Vista SP1 doesn't significantly boost performance, slows down certain tasks
By Nilay Patel 
posted February 13th 2008 6:06PM
posted February 13th 2008 6:06PM
We heard a lot of different performance claims about Vista SP1 in past few months, and now that it's finally (sort of) here, it's time to bust out the stopwatches and see what's what. According to CNET, early tests of SP1 indicate that while there are some performance enhancements to be had, they're mostly driver related -- so if you've been updating all along, you won't see much of an improvement. What's worse, certain tasks like copying files to USB 2.0 hard drives have gotten around 50 percent slower, a speed hit that overshadows the other filesystem improvements in SP1. All in all, though, it looks like SP1 is a worthwhile update -- just don't expect anything to get noticeably faster.
The only problem I have had with Vista since my hardware OEM's got their shite together is the painfully slow file copying happening when I either delete large batches of files or a handful of very large files. That and copying large files from one directory to another.
Also; Note to Microsoft: I don't need you to compute the time it is going to take for you to send my shortcuts to the recycle bin, please remove this "feature."
Oh right, what I meant to say in my first post: as long as they fix those little niggles, I will be completely happy with Vista.
SP1 does stop the whole 'calculating time remaining' issue (at least that is true on my system.
xcopy is still there...
Yeah, see the whole reason for me to use Windows as an OS is the GUI, and if I have to use the command line it becomes too much of a hassle. If I wanted to use textual commands for my OS I would have kept that Linux partition.
In order to significantly speed up file-transfer speeds, it is very helpful to turn off the "Remote Differential Compression" feature in Windows Vista.
To do this, go to Control Panel and open the "Turn Windows Features On or Off" appelet. It will take a moment to populate a list of features. Find the "Remote Differential Compression" feature, and clear the check-box next to it.
This makes a significant difference in file-transfer time, as it bypasses the protocol that calcuates remaining time. Hope it helps!
Hey! Thanks slotsky! That did help! [/manhug]
@hresult: "xcopy is still there..."
But xcopy doesn't use the same file routines that the GUI does, (at least in XP) and it ends up being slower. Try copying a directory from one point to another on the same system with the GUI and then again with "xcopy /e". I think you'll find that the GUI is faster in either OS (given that the diff compression is off in Vista)
us freaking tera copy. it helps vista a LOT. It moved my entire adobe collection file to a different laptop(using home network hard drive storage) in 10 minutes-3 gigabytes.
From what I've heard file copying was significantly improved. I also have the problem where sometimes it takes 3 years to copy a large amount of files from 1 place to the other. Drives me mad when it wants to take 3 years to copy, say, 1 gig from 1 directory to another directory on the same disk.
My understanding was that it wasn't the calculation that was slowing things down, it was the thumbnails. I turned of thumbnails to test this and everything copied instantly (where it should have been instant before) and really quickly when it was from 1 physical place to another. Only problem with leaving thumbnails off was that there were no thumbnails anywhere. Not even when you click a file and look in the preview pane in explorer. So I ended up turning them back on.
Slotsky, I think I love you. I sure hope Microsoft is aware that this is the feature which is the bane of almost all Vista users' otherwise perfect user experience. I've been using Vista for months now, and although I've had to manually register a lot of VB6 runtime libraries to run my older applications again, I have next to no complaints with Vista. It's stable, applications never seem to crash (they didn't either on XP, though) and it's a fairly smooth user experience. Bit annoyed at the driver incompatibility with older NT platforms, however do realise that in the long run, it is beneficial for users, even if they don't appreciate it right now...
Anyone got a fix for crap vista search? cant find all my files and slow.
My question is, how many Vista users experiencing problems with Vista are UPGRADING from XP on their older computer... and how many users of Vista actually bought a Laptop or desktop pre-loaded with Vista and are having many problems with it.
I've used Vista on 3 seperate laptops, brand New with Core 2 Duo CPU's and more than 2 GB of RAM and I haven't had a single problem with it with the exception that it keeps close track of things to the point of annoyance. But its pretty secure thus far.
I have been wondering that for a while(however I would add installing a version from microsoft new). Most of the problems I have noticed, me personally when I get a new computer, is all the crap that manufacturers put on a computer. I have not personally experienced upgrading from xp(seriously, who in their right minds upgrades an operating system) because I have some brains but I would expect some issues. However running a freshly installed from a disk from microsoft I have no problems except for slow transfers. But I just minimize it and do other stuff.
@Jon "seriously, who in their right minds upgrades an operating system" I think the better question would be. Who in the hell downgrades their operating system?
Vista SUCKS, I have 3 units , 2 laptops new and one desktop that needed upgrade, major crash on all of them due to 'updates' one laptop is still in shop for 'repairs' My sister bought one in Nov had to return it 3 times, I am now starting to look at MAC's
Actually George, if you're so unable to get Windows to work properly then I would suggest a different OS
Paper and a pencil. Maybe a calculator, depending on how many fingers you have.
George a troll. end.
no problems whatsoever on my end. The programs I used on XP work just fine on Vista. Truthfully, when Vista came out I upgraded and I was not impressed but over time new drivers came out and things steadily sped up...to the point im at now. Im happy with Vista. Good job Microsoft.
"certain tasks like copying files to USB 2.0 hard drives have gotten around 50 percent slower"
Well, it takes an infinite amount of seconds to copy files now so...
two infinities, and beyond!
I can hear the fanboys marching to war now.
The calm before the battle.
Yea because my Mac has Leopard and it's ( area that fanboys fill )
Dude, WTF?
You know, they're doing wonderful things at mental institutions these days, Jew Balls.
Dude, GTFO.
Raaaawr! Winduhs sucks, diz slow n bloated!
Raaaawr! OSX is for trend hoars(or whores if you must)!
I am interested to see for myself the results of the SP1. Whatever thought, I'll let the fanboys go at it in this thread :P
Let's just hope SP3 for XP will beef up my xp home edition computer, as well as many other XP users.
I wouldn't upgrade to SP3. To pressure people to buy Vista, I bet SP3 will slow down XP, make it use more memory, make programs and drivers incompatible, make copying files to USB 2.0 drives 50% slower, add DRM, and pressure you to go spend more money on newer hardware.
Hey....wait a second....
Last I heard it improves the overall speed by about 10%.
XP SP3 is great I have it running right now and its wonderful. Nice and fast! I took Vista off this Latitude d820 C2D 2.2 2GB ram that was taking 4+ minutes to boot. Now I boot in just under a minute, nice thanks XP my good old friend.
@Meat!
I hear it also causes a robot arm to pop out of the optical drive and snatch your tinfoil hat.
Its true!
@BigD145
XP SP3 will not improve speed by 10%. It won't improve much speed at all. Almost everyone who has beta tested SP3 will tell you that there is virtually no difference in performance from SP2 -> SP3.
That rumor was started by Devil Mountain Software, and used negative Vista press as free advertisement for their product (OfficeBench). It actually worked very well for them.
@Fernando
If any OS is taking 4+ minutes to boot, you messed something up pal.
SP3 isn't out for XP yet...
SP3 isn't out for XP yet...
All i was really looking for was a faster start-up and return from sleep. Bonus if it didnt eat ram like sally struthers at a sara lee factory.
Was that REALLY too much to ask?
Ok, a lot of that eating ram is due to superfetch. Its preloading your common programs for quick load times. What's the point of having ram if you aren't going to use it?
I've got to question Cnet here, because my usb harddrive certainly doesn't take 50% longer to copy, in fact if anything its faster, but don't take my word for download it and try for yourselves.
What's the point of selling rigs with 4 gig pre-installed when it can't use it?
Yes, I'm looking at you (insert any PC manufacturer here).
insertAlias is right. A large portion of ram taken by Vista is for prefetching. Vista is smart about memory management and will release memory for other applications as needed.
Faster return from sleep? I have a laptop with 512mb of RAM and it returns from sleep almost instantly. Sounds like a driver problem on your end.
@L.Rawlins
"What's the point of selling rigs with 4 gig pre-installed when it can't use it?"
You have to get the 64-bit (x64) version of Vista to use over 3GB. 32-bit (x86) can only handle a max of that.
idk.. my sleep time has decreaed w/ sp1 on my thinkpad, works hell of alot better.
Well, I've got Vista on a Laptop and my main desktop and both are woefully slow at network read/write and USB read/write.
Well, occasionally I get decent USB speeds, but more often than not is kb/s not mb/s.
Gigabit LAN speeds are also more often than not around 8-9mb/s when they should really be double that.
SP1 did help LAN speeds a bit, but they're still terrible. Mind you XP wasn't brilliant on this either, but at least you didn't have to wait 2 hours before it started to delete or copy stuff.
I have been a big supporter of Vista since it first came out, However with SP1 my network transfer speeds have been pretty much cut in half I was getting about 5MB/second pre SP1 and now i get 2-2.5MB/second. This could be the straw that makes me downgrade to XP, I hate to say it but slow transfer speeds are a killer for me I really had high hopes SP1. Oh and before the fanbois start claiming that it has to be my network causing the problems just know I am a Cisco Certified network engineer running all cisco equipment in my house so NO its not my network, its Vista.
It has to be your network causing all the problems
{giggle}
hey just becuase you're a Cisco Certified network engineer doesn't mean it's vista it could be that you're bad at your job.
jk
Thats odd, my transfers between my Gigabit (to a DIR-655) connected desktop and another desktop in another room with Wireless N adapter reach up to 7.6MBytesps.
Im not even joking either. Im transferring an MK...i mean a media file right now from the other desktop to mine.
BTW: Both on SP1. One is Ultimate, one is Business (thanks Univ. for the free software).
I had something like that with WinXP once.. but that appeared instantly...
I had (still have) a Linksys router.I don't know exactly what caused it, but I updated the firmware, uninstall stupid Firewall software. Clean my connectors, ensured that all the plugs are well placed (I had remake the plug at the end for some cables), and that totally fixed my issue. In fact, I saw a greater network speed.