Slashdot Log In
More Evidence That XP is Vista's Main Competitor
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Nov 26, 2007 07:15 AM
from the xtc-vs-adam-ant dept.
from the xtc-vs-adam-ant dept.
Ian Lamont writes "Computerworld is reporting that Windows XP Service Pack 3 runs MS Office 10% faster than XP SP2 — and is 'considerably faster' than Vista SP1. XP SP3 isn't scheduled to be released until next year, but testers at Devil Mountain Software — the same company which found Vista SP 1 to be hardly any faster than the debut version of Vista — were able to run some benchmarking tests on a release candidate of XP SP3, says the report. While this may be great news for XP owners, it is a problem for Microsoft, which is having trouble convincing business users to migrate to Vista."
Related Stories
[+]
Researchers Sour on Vista Service Pack 1 Performance 339 comments
Stony Stevenson passed us a link indicating that a group of researchers has described Microsoft's upcoming Windows Vista Service Pack 1 as basically a performance dud. Researchers from the Devil Mountain Software group is claiming that a series of in-house benchmark tests showed that users hoping to receive a speed boost from the update will be disappointed. "Devil Mountain ran its DMS Clarity Studio framework on a laptop Barth described as a "barn burner" -- dual-core processor, dedicated graphics, and either 1GB or 2GB of memory -- to compare performance of the SP1 release candidate that Microsoft released last week with the RTM version that hit general distribution last January. The Vista RTM was not updated with any of the bug fixes, patches or performance packs that Microsoft has pushed through Windows Update since the operating system's debut. 'One gigabyte, 2GB [of memory], it didn't make a difference,' said [CTO Craig] Barth. 'SP1 was never more than 1% or 2% faster.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
the ever elusive desktop (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:5, Interesting)
By that time the Wine (www.winehq.org) team will have released DX10 libraries that use opengl and thus can run on Win XP or older (and of course Linux!).
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Tungsten Graphics' Gallium3D (Score:4, Informative)
are creating a new technology called Gallium3D.
Basically it's a middle layer that rests between Mesa3D (openGL API) and DRI/DRM (low level drivers) and whose job is to export basic building block available on most modern hardware (shaders, etc.) in a standart way.
The thing is Gallium3D isn't restrict to Mesa3D for the API. A lot of people are speculating about the possibility offered by a potential WineD3D running natively on Gallium. (Instead of being an D3D -> OpenGL translation layer).
TGI's powerpoint presentation in fact contained an illustration where Gallium3D was used between a thin DirectX layer and low level drivers on Windows.
(Maybe, Intel could pay TGI so they also make DirectX/Windows drivers for their GPUs)
In the end such kind of technology could bring :
- Working DirectX10 on Windows XP (similar to Alky/FallingLeaf but using a thin DX10 Layer on Gallium3D backend).
- Working DirectX on Linux and ReactOS (either expanding a potential Intel i9xx D3D driver, or building a better WineD3D for Gallium3.
- Easier OpenGL 3 (which differs a lot from OGL1 and 2 - Instead of needing Mesa to be able to understand 2 radically different APIs, OGL3 could be handled by just having another API Layer running on Gallium backend)
- A nicer and simplier framework to get a 3D stack through OSS for any small player (Non-mainstream hardware maker, open hardware project or opensource team creating drivers for unsupported hardware). Up until now there was only MESA that did offer OpenGL 1/2 API, and required a lot of duplicate work inside the various hardware-specific libraries.
So, to go back to the discussion, Opensource projects (including contribution from Wine) starting to play an important role in game deployment : this is something that may become a reality sooner that we may think.
(And it's not that game developers are deeply against OSS : OpenAL, OGG/Vorbis and similar have already poped up un commercial projects from Id, Epic, etc.)
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:5, Informative)
At best, all you'll be able to do is write wrappers for fluff like shader model 4. And that's what it is FLUFF. The real features of directx10 are virtual video memory, gpu multitasking, and so on. This simply cannot be backported to XP using opengl wrappers.
Right now, most directx10 compatible games ARE directx9 games that are extended to use some of the directx10 rendering fluff, so its relatively easy to just stub around all the gpu multitasking, and just implement wrappers for the new sharder stuff. And then we see idiotic frenzies because 'omg! directx game X has been hacked to run on xp'
But the reality is that only the fluff part of directx10 can be wrapped like this, and it just so happens that the fluff part is the only part the new direct9/direct10 'hybrid' games are using.
But if they start releasing REAL directx10-only games that make use of gpu multitasking etc those stubs will have to do *something*, and XP just can't do it, the kernel doesn't support it. So either its going to run like a DOG as they write some kludge to thunk around the kernel limitation or its not going to run at all.
To use a car analagy, directx10 is like a 90's Porsche, and direct9 is one from the 80's. Sure with enough welding and grafting you could put the new body on the old chassis, and then you could release photos showing that the new xenon headlights work, along with the heated side mirrors, electric sunroof -- and you can even start it and drive it around... and it runs nearly as fast as the 80's 911 always did, which you'd expect given that's what the engine is, and the extra weight you've added.
But if you look closer you'll find out that the AWD and ABS is missing, the automatic ride height adjustment is gone, and the number 6 on your transmission knob doesn't actually do anything
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:5, Informative)
OpenGL is not platform dependant, but that is NOT the issue.
In another post you wrote:
DX10 and OpenGL are nothing than just APIs to the GPU! You can emulate both ways, IIRC MS first tried to emulate OGL using DX in the early Vista days. OGL 2.0/3.0 will have DX10-like features. Maybe some even are possible to emulate in OGL 1.5.
OpenGL and DirectX10 Direct3D as 'scene description languages' work like that. You can even implement OpenGL3 entirely in software and emit the frames to a laser printer. And each frame will look perfect.
That's not the issue, and never has been. DirectX10 is a hell of a lot more than just the Direct3D scene description APIs.
The issue is that directX10, in ADDITION to its 'scene description language' is ALSO a PLATFORM. It specifies that the hardware actually be able to do certain things. Its true you can get away with emulating those features but you'll take a performance hit, and possibly a stability hit if there are timing constraints tied into those features. (Not to mention you lose the right to use the directx10 logos).
Another part of the directx 10 platform requires the operating system to support certain features that Vista supports, but XP does not. XP cannot do virtual video memory or gpu multitasking. Period.
Imagine if DirectX required pre-emptive multitasking support. (not hard to do, it actually DOES)
How would you backport that to Windows 3.1? Which only supports cooperative multitasking. There is no real way of doing that short of upgrading the 3.1 kernel to support pre-emptive multitasking, at which point you might as well just give them the NT3 kernel, and NT3 drivers...
And that's where we are now. To give XP virtual video memory and gpu multitasking, we'd pretty much have to upgrade the xp kernel to vista...and require vista drivers.
Don't confusing DirectX10 with OpenGL. There is a part of DirectX that is interchangable with OpenGL and its an important part. But there is a big part of DirectX that is NOT.
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:4, Insightful)
I have tried aftermarket sound drivers for the soundblaster live! -- they work excellently until I reboot and Vista restores the pos MS driver. This is besides the point that drivers are available for this card for every other OS I use (with the possible exception of Solaris). Just because Creative decided to EOL support for the card doesn't make it not work and I refuse to spend $50+ to "fix something that ain't broke".
I guess my point is that I see no reason to use an OS that spends more time getting in my way than just letting me do what I use my computer for. That being said I will stick with XP (for the very few times I use Windows) for the time being. It is very rare that I need to boot into Windows for anything and I spend 95% of my time on Linux of one flavor or another (currently Gentoo, Kubuntu Gutsy, Slackware 12.0 and CentOS 5.0 w/rpmforge repo). The remainder of my computer time is spent pretty much evenly between OpenSolaris NV86, XP and FreeBSD.
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:4, Informative)
To the point that they click 'yes' when the rootkit comes around. Now if it had some sort of 'rootkit installation detection' and came up with the prompt 'It looks like what you're installing is a rootkit, are you sure you want to install this?', users might actually click no and give their computer person a headsup.
The main annoyance of this nature right now is access - every time I open up a database it has to warn me to be careful and that this database could contain harmful functions - Yet I built that database ON MY OWN MACHINE. It has no scripts that a default office install doesn't put in there. It's just a collection of a few tables and reports. Yet it warns me and makes me click another button - of course I'm going to keep opening stuff up! It asks every time!
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista-only applications are a long way in the future
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:5, Insightful)
vista will replace XP just as XP replaced 2K, it will just take a bit of time.
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:5, Informative)
It's hardly impossible to buy a home PC with XP on it these days.
Parent
Re:the ever elusive desktop (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Not a monopoly! (Score:5, Funny)
Games (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista is the only operating system that supports DirectX10 at the moment. if it stays that way and games start making use of DirectX10 features then games will have no choice but to use Vista.
There is also the small matter of "Vista only" games such as Halo 2 and the eagerly awaited Alan Wake from Remedy, the makers of Max Payne. that too will be a "Vista only" title.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Games (Score:5, Informative)
Someone else.
You can download a preview here [blogspot.com]
Parent
Slight problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Halo 2 AIN'T a vista only game. It has been hacked and works just as well on XP. That isn't really suprising, it is an ancient game that ran on a P3, what the hell would it need DX10 for?
Other games like the recent system cruncher, Crysis, also can be tweaked to run with "disabled, DX10 only" settings on XP.
It seems more and more that a lot of the DX10 games just ain't there, some day there may be, but so far they are not.
MS could afford to force Halo 2 to Vista only, how many game developers can afford to be Vista only? MS better be handing over a huge sum of money to make a game just for Vista.
The problem is that a LOT of hardcore gamers are people who build their own machines, and are also the ones who need the top end Vista version, so they are faced with a very expensive purchase and for what? So that all their games run slower and take more memory?
It will be intresting to see what happens, I personally have little doubt that MS will survive this easily, but their mighty fortress has shown a tiny crack.
IF linux does indeed get DX10 support as some have claimed in the past via Wine like projects, then MS might be in real trouble.
That is a HUGE if, but in theory it is possible, already companies like Blizzard have to deal with the fact that a portion of their players are on linux and that they have to accept this.
It will be intresting to see how the Vista only titles sell in the near future. MS titles don't count, MS can afford to loose money, regular developers can't.
Parent
Re:Slight problem (Score:5, Interesting)
You can download the code from here [google.com]. No idea if the DX10 API has made it into the main wine releases yet.
Parent
Re:Games (Score:5, Insightful)
As for any other Vista only titles coming out, check how well they are selling. Shadowrun was Vista only and it sold so badly they had to close the game studio!
Parent
Re:Games (Score:4, Informative)
Kind of a meaningless statement really. To say Vista is the only OS that supports it is to imply that other OS's are somehow less able, but DirectX is a microsoft only tool, written just for windows, which is the only OS family that needs it in the first place. Linux and the others don't need it.
Anyway, the only reason XP doesn't support it is because Microsoft decided to prevent people still using XP when directX10 takes hold.
For the pedants, yes there is Wine/Cedega, but that's an emulator.
Parent
Re:Games (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Games (Score:4, Informative)
examples are vmware, virtualbox, et al
Wine is a compatibility layer
meaning it just redirects win32 API calls to the equivalent linux API calls
AFIAK (never really looked into the source of wine, or I'm guessing a bit here), but
void direct3D_DoSomething(args)
{
}
becomes
void direct3D_DoSomething(args)
{
openGL_DoSomething(args);
}
Parent
Re:Games (Score:4, Insightful)
The only ones in existence are ones made by MS or ones who MS has paid a hefty amount to..
Parent
Dear MS ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As it is, no operating system has ever run faster than it's predecessor on the same hardware. Whether you're talking OS/360 (what's that grandad?), VMS, BSD/Sys5 Unixes, probably even linuxes - tho' there are so many variants, it's impossible to know for all of them.
So? (Score:3, Interesting)
OTOH, people and enterprises are slowly but sure upgrading to vista. The university where I work just took the step and upgraded 25 computer labs (30 computers each) from XP to Vista. Our departments are now slowly migrating as well. There is no rush... Why do we need to rush if XP was working great for us? If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
But now every new computer we buy, we get it with Vista. Seeing the users that have Vista just make the rest of us realize that Vista is not the horror that somepeople seem to be. Knowledge is the best medicine, so people see "oh, it works well", "oh, UAC was not THAT bad, it barely comes up when you work and don't install things"..,so slowly, more and more people are willing to upgrade. This is our case, and i think this is happening everywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
there's still time to (Score:3, Funny)
boredom is Vista's main competitor (Score:3, Insightful)
If you already have a PC, you'll run XP (or in my case W2K SP4) 'cos it just works. If you buy a new PC, you'll run Vista.
That's basically it. A few people will have bought a Vista upgrade - maybe they're ahppy with it, maybe not. If not, they'll either live with it or revert. It's not to do with competition, it's to do with a saturated market.
The only story here is: people sometimes buy new PCs.
Until there is a killer app that only runs on Vista, I can't see why most people whould make the change.
Re:boredom is Vista's main competitor (Score:4, Funny)
No thanks. If I buy a new PC, it'll run Windows XP
Parent
obligatory Linux snippet in the end of the article (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course the enterprise market isn't moving to Linux they're ass slow to move to ANYTHING. These companies are so huge that it takes years to change the way they work.
What I want to know is the made up (because you know what stats are like) figures of Linux growth in the Small to Medium businesses since they make up a larger majority of businesses then a couple of giant mega corps..
The question is consideration (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the things I loved with OS X Server was that their Kerberos/LDAP integrated solution worked great, and adding non-Apple Unix systems was pretty easy... authenticate against LDAP, accept Kerberos, and just Add Principal (host, HTTP, whatever) and export a Keytab. It helped that Apple used MIT Kerberos which is the best documented solution.
The thing is, if the computer market is growing at say, 8% a year, Microsoft needs to be grabbing a larger share of computer wallet to hit double-digit growth. If Linux/Apple grab extra growth, say 4% of the market each, Microsoft will see either a decline in revenues or need to increase fees, which will force people to look elsewhere.
Win2K/Win2K3 made things much tougher for small businesses compared to NT4, Active Directory is MUCH harder to setup and use than a simple NT 3.51/NT4 Single Domain, but the well priced SBS solution provided a reason to keep them in the market. However, if someone with an Enterprise Play like Redhat/Novell made an effort to make it EASY to install a Redhat Server with LDAP/Kerberos authentication for both the server AND the webserver and whatever else, you start seeing it easy to migrate Web Apps to the Unix land.
Microsoft's marketshare doesn't have to plummet for them to hurt. If they consistently lose 1.5% a year to Apple/Linux, that makes it really hard to grow Revenues and requires them to cut costs to keep up profit growth. That alone limits their ability to just walk into markets and destroy them. When Microsoft "cut off the oxygen" for Netscape with a free browser to stop the Netscape Server package from becoming a threat, they could easily eat the costs of the browser because their newly established desktop/Office Suite monopolies were furnishing massive profits.
If Microsoft managers start obsessing over hitting the numbers, and budget constraints become an important part of the Microsoft bonus structure, then you don't see Internet Explorer projects... You don't see $10-$20 million dollar blackholes on the budget to maintain monopolies.
The loss of Bill Gates also hurts, not because he is an irreplaceable manager, but because he alone had the clout to do strange things. When Apple fired "professional management" and brought Steve Jobs "back," he had the clout to do whatever he wanted. He pushed projects out the door, canceled others, etc., and could be a one man show with control of the business. Founders have MUCH MORE political capital than professional CEOs.
If Gates said, "we must destroy Netscape, regardless of costs" (or Java, or any other technology that he found a threat), he could turn the company on a dime as Founder/major Shareholder.
If Ballmer says, "to hell with profitability, we must destroy Sony PS3/Nintendo Wii, I don't care what we lose in the process," I don't think that he can do it. The heads of the gaming and lifestyle division will go ballistic that they won't make their numbers and get a bonus, and will find people on the Board to back them and get hep. If Gates said that it was a priority, it was a priority, and he could probably change the entire management incentive structure to make it happen. He could create budgets out of thin air for what he called a priority.
Any loss in marketshare for MS is a disaster financially because it destroys profit growth, and the current management lacks the complete control of the company necessary to move the way it moved under Gates.
Parent
Was it like this when XP came out? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Was it like this when XP came out? (Score:5, Insightful)
XP is pretty stable, and SP2 isn't a total disaster on security. With Vista, you have all of the growing pains that XP went through with few reasons to "upgrade".
Parent
Something really telling... (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish they'd get their act together... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the manufacturer of drivers are the problem then those people need to get their acts together. Either way I'm tired of having an OS that is suposed to be newer and better then XP but is anything but up to sub-par to XP. Get the damn thing fixed, jeeze people pay enough for that thing.
One last thing, take the dang confusion out of the 7-9 different flavors. Have two like XP and don't relabel everything just cause it's NEW. I still have a hard time finding Add/Remove Programs.
Not to karma whore, but (Score:5, Interesting)
Misguided and trolling (Score:5, Funny)
So Vista _DOES_ run slower, but the security and peace of mind is well worth it. Were it not for the added speed, you might be a victim of software WMD or something, they are out there you know. Boo.
-Charlie
Vista Business/Enterprise offers a lot (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen (Score:5, Interesting)
Active Directory + Group Policy Management (server and client side) is the most single integrated solution from client to server that exists. There may other systems that reproduce similar functionality (like samba for instance), but nothing exists as an integrated top-to-bottom solution like Windows AD.
The only other system that came close (and some would argue was better) is Novell Netware, but that doesn't really exist any more.
Parent
SP3 is 10% faster? How much faster than DOS? (Score:5, Interesting)
vista needs a lot of work for me to switch back (Score:5, Informative)
XP Service Pack 3 is not done... (Score:4, Funny)
Bad news for XP owners (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bad news for XP owners (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, if you're talking about complex multi-million-dollar licensing deals or anything at a corporate level the law would probably change views. However, when you're dealing with consumer products the courts usually apply consumer-oriented law. In the same way the recourse available when company A sells a highrise to company B is different than what might be available when somebody buys a single family home to live in (the law protects consumers more than it does corporations, since the latter is expected to perform more due-diligence).
Basically, the only reason that software vendors haven't gotten clobbered in courts regarding the sale-vs-license issue is because they don't push their luck - they generally don't try to restrict consumers from doing stuff that a sale would normally permit them from doing. If a major software vendor tries to greatly restrict what users can do with the software that they've paid for they could end up facing a class action lawsuit regardless of what the EULA clearly states.
Think of it like buying a house. I put a clause in the agreement of sale stating that I'm not responsible in any way for anything that happens to the next owners regardless of my knowledge / ability to prevent / etc. We both sign it. Two weeks after you move in a kid gets killed by a faulty wiring problem. It can be proven that I knew about the defect and didn't disclose it. If I reach a settlement with the new owner then the clause in the agreement of sale will escape court scrutiny, but if I try to point to the clause and get out of it then there is a good chance that a court will void that clause. There are a number of circumstances that would make a court lean either way, but in general you can't use an agreement to limit liability for serious safety issues unless there is clearly informed consent and some kind of consideration.
And I'm not a lawyer - so don't just take me at my word. The bottom line is that just because you put something on paper doesn't make it stick.
Parent