XP systems. The system ended up costing about $40 more than the XP systems did (OS price included), but it was FAR faster. And it scored a 5.2 on the WEI. In a stylish small form factor case. Total cost? About $650, including Vista Home Premium 32-bit.

The fault behind the stygma that Vista is slow lies squarely with system builders and hardware manufacturers (nVidia, this one's on you). While I may not like many elements of Vista (breadcrumbs are so completely stupid, give me my damn file path and the "up one level" button back), the operating system itself is not terribly bad. It's been rock stable, and all of my coworkers comment on how snappy my demo system is.

 

[nerp]

I think you can get explorer to revert to the old dir path method in the options somewhere.

 

[Evander]

I think programs I run under Vista run at a good or decent speed, but navigating the OS itself itself is very sluggish. For me, this is most noticeable when clicking the start menu- items that appear under each of the program folders are very slow to appear (even in classic start menu). My current laptop I bought Sept 2007 is a dual core 1.73ghz/2GB w/ Vista. My previous laptop (stopped using last year) was from 2001 - 800mhz/320 MB using Win2k. The start menu on the Win2k was virtually instantaneous and runs circles around my Vista startmenu- and this was on hardware that is VASTLY inferior to what I have now. It's not just the start menu either - try opening up for example the control panel on Win2k and see how much quicker everything shows up compared to Vista. Doesn't matter if I disable Aero and use classic- Vista navigation is still much slower than Win2k or Xp classic mode.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Evander
I think programs I run under Vista run at a good or decent speed, but navigating the OS itself itself is very sluggish. For me, this is most noticeable when clicking the start menu- items that appear under each of the program folders are very slow to appear (even in classic start menu). My current laptop I bought Sept 2007 is a dual core 1.73ghz/2GB w/ Vista. My previous laptop (stopped using last year) was from 2001 - 800mhz/320 MB using Win2k. The start menu on the Win2k was virtually instantaneous and runs circles around my Vista startmenu- and this was on hardware that is VASTLY inferior to what I have now. It's not just the start menu either - try opening up for example the control panel on Win2k and see how much quicker everything shows up compared to Vista. Doesn't matter if I disable Aero and use classic- Vista navigation is still much slower than Win2k or Xp classic mode.

That hasn't been my experience. I don't use XP much anymore, but I still use 2kpro on a couple of old systems. The system specs aren't anywhere close to my Vista machines, but they feel sluggish due to the old hardware. The only slowness I really notice with Vista is the window lag due to the animation I believe, otherwise it's about the same on equal hardware.

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

I think you can get explorer to revert to the old dir path method in the options somewhere.

I'm astonished at the number of people who want XP's "My Documents" style hierarchy back. Normally, I keep quiet but I have to ask... what do you like about it? I mean, damn, where do you put your actually documents? In the same folder that houses your My Music and My Pictures folder?

If you're on Vista you can relocate your My Music/Documents/etc folders by right clicking them, going to properties, and adjusting the location in the Location tab. That may be what you are looking for but it doesn't change the "C:/Users/Username/" to "C:/Documents and Settings/Username/" If that's what you want, you may be SOL...

The fault behind the stigma that Vista is slow lies squarely with system builders and hardware manufacturers.

Vista had many faults at launch. The old file copy system? Occasionally being unable to install under certain conditions? It's great now, I much prefer it over XP, but let's not toss everything under the rug.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Evander
I think programs I run under Vista run at a good or decent speed, but navigating the OS itself itself is very sluggish. For me, this is most noticeable when clicking the start menu- items that appear under each of the program folders are very slow to appear (even in classic start menu). My current laptop I bought Sept 2007 is a dual core 1.73ghz/2GB w/ Vista. My previous laptop (stopped using last year) was from 2001 - 800mhz/320 MB using Win2k. The start menu on the Win2k was virtually instantaneous and runs circles around my Vista startmenu- and this was on hardware that is VASTLY inferior to what I have now. It's not just the start menu either - try opening up for example the control panel on Win2k and see how much quicker everything shows up compared to Vista. Doesn't matter if I disable Aero and use classic- Vista navigation is still much slower than Win2k or Xp classic mode.

Turn off transparency and a few other desktop effects and windows will open exactly how they did in XP. It is not that things open and close slower. The desktop effects are designed in such a way to make windows opening and closing appear smoother, not faster. This gives a slight impression on certain graphics hardware that things in Vista open or close slightly slower, but it is just the way the fading works.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Turn off transparency and a few other desktop effects and windows will open exactly how they did in XP. It is not that things open and close slower. The desktop effects are designed in such a way to make windows opening and closing appear smoother, not faster. This gives a slight impression on certain graphics hardware that things in Vista open or close slightly slower, but it is just the way the fading works.

They made it quicker with SP1, but I prefer the old way better. What would be nice is to be able to adjust the speed of the windows. I like seeing the opening and closing animation.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: drebo
While I may not like many elements of Vista (breadcrumbs are so completely stupid, give me my damn file path and the "up one level" button back

I like the breadcrumbs but OMFG have you hit the one thing that drives me nuts in Vista. Those that know me usually don't see me gripe about Vista much (those that know me WELL know that I do). The "up one level" button missing drives me apesh1t.

Yes, yes I "get" the new method of navigating and essentially I don't really need the "up one level" button. The problem lies when I click on the breadcrumbs/path at the top of explorer. It switches to text mode (so you can copy/paste) but won't switch back to breadcrumb mode until you click somewhere else. This means I have no "up" button and no substitute method available until I do that extra click somewhere. Being a fast user it's surprisingly tedious to pause my thought process and let my eyes locate some blank space to click.

Anywhoo. Yes that sh1t drives me nuts.


As for this whole "just make Windows faster"... I say users and OEMs alike should stop putting crap on Vista and it will run just fine...same rule applies to XP or Windows 98. Shenanigans on Vista being slow. Mine runs faster than a scalded dog.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
The sad thing is a P4 running Windows XP is about as fast as Vista on a quad core.

Ouch. Your credibility just had a BSOD 13gig. You better reboot it with some proof.

 

[Zbox]

if he's talking about user interface response time he's probably right.

vista's interface by nature is a slow ass pos.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Zbox
if he's talking about user interface response time he's probably right.

vista's interface by nature is a slow ass pos.

That hasn't been my experience... things happen instantly for me. Even folders in the Program Files folder that I've never opened, open instantly, even on my laptop.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Smilin, in explorer push alt + up arrow

 

[Zbox]

http://pfeifferreport.com/trends/Vista_UIF_Rep.pdf

 

[drebo]

Originally posted by: Rhonda the Sly

I think you can get explorer to revert to the old dir path method in the options somewhere.

I'm astonished at the number of people who want XP's "My Documents" style hierarchy back. Normally, I keep quiet but I have to ask... what do you like about it? I mean, damn, where do you put your actually documents? In the same folder that houses your My Music and My Pictures folder?

If you're on Vista you can relocate your My Music/Documents/etc folders by right clicking them, going to properties, and adjusting the location in the Location tab. That may be what you are looking for but it doesn't change the "C:/Users/Username/" to "C:/Documents and Settings/Username/" If that's what you want, you may be SOL...

I was not talking about anything relating to directory structure. I was talking about explorer (Windows Explorer, My Computer, etc) using breadcrumbs to illustrate paths instead of the path itself. E.g. C:\Program Files\Adobe\Photoshop now becomes My Computer->Hard Drive->Program Files->Adobe->Photoshop, and the "up one directory" has been removed.

This may be OK for your average joe, but as someone who maintains a fairly high degree of technical awareness and utilizes paths for a variety of things, it sucks to not be able to just navigate to a directory and copy and paste the path to/from the explorer window directly. And removing the "up one level" button from explorer is, in my opinion, the worst thing about Vista. If you're going to do that, atleast show . and .. in the file/directory listings.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

Originally posted by: drebo

Originally posted by: Rhonda the Sly

I think you can get explorer to revert to the old dir path method in the options somewhere.

I'm astonished at the number of people who want XP's "My Documents" style hierarchy back. Normally, I keep quiet but I have to ask... what do you like about it? I mean, damn, where do you put your actually documents? In the same folder that houses your My Music and My Pictures folder?

If you're on Vista you can relocate your My Music/Documents/etc folders by right clicking them, going to properties, and adjusting the location in the Location tab. That may be what you are looking for but it doesn't change the "C:/Users/Username/" to "C:/Documents and Settings/Username/" If that's what you want, you may be SOL...

I was not talking about anything relating to directory structure. I was talking about explorer (Windows Explorer, My Computer, etc) using breadcrumbs to illustrate paths instead of the path itself. E.g. C:\Program Files\Adobe\Photoshop now becomes My Computer->Hard Drive->Program Files->Adobe->Photoshop, and the "up one directory" has been removed.

This may be OK for your average joe, but as someone who maintains a fairly high degree of technical awareness and utilizes paths for a variety of things, it sucks to not be able to just navigate to a directory and copy and paste the path to/from the explorer window directly. And removing the "up one level" button from explorer is, in my opinion, the worst thing about Vista. If you're going to do that, atleast show . and .. in the file/directory listings.

you can copy. just right click anywhere there and choose copy address

about the one up button push alt+up arrow.