The most common ones are CPU, Faulty VMware infrastructure configuration is the main reason for bad VM performance. The wrong selection of drivers or incorrectly With their version 18 release, Condusiv Diskeeper finally solves one of the product's only historical annoyances--reboot dependency.
The user Not too long ago, systems administrators had no way to optimize their servers' SSDs. In this review, you'll learn Storage Replica is a new feature in Windows Server that allows us to do storage-agnostic block-level replication of We started with VSAN 3 nodes, then We are coming to the end of our article series on Azure Storage Services. In this section, we are And now, face it, Vista is slower, and will ever be.
Two years from now, it will be bearable, but now? No thanks. Indeed, while technically you may be right to say that it is not fair to compare a one year old OS with a more than 5 years old one, what people are interested in is sheer performance. I'm consider myself happy when I go on people's PCs and see that they have 1GB of ram and the point is that they simply won't upgrade their PCs just to run Vista Also, the problem is that the added features simply do not explain the added overhead in performance which is sometimes massive The number and purpose of the new features simply do not justify the added overhead While I can be OK with boot time, why do we see so much difference in files copy performance?
The problem is that customers are not going to buy the "It is OK for it to be slower, because it is brand new and have added features" excuse. Granted, the same was true with 98 and XP many users, especially home users, didn't get through the Win phase , but it was a whole different kernel and the gap in requirements wasn't as massive as from XP to Vista. While you are right that better hardware is required for better I would prefer to say "newer" software to run, it is something that software use and abuse with the hope of this to cover their occassional sloppy programming.
I think it is clear that today, the focus is not on performance but on features and looks, and who cares how bloated it is becoming : it is why people have the feeling they need to renew their PC to do barely the same thing as before. If programmers had performance more in mind when writing programs, our PCs would run much faster today than they did in the last years.
Unfortunately, I am not feeling that my PC that I renew almost every year has been much faster than a few years ago in day-to-day tasks and I can't help but be sad when I realize that the added performance from the new hardware i have been buying has been sucked away from me to make up for software bloat and occasionnal sloppy programming I'm not only speaking of Vista here but almost any software vendor today. My view of Vista is that it has wanted to do too much at once : new user-interface very confusing and breaking years of user-experience and habits, ending up in huge training costs and productivity loss , new security features while they are certainly good, some seem overkill over the loss of compatibility and it is why most admins think that XP is "secure enough" and insane hardware requirements compared to what most people or companies are equipped with.
Not saying that things shouldn't move, but Microsoft tried to do too much at once, resulting in a lot of rejection from its user worst point for me over all I said is user-interface : it is why I am not planning to deploy it yet in my organization. I hope Microsoft can get back to its sense with Windows I am not as tech savvy as i would like to think but i will give it a shot. Especially when the numbers show Vista faster at single, less memory draining procedures.
Mike -edit if not : - is right on the money when he says the test should be conducted on pc's with the hardware available at the time of Introduction. The test is obviously skewed in favor of XP. I will shortly be drooling all over Vista when i go x64 with 8gb or maybe try for 16gb.
Remember, XP needed a mb machine to run relatively good, in a time when mb was the default Come on ppl, move on. In organizations having little to do with IT as their business let's say a clothes factory , executives sees IT costs as a something they have to pay for employees to work, but they may not want to invest more for little benefits. IT Managers have to have a great deal of good reasons to tell the executives they want to order new PCs in the organization in most of the case, the rest of the PC like the CPU or Hard drive is too old as well to run Vista decently, so a simple memory upgrade won't do.
Now, it is quite unfair to compare 98 with XP since they were different kernels types, but as I said, it is true that reactions were more or less same. However, with XP, you got huge improvements over 9x : stability is several orders of magnitudes better, you could join it to domains, etc Vista has some extra-features most of these can be obtained through third party program running on XP anyway , but not enough to justify the upgrades for most people.
You rarely work on the server directly, unless it is a terminal server, so the user interface doesn't bothers as much as on a workstation OS. It is also easier to justify hardware upgrades on some servers than for lots of clients. Same with Security : you obviously need even more security on the server than on the clients, so having to solve some either software or hardware incompatibilites is worth the security gain here.
As soon as companies will renew their computer fleets, they will either keep the preinstalled Vista or deploy their own once most of the fleet will meet hardware requirements with dignity, but before, it seems hard to justify. From what I've read disabling the background search process will improve performance quite a bit. Victor, thanks. I was thinking that I was bashing MS too hard recently. It seems that is not the case then. You know what? Windows 7 will be even slower. I absolutely count on that.
JC, I think 4GB is not really high-end anymore. Memory has become quite cheap lately. I still have my old XP machine at home. When I bought it, it was absolutely high-end and I think it was only 2 years old when XP came out. This machine is definitely slower than my Vista laptop now which I bought short before Vista came out.
Andy, I think we still have to wait if Server will get the same critics as Vista. C'mon Micheal. Just re-visit what you have said here. Microsoft are asking soon it will be forcing when the drop XP supprt me to upgrade my organisations OS to Vista.
In the process I will need to spends thousands buying new kit, re-training staff, and updating applications. And you are defending them?!
Think if they were selling a product in any other market - cars, TVs, holidays IT needs to join the rest of the sane business world and drop the notion that money doesn't matter. Your comments re 4GB of RAM clearly illustrate that you speak for yourself only and not for any business or organisation of more than 1. For my company, XP does everything I need it to - and seems to do it relatively well. Please give me a real business reason why I should upgrade.
What will I get for my money? As we say - What is the ROI? Ian, Vista runs fine on a 2GB machine. Number crunching these results in the usual way gives us the following results. Rather than compare the two operating systems directly, let's compare these under load benchmark results to the no copy load with the disk test excluded.
For those wanting to take a more detailed look at these test results, I've uploaded detailed outputs. This is far more complicated than I'd hope that it would turn out to be, however the results are interesting. Let me summarize the results here:. So, what this long-winded series of tests shows is that heavy file copy operations has less of an effect on the overall responsiveness when running Vista SP1 than when running XP SP2 on the test system, all things being equal.
This benchmark, along with the one I posted last week, go to show how unsatisfying it can be to benchmark one OS against another. Even when you're dealing with one system there are a huge number of factors to contend with. Later in the week I hope to have a set of results that are far more conclusive and convincing - I'll be testing each operating system and seeing which can deliver the best frame rates in some of my favorite games.
Be the first to read new posts - subscribe to the Hardware 2. I've changed the way I charge my iPhone. You should, too. Best iPhones : Which model is right for you? Time for a Linux smartphone? Windows Do these six things right away after you finish setup. Developers are in short supply. Here are the skills and programming languages employers need.
Best Apple iPad deals available right now: January Best keyboard Because you deserve better. The painful shame of owning an Android phone.
You agree to receive updates, promotions, and alerts from ZDNet. I also measured the boot up time I took this as the time from the boot loader to a usable desktop. Each test was run four times, the poorest result was discarded and the average of the remaining three taken.
During the testing close attention was given to Microsoft's SP1 testing guidelines which were supplied to me prior to getting my hands on the SP1 code.
For those of you who prefer to take in information visually, here's the data displayed in a series of graphs. Also, since it's a beta, things can change between now and the final release. So, onto conclusions. End of story. The best result for Vista SP1 was in the single file drive-to-drive copy, while the best result for XP SP2 was extracting multiple files from a compressed folder.
Reminder : These results apply to a single system and no optimizations were carried out to any of the systems. Your mileage can, and probably will, vary. I've changed the way I charge my iPhone. You should, too. Best iPhones : Which model is right for you? Time for a Linux smartphone? Windows Do these six things right away after you finish setup.
Developers are in short supply. Here are the skills and programming languages employers need.
0コメント