Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


adrian2055

Vista X64...........Worth Moving To?

Recommended Posts

vista will double your electricity and contribute towards global warming.a cpu running at high l;oad will consume more electric current.

LMAO!

no hacking is reqiured at all to get server 2003 as desktop...a forum exists.control panel adjustments take 10 minutes.

Until you run into software that WILL NOT install because it's a server OS.

renowned vista expert pete guttman confirms what i said about how single subsystem can slow vista if it cannot keep up with non-stop encrypting/decrypting of all bytes passing to and from it....

The DRM system in Vista is ONLY activated IF AND ONLY IF protected content is opened. In the headers of protected content exists a flag that tells whether it's protected or not. If it's not, the DRM never kicks in. This behavior can be seen by running a kernel level debugger and attaching to Media Player and then opening protected content. I don't know how to write an OS, nor would I want to, but I know how debug and trace code and your claims are false.

vista is huge 15gb in size

I thought that at one point as well. Me and crahak had a bit of discussion on it. See quote at the bottom.

Technically, it's not. It only seems to be that large because all the files in the WinSxS folder are hard links to the files already in the System32 folder. Explorer or any other file manager sees those hard links as actual files and reports what it sees. But, you can rest assured that that 15GIGS you complain about is in fact not 15GIGS of used space.

your claim vista uses 1% while decoding h264 movie is impossible without using a cpu is suspect.

I can watch a full 1080p h264 movie (decoded with CoreAVC which is software ONLY) and barely hit 1% CPU usage. I can encode h264 content and barely even hit 5% CPU usage. I can hit 90+% usage (never hits 100%) on a single core and have the other 3 cores free to do other work. It's nice to do some 3D rendering, a movie encode, compiling a large project in Visual Studio, and be playing COD5, or some other game, and never once have my PC even hint at getting slowed down. I do it all the time. It's wonderful.

We definitely get a lot of questions about the new (to Vista) Windows SxS directory (%System Root%\winsxs) and many folks believe this is a big consumer of disk space as just bringing up the properties on a newly installed system shows over 3000 files and over 3.5 GB of disk consumed. Over time this directory grows to even higher numbers.

“Modularizing” the operating system was an engineering goal in Windows Vista. This was to solve a number of issues in legacy Windows related to installation, servicing and reliability. The Windows SxS directory represents the “installation and servicing state” of all system components. But in reality it doesn’t actually consume as much disk space as it appears when using the built-in tools (DIR and Explorer) to measure disk space used. The fact that we make it tricky for you to know how much space is actually consumed in a directory is definitely a fair point!

In practice, nearly every file in the WinSxS directory is a “hard link” to the physical files elsewhere on the system—meaning that the files are not actually in this directory. For instance in the WinSxS there might be a file called advapi32.dll that takes up >700K however what’s being reported is a hard link to the actual file that lives in the Windows\System32, and it will be counted twice (or more) when simply looking at the individual directories from Windows Explorer.

The value of this is that the servicing platform (the tools that deliver patches and service packs) in Windows can query the WinSxS directory to determine a number of key details about the state of the system, like what’s installed, or available to be installed (optional components, more on those later), what versions, and what updates are on the system to help determine applicability of Windows patches to your specific system. This functionality gives us increased servicing reliability and performance, and supports future engineering efforts providing additional system layering and great configurability.

The WinSxS directory also enables offline servicing, and makes Windows Vista “safe for imaging”. Prior to Windows Vista, inbox deployment support was through “Setup” only. IT professionals would install a single system, and then leverage any number of 3rd party tools to capture the installed state as a general image they then deployed to multiple systems. Windows wasn’t built to be “image aware”. This meant that greater than 80% of systems were deployed and serviced using a technology that wasn’t supported natively, and required IT departments to create custom solutions to deploy and manage Windows effectively. In addition, state stored in the WinSxS directory can be queried “offline”, meaning the image doesn’t have to be booted or running, and patches can be applied to it. These two features of WinSxS give great flexibility and cost reductions to IT departments who deploy Windows Vista, making it easier to create and then service standard corporate images offline.

While it’s true that WinSxS does consume some disk space by simply existing, and there are a number of metadata files, folders, manifests, and catalogs in it, it’s significantly smaller than reported. The actual amount of storage consumed varies, but on a typical system it is about 400MB. While that is not small, we think the robustness provided for servicing is a reasonable tradeoff.

So why does the shell report hard links the way it does? Hard links work to optimize disk footprint for duplicate files all over the system. Application developers can use this functionality to optimize the disk consumption of their applications as well. It’s critical that any path expected by an application appear as a physical file in the file system to support the appropriate loading of the actual file. In this case, the shell is just another application reporting on the files it sees. As a result of this confusion and a desire to reduce disk footprint, many folks have endeavored to just delete this directory to save space.

There have been several blogs and even some “underground” tools that tell you it’s ok to delete the WinSxS directory, and it’s certainly true that after installation, you can remove it from the system and it will appear that the system boots and runs fine. But as described above, this is a very bad practice, as you’re removing the ability to reliably service, all operating system components and the ability to update or configure optional components on your system. Windows Vista only supports the WinSxS directory on the physical drive in its originally installed location. The risks far outweigh the gains removing it or relocating it from the system, given the data described above.

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/11/19/disk-space.aspx

My new computer has core duo with 3 gb ram.it has hardly installed any programs by ME.

I EVEN TURNED OFF DIFFERENTIAL FILE COMPRESSION AND WINDOWS NET MEETING AS INDICATED ABOVE.

I EVEN DISABLED AERO.AND ALL FANCY EFFECTS......IT ONLY MADE MARGINAL DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT 5%.

IT IS STILL VERY SLOW.THIS IS FRUSTRATING.

It is very slow.I click and have to wait 8 times out of 10. I have to wait for 3 seconds up to 1 minute for various simple tasks.

the other day i converted a movie from matroska to mpg in 30 minutes on my old windows me on amd athlon 3200+ running at 1.8ghz....when i repeated it on vista it took 1 hour and 3/4 hours !!!!!

THAT IS RIDICULOUS

Cobra and Gunsmoke (AND CRASHAK) you are both wrong again.

Your assertion that h264 is decoded in software makes no sense.What does the software run on? a hot mcdonald burgher?

it runs on a cpu !!!

your cpu usage monitor is reporting wrongly....when you say it is 1% or less cpu usage....

it is reporting the INACTIVE CORE!!!

VISTA IS TRICKING YOU AGAIN.

Edited by esecallum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cobra and Gunsmoke (AND CRASHAK) you are both wrong again.

Your assertion that h264 is decoded in software makes no sense.What does the software run on? a hot mcdonald burgher?

it runs on a cpu !!!

your cpu usage monitor is reporting wrongly....when you say it is 1% or less cpu usage....

it is reporting the INACTIVE CORE!!!

VISTA IS TRICKING YOU AGAIN.

Umm.... no. Ever heard about ATI's Unified Video Decoders or nVidia's PureVideo? They decode your videos on the GPU - that's graphics processing unit. aka video card.

If you're having troubles it's because you either don't know how to setup the software (which in many cases is as simple as installing it and using it) or you're running with some pretty terrible drivers.

Vista doesn't trick you. Your lack of understanding and knowledge (and your un-willingness to learn or realize the facts) is what's the problem here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Zxian said, just because you don't know what you're doing, or have a really ghetto install of Vista (like those preinstalled by OEMs with tons of garbage) or a mix of the two doesn't mean Vista sucks.

If your Athlon 3200+ can do that in 30 minutes, my plain old E2160 on Vista would do it in about 15. Even encoding to mpeg4 (which is harder than encoding in mpeg 1 or 2), along with cropping, fancy deinterlacing, Spline36Resize and what not (fancy avisynth script -- often using LimitedSharpenFaster and such), I can encode at like 150fps+ (with peaks approaching 200). Encoding most movies in XviD takes like a half hour or so -- for both passes combined... And it would be a LOT quicker if I was using simple bicibic/bilinear settings, less fancy XviD settings and all. In crap MPEG(1) it would probably be a single digit number of minutes... I've seen no difference at all between my encoding speeds on XP and Vista. No problems here, it's just you.

Your assertion that h264 is decoded in software makes no sense.What does the software run on? a hot mcdonald burgher?

Which again shows you don't know much about this... see Zxian's post.

your cpu usage monitor is reporting wrongly....when you say it is 1% or less cpu usage....

Nope! *ALL* cores @ 1%, and it's not misreported at all (see previous point). And you can find benches on the web, from various reputable sites, showing the exact same results too. But then again, feel free to believe everybody is wrong except you, and that it's a big conspiracy by the big and eeeeevviiiiiiilllllll Microsoft (which has us all fooled but you apparently)

Edited by crahak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My new computer has core duo with 3 gb ram.it has hardly installed any programs by ME.

Is it an OEM computer? If it is, clean out the junk that the manufacturer installed by default.

I EVEN DISABLED AERO.AND ALL FANCY EFFECTS......IT ONLY MADE MARGINAL DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT 5%.

H/W related or some driver(s) are not installed properly. You haven’t posted your computer specs for anyone to see and to be able to give solid advise on.

It is very slow.I click and have to wait 8 times out of 10. I have to wait for 3 seconds up to 1 minute for various simple tasks.

It could be video driver issues. It could be that something got messed up during an update. Sometimes updating drivers without first removing the older version first can cause problems. It could be a severely fragmented harddrive. It could be that the pagefile is not large enough.

the other day i converted a movie from matroska to mpg in 30 minutes on my old windows me on amd athlon 3200+ running at 1.8ghz....when i repeated it on vista it took 1 hour and 3/4 hours !!!!!

Me also doesn't have the added code complexity that Vista does.

Cobra and Gunsmoke (AND CRASHAK) you are both wrong again.

Nope. Sorry to say, but we're not.

Your assertion that h264 is decoded in software makes no sense.What does the software run on? a hot mcdonald burgher?

CoreAVC relies solely on itself (and the CPU of course) to decode the h264 streams. Most decoders are hardware decoders that use, as it's name implies, hardware assistance (special cards to offload the processing AWAY from the CPU) to decode the streams. CoreAVC does not rely on any hardware accelertation for its processing. It is one of the most efficient decoders out there.

it runs on a cpu !!!

Everything requires a CPU to run. See above.

your cpu usage monitor is reporting wrongly....when you say it is 1% or less cpu usage....

it is reporting the INACTIVE CORE!!!

1% consitantly.

Quad Core i7 with HT. Vista sees it as 8 cores; and 12GB of memory.

I build my own PCs. I build them to last a while which means I get the best that I can afford to buy so I don’t have to upgrade again too soon. I use my PC for games, software development, movie encoding & decoding, 3D animation, Photography, music, ect. I build to meet the needs I have and require for both personal enjoyment and work related activities. High end computers are very capable of being pushed hard and not even have the slightest hint of any slowdowns.

VISTA IS TRICKING YOU AGAIN.

There's nothing tricking me. My everyday experience and usage of this PC tells and shows me otherwise.

I'm not trying to argue with you, and I hope you don't take anything I've written as being personal, it's not. Without knowing your hardware specs to be able to come to some sort of understanding as to why it’s running slow (other than you claiming Vista sucks), nobody can help.

Edited by MrCobra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my god.........A hot mcdonalds burger.... I laughed so hard i fell off my chair when i read that part. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I contemplated going 64 and figured maybe I was making too big a deal of the 32 bit emulator not being up to par so I slapped 64 on and I will admit that everything has gotten a huge shot in the ace. I like it. Slap on VMWare to do XP 32 for the critical stuff I want to be 32 where luckily those programs are very light to begin with.

Yeah I know...64 is the future and all that ivory tower rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like most of you are just doing the usual Vista bashing here ive been running Vista Ultimate x64 since about 3 months after Vistas launch ive never had problems and never contimplated dropping back to XP!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like Zxian said, just because you don't know what you're doing, or have a really ghetto install of Vista (like those preinstalled by OEMs with tons of garbage) or a mix of the two doesn't mean Vista sucks.

If your Athlon 3200+ can do that in 30 minutes, my plain old E2160 on Vista would do it in about 15. Even encoding to mpeg4 (which is harder than encoding in mpeg 1 or 2), along with cropping, fancy deinterlacing, Spline36Resize and what not (fancy avisynth script -- often using LimitedSharpenFaster and such), I can encode at like 150fps+ (with peaks approaching 200). Encoding most movies in XviD takes like a half hour or so -- for both passes combined... And it would be a LOT quicker if I was using simple bicibic/bilinear settings, less fancy XviD settings and all. In crap MPEG(1) it would probably be a single digit number of minutes... I've seen no difference at all between my encoding speeds on XP and Vista. No problems here, it's just you.

Your assertion that h264 is decoded in software makes no sense.What does the software run on? a hot mcdonald burgher?

Which again shows you don't know much about this... see Zxian's post.

your cpu usage monitor is reporting wrongly....when you say it is 1% or less cpu usage....

Nope! *ALL* cores @ 1%, and it's not misreported at all (see previous point). And you can find benches on the web, from various reputable sites, showing the exact same results too. But then again, feel free to believe everybody is wrong except you, and that it's a big conspiracy by the big and eeeeevviiiiiiilllllll Microsoft (which has us all fooled but you apparently)

It seems you have been using HARDWARE decoders and therefore leading the discussion astray.

can you not understand we are talking about Vista and NOT your graphic card's decoding merits.

it is hardly surprising you are getting 1% cpu figures as the cpu is not doing anything.

it seems you have deceiving the board by misquoting irrelavencies.

Shame on you for this misdeed but your salvation lies in your admittance of your deception.

it is OEM installed HP PC and has Norton and hp adviser.i disabled aero,differential file compression,windows meeting,etc.

Even after tweaks above only another 10% improvement could be discerned.

it is very slow....no drives issues exist.

i click on firefox slow circle thingy spins and after 10 seconds interface is displayed.click on something else and it takes 15 seconds..

this is horrible.

Someone suggested vista is too busy vetting my keystrokes to analysis for DRM protected content.

it is a very horrible slow system.

i am raging...

i have a mind to erase it and install windows me on it.

on my old windows me system i can run super encoder,2 bit torrent programs like azureous and bitspirit,dc++,firefox,soulseek and vlc...and still be able to surf the net,open and close windows with only a 1/2 second delay!!!

yet on vista i can hardly do anything.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone suggested vista is too busy vetting my keystrokes to analysis for DRM protected content

You must be the only one with this problem, I have seen no evidence of this on both my computers.

i click on firefox slow circle thingy spins and after 10 seconds interface is displayed.click on something else and it takes 15 seconds

You might have some other problem perhaps a virus or some other malware maybe a bad

driver or a poorly written program might be causing the slow down you are having.

On Vista doing my normal every day stuff on my old computer I average around

2 to 4 percent CPU usage. On my new computer doing the same thing it 0 to 3

pecent CPU usage.

Edited by gunsmokingman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it is OEM installed HP PC and has Norton and hp adviser.i disabled aero,differential file compression,windows meeting,etc.

Norton is natorious for causing PC slowness and lockup issues, i would remove it and choose another AV vendor, the only way you could do worse is go with mcafee.

As for the original question. *current* PC hardware has little to no issues running 64-bit systems. probably 99% of your software will run on a 64-bit system. Wether or not you see a improvement in speed will depend on the applications you are using. I made the jump to 64 bit about 2 months after SP1 came. I have been very happy with the results so far. at this point i can only think of 2 applications i would love to see run in 64 bit move, (Visual Studios and Sony Vegas) other then that i have been more then happy with the results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems you have been using HARDWARE decoders and therefore leading the discussion astray.

I've been using both the software and hardware kinds. And no, it wasn't astray.

we are talking about Vista and NOT your graphic card's decoding merits

No we aren't. We're talking about the constant FUD, misinformed propaganda and ludicrous claims you're spouting non-stop, without the slightest bit of evidence of course. If Vista is sooooo busy checking for DRM for everything, why is my average CPU load ~1% (and how come my power bill hasn't gone up at all)? Especially when watching 1080p H.264 material that's even DRM'ed? Why are my encoding speeds the exact same as on XP (if not even *better* now that I switched to x64)? Why doesn't Vista take forever to do things on everyone's box but yours? ...

it seems you have deceiving the board by misquoting irrelavencies.

Shame on you for this misdeed but your salvation lies in your admittance of your deception.

Seems like you're talking to yourself here.

it is OEM installed HP PC and has Norton and hp adviser.

I already kind of guessed it was an OEM as I doubt you're even able to install an OS or ever have done so, and much less build a computer (seeing how very little knowledge you have about them). We also kind of assumed it was one of those garbage installs, filled with OEM trash and garbage stuff like Norton, and wow, it is the case! How thoroughly un-surprising!

Your problem is the OEM install, not Vista. HP will also gladly sell you an XP box that runs the same garbage just as slow if you want...

Someone suggested vista is too busy vetting my keystrokes to analysis for DRM protected content.

That someone forgot to take his pills obviously.

Why?

Because it's an OEM install with tons of crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems you have been using HARDWARE decoders and therefore leading the discussion astray.

I don't use ANY hardware decoders/encoder.

can you not understand we are talking about Vista and NOT your graphic card's decoding merits.

The programs I use for encoding and decoding video does not rely on any hardware other than the CPU to do the job.

it is hardly surprising you are getting 1% cpu figures as the cpu is not doing anything.

Right this very minute I'm watching a Blu-Ray movie and encoding 2 other movies downto DVD5 format. My CPU usage is around 3 percent.

it is OEM installed HP PC and has Norton and hp adviser.i disabled aero,differential file compression,windows meeting,etc.

Get rid of Norton. Period.

it is a very horrible slow system.

i am raging...

As has been suggested, clean out the junk that HP installed by default, especially Norton, and get a better antivirus product. I've seen relatively fast OEM systems run like crap because of the junk that the OEM installs by default.

i have a mind to erase it and install windows me on it.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to bash Vista (in general) all day long back then. Well, it was for a reason - pre-SP state was pretty **** bad. Finally switched from XP permanently yesterday and so far I like it. BusinessN 64 btw.

I saw some **** whining earlier in the thread - well, nothing like clueless babbling about stuff one doesn't have the slightest idea about, eh?

Anyway:

I got a little question. Is there any other reason besides memory limitation to use 64bit Vista? I mean, vast majority of software is still only available in 32bit versions and there are even no intentions to release in 64bit. Why is that? Under such conditions, what's the advantage of 64bit OS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got a little question. Is there any other reason besides memory limitation to use 64bit Vista? I mean, vast majority of software is still only available in 32bit versions and there are even no intentions to release in 64bit. Why is that? Under such conditions, what's the advantage of 64bit OS?

Getting over the 3-4 GB limit of 32-bit was the biggest advantage for me. I play a lot with virtual machines. I have 6 GB memory and can utilize all 6 GB with Vista 64-bit and use like 1 GB in a VM without taxing my physical system of RAM.

Now, come on... there are a lot of applications in 64-bit now. Here's to name a few:

Adobe CS 4 (photoshop, illustration, etc.) are now 64-bit.

InfraRecorder for cd burning is a freeware in 64-bit

Firefox is available as 64-bit - it's called Minefield (it needs work but it's there)

Antivirus software (Symantec antivirus, Avast antivirus)

Firewall (Comodo is a freeware in 64-bit)

Sony Vegas 8.1 is now 64-bit for video editing

I've even found small utilities like awxToolbar and True Launch Bar in 64-bit variety.

Mind you all of the above are true, native 64-bit.

And those that aren't yet still run fine like Office 2007. MS will probably release a 64-bit when they know they can make money out of it. Come on, it's a business - of course they want profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...