Vista vs. XP

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: nerp
Cool. Enjoy your slower computer. Disabling it does _zero_ for performance.

You said it does zero for performance so how does it make my computer slower? Your post makes zero sense.

What disabling it did do was prevent me from having to wait for quick response after boot up while it loaded a bunch of crap it thought I used most.

It makes perfect sense, actually.

You really want performance? Stop booting all the time. Sleep mode FTW.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: nerp
Cool. Enjoy your slower computer. Disabling it does _zero_ for performance.

You said it does zero for performance so how does it make my computer slower? Your post makes zero sense.

What disabling it did do was prevent me from having to wait for quick response after boot up while it loaded a bunch of crap it thought I used most.

It makes perfect sense, actually.

You really want performance? Stop booting all the time. Sleep mode FTW.

Superfetch also operates on a lower priority IO meaning if you need the power of your computer for an application, Superfetch will wait until you are finished to do it's magic.

 

[slpaulson]

I think it's funny that people don't seem to remember the exact same discussions occurring when XP was released.

Personally, I haven't had any issues with Vista that weren't caused by shitty Create Labs' drivers. Once I ditched my XFi all my Vista problems went away.

As for people bitching about UAC, have you ever used Linux before? I think OSX does the same thing as well. Do you even understand why not running everything as root is a good thing?

 

[Nothinman]

Superfetch also operates on a lower priority IO meaning if you need the power of your computer for an application, Superfetch will wait until you are finished to do it's magic.

The problem is that disk latency is so high that even low priority I/O will have a noticeable impact on performance. Not to say that it doesn't help and overall it is a good thing, but it's still going to have an affect.

As for people bitching about UAC, have you ever used Linux before? I think OSX does the same thing as well. Do you even understand why not running everything as root is a good thing?

The main problem I see with UAC is the frequency with which is pops up, on Linux and OS X the sudo prompts are a lot less frequent.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
The problem is that disk latency is so high that even low priority I/O will have a noticeable impact on performance. Not to say that it doesn't help and overall it is a good thing, but it's still going to have an affect.

There is some truth to this. Initially the disk latency does impact performance but that fades quickly as Superfetch is shut down. The benefits of Superfetch far out weigh any issues that temporary disk latency is going cause.

 

[ChronoReverse]

Another problem he might be encountering if he's rebooting all the time is that by default System Restore runs after 15 minutes of idle upon boot.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: nerp
Cool. Enjoy your slower computer. Disabling it does _zero_ for performance.

You said it does zero for performance so how does it make my computer slower? Your post makes zero sense.

What disabling it did do was prevent me from having to wait for quick response after boot up while it loaded a bunch of crap it thought I used most.

It makes your computer slower because you have to sit and wait for stuff to load instead of it instantly popping open.

You shouldn't have to wait for quick response after bootup with superfetch enabled. Sounds like your computer is broken and you don't understand how superfetch works. It uses low priority i/o and its work upon bootup will not affect responsiveness or performance at all. Do some reading.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
The main problem I see with UAC is the frequency with which is pops up, on Linux and OS X the sudo prompts are a lot less frequent.

Once Apps are installed, there are actually very few UAC prompts. UAC only comes up when you trie to run as administrator or change system settings/files, as it should. Prompts will become fewer as developers stop requiring Admin access to run their apps.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: jonmcc33

Originally posted by: nerp
Cool. Enjoy your slower computer. Disabling it does _zero_ for performance.

You said it does zero for performance so how does it make my computer slower? Your post makes zero sense.

What disabling it did do was prevent me from having to wait for quick response after boot up while it loaded a bunch of crap it thought I used most.

It makes your computer slower because you have to sit and wait for stuff to load instead of it instantly popping open.

You shouldn't have to wait for quick response after bootup with superfetch enabled. Sounds like your computer is broken and you don't understand how superfetch works. It uses low priority i/o and its work upon bootup will not affect responsiveness or performance at all. Do some reading.

It will effect it somewhat because of disk latency. But It wont effect it nearly as much as the crazy grinding makes it sound like it is. Same with system restore. The things you're most likely to fire up are also the things that are preloaded first, like your browser etc. I've fired up COD4 immediately after launch, and while the first map load was maybe 5-10 seconds longer than usual, there wasnt even the slightest hitch or slowdown in the framerate once it was loaded. Its a placebo thing, the grinding makes it sound worse than it is.

Once we're on solid state, itll be completely 100% transparent (not to mention silent and free of placebo), but that'll take quite a few years at this rate.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: Nothinman
The main problem I see with UAC is the frequency with which is pops up, on Linux and OS X the sudo prompts are a lot less frequent.

Once Apps are installed, there are actually very few UAC prompts. UAC only comes up when you trie to run as administrator or change system settings/files, as it should. Prompts will become fewer as developers stop requiring Admin access to run their apps.

UAC forced me to confirm that I really, really, really wanted to run 4 of my startup apps every single boot, with no way to convince it not to ask me every time. It also gave me a hard time doing something as simple as changing display settings. It needs to be user configurable. I can appreciate something that protects malicious apps from trashing my root, but I dont need to be babied to such an annoying extent.

 

[slpaulson]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: Nothinman
The main problem I see with UAC is the frequency with which is pops up, on Linux and OS X the sudo prompts are a lot less frequent.

Once Apps are installed, there are actually very few UAC prompts. UAC only comes up when you trie to run as administrator or change system settings/files, as it should. Prompts will become fewer as developers stop requiring Admin access to run their apps.

UAC forced me to confirm that I really, really, really wanted to run 4 of my startup apps every single boot, with no way to convince it not to ask me every time. It also gave me a hard time doing something as simple as changing display settings. It needs to be user configurable. I can appreciate something that protects malicious apps from trashing my root, but I dont need to be babied to such an annoying extent.

Hopefully developers will get used to developing apps that don't require admin access.

I can agree that UAC should be able to be configured to always allow a specific app with a specific checksum, filesize, and date to do its thing.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: slpaulson

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: Nothinman
The main problem I see with UAC is the frequency with which is pops up, on Linux and OS X the sudo prompts are a lot less frequent.

Once Apps are installed, there are actually very few UAC prompts. UAC only comes up when you trie to run as administrator or change system settings/files, as it should. Prompts will become fewer as developers stop requiring Admin access to run their apps.

UAC forced me to confirm that I really, really, really wanted to run 4 of my startup apps every single boot, with no way to convince it not to ask me every time. It also gave me a hard time doing something as simple as changing display settings. It needs to be user configurable. I can appreciate something that protects malicious apps from trashing my root, but I dont need to be babied to such an annoying extent.

Hopefully developers will get used to developing apps that don't require admin access.

I can agree that UAC should be able to be configured to always allow a specific app with a specific checksum, filesize, and date to do its thing.

These programs most definitely require admin access, no matter what.

 

[imported_FishTaco]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: slpaulson

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: Nothinman
The main problem I see with UAC is the frequency with which is pops up, on Linux and OS X the sudo prompts are a lot less frequent.

Once Apps are installed, there are actually very few UAC prompts. UAC only comes up when you trie to run as administrator or change system settings/files, as it should. Prompts will become fewer as developers stop requiring Admin access to run their apps.

UAC forced me to confirm that I really, really, really wanted to run 4 of my startup apps every single boot, with no way to convince it not to ask me every time. It also gave me a hard time doing something as simple as changing display settings. It needs to be user configurable. I can appreciate something that protects malicious apps from trashing my root, but I dont need to be babied to such an annoying extent.

Hopefully developers will get used to developing apps that don't require admin access.

I can agree that UAC should be able to be configured to always allow a specific app with a specific checksum, filesize, and date to do its thing.

These programs most definitely require admin access, no matter what.

I agree that UAC should let you run certain programs without asking for permission.

As a workaround for running programs that need admin access at startup, I use the Task Scheduler and schedule the task to Start at Log on. This way I can specify that the program should start with admin privileges and UAC won't ask me for permission.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: slpaulson

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Griffinhart

Originally posted by: Nothinman
The main problem I see with UAC is the frequency with which is pops up, on Linux and OS X the sudo prompts are a lot less frequent.

Once Apps are installed, there are actually very few UAC prompts. UAC only comes up when you trie to run as administrator or change system settings/files, as it should. Prompts will become fewer as developers stop requiring Admin access to run their apps.

UAC forced me to confirm that I really, really, really wanted to run 4 of my startup apps every single boot, with no way to convince it not to ask me every time. It also gave me a hard time doing something as simple as changing display settings. It needs to be user configurable. I can appreciate something that protects malicious apps from trashing my root, but I dont need to be babied to such an annoying extent.

Hopefully developers will get used to developing apps that don't require admin access.

I can agree that UAC should be able to be configured to always allow a specific app with a specific checksum, filesize, and date to do its thing.

Microsoft's explaination of why they don't make that option available

As I'm sure everyone knows, large parts of the Windows ecosystem have a long legacy of assuming that the end user has administrative permissions, and consequently a lot of programs work correctly only when run that way. (I'm not going to delve into that history here, nor will I entertain any finger-pointing on the topic at this time. One of these days I'll post my thoughts on that subject.) As computer security has become increasingly important, breaking that cycle became absolutely imperative. It is with the release of Windows Vista that the first major move in that direction is achieved. Indeed, the primary purpose of the technologies that comprise UAC is to enable "standard user" to be the default for Windows, encouraging software developers to create applications that do not require admin. The move to standard user is a new paradigm and creates the need for software developers to write applications that do not require admin privileges. Creating a shift in the ecosystem will take a long time due to the large deployed base of legacy applications, and UAC is a good first step.

...

If it were possible to mark an application to run with silently-elevated privileges, what would become of all those apps out there with LUA bugs? Answer: they'd all be marked to silently elevate. How would future software for Windows be written? Answer: To silently elevate. Nobody would actually fix their apps, and end-user applications will continue to require and run with full administrative permissions unnecessarily.

What if the application could not mark itself for silent elevation but instead had to be marked by the consumer or enterprise administrator installing the application? Answer: the developer of the installation program (which necessarily runs with admin/system permissions in order to install machine-wide) would figure out where the setting lived, and set it. (Several major ISVs told us directly that they would in fact do exactly that.) There would be no real way to protect that setting from anything running as admin. This would be especially true if it were settable via Group Policy (which would be expected, if not demanded).

Basically, he says that in today's world, it's time to begin weaning software vendors from Admin privileges, and so they chose not to leave easy loopholes like the one you're wishing for, because if they did, then software vendors would doggedly avoid growing out of the whole "my app MUST RUN AS ADMIN" tradition.

 

[JesseKnows]

Here's my Vista->XP story.
I built a machine with 1.5GB DDRAM, P4 2GHz, GeForce FX6200. A low end machine for sure.
I wanted to run HTPC on it with a USB ATSC adapter ($15 @ newegg last month). Manufacturer says 2GHz CPU required for Hi-Def programming.
With Vista (Ultimate) it stuttered audio and jerked video and was unusable even with 720p programming, let alone 1080i.
"Downgraded" to XP pro, same hardware (actually, smaller and slower HDD), runs perfectly in 1080i. Video flows and audio is great.
Used the same drivers for the ATSC adapter and the same application for TV viewing. The latest Nvidia drivers for the FX6200 and the rest of the hardware.

 

[slpaulson]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Basically, he says that in today's world, it's time to begin weaning software vendors from Admin privileges, and so they chose not to leave easy loopholes like the one you're wishing for, because if they did, then software vendors would doggedly avoid growing out of the whole "my app MUST RUN AS ADMIN" tradition.

I can understand their reasoning for handling it the way they did.

On the other hand I think it is annoying that I can't write some simple application for my own personal use that is going to require admin access without getting hassled by UAC.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: JesseKnows
Here's my Vista->XP story.
I built a machine with 1.5GB DDRAM, P4 2GHz, GeForce FX6200. A low end machine for sure.
I wanted to run HTPC on it with a USB ATSC adapter ($15 @ newegg last month). Manufacturer says 2GHz CPU required for Hi-Def programming.
With Vista (Ultimate) it stuttered audio and jerked video and was unusable even with 720p programming, let alone 1080i.
"Downgraded" to XP pro, same hardware (actually, smaller and slower HDD), runs perfectly in 1080i. Video flows and audio is great.
Used the same drivers for the ATSC adapter and the same application for TV viewing. The latest Nvidia drivers for the FX6200 and the rest of the hardware.

Thats a video bottleneck there. FX6200 is far too old. Pick up an 8400gs (< $40) and you'll be good to go.

 

[Pabster]

No, the bottleneck there is his CPU. He's referring to a USB ATSC dongle, which relies solely on your CPU for decoding. A P4 2.x is not sufficient for high definition decoding with one of those.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Pabster
No, the bottleneck there is his CPU. He's referring to a USB ATSC dongle, which relies solely on your CPU for decoding. A P4 2.x is not sufficient for high definition decoding with one of those.

Then why is it working fine in XP? Its not like Vista or XP are soaking up cpu cycles on idle.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Pabster
No, the bottleneck there is his CPU. He's referring to a USB ATSC dongle, which relies solely on your CPU for decoding. A P4 2.x is not sufficient for high definition decoding with one of those.

Then why is it working fine in XP? Its not like Vista or XP are soaking up cpu cycles on idle.

Probably due to a bug in the Nvidia driver for Vista. The 8 series has new features that remove the rendering from the CPU. The 6 series still requires the CPU to render. Nvidia probably is not concentrating as hard on getting the Vista driver on the 6 series on par with XP since most Vista users will be using 8 series cards.

 

[JesseKnows]

Probably due to a bug in the Nvidia driver for Vista. The 8 series has new features that remove the rendering from the CPU. The 6 series still requires the CPU to render.

I used the FX6200 because I needed a low profile AGP and that was the one I could find.

Nvidia probably is not concentrating as hard on getting the Vista driver on the 6 series on par with XP since most Vista users will be using 8 series cards.

I guess this reinforces the notice to potential Vista users with older hardware: be ready to get abandoned.

The CPU is actually an Athlon XP 2700+ (I misremembered when I wrote before), but it's still a low end box.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Pabster
No, the bottleneck there is his CPU. He's referring to a USB ATSC dongle, which relies solely on your CPU for decoding. A P4 2.x is not sufficient for high definition decoding with one of those.

My box I was using for win98 couldnt handle XP when it came out...not sure why everyone is so damn upset Vista doesnt perform well with old hardware. It hought PC's and all parts of them were evolving?

 

[Nothinman]

It hought PC's and all parts of them were evolving?

But evolution doesn't necessarily mean bigger.

 

[gplracer]

I think the Vista haters do not really hate Vista. That hate the way Microsoft has pushed it. Basically Microsoft is somewhat exaggerating how much better Vista is over XP. There are some things that are better. There are some new features that are of use. At this point in time though there are many people who do not need or would use those features so they are sticking with XP. XP is being discontinued and will not get as many future updates. This is the normal way of things for all products. I play tennis and manufacturers normally discontinue rackets and shoes when new models come out. The attempt is to produce a better product that will make money. Sometimes the new products are better and sometimes they are not. I do not think this is a case of Vista being better or worse than XP. It is a new operating system that has new features that will meet the needs of the people who find use for those needs. Some people do not have use for those new things and they find that XP is still meeting their needs so they do not wish to change. They are annoyed that MS is giving the perception that Vista is better. The have older programs that do not run as well on Vista. They have older games that have sound issues on Vista. They want the stuff they have NOW to run more stable and faster on Vista. In most cases the programs run the same at best. Yet in the end all users will probably have to upgrade to Vista eventually. I am sure it is not really cost effective for Microsoft to support two operating systems forever. This reminds me a lot of when XP came out and some Win98 programs did not work as well on it. The only difference for me is the fact that I was one of the first adopters of XP. I really thought it was a needed step in the right direction. Microsoft did such a good job that I do not feel the need to upgrade at this time. I have a Directx 10 video card but DX10 is not really better with the current first generation of DX10 cards. I would now really like to skip Vista 32bit all together and get the 64 bit version one day in the future when I feel the game and photoshop support is good enough for me. I would like to take advantage of more than 3 gigs of ram. Also since Vista is OEM is tied to the motherboard I feel it is not in my best interest to get it since i have a dual core AMD system that will be upgraded to a quad core Intel system in the next 6 months. I do not mean to flame vista or xp users with this post. I only want to give my opinion.

 

[Cutthroat]

Originally posted by: gplracer
I think the Vista haters do not really hate Vista. That hate the way Microsoft has pushed it. Basically Microsoft is somewhat exaggerating how much better Vista is over XP. There are some things that are better. There are some new features that are of use. At this point in time though there are many people who do not need or would use those features so they are sticking with XP. XP is being discontinued and will not get as many future updates. This is the normal way of things for all products. I play tennis and manufacturers normally discontinue rackets and shoes when new models come out. The attempt is to produce a better product that will make money. Sometimes the new products are better and sometimes they are not. I do not think this is a case of Vista being better or worse than XP. It is a new operating system that has new features that will meet the needs of the people who find use for those needs. Some people do not have use for those new things and they find that XP is still meeting their needs so they do not wish to change. They are annoyed that MS is giving the perception that Vista is better. The have older programs that do not run as well on Vista. They have older games that have sound issues on Vista. They want the stuff they have NOW to run more stable and faster on Vista. In most cases the programs run the same at best. Yet in the end all users will probably have to upgrade to Vista eventually. I am sure it is not really cost effective for Microsoft to support two operating systems forever. This reminds me a lot of when XP came out and some Win98 programs did not work as well on it. The only difference for me is the fact that I was one of the first adopters of XP. I really thought it was a needed step in the right direction. Microsoft did such a good job that I do not feel the need to upgrade at this time. I have a Directx 10 video card but DX10 is not really better with the current first generation of DX10 cards. I would now really like to skip Vista 32bit all together and get the 64 bit version one day in the future when I feel the game and photoshop support is good enough for me. I would like to take advantage of more than 3 gigs of ram. Also since Vista is OEM is tied to the motherboard I feel it is not in my best interest to get it since i have a dual core AMD system that will be upgraded to a quad core Intel system in the next 6 months. I do not mean to flame vista or xp users with this post. I only want to give my opinion.

I pretty much agree, but there are some people who really 'hate' Vista, often they try to tell other people they should hate it too without even trying it out. It's just an OS, and there are alternatives, even free ones, and none of them are perfect. Use whatever you like on your PC.

People have unrealistic expectations with Vista, that's the real problem.

gplracer, you have the right idea, there's no need to go out and buy Vista with your current PC, wait until your next build then get Vista x64.