Microsoft Windows Vista
February 11, 2007 2:27pm CST
Im finding that windows vista has a reasonable speed boost compared to xp but needs alot of ram to run, even though the recomended ram requirements are 512mb. This is simply not enough to run vista's awesome aero effects. The amount needed is at least about 1024mb.
2 people like this
11 Feb 07
Windows Vista is a very good operating system...Its very fast if its run in systems that have ram 1 gb they says that it runs with 512 mb but 1 gb is recommended as it will make ur computer slower than faster if it is runned on 512 mb ram
15 Feb 07
Windows Vista clearly is not a great new performer when it comes to executing single applications at maximum speed. Although we only looked at the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Enterprise, we do not expect the 64-bit edition to be faster (at least not with 32-bit applications). Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as Everest, PCMark05 or Sandra 2007 show that differences are non-existent on a component level. We also found some programs that refused to work, and others that seem to cause problems at first but eventually ran properly. In any case, we recommend watching for Vista-related software upgrades from your software vendors. 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. Both ATI and Nvidia will offer OpenGL support in upcoming driver releases, but it remains to be seen if and how other graphics vendors or Microsoft may offer it. 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. There is good news as well: we did not find evidence that Windows Vista's new and fancy AeroGlass interface consumes more energy than Windows XP's 2D desktop. Although our measurements indicate a 1 W increase in power draw at the plug, this is too little of a difference to draw any conclusions. Obviously, the requirements for displaying all elements in 3D, rotating and moving them aren't enough to heat up graphics processors. This might also be a result of Windows Vista's more advanced implementation of ACPI 2.0 (and parts of 3.0), which allows the control of power of system components separately. 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.
19 Feb 07
I totally abhore and hate cut n pasters. You are a waste of time most of the time. We others take the actual time to read the question and try and answer the people in OUR words. When you cut n paste things that say like "we also found..." it's so obvious that you are pasting from someone else (probably the developers site). Just take the time to give your own answer next time. Only cut n paste if it contains useful information for the person. Give them the respect they deserve for starting the topic.
19 Feb 07
Yup I totally agree with you dude. I am still running xp on my lappy and desktop, but I installed a new compie for my mate, and he has the new vista. It looks so much nicer and fresher than xp (but then every new windows format always does! haha) but I spotted a few flaws immediately. It does eat a lot of your cpu's processor if you are seriously lacking in that area. You really do need a decent spec at the start if you want to stand any chance of running vista... Strange, but my mate was more concerned about hackers because he had heard that they were really going tooth and nail at the vista operating system... what have you guys heard?? I confess to having been in Indonesia for a couple of months and missed the launch of vista, and therefore any press surrounding it. Cheers.