Quote:
Originally Posted by hunta Vista has not been "fixed" and likely won't be, ever. Any performance improvements that come to Vista through patches or service packs will never be able to make it as fast as XP is already. It's just a bloated OS, it was designed that way. The audio subsystem is also slower than XP because there are additional layers of OS baloney that software needs to go through because of DRM or "improvements" or who knows.
I would just steer clear and stay with XP if you're a PC user. Or get a Mac. I ended up getting an ADK laptop which is specially made for audio, and thus works. It was significantly cheaper than getting a Mac, and had XP. Right now the only safe bets for audio are XP on desktop, XP on a "boutique" audio laptop, or a Mac (assuming it doesn't have that Agere FW). |
I can understand for the point of personal use
1) Vista runs considerably more services and because of this, has to spend somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come without a price.
2)Seeing as how the newer processors are getting better and better.There are really fast dual core processors, and even faster quad cores. Even though you will lose application performance by moving to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's.
3)No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor, so far. At least that's been my general consensus.
4)I have benchmarked Vista both in it's beta release and it's initial release. I have done so in "real world" and "virtual" (VMWare) environments.
5)Keep in mind that If you have The "latest and greatest" hardware out there, Vista's performance does give Xp a run for it's money.
During any of the testing I've done with vista vs. XP, this is what I've found: Hardware-Dell precision 380
Processor- Pentium 4 670
hard drive- 80GB 7200 rpm
Memory- 2GB DDR2 533mhz
Video card-nVidia 512MB Quadro FX 4500
Windows Vista SP1 and Windows XP overall performed comparably on most test operations. Differences between the two operating systems were typically less than a half second.
Windows Vista SP1 was noticeably more responsive after rebooting than Windows XP on several common business apps.
Overall, Windows Vista SP1 was more responsive than Windows Vista on most comparisons.
This is just me being subjective. Of course I have to do test/benchmarks, at my job I am responsible for this and software development and engineering.
A few differences, in Vista with out getting too nerdy:
Reduced the possibility of registry corrupting, by make the registry "read only" and it changes to read/write when needed and reverts back to "read only".
Services are actually delayed by starting the services shortly after after the boot.Xp does not.
The service control manager (kind of reminds me of Linux a bit, except vista does not ask for an admin password).
It works in that, It will ask your permission before changing a setting, ( Linux does something similar for non Sudo users, which it asks for the root password before allowing you to change something). Though it would appear to be a pain in the arse for some, it's not too bad of an idea.
There are quite a many differences between the 2, once you get past the surface. Especially in the Kernel.
Excuse the OT
/Jason