AnimeSuki Forums

Dnous · 2007-02-17, 11:28

Tomshardware.com ran a test to see if Vista is faster than XP. I think the results of it should be self explanatory.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/...sta/index.html

***relentlessflame*** · 2007-02-17, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dnous

Tomshardware.com ran a test to see if Vista is faster than XP. I think the results of it should be self explanatory.
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/...sta/index.html

But it actually isn't self-explanatory.

Certainly, raw and single-application performance is less, and in some cases significantly less. That's indeed bad. But, rightfully, the article attributes those performance drops to where the faults belong: software needing updates, bad drivers, and more stuff going on in the OS in general. The also rightfully point out that "no new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor"; some of those apps would probably do even better on Windows 2000 or 98SE. They also end on the note: "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", which is in-line what some have said (that it "feels faster", not that it actually is). So, conclusion? It still sort of depends.

Ending · 2007-02-17, 20:04

I wouldn't trust on Tomshardware in this matter, since they have previously got caught by the hype a bit too much. IIRC, they basically preached Vista like it was going to be the next, big "messiah" of the OS market.

WanderingKnight · 2007-02-17, 22:48

Well, I'm doing pretty good in my XP, which is probing to be quite stable ATM. I hate buying pre-made PCs, I usually upgrade my PC by tiny bits, except when I need to upgrade my motherboard (which I'll need to do one of these days), since this is often followed by a heavy hardware upgrade. Over the years, I've seen less need for my PC as a gaming station, and seeing as Vista costs the same as, say, a PS3, I'd rather have a real monster as that machine sitting underneath my TV and keep my PC for other purposes. That's why I'm planning to lift the open-source flag as soon as XP gets outdated. It might take me some time to get used to the Linux interface, but I'm sure it'll be able to improve whatever Vista supposedly improves over XP.

iceyfw · 2007-02-18, 21:29

imo i think its worth it but the bugs and driver issues in vista definitely need some work around. i'd give it maybe a year or two before it becomes stable.

X207 · 2007-02-18, 23:10

im fine with XP, vista meh

Dnous · 2007-02-19, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcExAlcHeMy

imo i think its worth it but the bugs and driver issues in vista definitely need some work around. i'd give it maybe a year or two before it becomes stable.

Didn't MS say that "Vienna" would be out by then?

Xeiros · 2007-02-20, 04:50

I'm using Vista Ultimate right now and so far everything is running great. No crashes or compatibility issues. I did have to manually install my sound drivers though.

Jinto · 2007-02-20, 05:26

One important fact for those of us who use graphic hardware accelerators a lot is, that DirectX 10 might not be ported to XP and even if it is ported to XP it will suck on XP (I suppose MS is fully optimizing DirectX10 for Vista).
Now DirectX10 isn't only a software standard, it is also a hardware standard, since hardware needs to have the new shaders to be branded a DirectX10 card.

Knowing the stuff those new shaders can do (that makes a graphics board a true scalar RISC entity), I'ld have to lie if I said I don't want/need it (though I am not going to play the beta tester for MS or ATI or NVIDIA).
And I'ld like to try out the D3D desktop someday

I don't care so much for the first generations of DirectX10 graphic adapters or Vista, but in 2 years or so, I think both Vista and the hardware are really a good thing to have.

Veg · 2007-02-25, 01:12

Just install Mac OSX x86 if your CPU supports at least SSE2.
Not only OSX runs much faster then Vista, it also supports the graphical effects since years.

Epyon9283 · 2007-02-25, 09:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veg

Just install Mac OSX x86 if your CPU supports at least SSE2.
Not only OSX runs much faster then Vista, it also supports the graphical effects since years.

You're advocating disregarding the OS X EULA and possibly breaking the law.

Veg · 2007-02-25, 12:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epyon9283

You're advocating disregarding the OS X EULA and possibly breaking the law.

Should be the developers problem if they already leak a x86 developer image.

killmoms · 2007-02-25, 14:06

No no, there's this thing called personal responsibility, where you're still culpable for your own actions. You might not have it, but society (and our legal system) expects you do.

If you want OS X, buy a Mac. It's not that big a deal.

Ledgem · 2007-02-25, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by killmoms

If you want OS X, buy a Mac. It's not that big a deal.

Mac systems are still a relative premium in terms of pricing, though. It's also a painful thought for the PC users who have already purchased hardware that can run Linux/Windows. My own personal gripe with Apple systems is that there's less hardware versatility. If I wanted, I could go out and buy a new motherboard, processor, etc. and change my computer just like that, without having to buy a whole new system. Macs have traditionally been a totally integrated solution. Has that changed now that they're on the x86 platform?

Epyon9283 · 2007-02-25, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Macs have traditionally been a totally integrated solution. Has that changed now that they're on the x86 platform?

You can upgrade/replace the ram on all of the models except the mini with relative ease. You can replace the CPU on the Mac Pro pretty easily and on the iMac if you feel like taking it apart.

The whole reason I got an iMac was because it was a well integrated all-in-one solution. Its almost silent, it runs OS X, and it has the foot print of an LCD monitor.

Jinto · 2007-02-25, 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veg

Just install Mac OSX x86 if your CPU supports at least SSE2.
Not only OSX runs much faster then Vista, it also supports the graphical effects since years.

Was that meant an answer to my post? If yes, I fail to see how OSX is supporting DirectX 10

xaphan · 2007-02-26, 01:01

Now I'm not biased (see sig). I made my choice a long time ago. But I wouldn't upgrade for long time. Windows XP wasn't even a decent OS until SP2. As for eyecandy, well, Beryl has it beat --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ZtcxHUSDQ

Veg · 2007-02-26, 06:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinto Lin

Was that meant an answer to my post? If yes, I fail to see how OSX is supporting DirectX 10

Nope, it wasn't meant as an answer to your post

.

Ledgem · 2007-02-27, 01:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaphan

Now I'm not biased (see sig). I made my choice a long time ago. But I wouldn't upgrade for long time. Windows XP wasn't even a decent OS until SP2. As for eyecandy, well, Beryl has it beat --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ZtcxHUSDQ

That video makes me very excited about switching to Linux (maybe a few years down the road). However, the way that guy had his set up does look like a rip of the Mac OS GUI in many ways - although prettier.

WanderingKnight · 2007-02-27, 07:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by xaphan

Now I'm not biased (see sig). I made my choice a long time ago. But I wouldn't upgrade for long time. Windows XP wasn't even a decent OS until SP2. As for eyecandy, well, Beryl has it beat --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ZtcxHUSDQ

I'm definitely switching over to Linux once XP becomes obsolete.

2007-02-20, 04:50	Link #88
Xeiros Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007	I'm using Vista Ultimate right now and so far everything is running great. No crashes or compatibility issues. I did have to manually install my sound drivers though. __________________ Last edited by Xeiros; 2007-02-20 at 09:44.

2007-02-20, 05:26	Link #89
Jinto Asuki-tan Kairin ↓ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Fürth (GER) Age: 43	One important fact for those of us who use graphic hardware accelerators a lot is, that DirectX 10 might not be ported to XP and even if it is ported to XP it will suck on XP (I suppose MS is fully optimizing DirectX10 for Vista). Now DirectX10 isn't only a software standard, it is also a hardware standard, since hardware needs to have the new shaders to be branded a DirectX10 card. Knowing the stuff those new shaders can do (that makes a graphics board a true scalar RISC entity), I'ld have to lie if I said I don't want/need it (though I am not going to play the beta tester for MS or ATI or NVIDIA). And I'ld like to try out the D3D desktop someday I don't care so much for the first generations of DirectX10 graphic adapters or Vista, but in 2 years or so, I think both Vista and the hardware are really a good thing to have. __________________ Folding@Home, Team Animesuki

2007-02-25, 14:06	Link #93
killmoms Former Triad Typesetter Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Washington, DC Age: 40	No no, there's this thing called personal responsibility, where you're still culpable for your own actions. You might not have it, but society (and our legal system) expects you do. If you want OS X, buy a Mac. It's not that big a deal. __________________ thrillmoms.com - You know it. @killmoms - I say things.

2007-02-17, 11:28	Link #81
Dnous wut Join Date: Nov 2004	Tomshardware.com ran a test to see if Vista is faster than XP. I think the results of it should be self explanatory. http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/...sta/index.html

2007-02-17, 20:04	Link #83
Ending Senior Member Join Date: May 2004	I wouldn't trust on Tomshardware in this matter, since they have previously got caught by the hype a bit too much. IIRC, they basically preached Vista like it was going to be the next, big "messiah" of the OS market.

2007-02-17, 22:48	Link #84
WanderingKnight Gregory House IT Support Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Age: 35	Well, I'm doing pretty good in my XP, which is probing to be quite stable ATM. I hate buying pre-made PCs, I usually upgrade my PC by tiny bits, except when I need to upgrade my motherboard (which I'll need to do one of these days), since this is often followed by a heavy hardware upgrade. Over the years, I've seen less need for my PC as a gaming station, and seeing as Vista costs the same as, say, a PS3, I'd rather have a real monster as that machine sitting underneath my TV and keep my PC for other purposes. That's why I'm planning to lift the open-source flag as soon as XP gets outdated. It might take me some time to get used to the Linux interface, but I'm sure it'll be able to improve whatever Vista supposedly improves over XP.

2007-02-18, 21:29	Link #85
iceyfw Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Age: 35	imo i think its worth it but the bugs and driver issues in vista definitely need some work around. i'd give it maybe a year or two before it becomes stable.

2007-02-18, 23:10	Link #86
X207 Gamyūsa Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Montreal	im fine with XP, vista meh

2007-02-25, 01:12	Link #90
Veg /dev/null Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Germany Age: 34	Just install Mac OSX x86 if your CPU supports at least SSE2. Not only OSX runs much faster then Vista, it also supports the graphical effects since years.

2007-02-26, 01:01	Link #97
xaphan Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: cincinnati ohio	Now I'm not biased (see sig). I made my choice a long time ago. But I wouldn't upgrade for long time. Windows XP wasn't even a decent OS until SP2. As for eyecandy, well, Beryl has it beat --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ZtcxHUSDQ