When i started using Vista i was happy, nice GUI, nice Install, no bothersome things.. i Disabled about 20 of the services that start each time (esp UAC,Defender,Windows Security, Firewall etc...) To streamline as much as possible from the OS, i also had SP1 installed...
I currently have a q6600 @ 2.7ghz, 2GB DDR2 Ram running at 1200 MHZ and a Nvidia 8800gt.... As you may notice one could call that pretty "high end"
My XP is tuned beyond understanding, without any app open it uses not even 200mb ram, leaving a whopping 1800 MB Ram for usage.. more than enough for anything i do (3d mainly
Vista on the other hand, uses 600mb, yes.. thats the lowest possible i got it to go (actually more like 640) so now one could say, thats ok... if it wouldnt impact daily work, average performance etc...
-- Start of Rant -- After 7 days quite constant use of Vista 64bit i encountered the following things
1) Framerates in all aplications constantly and quite consistent about 20% lower, and more than that, games which run at the SAME SETTINGS absolutely smooth in max details under dx9 (crysis, World in conflict) began to randomly stutter and become slower and slower under Vista and DX10 , with no apparant visual difference, my bet is on a broken DX10 render path... but here im just guessing
2) Theres no way, and i do mean NO WAY, to actually force a set refresh rate for your screen under Vista, using a CAD approved CRT with absolute color trueness? Well no with vista you aint, not beyond 60hz anyway, the desktop settings do work, and SOME applications will happily work (and use) the desktop refresh rate, but theres also these apps, especially High Profile games "for windows" that have a set refresh rate of 60hz (vista, bioshock... and so on)
3) Even with all things disabled that you can disable safely, Vista uses about 3 times as much Ram as XP, with no feature gain (mind you, the feature gain would come at a ram cost beyond that)
4) The OS Hibernation mode is extremely slow, thinking of using the sleep mode like you are used from XP ? Be prepared that when you forgot that its on sleep and accidently press the power button, the boot time is about 5 minutes+ the normal
5) The os entering sleep mode can not recover if you end the sleep mode before it completely finishes (works fine in xp, like if you accidently hit sleep instead of shutdown or reboot
6) Rendering Performance, contra to the many completely odd reviews i found so far, is about 0% faster under Vista 64bit than under XP 32 Bit, the advice here is to render and model on XP since you will likely not have 400mb ram to randomly spare for no gains
7) Very odd file copy behavior, i sadly can point out that the rumours about extremely odd behaviour under Vista when copying stuff are in fact true, The Time to move and copy things can sometimes, for no apparant reason skyrocket (what under xp takes 4 minutes will sudenly take 20 in vista ~.~)
8) Driver Support... 64bit.. whats more to say? Nvidia's driver for Vista are horrible, if you plan on using them on dx10 games be sure what you do... Crashes and BSOD's i can not report, but graphic errors in dx10 games (Assassins Creed, Crysis) aswell as flickering issues (shadows..) | Also be prepared that some obscure stuff you will have a hard time to get working
END OF RANT
----
I do not dislike Vista, but XP is staying my main OS until the worlds end or Linux gets a grip (For 3d tasks anyway
Anyone else similiar experiences with Vista?
Devious Comments
1 - Resource hog (like you said)
2 - DRM
'nuff said..
--
"Gotta' get me a machine gun so I can clean the house!" - ME
So my complains are related to compared XP Crysis VERY HIGH and VISTA Crysis VERY HIGH settings, the performance in crysis was alot worse, funnily even when running the dx9 exe with the same unlocker under vista, with no gain in visual quality under dx10 (if you have a custom cfg then even more so)
Anyway i had to get this of my mind, sorry for wasting time
--
"Gotta' get me a machine gun so I can clean the house!" - ME
...first of all there are some games that actually run FASTER under vista (i.e.: TES IV: Oblivion - great game btw)
...also vista (as far as I can tell) was meant to be a resource hog, as it was meant to run on REALLY high end computers.
my dell xps has 4gb ram (and my cinema4D loves every single mb), and vista hardly troubles me at all.
...and my hibernation was nice (until i accidentally got rid of it
fact is, that sp1 didn't change squat (except maybe the time it takes to copy files, that's gotten a bit faster).
i dunno if you experienced vista before sp1, but there is really hardly any difference.
however, all of this still makes me say: xp, yay, vista, nay!
--
Get more pageviews here:
[link]
Your tales of Vista pretty much match up with every other tale of Vista I have heard.
Also the ram thing, yeah, same thing with her laptop as well, she has 2 gigs in the bloody thing and when using it my old shit box acer machine with 512 ram runs better (granted its running xp but still). Also the copy thing I noticed YESTERDAY when backing up her work but I walked away from the thing to finish what I was doing on my iMac so I have no clue how long vista took to move files to one of the external drives I own.
Vista has been built from the ground up with DRM in mind, and everything that you can imagine to be rights controlled, is actually in Vista (even the DVD-Reading/Playing, sound, video.. graphics, even pictures and files can be DRM protected within Vista) I hear this is the main reason for the slow copy performance too
Im surprised nobody agreed with my refresh rate complaint though, that bug is around since win 3.11 and its still "a feature" of windows... heh although i guess here nvidia dropped the ball too
Previous Page12Next Page