vista slows computers down, but..

[Jerry_111]

.. do the symptoms also include lowered FPS during games?

 

[VirusType2]

.. do the symptoms also include lowered FPS during games?

Yes.

 

[Barney Fife]

[correction]Bigtime.[/correction]

...:x

 

[Jerry_111]

...:x

Great. While I did fix the vista-unrelated FPS problem I had earlier, when my games would run at an ungodly 10 FPS...

my games are still running at 30-35 FPS now when they were running at a good 50-60 FPS on XP.

Damn you, Microsoft!

 

[Asus]

XP vs Vista reviewed with ATI hardware and Nvidia hardware.

ATI X1950XTX graph.
Nvidia 8800 GTS and 7600 GT graphs.

 

[OmegaX]

Well that sucks. Looks like if your a gamer and want top performance, stick with XP.

 

[Stigmata]

Looks like ATI's ahead of Nvidia in driver performance.

 

[Exploder]

Well that sucks. Looks like if your a gamer and want top performance, stick with XP.

Just you wait. XP doesn't take advantage of multiple cores and 64 bit computing like Vista.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Yes it does.

 

[Exploder]

Yes it does.

Okay you got the 64 bit XP version. But what about DX10 and Multiple Core support?

EDIT: Oh damn you got me confused mate Who are you talking to?

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

DX10 is a bit of a white elephant at the moment, but XP natively handles multicore CPUs just fine.

 

[leib10]

Well that sucks. Looks like if your a gamer and want top performance, stick with XP.

Yep yep. My new lappy will definitely have XP on it.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

to finish the thread sentance
...not the good ones, they go faster.

 

[VirusType2]

to finish the thread sentance
...not the good ones, they go faster.

This is the biggest piece of misinformation I've seen in a while. Well done being extra wrong.

Rumor has it, that Vista can do one or two things faster than XP. What about the other 8 million tasks?

 

[Cole]

Vista uses up more resources. I'd like to point out, a lot of these resources go to making the computer feel more responsive to the user. That is plain and simple fact. The only time this doesn't work out is when your computer is unable to spare the extra resources. Most computers being sold today they have more than enough to spare. This will slow down games an amount, HOWEVER the major problem with speed in games is drivers, not Vista overhead.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Vista does not "slow computers down".

Your equipment is either adequate or it is not.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Thank youuuuuuu.

 

[VirusType2]

Vista takes longer to do everything than XP, regardless of the computer. You can have the fastest computer in the world and XP is going to do everything faster than Vista every time.


It's slower. You guys can twist it around, but you know what he means.


I think it goes without saying that you can increase your framerate with better hardware, as was the case ever since the PC was originated.

'does it lower the framerate in games? Yes. It's a fact. Depending on the game, you might not notice the difference, or care, but most people do. In some games, the difference is quite significant.



The tasks that a computer can do are almost limitless, so don't even bother with the, "difference between .01 seconds and .03 is unnoticeable anyway", because there are many, many, many operations that take considerable time, even in XP. Copying files, defraging the hard drive, converting audio or video, unziping huge files, rendering 3D images, playing games, and so on. I would like these operations to take less time, or perform better, I don't know about you guys.

The difference isn't going from a million frames per second to 150 or whatever, like was said in the other thread, for most of us, it's going from a tolerable framerate, which is anything above like 30, to something much less.

They are benchmarking these games, it's all over the internet. The framerates are significantly lower in Vista compared to XP in every benchmark you can find.

HOWEVER the major problem with speed in games is drivers, not Vista overhead.

Agreed, most people believe that the drivers will make up the difference in the future. This is the main problem for games; shitty audio and video drivers.

However, the tasks I listed above (Copying files, defraging the hard drive, converting audio or video, unziping huge files, rendering 3D images, and so on.) are unaffected by a video or audio driver and still take longer in Vista.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Vista takes longer to do everything than XP, regardless of the computer.

Stopped reading there, my experience > you're pouting.
To be honest I've experienced one problem that was solved by disabling a useless feature in a single game. Framerates are the same if not better in all games.

 

[VirusType2]

Stopped reading there, my experience > you're pouting.
To be honest I've experienced one problem that was solved by disabling a useless feature in a single game. Framerates are the same if not better in all games.

you guys are defensive because you have Vista installed. I am indifferent about which is better. If Vista was faster I'd say it's faster. If the question was which is more secure, I'd say which is more secure, if the question was what has better features, I'd say which has better features.

I can buy Vista right now, but that won't make me be loyal to the point of whitewashing the whole situation. Insulting me does not make you right son. BTW it's your, not you're.


Microsoft knows XP is faster. The entire world knows XP is faster.


You say, "[video game] framerates are the same or better in Vista."

Prove it, and I will eat my shoes and socks. Otherwise...

MICROSOFT is telling its selected gaming industry chaps that gaming under Vista will be ten to fifteen per cent slower than XP. ...

Microsoft support forums are abuzz with people complaining that Vista boots and launches applications far slower than XP

Tips and Tricks Central - Vista slower than XP at start-up, shutdown, gripe users ...

+

Vista is noticeably slower than XP at doing the same tasks

^ Isn't that almost exactly what I said?

Opening folders on our LAN, whether using mapped resources or not takes MUCH longer using vista than any previous OS

Windows Vista users are complaining on online Microsoft forums about annoyingly long times needed to boot, reboot and launch apps with the operating system ...

Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown
Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP.


There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications.


We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue.


Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP. Is this a K.O. for Windows Vista in the enthusiast space?


If you really need your PC to finish huge encoding, transcoding or rendering workloads within a defined time frame, yes, it is. Don't do it; stay with XP. But as long as you don't need to finish workloads in record time, we believe it makes sense to consider these three bullet points:

* Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for free.
* There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead.
* No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor.

Although application performance has had this drawback, the new Windows Vista performance features SuperFetch and ReadyDrive help to make Vista feel faster and smoother than Windows XP. Our next article will tell you how they work.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page11.html

etc. + 668,000


There you go man, now it's your turn.

 

[Codcommando]

I think we can all agree that going Vista is a bad idea at the moment,just like any other brand new software, especially a big undertaking such as Vista. But in a couple of months when the kinks are worked out and more DX10 games come out, we'll all be happier to have it . I just don't understand why people are surprised that a heavy program requires heavier hardware to run the same frame rates or get the same loading times as a less intensive program on lesser hardware.

 

[Cole]

There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications.

This is bullshit because at the time Nvidia and ATI(still doesn't) never had an Open GL driver out at the time. To expect Microsoft to make something for one of it's competitor is retarded.

you guys are defensive because you have Vista installed. I am indifferent about which is better. If Vista was faster I'd say it's faster.

Have you ever even used Vista? Because Faster can mean two different things. Faster in games? No it has more overhead. Faster in searching? Yes, because it uses indexing. Faster when clicking on something? Yes because it's preloads more into memory to get rid of any hanging. Is it faster when loading up applications you use a lot? Hell yeah, because it preloads them into memory. Are .NET programs slower in Vista? My own C# programs have seen substantial performance increases when loading a lot of files from the HD.

I just listed a few cases where Vista is faster than Xp. So please use some better wording. Because yeah Vista is slower at some things, but it is faster at others.

You keep calling it slower. Slower in the sense that it uses up more resources, yes it does.

However most overhead when it comes to GAMES is drivers, not Vista OS.

I'd also like to point out something else to you,

Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better.

The fact is this:
Vista FEELS more responsive and faster. Vista consumes more resources so that when you click on something there will never be hang time. So that when you load up an application that you use everyday it will load up incredibley quick compared to Xp.


Also from the same article you posted,
No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor.

So go back to 98, 95, or DOS if you want speed. Vista is a much more responsive OS, behaves better, and feels better. My games run perfectly fine and quick.
Supreme Commander,
Hitman 4,
Halo,
Starcraft,
Wc3,
D2,
UT2004,
NFS:MW
Company Of Hero's,
Warhammer 40k.

All these games run perfectly fine on Vista, and they run great. This isn't from someone else testing them, this is from my own tests and my own experiences using Vista. I'd also like to note that before I got the latest Nvidia Drivers these games ran like crap. Nvidia didn't have decent drivers until quite a while after Vista came out. So any article you posted about speed should be with the latest drivers.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

Also from the same article you posted,
No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor.

Yup, it's true.

XP was slower than 98 (ignoring ME!), 98 was slower than 95, etc etc

It always happens and then the ISV's will learn how to use the platform to their strengths. Also people will upgrade their hardware so it will improve performance as well.

Vista was sort of a break against the mold against other Windows. The next Windows (codenamed cleverly Windows 7) will have lots of improvements over Vista.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I can buy Vista right now, but that won't make me be loyal to the point of whitewashing the whole situation. Insulting me does not make you right son. BTW it's your, not you're.

so you've been told that you've been pouting so you start pointing out minuscule grammer errors? GJ.

You say, "[video game] framerates are the same or better in Vista."

Prove it, and I will eat my shoes and socks.

Ummm I don't have XP installed anymore, I'm telling you based on what I saw, but my word isn't good enough for you apparently and I don't really care enough to go through any long ass process for you. The best I can give you is what my average framerate was in lets say HL2 at certain settings, and tell you what it is now.
The rest of what you said has either been answered by ^^ or it is more pouting which my experience overweighs to me.

I don't know what processes these tests and whatnot have put Vista through, but everything I do is faster (gaming, surfing the web, school stuff, etc.).

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

My first gripe I have with Vista is the shitty ass sound recorder. On 98 and I think XP I could record any ****ing thing. and my soundcard software came with Wavestudio. Vista's sound recorder can only record mic input and you can not edit the file with sound recorder in any way, and you have to save it as windows media file.

GAY.

I'm trying to find a way to run XPs recorder in Vista.

 

[Cole]

Why not just download a free sound recorder from the net? There's sure to be one awesome project out there.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Haven't looked yet. All I want to do is record speaker sound before it hits the speakers, or what Creative calls "What U Hear" or something.

Does anyone have a newer Creative sound card? Why does their software suck ass now?

 

[VirusType2]

Haven't looked yet. All I want to do is record speaker sound before it hits the speakers, or what Creative calls "What U Hear" or something.

Does anyone have a newer Creative sound card? Why does their software suck ass now?

Creative software has always been pretty good for me, but their drivers on the other hand... that's another story.

I don't know, I guess you tried the Creative media software? That's what I use in XP.

more pouting

Oh quit crying and act your age. It's ****ing annoying already.

I was trying to be nice, but you keep making yourself look stupid tbh. You seem like you have a lot to learn. If you are insulted, then it may be true what they say; the teacher is the only one who wants to learn.

 

[bosox188]

OMG LINUX FTW!!!!! :O

When I get my laptop in I'm just going to dual boot Vista and XP so I have XP to fall back on while Vista works through its growing pains. I'll probably put some Linux like Gentoo on there too.

 

[WhiteZero]

Vista does not "slow computers down".

Your equipment is either adequate or it is not.

lol, thats funny.

Your hardware can be plenty "adequate" to run the OS, but Vista is relatively slower than XP. Thusly it slows you down by comparison.

Anyway, I've been running Vista Business for a couple months now, and it runs fairly well on my PC. But just the OS' general performance (gaming and non-gaming applications) just dipped too low on my 4 year old PC. I've since reinstalled XP.

 

[Cole]

Haven't looked yet. All I want to do is record speaker sound before it hits the speakers, or what Creative calls "What U Hear" or something.

Does anyone have a newer Creative sound card? Why does their software suck ass now?

What card do you have?

Creative very recently released new audigy LS and Live drivers. A must download!

Why does their software suck ass now?

Now? It's sucked ass since the begining of time.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Their Live! XGamer 5.1 package that I got back in 97-98 had awesome editing software and you could tweak just about everything and create your own EA settings. It even came with 3 games, Descen 3, Thief 1, and NFS2. It was bomb.

I got the Audigy 2 ZS (2003 or so) now that also came with 3 games, one of which was broke (Splinter Cell), one was Halo, and one Star Wars I have yet to play, but the software for the card just doesn't really let you do anything. I "upgraded" the drivers and it has even less options than before. I don't even have a mixer! I have to use the Vista one which also has less options than XP. ;_;
I imagine any extra X-Fi soft goodies COST extra. mIrite?

 

[VirusType2]

I imagine any extra X-Fi soft goodies COST extra. mIrite?

EH? X-Fi comes with a shit-load of software. (free)

Main Applications Included:

Creative WDM Audio Device Driver
File Version: 6.0.1.1272
Product Version: 2.13.00.0012

Audio Console 2.30.09
Creative Console Launcher 2.20.16
Creative 3DMIDI Player 1.10.05
Creative Diagnostics 5.01.13
Creative Entertainment Center 3.40.13
SoundFont Bank Manager 3.20.06
Sound Blaster for Media Center 3.10.09
Creative Smart Recorder 2.40.12
THX Console 3.00.12
Creative Volume Panel 2.10.57
Creative WaveStudio 7 (7.10.13)
Creative Software AutoUpdate 1.10.08

Creative MediaSource 5 (5.10.57)
Creative MediaSource Go! 5.00.20
Creative MediaSource Player Skin Pack 5.00.08
Creative MediaSource CD-ROM Burner Plugin 5.01.33
Creative MediaSource MiniDisc Plugin 5.00.11
Creative MediaSource Net Content Plugin 5.00.02
Creative MediaSource Online Store Plugin 5.00.08

http://www.neowin.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t569406.html

http://www.hardwarelogic.com/news/118/ARTICLE/1093/4/2006-02-16.html


http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&hl=en&q=X-Fi software included

It's cool too you can choose what you want to install to reduce the bloat if you aren't going to be using all of it.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Oh quit crying and act your age. It's ****ing annoying already.

I was trying to be nice, but you keep making yourself look stupid tbh. You seem like you have a lot to learn. If you are insulted, then it may be true what they say; the teacher is the only one who wants to learn.

Get over it. I'm saying it how it is, go look up the definition of pouting. I never said I know all there is to know, I'm telling you that XP ran my programs slower than Vista comprehend it or not, that's the way it is.

 

[Asus]

Anandtech's overview of Vista showed it ahead and behind of XP pretty equally. A bit different picture than Tom's article.

I found the difference between CPU bound and GPU bound game testing to be interesting.

EH? X-Fi comes with a shit-load of software. (free)

Which of those then work with Vista?

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Good article. Although I can honestly say it's not worth spending money on Vista yet, then again I didn't
Depending on how things are, it will become more worth it as time goes, distinctively around SP1.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

EH? X-Fi comes with a shit-load of software. (free)
http://www.neowin.net/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t569406.html
http://www.hardwarelogic.com/news/118/ARTICLE/1093/4/2006-02-16.html
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&tab=wi&hl=en&q=X-Fi software included
It's cool too you can choose what you want to install to reduce the bloat if you aren't going to be using all of it.

My XGamer 5.1 had most of that stuff, but my Audigy 2 ZS doesn't. :/

--
Oh I just discovered this: (Vista drivers)
Known issues:

Applications from the original Sound Blaster Audigy CD will not work with this download.
Users are advised to use Audio Console included in this download to change speaker configurations.

This driver does not support the following:
Decoding of Dolby? Digital and DTS? signals
DVD-Audio
DirectSound?-based EAX games
Gameports
6.1 speaker mode.

I'm betting this incompatibility is also why my ingame sounds are not localizing properly..
Looks like I have to upgrade my soundcard...

 

[craig12321]

i think at the moment vista is the worse than home addition xp considering they haven't worked out all the errors