Ads
Ads
All about Software
 Latest Software articles
Benchmarking Windows 7: Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger?

Benchmarking Windows 7: Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger?
Often hailed as the solution to Windows Vista performance problems, we wanted to know just how much better Windows 7 really is. We put one of our most recent test platforms through its paces to find out, benchmarking raw performance and responsiveness. Read More

  • How To: Windows XP Mode In...Ubuntu Linux?
    Windows 7's XP Mode has already convinced many users who sat out for Vista to go out and upgrade. But will they buy the right version of Windows 7 to get XPM? You do know you can get the same XP functionality from a Linux distribution for free, right? Read More
All Software articles

Newsletters


  • Ask your question about IT issues
  • Post

Partners

The Games selection

kids : Bob Throw bubbles so as to make the ones that appear in the game disappear. For this, use the Right / Left arrow keys to duck or move about, and the...
crazy : PC Breakdown What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
Ads

Sponsored links

Microsoft Manager Says Vista Has Issues

Next news
3:20 PM - September 12, 2008 by Marcus Yam

It isn’t easy being Windows Vista, living with the stigma of being inferior to its predecessor.

Much of the public carries with it even today the opinion that Windows Vista is the undesirable choice for a PC operating system, despite Microsoft’s best efforts.

In fairness, Windows Vista got off on the wrong foot when it launched in early 2007. Microsoft knows this, but for obvious reasons must downplay many of the operating system’s issues. It is for that reason, then, that it surprised many that a “high-ranking Windows product manager” spoke to Maximum PC in mid-June about Vista’s teething problems.

The Microsoft employee detailed several key issues that plagued the early days, many of which can be attributed to bad GPU drivers from Nvidia. While it would be unwise for Microsoft to point the finger at a major hardware partner, internal Microsoft memos put 18 percent of all Vista crashes around launch time as a result of unstable Nvidia drivers.

Along with unstable drivers, gamers had a reason to be especially disappointed with the OS as games ran better and faster on Windows XP. Moving to the newer OS was often a dramatic downgrade in performance. The source told Maximum PC that “spending the money to port DirectX 10 to Windows XP would have been worth the expense.” Even more crushing might be his view on the Games for Windows initiative, calling it “a disaster, with nothing more than 64-bit compatibility for games to show for years of effort.”

The source also conceded that Apple’s control over the software and hardware side allows it to avoid such compatibility problems, making Macs more and more appealing to consumers.

Windows Vista also annoyed users quickly with its User Account Control, prompting users at every change made to the system. Vista users have become so accustomed to clicking “allow” on all warnings that one has to wonder if the system is really that much more secure when factoring user habits.

According to Erik Lustig, a senior product manager responsible for Windows Fundamentals, Windows Vista is the most secure Microsoft operating system to date, validating some of the design choices. For the move from XP to Vista, Lustig said Microsoft made “changes that have had some short-term ramifications that we’ve worked very hard the last year and a half, and through Service Pack 1, to address. ... I believe that those changes are going to be a fundamental basis for the integrity of the platform.”

Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of Windows Vista is that it launched before it was fully ready. While many users still maintain their preference for Windows XP, few may realize how far Vista has come thanks to Service Pack 1.

With half a year already under Windows Vista SP1’s belt, the operating system is now performing at levels expected of it at launch. Windows Vista is now stable, fast and perhaps most importantly, more secure. It’s unfortunate then, that most current Windows XP users won’t see the strides made by Microsoft until the launch of Windows 7.

Source : Tom's Hardware

Talkback
Add your comment
mojoman94 09/12/2008 9:47 PM
Show
the_one111 09/12/2008 9:58 PM
Show
chaohsiangchen 09/12/2008 10:13 PM
Hide
-6+

I had some problem with my home machine running Vista at the beginning. The system runs better after SP1. Actually, a lot better. Vista seems to take control of 1/3 of memory no matter how much one has. With 2GB, it took control over 1/3; and with 4GB, it still takes 1/3. The hard drive space for Vista is insane (40GB). There is no excuse for that.

chaohsiangchen 09/12/2008 10:14 PM
Hide
-0+

I actually like UAC. It is the way it should have been 10 years ago. Though M$'s implementation is just annoying, and they should learn how it was done by Spybot.

deminicus 09/12/2008 10:21 PM
Hide
-2+

People need to clarify what they mean by "resource hog". If they mean the memory footprint then I think there is a lack of understanding. Vista uses free memory and does useful stuff with it. It also throttles it, so when you load a large app/game it will shrink its footprint.

Granted vista isn't the most amazing thing ever....ever but it is better than xp in many areas. I personally don't need or want to go back to xp, I am surprised to say that. I was weary before I switched but after some extensive research I found it was time to move on.

nukemaster 09/12/2008 10:30 PM
Hide
-9+

The biggest launch issue for Vista was Nvidia. Sorry to say, but its true. The drivers took well over a year to work out most of the bugs. They had the new driver model long before Vista released, but they chose to not bother working in it in advanced.

Games now run practically(its almost within the margin or error now) identical on Vista and XP.

One thing some do not understand is having lots of memory not to use it is a waste. So when Vista decides to cache up all your free ram to preload apps you use often, is it really a memory hog? It takes no more then the percentage difference from 98 to XP did.

Anyone remember how bugged XP was at launch?

deminicus 09/12/2008 10:30 PM
Hide
-2+

chaohsiangchen :
I actually like UAC. It is the way it should have been 10 years ago. Though M$'s implementation is just annoying, and they should learn how it was done by Spybot.



personally I have it turned off but I know what you are saying. It has potential. They just need to make it less annoying. I hear the reason it's tough todo is that vista has to take into account backward compatibility and crappy coding practices

jameshan2k 09/12/2008 10:32 PM
Hide
-12+

The biggest issue with Vista is the Hardware Vendors. They sell dirt cheap computers with horrible video chipsets, only 512 to 1024MB of RAM & then load the OS with a ton of crap offers/"free" software. The customer then gets pissed & blames Microsoft saying Vista sucks & Macs are better. If they spent a little extra cash on RAM & uninstalled the crap software they would see the benefits of Vista.

I'm running Vista Ultimate 64 Bit with 8GB's of RAM ($180) & I'm quite happy....haven't rebooted in Months.

Anonymous 09/12/2008 10:32 PM
Show
Anonymous 09/12/2008 10:44 PM
Hide
-12+

I'm so surprised that so many people complain about UAC but in the mean time praising Mac/Linux (Ubuntu). The reality is Mac and Linux also UAC and they also prompt the dialog box for admin tasks. And even worse, on Mac and Linux it requires to enter your password everytime and it cannot be turned off. Apparently those people have never used a Mac or Linux

jaragon13 09/12/2008 11:12 PM
Show
gzhang 09/12/2008 11:27 PM
Hide
-1+

I don't like vista either.

The upside:
1. pretty graphics.
2. UAC that runs every program on low privilege.

The downside:
1. Slow File system! Much slower when copying files from network share than XP (at least in my experience).

2. Bad UAC design. I have to keep clicking OK ever step of the way. After a while it became the normal and I will click OK on viruses. On XP/Linux you can just use a low privilege account. I always use low privileged accounts for development/games/web browsing etc. I fail to see why UAC is necessary. If microsoft really wants a robust system, it should make the security granular, like selinux, you can specify which operation is allowed every step of the way.

one-shot 09/13/2008 12:04 PM
Hide
-3+

So it looks like 2 features that aren't what they should be and now the whole OS is condemned. Doesn't make sense to me, I switched from XP Pro to Vista Home Prem 64bit SP1 and wouldn't move back to XP. I so far haven't encounted any problems. It runs great and I have no complaints. I also have 4gb of ram.

bardia 09/13/2008 12:04 PM
Hide
-12+

For all those people saying "there is no reason to upgrade from XP." I've got news for you... there is "no reason" to upgrade to XP from 2000.

Vista is more of the same (and by that I mean improvements), but it isn't going to do your laundry and find you a girlfriend to do it for you.

DX10, security, stability, easy of use, aesthetics, etc. Vista is in every way superior to XP if you have a remotely decent computer.

the_one111 09/13/2008 12:05 PM
Hide
-2+

franks :
I'm so surprised that so many people complain about UAC but in the mean time praising Mac/Linux (Ubuntu). The reality is Mac and Linux also UAC and they also prompt the dialog box for admin tasks. And even worse, on Mac and Linux it requires to enter your password everytime and it cannot be turned off. Apparently those people have never used a Mac or Linux


"Smartest man on earth, next to the other two guys who know some basic computer knowledge here.." lol

Vista just had a unlucky run, because of Nvidia, and because Shrapple (definition of shrapple: Sucky-He11-raising-Ripoff APPLE) had so many unlogical and unfactual ads bashing it at the time, and because we have so many gulible computer illiterate idoits that actually LISTENED to a COMPANY selling them a $1000+ product!

Now THAT requires you to hold your sign high!

zaratustra06 09/13/2008 12:10 PM
Hide
-0+

Vista is epic fail in business use - you couldn't even install Microsoft SQL 2005 on Vista without troubles when Vista launched. Ridiculous file copying over network, like half hour for a few Mb file. CD's burned on Vista unreadable on XP machines etc,etc...

jj463rd 09/13/2008 12:18 PM
Hide
-14+

The worst part about Vista and XP is activation (DRM).I still prefer Windows 2000 Pro.
I truly hate DRM.

nukemaster 09/13/2008 12:20 PM
Hide
-2+

gzhang wrote :


1. Slow File system! Much slower when copying files from network share than XP (at least in my experience).




Fixed in SP1 I get the same speeds with XP and Vista :)

giovanni86 09/13/2008 12:32 PM
Hide
-2+

I believe vista is a upgrade towards gamers, buisness wise i don't think it does a buisness any good. I have yet to own vista so idk if i am right or wrong as of yet. Running Win XP64-bit and i like it, just wish my CS:CZ would work on it=/.

frozenlead 09/13/2008 12:33 PM
Hide
--2+

So, I read this article, and every paragraph except for the last one beat vista down for all the crap that went on before sp1. What the hell?

If an update comes out, why still complain about the old version?

The OS runs fine now. Mine uses less than 1/4 of my 4GB of ram.

The OS runs like crud on machines you can buy because vendors load them with low ram and tons of crappy freeware that all starts when windows boots. If your machine is running with no-crap-attached, even if it does have 512MB of ram, it runs just as fast as windows XP with 512mb of ram.

Good god people, Vista is an excellent operating system now. get used to it. There's no reason to keep XP, and no reason to switch to a mac.

asdasd123123 09/13/2008 12:34 PM
Hide
-3+

For what it was meant for, gaming systems (I'm right with that, right?)
It works beatifully on a strong system, and it doesn't really hog that much resources, comparing to the features it incorporates in those 1gb.
Win defender, search indexer (I love it since my 1tb drive, searches now just take a couple of seconds) the new caching system also works great, turn it off and apps are noticeably slower to load..

On old systems... It's a disaster, and it's released on MUCH to low specced systems most of the time, Vista on a laptop is just stupid.

And I would agree, 100% of my issues with vista at launch was Nvidia, but not graphics, motherboard drivers. They crashed ALL the time in all kinds of ways. Eight months into vista, nvidia finally released a driver that worked, only the odd BSOD.

Now with an all-AMD system, it's stable as a rock.

frozenlead 09/13/2008 12:35 PM
Hide
-3+

Oh, and BTW: my university is converted all of their engineering machines to windows vista. They run applications soo much faster, and there are many pluses to networking vista; features that XP didn't offer. I like the business version of vista. It's great.

The clusters still run on linux though! :):)

terror112 09/13/2008 12:56 PM
Hide
-0+

I will switch to vista when I get my updated nehalem system, or when ssd's become cheap enough. Still very improbable that I would get vista.. Windows 7 maby? DX11?

WoodenBadger 09/13/2008 1:04 AM
Hide
-4+

Vista is great! I work at a small PC store in northern Ontario and Vista has been a godsend to the bottom line. We are averaging 5 to 8 downgrades a week – and we are a 3 person business. I've never seen so many new Dells in my life. Thanks to Vista we have been able to re-establish relationships with customers who previously bought all of their hardware from Dell and HP. It’s hard to turn to Dell to remove Vista from your laptop. Better still at $79 a downgrade (XP not included) our service bay is humming. It started pretty slow but after SP1 the downgrade momentum has grown. It seems that most of our customers are still having problems with Vista and are just giving up. I know that M$ and many of the people posting here claim SP1 fixed most of the issues but the reaction of our customers would suggest that we may have mislead again.

My own experience with Vista has been mostly negative. I moved from a 64 bit version to a 32 bit but there are still a have dozen games/programs that either won't run or randomly crashed. Working in a PC store my hardware is always up to date and my RAM slots are overflowing.

I dual booted for awhile but I found I was favoring XP to the point that Vista was just taking up space. Last week I finally wiped it from my system. I am jealous of the guys who got Vista to work without issues. It breaks my heart to see my 8GB of RAM being displayed as 3GB in XP and I'll miss the promise of DirectX 10 but that's about it.

amonymous 09/13/2008 1:17 AM
Hide
-5+

I'm going to upgrade to Vista Premium 64 bit pretty soon whenever I get my new computer built. DDR2 ram is so cheap these days that it really isn't an excuse. I don't see how you can possibly complain about UAC because you can turn it off in like 2 minutes if you want. If M$ gives you an option you don't want and you have the ability to turn it off so easily why the he11 are you complaining?

NightLight 09/13/2008 1:36 AM
Hide
--1+

i've been using vista since the first beta. it's rock solid on most hardware, and the new features are great! i can see people trying to run it on their obsolete systems and bumming out on the results, get a decent system, and it will run like a train!

gigaenvy 09/13/2008 1:52 AM
Hide
-0+

Never heard this before.

Anonymous 09/13/2008 2:00 AM
Show
anonymous x 09/13/2008 2:25 AM
Show
Anonymous 09/13/2008 2:31 AM
Hide
-5+

Bag Vista all you like, But I must say after service pack 1 and adding more ram(6gb total) to system, It is now as fast if not faster than xp.
2gb doesn't cut it, 4gb or more is the sweet spot.
I will back up everything and install 64bit vista(ultimate comes with both versions), And see how it performs as 32bit vista is limited and only using 3-4gb of the 6gb i have installed.
From what I have heard 64bit is more stable in certain games, Age of conan doesn't crash like it does on 32bit!
In my opinion I think most peoples problems probably come down to having an average system with not enough ram or outdated graphics card,folks its not windows 98/xp having 1gb or 2gb is a joke on a graphics intensive operating system!
Save those $$$ and upgrade, Then judge Vista!

the_one111 09/13/2008 3:03 AM
Show

Comments are closed on this page.

Sponsored links