Vista’s interface a ’step back,’? « Irfan’s Corner on the Web

27Feb/0721

Vista’s interface a ’step back,’?

[digg=http://digg.com/microsoft/FUD_Research_shows_Vista_interface_slower_than_WindowsXP_and_MacOSX]

I came across this story running on MacWorld, claiming that the user interface in Vista is slower and hence a step back from Windows XP. Because of the latency the researchers say that Windows Vista interface is where Windows 98 was!

To quote from the article:

""Menu latency is the time it takes an operating system to display a menu,” said Pfeiffer. “In Windows, it’s not immediate. That’s not a speed or performance issue, but a design choice.”

The new UIF data put Windows Vista, and its Aero graphical interface, behind Windows XP, which had showed improvement over earlier Microsoft operating systems. Menu latency, Pfeiffer said, remains a major problem in Vista, which scored 20 percent slower than XP. “Windows XP was a major step forward from Windows 98, but Vista is back to where 98 was,” Pfeiffer said."

First I wondered, after having used Vista myself I found no discernable difference between either Windows XP or Vista operating system. I investigated in which workstations the tests were conducted, according to the full PDF report, the following systems were used:

The Dual 2.8Ghz Dell Dimension, I googled for it and came acroos this: The Dell Dimension 9150 a 2.8 Ghz Dual Core machine, according to the official Dell website at here, this is a Vista Capable machine, which according to here in the Dell website means: Can Boot the OS but without running any applications or game! (see this). So hardly a system which would run Windows Vista at its optimum speed.

The Dell XPS 3.2 Ghz Machine however, is an optimum Windows XP machine: With 3.2 Ghz Pentium 4, 256 MB RAM (in standard configuration). I dont know about the Mac workstations so no comment about them.

So this hardly looks like a fair comparison, I would like to see a test where all operating systems are run on optimum performance.

Share and Enjoy:

Filed under: microsoft, operating systems, windows Leave a comment

http://www.articlefeed.net/vista%e2%80%99s-interface-a-%e2%80%99step-back%e2%80%99/ Article Feed » Vista’s interface a ’step back,’?

[...] Read More irfanhab [...]
Getreal

Seriously, are you stupid? Is this a spam site? You just said a dual core 2.8 Gigahertz (that’s 5.6 GHz for the kids at home..) machine, won’t “run Windows Vista at its optimum speed.”

Get real.
http://irfanhabib.wordpress.com/ irfanhab

I think theres is some problem with you rather!
Vista just doesnt depend on processing power rather RAM memory is more important. The Dell Dimension machines in the default configuration come from 512MB-1GB RAM, where as it is claimed that Vista needs 2 GB RAM for optimum performance.
http://www.familyguy.com Stewie

There’s a hole in the bottom of the sea.

There’s a hole in the bottom of the sea.

There’s a hole

There’s a hole

There’s a hole in the bottom of the sea.

But Vista sure looks prettier. AND you can turn off the User Authentication crap that asks you if you’re sure that your sure that you want to do something….despite what the Mac commercials say. Vista’s still got a few things about it that need to improve, but I like it overall.
http://applefud Apple FUD

Apple FUD!

As soon as I saw ‘MacWorld’ in the first line, I knew that this is gotta be FUD. Apple has been acting increasingly unethically recently. just have a look at the “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” Ads campaign.
http://lemnik.wordpress.com/ Jason

(to the first comment, and a bit of a side track)
Get real yourself! If you think that 2 * 2.8Ghz = 5.6Ghz then you truly know nothing about CPU’s and the way they work. I wish I people would stop spreading this sort of stupidity around.

SMP (Symmetric Multi-Processor) machines can simply execute 2 instructions at a time, if you’re code isn’t multi-threaded (though most these days is very multi-threaded) it doesn’t take advantage of SMP machines. It means that I can have one core do my AI, and the other talk to the GPU and handle the user events.

It means you can write a CD and play games without the two interfering with each other. It doesn’t make your computer twice as fast. Not by a long shot!

To further comment, I have a dual-core 2.6Ghz machine, it barely runs vista at all, and was marked as a “Vista Compatible” machine.
http://www.cpptrader.com/ cpptrader

I have a custom machine running an Intel Core 2 Extreme (X6800 Conroe) with 4GB RAM. Latency wasn’t as maximized (as in improved, maybe I should say minimzed?) as I would like due to my poor MB selection, but everyone is allowed to have an idiotic moment now and then… plus its a good excuse to upgrade later.
When running Vista with say Visual Studio open, a handful of office programs, a few browsers, a couple other programs, and say a DVD, I run at about 50% of RAM and the processors only get dinged when, well, processing. I have got this thing up to max processor and haven’t yet broken 60% of my RAM (although I think I can do it ). Still, the system isn’t slow. The menu loads as fast as XP, there is no more time in booting, programs load as fast… the extra security on IE7, which I have left on so far, does seem to affect page loading (not by much), but I am guessing that if I turn those features off it will be fine.

Overall, Vista isn’t slower on my comp. I am concerned that when I start running something that is RAM-intensive it may not be able to handle as much, but I don’t really have a benchmark and am not sure my concerns are justified. Just my $0.02.
http://www.guernseysubmarine.com guernseysubmarine

Hi. Just testing to see if my Avatar is working….which i suspect isnt.
http://garamchai.frivologs.com Garam Chai

Not that I condone regression but, even if the report is unbiased and can be trusted, menu display delays in Vista which are hardly a fraction of a second worse than in XP are barely perceptible. If a user just uses the menu items the whole day, surely the user will notice the cumulative delay. How many users do just that?
http://www.cpptrader.com/ cpptrader

I think every user does… I do all day…. just click click click… ha ha
Without arguing about whether Vista is good or whether Apple is better, I think it is fair to say that the UI is not a step backwards. Although, I suppose because I use Vista I may be unintentionally biased.
http://brentroos.com Brent

More Microsoft hate propaganda. Get a life.

Perhaps if you knew how to actually use your Windows OS, you would not have these problems.

I suggest that you learn how to do some registry hacks.

My Windows box works great for me, but then again, I know how to use mine.
http://tahoestyle.wordpress.com/ np

I am staying away from Vista until SP1 is released …..
Here is why I will stay with XP, more info at my site

Windows XP Pros

* It just works – You don’t have to worry about anything. XP has been working for ages, and it works just fine.
* Better value – In order to get all the features of Windows XP Professional, you have to pay more for Windows Vista Ultimate. In order to get all the features of XP Home, you have to get Vista Home Premium.
* Smaller and Faster than Vista – Unless you disable Vista’s GUI features, XP is snappier on the same hardware. XP also requires less memory and hard drive space. Most games are also currently faster,
and may stay that way. (link)
* Fewer hassles – No DRM, no signed 64-bit driver requirements, no worries on reactivations after switching XP installations to different computers, none of the Vista upgrade mess.
* XP 64-bit version is effectively free – While the drivers may still not be there, at least you don’t have to pay double for XP’s 64-bit version when upgrading from 32-bits.
http://www.cpptrader.com/ cpptrader

price comes up twice in your comment np. not to push vista, but I run ultimate 64bit and got it at the wholesale price, under $200. if one searches they can probably find that. that’s not too restrictive.
http://www.seaofire.com Arem

Naaaah. Vista is about where XP was when it came out. When XP came out, everybody worried that they would have to upgrade their machine and crap to run it, but now everybody just assumes they can put it on anything they get for $10 off ebay. 6 years from now, Vista will be blazing fast on even the cheapest of hardware. It’s the same thing all over again.

-Arem
http://www.seaofire.com
http://zainal.wordpress.com/ Mohammed Zainal

I did install Vista on my machine , it was running fine …
Anyhow , Software compatibility issues what made me dump vista and re-install windows XP .

About time …
http://www.blueroof.com Greg

If Vista is slower than you want get a faster machine (more RAM)- whining about it is like saying the greatest newest game sucks because your machine can’t run it fast.

It doesn’t make sense to upgrade to a new OS after a few years but not upgrade the rest of your machine…
http://brentroos.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/tweak-vista/ Tweak Vista « Brent Roos’

[...] was actually at tweakxp.com, when I came across this. So, since I was reading yet more Microsoft hate propaganda and lies earlier today, I figured I’d point this out to [...]
http://roflgoat.wordpress.com/ roflgoat

I have a single core 2.4 ghz and ONE, not 2, but 1GB of RAM and Vista runs like butter in a microwave on the sun. Yes, my GPU is nice, but Vista’s requirements are GREATLY overestimated, or dare I say, misoverestimated.
http://www.st-firstfleet.com/blog Evoroth

I have (by today’s standards as it was high-emd when I first bought it) an average spec machine, with a single core 2ghz CPU, 1gb RAM and a 256mb GPU. Vista run’s like a dream, I have full Aero, speed within the interface, I can still run games at highest quality with no problems and that’s running Vista Ultimate.

True, I am buying myself a new machine, but that’s because the technology has changed so much since I bought it, it’s easier to buy a new PC. It’ll have higher specs but I can’t see how it will change my Vista experience.

The only thing that lacks with Vista is an SLI driver.
http://www.st-firstfleet.com/blog Evoroth

Oh on another note, if your company has an MSDN account, get it through that.
John

Basically Vista requires powerful GPU ( min. 256mb). As roflgoat & Evoroth pointed out, you can run vista with single core 2.4 ghz & 1gb ram.
http://www.netgen.com.au Dan

I have sold some machines with a 2.8GHZ CPU and 1GB RAM and Vista Basic. The rest of my Vista machines I sell are duel core machines with a GB of RAM or more. Obviously the duel core machines run smoother and faster than the single core machines and I would recommend the duel core CPU. Vista Premium and above also, as we know uses Aero and is highly GPU demanding. The single core machines I sell are for basic users who only really use it to check their mail or a few websites.
Ray

I have a new gateway gt5428 it has a duel core 3.2 GHz Intel Pentium d CPU 1 gig ram and I am running vista home premium and it runs nice I like the look and feel I am relatively new to computers started with xp home then got xp pro I didn’t want to run vista at first cuss I was herring horror stories about vista but all in all I like it more than xp I have seen that I am using about 50% ram in idol and the most I have seen it go is about 82% with me running a ton of apps like video converting yahoo im voice watching movies and down loading a bunch of stuff and it still doesn’t get bogged down like my xp computer it has a 1.66 amd athlon and 512 ram but that shod be comparable in terms of top line bottom line for when xp first came out heck when xp came out we cued only dream of duel core and hyper thread and even a gig of ram so ya if vista is slow its cuss the os is ahead of technology today one day we will all complain cuss we need more ram when we have like 20 terabytes of it as for those apple fan boys what games can you play what’s the biggest cpu you can get what’s the most ram you can get whale we windows and lynx users can put just about any hard ware we want you r stuck in the apple barrel heck if I want osx my Xbox can run that lol