Puck Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Alright so you are just ignoring what I said about it using more resources that XP! I admit that but that seems to be one of the biggest complaints about Vista, like you people are surprised that a new OS uses more resources than the older one. Thats always been the case with OS's including Macs, I cannot run Leopard on my Mac properly because my mac is an old G4. I wasn't surprised when I saw that Leopard wanted more resources than Tiger, just like it didn't surprise me that Vista amazingly wanted more resources than XP. We are not talking about the req's needed to run it - that is a given as all programs get more bloated over time. We are talking about its inefficiency to use what you do have. IE: Two systems, both with the same exact hardware, much higher then recommended by vista. One has XP installed, the other is running Vista. Why does vista bench significantly lower then the XP rig with the same hardware?!? It does a horrible job at running programs efficiently. At least XP can be streamed down and modded by regedits and settings to behave and perform very similar to win98 with a little work - for now Vista cannot. I am not surprised at it needing higher requirements - but I am surprised that a newer, more advanced operating system cannot crunch numbers as well as an older one. That has nothing to do with the computers resources, that is simply bad coding. In order to claim a "stable OC", one must actually be able to maintain FULL LOAD. So the amount of resources Vista uses on boot is irrelevant, and as such, simply being able to "boot into windows" is not a sign of stability at all. It is true that Vista does not OC as far as XP. Whether or not it is 100% stable is not important - benchmarkers care less about full stability. If it passes that benchmark, I am happy. If it can't fold or pass a different benchmark makes no difference to me. When I was benching 3d2k5 like crazy, my top scores were on CPU settings that were not even superpi 8m stable. It could finish that particular video bench though - not even the CPU test part - but the end 3dmark score is all that I cared about. On vista it would not have even loaded the OS, and therefore the scores would have suffered. It still stands that currently XP is a much better choice for performance enthusiasts and benchmarkers then Vista. SP1 may change that in the future, but it is something that cannot be argued right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 the comment i made about lower overclocks in Vista is true...you do realize you have to boot into windows to be stable? Vista loads a ton more processes and fails to boot much earlier than XP. i am sure many others have experienced this issue besides myself. Are you talking about the actual boot process here like boot.ini vs BCD or are you just talking about the system processes that automatically start when Windows launches? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verran Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Well like I said the biggest complaint here seems to be "I don't like vista it's slower and uses more resources than XP." All I'm saying is that I don't understand why so many people are shocked or surprised about Vista using more resources. Hell I don't care if you want to stick with XP, all I'm saying is don't bash Vista for it. There's a big difference between understanding why something happens and being happy about it. I know why Vista uses more resources. We all do. But does that mean we have to be happy about it? The reasoning is that Vista runs slower, so people choose not to use it. I don't understand what's wrong with that logic. It's not Microsoft's fault that people ignore it, so fine for those people it does become useless, but that is only the fault of user incompetence. And really if you hate it so much just turn it off or use chavalcito's registry tweak to make it stop popping up. I disagree, and it's clear that several others do too. Let me give you an exaggerated example: What if, in Windows 7, every time you installed a program you had to insert a key into your machine, turn it, and then pass a thumb print ID scan? I'd say that's a bit over the line, wouldn't you? If you would, then you disagree with your own point, because you don't believe that security is an excuse for inconvenience. There's always a line where it becomes not worth it. If you don't think UAC is over that line, then keep using it. But clearly most people do. I say it's a broken system because it defeats itself. All it does is dump all the responsibility on the user, which is a cop-out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RimX Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Like I said I don't care if you still want to use XP. That's your choice and I'm not going to try to talk you into Vista. All I'm saying is that it's obvious that new software will use more resources and will run slower than its predecessor. And for that reason you shouldn't bash Vista for being slower than XP, it's obvious. And saying UAC is a cop-out isn't really true. Other than putting the choice in your hands the options they have are to either remove it all together or to block everything. The responsibility is in the hand of the users and always has, they are just trying to give you the option to install the virus that is trying to install its self from that ActiveX control on that site you went to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClayMeow Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 It is true that Vista does not OC as far as XP. Whether or not it is 100% stable is not important - benchmarkers care less about full stability. If it passes that benchmark, I am happy. If it can't fold or pass a different benchmark makes no difference to me. When I was benching 3d2k5 like crazy, my top scores were on CPU settings that were not even superpi 8m stable. It could finish that particular video bench though - not even the CPU test part - but the end 3dmark score is all that I cared about. On vista it would not have even loaded the OS, and therefore the scores would have suffered. It still stands that currently XP is a much better choice for performance enthusiasts and benchmarkers then Vista. SP1 may change that in the future, but it is something that cannot be argued right now. If that's the way you do things, then your results are false. Most people will not accept a bench if your system can't stay on for more than 10 minutes. What kind of garbage is that?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puck Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 If that's the way you do things, then your results are false. Most people will not accept a bench if your system can't stay on for more than 10 minutes. What kind of garbage is that?! That is the difference between a "Good" benchmark and a "Front Page" benchmark. Stability is for 24/7 overclocks, not benchmarking - the final score is what matters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 It still stands that currently XP is a much better choice for performance enthusiasts and benchmarkers then Vista. SP1 may change that in the future, but it is something that cannot be argued right now. Well I have been on SP1 for a while now and while it does improve some things I wouldn't be expecting miracles in the benchmarking and overclocking areas. Believe it or not Microsoft does have a bigger picture in mind when they release a new OS than just benchmarks and extreme speeds, we are but a small percentage of the audience they target. But I will absolutely agree that if your one and only concern or need with an OS upgrade is for it to run at the absolute maximum possible speed then no there is absolutely no reason to upgrade to Vista. And by the way Puck are you actually serious about Win98? You keep bringing it up and about the only thing I can think of worse than 98 was ME so where you are getting this 98 is better than XP or Vista idea from is beyond my understanding. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 But I will absolutely agree that if your one and only concern or need with an OS upgrade is for it to run at the absolute maximum possible speed then no there is absolutely no reason to upgrade to Vista. Well when ATI only offers crossfirex drivers for vista it is hard not to use Vista. Like I said in another post I wonder how much that cost Bill? Also on Server 2008 it is 20% faster than Vista... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Well when ATI only offers crossfirex drivers for vista it is hard not to use Vista. Like I said in another post I wonder how much that cost Bill? Also on Server 2008 it is 20% faster than Vista... Hey Roadrunner I meant to say earlier I was not offended at all by the M$ employee accusation in fact I found it quite humorous so no hard feelings Anyway about the crossfirex issue I haven't heard anything about that but it does sound ridiculous to me if it indeed will only run on Vista. Now as far as Server 08 running faster than Vista, of course it runs faster. That is the whole idea behind a server OS to run as optimized as possible and not utilize any resources on services that aren't necessary such as Aero for example. Although if you want you can just turn on the desktop experience feature and your server OS will be lookin nice and pretty Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
road-runner Posted March 13, 2008 Posted March 13, 2008 Hey Roadrunner I meant to say earlier I was not offended at all by the M$ employee accusation in fact I found it quite humorous so no hard feelings Anyway about the crossfirex issue I haven't heard anything about that but it does sound ridiculous to me if it indeed will only run on Vista. Now as far as Server 08 running faster than Vista, of course it runs faster. That is the whole idea behind a server OS to run as optimized as possible and not utilize any resources on services that aren't necessary such as Aero for example. Although if you want you can just turn on the desktop experience feature and your server OS will be lookin nice and pretty I was not serious about you being one either lol. just reading the post reminded me of a salesman so I thought I would throw in M$. Yes you have to have Vista as of right now to run crossfirex, it does not work in xp. I hope that changes in future drivers but it would not surprise me if it didn't. I mean how else are they going to make the ones that do not want to upgrade to vista other than only offer certain things in Vista like DX10 etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehit Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 sigh... how hard is it to understand that you will never know if an overclock is stable if it will not boot the OS? i have had my quad to 4050 in XP and run 32M super pi. that to me is stable. running 4 cores at 100% for almost 13 minutes is good enough for me. i also have run 30 minute orthos at the same clock in XP... i cannot even get Vista to boot at 4050... how in the world can i even tell if it is stable if it will not boot??? the only thing different is Vista. are you starting to catch on yet? all of this is just noise. you run what you like and i will as well. you cannot seem to comprehend the fact that the performance of Vista is lower than XP, and i am tired of telling you what the entire world accepts as a fact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Posted March 14, 2008 Posted March 14, 2008 sigh...how hard is it to understand that you will never know if an overclock is stable if it will not boot the OS? i have had my quad to 4050 in XP and run 32M super pi. that to me is stable. running 4 cores at 100% for almost 13 minutes is good enough for me. i also have run 30 minute orthos at the same clock in XP... i cannot even get Vista to boot at 4050... how in the world can i even tell if it is stable if it will not boot??? If it won't boot Vista it's not stable. Period. Software does not affect overclocking at all. If you're happy with an unstable computer that's your own deal...those of us who care about stability know that the software being run has nothing to do with it at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now