ZJBDragon wrote:If you have a multi-core CPU and more than 3 GB of RAM, then you may actually see performance improvements in Vista due to its better implementation of multi-threading support in its core code.

This has been adequately proven as false in many, many benchmarks and consumer testing - especially with SP3 in which multi-core support in XP was enhanced. Vista will cost you roughly 25-30 percent performance from the same hardware (especially while gaming). So regardless of how new your hardware is you are basically dumping speed for some gimmicks, glitz and glam. You also don't have the 'advantage' of DX10 (hardly noticeable in my opinion), but a group of clever folks have even managed to make that work under XP, which of course was possible from the word go... but it was used as a means of marketing leverage to try and force adoption of the new OS.

Add to this the problems and concerns raised by the very touchy DRM that is built into Vista by Microsoft to control media distribution channels in a bid for greater consumer control and revenue generation (a primary reason that sound hardware access was changed by the way), and generally Vista is not very appealing to intelligent and informed PC users. This is often much more apparent if you have HD media and hardware, it doesn't function as well as it should.

Granted some people hate on Vista just because they see others doing it, but there are valid and real reasons why the OS has failed miserably to be embraced by the IT market. It was SO unsuccessful that they couldn't even manage to force Vista through brand name OEM distribution, and instead had to resurrect support and sales of XP in order to keep from losing massive revenue potential (places like DELL, HP, etc).

It took me a long time to upgrade from 98 to XP. By the time I took the plunge, all the bugs were worked out of XP and I've liked it ever since.

Of course, comparing Vista to ME may be a better comparison.

JPFrostfox wrote:

ZJBDragon wrote:If you have a multi-core CPU and more than 3 GB of RAM, then you may actually see performance improvements in Vista due to its better implementation of multi-threading support in its core code.

This has been adequately proven as false in many, many benchmarks and consumer testing - especially with SP3 in which multi-core support in XP was enhanced. Vista will cost you roughly 25-30 percent performance from the same hardware (especially while gaming). So regardless of how new your hardware is you are basically dumping speed for some gimmicks, glitz and glam. You also don't have the 'advantage' of DX10 (hardly noticeable in my opinion), but a group of clever folks have even managed to make that work under XP, which of course was possible from the word go... but it was used as a means of marketing leverage to try and force adoption of the new OS.

Add to this the problems and concerns raised by the very touchy DRM that is built into Vista by Microsoft to control media distribution channels in a bid for greater consumer control and revenue generation (a primary reason that sound hardware access was changed by the way), and generally Vista is not very appealing to intelligent and informed PC users. This is often much more apparent if you have HD media and hardware, it doesn't function as well as it should.

Granted some people hate on Vista just because they see others doing it, but there are valid and real reasons why the OS has failed miserably to be embraced by the IT market. It was SO unsuccessful that they couldn't even manage to force Vista through brand name OEM distribution, and instead had to resurrect support and sales of XP in order to keep from losing massive revenue potential (places like DELL, HP, etc).

To claim Vista costs you between 25 and 30 percent in performance tells me that you, like I used to, haven't gone through and gotten deep into Vista's inner workings. Yes, on a default install I wouldn't be surprised to see that much performance loss particularly with a stock manufacturer install full of bloat and company tweaks. However, on a clean install with modern drivers and tweaked settings I've seen a noticeable performance improvement. Yeah, it's not as big as I'd like but it's there. Now this may not apply to all systems, but this was the case with my P-7811 FX. It performed better under Vista x64 SP1 than it did under XP x64 SP3. It also boots faster on Vista than a desktop PC running XP with much more powerful hardware.

Now as for Vista's DRM problems and its numerous failures, shortcomings, and flaws, I will not dispute that. You are absolutely right. I use Vista because I have to, not because I want to. I expected much worse than what I got. When someone asks about performance disparities, however, I give an honest answer based on my experiences. The original poster couldn't even put together a sentence properly. I doubt he/she will notice much of a difference aside from all the unnecessary graphical bling. With proper tweaking research, that performance boost can be realized granted the hardware is at or above what I mentioned.

ZJBDragon wrote:
To claim Vista costs you between 25 and 30 percent in performance tells me that you, like I used to, haven't gone through and gotten deep into Vista's inner workings.

You would be patently wrong in that assumption. Just because I criticize it does not mean I don't thoroughly educate myself with it's nuances and inner workings, indeed it's necessary so I may support technical issues my clients have and provide a competent level of service. I have pulled it apart and done more than my fair share of tweaking Vista, it still does not perform on the same level that a similarly tuned XP system does... the performance hit is real, concrete and not related to how elite your registry editing and service disabling skills are. Vista resides on my second partition as a dual boot option, but I hardly use it anymore (not even for DX10 gaming).

If Vista performed as well you've claimed, I'd have no trouble supporting that fact and I very much doubt that so many avid gamers would criticize it as a poor platform choice. However the majority of evidence all points to the fallacy of being a performance oriented OS. Of course - don't take my word for it and look into it yourself. I actually wanted to like Vista as I do believe it's time to step forward to a 64bit platform as mainstream, but it just doesn't have any real redeeming qualities... they didn't even get the new file system in (which was supposed to be a big part of the improvements). Hopefully W7 will benefit from the failures made with Vista.

Perhaps we must agree to disagree on the matter, as I don't see my opinion changing any time soon.

JPFrostfox wrote:

JohnnyPie wrote:Get Mojave, it's way better better than Vista.

LOL, those marketing people and their crazy antics!

i love how they react in that commercial

vista ftw