Vista sucks, despite all that is said around

Monopoly money comes in many flavors: 7, Vista, XP, 2K, ME, 98, etc.

Moderators: Flying Fox, Ryu Connor

Vista sucks, despite all that is said around

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:04 pm

Just honestly, what are guys smoking when you say it doesn't?!

I did a fresh install yesterday. Experience index 4,8 on x64 version on a speedier HDD than my XP had and extra GB of RAM...

It sucks.

I turned off prefetch & background indexing right after first boot. Disabled the services for sure.

Then I disabled security center, for sure in services.msc.

Then it started to pop me warnings (security center which was disabled in services.msc)

Then I turned it back on, configured to stop bothering me with popups, and disabled it for sure once again. Service stop, service disabled.

Did a full defrag.

Memory consumption ~45% (FROM 2GB without Prefetch and background indexing and security center crap)

OK, they say numbers don't mean anything.

So I fired up NFS: Pro Street... WOW, DX10 or something kicked in and it's now unplayable compared to XP on which it was smooth (same setting everywhere).

So... I have speedier HDD, x64 with buttload of new registers, and I loose ~25% frames... NIICE.

Clear type -> it sucks at all 3 settings compared to xp. (off, standard, clear)

For Audigy, all Advanced EQ presets are GONE as well as hardware acceleration.

Windows advanced firewall. By default it didn't even bothered to stop home pinging programs. They could do whatever they wanted.

Set it to ask for all outgoing apps, not even a question if you want something to access network. Firefox and all other software just got blocked for good.

SQL server 2005 express -> sorry, even after SP2 it is NOT compatible with Vista. IIS is kinda alien or something there.

So basically all I like in Vista is winkey+tab, but thats it, nothing else become better. NOTHING!!!

Start menu sucks! It's way worse than one in XP and the classic is not like XP, but like one in Windows 95!!!

I hate those people who said that Vista is better, it isn't! And now I'm stuck with it, at least for few weeks :evil:

And YES, I have all recent drivers for everything, and YES the hardware Vista runs on has speedier HDD and 1 more GB of RAM.

If in doubt, DON'T buy Vista unless you only want to look at pretty desktop. That's all that has changed for better.

On the bright side, administrative alerts are not that intrusive for the most part :-?
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:17 pm

i will stay with xp as long as i can
tsoulier
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2934
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:17 am
Location: South Louisiana

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:35 pm

FWIW I never liked WinXP's start menu and I always set that one to classic. But I'll give you that Vista's start menu is exponentially worse. It's funny that a start menu that essentially dates to 1995 seems better to me than any of it's descendants over the past 13 years.
flip-mode
Gerbil Khan
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 9084
Joined: Thu May 08, 2003 12:42 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:42 pm

Odd, my experience with Vista 64 has been quite the opposite for the most part.

At first it was a little slower than XP64, but recent hotfixes and drivers allow it to be faster than XP64 at general applications and DX9-based games.

The only difference is that Vista 64 has more memory overhead than XP64 due to Aero/Flipe3D GUI and a few services that you need to run in order to run UAC. You can turned off both features to free-up memory. The overhead becomes almost the same as XP64. Vista is definitely slower at pre-DX9, non-OpenGL applications (about 50-60% of XP64). However, any modern GPU has enough power to deliver a playable experience, despite the inefficiency.

I suspect the reason that I escape some of the teething quirks of some users is that my hardware platform is a bit more mature and robust as a whore then current bleeding edge stuff and that I am running DX9 instead of DX10.

I still failed to understand the whole file transfer problem. My I/O performance in Vista is virtually identical to performance under XP64.

I think the problem is from immature drivers, misconfigured hardware and misperception of ignorant users. Vista only tells you a rough estimate on the user's file transfer rate not the exact rate. XP on the other hand never told you anything without a 3rd-party tool.

Users are distraught when Vista reports that their 7200RPM desktop HDD never obtains 80MB burst speed that it gets in synthetic benchmarks, but a more real-world speed of 30-40MB/s.They perceived that Vista must be slower than XP, but do not understand the factors behind HDD performance.

I/O performance for HDD depends greatly on firmware of HDD in question, how larger is the buffer on HDD itself, how fragmented the data is on the platters of the HDD, the drivers of the controller itself.

Vista's reported 8-9MB/sec is a realistic transfer rate for 100Mbps Ethernet connection (I get this myself).You never get theoretical performance out of your network speed due to protocol overhead, collusions, error collection etc.

Gigabit Ethernet and greater have some interesting problems to themselves. The transfer rate depend far more on protocol and wire quality. Jumbo Frames were designed to overcome some of the limitations of original Ethernet spec.
Ivy Bridge i5-3570K@4.0Ghz, Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H, 2x4GiB of PC-12800, EVGA 660Ti, Corsair CX-600 and Fractal Refined R4 (W). Kentsfield Q6600@3Ghz, HD 4850 2x2GiB PC2-6400, Gigabyte EP45-DS4P, OCZ Modstream 700W, and PC-7B.
Krogoth
Maximum Gerbil
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4406
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:20 pm
Location: somewhere on Core Prime

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 3:55 pm

I wouldn't say that file transfer is slow. I'm hitting near 30MB/s at times when copying from ATA133 to SATA300. I think it's exactly like it should be.

But everything, except desktop (which is really nice to look at), is worse in Vista.
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:04 pm

Classic start menu ftw. When I was using the beta version, one problem I had was that enabling the classic start menu disabled all aero/flip 3d functionality. Does it still do this? I wouldn't mind having the classic layout with the new glossy look.
imtheunknown176
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:17 am

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:10 pm

imtheunknown176 wrote:Classic start menu ftw. When I was using the beta version, one problem I had was that enabling the classic start menu disabled all aero/flip 3d functionality. Does it still do this? I wouldn't mind having the classic layout with the new glossy look.


Yep, you can do that in RTM version of Vista.
Ivy Bridge i5-3570K@4.0Ghz, Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H, 2x4GiB of PC-12800, EVGA 660Ti, Corsair CX-600 and Fractal Refined R4 (W). Kentsfield Q6600@3Ghz, HD 4850 2x2GiB PC2-6400, Gigabyte EP45-DS4P, OCZ Modstream 700W, and PC-7B.
Krogoth
Maximum Gerbil
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4406
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:20 pm
Location: somewhere on Core Prime

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:36 pm

Did XP64 get better FPS? Because I'm pretty sure your NFS slowdown is due to new drivers.

Now, if everybody would start complaining about Linux like this... its 3D performance is obviously slower (read Phoronix) and it doesn't run some Windows programs (oh no).

But then it's free. Everybody loves free stuff.
Mothership: Thuban 1055T@3.7GHz, 12GB DDR3, M5A99X EVO, GTX470+Icy Vision Rev.2@840/3800, Vertex 2E 60GB
Supply ship: Sargas@2.8GHz, 12GB DDR3, M4A88TD-V EVO/USB3
Corsair: Macbook Air Ivy Bridge
Crayon Shin Chan
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2002 11:14 am
Location: Malaysia

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:40 pm

If Vista would have been out for... say 1 month, I'd accept that, but it's quite a while now. Moreover, I bet drivers are tweaked for Vista 1st for XP 2nd now.
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:47 pm

Sorry to hear that you have had a bad experience. It runs great on my machine(Business Edition). My lowest rating is also 4.8, thats my processor though. Gaming is 5.9. You can always do a dual boot system. I don't know how hard that will be though.
AMD Phenom II X4 840|Foxconn 780V|EVGA GTX660|4GB DDR2 800|Intel X-25M|NZXT 210|Corsair CX400|M-Audio BX8a Deluxe
GeForce6200
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 861
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:08 pm

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:02 pm

You turned off Superfetch directly after an install?....You fully live up to your nickname then.
:roll:
Fighterpilot
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:29 am
Location: your girlfriend's bedroom...

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:04 pm

Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU 6300 @ 1.86GHz 4,9
Memory (RAM) 2,00 GB 4,8
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT/GTO 5,9
Gaming graphics 1023 MB Total available graphics memory 5,8
Primary hard disk 248GB Free (293GB Total) 5,7

on Ultimate x64
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:08 pm

Fighterpilot wrote:You turned off Superfetch directly after an install?....You fully live up to your nickname then.
:roll:

LOL! Superfetch is one feature that should NOT be turned off if you want to gain some perfromance in Vista.
NeXus 6
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:08 pm

Fighterpilot wrote:You turned off Superfetch directly after an install?....You fully live up to your nickname then.
:roll:


Why, do you even have an idea what super fetch does?! It basically sits in background and preloads random applications in memory.

That means HDD activity and eating out zero pages.

The memory management in XP and Vista is more than it seems. Super fetch doesn't give you benefits if you are aiming for 3D app/gaming performance.

Read and weep, how you have been **** by Microsoft marketing... -> http://blogs.msdn.com/ntdebugging/archi ... -game.aspx
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:10 pm

Your system should run Vista fine. No clue to as way its runs that bad. Maybe dissabling the things you did makes it run bad? Kind of off topic but why is my ram rating, its 4.9, higher than yours? I'm just using basic PC3200 ram?
AMD Phenom II X4 840|Foxconn 780V|EVGA GTX660|4GB DDR2 800|Intel X-25M|NZXT 210|Corsair CX400|M-Audio BX8a Deluxe
GeForce6200
Gerbil Elite
 
Posts: 861
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:08 pm

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:19 pm

NeXus 6 wrote:
Fighterpilot wrote:You turned off Superfetch directly after an install?....You fully live up to your nickname then.
:roll:

LOL! Superfetch is one feature that should NOT be turned off if you want to gain some perfromance in Vista.


Do your homework before suggesting other people WRONG things. :evil:

Superfetch is loading mediaplayers, solitare and other crap in your RAM from backup threads while you are doing your work. Therefore using HDD and Memory and Eating out zero pages. It's the last thing you want to keep running on laptop with battery power or while gaming!

I double checked, just to be sure, with superprefetch I get a lot more disk activity while gaming than I do without it!
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:24 pm

GeForce6200 wrote:Your system should run Vista fine. No clue to as way its runs that bad. Maybe dissabling the things you did makes it run bad? Kind of off topic but why is my ram rating, its 4.9, higher than yours? I'm just using basic PC3200 ram?


It runs fine for desktop stuff, no problems there. As for everything else... well... it's the long list in my first post.

RAM: Smaller pagefile maybe... It's around 2GB.
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:37 pm

Madman wrote:
NeXus 6 wrote:
Fighterpilot wrote:You turned off Superfetch directly after an install?....You fully live up to your nickname then.
:roll:

LOL! Superfetch is one feature that should NOT be turned off if you want to gain some perfromance in Vista.


Do your homework before suggesting other people WRONG things. :evil:

Superfetch is loading mediaplayers, solitare and other crap in your RAM from backup threads while you are doing your work. Therefore using HDD and Memory and Eating out zero pages. It's the last thing you want to keep running on laptop with battery power or while gaming!

I double checked, just to be sure, with superprefetch I get a lot more disk activity while gaming than I do without it!

It settles down after a few days right after you install Vista. Give it time.
NeXus 6
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2569
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:45 pm

NeXus 6 wrote:
Madman wrote:
NeXus 6 wrote:
Fighterpilot wrote:You turned off Superfetch directly after an install?....You fully live up to your nickname then.
:roll:

LOL! Superfetch is one feature that should NOT be turned off if you want to gain some perfromance in Vista.


Do your homework before suggesting other people WRONG things. :evil:

Superfetch is loading mediaplayers, solitare and other crap in your RAM from backup threads while you are doing your work. Therefore using HDD and Memory and Eating out zero pages. It's the last thing you want to keep running on laptop with battery power or while gaming!

I double checked, just to be sure, with superprefetch I get a lot more disk activity while gaming than I do without it!

It settles down after a few days right after you install Vista. Give it time.
Also I think superfetch is off if your laptop is not under AC power for precisely that reason. Microsoft may be bad, but they are not that stupid.
Image
The Model M is not for the faint of heart. You either like them or hate them.

Gerbils unite! Fold for UnitedGerbilNation, team 2630.
Flying Fox
Gerbil God
 
Posts: 24414
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 2:19 am

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:45 pm

Shhh...don't tell him that...after all hes "done his homework" :roll:
Fighterpilot
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2420
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2005 5:29 am
Location: your girlfriend's bedroom...

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:50 pm

Madman wrote:
NeXus 6 wrote:
Fighterpilot wrote:You turned off Superfetch directly after an install?....You fully live up to your nickname then.
:roll:

LOL! Superfetch is one feature that should NOT be turned off if you want to gain some perfromance in Vista.


Do your homework before suggesting other people WRONG things. :evil:

Superfetch is loading mediaplayers, solitare and other crap in your RAM from backup threads while you are doing your work. Therefore using HDD and Memory and Eating out zero pages. It's the last thing you want to keep running on laptop with battery power or while gaming!

I double checked, just to be sure, with superprefetch I get a lot more disk activity while gaming than I do without it!


Thats the point of superfetch. It fills some of your unused RAM with programs you use often. With superfetch, firefox and wmp11 open in a flash. It's acually one of the things i really appreciate about vista. neXus is right. Once vista has a good idea of the programs you use regularily, it loads them into RAM so when you start them, they open instantly.

As for your problems, maybe we can help. Alot of us here are actually enjoying Vista and would mind giving some advice. Mind giving us your system specs?
2011 15" MacBook Pro Ci7 2GHz, 8GB DDR3-1066, Intel 510 256GB SSD
Da_Boss
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:27 pm

Re: Vista sucks, despite all that is said around

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 5:55 pm

Madman wrote:SQL server 2005 express -> sorry, even after SP2 it is NOT compatible with Vista.


Huh? I've been using SQL Server 2005 Express SP2 on a Vista machine without problems. What kind of problem are you seeing?
SnowboardingTobi
Gerbil Team Leader
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 10:56 am
Location: in your house, on the toilet, reading the newspaper

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:02 pm

Madman wrote:Superfetch is loading mediaplayers, solitare and other crap in your RAM from backup threads while you are doing your work. Therefore using HDD and Memory and Eating out zero pages. It's the last thing you want to keep running on laptop with battery power or while gaming!

:o

Dude, have you actually run Vista? You *claim* you installed it, but what you say doesn't connect with reality in any shape or fashion.
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.
derFunkenstein
Gerbil God
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 21325
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: WHAT?

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:03 pm

NeXus 6 wrote:
Madman wrote:
NeXus 6 wrote:
Fighterpilot wrote:You turned off Superfetch directly after an install?....You fully live up to your nickname then.
:roll:

LOL! Superfetch is one feature that should NOT be turned off if you want to gain some perfromance in Vista.


Do your homework before suggesting other people WRONG things. :evil:

Superfetch is loading mediaplayers, solitare and other crap in your RAM from backup threads while you are doing your work. Therefore using HDD and Memory and Eating out zero pages. It's the last thing you want to keep running on laptop with battery power or while gaming!

I double checked, just to be sure, with super prefetch I get a lot more disk activity while gaming than I do without it!

It settles down after a few days right after you install Vista. Give it time.


Still, as the performance of demanding applications is the biggest problem it's better with this feature disabled in services.msc

Even if it settles down, it's the start up time that is improved (loading dll's + exe's).

I'm not sure super fetch will start to load DOOM3 levels in memory for instance. And what if I decide to play from lvl 5 this time? All the forced page zeroing stuff and offload to pagefile. No, I'm pretty sure that I don't need super prefetch for my PC usage habits.

Actually, I think there was only one good reason why Microsoft decided to implement super prefetch. That is to hide .NET application start up times. Everything that is written in .NET loads way longer, and that hurts marketing and user experience. Throw in super prefetch and this factor is mitigated, at expense of other things...

But right now, it's not the .NET code I'm worried about, it's plain old C that runs slow in Vista. And I'm still investigating why.
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Re: Vista sucks, despite all that is said around

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:06 pm

SnowboardingTobi wrote:
Madman wrote:SQL server 2005 express -> sorry, even after SP2 it is NOT compatible with Vista.


Huh? I've been using SQL Server 2005 Express SP2 on a Vista machine without problems. What kind of problem are you seeing?


I found the problem, I needed to install IIS6 compatibility pack to get SQL and Visual Studio see it. But only Visual studio gave me suggestion, SQL just threw an error.

This thing is fixed now.
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:10 pm

Da_Boss wrote:
Madman wrote:
NeXus 6 wrote:
Fighterpilot wrote:You turned off Superfetch directly after an install?....You fully live up to your nickname then.
:roll:

LOL! Superfetch is one feature that should NOT be turned off if you want to gain some perfromance in Vista.


Do your homework before suggesting other people WRONG things. :evil:

Superfetch is loading mediaplayers, solitare and other crap in your RAM from backup threads while you are doing your work. Therefore using HDD and Memory and Eating out zero pages. It's the last thing you want to keep running on laptop with battery power or while gaming!

I double checked, just to be sure, with superprefetch I get a lot more disk activity while gaming than I do without it!


Thats the point of superfetch. It fills some of your unused RAM with programs you use often. With superfetch, firefox and wmp11 open in a flash. It's acually one of the things i really appreciate about vista. neXus is right. Once vista has a good idea of the programs you use regularily, it loads them into RAM so when you start them, they open instantly.


It's fine till you start a program that needs all the RAM it can get. Then it has to do extra housekeeping to free the one that has been filled with .NET assemblies and recently or never used applications.
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:13 pm

derFunkenstein wrote:
Madman wrote:Superfetch is loading mediaplayers, solitare and other crap in your RAM from backup threads while you are doing your work. Therefore using HDD and Memory and Eating out zero pages. It's the last thing you want to keep running on laptop with battery power or while gaming!

:o

Dude, have you actually run Vista? You *claim* you installed it, but what you say doesn't connect with reality in any shape or fashion.


Hmmm... just where it's not connecting with the reality, please?
I'm not complaining about notepad loading for hours, or that desktop looks bad, I pointed out concrete things. Tell me which ones are wrong. (SQL problem is solved)
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:26 pm

Krogoth wrote: my hardware platform is a bit more mature and robust as a whore

say what?
You don't have to feel safe to feel unafraid.
danny e.
Maximum Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 4372
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:09 pm
Location: Indonesia/Nebraska/Wisconsin

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:36 pm

danny e. wrote:
Krogoth wrote: my hardware platform is a bit more mature and robust as a whore

say what?

Nice one :lol: :P

Anyway, back to issues... It seems that in NFS case I'm bound by CPU. It's 100% all the time. Still, given the fact that there seems to be frequent jerkiness, there is a problem with data preloading as well, I just cant figure which counters to monitor.

Maybe it's the software accelerated audio at work :roll:

Back to testing...
Core 2 Duo E6300, MSI P45 NEO-F, Club 3D GTX 260, 4Gb DDR2-800Mhz, Audigy X-Fi Fatal1ty Champ1on ed., 0.5Tb+1Tb Seagate Barracuda 7200.12, 630W AXP, Samsung SyncMaster BX2450, ViewSonic VP171b
Madman
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2317
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:55 am
Location: Latvia

Postposted on Wed Nov 28, 2007 6:38 pm

Madman wrote:
Da_Boss wrote:
Madman wrote:
NeXus 6 wrote:
Fighterpilot wrote:You turned off Superfetch directly after an install?....You fully live up to your nickname then.
:roll:

LOL! Superfetch is one feature that should NOT be turned off if you want to gain some perfromance in Vista.


Do your homework before suggesting other people WRONG things. :evil:

Superfetch is loading mediaplayers, solitare and other crap in your RAM from backup threads while you are doing your work. Therefore using HDD and Memory and Eating out zero pages. It's the last thing you want to keep running on laptop with battery power or while gaming!

I double checked, just to be sure, with superprefetch I get a lot more disk activity while gaming than I do without it!


Thats the point of superfetch. It fills some of your unused RAM with programs you use often. With superfetch, firefox and wmp11 open in a flash. It's acually one of the things i really appreciate about vista. neXus is right. Once vista has a good idea of the programs you use regularily, it loads them into RAM so when you start them, they open instantly.


It's fine till you start a program that needs all the RAM it can get. Then it has to do extra housekeeping to free the one that has been filled with .NET assemblies and recently or never used applications.



In that case, i guess it just comes down to this: Would you rather have your everyday applications load faster, or have your games and other memory intensive applications load faster? Im my opinion, I love to see my browser open as soon as i click it. Yours may differ. At least windows gives you a choice, and thats hardly anything to complain about.
2011 15" MacBook Pro Ci7 2GHz, 8GB DDR3-1066, Intel 510 256GB SSD
Da_Boss
Gerbil Team Leader
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:27 pm

Next

Return to Windows

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest