Performance Results Mixed with Vista Service Pack 1

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.

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

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft Server and Tools support for Windows Server 2008

Next Story

Move over iPhone say hello to the HiPhone!

51 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Well first problem with SP1 is that it kills the mmc. I now when trying to check properties of my ftp site in IIS it gets an APPCRASH for the old mmc.

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

Kills MMC (which is part of Vista)? And just what development tools are you running?
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.

Actualy. I have only had the "Local Only" problem once. That was right after installing VMware.
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

Actually, I've *never* experienced that problem (and I have not just VMWare, but VirtualBox and Parallels 2.2 installed as well; I even run two of them at the same time at times); what sort of connection was the Vista machine using; wired or wireless? (I use a wired cxonnection, as my Vista machine is the admin box for the LAN's router.). The second case is actually pretty darn typical when a wireless LAN connection is the default; most operating systems prefer a wired connection for performance reasons (in short, it isn't Vista-specific). Also, a second 192.168.* .* DNS server (this class-C block is typically used by routers and their clients, and was set aside for the purpose) would naturally throw the LAN out of whack. (Remember my mentioning running VMWare 6 and VirtualBox on my computer? I have actually run VMs in both at the same time; both VMs were setup to use NAT. However, VMWare and VB use different IP ranges in their internal DHCP servers, which is why there's no conflict (even though I further complicate things by running behid a router).). You should have used a different IP range for the internal DNS/DHCP server (168.254 is another reserved class-C block; this one, unlike the 192.168.*.* block, is very seldom used by routers); that's not Vista's fault. (However, XP would have failed a heck of a lot *worse* under the situation you describe; I've actually seen an all-NT LAN fall down because of this.)

Don't you have to wait several days for Vista and SP1 to fully optimize after installation. It evaluates your behaviours for superfetch and performs indexing. Microsoft has stated that SP1 installation removes all these optimizations so everything has to be optimized again which should take some time. If they compared an existing Vista installation to a fresh SP1 installation, SP1 would be slower for a lot of things.

I would guess based on this review that answer would be nothing. They know nothing. Sure, it is a mini preview, but they needed to do at least some system wise tests (not to mention what was fixed). Articles like this reek of unprofessional (Vista sucks, if we say so, than we are part of the bandwagon), uneducated (lack CIS/IS/CS degree or similar experience) and other overall tactics of yellow journalism.

MarvinMAr. I think you might have other problems. The local only thing is when Vista cant get out to the internet. If your on a cable isp it might just be your Isp's dns servers. They are natorious for having dns server outages.

i've never had that issue with vista MarvinMAr,i think vista dont like you,and a service pack is indeed meant to fix glitches more than give a speed increase.

So did they do anything to fix the retarded "Local Access Only" issue on network connections when Vista does not trust the DNS server?
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.

(Mike Frett said @ #15)
Microsoft pouring syrup on burnt waffles I see. Let's hope XP SP3 is more positive.

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.

(archer75 said @ #15.1)

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

There are quite a few changes in SP3, it's not just a collection of updates rolled together. It includes a few features from Vista including no longer having to enter a product key during setup, network access protection, black hole router detection, etc. A lot of people have also said that performance seems to be improved but that could just be a placebo effect, or because of having a fresh install.

(Mike Frett said @ #15)
Microsoft pouring syrup on burnt waffles I see. Let's hope XP SP3 is more positive.

bahaha best response ever! Im going to quote that in my sig sometime.

Hi,

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

(franzon said @ #13.1)
PageDefrag is no longer necessary. And Vista has its built-in automatic defrag

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.

Vista SP1 does seem to load slower...must be the Hardware checks,Software checks and Owner Blood/DNA analysis for Legal Copies.

im not really bothered about a performance increase i just want vista to be fully stable and work with drivers and software better and security holes plugged. and obviously thousands of bugs fixed:)

I installed SP1 last night and have been very impressed with the performance increase. Local and remote file copies are much faster now. This was the only problem I had with Vista. The "Calculating" screen is almost nonexistent now. The changelog talked about this fix but I was pleasantly surprised to find a performance increase all around. Also, if you read the changelog you will notice this blurb:

"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?

(ermax said @ #10)
"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."

Thank you for noticing that and posting here.

I've actually had better performance on SP1 Beta, and my USB hub used to randomly die before I had the beta installed. After I installed SP1 beta, the usb hub would work perfectly, and everything has been pretty much fast on this 3 year old laptop

meh .. a negative (or not-so-positive) review from the same publisher/site/magazine that said that the MacBook Pro is the fastest notebook out there for vista... why am I not surprised.

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.

(MMaster23 said @ #8)
meh .. a negative (or not-so-positive) review from the same publisher/site/magazine that said that the MacBook Pro is the fastest notebook out there for vista... why am I not surprised.

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.

(Kushan said @ #8.1)

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.

If you don't like it, fine .. stay on your 7 year-old "prehistoric" OS.

..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!

(gadean said @ #8.2)
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.

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.

(gadean said @ #8.2)
I don't care about the extras. I just need something that will work.

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.

it should be March/February windows updates not SP1 its quality lacks the ability to call it that. lol

showed little improvement
will be the most used phrase in SP1 reviews.

XP SP3 should see brighter improvement.

Encouraging that file copy speeds have been improved by 9%. But shutdown and startup being slower are things I'm not keen on!

yes, pressing issues such as these!
after rewriting millions of lines of code, will the OS shut down faster on this guys PC? THIS is the question everyone is asking!

@hapbt - So is it not a fair point to criticise SP1 if it makes things slower? Just because they are not important issues to you does not mean that they aren't for someone else. Also, why should people care that millions of lines of code have been rewritten? If it doesn't make the operating system perform better or improve stability then it's of little concern to people.

(Co-ords said @ #2)
Who wants it, we need WinXP SP3! :P

Amen!!! Joo p30pl3 be pwn3d by the microsft :P XP SP3 = Windows 7 !!! :P
j/k...

Oh well, guess ill stick with xp sp2 ( then sp3) until vista sp2

Erm, is part of the article missing? cause all the tests I see revolve around file copying.... and not very professional tests...

Seems like PC World gives headlines before posting the entire article.

Full Review @ PC World

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.

yes vista sp1 -- the most important thing about it is how fast will it allow vista to copy files -- this is the end-all be-all of all benchmarking tests, how fast can a file be copied.
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?

Oh please. Vista is slower than XP. Full stop. File transfers are only one aspect of that - Vista is also slower with gaming, ASIO performance, and pretty much everything else. So whilst file transfers are not necessarily the most important factor they are certainly an indication that Vista doesn't perform as well as XP.

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.

MS's biggest mistake was not porting DX10 to XP. Vista would not have sold worse had they done this, but DX10 would have been adopted much faster. Now MS has even cut DX11 for Windows 7 because adoption of DX10 is going so slow.

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.