Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software Bug

MS Responds To Vista's Network / Audio Problems 528

quirdan writes "With the discovery last week of the connection between Vista's poor networking performance and audio activities, word quickly spread around the Net. No doubt this got Microsoft's attention, and they have responded to the issue. Microsoft states that 'some of what we are seeing is expected behavior, and some of it is not'; and that they are working on technical documentation, as well as applying a slight sugar coating to the symptoms. Apparently they believe an almost 90% drop in networking performance is 'slight,' only affects reception of data, and that this performance trade-off is necessary to simply play an MP3."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Responds To Vista's Network / Audio Problems

Comments Filter:
  • Back in 1994... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 26, 2007 @02:13PM (#20363639)
    Back in 1994, I bought a Power Macintosh 7100. One of the first PPC chips, about 66MHz, and running a positively archaic operating system.

    I still have the machine, and drag it out from time to time. When this story broke, I pulled it out of storage to test it, and see how it compared. With a 10/100 ethernet card in, running the mac's System 7.5.3, it could successfully play an MP3 while transferring, and it made no difference whatsoever to send or receive speed over the network.

    Take note Microsoft: 1994, 66MHz, System 7.5.3, more than 13 fricken years ago.

  • by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @02:13PM (#20363641)
    That was the response of a MS tech regarding a defect that a bunch of us found in one of their C libraries some years ago. They must have had that guy train his successors.
  • by koh ( 124962 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @02:24PM (#20363747) Journal
    Wait a minute. Could this be done to limit streaming capabilities? It is the main side effect after all...

  • Re:Back in 1994... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @02:30PM (#20363799)
    That's pretty impressive. I remember having a 486 DX4 100, and not being able to play MP3s on it because they would skip too much. However, what I do remember is finding an MP2 encoder, and enconding my files into MP2, because that could play without skipping. Maybe it was just bad software or something, because this was probably around 1996-1998. I think that the machine should be capable of decoding MP3 files, but for some reason it didn't work.
  • by stinerman ( 812158 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @02:33PM (#20363829)
    FTA:

    "The connection between media playback and networking is not immediately obvious. But as you know, the drivers involved in both activities run at extremely high priority. As a result, the network driver can cause media playback to degrade. This shows up to the user as things like popping and crackling during audio playback. Users generally hate this, hence the trade off."

    Granted, I don't want my audio stuttering, but the idea that the CPU can't keep up because of file transfer is insane. Maxing out an ethernet connection doesn't take much CPU. Even if we put the audio at a very high priority, I don't see how that would immediately degrade ethernet performance by 90%. I could accept no more than about 5% in a worse case scenario.

    To be fair if I renice rhythmbox to 18 and transfer a file, things go to hell. Renicing to 10 clears it up. I saw no degradation of speed. Apparently Debian can do file transfers at full speed while playing an mp3 on a rather old PC*. Something isn't right here...

    *Athlon XP 2400+, 1GB DDR
  • FTA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by flummoxd ( 1017734 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @02:41PM (#20363891)
    "In certain circumstances Windows Vista will trade off network performance in order to improve multimedia playback. This is by design."

    I know we've been over this before. But for whom are we 'improv[ing] multimedia playback'? Is it really an issue in 2007, to perform a network transfer and play an MP3? Or is it Vista's "secure audio path" that is responsible for this? Remember, this is the same Vista that polls your hardware every few ms to check if you're playing 'premium content'.

    I know not everything bad Microsoft does is done with forethought and malice (..) but really now. After reading the 'cost analysis of Vista content protection [auckland.ac.nz]', can you not understand the apprehension? If some "multimedia" (albeit not 'premium content', but who's counting) is played, other parts of the system deliberately go into a 'limited' state? After reading that, does it sound like a bug to you?

    "But as you know, the drivers involved in both activities run at extremely high priority. As a result, the network driver can cause media playback to degrade. This shows up to the user as things like popping and crackling during audio playback."

    I call shenanigans.

    Even if this is a legitimate "bug", i.e. the Vista testers were actually experiencing crackling audio while performing high bandwidth network transfers, who made the conscious decision to throttle the *network* instead of fixing the audio path and audio drivers? Windows XP had no problems performing high-bandwidth transfers and using the sound simultaneously. Besides normal operating system scheduling there was no 'throttling' of any device A when any device B activates. This is Vista content protection backfiring, plain and simple.
  • Re: Deployment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TaoPhoenix ( 980487 ) <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Sunday August 26, 2007 @03:02PM (#20364061) Journal
    Maybe they don't care at all about deployment of Vista.

    We harp on MS a lot, but they ARE clever in certain ways. Suppose someone is thinking Big Picture in some kind of twisted sense. They can play a variant of GoodGuy/BadGuy by having a "Sacrificial OS" every 8 years. They're somehow getting us to pay for their beta testing. They HAD to get Vista out, period, and rely on their patented brand of bluster to get through it. They were getting serious heat from inactivity. I bet someone got utterly crushed when they had to switch codebases during that dev setback.

    I barely heard of Win Me - consecutive tips told me to get Win2000, which lasted me through 2.5 OS changes from MS. Then in the early days, I saw a lovely crash&burn act on XP *SP2* until everyone repaired their firmware. I even had some flash devices that I had to return until the factory shipped ones with newer firmware.

    Now XP is their heavy duty workhorse while they experiment with their new codebase. Suppose just for a moment that Vista NEVER works... but what they learned from Vista SP1 gets applied to Windows 7 (anyone got a codename yet?). Then maybe by 2010 all the results of history on the media scene will be in, maybe they will back off from DRM, and take some other focus. If they don't screw it up, Vista will be that smile in techie's forums, Windows 7 will be the new 8 year workhorse, and off we go ever after.

    Having cash flow the size of a country must be fun.
  • All MP3 Players? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @03:13PM (#20364135)
    So does this affect all Windows media players (e.g. WinAmp), or just WMP? Could be a great argument to jump ship to non-MS software.
  • Re:REally? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @03:21PM (#20364181)
    Maybe we should start using the slashtards tag. Did you even bother to click on the link? Hell, the article is written in the ADD-style of "dummy quotes." The author doesnt even present the full email! In short, what was left out is that MS has acknowledged the bug but the tech wrote that there is going to be some kind of performance hit. Its not like MS wrote "THIS IS NOT A BUG. GO AWAY." Contrast:

    "Please note that some of what we are seeing is expected behavior, and some of it is not. In certain circumstances Windows Vista will trade off network performance in order to improve multimedia playback. This is by design."

    "In most cases the user does not notice the impact of this as the decrease in network performance is slight. Of course some users, especially ones on Gigabit based networks, are seeing a much greater decrease than is expected and that is clearly a problem that we need to address."


    In other words they see a bug especially on gigabit connections.

    Now back to yoru regularly scheduled bitching and "ZOMG my calculator gets better performance" fact-free discussion.
  • by Xtravar ( 725372 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @03:32PM (#20364311) Homepage Journal
    Generally, audio goes through many buffers before being sent out to the device. In Vista, perhaps all audio is streamlined as high-priority.

    For example, when audio recording, you don't want to use Microsoft's typical sound system - you want to record using ASIO which goes through less buffering and latency. If you record using the regular sound system, you end up with perhaps 100s of ms of lag, which is a bitch when you're trying to record to a metronome.

    As some AC above noted, Linux only has a direct audio IO path when using jackd. Otherwise, everything is buffered a plenty.

    So I think it has nothing to do with CPU power, and more to do with "Vista is a real-time multimedia machine!" When you're interrupting a LOT to be attentive to the audio device, this is going to interfere with the network, whereas if you just interrupt less regularly but send larger amounts of buffered data you don't have that problem.

    *Fair warning, my facts may not be 100% accurate, but I think this is the gist of the problem.
  • Re:missing tag? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Yvan256 ( 722131 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @03:41PM (#20364397) Homepage Journal

    Microsoft should just tell the RIAA/MPAA to go fuck off. Seriously.


    I just took a different route and told the RIAA/MPAA to go fuck off by buying a Mac mini.

    Say what you want about Apple but at least they're not bending over every time the RIAA/MPAA asks them to do something.

  • by GoldTeamRules ( 639624 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @03:46PM (#20364463)
    We bought at our company. It was just ridiculous the number of times programs crashed (photoshop cs3), how slowly development environments ran (Java, Eclipse), and how terrible disk I/O was.

    Remember, this was supposed to be an UPGRADE. Honestly, it is just terrible. Vista on a laptop is simply awful. These were brand new HP laptops with 2GB of RAM.

    Vista offers nothing. It is an utter waste of time to attempt an upgrade at this time. With Vista and IE7, the shine is definitely off of MS. There is nothing in the MS product roadmap that is even remotely interesting to me at this point.

    MS competitors have never had a better time to take advantage of MS market position than they do now. The hole is wide open.

  • Re:Back in 1994... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Goldberg's Pants ( 139800 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @03:49PM (#20364475) Journal
    And people are wondering why game performance is so poor under Vista. While graphics drivers are part of it probably, how much other nonsense like this is going under the hood that people haven't discovered yet?
  • Re:Back in 1994... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Goldberg's Pants ( 139800 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @03:54PM (#20364509) Journal
    I have a 486 DX/100 here. In Linux I can play MP3's and use another console window. Mp3 would occasionally skip but was solid 99.9% of the time.
  • by Richard Steiner ( 1585 ) <rsteiner@visi.com> on Sunday August 26, 2007 @04:08PM (#20364641) Homepage Journal
    I play MP3 files in the background all the time on my OS/2 box (a Micron PPRO/200 tower w/192MB built in late 1996), and it has no measurable impact on network activities. I usually use Z! as the player.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 26, 2007 @04:19PM (#20364729)
    Although that is informative, that guy claims (and shows) a 50% drop in network speed. That's something different entirely from the 85-90% drop claimed by half of Slashdot. So if anything, it proves that the performance drop is much less severe in some (most/all/typical?) situations. The question remains: where is the data backing up your claims of 90% drops?

    Also, I'm not sure if I'm interpreting those screenshots correctly (I don't use Windows so I'm not too familiar with its monitoring tools) but if 100% in that graph corresponds to 1 Gb/s transfer speed, then the speed drops from 32 megabyte to a still very respectable 16 megabyte per second. People seem to suggest that networking grinds to a halt when playing audio, but although this drop is very significant, it by no means renders your network connection unusably slow. In fact, it's still pretty damn fast.
  • by twitter ( 104583 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @04:28PM (#20364797) Homepage Journal

    'Well, our new architecture can't theoretically acheive X anymore, so it's a design limitation, not a bug'.

    Must be a bug in their design process but it could be something to do with the company structure. I suspect it comes from the marketing interface which is horribly broken. The customer value in gates.h is still pointing to RIAA and MPAA rather than user.

  • by iluvcapra ( 782887 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @04:41PM (#20364925)

    There is this sort of undercurrent in a lot of Microsoft literature on MSDN, Channel9 and other sources (see this [msdn.com] in particular); many units in MS seem to take it for granted that "computing" is essentially an activity of programmers, and that end users need not be bothered with it. Sure, end users use computers, but really all they do with them is stuff they could've done without them, just faster (according to MS).

    Since an operating system is a "computing" product par excellence and really has no relation to a practical end-user process (by their reckoning), Microsoft only indifferently supports its operating system for end users, and primarily targets its attention on getting developers to make the switch. They believe, for good reason, that if they get the devs to build on Vista, then the end-users will just follow the applications, and that they won't really need to market the OS. Or, for that matter, even spend too much energy supporting it, since performance and reliability are always secondary to compatibility, which the developers lock the end users in to.

  • Re:REally? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @05:46PM (#20365499) Homepage
    Well, from what I've understood a TPM chip isn't required to run Vista (though it's a requirement for some of the "Vista-ready" stickers I believe). With no TPM chip this can't kick in, so can anyone with a mobo without TPM test it?
  • Re:missing tag? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TDRighteo ( 712858 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @05:55PM (#20365573)

    Yes, it still happens.

    The original reports noted that foobar2000 was just as affected as WMP. The problem occurs when the audio driver is in use. Interestingly, pausing foobar2000 seemed to release the audio driver (network performance went back to normal) while pausing WMP did not. VLC performs in a similar manner to foobar2000, although bypassing the audio device (decoding straight to a null device) results in no slow down.

    So, no, it's not the checking for DRM while unwrapping the MP3 like you suggest. You can do that quite happily via VLC, provided you don't intend on HEARING it. ;-)

  • by coryking ( 104614 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @06:22PM (#20365855) Homepage Journal
    Actually, the TCP/IP stack is a rewrite. Assuming this bug is somewhere in the TCP/IP stack, this is a prime example of why you should *not* rewrite.
  • by Zero__Kelvin ( 151819 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @08:35PM (#20366735) Homepage
    Empirical evidence shows that there is a 90% performance hit. Microsoft says the performance hit is slight. The fact that Microsoft doesn't openly state the empirical evidence does not invalidate that evidence, a fact which you seem to have trouble grasping. The article summary alludes to this, but you need to posses the ability to think for yourself, rather than letting an M$ spin shill do your thinking for you. Maybe RTFA and then THINK before criticizing the person who submitted the article, especially since they clearly have a clue what is going on and you seem to think that what is going on is whatever M$ will admit to explicitly ...

    Here is a clue just for you. Facts are based on empirical evidence, and NOT on what M$ falsely claims the facts to be.

    Good luck in your future janitorial position.
  • by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @09:27PM (#20367069) Homepage
    There shouldn't be *any* decrease!

    People have been doing simultaneous sound/networking as long as I can remember and this never happened before.

    Audio playback shouldn't even register as a tiny blip on a modern CPU (and neither should networking!)

    And...there's people with quad core machines who get the problem. How do you explain that?

  • Re: Deployment (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gatesvp ( 957062 ) on Sunday August 26, 2007 @10:09PM (#20367317)

    Good "conspiracy theory". Ever heard of Singularity [microsoft.com]? Whole OS written in C, Assembler and Managed .NET. They've end-of-lifed FoxPro and VB6, I'm sure that ASP will dying. They've started moving big chunks of Office 2007 to .NET so it's probably just a matter of a few years before they're ready to dump everything into managed code and start rolling out Singularity (Windows 2010?).

    You're really not that far off, people have been "waiting" for Vista, but this is really a throwaway OS, nobody is using it and it's not like business is "clamoring" for even this version. Heck many Enterprises have just finish rolling out XP. The new WPF and WCF will surely be functional under Singularity, and Enterprises are just now moving to Managed Code applications (check out the market for ".NET developers"). MS won't die away if this Vista "fails", so we're probably all looking at a Managed Code future in 2010 or 2011 :)

  • by dizzydogg ( 127440 ) on Monday August 27, 2007 @02:10PM (#20374273)
    The thing is a damned pentium can handle both, why can't a dual core do it when it has one core to do the networking and one to play music? It might not be an earth shattering end of the world type problem, but it is still a problem that should not exist. Why the hell can a system that is 50+ times more powerfull than an old junker running windows 98 not be able to do the same tasks without slowdown? This is one of the reasons why I haven't upgraded from XP to vista yet, because even with a modern system it offers nothing that would improve my productivity and gaming, only things that would slow it down. Here's hoping developers hold off on making DX10 only games until MS gets their act together and fixes stupid bugs/slowdowns like this.
  • Re:missing tag? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by GPL Apostate ( 1138631 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2007 @09:53PM (#20393201)
    I was responding to:

    Yes the "old Apple" was as bad as Microsoft (proprietary file formats, protocols and even connectors) but they've changed.

    First off, unless Apple publishes the source code, they have proprietary file formats, procols, etc. They have a whole proprietary fricking Windowing System. You can jump through their hoops and use the 'hooks' they provide to develop code for said Windowing System, but just as with Microsoft, the Apple products will always work 'best' because they're coded to the full API, not just the 'top layer' one provided to third parties.

    Third parties and end users don't have to care about wether the source code is available for it to be in their interest for it to be available to developers who might write apps for them if they didn't have to kiss the ring.

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...