Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown

[fatedtodie]

The main this article forgot to even BOTHER to throw into the mix was windows xp x64. This is something that would have shown a bit more of an inprovement over xp sp2 and vista. Also being that it has had a bit of a lifespan it doesn't have to worry about things "trying" to work with it. Personally I have seen signifigant improvements upgrading from xp sp2 to xp x64.

 

[guillone]

xxxxxxyyyyttttt

 

[Digitalfiends]

😱 I've never owned a Mac. This version of Windows was supposed to move us into 64 bit computing. It doesn't do that at all. Everything I've seen is running 32bit. Everyone you read says the 64 bit stuff doesn't work, no drivers, etc.

Microsoft has provided a 64-bit OS for a while now and uh, no vendors are really writing software for it. Explain to me again how that is Microsoft's fault. Maybe we should blame Intel and AMD for the lack of 64-bit apps since they make 64-bit products as well!

I've been waiting for my whole adult life to get a 64 bit machine and I'm still waiting.

Well you could have had a 64-bit machine for the last few years (or longer) now. Once again, it isn't Microsoft's fault that vendors aren't writing appropriate drivers, software, etc.

So, I say enough; Unix is a better basis to build an OS on anyways, Apple has great software and I can run XP Pro on it if I need it.

...right. It is such a better OS that the market figured it would be cool to go with Windows "just to blend in"? For a corporate environment, Unix is severely lacking the appropriate documentation, unified vision, and support services. That's not saying it is a bad OS but it doesn't have the other things that make an OS like Windows XP/Server/etc so successful. It's been around long enough that it could have been huge just like Windows.

This article and MacOSX Server software has convinced me to go Apple. I want to go open source; not backwards into a dark hole.

Isn't Apple and open-source a contradition? The last thing I would consider Apple to be is open and flexible. :roll:

I'm very disappointed with Vista. If I wanted a machine with no access to 64 bit apps I could have bought a Sun Workstation years ago. Are we never going to move on into the 21st century? How long does Bill Gates' monopoly get to stop us from getting killer apps and machines on our desk at commodity prices? Thanks for a great article- Gates, I'm thru with you guys.

The lack of 64-bit applications has very little to do with Microsoft. Furthermore, on current processors, there isn't a distinct advantage to running 64-bit applications, other than having access to more than 4GB of memory. There are numerous tests on the net showing the performance of 32-bit vs 64-bit Windows and guess what? There isn't a huge difference!

If you're editing massive videos, running a high performance database server, or whatnot, then sure, 64-bit is the way to go. If you're just surfing for e-mail, doing normal Photoshop work, playing games, etc, then there is no need for 64-bit processing at this time.

Just to show this isn't a Windows issue, here is another article for you:
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/09/32-bit-vs-64-bit-performance/

I still can't believe you're blaming Microsoft for the lack of 64-bit applications. :lol:

 

[kstrat2001]

I'm with you all the way on this one quill.

I've been running a 64 bit machine for a little over a year now with x64 and I've had a number of issues that I finally had to install the 32 bit version of XP to solve. Maybe someone knows a solution to some of these:

1. No logitech device drivers are written for a 64 bit system (AFAIK).
2. CD burning will not work in iTunes and other apps(does work in Nero, luckily)
3. Every now and then I get the dreaded visual studio debugger to catch an exception when I'm in the middle of something.

I'm also not a fan of the filing structure with the Program Files (x86) folder separate from the Program Files folder. I installed the 64 bit version of Far Cry and it wanted to put things in the x86 folder anyway!

How long has x64 been around and we are still fighting for a solid 64 bit Windows? Now we already have to go through the upgrade thing again with Vista. Look at how many versions there are. Why can't MS just simplify and lead people into the 64 bit CPU era? Sure most platforms are still based on 32 bit procs but those are most likely to be running XP until their death and there is no problem with that. They needed to make one solid version. Instead they made a confusing mess of versions.

Just imagine posts down the road...

I had a problem...blah blah

reply: You must be running the cheap, useless version of Vista. You need the more bloated/expensive version to make all that work properly. Is it cheap version 1 SP3 or cheap version 2 sp2? Or maybe it's cheap version 1 with the expensive version upgrade plus SP3?

 

[guillone]

Your talking points just reinforce my opinions. You have your opinion I have mine. I'm not here to debate the issue, but to voice my opinion that Microsoft will not get any more money out of me for shoddy products.
The fact that there is now a "viable" alternative with Mac finally means I don't have to be stuck in the MSFT monopoly anymore. I can develop web-sites with Mac OSX Server using AMP and that's all that matters to me. I'm not locked into ASP.Net or Windows servers or any other back-door restraints from them. And, I can still have full access to MSFT software on a Mac if I need it, which I don't. I don't need to upgrade and spend $5,000.00 on a PC that is still running 32bit apps. The fact that no one is writing 64bit apps and kstrat2001's comments about XP64 being a buggy piece of shit just reinforces the point. Yes, I could have bought a workstation 64bit machine years ago, but I've been waiting for a consumer version. I am not a rich corp. that can shell out $10-$15k for what a Sun was going for years ago. Hell, I could have bought a Super Cray if I had a few million laying around. So, If I have to buy a proprietary OS, which is what Vista is, I'd rather buy what Steve Jobs is selling. He has a better box and more attention to what consumers want.
Period. That should be fairly obvious if you're paying any attention at all to where the two platforms are headed. Zune or iPod? Vista or OSX?
Not a tough call to make for a consumer. I can buy a fully loaded Mac with everything I need for less than a Vista box. Case closed.
We haven't even mentioned the "Fun Factor". Apple has always kicked MSFT's ass on that one and I've never owned a Mac, but I've used them over the years. Seems like perfect timing; Gates is leaving MSFT at the same time I am. It's a sign....hahahahaha. I'm gonna push myself away from the table and say "No more Jello for me , Ma!!"
I don't have to defend my argument, just go back and look at the message board postings of the "crash and burn" that is happening right now on Vista "not working". Please, go argue with someone else. Peace.

 

[Digitalfiends]

So, If I have to buy a proprietary OS, which is what Vista is, I'd rather buy what Steve Jobs is selling. He has a better box and more attention to what consumers want.

All OSes are "proprietary" in some way, the difference is that Windows has much wider range of support for hardware than a Mac and it is cheaper to build.

Period. That should be fairly obvious if you're paying any attention at all to where the two platforms are headed. Zune or iPod? Vista or OSX?

Vista will be more popular than OSX if only for the fact of all the DX10 games coming down the pipeline. I'll give you the iPod point though; I swore I would never buy an iPod yet 3 years later here I am with an iPod Shuffle 2nd Gen. I looked at Zune and it sucks. The ZEN was interesting but seemed to have too many problems.

My point is that Vista is not the desolate wasteland littered with hardware gasping for drivers that everyone makes it out to be. The only piece of hardware not supported on my machine is my HP LaserJet 1012, everything else runs flawlessly. I've been developing on Vista RTM since it was released through MSDN and since the VS.NET 2005 SP1, I haven't had any issues.

Honestly, Vista is a shift in the right direction for Microsoft. Instead of making security an afterthought, they've brought it to the forefront.

Not a tough call to make for a consumer. I can buy a fully loaded Mac with everything I need for less than a Vista box. Case closed.
We haven't even mentioned the "Fun Factor". Apple has always kicked MSFT's ass on that one and I've never owned a Mac, but I've used them over the years.

I can build a decent Vista box for about $1000 cdn or less. I've never seen a Mac that cheap, ever. As for the fun factor, when has Apple ever been "fun"? Unless you are specifically referring to the image they have invented for themselves with the iPod and Mac vs PC ads, but when it comes to using a computer, the Mac isn't fun from what I've experienced. If we're talking literal fun, as in playing games, the PC has ruled that roost for a long time.

I don't have to defend my argument, just go back and look at the message board postings of the "crash and burn" that is happening right now on Vista "not working". Please, go argue with someone else. Peace.

I don't buy into all that crap. Why do I need to read about Vista's supposed problems when it is running extremely well on my system? Many people are clueless when it comes to computers and most tend to hate on Microsoft "just because they heard that it is trendy to do so". Most people, when questioned for specifics, couldn't actually tell you why Windows supposedly sucks.

You've got your opinion and I've got mine. Mac is slowly becoming a PC anyhow, so in a few years you'll be running MacVista anyhow. 😛

 

[euro]

I can't get 3DMark2006 basic to run at all on my Vista Ultimate... - are they comptatible???

 

[Digitalfiends]

It should be considering numerous sites have been benchmarking Vista with 3DMark06:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_vista_aero_glass_performance/page3.asp

 

[euro]

I get that
IDirect3DDevice9:😛resent failed😀evice lost
error, reading about it now and some people blame it on F@M (I never used that), so I must be in the other category - Dell PC inomptatible with OpenGL and DirectX9...

Still have not found the fix, trying to install nVidia Vista driver for my Quadro GPU (work computer) - but failing at that too...

 

[guillone]

xxxxyyyytttt

 

[Digitalfiends]

Again, you only supported my points. Your last statement is totally backwards.
The PC is becoming a Mac, not the other way around.

No it's not. What I meant by Mac becoming more PC is that it is now using components that were traditionally solely available for the PC, such as Intel CPUs, etc. I wasn't being completely serious about that either.

Mac OSX runs multiple OS. there is nothing you can't run on a Mac.
With vista, hardware is now shrinking because only "some" hardware works on it. that is going backwards, not forwards. That has been my point from the start. If we are going to play the "I'm locked in to your scheme game",
Jobs has already won that one years ago. I always stuck with MSFT because you could build anything with it. Now you can't. And it is not as good an OS as what Mac has now. I thought it was going to be better than OSX, not worse.

You make that statement as though a PC can't do that as well. It can. I can run multiple OSes on Windows too using virtualization software or simply creating dual or triple boot scenarios. As for Vista becoming restrictive on hardware, where did you get that from? I agree that some hardware is lacking Vista driver support but that is no different than when XP came out. In a few months we'll see vendors get up to speed on the new driver framework and then Vista will be just as compatible as XP. Give it time, the OS has only been out for a couple weeks (not including the MSDN RTM release.)

OSX has a lot of problems on its own. Vista will have issues as well but for the most part, it is a better OS. Funny enough, my Dad's iPod wouldn't work properly on his Mac with OSX but ran perfectly with the XP/Vista machine I just built him. Even better was that everytime he would unplug or plugin a USB device (any device) on the Mac, it would completely freeze the system. I just read that iTunes won't run properly under Vista and Apple recommends not to buy Vista until they release a "new version" in a few weeks. ...and they say MS is underhanded. :lol:

So, why buy it? Well, guess what, I'm NEVER going to buy Vista; EVER. Case closed. 😀

Never say never... 😛

 

[NickNotTaken]

Does Vista limit the number of cores you can use the way XP did?

What is the limit for Vista Ultimate?

 

[KwyjiboNL77]

My experiences with Vista so far have been rather positive. My last PC was running XP64, but my new PC is running Vista Ultimate in 32bit flavor. All my hardware works, and works well, some programs need a bit of fiddling for them to work, but that will improve no doubt. Every single game I have thrown at it runs well. Vista seems more responsive than XP, starting and closing programs faster, booting faster, etc.

DRM has not impacted my rig one bit yet, since I don't own a HD/Blueray player, so there is no reason for DRM to even run on this system (which it won't do untill 'Premium content' is played). All media files play, iTunes runs as does my iPod (Make sure you enable disk use).

Now for the biggest surprise, Autodesk Maya 8.5 runs, and runs well. This program depends 100% on OpenGL, but the nVidia driver 100.59 has OpenGL support, and nothing indicates that it runs any slower than on XP on my rig.

I consider myself an enthusiast, and as such I think running Vista early is part of the adventure. I KNOW I am likely to run into some compatibility issues (as with the move to XP, 2000, NT, 98), I know driver performance and stability will likely be worse than on an OS than has been the mainstay for over 4 years, at least for the first few months. Still, if I don't try this stuff now, how can I expect to offer help and support to someone who will only start using it in 6-12 months?

I don't run an OS for the sake of running an OS, so Linux (however 'efficient' it may be) is not an option. I have been using Macs long enough to know that that is not an option either for me. I want to run 3D apps, and Games so Windows is my best bet at the moment.

The only thing I can think of that MS did wrong with vista is release it in Beta and RTM to the general public. People that complain about having trouble getting hardware support for the Beta version or RTM version well before general release are the ones who need some explanation about what a Beta really is, and they definately shoulnd't base their upgrade decision on that. The beta is to help vista get better, not for your windows experience to improve. In all fairness, everyone wo runs a mission critical machine should not have even considered looking at Vista before the 30th of January, and even then they should do their homework to make sure all their hard/soft ware is supported before switching.

I have run all major MS OS version (including X64) since DOS, and I don't see any reason for myslef now to go back to XP. Every new OS introduction brings with it the same doom and gloom stories from the conservative 'enthusiast', and the Mac fans and Linux zealots capitalizing on that. Give it 6-12 months and ALL mainstream PCs will run Vista. Everyone who by then runs a new PC an uses XP, will be just plain stubborn (or is tied to a software developer that offers worse update support than anything I have ever seen) . Vista is no more expensive than XP for a new PC, Vista does not offer less functionality than XP, Vista will not stop you from downloading/playing pirated music/movies/games (if that is your main reason to fear vista), it will runner smoother and offer similar performance as XP. It will allow you to run the exact same programs, and be honest, is it that big of a deal that you need a faster PC to get it to run properly? (wasn't that the case with EVERY newer OS, including MacOS?). I what universe is IDLE state the measuring stick for OS performance?

Comparing OpenGL performance with a driver that doesn't support OpenGL wasn't the smartest thing THG ever did, but at least they had the decency to say that poor results were likely the result of that (read last page). And if integrated graphics solutions no longer offer OpenGL support (because MS dropped generic OpenGL in Vista), my question is; what person that depends on OpenGL runs on integrated graphics?

Before all you 'enthusiasts' boycott Vista, check it out for yourself rather than quoting articles from websites, and benchmarks taken on pre-release version and drivers as your reason for never buying it...

 

[Digitalfiends]

I completely agree with everything you said except:

The only thing I can think of that MS did wrong with vista is release it in Beta and RTM to the general public. People that complain about having trouble getting hardware support for the Beta version or RTM version well before general release are the ones who need some explanation about what a Beta really is...

RTM is Release To Manufacturing. It isn't a beta. It is the same codebase that retail releases will be running. The only thing that might be different would be the number of drivers available on the retail DVD vs the RTM DVD.

No biggie, just wanted to point out that RTM isn't a beta. Perhaps you meant RC, as in Release Candidate? RC1 and RC2 definitely had outstanding issues. RTM is/was the final version though.

 

[KwyjiboNL77]

RTM is Release To Manufacturing. It isn't a beta. It is the same codebase that retail releases will be running. The only thing that might be different would be the number of drivers available on the retail DVD vs the RTM DVD.

No biggie, just wanted to point out that RTM isn't a beta. Perhaps you meant RC, as in Release Candidate? RC1 and RC2 definitely had outstanding issues. RTM is/was the final version though.

No, I meant RTM, as I know what it stands for. RTM may be final code, but it doesn't mean 'release to retail' or 'release to general public'. It is a release specifically meant for system administrators/integrators/developers to familiarise themselves with the OS before they implement it. It is not meant for System builders, OEM's or enthusiasts. Some enthusiast may have MSDN subscriptions and are able to get it early (or just plainly downloaded a pirate copy), but that doesn't mean they are the focus group of this release. IMO the general public (including enthusiasts) should not have access to this release either, if their only comment on it is poor driver support and bad performance compared to XP. Surely a real comparison (and thus purchasing decision) can only be made after driver support is adequate and software is adapted to benefit from Vista rather than run in shaky compatibility modes or using workaround. MS shouldn't be blamed for enthusiasts not getting (a pirate) vista to run on a 4 year old system, well before driver support is up and running. And people shouldn't blindly follow the advise of these 'enthusiasts', but find out for themselves if Vista will do for them what they want it to do.

 

[Digitalfiends]

Well if that is what you meant, then of course. For some reason it sounded like you thought MS shouldn't release RTMs to developers/IT pros/etc as well. As a developer, I prefer having the OS early to get used to the new APIs etc.

 

[photographer]

Your talking points just reinforce my opinions. You have your opinion I have mine. I'm not here to debate the issue, but to voice my opinion that Microsoft will not get any more money out of me for shoddy products.

So you persist even though your opinion is based on incorrect assumptions ? Brilliant.

The fact that there is now a "viable" alternative with Mac finally means I don't have to be stuck in the MSFT monopoly anymore.

You call an OS that has less than 5% of the market share viable ? Please review Economics 101 and then return to the conversation.

I can develop web-sites with Mac OSX Server using AMP and that's all that matters to me. I'm not locked into ASP.Net or Windows servers or any other back-door restraints from them.

And you can't do this on a MS box, why ? As someone who manages 14 websites, I can assure you that you do not need ASP.NET or any other MS proprietary technology to build a website. How about PHP ? How about ASP ? Heck, how about plain ol' HTML and CSS ?

<snip drivel>

Yes, I could have bought a workstation 64bit machine years ago, but I've been waiting for a consumer version.

Consumers don't need to access more than 4GB of RAM. That's why there aren't many 64 bit apps in the first place much less ones that are targetd to consumers.

'd rather buy what Steve Jobs is selling. He has a better box and more attention to what consumers want.Period.

We can tell. Apple is such a raving success story. </sarcasm>

That should be fairly obvious if you're paying any attention at all to where the two platforms are headed. Zune or iPod? Vista or OSX?
Not a tough call to make for a consumer.

Ah ! The infamous iPod ! What a proprietary piece of garbage !

I can buy a fully loaded Mac with everything I need for less than a Vista box. Case closed.

Really ? Where ? Show me the money !

We haven't even mentioned the "Fun Factor".

Oh this ought to be good !

Apple has always kicked MSFT's ass on that one and I've never owned a Mac,

I have and your full of it.

but I've used them over the years. Seems like perfect timing; Gates is leaving MSFT at the same time I am. It's a sign....hahahahaha.

A sign ? Yes that he's moving on and hopefully you're growing up. Now don't forget to brush your teeth and wear your rubbers when it's raining..

I don't have to defend my argument, just go back and look at the message board postings of the "crash and burn" that is happening right now on Vista "not working". Please, go argue with someone else. Peace.

LOL ! Guess what I'm running ? Vista ! And the uptime is now at 5 days straight. No crashes. Sound like someones using beta drivers or poorly written applications.

 

[cdxpat]

I recently upgraded to an Intel QX6700 quad processor, 2GB memory and Nvidia 1GB video card. . Some of the aplications run a lot faster but XP still feels slow and clunky. With no applications running it says its using 256MB of memory !

I moved the "old" P4 box to Linux. Its much faster and responsive on the OS. I was thinking no problem - Vista will exploit this great new hardware but from the Tom test it seems not.

I think Microsoft have lost the plot..

The OS is supposed to provide a secure and efficient common interface for the application vendors to the hardware.

Since XP was released there have been a lot of improvments in Video, Netowrking Motherboard and CPU hardware. Toms Vista test was with the latest OS on the latest hardware. The performance should have been much faster because microsoft should have cleaned up the code to support the latest and greatest stuff more efficiently.

I really dont care about the 10000 services background microsoft offers because they always decide to take priority over my audio or video recording app.

I want Protools, Photoshop, Maya open office networking and a couple of games to run as fast and reliably as possible.

I want an OS I dont have to see that allows nearly all of the resources of the video card and CPU to be used by the application.

One of the hardware vendors needs to be brave enought to get behind a clean Linux/ open source package for home use. They could blow MS out of the water and if they do the application vendors will follow.

That said caring about operating systems is very 20th Century. The OS needs to get back in the basement. I want better and faster applications that can really exploit the power of dual and quad etc CPU, cheap memeory and big disks. Aero ? Who cares.

PS: Tom we know Microsoft and Intel have a huge marketing budget but when its bad you (and the rest of the media) really need to say so. And when Open source is good you should also say so. Test open office - its really good - no home user needs any more.

 

[KwyjiboNL77]

Again I have to disagree. Vista won't prevent application access to those resources, but will use them if they go unused. If an app needs more than is available, Vista will scale down the eyecandy in order to free up resources, it will do the same with the superfetch caching. Again, people seem to be obsessed with how much resources are used when idling, which has nothing to do with application performance. Run DOS, there is something that uses little resources when idling!

Just as an experiment I installed Ubuntu Linux (supposedly the easiest to use) this week to see how far Linux has progressed since I last tried it, but honestly... Any OS that requires Command line commands to get hardware to work or to do anything more than starting a program, I am sorry to say is NOT a threat to MS. And suppose I got everything working on Linux (after various Root commands and terminal sessions...), then what? I have spent years of my life learning all the ins and outs of programs like photoshop, I don't want to start all over again with another (Open Source) program. Linux is still anything but user friendly, and compatibility is horrendous. On top of that, there are so many different variants out there that is defies its own existance...

OSX might be a better alternative, but to be honest, by offering an OS that will only run on a limited amount of (apple) hardware, Apple has it a lot easier...Especially since they get profit margins on that hardware that are 2-3 times the industry standard. Why do console games (almost) always work? Because there is only one platform...OSX's 'efficiency' is based on the same concept...How is that for a 'lock-in'?

I don't see the software vendors move from a single common platform (Windows) to a platform that has a billion different variants (linux) anytime soon, especially if it is a platform were people are expecting everthing for free (whooo OpenSource!!!) where there is very little financial gain for them...So that leaves Linux (Again) as an efficient but mostly unsupported platform for years to come...

 

[photographer]

I recently upgraded to an Intel QX6700 quad processor, 2GB memory and Nvidia 1GB video card. . Some of the aplications run a lot faster but XP still feels slow and clunky. With no applications running it says its using 256MB of memory !

Gads ! I don't believe it ! An operating system that actually ..... operates !

I moved the "old" P4 box to Linux. Its much faster and responsive on the OS.

Amazing. I have several P4's and my personal workstation is an aging S754 AMD 3K+ w/1GB RAM and an X600 (256MB) video card. XPSP2 ran faster than anything I've used including the extermely limited versions of Linux designed to run on 486's. Yeah I think that was called Slackware. Oh and I shouldn't forget about Vector and Damn Small. LOL ! DSL is a 50MB distro and one of the quickest Linux' I tried but of course with all the limitations one could pour into a 50mb "OS".

I was thinking no problem - Vista will exploit this great new hardware but from the Tom test it seems not.

I think Microsoft have lost the plot..

The OS is supposed to provide a secure and efficient common interface for the application vendors to the hardware.

Since XP was released there have been a lot of improvments in Video, Netowrking Motherboard and CPU hardware. Toms Vista test was with the latest OS on the latest hardware. The performance should have been much faster because microsoft should have cleaned up the code to support the latest and greatest stuff more efficiently.

So once again MS gets bashed as driver and software developers for peripherals haven't provided optimized applications for Vista. And how long did Linux get bashed when Nvidia, ATI and Creative didn't provide optimized support for their products ? Not one day. But it was all Linux' fault, right ? I mean Linus Torvalds should have written drivers into the OS that would enable it to run on the vast majority of video, sound and networking chipsets the day he published a new Linux.

And I just gotta ask, if Linux is so much better than Windows, why does gaming on it still suck wind after 27 years of development ? I can answer this easily.

--------> Because it's not any anyones be$t intere$t to write good drivers for Linux !

Yes, there needs to be a carrot at the end of the stick, a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or just that occasional getaway to St.Croix. Without some form of long term reward we'd all end up looking like Stallman and probably wouldn't even have power to run a PC.

I really dont care about the 10000 services background microsoft offers because they always decide to take priority over my audio or video recording app.

And there are no background services in Linux ? Methinks you need to be introduced to top.

I want Protools, Photoshop, Maya open office networking and a couple of games to run as fast and reliably as possible.

So take X out of Linux and you'll be satisfied.

I want an OS I dont have to see that allows nearly all of the resources of the video card and CPU to be used by the application.

One of the hardware vendors needs to be brave enought to get behind a clean Linux/ open source package for home use. They could blow MS out of the water and if they do the application vendors will follow.

Perhaps you should talk to AOL as they were a lot closer at developing a Linux than any hardware company making anything larger than a cell phone.

That said caring about operating systems is very 20th Century. The OS needs to get back in the basement. I want better and faster applications that can really exploit the power of dual and quad etc CPU, cheap memeory and big disks. Aero ? Who cares.

Who cares ? Who freakin' cares ? Boy are you completely clueless or what ?

Who cares ? Just the vast majority of people who will be using the Windows GUI without a clue as to what goes on "under the hood". The people that process your payroll and benefits. The people that keep track of your children's grades in school. The people that plan everything in your community. Yes, the people that are so damned busy they don't have time to complain about such trivial details or even to understand the basic differences between Linux and Vista. The people that pay for that luxury by buying the products and support from a company that directs the development of their products through a set of coherent and open API's. API's that enabled hardware manufacturers to write drivers for peripherals such as printers, scanners and softwares. And Microsoft in turn provides direct employment for tens of thousands of people and indirect employment for millions. They have directly impacted the cost of computing hardware for the masses by making it easy to purchase a highly capable, compatible and usable operating system that integrates applications and drivers while providing a pleasant and useful GUI. Perhaps you don't remeber when there were few standards and the most basic hardware cost more than your first car. Many of us do. You and many of the Linux fanboys should return to that time and try your hand at writing printer drivers for laser jets to print payroll checks or invoices. Then you would realize just how good Windows is.

 

[Digitalfiends]

Is it wrong for me to like you? :lol:

Again I have to disagree. Vista won't prevent application access to those resources, but will use them if they go unused. If an app needs more than is available, Vista will scale down the eyecandy in order to free up resources, it will do the same with the superfetch caching. Again, people seem to be obsessed with how much resources are used when idling, which has nothing to do with application performance. Run DOS, there is something that uses little resources when idling!

Just as an experiment I installed Ubuntu Linux (supposedly the easiest to use) this week to see how far Linux has progressed since I last tried it, but honestly... Any OS that requires Command line commands to get hardware to work or to do anything more than starting a program, I am sorry to say is NOT a threat to MS. And suppose I got everything working on Linux (after various Root commands and terminal sessions...), then what? I have spent years of my life learning all the ins and outs of programs like photoshop, I don't want to start all over again with another (Open Source) program. Linux is still anything but user friendly, and compatibility is horrendous. On top of that, there are so many different variants out there that is defies its own existance...

OSX might be a better alternative, but to be honest, by offering an OS that will only run on a limited amount of (apple) hardware, Apple has it a lot easier...Especially since they get profit margins on that hardware that are 2-3 times the industry standard. Why do console games (almost) always work? Because there is only one platform...OSX's 'efficiency' is based on the same concept...How is that for a 'lock-in'?

I don't see the software vendors move from a single common platform (Windows) to a platform that has a billion different variants (linux) anytime soon, especially if it is a platform were people are expecting everthing for free (whooo OpenSource!!!) where there is very little financial gain for them...So that leaves Linux (Again) as an efficient but mostly unsupported platform for years to come...

 

[Zoron]

Your assertion that MacOS is "open source" couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is you are as "locked in" with Apple as you are with Windows... perhaps even more so. The reason Apple has the tiny market share that they do is exactly because they are proprietary.

Apple has control over every single aspect of their computers; from the hardware all the way to the OS. You can't slap just any old video card or DVD drive in an Apple. It's a little better now thanks to the fact that they finally embraced Intel... even though Apple users often criticized the x86 architechture they are now running with it. Fascinating.

Microsoft isn't to blame for the slow adoption of 64-bit. AMD should have made a harder push sooner when they developed the K8... but it wasn't until Intel promised a similar processor that MS finally developed a 64-bit OS. Even just a few months ago, vendors such as Logitech didn't consider XP Pro x64 mainstream enough to develop drivers for it. If you visit their forums, you'll see many complaints that they never had 64-bit drivers. However, with Vista, that is beginning to change. Even vendors that dragged their feet for over 2 years on 64-bit drivers have finally started cranking them out. You can be sure that 64-bit software will soon begin to follow suit.

It's a problem of perception. Most vendors believe that the amount of customers using 64-bit doesn't make it worth the effort. This is something that should start changing now that Vista comes in 64-bit both retail and OEM. You'll remember that XP Pro x64 was OEM only... and most vendors used this as an excuse to put off 64-bit development. Now, they are out of excuses. The hardware is there... and now so is the OS.

 

[dasickninja]

Basically, you can't develop for hardware that doesn't exist.

 

[Zoron]

And what hardware didn't exist?

😛

K8 was out long before Intel's first x86-64 offering. The hardware was there. It's just because the industry is so Intel-centric that they don't do anything to take advantage of AMD's innovations unless Intel copies them. Bascially, no excuse. Once Opteron and Athlon hit the market, the hardware for 64-bit was in place.

 

[kstrat2001]

I guess money walks. AMD's small percentage of market share compared to intel's wasn't going to be enough to move the 64 bit industry. Now that mostly all new systems will be 64 bit it makes sense that the ball will get rolling a lot faster. I just think it's too bad that XP x64 never got a chance to mature. It had potential to be such an awesome robust OS. Just the fact that there isn't much SW support means less spyware and viruses. But now we'll never know if x64 even matters because Vista will be the next thing. I'm just not sure if we'll ever be able to get settled into an OS anymore and that's frustrating.