> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vivec [mailto:gel214th gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:14 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Vista SP1?
>
> Graph on Network file copy speed differences between
Vista SP1 and the
> Original Vista RTM:
>
> http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/
12/file_transfer_whs_to_vista.
> jpg
>
> Graph of various file operations of Vista SP1 vs Vista
RTM
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/images/sp1_pe
rformance_boost_1c.jpg
These are both Vista RTM to Vista SP1. No mention of XP.
> Graph of various file operations of Vista SP1 vs XP
SP2
>
> ht
tp://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=5
Many of those graphs aren't file copies (he's got start-up
time, extract
time, etc - all interesting, but not the issue at hand).
The ones that DO
show file moving operations are almost overwhelmingly
underwhelming - the
only one that's clearly in XPs favor is external drive
operations (and there
could be a lot of reasons for that).
Also, here's an article from the same source that shows very
little
difference (and discusses the above results and the possible
reasons for the
differences):
http://
blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=369&page=2
> Conclusion - XP SP2 faster overall.
.... on some systems. In some scenarios. When certain
processes were
running. Maybe.
I'm still not seeing the 80%-faster-but-still-slower-than-XP
that you talked
about. So there! ;^)
> Here is some of what Microsoft indicated would be fixed
with Vista SP1:
>
> # Service Pack 1 should improve the speed of copying
and moving
> folders with lots of files and subfolders within them.
Furthermore,
> it's said to improve performance over by as much as 25%
when copying
> files locally on a single disk PC.
Yes - it did this... in some cases. My experience is much
more like the
blog entry I linked above: about the same across XP SP2,
Vista RTM and Vista
SP1. I download a lot of video and tend to view everything
as how long it
takes to copy 350 Meg files (one hour of HD XVid is 350Meg)
to my ReadyNAS.
It's been about the same for me - no noticeable changes.
> # The service pack should allow Vista to do a much
better job with the
> copy progress "time remaining" estimate.
This is purely an interface issue - and very important!
Again, the actual
performance is only part of the issue - perceived
performance is often just
as important.
> # SP1 should improve "overall media performance by
reducing many
> glitches," according to Microsoft.
>
> # By including the SLI hotfix, SP1 should allow games
to scale better
> to SLI configurations when compared with single-card
configurations.
>
> So that tells you what was *not* working as well as it
could with
> Vista. Note the mention of SLI Graphics scaling.
Oooooooh - well, if you're in that small niche of that
already niche market
then I agree - don't switch. ;^)
For us mere mortals with single graphics cards it works just
fine. I've
still got an nVidia 7900 in my main box and a 6800 Ultra in
the famil-room
box - both work fine in Vista.
> For me, there's just no reason to switch to Vista SP1
or otherwise at
> the moment. XP just feels faster and smoother than
Vista, and the file
> copy issue is very very noticeable to me. Especially
when installing
> games, or loading game levels.
I'm still curious how it sorts itself out tho'. Like I said,
I'm not saying
there's no file copy issue - I'm just saying that it's not
universal. I
don't see it (I actually copied over a terabyte of data,
most on Vista RTM
and the remainder on Vista SP1, over the past few days to
populate my new
ReadyNAS box and I didn't see a bit of difference), but
others definitely
do.
I would still guess that at least some of the issue is
perception (remember
that graph I talked about). Even if Vista is as fast it
won't matter to you
if it doesn't "feel" as fast.
> For business use, I guess someone wouldn't give two
hoots. And
> certainly if one was not accustomed to XP they would
simply accept
> Vista performance as the norm.
Again I'm perfectly with Vista and I still use XP everyday
(I've no choice
at the office). I had been dual booting because of all the
problems I heard
about but quickly gave up on that when I discovered none of
them seemed to
affect me.
Again - these are only my experiences, on my machine.
Mileage will vary -
all I'm challenging is 1) the idea that Vista is universally
poorer than XP
and 2) some of the specific (and very large) numbers you
where throwing
around.
When you say that Vista SP1 improves performance by 80% but
is still slower
than XP I want to see some more detail on that. ;^)
Jim Davis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~|
AdobeŽ ColdFusionŽ 8 software 8 is the most important and
dramatic release to date
Get the Free Trial
ht
tp://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w
Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups
/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256986
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/s
ubscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/un
subscribe.cfm?user=22184.15789.5
|
