> -----Original Message----- > From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:14 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Vista SP1? > > Graph on Network file copy speed differences between Vista SP1 and the > Original Vista RTM: > > http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/12/file_transfer_whs_to_vista. > jpg > > Graph of various file operations of Vista SP1 vs Vista RTM > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/images/sp1_performance_boost_1c.jpg
These are both Vista RTM to Vista SP1. No mention of XP. > Graph of various file operations of Vista SP1 vs XP SP2 > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332&page=5 Many of those graphs aren't file copies (he's got start-up time, extract time, etc - all interesting, but not the issue at hand). The ones that DO show file moving operations are almost overwhelmingly underwhelming - the only one that's clearly in XPs favor is external drive operations (and there could be a lot of reasons for that). Also, here's an article from the same source that shows very little difference (and discusses the above results and the possible reasons for the differences): http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=369&page=2 > Conclusion - XP SP2 faster overall. .... on some systems. In some scenarios. When certain processes were running. Maybe. I'm still not seeing the 80%-faster-but-still-slower-than-XP that you talked about. So there! ;^) > Here is some of what Microsoft indicated would be fixed with Vista SP1: > > # Service Pack 1 should improve the speed of copying and moving > folders with lots of files and subfolders within them. Furthermore, > it's said to improve performance over by as much as 25% when copying > files locally on a single disk PC. Yes - it did this... in some cases. My experience is much more like the blog entry I linked above: about the same across XP SP2, Vista RTM and Vista SP1. I download a lot of video and tend to view everything as how long it takes to copy 350 Meg files (one hour of HD XVid is 350Meg) to my ReadyNAS. It's been about the same for me - no noticeable changes. > # The service pack should allow Vista to do a much better job with the > copy progress "time remaining" estimate. This is purely an interface issue - and very important! Again, the actual performance is only part of the issue - perceived performance is often just as important. > # SP1 should improve "overall media performance by reducing many > glitches," according to Microsoft. > > # By including the SLI hotfix, SP1 should allow games to scale better > to SLI configurations when compared with single-card configurations. > > So that tells you what was *not* working as well as it could with > Vista. Note the mention of SLI Graphics scaling. Oooooooh - well, if you're in that small niche of that already niche market then I agree - don't switch. ;^) For us mere mortals with single graphics cards it works just fine. I've still got an nVidia 7900 in my main box and a 6800 Ultra in the famil-room box - both work fine in Vista. > For me, there's just no reason to switch to Vista SP1 or otherwise at > the moment. XP just feels faster and smoother than Vista, and the file > copy issue is very very noticeable to me. Especially when installing > games, or loading game levels. I'm still curious how it sorts itself out tho'. Like I said, I'm not saying there's no file copy issue - I'm just saying that it's not universal. I don't see it (I actually copied over a terabyte of data, most on Vista RTM and the remainder on Vista SP1, over the past few days to populate my new ReadyNAS box and I didn't see a bit of difference), but others definitely do. I would still guess that at least some of the issue is perception (remember that graph I talked about). Even if Vista is as fast it won't matter to you if it doesn't "feel" as fast. > For business use, I guess someone wouldn't give two hoots. And > certainly if one was not accustomed to XP they would simply accept > Vista performance as the norm. Again I'm perfectly with Vista and I still use XP everyday (I've no choice at the office). I had been dual booting because of all the problems I heard about but quickly gave up on that when I discovered none of them seemed to affect me. Again - these are only my experiences, on my machine. Mileage will vary - all I'm challenging is 1) the idea that Vista is universally poorer than XP and 2) some of the specific (and very large) numbers you where throwing around. When you say that Vista SP1 improves performance by 80% but is still slower than XP I want to see some more detail on that. ;^) Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256986 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
