Users to Microsoft: 'Just make Windows faster'

[toadeater]

I know most of you on Neowin are aware of this already, because it's been discussed numerous times, but it is nice to finally get official confirmation from MS about it.

Continuing an unprecedented public dialog on the future of Windows begun last week, a Microsoft senior vice president admits that the request he's hearing most often from users is pretty simple: Speed it up.

"The most frequent request," Sinofsky wrote, "was to discuss Windows performance and/or just 'make Windows faster.' There's a lot to this topic so we expect to talk about this quite a bit over the next months."

As one blog reader TimOR commented in response to Sinofsky last Thursday, "Vista really is a dog compared to XP performance-wise and compatibility-wise. Yes, it is prettier and it has the search facility. But its UAC, networking and compatibility just sux. I always turn UAC off it is so annoying. For overall compatibility and speed XP is still the gold standard for me. I truly hope Microsoft listens to its customers and makes Windows 7 everything Vista should have been - faster, as compatible (hardware and software) and easier to use than XP. (Hey, and dump the DRM bloat too - your customers don't need it!)."

As user shadow_concept noted the following day, "I'll probably post this multiple times until it gets noticed, but I really think windows 7 needs to be a super efficient core with plug-in style features. That way, as a gamer or just someone who needs all the speed he can get I can just run windows barebones, with only the applications I need."

His was not the only message suggesting that Windows could actually use a paring down -- a removal of features from the operating system package itself, perhaps separating them into separate products or even separate downloads.

As if to demonstrate shadow_concept's very point, Sinofsky's latest message demonstrated the complexity of the Microsoft project management scheme for Windows, listing 23 separate, main "feature teams," each with development managers and program managers, and implying the existence of even more.

"Some have said that the Windows team is just too big and that it has reached a size that causes engineering problems," Sinofsky wrote. "At the same time, I might point out that just looking at the comments there is a pretty significant demand for a broad set of features and changes to Windows. It takes a set of people to build Windows and it is a big project. The way that I look at this is that our job is to have the Windows team be the right size -- that sounds cliche but I mean by that is that the team is neither too large nor too small, but is effectively managed so that the work of the team reflects the size of the team and you see the project as having the benefits we articulate."

The senior VP came dangerously close to admitting that one of the reasons systems like Windows Vista end up with so many "features" is because so many teams are in existence whose job it is to come up with those features. He suggested that perhaps "optimizations" could eliminate some of this complexity, perhaps hoping that commenters could suggest places where such optimizations could take place.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Users_to_M...ster/1219167670

[grik]

Of course, 100% with this...Security and Performance, its all i need...dont give me things i dont need, or at least let me choose, and im not referring the basic and ultimate choosing method.

[hagjohn]

Still no problem with speed here. :rolleyes: Anyone here should be able to figure out why their computer is running slow and fix it.

Edited August 19, 2008 by hagjohn

[grik]

Its not about speed, if you read you understand the problem, its lack of a solid system, its separated and functions not pratical. Thats why i wont use Vista, it doesnt give me anything good, just new features that i dont need to worry turning off. ;D

[EduardValencia]

That's cool,however i'm not suffering performance issues with Vista.

[The2]

  EduardValencia said:

That's cool,however i'm not suffering performance issues with Vista.

Argh! It's not something that "affects some people", it's not a bug, it's not a problem in Vista.

It's a ***** fact that Vista is slower than XP. And btw. I use Vista on my laptop,

[HawkMan]

  grik said:

Its not about speed, if you read you understand the problem, its lack of a solid system, its separated and functions not pratical. Thats why i wont use Vista, it doesnt give me anything good, just new features that i dont need to worry turning off. ;D

errr.... what..

[BilliShere]

exactly! vista is a great improvement in terms of the new features/programs like the media center, photo gallery, sidebar, etc. The visual design is very very clean and next-gen for sure.

but the problem is the speed. i got linux set up to look just like vista and it is blazing fast. xmbc for media center, digikam for photo gallery etc. the additional fact that i am running beautiful 3d effects using compiz fusion on ubuntu and its still that fast is just mind blowing.. running flip3d on vista on the other hand causes lags and in reality just sucks compared to good ole alt+tab

security is a big one too. but im not soo concerned with it in its current state. i mean macs got hacked so easily in that pwn2own or summin contest. vista was still reasonably well off. What i would absolutely love to see is windows at the level of security and performance that linux has to offer right now. the only thing linux is lacking compared to windows right now is the level of sophisticated-ness and compatibility when it comes to things like drivers, etc.

[HawkMan]

Don't compare Compiz directly to the Vista DWM. yeah sure compiz is "faster". but to be faster it sacrifizes a lot of other things in terms of quality, and especially stability.

As it is compiz can run on lower hardware, but it's graphical quality is not even close to what DWM has. Yeah sure MS could have reduced the minimum graphics quality and thus lowered the minimum graphics requirements, But Since MS is an actual company who needs to offer a certain minmal level of quality and service to it's customers.it'ster for them to create a simpler system that allways delivers the quality, and f you can't support it, you are reduced to a fall back solution of the old non accelerated UI.

[EduardValencia]

  The2 said:

Argh! It's not something that "affects some people", it's not a bug, it's not a problem in Vista.

It's a ***** fact that Vista is slower than XP. And btw. I use Vista on my laptop,

But that doesen't apply to me! i'm not guilty! :D\

Vista runs amazing on my 3 year old pc,not my fault!

[azz0r_wugg]

  The2 said:

Argh! It's not something that "affects some people", it's not a bug, it's not a problem in Vista.

It's a ***** fact that Vista is slower than XP. And btw. I use Vista on my laptop,

It was released years after with the general hardware landscape advancing years, it should be slower on older hardware.

...and thats the real problem, people install Vista on terrible old slow hardware and complain it doesn't run aswell as XP.

DUH

[1759]

  BilliShere said:

exactly! vista is a great improvement in terms of the new features/programs like the media center, photo gallery, sidebar, etc. The visual design is very very clean and next-gen for sure.

but the problem is the speed. i got linux set up to look just like vista and it is blazing fast. xmbc for media center, digikam for photo gallery etc. the additional fact that i am running beautiful 3d effects using compiz fusion on ubuntu and its still that fast is just mind blowing.. running flip3d on vista on the other hand causes lags and in reality just sucks compared to good ole alt+tab

security is a big one too. but im not soo concerned with it in its current state. i mean macs got hacked so easily in that pwn2own or summin contest. vista was still reasonably well off. What i would absolutely love to see is windows at the level of security and performance that linux has to offer right now. the only thing linux is lacking compared to windows right now is the level of sophisticated-ness and compatibility when it comes to things like drivers, etc.

Please don't compare Compiz to Vista. It's nice, but it's also pretty buggy on ATI systems, and it's not nearly as fluid as Aero, same goes for the awn dock. And at the heart of it, Compiz just wants to be like Expose on OSX, but outside of the cube effect for switching workspaces, the other effects in Compiz are useless. Wobbly windows and drawing water/fire on the screen do not usability make.

As far as Vista being slow, unfortunately, that's been the case with every new Windows release, I don't think MS honestly knows any better.

[Shadrack]

  hagjohn said:

Still no problem with speed here. :rolleyes: Anyone here should be able to figure out why their computer is running slow and fix it.

Exactly the same experience here. I have Windows Vista Home Premium and Windows XP SP3 installed on a relatively older machine, P4 3.0GHz w/ 1GB ram. The Vista experience is better for me. I get the same frame rates in games in Vista on that machine as I did in XP. The UI of Vista is more responsive and less prone to lockup on me (not that it was too much of a problem in XP). More organized Control Panel, a sound volume application that actually makes sense, more useful Task Monitor, better search integration, dependable sleep/hibernate features.

I don't think people complaining about Vista have actually tried to use it. They just hear everyone bitching and moaning about it, and want to jump on the bandwagon.

I honestly have used both Vista and XP inside and out on two completely different setups. My only complaint with Windows Vista is I don't like the organization of the network devices, and the "repair" function for my WiFi connections seem less useful and consistent as it did on Windows XP.

Other than that, I'm not exactly sure what other people's problems are exactly but I've come up with a theory.

A number of people have actually had problems or have installed Windows Vista on hardware well below the recommended and are persistent in telling others that because they have had problems on their particular setup, Windows Vista "sux" (which is another way of saying, I'm 12). The other vast majority of "users" who are complaining about Windows Vista have not actually tried Windows Vista. I would also call these types of people, Sheep. Baaaaaa!

[redfish]

Just to comment, although I'm sure many people would like a faster windows, I doubt that the average person really wants to remove features. People who say that Microsoft should remove features are usually lower end techies who blame all of the problems with Windows on the fact that you couldn't uninstall IE. In terms of applications, there isn't really much that comes bundled in windows, and it doesn't really make windows slower. Play with all the features in windows and youll get bored in 10 minutes.

[TruckWEB]

  The2 said:

Argh! It's not something that "affects some people", it's not a bug, it's not a problem in Vista.

It's a ***** fact that Vista is slower than XP. And btw. I use Vista on my laptop,

What problem with Vista? It's fast for me. Maybe "some people" should upgrade their PC sometimes.

Did I lose 1 or 2 FPS in my games with Vista? Probably, but WHO CARES when you can game at 90+ FPS on most games (not Crysis) using decent GFX card & current PC hardware. I don't even have problems with all the apps that I use under Vista x64. But you know, that's only MY experience with Vista....

My guess is that most people who have "speed" problem with Vista are trying to run it on 3+ year old PC.

[thealexweb]

If they fixed the speed issues some people have more people would say it's the best OS out, some already do quite rightly.

[abcdefg]

  TruckWEB said:

My guess is that most people who have "speed" problem with Vista are trying to run it on 3+ year old PC.

Why it wouldn't run well on 3 year old PC? Is it ****ing bloated?

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

Ugh - not going to bite on the ignorant comments from people with multicore CPU's and gigabytes of RAM - just remeber not everyone is in the same position as you with money to spend on the latest and greatest hardware.

Even on a reasonably well specced out machine, Vista can be stodgy. I'm glad that this is something that users have managed to channel through to Microsoft and I hope it is feedback they take onboard for Windows7. Vista looks great, has some nice features, but often it feels like you're wading through treacle when using it - it needs to feel a bit fresher than it currently does.

[DreadBoat89]

microsoft adding a featured like a gaming mode (as stated in a comment) and having windows run in a "reduced/barebone" state would be a really nifty feature... i'm quite intrigued by the concept

[TruckWEB]

  abcdefg said:

Why it wouldn't run well on 3 year old PC? Is it ****ing bloated?

OH GOD, you're so right, it's bloated....

That's probably the reason why Vista just can't run on my 486DX2/66Mhz.... DANG, it should, I love that PC.... DAMN YOU Microsoft!

[redfish]

  abcdefg said:

Why it wouldn't run well on 3 year old PC? Is it ****ing bloated?

Whatever would make Vista slower isn't bloat.

The added features are things you can turn off with options, like Aero and UAC. And if you use Aero with a graphics card, and you have sufficient memory, it should actually run faster because it uses the GPU instead of the CPU.

My computer runs perfectly fast with Vista, even though it has the memory and processor other people claim it should run slow on (single core 2gb ram).

Some benchmark tests have actually shown Vista doesn't noticeably run slower.

But if it does on some systems, its likely because the core ways in which the system operates---for things like security, memory caching, etc---have been changed to take advantage of modern technology.

Like i said, the "bloat" can be turned off.

[redfish]

I mean its silly when people say , nothing was added to Vista, that its XP SP1, but its slower because of bloat. Do you think they added code just to make it run slower?

[tsupersonic]

OS have matured, just look at XP, Vista, OS X. How much more can you really improve it with today's technology and hardware? Also, it's really hard for MS to make an OS that satisifes everyone, it's not like Apple and their "closed system." MS would have to take their next OS to a new level...

Also, Vista and XP provide great speed for me and I've run both on a laptop from 2005.

[Chicane-UK Veteran]

  The Grinch said:

well duh, vista was designed for multicores and gigabytes of ram. That is the new technology right? Why stick with old single processors? or just stick with your old outdated pc and os since it's all you can afford, and quit complaining. Just accept life for what it is.

My quad core pc with 3 gigs of ram was under $1,000. isn't much money at all.

Hey - i'm fortunate enough to be in a position where I can spend pretty much whatever I want on a home computer too. But the majority of people have real lives to worry about with real expenses and other such issues in their life and a computer often isn't something they're prepared to spend even $1,000 on - and understandably slow.

You just have to be able to understand all possible sides of the argument and sometimes comments are so unbelievably narrow / blinkered that it's hard not to get frustrated!

It isn't down to Microsoft to govern the pace of hardware replacement amongst its userbase - the userbase should govern what IT wants from its OS provider. The customer is always right, right? If (for example) 60% of customers are home users with older computers, Microsoft should be making the OS work best for them - not for the smaller percentage of power users simply because MS want to push hardware sales with the companies that it is most friendly with.

[HawkMan]

Thing is microsoft is making an OS for nw hardware, the ones with old hardware, they allready have thelast OS.