Vista
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: The Art of Project Management
Next: M-I,5.Persecutio n - Comparin g t he MI 5 Pers ecution wi th G erman F inal S olution
From: Judson McClendon on 25 Dec 2007 07:37 "Paul Knudsen" <pknudsen(a)NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote: > Judson McClendon wrote: >> I haven't used Vista yet. My son just bought a new high performance >> Dell computer with Vista. He says it seems really slow and sluggish. >> Is that a common experience with Vista? > > Not on my Inspiron, and that's by no means a top-end machine. I did > make sure to get 4GB of memory. How much did your son get? 4GB, a top end video card, and the fastest Intel Core 2 Duo CPU on the planet (for the moment). It has a single hard drive, which may account for some of the problem; his older PC has dual striped SATAs on a system board hardware RAID controller. As you probably know, an n-drive striped RAID can transfer data almost "n times" faster than the same type single drive. My current PC has two RAID arrays, each has two striped drives. The boot RAID is two 10,000 RPM SATAs. I would like my next PC to have one 4x striped RAID. The performance boost should be impressive, since most delays on a PC are from disk IO bottleneck, especially on laptops. I wonder why so many people buy notebooks with super fast CPUs and 5400 RPM drives? The vast majority of applications are not CPU intensive, and a slower (less expensive) CPU and 7200 RPM drive would perform much better. My 2004 vintage 2.4 GHz P4 ThinkPad "came alive" when I replaced its factory 5400 RPM drive with a 7200 RPM drive. I couldn't get a 7200 RPM drive from the factory in 2004. -- Judson McClendon judmc(a)sunvaley0.com (remove zero) Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
From: tim Josling on 25 Dec 2007 14:06 On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 06:37:56 -0600, Judson McClendon wrote: > "Paul Knudsen" <pknudsen(a)NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote: > ... I would like my next PC to have one 4x striped RAID. > The performance boost should be impressive, since most delays on a PC > are from disk IO bottleneck, especially on laptops. I wonder why so > many people buy notebooks with super fast CPUs and 5400 RPM drives? > The vast majority of applications are not CPU intensive, and a slower > (less expensive) CPU and 7200 RPM drive would perform much better. My > 2004 vintage 2.4 GHz P4 ThinkPad "came alive" when I replaced its > factory 5400 RPM drive with a 7200 RPM drive. I couldn't get a 7200 > RPM drive from the factory in 2004. The memory on laptops is often very slow (FSB speed) and the processors tend to have smaller memory cache sizes. When you add slow memory , small cache, slow hard disks, laptops are a lot slower. Vista is far more resource intensive than older versions of Microsoft Windows. The digital restrictions management software has a similar effect on performance to running anti-virus software. As others pointed out, manufacturers tend to load all sorts of rubbish on your PC which uses memory, causes swapping and slows down start up. You can usually get rid of most of it. Tim Josling
From: Judson McClendon on 25 Dec 2007 15:26 "tim Josling" <tejgcc_nospam(a)westnet.com.au> wrote: > > As others pointed out, manufacturers tend to load all sorts of rubbish on > your PC which uses memory, causes swapping and slows down start up. You > can usually get rid of most of it. I get rid of all of it. On the unusual occasion that I buy a PC from such a vendor (I usually build them or buy them from a guy who builds them for me), I play with it some first to make sure it's working correctly, then reformat and repartition the hard drive and reinstall Windows and all the applications from the ground up. If necessary, I use a separately bought OEM Windows disk, to make sure none of the crummy stuff gets reinstalled from the manufacturer's OEM disk, which they sometimes do. I am really serious about having no unneeded stuff on my work PCs, and I hate that vendor installed junk with a passion. :-) -- Judson McClendon judmc(a)sunvaley0.com (remove zero) Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
From: Michael Mattias on 25 Dec 2007 15:26 "tim Josling" <tejgcc_nospam(a)westnet.com.au> wrote in message > >Vista is far more resource intensive than older versions of Microsoft > Windows. I think you took an older posting and simply replaced EITHER "Windows 95", "Windows 98", "Windows ME", "Windows NT", Windows 2000" or "Windows XP" (depending on the age of your source) with "Vista." MCM
From: LX-i on 25 Dec 2007 18:46
Michael Mattias wrote: > "tim Josling" <tejgcc_nospam(a)westnet.com.au> wrote in message > >> Vista is far more resource intensive than older versions of Microsoft >> Windows. > > I think you took an older posting and simply replaced EITHER "Windows 95", > "Windows 98", "Windows ME", "Windows NT", Windows 2000" or "Windows XP" > (depending on the age of your source) with "Vista." I don't know - I remember, in the NT line, that 4 was quicker (and had that spiffy new UI) than 3.51, and Windows 2000 was even better than 4. I know that Pete's praised XP as a near-perfect OS, and I'll have to say that I somewhat agree. I don't think it's that the OS itself is inherently better (and it *was* more resource-intensive than W2K), I think the convergence of the underlying OS code, vendor support, and hardware capability came together nicely. Vista? Well, it overpowers today's hardware (unless you get close to top-of-the-line), and the vendor support is taking some time. I think Microsoft got buy-in based on their DRM and HD capabilities, but didn't realize (fully) how long it would take vendors to develop fully compliant software. Heck, we *still* don't have VPN for our Vista machines at work. We're being told February - that's a year after release! Couple all that with a new underlying code base, and the proliferation of 64-bit machines combined with Vista's lack of support for 16-bit programs on 64-bit machines, you've got - well, what you've got. :) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ / \/ _ o ~ Live from Albuquerque, NM! ~ ~ _ /\ | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Business E-mail ~ daniel @ "Business Website" below ~ ~ Business Website ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~ ~ Tech Blog ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com/linux/blog ~ ~ Personal E-mail ~ "Personal Blog" as e-mail address ~ ~ Personal Blog ~ http://daniel.summershome.org ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e h---- r+++ z++++ "Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine |