My experience with Vista on my new laptop...

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

Jcart wrote:Seriously, do you think a software would be so successful if you could not run even a couple applications at a time? Even Microsoft has standards you know..
Actually Vista isn't that successful. The sales have been pretty dismal. The only thing fueling Vista are new computers and laptops coming preinstalled with it instead of XP. Sales of Vista for upgrading existing PC is dismal because it doesn't offer anyone anything really useful other than some eye candy. Couple that with the vast numbers of incompatible software and you have people avoiding the new OS. And I did have to chuckle then you claimed Microsft had standards. :D
Jcart wrote:If you want to get a bit more technical on the discussion, it is not fair to compare XP and Vista simply because they use completely different techniques to memory management. Vista will try to cache the files and programs you use more frequently to give you a boost in performance. See http://vistafaqs.com/viewfaq.aspx?faq=113. This explains why it "appears" to be using your entire memory, however it will in fact free up your memory if it needs it.
I think I talked about that above. I guess you missed it. :) Here's a refresher. :)
From My Post Above I wrote:Now part of the problem with Vista is their new SuperFetch protocol. Vista will attempt to figure out what you use the most and preload memory with those files. The problem is that Vista will also fill up your swap file with other files that were loaded during boot to make room for the SuperFetched files that aren't running yet. This creates a slowdown and one of the reasons they recommend using Flash Ram for Readyboost to get your computer booted faster. Also, the use of SuperFetch will drastically slow down a 1 gig computer because the operating system will try to keep the SuperFetched data in ram for as long as possible causing more swap file usage if you execute applications other than what SuperFetch thinks you will run. Apparently you can solve some of this outlandish memory and swap file usage by disabling the SuperFetch Service. For most people running Vista with only 1 gig of ram disabling the SuperFetch Service will greatly speed up boot time, shutdown and overall system operation. If you have 2 gig of ram or more leaving SuperFetch enabled CAN give an apparent speed boost when starting applications but not enough to warrant leaving it enabled.

I may try Vista Home Premium again at a later date with the SuperFetch Service disabled to see if things work better but right now XP is working like a champ and I have 8 games installed that I can play when I am not working, of which only 2 of them would install on Vista. So there is no reason for me to try it again anytime soon.
The problem as I mentioned is that the SuperFetch will try to keep the prefetched data and executables in memory as long as possible. Instead of FREEING the memory when something not prefetched is loaded it will usually move the prefetched data to the swap file. That is HORRIBLE programming and use of the feature. If you only use the same few programs over and over again coupled with hibernation or Rabidboot then Vista Premium WILL seem fast because it is cheating. But when you go outside what SuperFetch thinks you are going to use then things get nasty and slow down.

As I mentioned above disabling SuperFetch will usually speed up Vista as it will operate more like XP but the doggy filesystem will still drag down performance.

Here is a comparison...

SuperFetch can be likened to the Dialup Accelerators that would load the web pages it THOUGHT you would go to next based upon your past browsing. The DA would preload the pages it thought you would go to while you were viewing the current page. If you clicked on a link that took you to one of the preloaded pages it would seem like your dialup connection was very fast. The problem came when you decided to go to a link that wasn't prefetched. It would usually take LONGER to load that new link than without the DA because the DA has to discard all of the prefetched pages and start grabbing a new set. Everything would seem very fast on your dialup as long as you went to the pages the DA has prefetched but seem slow as a dog if you went outside what it thought you would want.

SuperFetch in Vista is like that except they throw in moving to swap what it prefetched if it needs memory for something not in the SuperFetch list.

For people who use many different applications in many different combinations Vista with 1 gig and SuperFetch enabled will experience slow response. But for people who have a small set of the same few programs they use over and over then Vista with 1 gig and Superfetch can seem like everything is working well.

I am in the former category. :D So Vista with 1 gig and SuperFetch enabled is a BAD thing for me as the laptop will always be hitting the swap file. I bet if I disabled the SuperFetch Service things might be different. Oh and if you have a substantial portion of 1 gig of ram free on Vista Premium the SuperFetch Service might be disabled. Might want to check and see. :)
Last edited by AKA Panama Jack on Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

miro_igov wrote:XP also had higher hardware requirements - 512MB of RAM. Was this not too high requirement in the Windows 98 age when people had 64MB RAM computers?
For me it was. :D It took me about a year and a half to change from Windows ME to Windows XP and that was only because certain new games had problems with 98/ME. Probably the same thing will happen to me with Vista. I won't change until I am forced to do so. :D

My desktop is more than powerful enough to run Vista and it has all Vista Compatible hardware. :D

Code: Select all

CPU: Core 2 Duo e6420, Ram: 2 Gig 1066Mhz DDR2, etc.
I have always hated bloated software. It's one of my pet peeves and Vista is the poster child for Bloat.
User avatar
superdezign
DevNet Master
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm

Post by superdezign »

AKA Panama Jack wrote:The only thing fueling Vista are new computers and laptops coming preinstalled with it instead of XP. Sales of Vista for upgrading existing PC is dismal because it doesn't offer anyone anything really useful other than some eye candy.
Well, that also implies that Microsoft did right with XP. I remember when XP came out, I refused to upgrade and stuck with 98 Me. 98 was stable and XP was rumored to be a waste. The ONLY reason I upgraded was for Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. It was pointless to have a fast computer and nothing fun to do with it.

At first, XP WAS slow, very slow. But like 98, you could disable almost everything that you wanted, and you could manage a good amount of your memory (though with 98, you could get it down to having only one or two things in the background... XP always has Services running).
AKA Panama Jack wrote:Couple that with the vast numbers of incompatible software and you have people avoiding the new OS. And I did have to chuckle then you claimed Microsft had standards. :D
Microsoft doesn't HAVE standards, Microsoft MAKES standards. :-p
AKA Panama Jack wrote:I am in the former category. :D So Vista with 1 gig and SuperFetch enabled is a BAD thing for me as the laptop will always be hitting the swap file. I bet if I disabled the SuperFetch Service things might be different. Oh and if you have a substantial portion of 1 gig of ram free on Vista Premium the SuperFetch Service might be disabled. Might want to check and see. :)
You'd think Microsoft would have also made some sort of methods of determining whether or not to even use their optimization methods.
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

superdezign wrote:I'm curious... How much truth is there to the rumors that the new visual effects of Vista cause it to run slower than XP? From this discussion, it doesn't sound true, but most of what I've heard up to today has said this. Is it simply an issue of having a good video card, as the software shouldn't be forced to handle it?
Actually the new visual effects aren't going to be that much of a performance hit though it DOES use more memory. You do need to have a video card that can handle it. If your video card specs are too low the AeroGlass effect is disabled. I really liked the effect and how the windows appeared and disappeared.
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

superdezign wrote:You'd think Microsoft would have also made some sort of methods of determining whether or not to even use their optimization methods.
No they never do that. They use the "Shotgun Effect" to programming. They throw everything in the mix and hope it all works out. ;) It's like their UAP that is always asking if you want to do something. It's damned annoying and they don't tell you how to turn it off. It's like "Yes you are the Administrator on this computer but you can't be trusted.". If you open the Control Panel as a window and do a search for UAP. You will then be shown a link to turn on/off "User Account Protection". Click on it and turn it off. Those annoying popups go away.
Charles256
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm

Post by Charles256 »

Turn off superfetch: hit start, type msconfig, go to services, find superfetch, uncheck. Reboot. Problem solved if it's really that annoying. For me, it's pretty good at guessing what I'm about to do so I'll take my two second performance increase.

My understanding of UAP is it's to protect you against spy ware and viruses so of course you can't be trusted. If you've been hit by a virus just because you're logged in as an admin doesn't mean your computer isn't working against you. That's all I got to say. I try to keep my involvement in these threads to a minimum.
User avatar
shiznatix
DevNet Master
Posts: 2745
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:57 pm
Location: Tallinn, Estonia
Contact:

Post by shiznatix »

is this the same UAP thing that makes me click a warning popup when I try to view the source of a website in IE7 on vista? If so thanks because I am sure my coworkers will be very happy to get rid of that crap.
User avatar
RobertGonzalez
Site Administrator
Posts: 14293
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 6:04 pm
Location: Fremont, CA, USA

Post by RobertGonzalez »

This is an incredibly entertaining thread to watch for a guy that is soon to convert his entire house to 50% Mac, 50% Linux.

The conditions in performance that you guys are talking about I am noticing, but in XP not Vista. I will not load Vista yet (ever, if I have my way of things). My work machine is an Intel P4 2.8GHz with a 38Gb HD and 1Gb of RAM. My laptop at home is an Athlon 3300 with a 100GB HD and 512Mb of RAM. My laptop blows my desktop out of the water.

I have actually pegged my memory use on my desktop with a handful of apps open (Photoshop, FF, Opera, Notepad++). Literally to the point of having to hard restart my computer or use the Task Manager to close open processes.

I have never had that experience on my Laptop.

I can't wait to get away from Windows.
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

shiznatix wrote:is this the same UAP thing that makes me click a warning popup when I try to view the source of a website in IE7 on vista? If so thanks because I am sure my coworkers will be very happy to get rid of that crap.
Yeah, it also pops up on just about everything you do anymore. :) It's like your mother hovering over your shoulder asking "Do you really want to do that?" for everything you do. :P


I would have changed operating system a long time ago but for one thing. Entertainment software... Games... Until the game publishers start making versions for other operating systems I am stuck with Windows. Sigh... Sure there are a few titles that come out with Linux or Mac versions that those are still pretty scarce. And don't tell me to get a console for gaming as I hate those things. The games are more expensive than PC versions and using a thumbstick in place of a mouse for aiming is annoyingly retarded. :P
Charles256
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm

Post by Charles256 »

Then enjoy windows vista my friend. :)
User avatar
superdezign
DevNet Master
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm

Post by superdezign »

AKA Panama Jack wrote:And don't tell me to get a console for gaming as I hate those things. The games are more expensive than PC versions and using a thumbstick in place of a mouse for aiming is annoyingly retarded. :P
Yeah... They made the Xbox 360 controller compatible with PC... I wonder if they've made a mouse and keyboard compatible with Xbox 360? That'd be fantastic. :-D
User avatar
John Cartwright
Site Admin
Posts: 11470
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:10 am
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by John Cartwright »

superdezign wrote:
AKA Panama Jack wrote:And don't tell me to get a console for gaming as I hate those things. The games are more expensive than PC versions and using a thumbstick in place of a mouse for aiming is annoyingly retarded. :P
Yeah... They made the Xbox 360 controller compatible with PC... I wonder if they've made a mouse and keyboard compatible with Xbox 360? That'd be fantastic. :-D
I know there is someone out there that allows this, but I cannot seem to recall it's name.
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

superdezign wrote:
AKA Panama Jack wrote:And don't tell me to get a console for gaming as I hate those things. The games are more expensive than PC versions and using a thumbstick in place of a mouse for aiming is annoyingly retarded. :P
Yeah... They made the Xbox 360 controller compatible with PC... I wonder if they've made a mouse and keyboard compatible with Xbox 360? That'd be fantastic. :-D
Now that would be cool. For me the drawback to consoles has always been the controller.

Dammit, you did it again and derailed the topic. :P
User avatar
superdezign
DevNet Master
Posts: 4135
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:06 pm

Post by superdezign »

Jcart wrote:
superdezign wrote:
AKA Panama Jack wrote:And don't tell me to get a console for gaming as I hate those things. The games are more expensive than PC versions and using a thumbstick in place of a mouse for aiming is annoyingly retarded. :P
Yeah... They made the Xbox 360 controller compatible with PC... I wonder if they've made a mouse and keyboard compatible with Xbox 360? That'd be fantastic. :-D
I know there is someone out there that allows this, but I cannot seem to recall it's name.
Ever since PS2, they've been allowing USB keyboards, but using them for controls was a different story. You know, I've never tried hooking up my mouse to my 360 before... Time to experiment! :twisted:


EDIT: Apparently, there's no mouse cursor. Go figure. :P
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

Apparently there have been quite a few people who have bought the Compaq Presario F572US laptop that hate Vista. :D The driver package has been downloaded 160+ times so far.

I keep getting emails that have things like this in them.
Your blog saved me a lots of time searching for XP drivers - You did a
GREAT GREAT job and I'm sure it'll be of big help to many people
hopelessly stuck with ridiculous "improvement" called Vista. Your set of
drivers is a real life-saver ! Mark, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU !
Plus, I did something interesting to the laptop. ;)
Post Reply