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.
Miles, did you really just claim that Linux supports more hardware than Windows?
LOL...
Poor Miles seems to have got his foot stuck in his mouth.
Seriously... you can't POSSIBLY compare the compatibility/backward compatibility base of a Windows platform to that of a Linux platform.
Guess what, he is right. An up-to-date full blown Linux-distribution will support way more hardware out of the box. And while there aren't drivers for your USB Rocket Launcher, you have e.g. some for UPA-Graphics on SPARC systems.
I have to admit that there are more third-party drivers for windows but to be honest, I kinda like that linux supports most of my hardware without surfing crappy manufacturer websites.
Transferring data over usb is gonna be half the speed?! What the hell is with that?
Why does "Nathan" elict so many "Highest Ranked" responses for routine comments?
Rate a comment, then refresh the page.
Since Blogsmith is an absolute disaster, sometimes the selection icons remain (if you get a javascript error). You can be Highest Ranked in no time too!!
Not at all implying Nathan did this ;)
I don't even vote on comments save for the gems that come from the like of Miles, and I certainly don't up vote myself. As for why I get upvoted, I suppose it's because I just talk a little common sense. Oh and internet memes. ALL YER VOTEZ ARE BELONG TO US!
I generally don't take a stance on which platform is better, I know that OSX has its good points, BUT I also know that Vista is a fine operating system if you are even mildly technically literate. I dislike Steve Jobs on a personal level but I can appreciate the engineering behind most Apple products; that said most of the people I run into in real life toting a MacBook are douche bags, not all mind you, just the majority, so I speak from my own perception about Mac users.
And I try to be funny as often as possible, though it sometimes goes right over peoples' heads, usually the fanboys ("Too angry and insecure to see humor, MUST INSULT NOW!").
So to answer your question, I dunno, I just speak my mind and take a second to put it down in text so it is legible and punctuated correctly, I think that's about it.
*sigh* I guess being constantly subjected to everybody's childish whining about Vista is karma for whining about 2000 and XP when they came out. "Windows 98 SE forever!"
so the deal with the copying to USB drives affects only larger files. you will see quite a speed increase when it comes to copying normal, smaller files.
previously with files over 8mb it would take the first 64k and copy it, seek 8mb, take the next 64, seek 8mb etc. then the OS would page out 8MB and do the copy which would cause the UI to become unresponsive.
with the new changes/enhancements the UI will work a lot better when you copy huge files because RAM isn't being sucked down by the copy process. it will copy slower but you can continue to use your computer. it's a tradeoff :)
C|Net...now there's an unbiased organization. When it comes to Vista, I take just about anything they say with a grain of salt. I've read many, including the ZDNet blog and story, reviews of SP1 and all pretty much agree on the performance increases. I've been running the public beta since it became available and have definitely noticed a performance gain. Both startup, file copy, network services, etc. have all been much faster-file copy should never have been an issue, though. I'd really like to know why CNet has such an anti-Vista bias.
Because it's a POS!! Sorry for the troll but its true I don't care what any of you say. I had it running on my D820 C2D 2.2 with 2GB RAM 512 MB NV120, and it was taking 4+ minutes for a cold boot. Now I am back to XP with SP3 and it boots in just under a minute. I'm no home user either, I'm talking VM's, Dell Infrastructure suite, Veritas Netbackup, etc, all Enterprise Admin tools and Vista is a POS for that, super slow and useless. XP SP3 FTW!
I CALL BULLSHIT. I have already been using one of pre-releases for sometime now and the the difference is instantly noticeable.
I just installed SP1 for Vista. It was a smooth install. No problems at all. I have noticed an increase in speed. Superfetch is awesome. I've never had any major problems with Vista. Yes the start up times are still sort of slow but the OS is stable and works.
how exactly would a 50% reduction in the already slow speed be acceptable.... thats insane!!!
also... someone else mentioned it but, it would be nice if since i have 4gb of RAM, i could use them... not 3.5 GB - thanks.
That is a limitation of the 32bit architecture..not Windows. if you need all 4 gigs use 64bit Vista.
i dont "need" it - i'd like it - im aware its a 32 bit issue... but i dont want to deal with the hassle of running a 64bit system
Not sure what all these "professional" tests are doing, but the latest refresh build on my machine has improved Vista like night to day. Copying is way faster (especially thumb drives) as well as start up and shut down times. Windows Updates scans take even less time now than XP ever did. Those online mag testers are always smug "know it alls" anyways and I never pay them any attention...
I find it extremely hard to believe that file copy is 50% slower with SP1. According to somewhat 'independant' reviewers like Paul Thurrott, file copy is 50% faster! And of course Microsoft says file copy is greatly improved in SP1.
Did I miss something?
you missed the fact that it's not cool to like vista anywhere on the internet these days.
I don't think that's true slackercow. Just because Apple fanboys take Steve Jobs 'mouse' up the ass, doesn't mean Vista isn't a good, solid operating system.
Well, I can't complain about the USB 2.0 speeds at all, my motherboard didn't like Vista, so I have been at Usb 1.1 speeds since I got Vista( usb 2.0 only worked in XP), but after SP1, it works a way better. The start up is a bit slower which kind of bugs me, but whatever, I would hate to downgrade to XP for sure.
engadget can keep hiding behind it's title as a "blog", while misrepresenting and filtering these reports so the headlines are more catchy. nice work! faux-journalism at its best
are you kidding? my computer is worlds faster on sp1! so much so that i have switched back from ubuntu 7.10. i love ubuntu but its really hard to beat the windows convenience factor...everything is written for windows.
I had only one problem with Vista. At the moment to copied just take a few minutes. The proccess was so slow. lasvegasgolfing.net
I can't leave my computer on for more than 2 days.
My 2GB of memory is completely eaten up.
I have gotten 3 blue screens because of 0 memory left issue.
I have a huge list of complaints as a systems admin, so many so that I will be going back to XP, and I am sure as hell not letting any in my company goto Vista.
Sorry vista lovers but it's junk code. The best of its code is going into XP SP3.
Linux, OS X and XP still are the best.
So long as you disable all sorts of stuff in Vista (Aeroglass, file compression, blah blah) it runs as well as XP Pro did, well at least for my machine anyway.
Eventually when programs start actually utilizing the 64-bit processing I expect speeds to be blinding fast, but we'll just have to wait for that.
all you need is a good vista computer system rating score and it'll be fine. I have a 3.2 rating only because I have 1gb of DDR ram available.
And don't load up on all the extra unnecessary junk or useless files/programs.
Defragment your computer regularly or keep the defragmenter schedule enabled
Load up a firewall like commodo firewall and a antivirus program like AVG or avast
turn of all unecessary features in the control panel features options.
turn off aero completely or just turn off the transparency
I did all that (except for turning aero off) and vista is running pretty good. A little slow because I have only minimum amount of memory for home premium with aero loaded but thats ok!
I use Vista 64 on a quad core for music recording and production. Running dozens of compressors, equalisers and virtual instruments eventually ends up crippling any computer... bring on the 16 core.
The current song I am mixing down was skipping and popping prior to Vista SP1 due to CPU utilisation being around 100%. I installed (with fingers and toes crossed) SP1 last week and am enormously surprised by the positive impact it has had to the performance of my PC. The same song, same mix runs flawlessly. Of course, that just gave me liberty to add a two high resolution reverbs to the mix and clobber the CPU again.
My thoughts on SP1.... SENSATIONAL. Everything works, but faster.
VISTA contains the most graphics and lots of new stuff. but an ideal OS according to me should be performing tasks faster such as windows 98 or XP. these two OS are the best i have used. but when i found about the VISTA version i was happy and delighted to use and learn more about it. but as i used it for home and office tasks i was really disappointed that it had gained a lot of graphics but usually slows down all the task including playing videos etc.
one of my office colleague called me to operate the VISTA his pc was the celeron one but one he loaded the OS it was very slow attractive but lagged performance i advised him to load the XP and use XP which will be better.
Microsoft has captured a wide client computer market about 90% which is very huge
but it should try to maintain its goodwill by finding out the way to remove bugs from the VISTA os which is very essential and may be in the future the bugs will be removed and VISTA will be as popular as 98 or XP. till then i would prefer to use XP which i love the best
Speeds up wake up form sleep or hibernation. It boots vista a little bit faster, however, it is also slowed it down in some parts. I think you have to wait one or two weeks to wait for Sp1 to get settled in your pc.