I don't know i'm in a small business environment running 25 vista business and one vista ultimate machine with Small Business Server 2003 and there hasn't been a noticeable hit nor a noticeable gain in network speed. All in all i say my machines run about the same as they did running xp. UAC is still on for all but a few users. Most of the PCs we're running were purchased in '03 so they're a few years old but they run vista just fine. I'm not saying Vista's perfect but this reminds me of all the clamoring there was when XP first came out, where people just didn't want to upgrade to XP in preference of Windows 2000. Now i wouldn't try to run vista on hardware from 2000 and i feel like alot of people are trying to do just that. Yes it requires faster hardware resources and it will run sluggish if you're trying to run it on a machine which just simply doesn't have said resources, but on any of the machines i've purchased in the last two years its been running just fine.
That's the thing i'm doing 25 vista machines @ an architecture firm 10 machines of which are doing heavy 3dsmax work, the rest running autocad and photoshop mostly. So far none of the rendering staff has complained about slowdown, as to the other set of staff (of which i'm a part) we haven't noticed much of a difference in either direction, though i might be the exception.
if you benchmarked them you'd notice a difference. if you still have an xp box around but the vista next to the xp machine, load the same scene, and render a 2300 frame file as an example.
vista eats more cpu cycles and ram than xp does, so how you haven't noticed a difference with that sort of work I'm not sure.
I don't agree at all. It all depends on what software you're using. I would say that about 70% of my CPU usage time I am either using AutoCAD for school or editing my videos with Vegas 8.0 and Premiere. I can assure you that my render time have improved at least 25% over XP and I haven't had any of these programs crash on me once.
Like it has been said before, there are fixes out there to resolve all the issues. Whether it is third-party app fixes or OS fixes, it's out there.
Well it does help that i'm as blind as a bat and have no sense of time :) Unfortunately the few XP boxes we have lying around are underpowered compared to any of the rigs running vista so i can't run a true side by side comparison. I'll concede that vista does indeed use up more resources than XP; now has that made an appreciable difference in our overall rendering times or capabilities, not as far as i can see, nor as far as the rest of the staff here is concerned. Now am i miffed that vista isn't any faster than XP, yeah a little but i wouldn't call it any slower at least perceptually than XP. This seems like the same argument as NT4 to 2000 and 2000 to XP, i'm sure in however many years as it takes for another PC OS to come out we'll have people complaining as to why they can't downgrade to Vista. Either that or we'll all be running OSX.
@Anthony: HA! I'm running Mac OSX on a p4 1.7ghz in the bedroom. it doesn't run max, but it's surprisingly VERY fast on an integrated 8mb video card. it really makes me consider switching to a hackintosh permanently. or atleast dual booting.
I'm not the hugest fan of OSX but i was pretty close to buying a macbook for trips and such but opted for a vaio instead, though i think i could have lived with the integrated graphics in the end.
Following the commercial success (and technical disappointment) of the original Wildfire -- which featured a miserly 528MHz CPU and QVGA display -- HTC has returned with the Wildfire S.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I don't know i'm in a small business environment running 25 vista business and one vista ultimate machine with Small Business Server 2003 and there hasn't been a noticeable hit nor a noticeable gain in network speed. All in all i say my machines run about the same as they did running xp. UAC is still on for all but a few users. Most of the PCs we're running were purchased in '03 so they're a few years old but they run vista just fine. I'm not saying Vista's perfect but this reminds me of all the clamoring there was when XP first came out, where people just didn't want to upgrade to XP in preference of Windows 2000. Now i wouldn't try to run vista on hardware from 2000 and i feel like alot of people are trying to do just that. Yes it requires faster hardware resources and it will run sluggish if you're trying to run it on a machine which just simply doesn't have said resources, but on any of the machines i've purchased in the last two years its been running just fine.
it depends what you're doing.
running 25 vista machines with office at a law firm.
and running 25 vista machines at a video game company are 2 different things.
if you don't need cpu power, or large 2gb+ files transfers, then sure, I bet vista is fine.
a lot of people out there need their computers to do complex computational tasks besides keyboard input and that's where vista starts to choke.
That's the thing i'm doing 25 vista machines @ an architecture firm 10 machines of which are doing heavy 3dsmax work, the rest running autocad and photoshop mostly. So far none of the rendering staff has complained about slowdown, as to the other set of staff (of which i'm a part) we haven't noticed much of a difference in either direction, though i might be the exception.
if you benchmarked them you'd notice a difference. if you still have an xp box around but the vista next to the xp machine, load the same scene, and render a 2300 frame file as an example.
vista eats more cpu cycles and ram than xp does, so how you haven't noticed a difference with that sort of work I'm not sure.
I don't agree at all. It all depends on what software you're using. I would say that about 70% of my CPU usage time I am either using AutoCAD for school or editing my videos with Vegas 8.0 and Premiere. I can assure you that my render time have improved at least 25% over XP and I haven't had any of these programs crash on me once.
Like it has been said before, there are fixes out there to resolve all the issues. Whether it is third-party app fixes or OS fixes, it's out there.
Well it does help that i'm as blind as a bat and have no sense of time :) Unfortunately the few XP boxes we have lying around are underpowered compared to any of the rigs running vista so i can't run a true side by side comparison. I'll concede that vista does indeed use up more resources than XP; now has that made an appreciable difference in our overall rendering times or capabilities, not as far as i can see, nor as far as the rest of the staff here is concerned. Now am i miffed that vista isn't any faster than XP, yeah a little but i wouldn't call it any slower at least perceptually than XP. This seems like the same argument as NT4 to 2000 and 2000 to XP, i'm sure in however many years as it takes for another PC OS to come out we'll have people complaining as to why they can't downgrade to Vista. Either that or we'll all be running OSX.
@Anthony: HA! I'm running Mac OSX on a p4 1.7ghz in the bedroom. it doesn't run max, but it's surprisingly VERY fast on an integrated 8mb video card. it really makes me consider switching to a hackintosh permanently. or atleast dual booting.
glad to hear vista is working for you though.
I'm not the hugest fan of OSX but i was pretty close to buying a macbook for trips and such but opted for a vaio instead, though i think i could have lived with the integrated graphics in the end.