Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Operating Systems Software Windows IT

PC World Tests Final Version of Vista SP1 210

Mac writes "PC World ran the final version of Windows Vista SP1 through a first set of tests last night. Here's the bottom line: 'File copying, one of the main performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly faster. But other tests showed little improvement and, in two tests, our experience was actually a little better without the service pack installed than with it.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PC World Tests Final Version of Vista SP1

Comments Filter:
  • In other news... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Oxy the moron ( 770724 ) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @04:29PM (#22339434)

    ... the sky is typically blue, the grass is mostly green, and the Pope is Catholic.

    I un-installed Vista about 6 months ago and returned to XP. The main reason is because I simply didn't think that the main issues I had with it (some outlined in this article) really could be fixed... at least not with a service pack release or other patches. It seemed to me that the focus with Vista simply had shifted more to the shiny eye candy for end users, and that when you focus on the pretty stuff the necessary stuff will logically be less efficient.

    I do have some reasonable high hopes for this new MinWin, but until then, I'll just continue to expect more tests and benchmarks like this one.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07, 2008 @04:41PM (#22339628)
    TFA says file copying on a test machine showed a 9% decrease (384 secs. to 348 secs.) in the amount of time to copy "1.9GB of files (562 JPEG images) from a 2GB Kingston SD Card to the PC." Yet, further down in article, the author performed "informal" file compression tests on two other machines and found poorer performance when compared to pre-SP1 results.

  • by ThinkFr33ly ( 902481 ) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @04:43PM (#22339668)
    In case anybody is interest *why* Vista pre-SP1 seemed so much slower copying files than XP, and why post-SP1 for the most part fixes it, you should check out Mark Russinovich's blog post [technet.com] on the matter.

    It's a very interesting read.
  • by spoco2 ( 322835 ) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @04:59PM (#22339936)
    I've been running the SP1 Release Candidate for a while now and it has improved networking greatly (resuming from Sleep the network is available again immediately unlike pre SP1 where there was quite a lag), and on that front the network discovery and usage of my LAN is better than XP. (Machines are found more reliably and it all just works much more smoothly).

    My biggest gripe with Vista has been the DVD Maker. I look upon OSX users with envy because of their iLife. I don't have HUGE needs for my digital media, but I would like to be able to throw one or more videos onto a DVD with a nice menu. I used to be able to do this without effort with Nero, but the version I have was an OEM that doesn't work with Vista.

    So, I turned to what Vista has, and was thrilled to see DVD Maker, a simple program that seemed to do pretty much what I wanted and made really, really pretty menus with no hassle.

    EXCEPT IT DOESN'T WORK.

    I haven't had one successful DVD made using this dang thing.

    I have tried burning DVDs with video taken straight from digital free to air tv (so already in DVD resolution and MPEG2 encoded), I've tried Divx files, I've tried everything. While you're creating the DVD in DVD Maker it shows EVERYTHING perfectly. If it burned the disc the way it SHOWED it in the program it'd all be fine... except what does it do?

    One of two things:
    * Fail with cryptic error at 99% of burn process (except it actually hasn't even touched the blank DVD)
    OR
    * Burn the disc successfully, but turn all widescreen material into squished 4:3 content... leaving only beautiful 16:9 menus working correctly.

    It's utterly infuriating and is the only thing that has made me want a Mac really... just iLife... if I could have that on Windows I'd be happy.
  • by iustinp ( 104688 ) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @05:20PM (#22340312) Homepage
    I went and started reading the article, but stopped at the first mention of the "file copy engine". If your OS is so complex that you need an "engine" - a dedicated software construct - for copying files, then... I guess this is the reason Vista must use so much space.

    Furthermore,

    The biggest change they made was to go back to using cached file I/O again for all file copies, both local and remote, with one exception [...]
    So basically it's faster because it's the old version, not because the new version is fixed.

    I guess the end tells it all:

    File copying is not as easy as it might first appear
    Tell that to all the 52k of /bin/dd (well, plus the kernel part, but still...).

    At least the article was an enjoyable piece of literature.
  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @05:29PM (#22340486) Homepage Journal
    We tried running Vista and it was, on average, twice as slow as XP, so we just gave up and won't install it on any boxen in our labs.

    We have real work to do and shelling out cash for graphics cards we don't need for an OS that runs even slower is a total waste of time.

    Most of our boxen are now Linux-only or Linux/XP dual boot now - performance matters, and making it only 45 percent slower than XP when it was 50 percent slower won't cut it in a production environment.
  • by Zorque ( 894011 ) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @05:31PM (#22340530)
    I dunno what's wrong with your system, but my transfer speeds aren't noteworthy at all. My computer is significantly less powerful than yours, and the transfer speeds are just as fast as they would be in XP. Honestly, it's probably something about the way you have it set up.
  • by milsoRgen ( 1016505 ) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @05:31PM (#22340536) Homepage
    I couldn't agree with you more. MS should support the practice with, at the very least, proper documentation.

    I was using nLite a while back, built a custom install of XP with driver support for my hardware. It installs significantly faster than a standard XP disc, due to the extraneous components being removed, and lets me get down to business mucho grande faster in the event of a reinstall.

    I played around to see how far I could take it, I could get xp bootable on some fairly low end machines once it was striped to the core. However the further I stripped it down the more I realized there are alot of dependencies among the various components that would tend to limit functionality once you reached a certain point.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07, 2008 @06:20PM (#22341314)
    TFA talks about the difficulties of copying files. Interesting but: so what? Does it explain why XP manages to do better? And what about linux which for most of the time had none of the needed info yet implemented NTFS and SMB and likely copies stuff faster than Vista? Vista has a heap of open source software to get inspiration from. Smart ass comments seems still justified.
  • by Shados ( 741919 ) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @07:03PM (#22341966)
    The only thing to keep on the lookout for, is the freagin DRM crap. It is buggy: most people won't have issues with it, but in a certain set of rare conditions, it pops up and hog all your CPU (its a bug, that is, normally, even if you watch DRM content it won't do that, but sometimes if you watch NON-DRM stuff, it will, its a mess).

    Look at your task manager for some process hugging everything. Especially if you used WMP sometime during the session. Its uncommon, and Ive only seen it happen once out of many, many machine, since launch...but when it does happen, the computer is as good as dead.

    As for your question: because Vista is more stable than XP (yeah, I said it), and when it has issues, its a total joke to figure them out (the diagnostic facilities are GREAT). The caching subsystem makes even large heavy software such as Visual Studio pop very fast in later uses. It has .NET 3.0 preinstalled making the use of XBAP application on a large network less painful. The browser is virtually fully sandboxed. It has IIS7, and I can get Media Center without having to get an OEM or pay up the butt. I can still see my stuff on a second monitor while i'm playing game instead of said monitor go black (I know there are ways to do that in XP, but it didn't out of the box for me). UAC is actually quite great, if you don't use shitty software. Also a lot of nice shell extensions...minor things you could get on XP, but are built in Vista... (Open Console from current location, Copy file as Path, etc). Direct X10 without need to hack up my box.

    I could go on. Win2k to WinXP was just painful. WinXP to Vista only has minor annoyances, and a decent bit of benefits.
  • by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @08:52PM (#22343220)
    Wow man and that earth shattering file copy speed was on a 3GHz dual core machine - 1000 machine cycles for each byte transferred. Does MS realize that modern tape drives have a MINIMUM speed of 32MB/s? LTO-3 tapes don't go any slower. So will MS be selling paper tape backup systems or do we need punch cards? Just thinking of what they must be doing wrong to make Vista this slow, makes my head hurt.
  • by Sinbios ( 852437 ) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @08:54PM (#22343236) Homepage
    If you manage to read down a few paragraphs you'll see the part where he explains why Vista does things differently than previous versions of Windows, and why it's better.
  • by Your.Master ( 1088569 ) on Thursday February 07, 2008 @09:46PM (#22343700)
    a) It specifically mentions what previous versions of Windows, including XP, does, and why they changed.

    b) They can't look at what GPL'd software did without risking "contaminating" the source code and having to open it, so they can't "get inspiration" from GPL'd stuff. They may be able to gank code from some other more permissive licenses. I'm not positive but isn't the linux NTFS stuff GPL?

    c) Smart ass comments might be justified based on what you said if those smart ass comments were at all related to what you said.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 08, 2008 @02:50AM (#22345650)
    Get "ConvertXtoDVD" - it's the best app out there for doing what you want.
    I've burnt several DVDs of Divx files and quicktime files - typically two-three vides on each DVD, with a menu.

    The menus work perfectly well, and the DVDs can be burnt in 4:3 or 16:9 modes, PAL or NTSC.
    Yes, it a third party app, yes it's NOT freeware. Can be found on all popular "software" websites *wink*

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...