What? MS even released a hotfix because Vista's file copying was up to 60% slower than XP's. Some of the problems have been fixed with the patch but it still feels slower than XP.
http://www.aeroxp.org/index.php?categoryid=23&p2_articleid=114
Vista rant ---- MS must dump it...
- Thread starter mito
- Start date
http://www.aeroxp.org/index.php?categoryid=23&p2_articleid=114
That problem affected only some people, not all.
It's a problem that affects primarily network operations. Even in XP they're slow, but on Vista they could take several times as long--if it doesn't die in the time estimation stage, that is. Really, you have to see it to believe it.
Well it's a bug that microsoft have admitted to and released a patch for.I find it strange to hear people rag on vista's file copying performance. Personally, vista copies files monstrously faster than XP or any previous MS OS because it seems to buffer more in RAM than before (which is about time).
I don't hear my harddrives rattling like..rattles anymore. It's a much smoother and more enjoyable experience.And faster too since the fewer seeks need to be done the more actual work can be done.
So I guess the slow speed people are seeing must be due to some rather peculiar system-particular bugs that hit only certain hardware setups..
Peace.
The problem with slow file operations over networks affected only some people, the abysmal speed of local file operations was universal AFAIK.
Yep. Every Vista system I've ever worked on (probably about 50) that wasn't patched had the horribly slow file copy issue. Slow unzip speed too.
Rainbow Man
Veteran
Ah.
I don't do much networkk file transfers - primarily because something is borked in my winxp box's OS install and it doesn't show up properly in the network neighborhood.
Well then I haven't seen it I guess because the HDD copying I did was quite speedy. Often Vista reported speeds of 60MB/s or more. That's more than acceptable to me.
Peace.
I find it strange to hear people rag on vista's file copying performance. Personally, vista copies files monstrously faster than XP or any previous MS OS because it seems to buffer more in RAM than before (which is about time).
I don't hear my harddrives rattling like..rattles anymore. It's a much smoother and more enjoyable experience.
So I guess the slow speed people are seeing must be due to some rather peculiar system-particular bugs that hit only certain hardware setups..
Peace.
How did I miss this one?
You're joking, right? Prior to the recent performance patch for Vista file copy performance was an absolute joke compared to XP. I've seen this on *every* Vista system I've worked on that didn't have the aforementioned patch.
Rainbow Man
Veteran
Erm, no. Why should I?
it never hit me and I've been running vista since the first days of july. The patch in question wasn't out thhen.
So of course your anecdotal evidence proves everyone's affected and anyone claiming otherwise is BSing?
Not so my friend.Peace.
chavvdarrr
Veteran
Peace?! We have 30+ Vista machines atm and every single one has itErm, no. Why should I?
it never hit me and I've been running vista since the first days of july. The patch in question wasn't out thhen.
So of course your anecdotal evidence proves everyone's affected and anyone claiming otherwise is BSing?
Peace.
, even the patch is not 100% helping.The thing that seems to help more is this: http://blogs.msdn.com/wndp/archive/2007/07/05/receive-window-auto-tuning-on-vista.aspx
Atm Vista is a joke. To sell OS that has anywhere from 1 to 25% chance of locking when trying to transfer 1+GB of data through the network is a joke.
Constant hdd spinning and scratching, 5 minitues needed for hards to stop going up and down after reboot - thats the progress I guess?!
Some good ideas, terrible implementation.
Scrap R600, let R700 enter.... errrrrm, I mean scrap Vista....
But after all, who am I to wonder? We forgot the golden rule: If its from SmallMild - don't use it before SP1 is released.
Erm, no. Why should I?
it never hit me and I've been running vista since the first days of july. The patch in question wasn't out thhen.
So of course your anecdotal evidence proves everyone's affected and anyone claiming otherwise is BSing?
Peace.
So, you're the one big exception to this bug or something?
I have never seen this bug as well on any box here in our office.
I have never seen Vista locking up during a network transfer. Complete news to me a bug like this exists. The hard disk activity after boot comes from SuperFetch. Just turn it off if you don't like it. Additional hard disk activity comes from Windows Defender, registry backup and periodic creation of restore points. Not a bad thing, IMO. And at least on my laptop I can say under Vista background tasks are a lot less noticable than under XP.
Last edited by a moderator:
Uh? I regularly transfer files of this size at my office, and so does my team. And my office has far more than 30 Vista machines, and we do not experience lockups anything like you're suggesting.
In fact, the last two reported BSOD's in Vista (which are about, eh, two of maybe eight total since we've all been running it since ~January) were both due to an admitted hardware problem from Lenovo (Thinkpad T60 Intel wireless hardware problem). Just this morning I've moved two files from my workstation to the local implementation server that were more than 3.5Gb each.
Just because the drive is spinning doesn't mean the system isn't 100% usable. In Windows NT5 operating systems, drive spinning meant the system was typically going to be jittery and worthless; in Vista the drives spin just because you aren't using them - in the same way that Vista "uses more memory" because you're not doing a damned thing with it.
If you have more important tasks to perform, like opening Outlook or Adobe or some other wonky thing, then the background drive activity will be stopped and tasked with your application instead. The key term here is background disk activity, which insinuates (and actually means) that NT6 actually now has a concept of priority of I/O, not just CPU.
Guess what? Your CPU is doing stuff too when you're not using it, but when you need it? You get priority over those tasks too. If all you can do is whine about shit you don't understand; that's not the OS'es fault.
chavvdarrr
Veteran
then you are lucky
.Don't tell me that I whine about shit I don't understand - save these words to someone 18y old who thinks Windows386 is a movie.
Believe it or not, on many workstations, with 2 cores, 2GB ram, 250GB sata disks, Gb netcards, Vista Business (or ultimate) patched every wednesday
P), making network transfers is risky. Explorer process freezes on "calculating time", goes white and thats it. 50-50 that you won't be able to launch any program which needs network traffic - like internet or file browsing. Already launched apps will happily work though .Yep, by unknown reason some machines seem more vulnurable than others with exactly same equipment. You may be able to transfer 10s of gigs 10 times in a row and then trying another 100MB will be fatal.
Does that look annoying to you? hell, it IS. The above mentioned disabling of auto-tuning tcp stack helps - in fact only 1 lockup on machines where this "patch" was applied.
Microsoft had admitted the problem, yet because you never ever stepped in the shit makes you think that thing like shit does not exist?
Like I said, I do this every day. And not just me, there are another dozen people within 50 feet of me that do the same. We're all on some form of Core Duo, 2Gb or 4Gb of ram, Vista Enterprise 32-bit, and a gigabit lan free of any QoS protocols (which exist on our normal "user" VLANs) and we all move data back and forth from one of two Gbit-connected Win2K3 servers. Just out of spite, I moved an 8Gb file from my workstation to the server -- twice -- with nary a hiccup. Maybe you shouldn't be using NE2000 compatible network cards?then you are lucky
Don't tell me that I whine about shit I don't understand - save these words to someone 18y old who thinks Windows386 is a movie.
Believe it or not, on many workstations, with 2 cores, 2GB ram, 250GB sata disks, Gb netcards, Vista Business (or ultimate) patched every wednesday
chavvdarrr said:yet because you never ever stepped in the shit makes you think that thing like shit does not exist?
I'm sure it exists for people who are having the problem; I'm not convinced it's some widespread issue like you make it out to be. And as for the whining? I was referring to your complaints about the disk running...
Vista sucks0rz!1 Sluggish, ram Hog, useless features, etc... evil.
or
Pff Vista ultimate 64bit rockxz0rs on my QXZ6969Ghz core, i had to nail it on the desk so it wont run away with so mutch powah!
ok, now forget what you read, and look at how the market behaved since Vista came out. Whatever M$ says its obvious Vista is failing to meet M$ expectations, they had to extended XP support due to demand! That speaks for itself in general how the consumer and enterprises see Vista.
or
Pff Vista ultimate 64bit rockxz0rs on my QXZ6969Ghz core, i had to nail it on the desk so it wont run away with so mutch powah!
ok, now forget what you read, and look at how the market behaved since Vista came out. Whatever M$ says its obvious Vista is failing to meet M$ expectations, they had to extended XP support due to demand! That speaks for itself in general how the consumer and enterprises see Vista.
Where did they say they extend the support? Just that the OEMs can sell it couple months longer than originally planned.
AFAIK, full support is still to end 14th April 2009, and Extended support ((security) hotfixes) 14th April 2014
If they are extending OEMs abiility to sell it for 5 more months then in my view that is extending its support, unless you got some weird semantics interpretation. You left to mention that smaller PC manufacturers have extended license/support till 30 jan. 2009 (or 14th april as you mentioned? that confused me) to keep selling PCs with XP.
*typo
*typo
Last edited by a moderator:
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
OEMs were going to have to stop shipping it on their machines at the beginning of next year, but MS recently extended that deadline by another six months due to demand.
Personally, I think Vista's biggest problems are to do with price and perception. First off, it just costs way too much. It's even worse in Europe where we are getting royally screwed on the price front.
Secondly, while it has some nice stuff going on under the bonnet, there's nothing on the surface to convice people to upgrade. It just doesn't seem to offer anything significant over XP. On the other hand, hardware requirements have gone up, there are still many driver and software issues.
People look at the potential problems, the high price, the need to also spend money on new hardware, and they are just not seeing any value in the upgrade. Maybe it would be different if they already had a highly specced machine with all working software and drivers sitting next to their XP machine. They might get some experience with Vista and decide it's much better, but a lot of people will simply not have that option, and will continue to happily motor along on XP because it "does enough".