Users to Microsoft: 'Just make Windows faster'

By toadeater
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Proficient

matt4pack

Posted
Posted

The main problem I have with Vista is the slow jerkiness that is present in the graphics system especially with using dual displays. I will launch media center on one display and then when I want to switch the focus to the other display by hitting the Windows key the screen always jumps and turns black a few times before it's ready to use. This is the same thing that happens when you go from full screen to windowed mode in games and the screen jumps all over the place for a few seconds. There has to be a way to get rid of this as I don't ever remember OS X doing anything like even when I would hook up an external display to my laptop.

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted

Sound lik one screen runs soethign disablign DWM and when you actvate the other it enables DWM again. I don't really see the purpose behind runnign MEdia center on one screen on a dual monitors computer setup though.

Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
  azz0r_wugg said:
If you can afford the ?100+ for Vista, you can afford the ?300 hardware to run it.

I went a different way with that.

I bought a ?400 computer and use Linux on it. It's like a free hardware upgrade, if you think about i;) ;)

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted
  markjensen said:
I went a different way with that.

I bought a ?400 computer and use Linux on it. It's like a free hardware upgrade, if you think about it.;))

Unless I want to run say , Office2k, Photoshoop, 3DSMAX, Age of Conan, Trackmania., Visual Studio.....

Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
  HawkMan said:
Unless I want to run say , Office2k, Photoshoop, 3DSMAX, Age of Conan, Trackmania., Visual Studio.....

Nope. :) Never needed those in the past 5+ years, thank-you-very-much :D

Grand Master

hagjohn

Posted
Posted

Build your own computer. You can build a decent multi-core system for 1/3rd the price of anything (decent) retail.

  Chicane-UK said:
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.

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted
  markjensen said:
Nope. :) Never needed those in the past 5+ years, thank-you-very-much :D

Sorry , but Wine don't cut it thank you very much.

and as I tried to edit in, I liek to have an accelerated GUI, just don't like the Issues of using compiz.

Linux is nice to have for dual booting, but not usable enough for real usage yet.

Proficient

matt4pack

Posted
Posted
  HawkMan said:
Sound lik one screen runs soethign disablign DWM and when you actvate the other it enables DWM again. I don't really see the purpose behind runnign MEdia center on one screen on a dual monitors computer setup though.

Well one of the displays is actually a TV that I run Media Center on in my bedroom but I still use the PC also. What is point of disabling DWM unless that is like Microsoft admitting that it's a performance hog? I don't have any problems with the speed of Vista but that is on a quad core with 4 GB of ram. I think people complain about the speed of Vista because you need at least a 2GHz processor to have any chance of running it somewhat well while Leopard is supported on a 867Mhz processor. Even that 2GHz processor wouldn't give a very good user experience which I'm sure is something like what most people who complain are running but Vista on new hardware isn't a problem.

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted
  matt4pack said:
Well one of the displays is actually a TV that I run Media Center on in my bedroom but I still use the PC also. What is point of disabling DWM unless that is like Microsoft admitting that it's a performance hog? I don't have any problems with the speed of Vista but that is on a quad core with 4 GB of ram. I think people complain about the speed of Vista because you need at least a 2GHz processor to have any chance of running it somewhat well while Leopard is supported on a 867Mhz processor. Even that 2GHz processor wouldn't give a very good user experience which I'm sure is something like what most people who complain are running but Vista on new hardware isn't a problem.

of course DWM is a perfomane hog. it's point is to accelerate windows, wich it does very well, giving us the most responsive windows to date.

But when you run accelerated aplications such a games, havign DWM on at the same time is like havign another game using the GPU while you're playing. The point is to use the resources whe they're available, and release them when you don't need them and other things do.

And for the record, on of my Vista installs is my MEdia Center wich runs on my old XP 3800+ AMD cpu, wich is pretty much around 2Ghz I believe. it's also what was my main computer before, the one I ran Vista on as my priary computer since RTM and played everythign from BAttlefield /242 to Vanguard on. :)

Grand Master

hagjohn

Posted
Posted

There are a lot of complaints about Leopard... hence Snow Leopard coming out.... I know my macbook sometimes has a rough time with leopard.

I wonder if "making it faster" will mean removal of some older code.

  matt4pack said:
I think people complain about the speed of Vista because you need at least a 2GHz processor to have any chance of running it somewhat well while Leopard is supported on a 867Mhz processor.
Proficient

39 Thieves

Posted
Posted
  Sethos said:
Yeah, I wish I could believe you.

I just re-installed XP just a few days ago. Vista hogs almost 15-20 FPS in Crysis under the exact same settings ( DX9 - High ), BF2142 refused to install, lost 15% FPS in CoD 4, I could set AA and AF to high under Armed Assault and still get almost 20 FPS more ( Where as I had to set both to none under Vista ). Older games like Outfront is unstable and most performance benchmarks generally suffer.

I done my own benchmarks with games, I used Vista for several months which I should believe is enough and I have seen no evidence Vista is on par or above XP's performance at this point.

Read

Specifically

0,1425,i=209756,00.jpg

Sounds like pebkac to me...

Grand Master

TruckWEB

Posted
Posted
  markjensen said:
Nope. :) Never needed those in the past 5+ years, thank-you-very-much :D

Yeah, but for everybody else that needs those software, Linux just don't cut it. It may be free, but if you can't do the stuff you want to do, then it's sh*t.

And if you have to rely on Wine all the time.... why not just run stuff in Windows, it will be more stable anyway than Wine.

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted
  TruckWEB said:
Yeah, but for everybody else that needs those software, Linux just don't cut it. It may be free, but if you can't do the stuff you want to do, then it's sh*t.

And if you have to rely on Wine all the time.... why not just run stuff in Windows, it will be more stable anyway than Wine.

Also since Wine is essentially windows libraries ported, you'd technically shoudl still need a license for them. wich would mean a windows license.

Proficient

39 Thieves

Posted
Posted
  HawkMan said:
Also since Wine is essentially windows libraries ported, you'd technically shoudl still need a license for them. wich would mean a windows license.

Not exactly.

On a side not, the recursive acronyms can stop any time. Seriously, it stopped being clever years ago...think it was around the first 'year of the linux desktop'. But why is this being discussed in a Windows thread?

Grand Master

Scorbing

Posted
Posted

Come on guys, lets be fair and honest. Vista is pretty...yes. Vista has a lot of cool gadgets XP does not...yes. Vista seems to be faster on the internet...yes...BUT...

Vista is not faster than XP in performance, especially in games. Vista is not exactly user friendly. Everything on the Control Panel has been changed. It is hard to find things now, also I miss the "Search" on the start menu. I am not going to say Vista is the most horrible monster to ever come out of Redmond, but it is not the sweet princess a lot of people here claim it to be. It is far from perfect and it needs fixing...lots of it.

XP was not perfect when it came out. I hated it. Then SP1 for XP came out and I hated it still, then SP2 came out and I began to like it. Then SP3 came out and I fell totally in love with it. Same deal with Vista. Right now, I don't like it. I am using Server 2008 which works better. Some of you here say and insist that it is the same core and that it runs just as fast as Vista...bah, bah, bah...The reports and tests on the internet indicate otherwise and I believe those reports because when I had Vista I had nothing but annoying glitches and things happening that were simply weird. And no, it was not my drivers or hardware because I am using the same exact hardware and drivers on Server that I used with Vista and I have yet to see those problems. Everything runs smooth and fast, the way it should. Server 2008 simply works. No bloat, No crap.

Microsoft, all I have to say is one thing:

Fix Vista. Make it fast. Make it work and listen to your customers (us) and make Windows 7 faster and better than Vista, XP and every other Windows before it. Don't disappoint us again.

Grand Master

HawkMan

Posted
Posted
  Scorbing said:
Come on guys, lets be fair and honest. Vista is pretty...yes. Vista has a lot of cool gadgets XP does not...yes. Vista seems to be faster on the internet...yes...BUT...

Vista is not faster than XP in performance, especially in games. Vista is not exactly user friendly. Everything on the Control Panel has been changed. It is hard to find things now, also I miss the "Search" on the start menu. I am not going to say Vista is the most horrible monster to ever come out of Redmond, but it is not the sweet princess a lot of people here claim it to be. It is far from perfect and it needs fixing...lots of it.

XP was not perfect when it came out. I hated it. Then SP1 for XP came out and I hated it still, then SP2 came out and I began to like it. Then SP3 came out and I fell totally in love with it. Same deal with Vista. Right now, I don't like it. I am using Server 2008 which works better. Some of you here say and insist that it is the same core and that it runs just as fast as Vista...bah, bah, bah...The reports and tests on the internet indicate otherwise and I believe those reports because when I had Vista I had nothing but annoying glitches and things happening that were simply weird. And no, it was not my drivers or hardware because I am using the same exact hardware and drivers on Server that I used with Vista and I have yet to see those problems. Everything runs smooth and fast, the way it should. Server 2008 simply works. No bloat, No crap.

Microsoft, all I have to say is one thing:

Fix Vista. Make it fast. Make it work and listen to your customers (us) and make Windows 7 faster and better than Vista, XP and every other Windows before it. Don't disappoint us again.

Why is everything bold ? it's stupid

And yes there is no real performance los on games in Vista. facts win over baseless assumptions any day.

and yes, Vista is way more user friendly than XP ever was. yeah they moved things around and irritated us leet advanced users. but for the average users the new ways make a lot more sense and are easier to explain for those that do support

Grand Master

Smigit

Posted
Posted

Runs fine for me most of the time, and while I occasionally have a few niggles they are far fewer than when I used XP. Both my laptop and desktop seem fairly snappy, the desktop in particular. Ohh and runs my games just fine too.

If anything the better search without the need for a 3rd party app makes my desktop use quicker than in XP and theres several other things that help me out daily.

Not to say it won't be slow for some...thats life...but for me it's fine.

Veteran

xpgeek

Posted
Posted
  Chicane-UK said:
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.

I'm on a 3 years old almost dual core Pentium D and ddr2 pc5300 ram, and a geforce 7600. Hardly the latest and greatest hardware, and Vista runs FINE for me.

Rising Star

BilliShere

Posted
Posted
  HawkMan said:
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.

you are correct to a certain extent. Compiz can indeed run on lower hardware but i have to disagree with the quality arguement. The quality is actually very nice compared to what the DWM has to offer. and it is scalable depending on the graphics power you have just like DWM. It comes very close to DWM or even better as some may argue depnding on your hardware. Some plugins like blur, and too many effects run very slow on less powerful cards. The point here is squeezing the best out of normal hardware people use on a day to day basis. An intel graphics chipset can run not only cube, reflections, transparency, fire, water, and many many other effects but it runs it fast, good quality (high framerates) and very very stable at the same time. I have encountered no crashes due to compiz since i installed hardy heron. And yes...just like microsoft, canonical/ubuntu also has a minimal level of quality...The stable final releases are always polished and are actually stable :p...much, much, more than the state vista was in when it was released.

Furthermore, compiz is very flexible, you don't like an effect, disable the plugin and enjoy the rest. This sort of flexibility is just not available in vista. Instead like you say, they choose the simpler way and deliver this "quality" at the cost of performance and number of features.

Grand Master

offroadaaron

Posted
Posted

I dunno if its actually a fact of bad coding or to much intergrated but I know that ubuntu has a whole heaps installed with it from the DVD version and Mac OS X aswell and those systems run fast all the time, and rebuilds aren't needed as often. I think Windows needs to rearrange some of their data bases and other things for their system to become faster.

thats my opinion anyways.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.