Windows Vista Myth Busting

[TimeWinder]

[QUOTE=Kinthalis]
The reason I dismissed it was because it only affected one out of hundreds of newish games out there, and the problem did Not affect EVERYONE playing WOW on vista (just some hardware configurations) and because I figured the problem would be solved quickly, and I believe it was (latest updates).
[/QUOTE]

Nope. Brand new (today) nVidia 880GTS, latest drivers, dual-core AMD4800+ system. Running around Shattrath with the frame counter on:

Vista: 20-25 FPS
XP: 40-60 FPS (it caps at 60).

And there are still artifacts on distant objects that don’t appear at all on XP. This experience seems to be common to everyone I know with nVidia cards.

Which might be “just some hardware configurations” on “one out of hundreds of newish games,” but it’s the MOST COMMON video card family on the MOST PLAYED game. And frankly, I haven’t seen a game yet that gives the same (or better) frame rate in Vista as XP on the same hardware, although at this point most of them are pretty playable. I’m not saying Vista isn’t getting better, but this meme that all of it’s problems are solved and that performance and compatibility isn’t an issue is patently false for most of us.

I can point to a half dozen programs that I use every day…or at least would, if they worked in Vista. And for professionals, the death of NetMeeting and lack of an XP version of Microsoft colloborator is pretty much a showstopper right out of the gate. I can’t use my company’s VPN software: not Vista compatible, no expected release date. I can’t use NetMeeting, even the version Microsoft makes available for Vista (a special download you have to CALL them for) doesn’t support desktop sharing, making it a glorified chat room. I can’t use Virtual Rooms as a replacement: not Vista compatible, no expected release date. Adobe Premiere Elements 3.02 doesn’t work in 64-bit Vista, no expected release date. The corporate IM client? No Vista version, no expected release date. It’s not even possible to use file shares on the corporate network from a Vista system, IT still hasn’t figured out why. Files copied onto my USB flash drives from Vista are corrupted when read on an XP machine, but not vice versa, who knows why? Safari for Windows crashes instantly when launched on my Vista-64 machine. Several applications inexplicably turn off Aero every time they’re launched; whether it comes back or not when they quit appears to be based on moon phase. Windows Movie Maker can’t read FireWire data off my High Def camcorders at speed (even though it can from XP). Inexplicably, Vegas Studio can; apparently their developers actually opened their Vista prerelease betas. I still don’t know why my Vista system (and ONLY the Vista system) can’t get DNS for the straight dope main page.

And that’s just what I can think of right now. It’s getting better: three months ago this list would have been 2-3 times as long. But it’s got a long way to go before I can give up XP. If this machine weren’t dual-boot, I’d have had to scrap Vista ages ago: it just can’t do what I need it to.

[squeegee]

[QUOTE=TimeWinder]
Adobe Premiere Elements 3.02 doesn’t work in 64-bit Vista
[/QUOTE]
Actually, to the best of my knowledge, none of Adobe’s current applications, except Acrobat (8.1, with limitations), are certified to run on Vista or XP x64, and there are no announced plans to support either 64-bit OS.

Are all of your complaints above from using Vista x64? Are some of them perhaps 64-bit problems rather than Vista problems pe se?

[TimeWinder]

[QUOTE=squeegee]

Are all of your complaints above from using Vista x64? Are some of them perhaps 64-bit problems rather than Vista problems pe se?
[/QUOTE]

Most of Adobe’s apps work: they’re not 64 bit applications (and have no plans to be), but they still run. And yes, I’m sure that some of my issues are 64-bit related; I said as much in an earlier post.

But: Vista 64 is supposed to be able to run 32-bit applications, and putting a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit computer (as most new ones are, these days) is wasting some of the machine (in my case, the ability to actually use all my memory). Many new computer buyers won’t get to choose whether they get 32-bit or 64-bit Vista. But aside from Premiere Elements (which supposedly works in 32-bit), I’m pretty sure that all of the problems I listed in my last post apply to 32-bit Vista as well: I know the WoW and VPN ones do.

[squeegee]

[QUOTE=TimeWinder]
putting a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit computer (as most new ones are, these days) is wasting some of the machine (in my case, the ability to actually use all my memory).
[/quote]
You do know that with 32-bit apps in a 64-bit OS, you’re still wasting all of that memory, right? 32-bit apps can’t use more than the first 2gb.

I’m pretty sure that all of the problems I listed in my last post apply to 32-bit Vista as well: I know the WoW and VPN ones do.

I’m thinking that poopy 64-bit nVidia drivers may share some of the blame as well, but who knows.

[TimeWinder]

[QUOTE=squeegee]
You do know that with 32-bit apps in a 64-bit OS, you’re still wasting all of that memory, right? 32-bit apps can’t use more than the first 2gb.
[/QUOTE]

No, I’m not wasting it at all. The virtual address space that an application has available to it is irrelevant; 64-bit Windows means my system can see all the *physical *memory. The *system *can use it all; which means that any given app will hit disk less. I don’t very often need any given app to see more than 2G (although it’s occasionally useful in Photoshop or video apps), but I still get the benefit of having the system see all the physical memory. Plus, Windows itself is 64-bit, and so are many of the utilities that ship with it, and so are many of the DLLs that even the 32-bit apps are calling.

[squeegee]

[QUOTE=TimeWinder]
64-bit Windows means my system can see all the *physical *memory. The *system *can use it all; which means that any​ given app will hit disk less.
[/quote]
Dunno. A big (even huge) disk cache seems less than compelling to me. Shrug.

so are many of the DLLs that even the 32-bit apps are calling.

Well… no. 32bit code can’t call 64bit code on Windows. Or vice-versa. That’s one of the things that holds back app developers from jumping feet-first into 64-bit.

@Wikipedia

Although 32-bit applications can be run transparently, the mixing of the two types of code within the same process is not allowed. A 64-bit application cannot link against a 32-bit library (DLL) and similarly a 32-bit application cannot link against a 64-bit library. This may lead to the need for library developers to provide both 32- and 64-bit binary versions of their libraries.

[TimeWinder]

[QUOTE=squeegee]
Dunno. A big (even huge) disk cache seems less than compelling to me. Shrug.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not talking about a disk cache, except in the vaguest of senses. I’m talking about the virtual memory paging of the system, which is basically the only reason to HAVE more memory. A 64 bit system can use more physical memory than a 32-bit one, which helps all applications, 32-bit or no. It’s no more a disk cache than any other memory.

[QUOTE=squeegee]
Well… no. 32bit code can’t call 64bit code on Windows. Or vice-versa. That’s one of the things that holds back app developers from jumping feet-first into 64-bit.
[/QUOTE]

Not to impugn Wikipedia’s fine reputation, but I’m not sure that’s accurate, at least not for .NET applications. Certainly something in the system is capable of doing it, or Windows couldn’t even RUN a 32-bit app, which it demonstrably does.

[squeegee]

[QUOTE=TimeWinder]
I’m not talking about a disk cache, except in the vaguest of senses. I’m talking about the virtual memory paging of the system
[/quote]
I do know what virtual memory is, thanks.

Not to impugn Wikipedia’s fine reputation, but I’m not sure that’s accurate, at least not for .NET applications. Certainly something in the system is capable of doing it, or Windows couldn’t even RUN a 32-bit app, which it demonstrably does.

Wow64.

@MSDN

he WOW64 emulator runs in user mode, provides an interface between the 32-bit version of Ntdll.dll and the kernel of the processor, and it intercepts kernel calls. The emulator consists of the following DLLs:

* Wow64.dll provides the core emulation infrastructure and the thunks for the Ntoskrnl.exe entry-point functions.
* Wow64Win.dll provides thunks for the Win32k.sys entry-point functions.
* Wow64Cpu.dll provides x86 instruction emulation on Itanium processors. It executes mode-switch instructions on the processor. This DLL is not necessary for x64 processors because they execute x86-32 instructions at full clock speed.

Along with the 64-bit version of Ntdll.dll, these are the only 64-bit binaries that can be loaded into a 32-bit process.

So if by “many” you mean “four”, then, yes, many 64bit DLLs are called in 32-bit-land.

[Martini_Enfield]

[QUOTE=Kinthalis]
I wonder if many of the people here know what their talking about.

I’ve NEVER, EVER being asked by vista more than twice whether I want to do something or not. Certainly not the five times one of the posters above mentions! And I’ma gamer, half my drivers are beta!

Bottom line is vista is here to stay. You’ll have to upgrade eventually, unless you are willing to pay MORE for mac hardware/software which will offer you very little to nothing more - or even less (depending on your intended use).

The security features can be turned off, and for the most part, they are transparent to the end user, specially after you’re done installing your drivers and programs and setting up your network/users. Seldom do I see an “are you sure” box pop up, and then it’s usually only when running old install apps.

Performance drop is minimal to none compared to an XP machine, specially now: most drivers are in a much better place today than at Vista launch.

I see nothing to complain about. Only very old software will have trouble running on Vista, or software that requires special permissions and has not been updated (I’m looking at you PALM Desktop!) CAD 2000 should run fine, and I KNOW Adobe Acrobat will work fine, since I use it myself.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you! As someone working in retail management, this is, word for word, my professional and personal opinion of Vista.

Bear in mind that 90%+ of home computer users will only use their computer to surf the net, send e-mails, and play solitaire… for them, Vista is a perfectly adequate operating system. The only major issues I’ve found that “normal” computer users are likely to encounter relates to printer drivers (the current crop of printers still have XP drivers in the box), but the Vista ones can be downloaded from the manufacturer’s website.

Having said that, we’d make a fortune if we continued to sell XP-loaded computers…

[tbdi]

[QUOTE=H3Knuckles]
… (like the bubbly, colorful gui, different organization of information when using the explorer, different start menu, etc) which could all be turned off in a couple simple steps (most of it simply by changing the theme).

So, Can the same be done with Vista?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, for the most part anyway. I haven’t yet found a way to turn off the “command bar” in Explorer but my Vista UI looks pretty much like a Windows 2000 UI now that I’ve turned off all the Fischer-Price interface options.

[TheLoadedDog]

My sister just bought a new laptop with Vista installed. It’s the first time I’ve used it, and I hate it. Apart from the endless “Are you really, really, really sure?” shit, it’s quicker just to get out and walk. My sister has gone back to handwritten notes for her business because it’s so slow opening spreadsheets, etc.

When I get time, I’ll be putting that machine on XP.

[Liberal]

[QUOTE=Jodi]
This has not been my experience with my older (2001) home laptop, and I’m one of those “only uses Word and the Internet” Idiot users. Vista is much slower booting up my maching and much slower logging on the Web.

Also, it would not allow me to hook up my HP printer without technical assistance from my BIL (and a downloaded patch), which pissed me off severely.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but you can turn your little windows sort of sideways kinda. I mean, my god — you can turn them sort of sideways kinda repeatedly. You can even show this to your friends. You can even cycle through them. And to top it all off, it all looks glassy. […incredulous stare…] What more could you possibly ask for?

[Musicat]

[QUOTE=TheLoadedDog]
My sister just bought a new laptop with Vista installed. It’s the first time I’ve used it, and I hate it. Apart from the endless “Are you really, really, really sure?” shit, it’s quicker just to get out and walk. My sister has gone back to handwritten notes for her business because it’s so slow opening spreadsheets, etc.

When I get time, I’ll be putting that machine on XP.
[/QUOTE]
While I’m no fan of Vista, are you sure that it is the OS that is causing the slowness? New machines from major vendors like Dell come with tons of crapware and trial packages pre-installed, and every one of those programs takes up RAM space, desktop space, startup time and may steal CPU cycles. Try disabling all except critical ones like anti-virus stuff in your startup group and see if it makes a difference.