Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown

[melmac]

Photographer, you Legend 🙂

lol Guillone got owned. And no more than he deserved. Blaming microsoft because nobody is writing software or drivers for the 64bit version of Vista. LOL.

Microsoft has had a 64 bit platform available for a few years now. Is it Microsoft's fault that developers and hardware companies haven't produced software and drivers because they are concentrating on the 32bit market, because that is where the money is. Consumers are what drives most companies.

Yes you can have your opinion, but, you at least try to make it an educated opinion. All the things you mentioned in your posts Guillone are really odd. Like the web development. I know lots of companies that develope web sites etc. that use Windows, but they don't use asp.net or any other microsoft software.

You mention that you want open source and then say you are going the apple route? Isn't that a contradiction? Isn't Apple really proprietary?

Then you mention the price, that apple is so much cheaper, that a windows machine is much more expensive? You said you would have to spend $5000 for a computer capable of running 64 bit Windows. What about this PC:-
2gb of ram,
a core duo CPU running at 1.85GHZ,
300GB sata2 hardrive,
19 lcd monitor
Vista home premium installed.

More than capable of running Vista 64bit or 32 bit. I could buy this PC today for about 950 dollars. I don't know where you shop, but I would suggest you try a new place. The Mac with roughly the same specs costs about 500 dollars more at least. I don't know where you get your information from, but, in the real world, A vista Pc is much cheaper than a mac.

I too am curious about the "fun factor" that the mac has over the PC. Please explain this? Please!!!

Again, What a post Photographer, well wrote and well delivered 🙂

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.

 

[guillone]

Sounds like a shill working for Microsoft.

 

[dasickninja]

Not everyone that can articulate their points better than you is a shill.

 

[guillone]

Obviously, none of you guys have a clue about what my point was with my conversation. I'm not a Mac lover, never owned one and could give a shit.
I've owned a Microsoft box of some kind since 1983. I'm sure they'll fix all the bugs in Vista. They always do. I've built my own and have programmed them on the job and used them for consumer amusement for almost 25 years now.
I could give a shit about which one is best, we'll let all you four year olds argue that one out. I'm retired, don't need a fancy rig anymore. Finally, Mac has managed to figure out how to market to a certain segment of consumer.
And, they are gaining market share. I never said Mac wasn't proprietary. They have always been so proprietary that I never bought one because of it.
Today, however, they seem to have enough off the shelf useful consumer oriented software to pretty much do what the average Joe needs to do.
Surf the Web, make a video, make a CD, watch a movie, etc. Also, their pricepoint has finally become reasonable for what you get. Nice little packaged unit with some apps to amuse yourself with. Vista appears to, according to Tom's article, not me (which is what I was referencing, not engaging in a bunch personal attacks like you assholes) be moving somewhat towards a more limited hardware model than before. It's not that you can't run a cheap video card on Vista, it's that you have to run a fast one to get Ultimate to work. And I understand the pros and cons of why that is. the OS is using the GPU to do some cool tricks if you have the juice to take advantage of it. So, they'll continue to dominate 95% of the space and that's fine. It's just nice to know now we have a legitimate alternative to Bill Gates' vision of what a PC should be. I like choices and basically we've never had one until now. I also like the movement on the Internet that is trying to make the concept of an OS almost irrelevant. I don't think that will ever happen, but it's nice to see them try to develop online apps. It just gets more people into the creative mix and I think that is what leads to faster innovation; not, stifled monopolies. They have the advantage of bringing stability to the marketplace, but it is always disruptive technology that moves us forward. Can you imagine where we'd be if Bill Gates would have bought up the Internet and choked it off? So, yea, Steve Jobs is a proprietary prick, but at least he keeps trying to push the envelope. Gates' business model is like Sony: let the shakers jump on the new stuff and bankrupt themselves and then he sees where the trend is and move in and dominates the space. Great business model.
Also, I know consumers don't use 64bit machines; I just wanted to see the day when A full blown workstation would be available at the consumer level so enthusiasts like myself could have fun playing with it without having to spend an arm and a leg. There are still no apps, that isn't anyone's fault. The market determines that. Leopard will be just as limited on 64 bit apps as everyone because no demand has been created at this time. So, go yell at some Mac geeks and get off my ass. Jesus, you guys are a bunch of doorknobs.

 

[melmac]

LOL, Sorry guillone if it came accross as a personel attack, but I still dont have a clue what your point is!!

And secondly, I am still waiting for you to tell me what the "Fun factor" is in owning a mac over a pc?

I have vista installed on my parents Pc as a test. It has 1GB ram, Athlon XP 2.4 GHZ, 256 radeon 9800XT and a 80GB harddisk. It runs fine. It's the ulitmate edition with Aero installed. It's not the fastest, but then again the hardware is over 4 years old and would probably cost about $300 today. And if you install 1 GB more ram it runs fairly smooth. Vista seems to be running more resources, but if you read the superfetch article you will understand why. And it works, even on my parents PC, apps might take a while to start first time round, but, a few tries later the apps open really quickly.

And you mention spending an arm and a leg for a 64 bit workstation and again I have to say to you where are you buying your computers? You can a buy a full blown 64 bit workstation for less than a 1000 dollars. Heck, you could probably get one without a monitor for 600 dollars. You can still install open office, you can get loads of free apps to burn CD's you do everything that an average Joe wants to do without buying anything else other than the PC and operating system. Why would you "an average Joe" who is settling for a mac with nothing fancy on it, want the ultimate edition of Vista?

We have never been fighting about which one is best, We have discussing the reasons that you gave for not going with microsoft. And I can't see one valid reason, other than the fact that you hate microsoft 🙂 That point comes accross loud and clear.

You keep mentioning price and cost and movers and shakers bankrupting themselves to jump on the new stuff. That's after I pointed out to you that the Mac is more expensive, you can get a Vista machine for less.

And despite all you say, the people that have been pushing and pushing the developement of new hardware have been gamers. They have been the ones jumping on the new hardware. Microsoft had to come with up with a whole new operating system to make directx10 available to said gamers.

Which leads me to another point you make, Steve Jobs is a legend for pushing the evvelope. But Microsoft is not? It's easier for a small company to make big changes. Like take linux, that changes all the time without no big fuss, because there isn't enough users to make a fuss. Same with Apple. But when a company likes Microsoft changes it's OS, then people jump on the complaining bandwagon. It needs to much hardware, it is too different, it is blah, blah, blah. Even though the hardware capable of running Vista has been around for 2 years now. And again, you don't have to go to Vista. Just wait until you are buying a new PC then get vista, that's what most of the consumers that I deal with in my business are doing.

It's nice to have the creative mix all right. But with the internet I think that innovation would be there anyway. Because people are inventive and like to try new things. But, you need the stability of a company like microsoft. They provide a uniformity in the business and home user world.

And, lol, truth be told, We all hate Microsoft because they are so successfull 🙂

And again, apologies, my last post wasn't mean't to be a personel attack on you Guillone.

 

[guillone]

All valid points you make, my friend. I guess the easiest way to describe what I'm saying is: after driving a BMW for 25 years I'll think I'll try a Mercedes. I don't know if it is as good as a BMW but sometimes change is good.
With the release of Vista they haven't given me personally any impelling reason to use it. I like XP just fine. So, I thought it might be time to add a Mac to my household and see if Jobs finally figured out how to make a computer. (hahaha) I'm keeping my two XP boxes though, because I know they work and they're paid for and do everything I need. I didn't really see anything new in Vista that caught my imagination.
Now, the only question is this: is it o.k. if I feel that way? Or, do I need permission from all you guys who hate Apple to try one out?
Can we even discuss Apple as a possibility here at Tom's website or is this a Microsoft only site? Because I would like some honest feedback on both platforms to make a better informed choice without getting flamed for wanting to have the discussion. I know Apple and I know Microsoft, I was here long before both of them and watched the whole enchilada unfold. I remember when this discussion was "IBM is the 600lb gorilla that is trying to crush the competition." The reason we all fell in love with Gates was because he stood up to them and beat them at their own game. David beat Goliath. The reason he got my money and Steve Jobs didn't was because he was open and cheap and Jobs was all proprietary and arrogant. That seems to be shifting now. Apple is changing it's tune and recognizing they need the consumer, not just a small group of stuck up yuppies. Whereas I'm mostly just confused about this release; what exactly do I need it for? And yes, I will wait like always for the smoke to clear and see where we are headed here before I purchase Vista. I was under the wrong impression that Vista was going to move us into 64bit computing and the vendors would be releasing some cool software at the same time to make us want to get that next killer app...nada.

thanks for toning it down a notch, I don't respond well to flaming and sarcasm, too old a dog for that kind of b.s.
Cost wise I see know advantage either way, it's a non-issue. I look at a Gateway 5730XT (I think that is it)with a quad core and they want four to five thousand for it. I was going to get one with Vista Ultimate until I read this article from Tom's Hardware;

"For example, Adobe Photoshop takes care of creating a temporary work file every time it launches - Vista has no access to this process and cannot speed it up."

So, is this article saying I'm better off sticking with XP? These are things I need to know.
Photoshop is something I use alot. My main intensive needs are Photoshop( I do all the workflow for my wife who is a professional photographer), multitrack audio recording with all the bells and whistles. I use Sonar so they got me covered on the software for 64bit.
I'd like to speed up video editing and start shooting in HD. I need the horsepower to do that and still multitask at the same time. I'm a power hog. hahaha. This P4 3.2Ghz laptop is just not keeping up with me anymore. So, I was all set to jump until, like a dumb-ass, I read this article. I'm still pissed about it. So, I took it out on Gates. hahahaha
He's a big boy, he can handle it. I figure by now, he's got enough of my money to buy me a new PC. lol
Any thoughts?
Peace.

 

[KwyjiboNL77]

One things that still confuses me (and correct me if I'm wrong) is the resentment of everybody for the money they have paid to MS for their OS ("Bill has got enough of my money...blah..blah"). How is this any different with a Mac...Apple charges $ 129 for their OSX Tiger version, which surely isn't a big difference from the $ 99-250 (depending on version) you have to pay for a Vista OEM...Sure, when buying a new mac you get the OS for 'free' (as in, factored into the price you pay) but isn't this the same with buying a PC from Dell, or Gateway? See cost is a non-issue in this debate, since both OSes (OSX and Vista) cost money, and they cost about the same for the same functions (Home Premium/Bussines will be the OS fit for most people).

In my experience, the initial thing with Vista was 'oh, it looks fancier, big deal', but the more I use it (my main and only OS since it was released) the more am pleasantly surprised by all the not so obvious improvements. Productivity has increased a lot since apps load faster, and multitasking is SOOO much easier with Aero (much more than just 'eye candy'). New file and folder structure takes some getting used to, but are a real improvement IMO. I have not had ANY performance issues, nor have I had a single moment where I thought; mmm...XP did that So much faster. Photoshop CS2 (One of my most used programs), although not optimised yet to benefit from Vista's new caching systems, runs fine (like it did in XP), and perhaps CS3 (in Beta now) will make more use of Vista's 'performance enhancing drugs'.

As for some feedback with regards to OSX. I have last used Apple in a production environment in the OS9 era, and wasn't overly pleased with them. I have now spent the last couple of days playing around with OSX 'Tiger', and I still feel that way. I feel a lot more restricted in an Apple environment than in a Windows environment (Vista included), and it still REALLY REALLY bugs me that I have no free choice of components (and the components they DO offer are always at least a generation behind, especially where GFX are concerned). This may sound strange is your ears, but I think the reason that apple still has such a small market share is because it is so restrictive and proprietary. Mac users may see that as 'think different', but different in this case means 'think apple' because anything else is unsupported. And the fact that apple now allows XP/Vista to be installed on their hardware surely says something about how Steve Jobs really thinks about XP/Vista, as it may be Apples ultimate survival tactic...Have you not noticed that Apples sales went up, roughly at the same time they introduced Intel and Boot Camp?

On 64bit...TBH I think Vista may well be the OS to move us into 64bit, but that move will occur when the market is ready, and the limits of 32bit are no longer acceptable...Not because an OS forces it upon us. Many users will move from 32bit to 64bit during the Vista lifecycle, but at their own pace. I myself have taken a more cautious approach with my new PC (Vista 32bit), after spending 2 years struggling with support for my previous PC running XP64 on AMD64.

The more I use Vista, and the more I read about it on Driver forums and OpenGL forums, the more I think this article was written at a bit of an unfortunate moment (hey, we all want to be the first to tell the story!)...Right before some major driver releases, and well before Software developers have gotten around to making sure their Software can make the most of Vista.

All these discussions have gotten me on a bit of a fact finding journey the last couple of weeks, and I am rediscovering Operating Systems I have left behind a long time ago (Linux, MacOS, even Win98...) but not once during this journey have I felt the urge to drop Vista and go Mac or Linux. That is my experience, and I have found most FUD on the various blogs to be uninformed and biased BS. If I read somewhere that Vista or any OS 'breaks' something or restricts something or slows something down, I am not the one to take that as a universal truth, and the enthusiast in me makes me want to find out for myself. I almost every case with Vista, I have been pleasantly surprised to find out that often the opposite is true (at least on my Rig...)

One last thing...In the last few years, I too have often felt the urge to get myself an Apple, since I have to admit there is something very attractive about their hardware and software (design that is). But everytime I ask myself 'What on earth would I do with it...?', and in my case that question has remained unanswered...

 

[Chenega]

Yeah agree! MS has done us (wanna be geeks) a favor and all vendors. By creating a new OS for us to work with. MS has made a more user friendly OS
I should say i have had Apple for two years.. And Nothing would run on it except Applsoftware. ( i was very limited)
Apple is great for ppl who can't think for themselves. I have friends that bash MS. But they don't know how to copy and paste.

I have upgraded to vista from feb 1st. Yes there are a few drivers missing, But over all it the best thing i did. Vista has great WOWs. But more than that. Has some owesome features, over xp. It went flawless.
I did a reload on a reformated drive with xp. Ran update. then loaded vista ulitmate. And it has ran without a hitch. I have loaded a few games. It got stuck on BF2. But, after updateing it. Boom again ran with out hitch.
I have a moble 5 pda.. for danest thing i couldn't get it to work very well with XP. But with vista. I pluged it in. Vista found the device. requred a d/l and Boom there it was. ready to sync. Man that was the best!

About Nivida.. they are working to get the drivers out. (due in time)

But i guess what i'm tryying to say... bashing it before you try it kinda.. B.S.
So If you haven't loaded it yet ( Any OS) Don't bash it before you ride.
I'm riding a awesome ride! Peace on earth!

 

[photographer]

About Nivida.. they are working to get the drivers out. (due in time)

Actually I think all of the nVidia drivers are posted. Finally. I installed the NF4 drivers on my system and was pleased to note a slight but detectable increase in performance.

My system is racking up some serious Vista uptime. No crashes and no reboots except after the installation of the NF4 drivers.Running fast and smooth. Is Vista a huge update in the GUI from XP ? Not to me. I have it setup almost exactly like XP. But it's what's under the hood that counts. XP is a 5+ year old OS that had been seriously revised and updated 2X with numerous other patches. Vista rolls all of that and more up into a coherent platform. There's only so much one can do with an old platform before it's time to make a break and start fresh. In 1.5 years Vista will be flying on dual and quad core systems. Hopefully there will be significantly more 64 bit apps that are much better written to take advantage of Vistas capabilities.

 

[Chenega]

Well, I should make a note to my comment.
From the Nividia release:

http://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/100.64/100.64_ForceWare_Release_Notes.pdf

About mid way down.

ForceWare Graphic Driver (Release 100 Notes)

NVIDIA SLI Technology
On SLI-ready systems, the NIVIDIA Control Panel now includes SLI controls 3D settings Catagory task page.
This driver has limited support for NVIDA SLI techonlogy on top DirectX
9.0 and openGL applications for GeForce 8800 GPU only.
NIVIDIA will continue to provided driver updates for NVIDIA SLI on an ongoing basis to add new product support.

So I have 2x7950gt xfx extremes on board. And i can't use them!
Yes my chips work and one card works (I think).
But when i plug into my second card to sli.. NO GO!

So, I see they have SLI for 8800 cards sorta.
But for the masses out there that bought 2 cards to run on SLI.
Sry out of luck at this time.
So In DUE time NVIDIA Hopfully will have it together!

So, once again it early on the ride..... tick-toc.. tick-toc...tic-toc.. lol

Peace on earth! :roll:

 

[guillone]

xxxxyyyy

 

[guillone]

Thanks for your insight. Those are very useful comments for me, I appreciate it.

 

[guillone]

thanks for the info, what are your opinions of the Gateway 530XT quad-core for this new Vista OS? That is what I was looking at before I got sidetracked on this article. Any hardware considerations? Or does it look like a runner?
thanks

 

[danny9894]

If I had the $$$ and didn't feel like building my own system I would buy that gateway

 

[Chenega]

Hmmm Gateway... I have heard not the greatest things about gateway. But i never owned one.
I have delt alot with Dell. I have to say about Dell has good machines and the service is AWESOME!

It's really a hit or miss world out there.

http://www.dell.com/content/products/category.aspx/desktops?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

Good luck on the new ride.. Peace on earth!

 

[dsharp9000]

I wish these articles would be more based on reality:

First, the system hardware is not representative of what most people could afford --- your system is using an intel 6800 processor that costs $1000 -- how about running these tests on systems that people can actually buy in the real world---

Additionally, your systems have 2 megabytes of ram; however, microsofts minimum specification is 1 megabyte of ram (to use all features of vista) - is one meg sufficient??? I dont know??? --- your article does not answer this question --- why not run two tests --- one with 2 megs --- and one with 1 meg to see how this impacts performance

With regard to testing, the article states:

" * Tweak the OS: turn off animations and AeroGlass for maximum system performance."

It would of been nice if you would of run both cases where aero is on and off as one reason to go to vista would be to use the new interface

The article also says that numerous functions were disabled or modified

"* Disable User Access Control to prevent it from interrupting certain benchmarks."
* Have the OS process pending idle tasks
* Turn off system restore"

Most users would have these on by default; and, therefore, the performance results do not represent real world results --- at the very least, two sets of tests should of been done ---- one with "tweaks" and one without "tweaks". Additionally, it appears much of the tweaking was done on the vista system --- how much tweaking could of been done on the xp system so as to increase performance????

The article also states:

* Install all applications, and execute them several times (with restarts in between) to make SuperFetch aware that you want them to be available.
* Don't use the system after reboots during your SuperFetch training period: this way, Vista gets sufficient idle time to "superfetch" applications."

Why not also use a third party cache program for xp that is similar to vista's superfetch so as to tweak the performance of the xp system. What about performing two tests --- one with superfetch on ---- and one with superfetch off - as there are times that you may need access to applications which have not been optimized through "superfetch". Additionally, superfetch eats up more memory by caching programs it thinks your going to use in memory -- and therefore it may be desirable for some to turn superfetch off.

It would be nice if we can get both sides of story in these articles --- rather than tweaking vista to the point where I dont really know what to think. I also don't know what to think of you using a $1000 processor for this test -- this is not representative of what people can presently afford - and therefore highly question what the performance results would be using an average cpu. Can you do another article that uses a "real world" system that people can afford and that gives results for vista in its default state rather than a "tweaked" state --- or at least give the result for both the "tweaked" and "default" state.

 

[dsharp9000]

To clarify above ---- when I refer to megs of ram should of been gigs of ram --- sorry for the confusion

 

[mosquitoguy]

I bought a new computer with vista--- I liked it. The alt-tab looks nice. Playing hi-def videos, I noticed it was taking about 70% of my cpu. I read a few articles on vista & drm. Curious, I backed up vista to a different drive, installed xp64 and played the same hidef video under xp64 --- the cpu utilization was 11%.

Needless to say, vista won't be going back on my system any time soon.

 

[KwyjiboNL77]

I bought a new computer with vista--- I liked it. The alt-tab looks nice. Playing hi-def videos, I noticed it was taking about 70% of my cpu. I read a few articles on vista & drm. Curious, I backed up vista to a different drive, installed xp64 and played the same hidef video under xp64 --- the cpu utilization was 11%.

Needless to say, vista won't be going back on my system any time soon.

So you are hereby admitting to software piracy!? XP64 only came in OEM (tied to the first PC it was installed on), and I would be surprised if you purchased a license of XP64 just to check this out...

 

[mosquitoguy]

So you are hereby admitting to software piracy!? XP64 only came in OEM (tied to the first PC it was installed on), and I would be surprised if you purchased a license of XP64 just to check this out...

Interesting that you assume piracy on xp64 but mentioned nothing about the hi-def content, or for that matter, the software I used to play it. Not that my admission or denial is any concern of yours, unless you have a big poster of Bill Gates hanging in your bedroom and his face is the last thing you see before going to sleep.

 

[KwyjiboNL77]

Interesting that you assume piracy on xp64 but mentioned nothing about the hi-def content, or for that matter, the software I used to play it. Not that my admission or denial is any concern of yours, unless you have a big poster of Bill Gates hanging in your bedroom and his face is the last thing you see before going to sleep.

So a little joke is not possible anymore on these boards...OK...

It is interesting though that you talk about HD content, but haven't mentioned what kind of content, what graphics card, wether or not hardware acceleration was used in XP64 or Vista, what drivers where used. You automatically assumed it was the Vista DRM that caused your high CPU load...

 

[pkellmey]

I haven't noticed an increase in CPU usage between video types. I would assume a driver, codex or player issue first.

 

[KwyjiboNL77]

I haven't noticed an increase in CPU usage between video types. I would assume a driver, codex or player issue first.

Well, in any case, he won't know what it was because 'Needless to say, vista won't be going back on his system any time soon.'

 

[mosquitoguy]

I haven't noticed an increase in CPU usage between video types. I would assume a driver, codex or player issue first.

Player is vlc which uses its own codecs. wmp11/mce is out of the question since it stutters (horribly) when playing at 1920x1200 resolution.

It may be a driver problem since microsoft added a bunch of drm requirements for vista video drivers. see this: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

nvidia drivers are still in beta, and given the added crap they have to implement (e.g. "In order to prevent active attacks, device drivers are required to poll the underlying hardware every 30ms for digital outputs and every 150 ms for analog ones to ensure that everything appears kosher"), it will probably take them a few months to get the kinks out.

 

[KwyjiboNL77]

I haven't noticed an increase in CPU usage between video types. I would assume a driver, codex or player issue first.

Player is vlc which uses its own codecs. wmp11/mce is out of the question since it stutters (horribly) when playing at 1920x1200 resolution.

It may be a driver problem since microsoft added a bunch of drm requirements for vista video drivers. see this: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

nvidia drivers are still in beta, and given the added crap they have to implement (e.g. "In order to prevent active attacks, device drivers are required to poll the underlying hardware every 30ms for digital outputs and every 150 ms for analog ones to ensure that everything appears kosher"), it will probably take them a few months to get the kinks out.

Well, HD content that doesn't specifically require DRM to play (everything except HD-DVD/BlueRay or Purchased HD content), will not be hampered by it either. VLC uses software based codecs (in Vista), so isn't the best for Highres content playback, more so because the hardware overlay that existed in previous versions of windows, isn't there in Vista. The same clip in VLC may use a lot more CPU than in WMP, bacuase hardware acceleration may not be used. I can playback 1080p content in vista on my GF8800 using WMP and it will not use anything near 70% CPU... VLC/Drivers are the issue here, not DRM. DRM will only use CPU cycles on 'Premium' Content (IE Protected content) and will not kick in on anything else. And that article, which has been referred to so many time in several forums is just mostly FUD. If you do not use HDDVD/BlueRay, or purchase any Protected Content, DRM will NOT interfere with your Playback in any way. Vista will not prevent you from playing pirated content, or downloading it, it will not slowdown playback of non-protected content, any more than XP. If your WMP/MCE stutters horribly, then you are looking at a driver/codec problem, not DRM kicking in...

*EDIT* I would like to add that if DRM is of a particular concern to you, the only way to fight it is by NOT buying protected content. Don't buy HD-DVD's, BlueRay's, Video on Demand, iTunes Songs, SACD's etc. It is the content IP owners that impose these restrictive measures, so by not buying this content you can protest, avoiding Hardware/Software that is will allow this content to be played back doesn't send any message to the content providers, it sends a message to the wrong people instead.