Is Windows Vista faster

[darkhatter]

please fanboys just don't post, I need a real answer. Even with all the spy-ware it still boots up faster, and loads apps alot faster.

[KiwiNZ]

Faster than what ?

Really there is too many variables to answer this question.

[TravisNewman]

faster than XP? Faster than Ubuntu? Not on my box at least.

[professor_chaos]

When I throw it, it goes really fast. ;)

[darkhatter]

sorry, I thought you guys would assume xp, because there is no way I would leave linux to go to windows

[The Noble]

Depends on the box. Slow as **** boxes will find XP faster, while boxes with nice GPUs/CPUs/Ram should have Vista "feel" faster due to a graphics accelerated Desktop and some consolidated code.

[codypumper]

You have to keep in mind windows vista is backwards compatible with xp, so it s almost two os'

[Rhapsody]

You have to keep in mind windows vista is backwards compatible with xp, so it s almost two os'
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Windows Vista is directly based on Windows XP. It's also compatible with Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.0/3.x, and (to a lesser degree) all other versions of Windows with the exception of Windows CE/Mobile.

[_simon_]

On another forum I use, a guy has posted some screenshots of Vista build 5536 installed on his machine.

He has 2 Gig of ram, one screenshot shows his swap usage at 2865Mb. (his total available swap is 3.2Gig)

[Reshin]

On another forum I use, a guy has posted some screenshots of Vista build 5536 installed on his machine.

He has 2 Gig of ram, one screenshot shows his swap usage at 2865Mb. (his total available swap is 3.2Gig)

haha, betas...

[SoundMachine]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Windows Vista is directly based on Windows XP. It's also compatible with Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.0/3.x, and (to a lesser degree) all other versions of Windows with the exception of Windows CE/Mobile.

Vista is directly based on the previous NT lines just as Linux is directly based on Minix.

The code base is completely rewritten.

[slimdog360]

dont worry

[_simon_]

XP is fast out of the box, it's when you start installing stuff it slows down. Who knows if Vista will be the same.

[tofool]

Thats why you goto msconfig and stop all that useless garbage from starting up with Windows. Still, Windows XP will be much faster by default than Vista due to all the fancy shmancy graphical magic in Vista.

[SoundMachine]

Thats why you goto msconfig and stop all that useless garbage from starting up with Windows. Still, Windows XP will be much faster by default than Vista due to all the fancy shmancy graphical magic in Vista.

BlackViper should be hung from a tree for spreading this ignorance. I don't know how many hundreds of thousands of people who complain and rant about Windows not being stable after trying his little tricks.

The latest is that WGA can't validate their system because they turned off cryptographic services, of course, that makes several other important updates fail to install too, all because people read BlackVipers article and thought "omg optizimization".

DON'T touch the services unless you know exactly what you are doing, and by knowing i don't mean reading some website, i mean actual knowledge of the service at hand and what it affects. Same goes for optimizers and regcleaners, don't use them, they'll break more than they'll ever fix.

The truth is that you should leave windows to manage the services all by itself because it knows how it works better than you do, services that aren't used will just be swapped out anyway so if you really need the memory then you will have it.

And Vista will be faster on a computer that can handle it and on other computers it will just default to less effects and graphics.

[DoctorMO]

Oh yay!I can't wait for the strait jacket of operating systems! comes in loads of colours though.

[Rhapsody]

Vista is directly based on the previous NT lines just as Linux is directly based on Minix.

The code base is completely rewritten.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for a reliable source on that, becuase I don't believe you.

[Malac]

That's the trouble though isn't it. We buy all these top of the range computers with the fastest GPU/CPU/RAM then slow the thing down again by introducing more "features" (eye-candy, whatnot). So there is no, perceived, speed increase when you are actually doing anything and the machine runs just as slow as it would if it was a 386 running DOS 6.22 in terms of how fast you get your work down/games to start.
Don't get me wrong I like my eye-candy as much as the next person but don't be surprised if Vista runs just as slow on your brand new hardware as XP runs now on a P3, as far as the perceived speed anyway.
People will still be thumping the Esc key or clicking the mouse, screaming,
:mad: "Come on you stupid *#*#* machine. How long can it take to print a document?":mad:

Just my thoughts. :D

[SoundMachine]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you for a reliable source on that, becuase I don't believe you.

You don't have to, I'm telling you what I know, whether you believe it or not is not my problem at all. :)

Although google will help you if you wish to find more information on the issue, you will find most of it in fragments, piece by piece, from core to network stack to explorer to the various interfaces to IE to driver model and inter-communication.

It's also why DX10 won't be released for and cannot be hacked to work with XP and why backporting it would mean a complete rewrite. ;)

[SoundMachine]

That's the trouble though isn't it. We buy all these top of the range computers with the fastest GPU/CPU/RAM then slow the thing down again by introducing more "features" (eye-candy, whatnot). So there is no, perceived, speed increase when you are actually doing anything and the machine runs just as slow as it would if it was a 386 running DOS 6.22 in terms of how fast you get your work down/games to start.
Don't get me wrong I like my eye-candy as much as the next person but don't be surprised if Vista runs just as slow on your brand new hardware as XP runs now on a P3, as far as the perceived speed anyway.
People will still be thumping the Esc key or clicking the mouse, screaming,
:mad: "Come on you stupid *#*#* machine. How long can it take to print a document?":mad:

Just my thoughts. :D


As i mentioned earlier, if your HW isn't capable of all the features and effects then they simply won't be available by default, you can turn them up if you wish and make it slower though.

For those of you who have ever run KDE, you know pretty much how this works, you get a suggestion based on your hardware and you can turn it up or down from there.

However, if you are thinking about running Vista, check out the recommended specs before you waste your hard earned money on something that you may not even be able to use.

[ago]

Vista is directly based on the previous NT lines just as Linux is directly based on Minix.

The code base is completely rewritten.

A few parts have been rewritten, like the network stack, but the vast majority of the code is exactly the same as NT. Vista is simply a multi-patched NT, same car, different seats and a few fixes. Many expect a full rewrite in the next version.

Linux and Minix do not have anything in common.

[rejser]

Love the idea to have an state of the art computer just to run the OS. It is the OS I use when I start my computer.... no wait, it's the applications that should use system resources not the OS.

[SoundMachine]

A few parts have been rewritten, like the network stack, but the vast majority of the code is exactly the same as NT. Vista is simply a multi-patched NT, same car, different seats and a few fixes. Many expect a full rewrite in the next version.

Linux and Minix do not have anything in common.

No, the entire core, the interfaces, the driver model, the network stack, the audio stack, the video subsystem, pretty much every piece of software shipped with it including filesystem intercommunication has been rewritten.

Minix and Linux has about as much in common with Minix as XP has with Vista. Just like Linux was written to replace Minix (Linus's original intended goal) Vista was written to replace XP.

Don't be fooled by the backwards compatibility, XP has DOS16 backwards compatibility but that doesn't mean it shares any code with DOS16, not even the filesystem drivers even though it is quite capable of both creating and using the FAT filesystem, the driver and the tools for doing so shares no code with DOS.

I notice you like to fling a lot of FUD about Windows around, why do you do that?

[SoundMachine]

Love the idea to have an state of the art computer just to run the OS. It is the OS I use when I start my computer.... no wait, it's the applications that should use system resources not the OS.

On a normal system, resources like memory should be used and distributed by the OS, whatever isn't used is just wasted.

It's a common misconception that little free memory or using swap space (or page file) reduces performance, the OS should balance it out so that whatever is unused ends up being paged out and the resulting free memory available for caching. Most of the paging isn't really seen anyway since it won't page out anything that hasn't been changed, it will just file it for later use if needed and then read it back from the files initial location.

Linux is very good at making this transparent to the user but so is XP.

[ago]

Facts

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/vista/kernel-en.mspx


Microsoft has made substantial enhancements to the kernel

Not even microsoft talks about a full rewrite... When they do a full rewrite we know about it. And last time it was with NT.

[SoundMachine]

Facts

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/vista/kernel-en.mspx



Not even microsoft talks about a full rewrite... When they do a full rewrite we know about it. And last time it was with NT.

*sigh*

What they are talking about are the improvements in the kernel, that doesn't say anything about what has or has not been rewritten.

[ago]

*sigh*

What they are talking about are the improvements in the kernel, that doesn't say anything about what has or has not been rewritten.

Look if you had said that XP:Vista=Linux24:Linux26 I would have had no objections. But if you claim XP:Vista=Minix:Linux26 I must object.

[darkhatter]

wasn't windows xp rewritten from the ground up, thats what they say during the install I think

[ago]

With XP they sticked 98 interface on top of NT kernel... But it was the NT kernel, with some enhancments but an NT kernel. In fact if you look at the numbeing from windows 2000 to windows XP it went from NT5.0 to NT5.1... Hardly an indication of a full rewrite...

[hizaguchi]

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Windows Vista is directly based on Windows XP. It's also compatible with Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.0/3.x, and (to a lesser degree) all other versions of Windows with the exception of Windows CE/Mobile.
Maybe he's talking about coLinux? :)

[ago]

Hardly an indication of a full rewrite...

To be more precise, XP was a full rewrite with respect to 95/98 whose architecture was discontinued, because they moved to the NT architecture. It certainly was not a rewrite with respect to NT.

[gruffy-06]

You have to keep in mind windows vista is backwards compatible with xp, so it s almost two os'

That means 2x more viruses and security threats.

[Malac]

As i mentioned earlier, if your HW isn't capable of all the features and effects then they simply won't be available by default, you can turn them up if you wish and make it slower though.

For those of you who have ever run KDE, you know pretty much how this works, you get a suggestion based on your hardware and you can turn it up or down from there.

However, if you are thinking about running Vista, check out the recommended specs before you waste your hard earned money on something that you may not even be able to use.

Sorry you mis-understand me.
I was just pointing out that Vista won't be any faster on a new machine than XP was on a "new" machine at the time XP was released (You could turn off the enhancements with XP too).
What I mean is the faster machines hardware gets MS seems to try to utilise the extra processing power, RAM, faster disk access, to make it look pretty. So the actual work you do/games you play don't run or load any faster as at least some of these better resources are being used by the OS instead of your word-processor or DOOM version whatever.

As a laugh I once installed Win95 on a partition of my new machine that was designed for XP, it ran everything really quickly as it wasn't trying to do loads of bells and whistles just opening programs. (Admittedly it crashed still but that was always part of the Windows 95 experience.) :)

[Iandefor]

Just like Linux was written to replace Minix (Linus's original intended goal) Vista was written to replace XP. Read Just For Fun. Torvalds' original goal was a less bloaty terminal emulator, of all things.

The Pedant Strikes Again :-D!

[SoundMachine]

To be more precise, XP was a full rewrite with respect to 95/98 whose architecture was discontinued, because they moved to the NT architecture. It certainly was not a rewrite with respect to NT.

Look, you are spreading FUD all around this forum, you don't know anything about it and i can't do more than to tell you what i know.

I'll leave this discussion with you at that since you are obviously not interested in knowing anything at all but persistent in spreading FUD regarding things you know nothing about.

[SoundMachine]

Read Just For Fun. Torvalds' original goal was a less bloaty terminal emulator, of all things.

The Pedant Strikes Again :-D!

Yeah, i know, but that wouldn't be pertinent to this discussion, his original goal with "Freax" which became Linux was to create a replacement for Minix. :)

[SoundMachine]

Sorry you mis-understand me.
I was just pointing out that Vista won't be any faster on a new machine than XP was on a "new" machine at the time XP was released (You could turn off the enhancements with XP too).
What I mean is the faster machines hardware gets MS seems to try to utilise the extra processing power, RAM, faster disk access, to make it look pretty. So the actual work you do/games you play don't run or load any faster as at least some of these better resources are being used by the OS instead of your word-processor or DOOM version whatever.

As a laugh I once installed Win95 on a partition of my new machine that was designed for XP, it ran everything really quickly as it wasn't trying to do loads of bells and whistles just opening programs. (Admittedly it crashed still but that was always part of the Windows 95 experience.) :)

And i'm telling you that you are wrong. Vista is the first Windows version designed to scale well on better hardware, running Vista without debuggin on recent hardware is faster than running XP on the same rig, i can't do much more than tell you that and if you want to believe me or not is entirely up to you.

W95, eh? Try an early Linux version with the current install and it flies on a 486, so does 95... What does that tell you? Absolutely nothing.

[ago]

Look, you are spreading FUD all around this forum, you don't know anything about it and i can't do more than to tell you what i know.

You claim XP:Vista=Minix:Linux26, but I am the one spreading FUD...

You claim that there has been a full rewrite from XP to NT and there is NO TRACE in microsoft website of such a thing... They talk of "enhancements"... but I am the one spreading FUD...

As for the move from W2000 to XP the versin number went from NT5.0 to NT5.1. And that is microsoft again choosing those numbers. So guess what... certainly no kernell rewrite there either...

So who is spreading FUD here?

[SoundMachine]

That means 2x more viruses and security threats.

And pray tell, how is a virus supposed to plant itself when it has no writable access to excecutables?

Ignorance is only bliss for those who are truly ignorant enough to disregard their own ignorance.

There is no nice way to say this so i'll just say it.

All of you who don't have a clue, feel free to ask questions but for the LOVE OF GOD stop making statements this ignorant.

Linux can hold it's own against Vista, no need for the fear, panic and FUD slinging unless you truly don't believe that Linux is good enough.

[bruce89]

Is Windows Vista faster
Depends what you mean by faster, and also in respect to what. I thought this was a question, not a statement.

[gThree]

@Malac:

Get where you're coming from, and agree. I remember an early version of WordPerfect available for free on Mac OS9 and they had to patch it to slow it down enough to make it usable. Covered most necessary word processing features, as I recall. In short, we could be running lightning-quick apps/operations via minimalistic operating systems/interfaces ... and getting the same tasks done faster.

This is why Linux is so interesting. Feature-itis and flash may be more necessary in commercial software to drive upgrades. Which also push hardware sales. Win-win ... if you're on the selling end.

Linux, on the other hand, is free to explore things like Xfce and Openbox, which add value on the buyer side. Plus new versions of Linux are free.

Will be interesting to see how that tension plays out ... and which model consumers gravitate toward in long run.

[SoundMachine]

@Malac:

Get where you're coming from, and agree. I remember an early version of WordPerfect available for free on Mac OS9 and they had to patch it to slow it down enough to make it usable. Covered most necessary word processing features, as I recall. In short, we could be running lightning-quick apps/operations via minimalistic operating systems/interfaces ... and getting the same tasks done faster.

This is why Linux is so interesting. Feature-itis and flash may be more necessary in commercial software to drive upgrades. Which also push hardware sales. Win-win ... if you're on the selling end.

Linux, on the other hand, is free to explore things like Xfce and Openbox, which add value on the buyer side. Plus new versions of Linux are free.

Will be interesting to see how that tension plays out ... and which model consumers gravitate toward in long run.

XGL and now AIGLX is implemented in Xorg, metacity is implementing it's own compozite extension and if you don't like it you have equals in XFCE and others.

You want to catch the eye, you need flare, the primadonnas always knew that and so do the devs.

I do agree that Linux is one of the most interesting OS's right now, right alongside DragonflyBSD for me.

But that the Linux OS as a whole deosn't suffer from feature-itis and flash is just not true.

Fortunantly Linus himself is fairly level-headed so distros like Slackware will always be there to provide stability instead of the latest greatest new trix and kix.

[Koori23]

Vista will be the first Microsoft OS that's actually patterned on the UNIX way of doing things as far as users go. From what I see, it's basically making the "RunAs" command integrated and make software developers pay better attention to where their software writes and reads from the registry.

[Malac]

Vista will be the first Microsoft OS that's actually patterned on the UNIX way of doing things as far as users go. From what I see, it's basically making the "RunAs" command integrated and make software developers pay better attention to where their software writes and reads from the registry.
Great so MS are now trying to convince people to buy a product that's going to be the same as one you can get for free. :)

But you know what, because it's MS some people will buy it for no other reason than it's what they know and they're being told is the latest and greatest.
More fool them I say.

Save your pennies and spend the OS fee on better hardware.

[Malac]

And i'm telling you that you are wrong. Vista is the first Windows version designed to scale well on better hardware, running Vista without debuggin on recent hardware is faster than running XP on the same rig, i can't do much more than tell you that and if you want to believe me or not is entirely up to you.

W95, eh? Try an early Linux version with the current install and it flies on a 486, so does 95... What does that tell you? Absolutely nothing.

That most OS now is full of software bloat.

XP scales to your system that's what the; "best look", "best performance" or "let windows decide", options are for in System Properties.
So Vista auto-scales, wuppy-doo, you can have what MS thinks is important for your CPU to be working on. No thanks, I'd rather make that decision myself. :)

[darkhatter]

I will never ask a windows question on this forum
I will never ask a windows question on this forum
I will never ask a windows question on this forum
I will never ask a windows question on this forum
I will never ask a windows question on this forum
I will never ask a windows question on this forum
I will never ask a windows question on this forum
I will never ask a windows question on this forum
I will never ask a windows question on this forum
I will never ask a windows question on this forum


I just wanted to know if I would notice a faster response kde of like the jump from kde 3.4 to 3.5. most of you have no idea how fast kde is when you use slackware.

thats it

I don't need 5 pages of users proving they know nothing

I don't want to download the beta, but it looks like I'm going to need it in the end.

[xpod]

WHOA....

THAT was a good read.....DONT KNOCK widnows people......It was "using"
it for 5 months that brought me here...=D> ;)

I will certainly be spending my new pc cash on some decent "hardware" as apose to EURO`s FOR EULAS`S

I got a great "vista" just looking out my "windows".....THATS plenty for me

BIG UP the penguin

EDIT:..And i REALLY dont know s**T about the things

[frup]

who cares how fast it is... people who dont know anything about computers just think the more expensive stuff is the better it is...

thats why in newzealand they are able to sell laptops for around $3300, where i could get basically the best laptop from alienware for a similar price with only the things i want (except they force windows :( ) crazy. i mean how can vendors justify selling anything with only 512mb of ram! vistas gonna run really slow on that! but who cares really...

[SoundMachine]

That most OS now is full of software bloat.

XP scales to your system that's what the; "best look", "best performance" or "let windows decide", options are for in System Properties.
So Vista auto-scales, wuppy-doo, you can have what MS thinks is important for your CPU to be working on. No thanks, I'd rather make that decision myself. :)

Actually it tells you that most of the functionality you find in an newer OS is not available.

I don't run anything MS myself but i am responsible for 160+ machines running MS software, so Vista with it's security measures makes my life easier. :)

And btw, Kubuntu does exactly the same thing, or rather KDE, regardless of what OS you run it on does just that, you CAN of course set it higher or lower, it is your choice.

In gnome though, you just don't get the choice, it's set for you, part of the simplicity concept (because you CAN set it via gconf, Gnomes stupid implementation of the worst thing since the incarnation of w95, the registry).

[Mathiasdm]

No, the entire core, the interfaces, the driver model, the network stack, the audio stack, the video subsystem, pretty much every piece of software shipped with it including filesystem intercommunication has been rewritten.

Minix and Linux has about as much in common with Minix as XP has with Vista. Just like Linux was written to replace Minix (Linus's original intended goal) Vista was written to replace XP.

Don't be fooled by the backwards compatibility, XP has DOS16 backwards compatibility but that doesn't mean it shares any code with DOS16, not even the filesystem drivers even though it is quite capable of both creating and using the FAT filesystem, the driver and the tools for doing so shares no code with DOS.

I notice you like to fling a lot of FUD about Windows around, why do you do that?

He flings FUD around?
Vista is not a full rewrite.
Parts are rewritten, not everything.

Linux has no Minix code, while Vista still has lots of XP code.
I dare you to go to www.neowin.net (a Windows-centered site) and share this 'rewritten from the ground' information. I'd love to see the responses :p
You've shown no proof of 'the complete rewrite', but claim we should believe you anyway. Okay...


And pray tell, how is a virus supposed to plant itself when it has no writable access to excecutables?

Ignorance is only bliss for those who are truly ignorant enough to disregard their own ignorance.

There is no nice way to say this so i'll just say it.

All of you who don't have a clue, feel free to ask questions but for the LOVE OF GOD stop making statements this ignorant.

Linux can hold it's own against Vista, no need for the fear, panic and FUD slinging unless you truly don't believe that Linux is good enough.

I agree.

[SoundMachine]

He flings FUD around?
Vista is not a full rewrite.
Parts are rewritten, not everything.

Linux has no Minix code, while Vista still has lots of XP code.
I dare you to go to www.neowin.net (a Windows-centered site) and share this 'rewritten from the ground' information. I'd love to see the responses :p
You've shown no proof of 'the complete rewrite', but claim we should believe you anyway. Okay...



I agree.

As i have said before, it's up to you to believe me or not, I'm not going to provide jack **** but my knowledge (i can't), if that isn't good enough for you, then that is YOUR problem, not mine. :)

But first he doesn't want to admit that Vista is entirely rewritten (60% my ***, everyone who ever worked on a bigger project knows that anything above 0.01 prettty much means a complete rewrite).

Then he comes into another thread and refuses to understand that GNU programs such as GIMP and Gnome are important contributions to the Linux OS.

I'm sorry but i don't have the patience nor the time to deal with such idiots.

[ago]

But first he doesn't want to admit that Vista is entirely rewritten

I don't want to admit that Vista is a complete rewrite simply because it is NOT a complete rewrite... That is one of your lies..


Then he comes into another thread and refuses to understand that GNU programs such as GIMP and Gnome are important contributions to the Linux OS.

Learn no to read! I was talking of the linux KERNEL. The whole thread was about kernels... And NO, Gimp is NOT a contribution to the linux kernel...

Let's not forget your other perls, things like: "no need for AV in windows if you are careful", or "windows performance does not deteriorate with time"....

[darkhatter]

The Whole Thread Was Created To Find Out If I Was Going To See A Speed Increase If I Use Vista!!!!!

[Malac]

The Whole Thread Was Created To Find Out If I Was Going To See A Speed Increase If I Use Vista!!!!!

No you won't, IMHO.

:confused:And why the heck are you starting a Microsoft Windows thread on an Ubuntu/Linux forum. :)

[darkhatter]

cause I thought you guys would be better then windows users, but I was so wrong your just as bad, sometimes worse

[SoundMachine]

The Whole Thread Was Created To Find Out If I Was Going To See A Speed Increase If I Use Vista!!!!!

List your hardware and I'll tell you.

Don't expect me to find specifics on my own, list it all, including what chipset and so on.

The more specific, the better.

Oh, and don't mind the trolls, they think that if they hate windows then Linux will magically become better.

[SoundMachine]

No you won't, IMHO.

Explain how you came to that conclusion.

[Mathiasdm]

cause I thought you guys would be better then windows users, but I was so wrong your just as bad, sometimes worse

Sorry about the off-topic-ness. Let's drag it back :)

[Senori]

Vista is directly based on the previous NT lines just as Linux is directly based on Minix.

The code base is completely rewritten.
This isn't at all true.

Windows Vista is the Windows Server 2003 codebase with numerous additions. It features a substantially (but not completely) rewritten kernel, among other things, but it was not rewritten any more than Linux was rewritten in the change from OSS to ALSA. It includes *new* things, but the majority of the NT codebase still exists.

edit: See the words of Mark Lucovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lucovsky), one of the architects of Windows, here (http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/03/25/can-this-week-ever-end/#comment-21198).

[SoundMachine]

This isn't at all true.

Windows Vista is the Windows Server 2003 codebase with numerous additions. It features a substantially (but not completely) rewritten kernel, among other things, but it was not rewritten any more than Linux was rewritten in the change from OSS to ALSA. It includes *new* things, but the majority of the NT codebase still exists.

edit: See the words of Mark Lucovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lucovsky), one of the architects of Windows, here (http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/03/25/can-this-week-ever-end/#comment-21198).

Actually you are correct, however, the entire core was rewritten for W2K3 server.

So compared to XP, which was what i was referring to, the codebase is completly rewritten, everything from core to distributed software.

[Malac]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malac http://www.ubuntuforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1454515#post1454515)
No you won't, IMHO.


Explain how you came to that conclusion.

See previous posts.

[SoundMachine]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malac http://www.ubuntuforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1454515#post1454515)
No you won't, IMHO.



See previous posts.

Your statement, you back it up without any of their bs.

Or you admit that you have no clue.

[Senori]

Actually you are correct, however, the entire core was rewritten for W2K3 server.

So compared to XP, which was what i was referring to, the codebase is completly rewritten, everything from core to distributed software.
Er--Windows Server 2003 is built on the NT 5.0 codebase of Windows 2000 and Windows XP (it's 5.2 in their marketing, whereas Vista with its new APIs and rewritten portions is 6.0.) Most of the code in every Windows release since 2000 is legacy NT code, as Lucovsky said.

[SoundMachine]

Er--Windows Server 2003 is built on the NT 5.0 codebase of Windows 2000 and Windows XP (it's 5.2 in their marketing, whereas Vista with its new APIs and rewritten portions is 6.0.) Most of the code in every Windows release since 2000 is legacy NT code, as Lucovsky said.

Actually teh W2K3 kernel is a revsion of 5.1, which in itself has an entirely different codebase compared to 5.0.

I can't do much more than tell you that you are wrong, the 6.0 kernel is written from scratch, so is every subsystem and every piece of hardware.

Of course, for you winblowz suxorz people, knowledge wont stop you from bashing MS.

I don't run MS systems personally, but i work for a company where i have to know it, unttil i get a properly distributed system in place, SuSE will probably be it.

[aysiu]

cause I thought you guys would be better then windows users, but I was so wrong your just as bad, sometimes worse
That's not really fair. Your question was answered several times in the first three pages of the thread. Just ignore this debate about whether Vista is a complete code rewrite or not, and you'll see people are actually trying to help you.

From what I understand--based on the relevant responses to your original question--XP will be faster on "older" hardware (i.e., pre-2007 hardware), and if you buy Vista preinstalled, it will same roughly the same speed.

It's not really a question of faster or slower unless you're planning to install Vista on a "low-spec" machine (like 512 MB of RAM with a 1.6 GHz processor). If you buy Vista preinstalled, the hardware manufacturer will likely give you well beyond the minimum specifications for Vista.

This sort of thing has always happened. Install XP on a previously Windows 98 computer, and you'll see that XP is slow. Buy XP preinstalled on a current computer, and it'll seem fast.

[darkhatter]

That's not really fair. Your question was answered several times in the first three pages of the thread. Just ignore this debate about whether Vista is a complete code rewrite or not, and you'll see people are actually trying to help you.

From what I understand--based on the relevant responses to your original question--XP will be faster on "older" hardware (i.e., pre-2007 hardware), and if you buy Vista preinstalled, it will same roughly the same speed.

It's not really a question of faster or slower unless you're planning to install Vista on a "low-spec" machine (like 512 MB of RAM with a 1.6 GHz processor). If you buy Vista preinstalled, the hardware manufacturer will likely give you well beyond the minimum specifications for Vista.

This sort of thing has always happened. Install XP on a previously Windows 98 computer, and you'll see that XP is slow. Buy XP preinstalled on a current computer, and it'll seem fast.

sorry I was just looking for a clear answer, I guess I'm done with this thread thanks everyone, Linux is almost really for my hardware, all I have to do is wait for my nvidia geforce go 6100 to get supported and I'm ready to go. Vista looks too much like a pretty windows XP I don't really see the osx connections, but anyway.

[Skizem]

I ironically had this exact discussion today with a buddy at the local PC shop where I buy everything.

I've had the 'pleasure' (I use that word losely) of testing out the Beta release of Vista, in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. My impressions were, well...disgusted.

Vista was s-l-o-w on both my Laptop and my Desktop. There were cosntant crashes, system lags, and random visual anomalies that would only resolve themselves with a reboot. Windows would get stuck in strange positions, or would dissapear when I resized them.

Speed-wise, I didn't really notice any great improvements over XP, in fact it seemed slower and more bogged down. The only time I noticed speed improvements was when I actually disabled all the pretty visualizations and just ran in the 'Classic' mode.

The user interface has a very high learning curve, and I can see elderly users or even just veteran XP users being very, very, very confused for the first few months of usage. It felt less streamlined than XP, and I found myself constantly searching for files I had downloaded, because of XPs simply awful 'My Documents' replacement, which somehow got located in about 3 places on the hard drive.

However, I guess everyone should keep in mind that Vista hasn't even hit a Release-Candidate Status yet, so a lot of bugs and trouble is to be expected at this point.

However, all that being said, I think any operating system which requires a 1GHz processor to run, is useless.

[SoundMachine]

[QUOTE=Skizem;1455936]I ironically had this exact discussion today with a buddy at the local PC shop where I buy everything.

I've had the 'pleasure' (I use that word losely) of testing out the Beta release of Vista, in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. My impressions were, well...disgusted.

Vista was s-l-o-w on both my Laptop and my Desktop. There were cosntant crashes, system lags, and random visual anomalies that would only resolve themselves with a reboot. Windows would get stuck in strange positions, or would dissapear when I resized them.[/QUOTE

Try enabling all debugging code in Ubunty, it will take well over five minutes to even boot.

About 1-2 minures to start firfox and so on.

[SoundMachine]

That's not really fair. Your question was answered several times in the first three pages of the thread. Just ignore this debate about whether Vista is a complete code rewrite or not, and you'll see people are actually trying to help you.

From what I understand--based on the relevant responses to your original question--XP will be faster on "older" hardware (i.e., pre-2007 hardware), and if you buy Vista preinstalled, it will same roughly the same speed.

It's not really a question of faster or slower unless you're planning to install Vista on a "low-spec" machine (like 512 MB of RAM with a 1.6 GHz processor). If you buy Vista preinstalled, the hardware manufacturer will likely give you well beyond the minimum specifications for Vista.

This sort of thing has always happened. Install XP on a previously Windows 98 computer, and you'll see that XP is slow. Buy XP preinstalled on a current computer, and it'll seem fast.

ON any hardware you can run it on, vista is fastter than XP.

[aysiu]

ON any hardware you can run it on, vista is fastter than XP.
On an 800 MHz processor with 512 MB or RAM, Vista is faster than XP? That's interesting.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/systemrequirements.mspx

You got benchmarks for that?

When Microsoft says "minimum requirements," they mean minimum. Have you ever seen XP on a 233 MHz computer with 64 MB of RAM?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx

These two studies would seem to go against your claim, particularly since the one where Vista was faster in some respects needed a 3.2 GHz processor and 1 GB of RAM:
http://passmark.com/forum/showthread.php?t=438
http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6543881.html?tag=blog

[K.Mandla]

All that being said, I think any operating system which requires a 1GHz processor to run, is useless.
Excellent point. That, my friend, is why I will never buy, install or use Vista of my own free will. I'm done with upgrading at the point of a gun. I'll spend my money helping out people who make software that works for me and doesn't abandon me for lack of proper hardware.

[Senori]

Actually teh W2K3 kernel is a revsion of 5.1, which in itself has an entirely different codebase compared to 5.0.
5.0 is Windows 2000. :-P


I can't do much more than tell you that you are wrong, the 6.0 kernel is written from scratch, so is every subsystem and every piece of hardware.
The Vista kernel has been substantially redone, yes, I admitted that previously. But it contains most of the legacy code from previous NT revisions.


Of course, for you winblowz suxorz people, knowledge wont stop you from bashing MS.
Er...

I'm typing this from a PowerBook. I have a Windows computer a few feet away from me. I run Linux usually, but all systems have their benefits (heck, I've played around with Haiku.)

It isn't a matter of being prejudiced against Windows to say that the operating system wasn't rewritten from scratch; it's the truth. Most of Windows XP and older is still there in Windows Vista, even if it isn't all used.

[Mathiasdm]

Actually teh W2K3 kernel is a revsion of 5.1, which in itself has an entirely different codebase compared to 5.0.

I can't do much more than tell you that you are wrong, the 6.0 kernel is written from scratch, so is every subsystem and every piece of hardware.

Of course, for you winblowz suxorz people, knowledge wont stop you from bashing MS.

I don't run MS systems personally, but i work for a company where i have to know it, unttil i get a properly distributed system in place, SuSE will probably be it.

So we're 'winblows suxorz people', because we don't agree with you?
I don't agree with you, because MS has always stated there are PARTS of Vista that are rewritten.
By contrast, like I already said, you have given us nothing.

This discussion is leading nowhere, as I'm sure you will give us exactly NO proof whatsoever of what you say.

Oh, and fyi, I use Windows, as well as Ubuntu.

[ago]

ON any hardware you can run it on, vista is fastter than XP.

So how come that hardware requirements for vista compatible are 3X those of XP, and for vista premium are 6X?

From Ms Website

XP
PC with 300 megahertz recommended (233 miniumum)
Memory 128MB recommended (64 MB minimum)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx

Vista Compatible
"Modern processor" 800Mhz
Memory 512MB

Vista Premium
1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
Memory 1GB
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx

[ago]

If I can have my go at the original question, considering that I did not try Vista and do not plan to do so....

On same old hardware vista will run slower than XP, simply because it will choke (considering the requirements above).

But if you run both on new hardware that has enough headroom, some operations will be faster, some will be slower, but overall vista will feel faster. I would not be surprised if they invested time in improving boot time, shutdown time, hybernation, preloading, file system linearization, offloading of GUI tasks to the GPU...

Just a blind guess, take it as such.

[ago]

But if you run both on new hardware that has enough headroom

Consider that historically "enough headroom" = 3X MS recommended requirements...

[encompass]

I have many things that my linux box does and it does them all very well.
HTTP server
ssh server
vnc
xdmcp remote logins
live online webcam
media center
and it seems to run very smoothly.
Booting speed is not what I want. I never sut my computer off.
Linux is a server based OS. Built for stability and security. Not fast booting and video games.
Do you have linux on your computer right now? What have you done with it? Is it useful to you?
Additionaly when you look at windows and linux... linux feels, at least to me, that linux is more responsive when under a load. It manages my resourse better(I never have to defrag) and provides me with information only when I ask for it.
I like that, linux is built by people for the people. The features in this OS are what people are wanting, how do I know? because they wouldn't have been volunteeraly added would they.

[PingunZ]

I tell you, it is a lot worse than Windows XP.
I installed the beta, I had like 100 popups when trying to remove something of the desktop.
Its NOT user-friendly, and SLOOOOW.

[Malac]

Your statement, you back it up without any of their bs.

Or you admit that you have no clue.

Scenario 1: Typical not bad/not good computer for 1998
Pentium 3 700Mhz PC with 256MB RAM running Windows '98 and Excel 97.
On a 90 row x 30 column spreadsheet set of medium complexity calculations takes;
2 mins 33 secs to complete.

Scenario 2: Typical not bad/not good computer for 2001
Pentium 4 1.4GHz PC with 512MB RAM running Windows XP and Excel XP.
On the same 90 row x 30 column spreadsheet set of medium complexity calculations takes;
2 mins 34 secs to complete.

This was my point. Virtually no difference in time taken for the software written at the time for the hardware of the time.

That's my last word on this. If you can't see what I'm trying to say. We'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

Edit:
Okay just done an install of OS and software from Scenario 1 on to system from Scenario 2 and ran same thing this time it took 1 mins 11sec.

The conclusion if you are looking for one:
Run an old OS and old software on new PC hardware and you can have faster computing. :biggrin:

[dadoprom]

I choose FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!! I like to know and to see, not only use! I have no time and no money for micrrrrrrrsoot, sorry Bill. LINUX

[arkangel]

So how come that hardware requirements for vista compatible are 3X those of XP, and for vista premium are 6X?

From Ms Website

XP
PC with 300 megahertz recommended (233 miniumum)
Memory 128MB recommended (64 MB minimum)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx

Vista Compatible
"Modern processor" 800Mhz
Memory 512MB

Vista Premium
1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
Memory 1GB
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx

this is ridiculous 1 gb of ram and 128 graphic card , this a normal computer you can buy righ now , what would happen in 1 year or 2 after installing normal software ?, your computer wont be able to do simple tasks

I dont believe vista is faster than linux , try to install equivalent software in both systems , then use your systems after an uptime of one week (without restarting ) ...



I have many things that my linux box does and it does them all very well.
HTTP server
ssh server
vnc
xdmcp remote logins
live online webcam
media center
and it seems to run very smoothly...
plus all these things , i can do on my laptop without noticing slow down on my system

[argie]

I tell you, it is a lot worse than Windows XP.
I installed the beta, I had like 100 popups when trying to remove something of the desktop.
Its NOT user-friendly, and SLOOOOW.

Well, I wouldn't judge by that. It's a Beta after all.

Still, I don't want an OS that has it's lowest memory requirement as twice my current memory.

[DoctorMO]

Mostly my objections are non technical, even if I could run Vista I wouldn't. it's just not the kind of ball ands chain I wanted in my IT world.

[bruce89]

It might be faster, but only due to the inflated system requirements.

[NoTiG]

For me, windows xp is faster than gnome ubuntu dapper. At least before windows gets infested with spyware and stuff. I havent experimented with speed up improvements though yet like prelinking and stuff. And the difference is only a slight snappiness.

[Donshyoku]

I got into Vista Pre-RC1 and used it for a few days. Driver support on my dekstop gives me no network and no audio. That didn't last long.

I put it on my laptop and used it for a day. They made good improvements to the speed and reliability... but it is not at all faster for me. On my laptop, RAM usage was over 400MB at any given time and CPU usage was over 60%. This is sitting idle on the desktop with no applications and the gadgets Sidebar applet disabled.

I don't want to buy more RAM or upgrade my processor just to be able to do things in Vista that have worked just fine on my current system in Ubuntu.

[darkhatter]

I got into Vista Pre-RC1 and used it for a few days. Driver support on my dekstop gives me no network and no audio. That didn't last long.

I put it on my laptop and used it for a day. They made good improvements to the speed and reliability... but it is not at all faster for me. On my laptop, RAM usage was over 400MB at any given time and CPU usage was over 60%. This is sitting idle on the desktop with no applications and the gadgets Sidebar applet disabled.

I don't want to buy more RAM or upgrade my processor just to be able to do things in Vista that have worked just fine on my current system in Ubuntu.


I found a copy of the RC hanging around on the internet so I'm getting that, I hope they handle ram like Linux does and cache everything, cause I have 512 with a geforce go 6100 128 mb so I don't have ram falling out of my pockets

[Donshyoku]

I found a copy of the RC hanging around on the internet so I'm getting that, I hope they handle ram like Linux does and cache everything, cause I have 512 with a geforce go 6100 128 mb so I don't have ram falling out of my pockets

I noticed a lot of RAM cached (though I don't fully understand what this means!) on my desktop, but not so much on my laptop.

[Reshin]

The default startup sound is going to be mandatory (http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/08/24/the-startup-sound-in-vista/). OK, doesn't bother me cuz I never change the sounds, but wtf? :confused:

[ago]

The default startup sound is going to be mandatory (http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/2006/08/24/the-startup-sound-in-vista/). OK, doesn't bother me cuz I never change the sounds, but wtf? :confused:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6208163735508209541 ;)