PDA

View Full Version : Ditching Vista64


Pages : [1] 2 3

dxx
03-28-08, 08:48 AM
In one of my few moments of not being drunk during the previous weekend, I installed WinXP 32bit under VirtualPC, as I wanted to make the most of MegaUpload's features without having my system raped senseless by their adware. This went rather quickly, something I attribute mostly to VitualPC 2007's support for hardware virtualization, and my rather shiny E8400 / 4GB system.

Anyway, impressed as I was by the speed of the Virtual XP, I decided to run some benchmarks on it. Under Vista 64, running direct on the hardware, Prime95 completed all of its tests with a total of 540ms compared to 456ms under Virtualized XP, POVRay's benchmark completed in 921 seconds on Vista64 and 824 on vXP, and in UT2004, using the same ut2004.ini file and both running with software rendering, Vista64 gave me an average of 28fps compared to vXP's 31. This makes XP32 running under VirtualPC some 18%, 11%, and 10% faster than Vista64. Not bad at all.

Memory consumption was also an issue. I've done four little tests, and going by Process Explorer's Physical Memory Private Bytes, UT2004 under v64 consumed 150MB where XP consumed 121MB (23% gain), and Crysis 64 under v64 consumed 1040MB where Crysis32 under V64 consumed 839MB (24% gain).

On a 4GB system, running XP32, you can expect to lose 768MB to virtual address space. The maths gets kind-of interesting here, as it means that a 4GB system running 32bit Windows loses 18.75% of its memory. However, a 4GB system running v64 will lose some 23% of its memory to the overhead of 64bit, assuming 100% consumption of RAM. All in all, what this seems to mean is that, if both OS' hold 3.25GB of data in memory, it means that XP32 will be using 100% of its accessible memory, and Vista64 will also be using 100% of its memory, due to the OS' apparent 23% memory consumption overhead. It's probably fair to assume that 23% is not a solid rule, but we can ignore leeway on the basis of the OS consuming much more memory just for itself.

All in all, it would seem that Vista64 is slower than XP32 (even with XP32 running under a VM), and no better with memory on a 4GB system than an OS that can't even address all of it. So, with the exception of DX10 (which, in itself, is pretty weak), can anyone suggest any compelling reason to stick with Vista64? And can anyone shed any positive light on Vista64 after the trouncing that these figures seem to give it?

Also, before the inevitable "LUL win98 is faster use that lul" and other such generic and wholly moronic flames come in, take note of the fact that I'm the sort of person that uses his PC and wants to get the best from it, and whose MSDN Subscriber status means that money, ego, and limitations really don't enter into my OS choices and thoughts.

diamonddave
03-28-08, 09:20 AM
All in all, it would seem that Vista64 is slower than XP32 (even with XP32 running under a VM), and no better with memory on a 4GB system than an OS that can't even address all of it. So, with the exception of DX10 (which, in itself, is pretty weak), can anyone suggest any compelling reason to stick with Vista64? And can anyone shed any positive light on Vista64 after the trouncing that these figures seem to give it?

I've been saying this forever. No, there are no compelling reasons - hell there isn't a single GOOD reason to use Vista. Everyone that went back to XP noticed how much faster it was, it also benchmarks faster. There really is nothing in Vista - except if you surf porn and get infected then the whole "no admin, only user" feature works great for removing infected profiles.

Actually - I would be willing to bet that most of the Vista lovers are probably porn surfers and that might be the only good reason to use Vista. Isolation of spyware and viruses to the user profile. Anyways, we are glad to have another back. Welcome.

ViN86
03-28-08, 10:38 AM
/me waits for you both to complain when they drop XP support in a few months

yea, there's no compelling reason... whatever you say. how about the fact that MS will not let Vista fail and will drop XP support/upgrades, soon after hardware manufacturers will drop driver update support, and eventually Vista will be the only thing you can buy.

nekrosoft13
03-28-08, 10:42 AM
i;m ditching XP at work for 98. Hell 98 boots so quick, damn slow XP

Revs
03-28-08, 11:05 AM
I back to 95 for my gaming machine! ZOMG itz sooooo fast.

EDIT:Joking aside, if ya don't like Vista, don't use it. All that you say is true, but I still prefer Vista because it's sipmley nicer too look at. Other than that, it is a bit more secure and I have had up to 3.5Gb of RAM being used. In XP it only sees 2.3Gb :(

As for DX10, I never really use it. It's become a bit of joke TBH.

dxx
03-28-08, 11:19 AM
/me waits for you both to complain when they drop XP support in a few months

yea, there's no compelling reason... whatever you say. how about the fact that MS will not let Vista fail and will drop XP support/upgrades, soon after hardware manufacturers will drop driver update support, and eventually Vista will be the only thing you can buy.

Microsoft not letting Vista fail really means nothing to me. It already has failed, in the sense that the latest release can't compete with XP32 for performance or compatibility. Of course, Microsoft won't drop Vista. But they've done nothing to make it better than XP.

Regarding support, I can't imagine that drying up any time soon. Win98's driver support from nVidia ended little over two years ago, and Microsoft are due to support XP until 2014. It's going to take a long time for XP to become the minority OS, and it will be supported for as long as it is profitable to do so. For some companies, Vista support hasn't even begun yet, as the market isn't big enough to warrant it.

And not being able to buy anything other than Vista isn't really a compelling reason to use it through choice...

dxx
03-28-08, 11:23 AM
i;m ditching XP at work for 98. Hell 98 boots so quick, damn slow XP

Yes yes, very clever, unique, totally unexpected, and witty of you. Completely misses the point and displays a depressing lack of intelligence, but, nice well done.

nekrosoft13
03-28-08, 11:31 AM
It already has failed, in the sense that the latest release can't compete with XP32 for performance or compatibility.

and this shows your depressing lack of intelligence, NEW Windows never was more compatibile and faster then previous os.

going from 95 to 98, 98 to ME, 98 to 2k, 2k to xp etc... Never before did new windows operatiing system was both faster and more compatible then previous mainstream system

dxx
03-28-08, 11:56 AM
I back to 95 for my gaming machine! ZOMG itz sooooo fast.

EDIT:Joking aside, if ya don't like Vista, don't use it. All that you say is true, but I still prefer Vista because it's sipmley nicer too look at. Other than that, it is a bit more secure and I have had up to 3.5Gb of RAM being used. In XP it only sees 2.3Gb :(

As for DX10, I never really use it. It's become a bit of joke TBH.

It's not that I don't like Vista - I think it's great, and as a software developer and regular attendee of MSDN events, I find myself far too excited about its new features. It's brilliant. Microsoft have adopted a new ethos of design that bases itself upon scalability and greatly simplified software development that really does make things a lot easier for code monkeys, and once developers get into using the new abilities, it'll make the whole user experience much, much better than is possible under XP.

It's just the performance that's killing it stone-dead for me. I'm an impatient guy. I don't like waiting. Don't like hearing my harddisk rattle all the time, don't like risking broken takes when I'm recording music because of some background service causing a latency spike by doing something unwanted when it thought the PC was relatively idle. I'm not seeing any redeeming virtues of the OS at the moment, and it's bumming me out.

For you though, 2.3GBs - christ! Is that sort of figure common for you SLI-types?

DiscipleDOC
03-28-08, 12:03 PM
DOS 6.22 FTMFW!!!!

(nana2) (nana2) (nana2) :captnkill: :captnkill: :captnkill:

DiscipleDOC
03-28-08, 12:04 PM
I back to 95 for my gaming machine! ZOMG itz sooooo fast.

EDIT:Joking aside, if ya don't like Vista, don't use it. All that you say is true, but I still prefer Vista because it's sipmley nicer too look at. Other than that, it is a bit more secure and I have had up to 3.5Gb of RAM being used. In XP it only sees 2.3Gb :(

As for DX10, I never really use it. It's become a bit of joke TBH.
QFT. I remember when XP came out and people were saying the same thing.

zeejay
03-28-08, 12:10 PM
Screw 32 bit, go XP 64 :captnkill:

LovingSticky
03-28-08, 12:11 PM
Vista x64 is *faster* than XP, while having much more functionality..

http://www.principledtechnologies.com/Clients/Reports/Microsoft/VistaSP1XPVistaBusResp0208.pdf
http://www.principledtechnologies.com/Clients/Reports/Microsoft/VistaSP1XPVistaHomeResp0208.pdf

LordJuanlo
03-28-08, 12:16 PM
I would be willing to bet that most of the Vista lovers are probably porn surfers and that might be the only good reason to use Vista

One of the most retarded statements I have seen on those forums

Revs
03-28-08, 12:27 PM
For you though, 2.3GBs - christ! Is that sort of figure common for you SLI-types?

I'm affraid so. I've got alot of hardware in my mobo and it gobbles up all XP's I/O thingys. As for your HD's clicking away, there are a few things that can be done to stop it. I've got two Raptors in RAID0 and you can imagine the noise they make when Vista is doing 'stuff'. After disabling SuperFetch, PageFile and some other bits I can't remember, it idles just like XP, the odd click here and there, but nothing like it was.

3rd party support is about there now, at least it is for the stuff I use. The (now very small) gap in performance between the two OS's is not enough to bother me either. SP1 has also helped with general usage on Vista. My only real beef with Vista is DreamScene, which, a year on, is still a steaming pile of crap.

BTW, all my works machines are still running XP. I like XP more at work, but Vista for home.

Revs
03-28-08, 12:31 PM
One of the most retarded statements I have seen on those forums

Yeah, I can't see any logic in that statement either. Vista's picture viewer is pants :o

DiscipleDOC
03-28-08, 12:36 PM
One of the most retarded statements I have seen on those forums
Agreed. Some fanbois are just too dumb to see passed their own friggin' nose.

jcrox
03-28-08, 12:46 PM
I just switched back to XP this morning and I haven't noticed any difference in gaming but when it comes to software development and IDEs WOW, XP is so much faster its amazing. The wife isn't going to be happy but, I can see now that I'm just going to need to have 2 computers.... and don't you guys dare tell her about dual booting :bleh:

ViN86
03-28-08, 12:48 PM
Microsoft not letting Vista fail really means nothing to me. It already has failed, in the sense that the latest release can't compete with XP32 for performance or compatibility. Of course, Microsoft won't drop Vista. But they've done nothing to make it better than XP.

Regarding support, I can't imagine that drying up any time soon. Win98's driver support from nVidia ended little over two years ago, and Microsoft are due to support XP until 2014. It's going to take a long time for XP to become the minority OS, and it will be supported for as long as it is profitable to do so. For some companies, Vista support hasn't even begun yet, as the market isn't big enough to warrant it.

And not being able to buy anything other than Vista isn't really a compelling reason to use it through choice...
that's cool that it's failed for you. but the truth is, you will run Vista or you will run mac/linux. there is no way around it. MS will make you run vista. so get used to the idea. it's a buisness, and furthermore, it's a business with a monopoly. so they will forcefeed vista until it's the norm.

Bearclaw
03-28-08, 01:01 PM
I have said it in every other Vista suxxxxor! thread and I will say it in this thread:

Vista a huge improvement over XP. Like an new O/S, or any new piece of software for that matter, it will have its issues, and it does. It isn't perfect yet, and that's why Microsoft has given us the extension until July (I believe, or is it June?). Look at XP, it is just coming out with its 3rd Service Pack and it still isn't perfect. The same will go with Vista.

I just wait for the day when you are running Vista and you try windows 7 and then you go back to Vista saying "Windows 7 SUCKS!!! It is stupid! Windows Vista is so much faster!"

nekrosoft13
03-28-08, 01:06 PM
i'm already scared of windows 7, windows 7 will be modular, as in pay per module.

Mr Bigman
03-28-08, 01:07 PM
Damn, these people never give up do they?

Conroejoe, i know its you in their. Dude give it up already.

I love Vista on my HTPC and wouldn't even think of going back to MCE2005.

With time, things will get beter and beter.

grey_1
03-28-08, 01:44 PM
I just wait for the day when you are running Vista and you try windows 7 and then you go back to Vista saying "Windows 7 SUCKS!!! It is stupid! Windows Vista is so much faster!"
So, So true...Good call bear

Bearclaw
03-28-08, 02:00 PM
i'm already scared of windows 7, windows 7 will be modular, as in pay per module.
Call me FailBear but what exactly does that mean?

diamonddave
03-28-08, 02:06 PM
Call me FailBear but what exactly does that mean?


It means you will be paying for the OS modules. You're a gamer? $50 more than the surf / email version of the OS cause you need the directx /gamers modules.