Files copied faster in our initial tests, but other performance was slightly slower with the SP1 installed.
Microsoft's newly released Service Pack 1 may solve some of the performance glitches that have annoyed Windows Vista users and discouraged others from adopting the OS, but it doesn't appear from our initial tests to be a panacea.
In our first tests of the service pack, file copying, one of the main performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly faster. But other tests showed little improvement and in two tests, our experience was actually a little better without the service pack installed than with it.
Microsoft's newly released Service Pack 1 may solve some of the performance glitches that have annoyed Windows Vista users and discouraged others from adopting the OS, but it doesn't appear from our initial tests to be a panacea.
In our first tests of the service pack, file copying, one of the main performance-related complaints from Vista users, was significantly faster. But other tests showed little improvement and in two tests, our experience was actually a little better without the service pack installed than with it.
Service Pack 1 was released to manufacturing yesterday, and officially sent out to reviewers today (Service Pack 1 was also unofficially unleashed today on BitTorrent, too). Service Pack 1 will be available to users in March, as a download; Microsoft plans to have SP1 integrated into Windows Vista at retail as well, but could not give a timeline on how quickly the update will be included in the retail version of Vista.
View: Full Review @ PC World
Seems like PC World gives headlines before posting the entire article.
They explain in the article that file copying is faster (9% faster on average) but other areas are not improved. You need to click on "Full Review" to read the 2 page article on their test results.
all vista machines will be used exclusively for copying files back and forth between one another, and not running Office or playing games (except File Copy Commando).
what about network throughput?
what about gaming framerates?
what about memory subsystem performance?
bugfixes?
stability?
seriously, is the speed of file copying the single yardstick by which all operating systems are evaluated?
i bet DOS copies files really fast, maybe we should all run DOS?
Comparing file transfers to DOS is pointless and counter productive. Also, I'd be interested to see whether DOS was actually any faster than XP.
I wouldn't worry about missing anything, because it's the hardware that's doing the work. If a new graphics API is needed, there's always OpenGL 3.0 due out this year, which will have more shader and programming features than DX10. Look at the OpenGL 2.0-powered PS3 and tell me DX10 is needed for "next-gen" graphics. It isn't.
Amen!!! Joo p30pl3 be pwn3d by the microsft
j/k...
Oh well, guess ill stick with xp sp2 ( then sp3) until vista sp2
after rewriting millions of lines of code, will the OS shut down faster on this guys PC? THIS is the question everyone is asking!
XP SP3 should see brighter improvement.
SP1 is not supposed to be the holy grail...
I don't know you, but to me performance is an issue.
DUH
god you people seriously i have to wonder, its like you think MS spent a year working on a 500mb pile of code for copying files faster and shutting down your PC, give me a break.
I don't see why you would defend Microsoft on this issue. I am a Vista user but am very disappointed with performance and was hoping for an improvement. Startup and shutdown speeds are also an issue for people because Vista was advertised as being quicker than XP... if that performance is reduced, often behind that of XP, then it's nullifying the supposed performance increase they advertised.
There still hasn't even been official confirmation of hte exact build number yet!
The RTM build of Vista is 6.0.6001.18000, but the properties of the download above say 6.0.6001.17028.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvi...sp1_screens.asp
That mac reivew was total BS...
As for SP1 .. mileage will vary .. there is no point in reviewing it's speed. Some PC's (small amount, not 80%+ like some people claim) are having trouble running Vista nice and smooth. Partly due to driver problems but also with SP1, these problems get solved as much as possible. Only in these cases will SP1 the holy grail people are looking for.
If you don't like it, fine .. stay on your 7 year-old "prehistoric" OS.
That mac reivew was total BS...
As for SP1 .. mileage will vary .. there is no point in reviewing it's speed. Some PC's (small amount, not 80%+ like some people claim) are having trouble running Vista nice and smooth. Partly due to driver problems but also with SP1, these problems get solved as much as possible. Only in these cases will SP1 the holy grail people are looking for.
If you don't like it, fine .. stay on your 7 year-old "prehistoric" OS.
I try to defend Vista from ignorant comments and statements where I can (It has some issues, but it's still a good OS), so for the most part I agree with what you're saying, but just because XP is 7 years old doesn't mean it's a bad OS at all.
Remember, XP was built for PC's 7 years ago and Vista was built for PC's today, so there's always going to be a divide of PC's that work better on XP or Vista depending on what way they're configured and when they were made.
As far as I can tell, brand new PC's with Quad core CPU's and 8800's run Vista brilliantly, but a single core system with 1Gb of RAM and a measly 6800 might have trouble getting the same kind of performance on it when compared to XP, so for such a system (which is still decent enough these days for most tasks), XP is the better choice.
That mac reivew was total BS...
As for SP1 .. mileage will vary .. there is no point in reviewing it's speed. Some PC's (small amount, not 80%+ like some people claim) are having trouble running Vista nice and smooth. Partly due to driver problems but also with SP1, these problems get solved as much as possible. Only in these cases will SP1 the holy grail people are looking for.
If you don't like it, fine .. stay on your 7 year-old "prehistoric" OS.
I try to defend Vista from ignorant comments and statements where I can (It has some issues, but it's still a good OS), so for the most part I agree with what you're saying, but just because XP is 7 years old doesn't mean it's a bad OS at all.
Remember, XP was built for PC's 7 years ago and Vista was built for PC's today, so there's always going to be a divide of PC's that work better on XP or Vista depending on what way they're configured and when they were made.
As far as I can tell, brand new PC's with Quad core CPU's and 8800's run Vista brilliantly, but a single core system with 1Gb of RAM and a measly 6800 might have trouble getting the same kind of performance on it when compared to XP, so for such a system (which is still decent enough these days for most tasks), XP is the better choice.
Point well made but here's where I stand on this issue: Just because it's a new OS doesn't mean that it should necessarily have so much more overhead. Strip out all the fancy bells and whistles and what you're left with is an OS very much like XP but with severe performance issues. Vista is just an operating system. I don't care about the extras. I just need something that will work. Where's the incentive to keep it when I have XP - an OS that will run applications twice as fast. The concern, in my opinion, is that in due time XP will no longer be supported and we will be stuck with Vista.
I don't like the direction MS is heading. People were hoping that SP1 would be the saving grace for Vista but the reality is that it's not. I suppose this is just about as good as it's going to get. With that said, maybe it's as good as the future will provide.
..that does everything that Vista does, only quicker.
I'll happily keep to my prehistoric OS thanks, whilst the suckers continue to defend the bloat-a-thon that is Windows Vista.
Really - doesn't it seem a LITTLE bit weird that even after a year and a service pack, people are STILL complaining about how bad the product is? Someone has to be wrong and you know - if you like Vista, great - but I don't believe people are wrong when they say its a disappointment!
And exactly what do you know of "overhead?" Was everything in Windows 95 "overhead" built on top of Windows 3? Are you aware of the changes made in Vista in more than a superficial way? Are you a developer? Help me out here and let me know what qualifies you to speak of overhead and make claims as to how much Vista is like XP? As for severe performance issues, you're going to have a heck of a time running anything new on old hardware. Get with the program. That's an expensive proposition with little return, and a lot of risk involved.
There are a lot of people out there that do care about the extras, however, and Microsoft has to build an OS that does its best to fit the bill for as many types of users as it can.
"The Windows Vista SP1 install process clears the user-specific data that is used by Windows to optimize performance, which may make the system feel less responsive immediately after install. As the customer uses their SP1 PC, the system will be retrained over the course of a few hours or days and will return to the previous level of responsiveness."
Everyone should read the SP1 changelog. There a ton of changes:
Notable changes in Windows Vista SP1
I will say my startup time is longer now but I have a feeling it was applying updates or something. I will have to reboot a few more times to see if it improves. I really don't care about this because I never shutdown. I sleep. My laptop sleeps in about 2.5 secs and wakes in about .25secs. Why would anyone shutdown these days?
Thank you for noticing that and posting here.
When you install any major update like Vista SP1 (or XP SP3 when released) you do need to defrag the system thoroughly.
Use the SysInternals PageDefrag tool to defragment the registry hives and pagefile, then use a decent defragmenter to defragment the remaining files on the OS partition.
I bet all of those folks who are seeing a performance drop would find if they did this then the PC would perform better.
Kind Regards
Simon
http://technet.microsoft.com/it-it/sysinte...426(en-us).aspx
PageDefrag v2.32
Introduction
One of the limitations of the Windows NT/2000 defragmentation interface is that it is not possible to defragment files that are open for exclusive access.
Last edited by franzon on 07 Feb 2008 - 15:37
http://technet.microsoft.com/it-it/sysinte...426(en-us).aspx
PageDefrag v2.32
Introduction
One of the limitations of the Windows NT/2000 defragmentation interface is that it is not possible to defragment files that are open for exclusive access.
The pagefile and the filesystem still get fragmented under Vista and volume shadow copy doesn't make things better by the huge files it creates. The built in defragger is a joke tbh.
If you are running XP SP2 and are up to date on windows update you already have SP3. All it is is all the patches since SP2 rolled into one.
If you are running XP SP2 and are up to date on windows update you already have SP3. All it is is all the patches since SP2 rolled into one.
oh my... not really... there are about 200 other patches that have not been publically released in SP3 also... ones that you'd of had to called into MS to get
bahaha best response ever! Im going to quote that in my sig sometime.
I have run into this way to often, and the only info on the internet is from poeple trying to troubleshoot it, nothing from Microsoft.
They should have just used the standard "Allow or Deny" button instead of trying to silently protect me from myself.
Internet was working great untill VMware finished installing, and adding to virtual network cards.
Then, LOCAL ONLY. The retarded thing was I could still surft the net inside of XP running in VMware. But the HOST machine went to Local Only mode.
I had to uninstall the virtual network cards before my vista let me hit the web again.
The first time I ran into this was at a friends house. He just got DSL, and was using a wireless USB dongle to access the wireless router. Everything was working perfect.
Then I pugeed in a crossover cable between his onboard nic and xbox. I transfered files back and forth to the xbox, then tried to visit a webpage for updated files...... LOCAL ONLY.
The computer stayed this way through 2 hours of troubleshooting. the fix was instant, when I unpluged the cable going to his xbox.
AND 2 weeks ago a family friend got a new dell laptop.
They had me over for a steak dinner, and to get the laptop online for them. No problem. Even hooked up a wireless range extender while I was there. 4 days later they called and said they could not access the internet from the Vista laptop. I looked around. "LOCAL ONLY" we set the connection to Private/Home, rebulit it, tried reconnecting..... NADA.
So this last Sunday I had to go back over and fix it.
So again I say, If Vista wants to block my internet access because it does not like a DNS server they should 1.) TELL ME 2.) Let me continue anyways if I want 3.) At least explain what the hell they are trying to pull
In all of those cases, the DNS server was on an internal 192.168 IP address. What the hell kind of harm are they trying to protect me from on an unroutable ip address anyways.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=local+access+only
Since the installation nothing I've tried has fixed this so I guess we'll have to wait to see if putting the real bits from the real release rather than using an RTM will fix the issue. I doubt it of course... This is probably a known bug or problem that will never be fixed similar to it in XP where when trying to shut down IIS would crash the mmc and any changes would not take place, that plagued me since day one of XP and never was fixed... LOL
MMC 3.0 is part and parcel of Vista; however, if you install an older version of Visual Studio (the IDE used by Microsoft's programming tools), things can get a bit weird due to version mismatching. (There are several TechNet articles relating to VS 2005 causing this behavior, as well as update patches to resolve it.) This is a new version of an old bug (it first appeared when running VS 97 on NT4WS); however, it's not exactly avoidable.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.