64-bit isn't slower as implemented in the x86-64 architecture. whilst there's inherent slowdown dealing with extra size memory chunks, the cpu has a huge number of extra registers when runnign in 64-bit mode, which can lead to huge increases in many tasks such as video encoding (and roughly even performance for others)Originally Posted by 306maxi
So what you're saying is it's not slower, but it is inherently slower, but it can be faster in some cases
wider memory is inherently slower. more registers, as used by unoptimized (i.e. simply recompiled) code is inherently faster. combine both, get a ~0% difference.So what you're saying is it's not slower, but it is inherently slower, but it can be faster in some cases
In theory yes. But in practice it can be a little patchy.
AnandTech: Windows Vista Performance Guide
From what I've seen on average you seem to get a small performance hit from x64 Vista over x86.
windows is the problem here, not 64-bit
I checked up late on this thread, seems people have been arguing alot,
Anyways, to put in my view about games first, It is a drivers issue as i say repeatedly, in the start there was an issue with the Ram being used, a patch fixed that. Im not going to quote comparisons etc, I have infact tested it with several drivers,
Windows default, Nvidia forceware 169.04, 169.09, 169.25.
FEAR was not running properly on 169.09 beta drivers, significant slow down, then I rolled back to original Windows drivers, I the benchmarks with low,med and then high settings. Then I did the same on XP.
The difference was not more than 3 frames. Sometimes 2 frames, sometimes Vista had 1 or 2 frames going in its favour. Not a SIGNIFICANT hit.
As for Crysis, the new Beta drivers and now the latest 169.25 drivers run it pretty well, I ran the benchmarks, a 5 - 7 frames difference.
Well when XP was released i remember games ran very poor as compared to windows 98, everybody was saying Xp is crap, but it LOOKED good, now after 2 Service packs, it works good too. Vista is not way behind, its quite better from the word go. Given, improvements need to be made, but its not quite that bad.
Plus, whether you like it or not, if you are going to use windows, the upgrade has to be made. SP1 will hopefuly fix some issues.
Several friends of mine who use Vista with less ammount of memory, they really like the Ready boost feature, I myself like the interface, its much simpler, Much more user friendly IMO. I also find my normal day-to-day applications responding faster, I like the fact that when an App crashes, I can close it much more quickly and reliably than in XP. I like the windows update application, its much simpler and quicker IMO.
I would mention more features such as the new Search bar, but then people say you can install 3rd party softwares for that. When a new OS comes out, people complain that bla bla features could have been added so we didnt have to use 3rd party softwares, now that they are included people dont want that either.
There are other things I cant point out as im not a "techie" but I like Windows dreamscene, the seamless incorporation of a video running in the background, with not so much as a flinch on the OS's part. Pretty slick, secondly on XP if i had long screen captures saved in bitmap format, scrolling down the photo in windows picture viewer lagged, in Vista its all smooth.
Finally, I feel its a matter of balancing, on one had I find an interface with is just yummy!, transparency effects, other small things ( the 3D switch between windows interface ) which I have mentioned, on the other hand I find a small, but inevitable performance hit ( like 98 to XP ). Further more keeping in mind MY needs, Im a simple desktop user, music, movies, microsoft office,internet and games. If I can do all these with Vista, a Good enough deal.
Nobody is forcing anyone (besides microsoft) If you like it, get it, if you dont, switch to Linux etc, since you have to upgrade to Vista one day or the other. Its got pluses n minuses, choose on a balance. Thats all. Wish you best of luck!
Check out my Tech Blogs: Budget Gaming Rigs and The Droid ReviewHomer Simpson: "It takes two to lie Marge. One to lie, and one to listen"
I'm happy to accept that as with plenty of software results differ from config to config.
You on the other hand insist that the results on your systems must be the norm, which fankly is laughable.
As far as i'm concerned debate means everyone giving their opinions based on their findings leaving the reader a chance to see both sides, and draw a concensus opinion.
The resort of someone who's debate is redundant is to accuse the other party of being a troll. If having results different from yours, even though plenty of other users have those same findings makes me a troll then i hold my hands up.
We are obviously not going to agree and rather than be insulted by you further I'll let this drop.
I wouldnt let it bother you BigBloke, Splash is well known on these forums to be a bit of a Vista fanboi and theres always something it seems to blame Vista's inadequesies on other than the pure and simple fact that Vista is still in its infancy and isn't as good in general as XP is (several years after its release might I add)..
Essay alert
I'm sorry but just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a fanboi.
There is a lot of FUD going around about Vista from people who have never tried or have tried it on their friends PC which is just over the minimum specs.
Vista IS stable (not as stable as XP but stable enough for most people to be happy)
Vista IS no more expensive than XP
Vista DOES support most modern products from large companies like Logitech, ATI, AMD, NVidia and so on.
Vista is marginally slower than XP but XP was marginally slower than 98 which was slower than 95 which was slower than windows 3.1 which was slower than DOS 6.2 and so on.
Vista does use as much of your memory as it can. It does this to speed up the launching of commonly used programs and as soon as you launch a memory intensive application it will dump all of the data in your RAM it doesn't need and devote it to making your app run as fast as possible.
People seem to be wanting something revolutionary from Vista and lets be honest XP is pretty good so how do you make revolutionary improvements on top of that? Microsoft to their credit threw Longhorn in the bin at an early stage when it was crap and completely redid the kernel and have come up with something pretty good. Bill Gates isn't knocking on your door like a Jehovah's Witness and forcing you to upgrade your PC which is running XP just fine to Vista or to upgrade something that's struggling with XP to Vista and bring it to a complete halt. In fact I don't reccomend that you upgrade at all. But if you have a new PC you're building then don't pay for an OS twice and put XP on now and then Vista on in a year's time when you realise it's actually quite good and pretty stable to boot.
Back when XP came out there were people whinging, back when ME came out there were people whinging (for good reason I might add!!!!) and back when 98 came out people complained as well.
In a few years time when Windows 7 ships the same people will be bitching and whining about it just as they are now with Vista. It annoys me that on a tech forum like this where people should be free thinking and progressive in their thoughts we have people wanting to hold onto the past rather than go with the flow.
The people you should be directing your anger at are the software and hardware companies who are slow with Vista or x64 support/drivers and who are holding the industry back.
I like the OS, I find it a natural progression. I've no problem with the fact that some people don't like it - what I _do_ have a problem with is the amount of people who spout about how terrible it is based upon their 3 days of experience with it. A lot of opinions still being spouted are based on RC1 and RC2,...
As for the fanboi accusation... I suppose the fact that I'm rather fond of Debian makes me a Debian fanboi too? There's just less FUD being thrown around about it.
Anyhoo, I've rather made the decision that the OS needs no defence, I'll leave you guys to it.
Just lucky none of these people ran the Beta 1I ran that and driver support was very shonkey in those days.
Your right it doesnt, the bit where Vista works for him doesnt make him a fanboi either, the bit where Vista works for him and everyone and anyone that cant run it is in a miniscule tiny group that either have crap hardware, a downloaded illegal copy, or driver issues does however, IMHO of course..
Yes theres lots of FUD surrounding Vista, there are also sites that have done direct comparisons between Vista and XP and show how Vista is slower under games yet people still refuse to accept that its slower for games and there are other random issues, there are threads of people complaining about Vista for one reason or another.
So basically your agreeing with me then, XP is now currently better than Vista, when Vista has matured a bit it'll be better than XP, as XP is better now that 2000 or 98...Back when XP came out there were people whinging, back when ME came out there were people whinging (for good reason I might add!!!!) and back when 98 came out people complained as well.
In a few years time when Windows 7 ships the same people will be bitching and whining about it just as they are now with Vista. <snip to differnt point>
The people you should be directing your anger at are the software and hardware companies who are slow with Vista or x64 support/drivers and who are holding the industry back.
Who's wanting to hold onto the past here?It annoys me that on a tech forum like this where people should be free thinking and progressive in their thoughts we have people wanting to hold onto the past rather than go with the flow.
Read everything I've posted about Vista, I've been using it in Business and Ultimate form for, erm a while, I even went as far as to have it on my main machine at home, not even in dual boot, to see how it suited me, and myself, like many other people have gone back to XP, not because were hanging onto the past but because Vista isnt as good as XP is currently.
If Vista works for you then fine, but if your currently using XP and dont need to goto Vista then I'd stick with XP, IMHO of course, and thats not me hanging onto the past nor regergitating something I've read on a forum or heard from my mothers brothers second wifes milkman, that from me having used both XP and Vista.
I can see the attraction of it, I still find myself looking at my Vista DVD's and wondering if its worth another shot but until some pretty simple (IMHO) things have been fixed it is still staying on the shelf gathering dust.
If it works for you fine, there are other people out there that have no problems with it at all, great for them too, however in an "I've got XP should I upgrade" scenario I'd still say stick with XP.
Debian fanboi, no idea, I always thought DirectHex was the unix pusher in here
Vista needs no defence, depends on your stand point, from where your sat it works fine so I can see what you mean, but in its defence, its pre SP1 and apparently sp1RC doesnt fix the file copy problem in all cases so its not a stable OS as of yet, maybe the actual sp1 will, in which case I'll probably install it myself, I'm even tempted now to stick it on the laptop anyways, gives me the chance to play with it without ballsing up my main machine.
So, in short.
Does your machine come preinstalled with Vista, if yes leave Vista on it, although you might want to uninstall all the crap that every laptop maker seems to think its nesessery to install before we've even taken it out of the box, maybe even do a fresh install yourself to make doubly sure..
I have XP, should I upgrade to Vista?
Does XP work for you, does it do everything you want, if so stick with XP.
I'm building a new machine, should I get Vista or XP.
How old techwise is your hardware, check for issues with Vista and hardware your planing on buying, there is no excuse to buy or build blind these days, there are hundreds and hundreds of forums and trusted sites where people will have the hardware your looking at and will help you find the right answer for you. Make sure all your existing software works. Then you should be fine, failing that or any unknown's install XP.
Never install XP64, either go for XP 32 bit or Vista.
Y'know what? I find myself very almost agreeing wholeheartedly with you: there _are_ still niggles in some situations for some people however to put my comments in this thread in perspective consider that the OP of the thread had already stated however that they were very likely to be upgrading to Vista sooner rather than later. It's to last 2-3 years, and they have to buy an OS regardless: in this situation I see no compelling reason to spend extra cash in buying an OS license that will be binned in the not too distant future.
Friends?
EDIT - just one thing though. I _never_ said it wasn't slower. My issue was based almost entirely around the use of the word "significantly", which I feel is more than a little misleading.
Yes, in the case of the OP where hes looking at this machine lasting 2/3 years Vista in that time frame is the better <cough> option, note this bit however
Welcome to the world of windows, I dont really mess about installing demo's and trials etc on my PC, it gets used for the same things day in day out and I reinstall my OS at least twice a year so I'd get used to the faffing, reinstalling and upgrading side of things...I dont want to be faffing around formatting and reinstalling and upgrading
Go Vista.
Deo Adjuvante non Timendum
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
abit.care@HEXUS
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
